United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Development Programme
Country: Indonesia
Project Document
Strengthening
Community
Watershed Management
Project Title
UNDAF Outcome(s):
Expected CP Outcome(s):
(Those linked to the project and extracted from the CPAP)
Expected Output(s):
(Those that will result from the project and extracted from
the CPAP)
Based
Forest
and
By 2010, improve life chances and livelihood opportunities for all through
enhanced Government commitment to the MDGs, institutional support for
achieving the MDGs and empowered community engagement in the
achievement of the MDGs with a special focus on HIV/AIDS
By 2010, improved environmental living conditions and sustainable use of
energy in Indonesia and establishment of sustainable living conditions in
the targeted provinces in Indonesia
Comprehensive frameworks and effective action plans for regional
environment management developed and implemented in priority districts
and provinces with critical environment, natural resource management,
and poverty reduction challenges that resulted in improved environmental
quality and equitable access to natural resources among the poor, leading
to improved local livelihoods
Ministry of Forestry
Implementing Partner:
Responsible Parties:
Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry
Brief Description
The “Strengthening Community Based Forest and Watershed Management” (SCBFWM) project is
designed to enhance and upscale the GoI's programs on community-based forest and watershed
management, by addressing inequitable distribution of benefits from forest resources and lack of
coordination among stakeholders and sectors, as major underlying causes of land and forest
degradation. The project is specifically designed to complement a) the 5-year national pledge of
approximately US$ 300 million to rehabilitate degraded forest and land distributed in 282 prioritized
watersheds located in 400 districts (32 provinces), and b) the GoI's annually approved pledge –
from the Reforestation Fund – for district reforestation.
Programme Period:
July 2009–July 2014
YYYY AWP budget:
Key Result Area (Strategic Plan):
Management
Natural
Atlas Award ID:
00069901
Total resources required
USD 7.50 M
Total allocated resources:
USD 7.50 M

Regular (TRAC)
USD 0.50 M

GEF
USD 7.00 M
Unfunded budget:
None
In-kind Contributions

Other:
o
ICRAF
USD 0.75 M
o
Ford Foundation USD 0.20 M
o
Government
USD 41.00 M
Start date:
End Date
Resources
_ August 2009
_ August 2014
PAC Meeting Date
3 July 2009
Management Arrangements
NIM
Agreed by (Implementing Partner):
Agreed by UNDP:
Table of Contents
USD 7.50 M
I.
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS & ANNUAL WORK PLAN ..................................................... 2
I.1. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 2
I.1.1 Context and global significance
3
I.1.2 Socio-economic context
6
I.1.3 Policy and legislative context
8
1.3.1
Policy context:................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3.2
Legal context: .............................................................................................................................................. 10
I.1. 4. Institutional context
12
I.1. 5. Threats, root causes and barriers analysis
12
1.5.1
Few examples of successful CBFWM ..................................................................................................... 13
1.5.2
Institutional inertia ....................................................................................................................................... 13
1.5.3
Local institutions fail to counteract short-term financial interests ......................................................... 13
1.5.4
Incomplete administrative coordination ................................................................................................... 14
1.5.5
Limited legal and policy support to CBFWM ........................................................................................... 14
I.1. 6. Stakeholder analysis
14
I.1. 7. Business-as-usual scenario
17
PART II: Strategy .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
II.1. Project rationale and policy conformity
18
II.2.
Expected global, national and local benefits
18
II.3.
Country ownership: Country eligibility and country drivenness
19
II. 4.
Sustainability
21
II.4.1.
Financial ......................................................................................................................................... 21
II. 4.2.
Ecological ....................................................................................................................................... 24
II. 4.3.
Replicability..................................................................................................................................... 24
I.2.
ANNUAL WORKPLAN ...................................................................................................................................... 26
STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT ......................................... 48
PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 48
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
48
B. INCREMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
48
II.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ........................................................................... 60
II. 1. Project Implementation guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 60
II. 3. Collaborative arrangements with related projects ......................................................................................................... 62
Co- financing............................................................................................................................................................................ 63
II. 4. Audit arrangements ........................................................................................................................................................ 64
III.
MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION .................................................... 65
III.1
Project inception phase ........................................................................................................................................ 65
III.2
Monitoring responsibilities and events ............................................................................................................ 65
III.3
Project monitoring reporting ............................................................................................................................... 66
III.4
Independent Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 67
III.5
Learning and knowledge sharing ....................................................................................................................... 67
IV.
LEGAL CONTEXT....................................................................................................... 71
I.
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS & ANNUAL WORK PLAN
I.1.
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS
2
I.1.1 Context and global significance
Indonesia comprises approximately 188 million hectares of land across seven major islands (Sumatra,
Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua and Bali/Nusa Tenggara) under the administration of 33
provinces. Of the 188 million hectares, 132,667 million hectares are classified as forest-land (Table 1).
Forestland comprises of conservation forest areas (10.49% of the land coverage), protected forest
areas (15.90%), production forest (44.10%), and non-forest areas or other land uses (29.49%)
(BAPLAN, forthcoming). The Ministry of Forestry's official figures indicate that forest loss and
degradation are steadily occurring in the conversion forest (for the development of other sectors, i.e.
estate and transmigration), although protection forests are also affected. Annual deforestation rate is
approximately 1.089 million hectares (Buku Statistik Kehutanan, 2006). On average, Sumatra and
Kalimantan ranks the highest for the deforestation rate follows by Sulawesi, Papua, Java and Bali/Nusa
Tenggara (Figure 1).
Land degradation takes the form of critical land and damaged forest (inside and outside forested land)
including damage on mangrove forest. According to the Forestry Dictionary written by Winarto (2003),
critical land refers to: i) a piece of land that physically lost its function as a medium for production or
hydrological purposes (Kepmenhut 52/Kpts-II/2001), ii) damaged land that has lost and or decreased
its function to a degree (Kepmenhutbun, 778/Menhutbun-V/1998), iii) land that is no longer capable for
agricultural, hydrological and natural resources development (Kepdirjen RRL 16/Kpts/V/1997) and iv)
unproductive land that no longer functions as hydrological support and soil protection, if meeting the
criterion that vegetation covers less than 25%, and with the existence of surface and gully erosion
(Kepdirjen 29/Kpts/V/1996).
The estimate of total critical land area taken from the RLPS report (2006) is approximately 30 million
hectares comprising critical land inside (19.5 Million Ha) and outside (10.7 Million Ha) forestland. These
critical lands are mostly located on the islands of Java, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Central Sulawesi, and
parts of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Most critically threatened forest lands are located on Java and Nusa
Tenggara.
Table 1: Table of forest areas by forest category across the seven (7) main islands in Indonesia.
No.
Land forest coverage (status)
Size (thousands of
ha)
%
1
Conservation forest areas
19,968
10.49
2
Protected forest areas
29,855
15.90
3
Production forest, divided into 3 (three)
categories:
3.a
Limited Production Forest (HPT)
24,786
13.20
3.b
Production Forest (HP)
35,706
19.01
3.c
Production forest subject to
converted/conversion forest (HPK)
22,352
11.90
132,667
75.51
55,387
29.49
187,785
100
be
Sub total of forestland
4
Other land uses
Total
Sources: Rekalkulasi Penutupan Lahan Indonesia tahun 2005. (Recalculation of Land Forest Cover in Indonesia year 2005)
(BAPLAN, forthcoming).
Figure 1: Deforestation rate in 7 (seven) main island in Indonesia (2000-2005)
3
Sources:
Based on interpretation of SPOT Vegetation, Image with spatial resolution of 1 km, Forest Planning Agency, 2006
In recent decades, the clearing of forest, especially for industrial crops, combined with periodic
droughts has created havoc with forest fires occurring on an almost annual basis across Indonesia,
with particularly frequent events in Kalimantan and Sumatra. Whilst forests can contribute significantly
to local, national, and global environmental benefits, human activities that cause forest damage – such
as man made fires – can also contribute toward ecosystem damage and air pollution with impacts
affecting neighboring countries.
Although Indonesia comprises only 1.3 percent of the earth's land surface, it harbors a
disproportionately high share of its biodiversity. It includes 11 percent of the world's plant species, 10
percent of its mammal species, and 16 percent of its bird species. The majority of these species are
found in the country's forests. The country's three main centers of species richness are found in Irian
Jaya (with its high species richness and endemism), Kalimantan (with its high species richness,
moderate endemism), and Sulawesi (with has moderate species richness and high endemism).
Currently the issue of land degradation has been absorbed in the Reduction of Emission from
Deforestation and degradation or more known as REDD. UNDP together with UNEP and FAO is
leading the implementation of UN REDD, and together with this project addresses the global
challenges in the reduction of land degradation, deforestation and ultimately carbon emission.
The GoI is fully aware that the current problems cannot be remedied through the interventions in the
forestry sector alone. Efforts toward collaboration, inter-sectoral coordination, and capacity
strengthening of local, district, regional and national stakeholders, as well as awareness raising on the
importance of maintaining forest ecosystem functions need to be enhanced to reverse – or at the very
least, reduce – the degradation processes, while providing for fair benefit-sharing mechanisms that
benefit poor forest-dependent communities.
Six watersheds with globally-significant biodiversity resources and varying sets of threats and
pressures have been chosen as pilot locations at which to demonstrate solutions to these challenges.
Key characteristics of these sites are summarized in the following table, and further detailed
information is annexed to the Project Document.
4
Table 1. Sites Condition and Threats
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Site
Global
significance
Erosion and
Sedimentation
Population
pressure
Degradation of
protected areas
Biodiversity
Loss
Erosion is high
with sedimentation
level of
773,53
ton/ ha/year
Population
pressure is very
high, each family
manages 0.5 Ha
in average
Gunung
Rinjani
National
Park,
Grand Forest Park
and
Natural
Recreation
park
have
been
degraded
Serious threat
to
several
endemic
species
The
Mutis
conservation areas
was degraded due
to encroachment
The protected forest
was degraded due
to
encroachment
and
land
conversion.
DAS
Dodokan
The site has a
rich variety of
forest
types,
including major
protected areas
Sub DAS
Besiam
Vegetation
in
Mt. Mutis area
represents
a
homogenous
highland forest,
dominated by an
E.
urophylla
ecosystem.
The soil types are
relatively prone or
sensitive
to
erosion because
of very limited
vegetation cover
Encroachment
happens due to
economic
pressure.
Livestock
encroachment
and uncontrolled
burning
of
forests are major
threats.
Sub DAS
Besai
Sub DAS Besai
has
a
high
diversity of flora
and
fauna
(existence
of
rare
and
endemic
species)
Erosion occurring
mainly
due
to
intensive farming
systems.
Since 1960-2000
forest lands were
converted
by
settlers
mainly
for
coffee
plantations.
Sub DAS
Tulis Hulu
Forest area in
Dieng has high
diversity of flora
and
fauna
(many protected
and
endemic
species).
The
site
is
represented
by
steep topography,
in
combination
with high annual
rainfall and hence
possesses
high
risk towards land
degradation and
soil erosion.
Pressure
by
massive
land
conversion into
agriculture land
(for
potato
cultivation)
causing severe
land degradation
over the Dieng
region.
DAS Palu
The
forested
areas of Lore
Lindu National
Park
provide
important
ecological
functions,
assigned
as
“Biosphere
Reserve”
by
UNESCO
in
1977.
Degraded due to
change
of
its
areas
function
become
agriculture lands
Intensive
agricultural
practices cause
significant impact
to
the
environment.
The Toba
Lake
water
catchment
The DTA Danau
Toba catchment
areas
is
a
national
asset
which
has
various
functions such
as a tourism
destination,
agriculture,
irrigation,
fisheries, water
resource
for
electricity
and
water resource
The area has a
very high risk for
erosion
Pressure due to
development of
tourism facilities
and opening new
agriculture lands
on surrounding
slopes.
5
Currently, farmers
are faced with water
scarcity, soil erosion
and reduction of
land
quality
problems.
The
unique
biodiversity of
the protected
areas
is
threatened
due
to
encroachment.
Biodiversity
loss due to
high
encroachment
Some
of
endangered
species living
in
the
protected
areas
was
threaten due
to
encroachment
The protected areas
are degraded due to
encroachment and
bad
farming
practices.
Encroachment
leading to the
loss
of
biodiversity
Pressure
from
communities
for
access to farming
lands threatens the
protected areas
Serious threat
to
the
protected area
with
rich
biodiversity
due
to
encroachment
activities
for industries.
Figure 2. The 6 (six) proposed location of CBFWM demonstration sites in Indonesia.
I.1.2 Socio-economic context
Indonesia has a population of over 240 million, demographically distributed across 33 provinces. The
present population growth in Indonesia is calculated to be around 1.5% (year 1990 – 2000). However,
in provinces where forested land is common, population growth rates are higher.
9 (nine) provinces have been carefully considered in selecting demonstration sites for this proposed
project (Central Sulawesi, West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, East Java, Central Java, NTT, NTB,
South Sumatra and Lampung), and in these provinces population growth is between 1.7% and 2.7%
per year, with a population density of approximately 126 person/km2.
The New Order regime (1966-1998) has pushed economic development at the forefront, thus allowing
commercial companies to freely access the country’s forestlands for their own high economic benefits.
This resulted in timber companies’ overexploitation of Indonesia’s forest resources. Furthermore, since
forest areas designated as production forest have also been rapidly deforested and degraded,
protected forests and other forest conservation areas then become the main targets for illegal logging
activities.
There is also a common perception that the disturbance to forested lands mostly comes from the
surrounding local communities. It is only recently that people are aware that many local communities
living inside and in the surrounding protected forests or conservation areas have in fact been managing
these areas sustainably long before the government declared the area as conservation areas. The
present government regulations on forest land classification are such that local communities now have
limited legal access to these natural resources. Further restrictions on local economic development in
that they have limited access to job opportunities at both state and private timber companies. This
explains the situation where poverty is higher than the national average in heavily forested provinces.
The current level of poverty across Indonesia is approximated at 17.8% (BPS, March 2006), where the
poverty line is determined as income of Rp 186.636 per capita per month, or below of US$ 1 per capita
a day. The economic condition of people across the proposed demonstration project areas is
categorized as poor and with limited or degraded environment and natural resources in their
6
surroundings. People in most of the villages rely on natural resources, especially forest resources
(timber and non-timber) for livelihoods.
As population in the watershed areas across the nine provinces has increased rapidly, forest resources
have become depleted and/or degraded. Recent information from the Ministry of Forestry indicates
that degraded forest covers approximately 1.1 million hectares (2000-2005 condition, RLPS 2008).
There is a link between poverty and forest condition. While in some cases, forest destruction
generates financial resources to reduce poverty, in other cases environmental degradation becomes a
determinant of poverty (Noordwijk, 2005, in Suyanto et.al. 2006). In many areas households may have
access to less than 0.25 ha for agricultural production due to population pressure. In such a case, the
area of land is not enough to support their livelihoods. Approximately 20 million people live around
forest land, and 30% of them are highly dependent on forest resources.
Despite a high dependence on forest resources, farming is the main activity in most forest-edge
communities, with the dominant cash crops varying among regions, for example, coffee and honeybees in Lampung, bananas, jackfruit and vegetables in NTB, snake fruit, orange, and black and white
pepper in West Kalimantan, potatoes in NTT, tobacco, paddy, and petai (Parkia speciosa) in East Java,
etc. Some people develop a home industry and post harvest handicraft development as such
‘anyaman’ from leaf of Sago plantation in west Kalimantan, foods like dodol, rengginang singkong, and
tenun ikat handicraft in NTB. Some communities use a home garden agroforestry system with various
species of trees having different canopy characteristics, which can be effective in reducing land
erosion. These activities, in fact do not damage the forest-area per se in that they maintain the soil and
the plant species, but there remains the possibility of encroachment of cash-crops species deep into a
protected forest area.
Socio-economic characteristics of the pilot watershed sites are summarized in the following table, and
further detailed information is annexed to the Project Document.
Table 2. Site’s Socio Economic Characteristics
No.
Site
Socio- Economic Characteristics
Local communities, particularly people of Sesaot, have traditions to protect the forest from
various pressures. They have a customary institution called “Lang-Lang” whose members
are respected men customarily appointed to become forest guards.
1
DAS
Dodokan
Local communities have been managing lands surrounding forest areas as mixed gardens.
However, the average size of the land owned by local communities in this area is relatively
small (0.44 ha per household). The number of people in this area who live below the poverty
line is 26.62 % of total population. Some villagers open forest lands into new agricultural
lands as they could not gain sufficient incomes from the existing lands they manage due to
weak marketing networks (middlemen still play critical roles while there is no cooperative or
alternative micro-credit scheme for farmers), as well as limited skills in processing the
agricultural products.
Economic pressures and rising fuel prices have led local communities to return to the
practice of using firewood for household energy. Many villagers sell firewood to middlemen
who supply firewood to tobacco oven-drying industries in Nusa Tenggara Province.
2
3
Sub DAS
Besiam
Sub DAS
Besai
In the past, there were strong customary regulations that managed the collective use of
newly opened agricultural lands in this area. These customary regulations, however, have
been weakened due to social and economic pressures. Local farmers now open forest
lands into new agricultural lands as they cannot generate sufficient incomes from the
existing lands they manage due to limited infrastructure (bad roads, etc.), weak marketing
networks (where middle men still play critical roles while there is no cooperative or
alternative micro-credit scheme for farmers), as well as limited skills on processing the
agricultural products. The cycle of swidden agricultural system practiced by communities has
been shortened due to decreasing availability of lands and increasing population.
Almost 65% of the local community works in agriculture (padi fields, husbandry, forest,
fishing, etc). The population density is 150 individuals/km2. Local communities in DAS
Besai mainly work as farmers and they have settled in this area since 1951 through the
government transmigration program.
Almost 64% of community incomes come from coffee plantations. Main agriculture
commodities are coffee, pepper, corn and peanuts. The agricultural system adopted is
7
agroforestry with mixture of coffee with padi, chilies, or with trees (Agathis, Artocarpus, and
other fruit trees). Farmers generated most of their income from planting coffee for about 3
months. During the remaining 9 months the main activity is cattle farming. Community
Forestry groups have been granted rights (for certain periods of time) to manage forest
lands.
Local people in Sub District of Kejajar, Wonosobo District, established bamboo “cendani”
plantations along the river to prevent soil erosion and maintain water storage. Besides
providing ecological benefits, these plantations have provided economic benefits as farmers
sell their bamboo to local handicraft industries.
4
Sub DAS
Tulis Hulu
Before the arrival of potato agriculture, local communities in Sub DAS Tulis Hulu managed
their lands as mixed gardens, with timber trees, fruit trees, and many other plants.
Nowadays, many mixed gardens have been converted into potato fields. Many local farmers
own very small amount of land or are completely landless, having sold their lands to large
potato growers. Potato’s lucrative economic benefit has led big farmers, private companies,
and elites from various geo-political areas to invest in potato agriculture by buying lands and
hiring locals to become wage workers in their newly established potato fields.
Local communities of DAS Palu, including the area of Sub DAS Miu, consist of various
ethnic groups. Some native groups still apply customary laws in many aspects of their life,
including natural resource management.
5
DAS Palu
6
The Toba
Lake
water
catchment
Local communities of DAS Palu have been managing natural resources by applying
traditional knowledge with the intention mostly to meet their subsistence needs. With the
arrival of various groups from neighboring regions, these local communities have been
adopting market-based agriculture. Cacao is the dominant agricultural commodity; other
commodities are coffee and coconut. Market-based agriculture has been encouraging big
farmers (in many cases ethnic groups from South Sulawesi) to acquire productive lands from
native farmers. As some of these native farmers began to realize the economic value of
their lands, they started to convert forests into new agricultural lands.
Land is managed under communal systems, and the matrilinear family (“marga”) system
influences the farming system. Each marga has their own land block and they are not
allowed to sell them, though intermarriage allows some dilution of control.
The economic condition is strongly influences by local community life styles. Local
community livelihood is dominated by farmers and traders.
I.1.3 Policy and legislative context
1.3.1 Policy context:
a) Water Resources
Water resource management in Indonesia is currently governed under the Ministry of Public Works. To
address the issue of water resources management that has a multi-sectoral dimension that affects
many sectors, including forestry, agriculture and regional development, the GoI established a
Coordination Team of Water Resources Management in 2001. This team is headed by the coordination
Minister for Economics, with day-to-day activities controlled by the Minister for Public Works. Team
members consist of 14 (fourteen) government agencies, (including the Ministry of Forestry, Agriculture,
Home Affairs, and Environment, and the National Development Planning Agency/BAPPENAS), as well
as and non-government institutions (NGOs). The coordination team has been tasked with (a)
formulation of policies related to water resource management, (b) recommending and drafting legal
regulations and policies on water resources management, and (c) reviewing and evaluating policies,
programmes and all activities related to water resource management. The team has established a
secretariat with a steering committee, an executive team and separate working teams for water
resources regulations, watershed regulation, water quality control and irrigation management.
With the establishment of Water Resources Law (UU) No. 7 in 2004, the Coordination Team of Water
Resources Management has since evolved as the National Water Resources Council, as this law
requires the government to establish Water Resources Councils (Dewan Sumber Daya Air) at national,
provincial and district levels. While the Provincial governments are in charge of the establishment of
Water Resources Councils at the provincial level, the district governments are in charge at the district
8
level. Under this law, the National Water Resources Council should consist of representatives from
various government agencies, which include the Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Forestry,
BAPPENAS, and Ministry of Health; and NGOs. This policy is further strengthened by Presidential
Regulation (PP) No. 12/2008 on water resources councils that regulate the organization and
arrangement of this forum. PP 12/2008 also stipulates that the main task of the National Water
Resources Council is to assist the President of Indonesia in developing national policies and strategies
on water resources management. At the provincial and district level, the council’s task is to assist
provincial and district governments (Pemda Propinsi dan Pemda Kabupaten) in developing provincial
district policies and strategies on water resources management.
Other aspects addressed by UU 7/2007 on Water Resources Law include conservation/protection and
utilization of natural resources as well as control of the water’s destructive capacity (daya rusak air).
The substance of conservation and control of water destructive capability mentioned in the Water
Resources Law is closely related to management of forest and watershed in upstream area.
b) Watershed
According to UU 7/2004 on Water Resources, a watershed area is a terrestrial area that is integrated
with river and streams, with a function to catch, to save, and to flow water coming from rainfall to lake
or sea, whose terrestrial boundary is topographical delineation while marine and coastal boundaries
are still influenced by terrestrial activities.
Chay Asdak (2002) characterized watershed based on its functions:
i) Upper-stream area, mainly for conservation purpose and important for protection of hydrological
function. The target of management is maintenance of environmental condition against
degradation which can be indicated through the vegetation coverage, water quality, water storing
capacity and rainfalls,
ii) Middle-stream area, managed to provide social and economic benefits for people living in the
vicinity, indicated by the quality and quantity of water sources, discharge capacity, water level, as
well as its relevancy to water infrastructure such as river, dam, lake and ponds, and
iii) Down-stream area, mainly for utilization purpose similar to the middle-stream areas but also for
waste water management purposes. All activities in the upper-stream inevitably influences the
down-stream areas, i.e. impact of water flow in the soluble sediment/materials content in the
water.
The Ministry of Forestry has developed watershed management policies since in the 1970s, which
were implemented by the “Watershed Management Regional Office” (Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran
Sungai – BPDAS) - previously known as “Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation Office” (Balai
Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Konservasi Tanah).
BPDAS is an extension of the Directorate General of Forest Rehabilitation and Social Forestry (Ditjen
RLPS) of the Ministry of Forestry, which operate regionally in Indonesia. The regional offices’ main
responsibility is (a) to assist the implementation of land and forest rehabilitation development system,
(b) to develop a model of watershed management institution in the area in which they operate, and (c)
to actively engage in related activities aimed to improve the effective and efficient implementation of
watershed management in the regions, including government-sponsored community forestry program
managed by Directorate of Social Forestry of Ditjen RLPS.
Ditjen RLPS has launched a program to be managed by BPDAS in each region, known as the
development of Micro-DAS Model (Model DAS Mikro/MDM). The MDM is a demonstration plot of
micro scale watershed management for an area of 1,000 hectares or less. It is a place to develop
participatory management process of land and forest rehabilitation, land conservation techniques,
ecologically friendly agriculture system, and development of grassroots watershed management
institutions. The development of MDM is one of the main responsibilities of BPDAS.
c) Forest resources
9
The National Movement on Forest and Land Rehabilitation (GNRHL = Gerakan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan
Lahan) was launched by the President of Indonesia on 21 January 2004 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The
stage had been set for this when the three ministries of Social Welfare, Economy, and Politics and
Security introduced a collective regulation in March 2003. This has encouraged coordinated efforts to
protect and rehabilitate land and forest areas. This movement was implemented in 21 areas in
Indonesia considered as degraded watersheds. Currently it has been extended in 282 other watershed
areas, over a total of about 3 million ha. The aim is to rehabilitate the forests in these areas over five
years using a US$1.4 billion Reforestation Fund. This fund is sourced from reforestation funds or Dana
Reboisasi (DR) collected from each of forest concessionaires (HPH) operates across Indonesian
islands. The Central government allocates a certain amount of DR funds under Special Allocation
Funds (Dana Alokasi Khusus/DAK) scheme for the regional land and forest rehabilitation activities
(Government Regulation PerPu No.35/2002 regarding Reforestation Funds).
In the mid-1990s, the GoI established a community forestry program, called Hutan Kemasyarakatan/
HKm (Community Based Forestry). It was considered a success, that after being developed as a pilot
project (1995 – 2007) in six districts in three provinces (Lampung, West Nusa Tenggara, and
Yogyakarta), the Ministry of Forestry later designated community forestry working areas for each
district in December 2007. This policy was further strengthened by SK Bupati (District Head’s Decree)
on business permit for community based forestry to local forest community groups in each district.
The GoI firmly believes that community based forestry can be an alternative to reduce poverty in
Indonesia. In line with to Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the GoI has set the target of
developing 2.1 million hectares of community forestry areas by the year 2015.
d) International
The Republic of Indonesia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 5 June 1992, and
ratified the convention on 1 August 1994. It is within the framework of the Convention that the
Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP) 2003-2020 was produced with GEF support.
The IBSAP outlines a strategy and a set of actions designed to conserve the country’s rich biodiversity.
The CBD has strong spirit of community-based biodiversity conservation and utilization. One of the
strongest articles in this Convention in terms of community-based management is article 8j, which calls
for each country that ratifies the Convention to respect traditional knowledge on biodiversity
conservation held by indigenous peoples and local communities.
In addition to CBD, Indonesia also ratified the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD) on 28 August 1998. In December 2002, the GoI adopted the National Action Program (NAP)
for combating land degradation. The NAP is part of the National Development Plan (PROPENAS). The
Directorate of Watershed Management under the Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social
Forestry (Dirjen RLPS) is the GoI focal point for UNCCD, and plays a key role in bringing together
information on land degradation, point of coordination for other ministries, institutions, NGOs,
universities and research institutions.
1.3.2 Legal context:
a. National Level:
Indonesia has established a set of regulations adopting watershed management as an approach
toward forest resources management. The Forestry Law (UU No 41/1999) is a revised version of the
Basic Forestry Law UU No 5/1967, which explicitly mentions the watershed management approach. In
implementing this law, Ministry of Forestry issued Decree (PerMen) No. 52 of 2001 on “Guidance on
Watershed Management Implementation”.
Some watershed management-related regulations provide a legal framework for community-based
forest management. Forestry Law No. 41/1999 is the legal basis for Government Regulation (PP) No
6/2007 on “Forest Allocation, Forest Management Plan and Land Utilization”, later revised by PP No.
10
3/2008. The PP provides a legal ground for managing conservation forest, protected forest, and
production forest through the integrated forest management system, known as KPH (Kesatuan
Pengelolaan Hutan). At the same time, this PP provides a legal basis for community empowerment
through village forest (hutan desa), community based forestry (hutan kemasyarakatan), and
partnership (kemitraan).
For community based forestry, PP 6/2007 is supported for its enactment by the Ministry of Forestry
Regulation (PerMen) No. 37/Menhut-II/2007 on “Community Forestry” (hutan kemasyarakatan/HKm).
This PerMen stipulates that for a license to manage state forests and protected forest - which include
production forest, conservation forest, but excludes nature reserve and a national park’s core zone - to
be issued, the local forest farmers group should submit an official application to the head of district or to
the governor. Once submitted for approval, the District Head or the Governor will forward the proposal
for the community forestry working area to the Ministry of Forestry (MOF). Upon issuance of approval
by the MoF, the head of district or the governor can release a business permit on community forestry to
the local forest farmers group. The permit is valid for 35 years.
The Forestry Law UU 41/1999 also recognizes the informal law which governs hutan adat (customary
forest) and hutan rakyat (privately-owned community forest). The two categories of laws reflect
different land tenure arrangements. According to UU 41/1999, community forest is located in privately
owned land, while customary forest is located in state forest. However, indigenous peoples’ groups
claim that their customary forests existed long before the modern state of Indonesia was established.
This land tenure problem has become the source of tenurial conflicts in many areas in Indonesia.
The Law No. 7 on Water Resources (Undang-undang Sumber Daya Air) issued in 2004 was a revision
of Law No. 11/1974 on Irrigation. It incorporated the previous Ministry of Public Works Decree (SK
Menteri) No 48/1990 on “Management of Water and or Water Resources in the River Basin Area”,
which outlines the management authority on water and/or water sources in river catchments. UU
7/2004 can also be used as the legal basis to facilitate the involvement of local communities in
watershed management. Local communities’ participation in developing watershed management
action plans, is a significant contribution to the success of the development of integrated watershed
management in Indonesia.
In addressing conservation needs, Indonesia issued Law No. 5/1990 on Conservation of Biological
Resources and Ecosystems. UU5/1990 focuses on the conservation of natural resources both in-situ
and ex-situ. In-situ conservation areas include national parks, nature reserves, and animal
sanctuaries, while ex-situ conservation areas include botanical gardens and zoos. It has been
intensively reviewed and is currently under revision, which process pays significant attention to the
community-based conservation approach. One of the community-based conservation concepts being
discussed is Village Conservation Model (Model Desa Konservasi/MDK). This concept is relevant to
the SCBFWM programme in which with the establishment of MDK, local communities are allowed to
utilize natural resources within the protection forests and conservation areas as long as they are
managed sustainably. The long term objective of MDK is to increase and improve the environmental
services as to ensure the long-term benefits of community living surrounding and inside the protection
forests and conservation areas.
b. Regional Level:
It is important to note that the political will to conserve and utilize biodiversity in a sustainable way has
not only been limited to the national level. After the decentralization law No. 22/1999 was issued,
enacted and revised (as UU No. 32/2004), a number of districts started establishing their local policies
on community-based forest resources management and biodiversity conservation. For instance, the
District of Wonosobo of Central Java Province issued District Regulation (Peraturan Daerah/Perda) No.
22/2001 on “Community-Based Forest Resources Management”. Perda 22/2001 of Wonosobo states
that “forest villagers” are the main managers of forest resources located in state forest lands, while the
Forestry and Estate Agency of Wonosobo District (Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten
Wonosobo) would play a facilitating role in its management. However, as the content of this Perda was
considered to be not in line with the Forestry Law UU 41/1999, this Perda was later annulled.
11
Having said that, not long after this annulment, a signed agreement on Participatory Community Based
Forest Management between the State Forestry Company (Perhutani) and the Head of Wonosobo
District was issued on October 13th 2006. Fourteen villages implemented this community based forest
management scheme, and there are at least 8 (eight) more villages planning to develop this scheme.
Other districts that have established Perda on community-based forest resource management are the
district of West Lampung of Lampung Province, and the district of West Nusa Tenggara Barat of Nusa
Tenggara Province. The Nusa Tenggara Province itself has issued Perda Propinsi No. 6/2006 on the
implementation guideline toward community forestry (HKm). Meanwhile, the East Nusa Tenggara
Province also established Perda Propinsi No. 5/2008 on integrated watershed management, which is
the first watershed-related Perda in existence.
I.1. 4. Institutional context
Recently, reforestation outside of concession areas has been planned by the MoF’s Directorate
General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry (DGLRSF). So far, however, most of the forest and
land rehabilitation has taken place in critical watersheds (priority I). But, a specific hierarchy plan of
each watershed has been formulated by regional watershed management centers. These plans are
made up of a macro-plan for the whole of a watershed, a technical plan for the rehabilitation of land
and soil conservation by sub-watersheds, and detailed technical designs for reforestation and land
rehabilitation by site. The plans are formulated with framework analysis to consider biophysical and
socio-economic factors.
In the past, the MoF began working on forest and land rehabilitation activities since in the 1970s,
though they are now coordinated by the Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry
and its regional offices of watershed management (BPDAS). There are 36 of these offices, and their
activities focus on planning, monitoring and evaluation, development of Micro DAS management
(MDM), institutional capability for watershed management, and implementation of forest and land
rehabilitation at upper watersheds where most critical lands are found.
In conducting these activities, BPDAS works closely with forestry district office (Dinas Kehutanan) and
with the State Forestry Company (Perhutani, for Java Island). These regional offices work to
rehabilitate land and forests so as to increase vegetative coverage, increase the infiltration of water into
the soil to reduce direct runoff, reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, and increase farmers’ incomes.
They work with local people in priority watersheds and sub-watersheds to reforest protected forests,
establish community forests on private lands, promote agroforestry and soil and water conservation
techniques, such as terracing, grass barriers and alley crops, and install check dams, gully plugs,
drainage improvement and infiltration wells.
The stakeholders – government and non government organizations - are aware that rehabilitation
efforts of degraded forest and land in Indonesia’s 16,782 watersheds (based on landsat imagery) will
not be possible without people’s participation. Local community’s participation is crucial for combating
forest and land degradation because the rate of degradation – about 1,089 million ha per year – is
faster then the rate of rehabilitation – about 0.6 million ha per year, and the government alone could not
possibly address this issue on their own. Therefore, the government has introduced an awareness
programme to encourage more local people to plant trees, conserve forests and promote soil and water
conservation, to encourage help of the local communities in combating forest degradation issues.
I.1. 5. Threats, root causes and barriers analysis
Land degradation in Indonesia is characterized by processes such as deforestation, soil erosion, and
increased aridity. These result from processes such as unsustainable legal and illegal logging, forest
fires, conflicts of land and resource tenure, illegal entry and conversion of natural forest as well as legal
and illegal mining.
An assessment study on underlying causes of the processes leading to forest and land degradation
has shed some light on the matter, and it includes:
12
i)
Economy based: large discrepancy between industrial timber demand and sustainable legal
supply; inequitable distribution of benefits derived from forest resources (between external
large investors and the local communities); local poverty level that often correlates to the low
level of education within the local communities;
ii) Weak law enforcement;
iii) Lack of coordination and collaboration between different stakeholders and sectors of the
economy;
iv) Unclear tenure/spatial land planning
In responding to the above underlying causes, the Community-based Forest and Watershed
Management (CBFWM) is thus seen as a potential and appropriate solution. CBFWM can provide
models that can be developed to ensure strong institutions, equity, increased awareness, and clear
rights based approach. However, although similar programs or models already exist in Indonesia, they
remain scarce. Furthermore, there is also an absence of replication and scaling-up of these scarce
models.
The main barriers against replication and scaling up – which prevented more widespread adoption of
CBFWM are described in the following paragraphs:
1.5.1
Few examples of successful CBFWM
Although there have been some successful examples of CBFWM in Indonesia (as well as some
unsuccessful ones), the reasons for success can often be ascribed to particular local circumstances,
leading to the argument that CBFWM cannot necessarily be generalized and applied to other
ecological and socio-economic circumstances. Successful pilots have not automatically been adopted
by government even though the success is recognized at field level.
1.5.2
Institutional inertia
Support to the development of CBFWM represents a change from the “business as usual” scenario,
and therefore requires action on the part of relevant government agencies. For example, instituting
CBFWM may require modifications to local regulations, or adjustments to land use plans. However,
the staffs of such agencies often have no incentive to initiate such changes. Furthermore, replication
and scaling-up of successful CBFWM examples requires similar efforts on the part of local government
agencies to assist communities in learning of those examples, and building capacity to implement
similar measures locally. Again, no incentive exists for such action.
1.5.3
Local institutions fail to counteract short-term financial interests
As many of the communities living in forested or partially forested watersheds are relatively poor, there
are strong pressures (triggered by external individuals) to undertake activities that generate quick
financial returns which are short-term and which compromise longer term economic benefits from
sustainably managed natural resources. Where communities have strong leadership and institutions,
such pressures can be overcome.
For example, in Kalimantan Barat, Desa Berlimang has established a farmers group to patrol the forest
and prevent illegal cutting by outsiders (triggered by proximity of Malaysian markets and demand for
firewood from local industry). Similarly, in NTB increasing demand of firewood from the tobacco
industry, compounded by misunderstanding of a new Ministry of Forestry regulation allowing residue of
waste from illegal logging to be taken out from the forest, increased the rate of illegal cutting, but led to
the establishment of community-based counter-measures.
Also, where actions taken by one community (for example, conserving forest instead of converting to
other uses) serve to benefit other stakeholders (for example, downstream communities or commercial
enterprises that enjoy a more reliable supply of water as a result) there should be associated
compensation, but this requires strong local institutions to establish and manage such a system.
13
1.5.4
Incomplete administrative coordination
Administrative boundaries rarely coincide with watershed boundaries, and neighboring administrations
(provinces and districts) may often have different land use plans or priorities. Therefore improved
forest management may be possible only in a part of a watershed, which limits the environmental
benefits that can be generated. This is complicated by conflicting land use planning among different
levels of government.
In many cases, land use classification by the national government does not correspond with the
classification used by local governments, leading to uncertainty over the appropriate land use, which
can be exploited by those wishing to manage the land inappropriately.
1.5.5
Limited legal and policy support to CBFWM
National laws (UU) and local regulations (PerDa) are not always consistent in terms of where CBFWM
is feasible, or what form it takes.
For example, the Forestry Law UU 41/1999 clearly prohibits all commercial activities in “cagar alam”
(nature reserves). But a number of districts, for example Wonosobo in Central Java and W. Lampung in
Lampung province, have passed Perda (Regional Regulations) that supported CBFWM in state forests
(which includes nature reserves). In the case of Wonosobo, the state owned forestry company (i.e.
Perhutani) challenged the Perda in court on the basis that UU 41/1999 does not contain articles that
support community-based forest management, thereby ensuring that their operations remain within the
corridors of forestry law.
I.1. 6. Stakeholder analysis
Implementing SCBFWM project will require a multi-stakeholders partnership, including local
communities. Previous experience in Indonesia has shown that conservation objectives could not be
achieved if attention is not simultaneously given to community development (WWF-Indonesia, 2006).
Therefore, the SCBFWM project should focus on achieving the MDGs objectives related to
conservation efforts, in line with the seventh (environmental conservation certainty) and the eighth
(global partnership-building) MDG objectives.
Community contributions will be stronger if supported by individuals within the community who have
experience and ability to cooperate or interact with other Parties (stakeholders) or stakeholders. Both
community participation and community capacity building are essential for any development program in
Indonesia. In addition, community capacity building which will be implemented through SCBFWM
program is also promoted by the UN Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights. Capacity building
is one among seven rights of Indigenous Peoples acknowledged by the UN (Keraf, 2005)1.
In this proposed project, stakeholders and MoF field staffs or officers will primarily be responsible for
the implementation of this work, while the MoF at the national level will guide the process and play an
integral role in its formulation. Other key stakeholders such as NGOs will participate and involved in
implementing specific project activities at each selected sites and national level.
A formal stakeholder assessment was undertaken during the preparation phase in order to: (a.) identify
key stakeholders with respect to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity of the project area,
(b.) review the stakeholder interest and associated impacts on natural resources and biodiversity of the
area, (c.) identify possible positive and negative impacts on local stakeholders resulting from the
1
Under the article 29 of this declaration, indigenous peoples have the right to be involved in developing the priorities and
strategies for the environmental protection and conservation including the utilizatioan of their productive lands, territories and
other resources. All measures are taken by the state to maintain and protect their land by acquiring their free and informed
consent prior to the approval of any project potentially affects their environment.
14
project, and (d.) identify and develop opportunities for the project to benefit stakeholders and vice
versa, to mitigate any negative impact either from the project or the local stakeholders.
During the stakeholder assessment, stakeholder consultation activities also included succesive
iterations with all relevant stakeholders, placing emphasis on particular groups according to their recent
impact, current and potential role in biodiversity conservation and protection. The consultations were
conducted throughout the preparation stage and included workshops, interviews, surveys and open
fora with key representatives of local and national stakeholders, including academic and research
institutions, NGOs, central, regional and local governments as well as the business sector.
The project recognizes that community groups, customary community , farmer groups, and women
groups are key stakeholders at the selected sites. Unfortunately, there has been lack of policies that
benefit poor community groups and little attention has been given to local communities in terms of
ways to fulfil their daily needs. This project will strive to empower poor people by increasing their
awareness of land degradation and biodiversity loss in the watershed ecosystem that directly influence
their sustainable livelihood to informing them on their rights to participate in decision-making processes
and to influence their outcomes. Poor people need to be made more aware of their rights and to have
them officially recognized by government and the private sector to facilitate this process.
However, a rights-based approach on its own may be insufficient: the stakeholders must be supported
by their capability to claim and defend themselves against more powerful actors. Clear constitutional
guarantees, as well as specific supportive legislation and regulations are therefore necessary.
Community organizations also need to be strengthened so that they can represent their constituents in
a just and informed manner and lobby for the recognition of their constituents’ rights.
The SCBFWM will also encourage other relevant stakeholders to participate in policy dialogues. It will
also encourage all relevant stakeholder organisations to join forces and work together to influence
government policy and steer it towards sustainable forest and watershed management and poverty
alleviation.
The key stakeholders in this project’s pilot sites are described in Table 2: Stakeholders and their roles
in the SCFWWM below:
Table 3 : Stakeholders and their roles in the SCBFWM project.
Roles and responsibilities in the project –
participation mechanism
Stakeholder group
Government agencies
 Project implementation agency: authorized for field
Ministry of Forestry (incl. BPKH, BPDAS,
operation based on their technical capacity
BKSDA and National Park), District office of

Project implementation unit at all project sites,
forestry
including authority for watershed management
 Synergizing program and budget to SCBFWM at
several project sites
Ministry of Agriculture, District office of
agriculture, District office of plantation and  Particular focus on agriculture and agroforestry
forestry, District office of animal husbandary
program development, such replantations, land
and water conservation
 Synergizing program and budget to SCBFWM at
Ministry of Public Works included National
project sites
Movement of Water Saving Partnership program

Particular focus on development of structural
or Gerakan Nasional Kemitraan Penyelamatan
measures for water conservation, flood/sediment
Air /GNKPA program
control and utilization
Ministry of Marine and Fishery
 Support to synergize program in dowstream areas
and agrosilvofishery activities
Central office of trade
 Support toward marketing of agriculture and forest
products (timber from community forest/non state
forests)
15
 Updates market price level to the farmer
Central Office of Tourism
 Support toward project implementation in sites that
have potentials for developing a riverine ecoturism
Local Goverments
 Synergize program and budget to SCBFWM at
grass root levels to trickle up to province project
sites level
Ministry of Environmental, Bappedalda
 Synergize program and budget to SCBFWM at
project sites related to environmental issues
Bappenas, bappeda
 Coordinate budget and programs from
government offices (central, province and district
levels)
Private Sector
 Provide support to reforestation activities in areas
surrounding the potential project sites in North
Sumatra Province
PT TPL (Toba Pulp Lestari), PT Inalum
 Provide support to activities on water resources
preservation
Indonesia Power, PLTA Company or Electric
Plan use of Water Resource
 Maintain availability of adequate quantity or
volume of water in a number of sites
 Provide support toward community-capacity
building and community empowerment processes
in potential project sites in Central and East Java
provinces
Perum Perhutani, PT Perkebunan
Pertamina
Sampurna
(state
mining
company),
PT
 Provide support to community-capacity building
and community empowerment eforts through
corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities
HPHTI or Hak Pengusahaan Hutan Industri or  Provide support to community-capacity building
Concession Holders of Plantation Forestry for
and community empowerment processes in project
Industry
sites
 Provide potential support toward project
implementation, in line with the development of
PES or RES scheme at downstream areas at
potential project sites
Local Drinking Water Companies (Perusahaan
Daerah Air Minum/PDAM)
o PES :Payment for Environmental Services or
Pembayaran untuk Jasa Lingkungan)
o RES: Rewards for Environmental Services
(Imbal Jasa Lingkungan)
Scientific Communities
World of Agroforestry (ICRAF)
 Support toward project monitoring, using ICRAF
tools, e.g. TUL-SEA/Trees To multi-Use
Landscape- South East Asia such as Rapid
Hydrology Asessment (RHA), Rapid Tenure
Appraisal (RATA), Rapid Biodiversity Appraisal
(RABA), etc at all sites and particularly for RUPES
or Rewarding to Upland People for Environment
Services is potencial project to support SCBFWM
project implementation in West Lampung
National Universities
 Expertise and experience of staffs (lecturers and
researchers) of each university to support:
o project development and implementation
o updates of scientific data and information
UNDP
Environment Unit; UN Joint Programme in NTT, UN
REDD and Climate Change, CSO Project, Access
to Justice project, and Community Based Monitoring
Project
GEF implementing agency, senior supplier;
Strengthen coordination and lessons learned for
identification of best practices for up-scaling of
SCBFWM project
NGOs
Konsepsi (Funding: The Ford Foundation), few  Support to project implementation in NTB
16
local NGOs
TNC (The Nature Conservancy)
 Support to project implementation in Central
Sulawesi
WWF-Indonesia
 Support to project implementation in Lampung,
West Kalimanantan, Central Kalimantan, NTB and
NTT
Local NGOs
 Support to project implementation in Lampung
Others
USAID Environmental Services Program
 Policy support on conservation, watershed
management and ecosystem rehabilitation in a
number of locations, including North Sumatra and
Java.
 Presence/Operational in 9 districts/cities in DAS
Asahan
BKPEKDT (Badan Koordinasi Pelestarian dan
Ekosistem Kawasan Danau Toba/Lake Toba  Since 6 June 2004, collaborates with the Asahan
Area Ecosystem and Conservation Coordination
Authority on the lake water quality and quantity
Agency)
improvement and also the clarity of community
access to BKPEKDT
Forum DAS (FORDAS)
I.1. 7.
 Support to project planing and implementation
Business-as-usual scenario
Under the ‘business-as-usual’ baseline scenario, efforts to rehabilitate degraded forests through
programmes such as GERHAN will continue to be implemented in isolation from watershed
management or forest biodiversity conservation programmes. While some progress will be made in
each area, the lack of coordination and complementarity in approaches (even amongst different
agencies under the Ministry of Forestry) will reduce the impact of each programme. Reforestation
programmes that do not explicitly factor in watershed protection or biodiversity corridors miss the
opportunity to generate multiple environmental benefits for Indonesia. At the same time, the
continuation of ‘top-down’ centrally-designed and government-run reforestation and watershed
management initiatives will limit the degree of community support and participation, reducing the
impact on forest encroachment or conversion and limiting the long-term sustainability of the
investments.
‘Business-as-usual’ in the CBFWM area will mean further ad-hoc attempts to implement management
models at various sites, with no mechanism for systematic capacity-building or awareness-raising at
the national systems level. The overall policy and regulatory environment for CBFWM will not improve
significantly, and therefore any progress made at individual sites will be difficult to sustain and is
unlikely to catalyze broader changes across Indonesia.
At the project site level, the baseline scenario projects continued loss of forest cover, increasing levels
of erosion and sedimentation and more severe fragmentation of forest habitat, including negative
impacts on existing Protected Areas under threat. The lack of integrated approaches that recognize
and account for community needs will limit the degree of local support for reforestation or watershed
management initiatives, thus reducing the effectiveness of these programmes in addressing forest
encroachment or land conversion. Forest encroachment, agricultural conversion and degradation of
watersheds will continue – and likely intensify- as the declining primary productivity of lands under
cultivation coupled with growing population pressures force households to burn and convert ever-larger
areas of forest.
Overall the baseline scenario projects a continued loss of critical ecosystem services such as soil
retention, water supply and biodiversity provision, at both the overall national level as well as in each of
the six targeted watersheds.
PART II: Strategy
17
II.1. Project rationale and policy conformity
In this proposal, the GEF assistance will be focused on funding the incremental costs of accelerating
and scaling-up CBFWM. This includes lifting barriers to CBFWM aimed at creating an enabling
environment at the local, district and national levels, in particular, in considering development needs
and support interventions of the program at the local level. GEF support will also strengthen intersectoral and inter-provincial coordination, mainstream capacity development of key stakeholders and
agencies and make use of - through effective knowledge management - the rich knowledge on best
practices that are currently insufficiently shared. This includes experiences of national and international
agencies. For example, ICRAF’s expertise on PES and land rehabilitation, and Center for International
Forestry research (CIFOR) on valuable inputs to forest rehabilitation and community-based forest
management in Indonesia. Other lessons will be drawn from the SGP and past projects concerned with
forest and land degradation.
The project proposed here is eligible for funding under:
 The Land Degradation Strategic Program 2: Supporting Sustainable Forest Management in
Production Landscapes through its integrated approach in addressing appropriate issues of
degraded forests in watersheds and is consistent with Strategic Objectives 1 and 2 of the Land
Degradation focal area on (1) to develop an enabling environment that will palce SLM in the
mainstream of development policy and practice and (2) to upscale SLM investments that generate
mutual benefits for the global environment and local livelihoods.

The project is also consistent with the Biodiversity Strategic Objective 2: To mainstream
biodiversity conservation in production landscape and sectors. The Integrated watershed
management would assist the mainstreaming of biodiversity in the policy and regulatory framework
described as the Bio-diversity strategic program 4. Bio-Diversity Strategic Program 5 meanwhile
deals with fostering markets for biodiversity goods and services such as those that will be created
under Payment for Environmental Services of the watershed.
Furthermore, the project addresses forest, land and watershed degradation in the wider production
landscape as a complex, multi-stakeholder and multi-faceted process aiming for synergies between
SFM, SLM, and biodiversity conservation to reduce threats to sustainable development in the selected
critical watershed.
One of the strategies to successfully strengthen community-based management of forest and water
resources is to develop a model of watershed management and forest resource conservation that is
initiated by local communities.
Considering the forested and degraded land in Indonesia - distributed unevenly across seven big
islands that are separated by the sea, and encompassing 33 provinces - the model developed for this
SCBFM project has been selected carefully based on the typology of the sites. In concept, a model
developed in one particular site within one region (province) should ideally be easily replicated in other
regions/provinces. However, each province has distinct and unique characters - though in some cases
there are few provinces share similar characters in several aspects, and in this project, these will be
carefully considered.
II.2.
Expected global, national and local benefits
The project will produce local and global environmental benefits within the context of sustainable
development as well as forest and watershed management, through maintaining and/or restoring
ecosystem services, such as water and soil retention, carbon sequestration and biodiversity
conservation in the selected critical watersheds. The community-based management approach is to
provide direct benefits to local communities. Reduced erosion and sedimentation and improved
hydrological functions will help maintain agricultural productivity in lowland areas. Biodiversity
conservation considerations will be incorporated into forest and watershed management through the
following:

Critical watersheds have been selected in the main centers of species richness
18








The selected watersheds are all part of protected area zones, so their sustainable management
will reduce the pressure on the areas to be protected
Threats to biodiversity have been identified and can be reduced through community-based
forest and watershed management approaches
Periodic threat assessments are incorporated in project implementation and results
incorporated in knowledge management
Knowledge barriers related to the effective conservation of biodiversity will be identified and
addressed by the project
Wherever feasible, forest rehabilitation will apply assisted natural forest regeneration practices
Biodiversity conservation objectives will be integrated in watershed management strategies and
plans
Awareness-raising activities will emphasize the local, regional and global importance of
conserving biodiversity in forest and watershed management
Watershed zoning will consider biodiversity conservation needs
Through knowledge management, information on best practices on community-based forest and
watershed management will be accessible to communities and other stakeholders throughout the
country to facilitate replication of the activities beyond the project area. Knowledge gained will also be
packaged appropriately to be of interest to other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and
threats to watersheds and the environmental services that they provide.
The GEF funding will be focused on a strengthening community based programmes of CBFWM. The
main impact of the SCBFWM project is to support increased flow of direct and indirect benefits to meet
community needs.
II.3.
Country ownership: Country eligibility and country drivenness
The IBSAP and NAP will strengthen the Indonesian effort to conserve biological diversity and raising
concern, awareness of land degradation and combating desertification. Indonesia signed the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 5 June 1992, and subsequently
ratified the Convention on 1 August 1994. It also signed the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC on13 July
1998. Indonesia’s first communication to the UNFCCC indicated that 70% of its greenhouse gas
emissions related to land degradation, inappropriate land uses, and land conversion. Related to this,
UNFCCC COP 13/MOP3 hosted in Bali in December 2007 brought land degradation and forestry
issues to a higher level where reduction of emission from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and
adaptation for vulnerable communities has become an eminent priority for Indonesia.
Since 1992, Indonesia has revised and enacted various laws and regulations that provide the legal
basis for the nation’s sustainable development policy. These have included (among others): Law No.
23/1997 on Environmental Management; Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Governance; Law No. 25/1999
on Financial Balance; and Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry, each of which has its own provisions for
enabling local governments to more effectively manage resources on a sustainable basis. Decree No.
IX/MPR/2001 on Agrarian Reform and Natural Resources Management stipulates that natural
resources management should be equitable, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
A key law is Law No. 22/1999 that was replaced by Law 32/2004 on “Decentralized Local
Government”, which devolved central government powers and responsibilities to local governments in
all government administrative sectors, except for security and defense, foreign policy, monetary and
fiscal matters, justice, and religious affairs.
Local governments have to reform their internal structures to accommodate the huge increase in
responsibility that has been passed on from the central government. The absence of a detailed plan for
transitioning power locally and of supporting regulations to clarify the procedures and processes that
need to be undertaken have been constraints to effective devolution. Capacity building is also needed
to motivate and train local government institutions (and their designated officials) to take decisions into
their own hands.
One of the main objectives of decentralization was to promote better delivery of government services
under a system of local government accountability. This assumed that local governments are more
familiar with the needs of their communities than the central government, and therefore sought to
19
benefit the same groups of beneficiaries as this SCBFWM. However, it has proven difficult to make
progress in many regions because almost all local interest groups remain weak and poorly organized,
having been almost completely left out of the political decision-making process over the last three
decades.
Following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, Indonesia prepared a National Agenda 21 that provides a
blueprint for mainstreaming sustainable development into national development planning.
Supplementary Agenda 21 documents were produced for forestry and several other sectors in 2000,
and several local governments have also developed Local Agenda 21 documents.
Furthermore, in related to the UN Conventions, Indonesia has demonstrated its commitment to
furthering the objectives of sustainable land management and rehabilitation through several key
national-level plans and policy instruments. The country’s medium-term development strategy is
delineated in Program Pembangunan Nasional, the National Development Plan (PROPENAS) 20002004. PROPENAS, now called RPJM or Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah, addresses a
range of crosscutting issues, including environmental sustainability, gender, and poverty. The plan
emphasizes improving the governance process, stressing the need for transparent, broad-based, and
participatory decision-making. With respect to traditional development concerns, responsibility for
social sector services is shifted to local governments in line with decentralization. Under PROPENAS,
priorities for rural communities include diversification of agriculture, beneficiary empowerment, and
implementation of programs to help disadvantaged, poor communities.
It should also be noted that the GoI implemented the Convention to Combat Desertification/Land
Degradation (CCD/CLD) through a National Action Program (NAP; 2002) which addresses the
underlying causes of land degradation and drought and identifies measures to prevent and rehabilitate
it. The NAP elaborates a joint plan for stakeholders at all levels of government (district, provincial,
national, and regional), professional organizations, community-based organizations, non-governmental
organizations as well as private business groups to combat land degradation and deforestation through
the development and implementation of sustainable land management measures. The NAP is a key
part of the National Development Program (PROPENAS), and needs to be mainstreamed into
provincial and district development plans and strategies.
The GoI is undertaking the following actions to implement the NAP:






Analyzing impacts of national policy implementation for rehabilitating degraded land and
controlling land degradation and deforestation,
Integrating the UNCCD/NAP implementation in the process of implementing other related
national policies,
Identifying sector-specific activities,
Mobilizing resources from multiple sources domestic such as: APBN (National Expenditure
Revenue Budget), APBD (District Expenditure Revenue Budget), NGO funds, local
communities and the private sector, and international sources such as international donor
agencies and multilateral organizations,
Promoting stakeholder participation and raising public awareness, and
Bolstering capacity building of stakeholders including the NGOs and local communities.
In line with the implementation of UNCCD, the GoI has carried out several land rehabilitation and soil
conservation programs to overcome problems of land degradation. Measures taken by the Central and
Regional governments involved several sectors such as Home Affairs, Agriculture and Forestry to
overcome changes in land functions and combat illegal logging and large scale forest fires. A series of
pilot projects have been carried out beginning in the 1970’s, including the National Reforestation
Program (NRP) and Re-greening and Reforestation Project (RRP), Upland Agriculture and
Conservation Project (UACP), Sustainable Upland Farming System (SUFS), and the National
Watershed Management and Conservation Project (NWMCP).
To be specific, since 2004, five main forestry strategies have been initiated that relate to combating
land degradation, including: (1) Combating Illegal Logging and illegal trading, (2) Restructuring ForestBased Industries; (3) Forest Resources Rehabilitation and Conservation; and (4) Empowerment of
Forest Community Economy and (5) Demarcation establishment of forest areas. Social forestry, which
is considered an appropriate tool to generate income and improve the welfare of communities living
within and surrounding the forest, is a focus of each of these strategies.
20
More recently, a Strategic Plan of Forestry: RENSTRA-KL (2005-2009) of the Ministry of Forestry has
been finalized, which is in line with the Millennium Development Goals. The strategic plan focuses on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Poverty alleviation
Multi-stakeholder engagement through a National Forest Program
Implementation of SFM
Accelerating forest rehabilitation and conservation of biological diversity
In recognizing that revitalization of the forest sector must go hand in hand with social and ecological
priorities, the Ministry of Forestry has redefined itself to focus on resources extraction and rehabilitation
as well as conservation. This is a significant U-turn from an era which once emphasized only the
national economic benefits of forest exploitation.
In 2003, the government launched the National Movement on Rehabilitation of Forest and Land
(GNRHL), which over a five year period will rehabilitate 5 million hectares of degraded forest area
distributed over 200 priority watersheds in 32 provinces and 400 districts. The program is an essential
element of the NAP and is implemented by a number of ministries working across sectors.
More importantly, the GoI is seeking to develop a SCBFWM to strengthen the implementation of the
NAP, IBSAP and other National action plan on the one hand and to capture global environmental
benefits of SLM and SFM on the other, including promoting watershed ecosystem integrity, conserve
biodiversity and promote sustainable management and use of forest resources
II. 4.
II.4.1.
Sustainability
Financial
The Indonesian Government, in this case Bappenas/the National Planning Board, is responsible for all
the existing departments’ developmental budgeting. According to the Government Workplan from
BAPPENAS (Table 4. in the next page), the funding that related to the watershed management has
increased from 662 Billion Rupiahs in 2005 to almost 13 Trillion Rupiahs in 2009. The most noted
increase has started from 2005 to 2006, with an increase from 662 Billion rupiahs to 6 Trillion rupiahs,
as there was revitalization to Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry, marking an increase of 10 folds from
the 2005 amount. This has been maintained and increased in 2009, in the future the trend will continue
to increase as the Special Allocation Fund for Forestry only has been planned to be 500 Billion rupiahs
(2010, source: Ministry of Forestry, agreement between the People’s Legislative Council and the GOI).
21
Table 4. BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR PROGRAMS RELATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT FROM 2005 - 2009
(in million RUPIAH)
NO
I
DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AND PROGRAM
2005
2006
VOLUME
2007
2008
2009
IMPROVEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE AND
ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION FUNCTIONS
1
Stabilization for utilization of forest resource potential
156,182.1
426,337.2
398,845.2
2,092,251.9
2
Protection and conservation of natural resources
251,100.0
244,533.8
510,243.9
452,611.2
461,176.1
3
110,000.0
181,306.0
406,470.2
399,682.3
510,512.6
120,385.0
198,316.1
272,362.1
337,379.9
426,186.7
5
Rehabilitation and restoration of the natural resource reserves
Capacity building development for natural resource and environment
management
Enhancement of quality and information access to natural resources and
environment
43,952.1
225,819.3
164,384.8
170,279.0
6
Pollution and environment degradation controls
143,232.8
159,222.3
289,801.4
236,176.3
180,162.9
7
Development and supervision Meterological and Geophysics
401,217.5
501,933.6
460,929.2
983,512.4
2,532,251.6
2,491,013.3
4,301,498.4
4
Sub-Total I
REVITALIZATION
AFFAIRS
II
37,900.0
662,617.8
OF
AGRICULTURE,
FISHERY
AND
FORESTRY
1
Enhancement for food security
-
1,510,466.3
3,086,180.6
2,821,991.0
3,599,208.7
2
Agribusiness development
-
1,464,827.0
3,249,928.1
1,408,964.0
871,213.9
3
Enhancement of farmers' welfare
-
1,058,723.6
1,009,703.4
2,643,334.0
2,382,110.4
4
Development of fishery resources
-
1,242,129.3
1,818,717.0
1,956,959.2
1,737,859.3
Sub-Total II
-
5,276,146.2
9,164,529.1
8,831,248.2
8,590,392.3
6,259,658.6
11,696,780.7
11,322,261.5
12,891,890.7
Total
662,617.8
Apart from the Government Workplan, there are also the development budgets from other related
ministry departments, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, Public Work and Coordinating Ministry of
Welfare. Within the Ministry of Forestry, the budget for watershed management-related development
can be provided by Directorate General RLPS (consisted of the Directorate of Watershed Management
(Direktorat Pengelolaan DAS), Directorate of Land Rehabilitation (Diretorat Rehabilitasi Lahan) and the
Directorate of Social Forestry (Direktorat Perhutanan Sosial)), other Directorates and Secretary
General. Budgets available from each directorate will contribute to financial sustainability of watershed
management programmes in Indonesia, including the relevant stakeholder capacity building. It is worth
recalling that despite significant increases in annual budgets during this century, watershed
degradation continues to be a problem. However, the barriers to sustainable management addressed
by the project will ensure that in future this funding is expensed more effectively.
For 2009, the Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry Directorate (Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan
Sosial/ RLPS) of Forestry Ministry has budgeted around Rp 637,100,000,000 or approximately 63.7
million USD (note: 1 USD = Rp 10,000) for relevant programs and SCBFWM implementation supports.
The budget allocation is detailed in the following table.
Table 5. National Budget Allocation for RLPS Activity Year 2009
Activity Focus
PDAS
Watershed Management
RHL
Priority
watershed
rehabilitation
HR(Hutan
Development
Rakyat)
Budget Allocation
(Rupiahs)
Activity Nomenclature/Code
67,400,000,000
critical
HR
Planning, Development,
Institutionalization
land
and
84,750,000,000
25,550,000,000
Community Forestry
or
Hutan
Kemasyarakatan
or
HKm Development
HKm Planning and Development
18,600,000,000
NTFP
or
Development
NTFP or HHBK use development
18,290,000,000
HHBK
National Movement of
Land Rehabilitation or
Gerakan Rehabilitasi
Lahan Nasional or
Gerhan (multi-year)
Planning and Development: multi-year
plants, murbei ( Morus alba), mangrove
RHL, jati muna (teak) , and BUMN
(state-owned company),
250,000,000,000
Support
RLPS Planning and Development
Construction
Motor vehicles
Salaries and benefits
172,470,000,000
Total
637,100,000,000
Equal to
US$ 63,710,000
Compared to 2008, there is a significant increase in definitive allocation for project activity focus, i.e.
from Rp358,132,000,000 to Rp637,100,000,000 (or equivalent to US$ 63,710,000), or by 43.79% (Rp
278,967,700,000). Other directorates, based on valid information from their key persons such as
Regional I, II and IV of Centre for Forestry Development Control (or Pusdal) have budgeted around Rp
136,008,390,000 (or equivalent to US$ 13,600,839). The Directorate General of Forest Protection and
Nature Conservation’s budget of US$ 957,920 could be synergized to SCBFWM program.
Furthermore, the upcoming trend of inflation in Indonesia is also anticipated, by increasing each
program’s budget by at least 10-15%, annually.
Meanwhile, budget sharing for national-level SCBFWM development would also come from other line
ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture, for example, provides Rp29,250,000,000/year just to support
programs on upstream watershed conservation.
Thus, there are clearly substantial levels of government funding available to support improved forest
and land management. This project will demonstrate how CBFWM can help to ensure that the funds
invested in forest and land management are used most effectively and efficiently. The mechanisms to
be put in place in support of CBFWM under this project are mainly no-cost, or low-cost interventions,
such as CBO-based CBFWM fora. The main reason why they are not already in place is the existence
of institutional and policy barriers that prevent their establishment and discourage their functioning.
The project will overcome these barriers, so future CBFWM fora should be inherently sustainable, with
limited financial resources required. Inevitably there will be some financial demands on future
operation of such for a, but these can be institutionalised under the benefit sharing arrangements to be
established under Output 1.6. Effectively, these benefit sharing arrangements will apply a small “tax”
on revenue generation, which can be used to support the operations of CBO-based fora. Government
participation in such fora can be supported through the existing government programmes promoting
improved forest and land management.
The development of community-based models of natural resource management (for forests and
watersheds) is in line with the GoI’s strong policy emphasis on decentralization and empowerment of
local communities in decision-making. The district decentralization (Otonomi Daerah or Otoda)
process that has been underway for more than a decade now has progressively shifted fiscal and
developmental decision-making authority to district and local administrations. Community-based forest
and watershed management approaches fit well within this policy direction, and have received strong
support and acceptance from the local communities involved. These models are therefore expected to
be highly sustainable within the prevailing social and political contexts.
II. 4.2.
Ecological
The ecological sustainability of this project will be assured through the elimination of threats to
biodiversity; particularly those existed within the protection forest areas along the watershed.
Protection forest within the watershed areas in Indonesia is normally in the form of nature reserves,
protected forest, recreational forest areas, and national parks. The sustainability concepts within the
scope of this project covers sustainable development and forest and watershed management through
maintaining and/or restoring ecosystem services, such as water and soil retention, carbon
sequestration and biodiversity conservation in the selected critical watersheds across the seven main
islands All of these forms are of greater benefits to the local people contain some biodiversity and
cultural values which is now being degraded, and in some selected areas have been severely
damaged.
II. 4.3.
Replicability
The project strategy includes specific measures to ensure that lessons and examples demonstrated
through this project can be reproduced elsewhere. Firstly, the project will be collaborating with major,
on-going Government programmes such as GERHAN and HKm. These major Government initiatives
provide an existing, sustainable, and ideal mechanism for replicating and up-scaling successful
models.
Replicability will be promoted through several project outputs, including Output 1.8, Output 2.3, and
Output 3.2. These Outputs will establish the institutional framework to permit replication and scale-up,
and the technical basis for replication, respectively.
To ensure that lessons learned on the success and failure of conservation/poverty activities are shared
between SCBFWM personnel, regular workshops, seminars & conferences will be used as the medium
to exchange and share information and ideas. The National Office of SCBFWM programme will also
integrate these lessons learned into future plans of MoF and other relevant ministry towards to
sustainability of watershed management.
24
Possible activities as implementation of lessons learned, as part of the replication process, are:




Horizontal exchanges and internships to spread lessons across the nine priority areas;
Vertical exchanges to bring together different levels and different categories of stakeholders;
Wider horizontal exchanges and multiplication of lessons about conservation/poverty initiatives;
Training workshops on monitoring & evaluation, strategic decision making, financial decision
making, administration, proposal writing, logical framework and budget preparation;
25
I.2.
ANNUAL WORKPLAN
Year: 1 (July 2009 – July 2010)
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
List activity results and
associated actions
TIMEFRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Output 1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount
GEF
Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and social-economic conditions demonstrate
improved management using CBFWM
Baseline:
1.1 Average CBOs for
CBFWM in each site
prior to project
commencement = 5
1.2 150 CBO’s members
trained through
government-sponsored
community forestry
program (HKm
program) and other
relevant programs
1.3 Local CBFWM
management plan has
not yet developed by
CBOs. However,
community forest
management plans
have been developed
by CBOs in two sites
(Lampung and West
Nusa Tenggara).
1.4 None
Indicators:
1.1 At least 5 Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for
CBFWM established at each
demonstration site
1.2 By the end of the project, at least
30 % of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and
landless, are technically proficient
1.3 At the end of the project, six
critical watersheds have forest
and watershed management
plans developed in collaboration
with CBOs, recognized or
endorsed by Government and
under implementation
1.4 By the end of the project, 2
management plans of CBFWM
recognized or endorsed by
government
Targets:
1.1 10 CBOs for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration site
within 9 months of the
start of project
implementation
1.2 450 number of
community members.
1.3 A management plan is
completed in each
demonstration site
within one year of the
start of project
implementation
1.4 At least 2 CBFWM
management plans
recognized or endorsed
across demonstration
sites within 2 years of
the start of project
implementation
1.1 Establishment of
functional management
group for CBFWM,
where participation of
women and the landless
increased at each
demonstration site
X
X
1.2 Through training and
capacity development,
technical competence of
members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including
women and landless are
enhanced
1.3 Development of local
participatory CBFWM
management plan at
each demonstration site
1.4 Government recognition
or endorsement (as
appropriate) of CBFWM
management plan in
demonstration sites
X
X
X
X
X
71200
71300
71600
72200
72600
74100
74200
74500
30,000
364,000
15,000
42,000
300,000
85,000
8,290
5,000
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline,
1.5
Baselineassociated
data to be indicators
establishedand annual
1.5 targets
By the end of the
within 6 months of the start of
project, water quality
project implementation
in each demonstration
1.6 None
site has improved,
1.7 None
shown by the increase
1.8 There are no CBO forums working
of the number and
on CBFWM
species of macroinvertebrates,
compared to the
condition in project
year 1
1.6 By the end of the
project, an agerement
between community
and government or
community and private
sectors on benefit
sharing at each
demonstration sites
1.7 By the end of the
project, at least 3
media products have
been generated
1.8 By the end of the
project, at least 1
CBOs forum working
for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration sites
and has produced
innovative action in
implementing CBFWM
1.5 Number and species of
macro-invertebrates
increased by 20 %
1.6 6 mechanisms
established effectively
1.7 Three medias of
communication
(ex: leaflet, bulletin,
documenter film etc)
have been produced in
each demonstration
site and at national
level
1.8 At least 1 forum of
CBFWM with a
minimum of 3 of CBOs
working for CBFWM
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity
results and
1.5List
Locally
developed
associated
actions
CBFWM
models
delivering improved
environmental services
and increased incomes
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
1.6 Effective mechanism for
equitable sharing of
benefits and reinvestment
1.7 Communication media of
examples of successful
CBFWM and lessons
learned from these
examples
1.8 Fora of CBOs working
for CBFWM provide basis
for sharing of lessons
learned and replication
27
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry
of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And
baseline,
Output
2 associated indicators and annual targets
Governmental agencies provide clear and quantifiable support to the development of CBFWM
initiatives.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Baseline:
2.1. 37 trained government
staff per year
2.1 Training for government
staffs who are ready to
generate knowledge on
CBFWM and use it to
develop CBFWM-related
programs
2.2. 4 types of activity at
each site
2.3. 3 incentives
Indicators:
2.1. By the end of the
project at least
435 government
staff have been
trained and
certified in the use
of CBFWM
approaches.
2.2. By the end of the
project, at least 6
types of training
programmes on
CBFWM have
been developed
and administered
at provincial
and/or district
levels.
2.3. By the end of the
project, there are
at least 4 different
types of
government
incentive schemes
for CBFWM
initiatives (at
national, provincial
and district levels)
Targets:
2.1. 435 government staff will be trained at
the end of project
2.2. 6 types of activity at each site
2.3. 4 incentives
TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
List activity results and
associated actions
Ministry of Forestry
X
X
X
X
X
X
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
71300
71600
74100
74200
74500
134,500
13,540
52,000
2,100
4,710
71300
109,770
2.2 Establish provincial and
district activities to
support CBFWM
2.3 Provide governmental
incentives to promote
CBFWM initiatives
Output 3
Coordination among and between different levels of government generates consistent policies and
programmes that support CBFWM
Ministry of Forestry
28
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators
and annual targets
Baseline:
Indicators:
3.1. No report
3.1. Official publication on
3.2. One collaborative activity
comprehensive review and
in demonstration sites
analysis of required coordination at
3.3. Comprehensive and
national and local levels,
integrated legal and
particularly focused on the
policy instrument on
administrative areas of the project
CBFWM is not
sites, is launched by the end of PY
available.
2
3.2. By the end of the project, number
of collaborative activities has
doubled compared with the
beginning of the project
3.3. By the end of the project year, at
least one legal and or policy draft
on CBFWM is launched and
widely discussed at national and
local levels
Output 4
Project Management
Targets:
3.1. One report published by
the end of PY 2
3.2. At least two collaborative
activities demonstration
site
3.3. At least one legal and or
policy draft on CBFWM
is launched and widely
discussed at national
and local levels,
particularly in each of the
project sites.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity in
results and
3.1.List
Monitoring
associated actions
review/analysis
of where
coordination is needed
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
3.2. Provide meeting and
workshop functional fora
for coordination among
and between level of
governments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PLANNED BUDGET
71600
18,790
74100
65,900
74500
5,500
3.3. Participatory-developed
drafts or new legal and
policy instruments on
CBFWM at all levels
4.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Forestry
GEF
71400
71600
72500
80,950
14,921
53,187
UNDP
UNDP
71300
71400
71600
72400
72800
74500
1,405,158
30,000
14,000
16,000
10,000
20,000
10,000
SUB TOTAL for GEF
Output 5
Project Management
5.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
SUB TOTAL for UNDP
X
100,000
1,505,158
TOTAL
29
Year: 2 (July 2010 – July 2011)
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
List activity results and
associated actions
TIMEFRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Output 1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount
GEF
Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and social-economic conditions demonstrate
improved management using CBFWM
Baseline:
1.1 Average CBOs for
CBFWM in each site
prior to project
commencement = 5
1.2 150 CBO’s members
trained through
government-sponsored
community forestry
program (HKm
program) and other
relevant programs
1.3 Local CBFWM
management plan has
not yet developed by
CBOs. However,
community forest
management plans
have been developed
by CBOs in two sites
(Lampung and West
Nusa Tenggara).
1.4 None
Indicators:
1.1 At least 5 Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for
CBFWM established at each
demonstration site
1.2 By the end of the project, at least
30 % of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and
landless, are technically proficient
1.3 At the end of the project, six
critical watersheds have forest
and watershed management
plans developed in collaboration
with CBOs, recognized or
endorsed by Government and
under implementation
1.4 By the end of the project, 2
management plans of CBFWM
recognized or endorsed by
government
Targets:
1.1 10 CBOs for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration site
within 9 months of the
start of project
implementation
1.2 450 number of
community members.
1.3 A management plan is
completed in each
demonstration site
within one year of the
start of project
implementation
1.4 At least 2 CBFWM
management plans
recognized or endorsed
across demonstration
sites within 2 years of
the start of project
implementation
1.1 Establishment of
functional management
group for CBFWM,
where participation of
women and the landless
increased at each
demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.2 Through training and
capacity development,
technical competence of
members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including
women and landless are
enhanced
X
X
X
X
1.3 Development of local
participatory CBFWM
management plan at
each demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.4 Government recognition
or endorsement (as
appropriate) of CBFWM
management plan in
demonstration sites
X
X
X
X
30
71300
71600
72200
72600
74100
74200
74500
347,000
13,000
12,000
300,000
115,000
7,900
5,000
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline,
1.5
Baselineassociated
data to be indicators
establishedand annual
1.5 targets
By the end of the
within 6 months of the start of
project, water quality
project implementation
in each demonstration
1.6 None
site has improved,
1.7 None
shown by the increase
1.8 There are no CBO forums working
of the number and
on CBFWM
species of macroinvertebrates,
compared to the
condition in project
year 1
1.6 By the end of the
project, an agerement
between community
and government or
community and private
sectors on benefit
sharing at each
demonstration sites
1.7 By the end of the
project, at least 3
media products have
been generated
1.8 By the end of the
project, at least 1
CBOs forum working
for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration sites
and has produced
innovative action in
implementing CBFWM
1.5 Number and species of
macro-invertebrates
increased by 20 %
1.6 6 mechanisms
established effectively
1.7 Three medias of
communication
(ex: leaflet, bulletin,
documenter film etc)
have been produced in
each demonstration
site and at national
level
1.8 At least 1 forum of
CBFWM with a
minimum of 3 of CBOs
working for CBFWM
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity
results and
1.5List
Locally
developed
associated
actions
CBFWM
models
delivering improved
environmental services
and increased incomes
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
1.6 Effective mechanism for
equitable sharing of
benefits and reinvestment
1.7 Communication media of
examples of successful
CBFWM and lessons
learned from these
examples
X
X
X
X
1.8 Fora of CBOs working
for CBFWM provide basis
for sharing of lessons
learned and replication
X
X
X
X
31
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry
of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And
baseline,
Output
2 associated indicators and annual targets
Governmental agencies provide clear and quantifiable support to the development of CBFWM
initiatives.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Baseline:
2.1. 37 trained government
staff per year
2.1
Generation of
knowledge on CBFWM by
trained government staffs
and it utilization to develop
CBFWM-related programme
X
X
X
X
2.2 Establish provincial and
district activities to
support CBFWM
X
X
X
X
2.3 Provide governmental
incentives to promote
CBFWM initiatives
X
X
X
X
2.2. 4 types of activity at
each site
2.3. 3 incentives
Indicators:
2.1. By the end of the
project at least
435 government
staff have been
trained and
certified in the use
of CBFWM
approaches.
2.2. By the end of the
project, at least 6
types of training
programmes on
CBFWM have
been developed
and administered
at provincial
and/or district
levels.
2.3. By the end of the
project, there are
at least 4 different
types of
government
incentive schemes
for CBFWM
initiatives (at
national, provincial
and district levels)
Targets:
2.1. 435 government staff will be trained at
the end of project
2.2. 6 types of activity at each site
TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
List activity results and
associated actions
2.3. 4 incentives
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
71300
71600
74100
74200
74500
147,780
8,380
87,000
8,560
2,135
71300
104,915
Output 3
Coordination among and between different levels of government generates consistent policies and
programmes that support CBFWM
Ministry of Forestry
32
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators
and annual targets
Baseline:
Indicators:
3.1. No report
3.1. Official publication on
3.2. One collaborative activity
comprehensive review and
in demonstration sites
analysis of required coordination at
3.3. Comprehensive and
national and local levels,
integrated legal and
particularly focused on the
policy instrument on
administrative areas of the project
CBFWM is not
sites, is launched by the end of PY
available.
2
3.2. By the end of the project, number
of collaborative activities has
doubled compared with the
beginning of the project
3.3. By the end of the project year, at
least one legal and or policy draft
on CBFWM is launched and
widely discussed at national and
local levels
Output 4
Project Management
Targets:
3.1. One report published by
the end of PY 2
3.2. At least two collaborative
activities demonstration
site
3.3. At least one legal and or
policy draft on CBFWM
is launched and widely
discussed at national
and local levels,
particularly in each of the
project sites.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity in
results and
3.1.List
Monitoring
associated actions
review/analysis
of where
coordination is needed
3.2. Provide meeting and
workshop functional fora
for coordination among
and between level of
governments
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
X
X
X
X
5.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PLANNED BUDGET
71600
10,120
74100
60,600
74500
5,200
3.3. Participatory-developed
drafts or new legal and
policy instruments on
CBFWM at all levels
Ministry of Forestry
GEF
71400
71600
72500
84,948
14,921
46,731
UNDP
UNDP
71300
71400
71600
72400
72800
74100
74500
1,381,190
34,800
20,000
19,200
7,500
7,500
5,000
6,000
SUB TOTAL for GEF
Output 5
Project Management
SUB TOTAL for UNDP
100,000
1,481,190
TOTAL
33
Year: 3 (July 2011 – July 2012)
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
List activity results and
associated actions
TIMEFRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Output 1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount
GEF
Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and social-economic conditions demonstrate
improved management using CBFWM
Baseline:
1.1 Average CBOs for
CBFWM in each site
prior to project
commencement = 5
1.2 150 CBO’s members
trained through
government-sponsored
community forestry
program (HKm
program) and other
relevant programs
1.3 Local CBFWM
management plan has
not yet developed by
CBOs. However,
community forest
management plans
have been developed
by CBOs in two sites
(Lampung and West
Nusa Tenggara).
1.4 None
Indicators:
1.1 At least 5 Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for
CBFWM established at each
demonstration site
1.2 By the end of the project, at least
30 % of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and
landless, are technically proficient
1.3 At the end of the project, six
critical watersheds have forest
and watershed management
plans developed in collaboration
with CBOs, recognized or
endorsed by Government and
under implementation
1.4 By the end of the project, 2
management plans of CBFWM
recognized or endorsed by
government
Targets:
1.1 10 CBOs for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration site
within 9 months of the
start of project
implementation
1.2 450 number of
community members.
1.3 A management plan is
completed in each
demonstration site
within one year of the
start of project
implementation
1.4 At least 2 CBFWM
management plans
recognized or endorsed
across demonstration
sites within 2 years of
the start of project
implementation
1.1 Establishment of
functional management
group for CBFWM,
where participation of
women and the landless
increased at each
demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.2 Through training and
capacity development,
technical competence of
members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including
women and landless are
enhanced
X
X
X
X
1.3 Development of local
participatory CBFWM
management plan at
each demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.4 Government recognition
or endorsement (as
appropriate) of CBFWM
management plan in
demonstration sites
X
X
X
X
34
71300
71600
72200
72600
74100
74200
74500
384,000
13,000
12,000
300,000
119,000
10,950
5,000
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline,
1.5
Baselineassociated
data to be indicators
establishedand annual
1.5 targets
By the end of the
within 6 months of the start of
project, water quality
project implementation
in each demonstration
1.6 None
site has improved,
1.7 None
shown by the increase
1.8 There are no CBO forums working
of the number and
on CBFWM
species of macroinvertebrates,
compared to the
condition in project
year 1
1.6 By the end of the
project, an agerement
between community
and government or
community and private
sectors on benefit
sharing at each
demonstration sites
1.7 By the end of the
project, at least 3
media products have
been generated
1.8 By the end of the
project, at least 1
CBOs forum working
for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration sites
and has produced
innovative action in
implementing CBFWM
1.5 Number and species of
macro-invertebrates
increased by 20 %
1.6 6 mechanisms
established effectively
1.7 Three medias of
communication
(ex: leaflet, bulletin,
documenter film etc)
have been produced in
each demonstration
site and at national
level
1.8 At least 1 forum of
CBFWM with a
minimum of 3 of CBOs
working for CBFWM
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity
results and
1.5List
Locally
developed
associated
actions
CBFWM
models
delivering improved
environmental services
and increased incomes
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
1.6 Effective mechanism for
equitable sharing of
benefits and reinvestment
1.7 Communication media of
examples of successful
CBFWM and lessons
learned from these
examples
X
X
X
X
1.8 Fora of CBOs working
for CBFWM provide basis
for sharing of lessons
learned and replication
X
X
X
X
35
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry
of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And
baseline,
Output
2 associated indicators and annual targets
Governmental agencies provide clear and quantifiable support to the development of CBFWM
initiatives.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Baseline:
2.1. 37 trained government
staff per year
2.1 Generation of
knowledge on CBFWM
by trained government
staffs and it utilization
to develop CBFWMrelated programme
X
X
X
X
2.2 Establish provincial and
district activities to
support CBFWM
X
X
X
X
2.3 Provide governmental
incentives to promote
CBFWM initiatives
X
X
X
X
2.2. 4 types of activity at
each site
2.3. 3 incentives
Indicators:
2.1. By the end of the
project at least
435 government
staff have been
trained and
certified in the use
of CBFWM
approaches.
2.2. By the end of the
project, at least 6
types of training
programmes on
CBFWM have
been developed
and administered
at provincial
and/or district
levels.
2.3. By the end of the
project, there are
at least 4 different
types of
government
incentive schemes
for CBFWM
initiatives (at
national, provincial
and district levels)
Targets:
2.1. 435 government staff will be trained at
the end of project
2.2. 6 types of activity at each site
2.3. 4 incentives
TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
List activity results and
associated actions
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
71300
71600
74100
74200
74500
149,400
9,007
92,000
8,200
6,620
71300
101,210
Output 3
Coordination among and between different levels of government generates consistent policies and
programmes that support CBFWM
Ministry of Forestry
36
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators
and annual targets
Baseline:
Indicators:
3.1. No report
3.1. Official publication on
3.2. One collaborative activity
comprehensive review and
in demonstration sites
analysis of required coordination at
3.3. Comprehensive and
national and local levels,
integrated legal and
particularly focused on the
policy instrument on
administrative areas of the project
CBFWM is not
sites, is launched by the end of PY
available.
2
3.2. By the end of the project, number
of collaborative activities has
doubled compared with the
beginning of the project
3.3. By the end of the project year, at
least one legal and or policy draft
on CBFWM is launched and
widely discussed at national and
local levels
Output 4
Project Management
Targets:
3.1. One report published by
the end of PY 2
3.2. At least two collaborative
activities demonstration
site
3.3. At least one legal and or
policy draft on CBFWM
is launched and widely
discussed at national
and local levels,
particularly in each of the
project sites.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity in
results and
3.1.List
Monitoring
associated actions
review/analysis
of where
coordination is needed
3.2. Provide meeting and
workshop functional fora
for coordination among
and between level of
governments
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
X
X
X
X
5.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PLANNED BUDGET
71600
14,920
74100
63,880
74500
5,130
3.3. Participatory-developed
drafts or new legal and
policy instruments on
CBFWM at all levels
Ministry of Forestry
GEF
71400
71600
72500
89,145
14,921
46,731
UNDP
UNDP
71300
71400
71600
72400
72800
74100
74500
1,445,114
38,280
22,000
21,120
4,050
4,050
5,000
5,500
SUB TOTAL for GEF
Output 5
Project Management
SUB TOTAL for UNDP
100,000
1,545,114
TOTAL
37
Year: 4 (July 2012 – July 2013)
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
List activity results and
associated actions
TIMEFRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Output 1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount
GEF
Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and social-economic conditions demonstrate
improved management using CBFWM
Baseline:
1.1 Average CBOs for
CBFWM in each site
prior to project
commencement = 5
1.2 150 CBO’s members
trained through
government-sponsored
community forestry
program (HKm
program) and other
relevant programs
1.3 Local CBFWM
management plan has
not yet developed by
CBOs. However,
community forest
management plans
have been developed
by CBOs in two sites
(Lampung and West
Nusa Tenggara).
1.4 None
Indicators:
1.1 At least 5 Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for
CBFWM established at each
demonstration site
1.2 By the end of the project, at least
30 % of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and
landless, are technically proficient
1.3 At the end of the project, six
critical watersheds have forest
and watershed management
plans developed in collaboration
with CBOs, recognized or
endorsed by Government and
under implementation
1.4 By the end of the project, 2
management plans of CBFWM
recognized or endorsed by
government
Targets:
1.1 10 CBOs for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration site
within 9 months of the
start of project
implementation
1.2 450 number of
community members.
1.3 A management plan is
completed in each
demonstration site
within one year of the
start of project
implementation
1.4 At least 2 CBFWM
management plans
recognized or endorsed
across demonstration
sites within 2 years of
the start of project
implementation
1.1 Establishment of
functional management
group for CBFWM,
where participation of
women and the landless
increased at each
demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.2 Through training and
capacity development,
technical competence of
members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including
women and landless are
enhanced
X
X
X
X
1.3 Development of local
participatory CBFWM
management plan at
each demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.4 Government recognition
or endorsement (as
appropriate) of CBFWM
management plan in
demonstration sites
X
X
X
X
38
71300
71600
72200
72600
74100
74200
74500
372,000
14,000
9,000
300,000
116,000
9,460
5,000
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline,
1.5
Baselineassociated
data to be indicators
establishedand annual
1.5 targets
By the end of the
within 6 months of the start of
project, water quality
project implementation
in each demonstration
1.6 None
site has improved,
1.7 None
shown by the increase
1.8 There are no CBO forums working
of the number and
on CBFWM
species of macroinvertebrates,
compared to the
condition in project
year 1
1.6 By the end of the
project, an agerement
between community
and government or
community and private
sectors on benefit
sharing at each
demonstration sites
1.7 By the end of the
project, at least 3
media products have
been generated
1.8 By the end of the
project, at least 1
CBOs forum working
for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration sites
and has produced
innovative action in
implementing CBFWM
1.5 Number and species of
macro-invertebrates
increased by 20 %
1.6 6 mechanisms
established effectively
1.7 Three medias of
communication
(ex: leaflet, bulletin,
documenter film etc)
have been produced in
each demonstration
site and at national
level
1.8 At least 1 forum of
CBFWM with a
minimum of 3 of CBOs
working for CBFWM
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity
results and
1.5List
Locally
developed
associated
actions
CBFWM
models
delivering improved
environmental services
and increased incomes
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
1.6 Effective mechanism for
equitable sharing of
benefits and reinvestment
X
X
X
X
1.7 Communication media of
examples of successful
CBFWM and lessons
learned from these
examples
X
X
X
X
1.8 Fora of CBOs working
for CBFWM provide basis
for sharing of lessons
learned and replication
X
X
X
X
39
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry
of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And
baseline,
Output
2 associated indicators and annual targets
Governmental agencies provide clear and quantifiable support to the development of CBFWM
initiatives.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Baseline:
2.1. 37 trained government
staff per year
2.1 Generation of
knowledge on CBFWM
by trained government
staffs and it utilization
to develop CBFWMrelated programme
X
X
X
X
2.2 Establish provincial and
district activities to
support CBFWM
X
X
X
X
2.3 Provide governmental
incentives to promote
CBFWM initiatives
X
X
X
X
2.2. 4 types of activity at
each site
2.3. 3 incentives
Indicators:
2.1. By the end of the
project at least
435 government
staff have been
trained and
certified in the use
of CBFWM
approaches.
2.2. By the end of the
project, at least 6
types of training
programmes on
CBFWM have
been developed
and administered
at provincial
and/or district
levels.
2.3. By the end of the
project, there are
at least 4 different
types of
government
incentive schemes
for CBFWM
initiatives (at
national, provincial
and district levels)
Targets:
2.1. 435 government staff will be trained at
the end of project
2.2. 6 types of activity at each site
2.3. 4 incentives
TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
List activity results and
associated actions
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
71300
71600
74100
74200
74500
149,600
9,490
68,000
9,370
5,040
71300
120,470
Output 3
Coordination among and between different levels of government generates consistent policies and
programmes that support CBFWM
Ministry of Forestry
40
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators
and annual targets
Baseline:
Indicators:
3.1. No report
3.1. Official publication on
3.2. One collaborative activity
comprehensive review and
in demonstration sites
analysis of required coordination at
3.3. Comprehensive and
national and local levels,
integrated legal and
particularly focused on the
policy instrument on
administrative areas of the project
CBFWM is not
sites, is launched by the end of PY
available.
2
3.2. By the end of the project, number
of collaborative activities has
doubled compared with the
beginning of the project
3.3. By the end of the project year, at
least one legal and or policy draft
on CBFWM is launched and
widely discussed at national and
local levels
Output 4
Project Management
Targets:
3.1. One report published by
the end of PY 2
3.2. At least two collaborative
activities demonstration
site
3.3. At least one legal and or
policy draft on CBFWM
is launched and widely
discussed at national
and local levels,
particularly in each of the
project sites.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity in
results and
3.1.List
Monitoring
associated actions
review/analysis
of where
coordination is needed
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
3.2. Provide meeting and
workshop functional fora
for coordination among
and between level of
governments
X
X
X
X
3.3. Participatory-developed
drafts or new legal and
policy instruments on
CBFWM at all levels
X
X
X
X
4.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
X
X
X
X
5.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PLANNED BUDGET
71600
16,140
74100
68,900
74500
5,358
Ministry of Forestry
GEF
71400
71600
72500
93,552
14,921
46,731
UNDP
UNDP
71300
71400
71600
72400
72800
74100
74500
1,433,032
42,108
24,200
20,692
1,500
1,500
5,000
5,000
SUB TOTAL for GEF
Output 5
Project Management
SUB TOTAL for UNDP
100,000
1,533,032
TOTAL
41
Year: 5 (July 2013 – July 2014)
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
List activity results and
associated actions
TIMEFRAME
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Output 1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount
GEF
Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and social-economic conditions demonstrate
improved management using CBFWM
Baseline:
1.1 Average CBOs for
CBFWM in each site
prior to project
commencement = 5
1.2 150 CBO’s members
trained through
government-sponsored
community forestry
program (HKm
program) and other
relevant programs
1.3 Local CBFWM
management plan has
not yet developed by
CBOs. However,
community forest
management plans
have been developed
by CBOs in two sites
(Lampung and West
Nusa Tenggara).
1.4 None
Indicators:
1.1 At least 5 Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for
CBFWM established at each
demonstration site
1.2 By the end of the project, at least
30 % of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and
landless, are technically proficient
1.3 At the end of the project, six
critical watersheds have forest
and watershed management
plans developed in collaboration
with CBOs, recognized or
endorsed by Government and
under implementation
1.4 By the end of the project, 2
management plans of CBFWM
recognized or endorsed by
government
Targets:
1.1 10 CBOs for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration site
within 9 months of the
start of project
implementation
1.2 450 number of
community members.
1.3 A management plan is
completed in each
demonstration site
within one year of the
start of project
implementation
1.4 At least 2 CBFWM
management plans
recognized or endorsed
across demonstration
sites within 2 years of
the start of project
implementation
71300
71600
72200
72600
74100
74200
74500
1.1 Establishment of
functional management
group for CBFWM,
where participation of
women and the landless
increased at each
demonstration site
X
X
1.2 Through training and
capacity development,
technical competence of
members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including
women and landless are
enhanced
X
X
X
X
1.3 Development of local
participatory CBFWM
management plan at
each demonstration site
X
X
X
X
1.4 Government recognition
or endorsement (as
appropriate) of CBFWM
management plan in
demonstration sites
X
X
X
X
42
351,000
18,000
9,000
292,918
102,300
19,000
5,000
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline,
1.5
Baselineassociated
data to be indicators
establishedand annual
1.5 targets
By the end of the
within 6 months of the start of
project, water quality
project implementation
in each demonstration
1.6 None
site has improved,
1.7 None
shown by the increase
1.8 There are no CBO forums working
of the number and
on CBFWM
species of macroinvertebrates,
compared to the
condition in project
year 1
1.6 By the end of the
project, an agerement
between community
and government or
community and private
sectors on benefit
sharing at each
demonstration sites
1.7 By the end of the
project, at least 3
media products have
been generated
1.8 By the end of the
project, at least 1
CBOs forum working
for CBFWM
established at each
demonstration sites
and has produced
innovative action in
implementing CBFWM
1.5 Number and species of
macro-invertebrates
increased by 20 %
1.6 6 mechanisms
established effectively
1.7 Three medias of
communication
(ex: leaflet, bulletin,
documenter film etc)
have been produced in
each demonstration
site and at national
level
1.8 At least 1 forum of
CBFWM with a
minimum of 3 of CBOs
working for CBFWM
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity
results and
1.5List
Locally
developed
associated
actions
CBFWM
models
delivering improved
environmental services
and increased incomes
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
1.6 Effective mechanism for
equitable sharing of
benefits and reinvestment
X
X
X
X
1.7 Communication media of
examples of successful
CBFWM and lessons
learned from these
examples
X
X
X
X
1.8 Fora of CBOs working
for CBFWM provide basis
for sharing of lessons
learned and replication
X
X
X
X
43
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ministry
of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And
baseline,
Output
2 associated indicators and annual targets
Governmental agencies provide clear and quantifiable support to the development of CBFWM
initiatives.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Baseline:
2.1. 37 trained government
staff per year
2.1 Generation of
knowledge on CBFWM
by trained government
staffs and it utilization
to develop CBFWMrelated programme
X
X
X
X
2.2 Establish provincial and
district activities to
support CBFWM
X
X
X
X
2.3 Provide governmental
incentives to promote
CBFWM initiatives
X
X
X
X
2.2. 4 types of activity at
each site
2.3. 3 incentives
Indicators:
2.1. By the end of the
project at least
435 government
staff have been
trained and
certified in the use
of CBFWM
approaches.
2.2. By the end of the
project, at least 6
types of training
programmes on
CBFWM have
been developed
and administered
at provincial
and/or district
levels.
2.3. By the end of the
project, there are
at least 4 different
types of
government
incentive schemes
for CBFWM
initiatives (at
national, provincial
and district levels)
Targets:
2.1. 435 government staff will be trained at
the end of project
2.2. 6 types of activity at each site
2.3. 4 incentives
TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
List activity results and
associated actions
Ministry of Forestry
PLANNED BUDGET
GEF
71300
71600
74100
74200
74500
139,450
8,200
59,560
10,400
2,768
71300
128,000
Output 3
Coordination among and between different levels of government generates consistent policies and
programmes that support CBFWM
Ministry of Forestry
44
GEF
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
And baseline, associated indicators
and annual targets
Baseline:
Indicators:
3.1. No report
3.1. Official publication on
3.2. One collaborative activity
comprehensive review and
in demonstration sites
analysis of required coordination at
3.3. Comprehensive and
national and local levels,
integrated legal and
particularly focused on the
policy instrument on
administrative areas of the project
CBFWM is not
sites, is launched by the end of PY
available.
2
3.2. By the end of the project, number
of collaborative activities has
doubled compared with the
beginning of the project
3.3. By the end of the project year, at
least one legal and or policy draft
on CBFWM is launched and
widely discussed at national and
local levels
Output 4
Project Management
Targets:
3.1. One report published by
the end of PY 2
3.2. At least two collaborative
activities demonstration
site
3.3. At least one legal and or
policy draft on CBFWM
is launched and widely
discussed at national
and local levels,
particularly in each of the
project sites.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
activity in
results and
3.1.List
Monitoring
associated actions
review/analysis
of where
coordination is needed
X
TIMEFRAME
X
X
X
3.2. Provide meeting and
workshop functional fora
for coordination among
and between level of
governments
X
X
X
X
3.3. Participatory-developed
drafts or new legal and
policy instruments on
CBFWM at all levels
X
X
X
X
4.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
X
X
X
X
5.1. Support in staff cost;
service contracts, office
running cost;
communication services
and equipment
X
X
X
X
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PLANNED BUDGET
71600
14,506
74100
70,680
74500
6,950
Ministry of Forestry
GEF
71400
72500
93,179
4,595
UNDP
UNDP
71300
71400
71600
72400
72800
74100
74500
1,335,506
46,319
26,260
16,421
1,500
1,500
3,000
5,000
SUB TOTAL for GEF
Output 5
Project Management
SUB TOTAL for UNDP
100,000
1,435,506
TOTAL
45
Source
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Total
Yr 5
GEF
1,405,158
1,381,190
1,445,114
1,433,032
1,335,506
7,000,000
GoI (Parallel Funding/In-kind)
8,155,000
8,175,000
8,180,000
8,205,000
8,285,000
41,000,000
500,000
250,000
0
0
0
750,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
200,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
10,139,763
9,948,320
9,771,520
9,727,183
9,813,214
49,450,000
ICRAF (Parallel Funding/In-kind)
Ford Foundation (Parallel Funding/ In-kind)
UNDP
TOTAL
Notes:
a. An international specialist in Community-based Forest and Watershed Management will be recruited for 3 months during year 1, @$10,000/month
b. At each site, a regional coordinator, Forest and Watershed Management Specialist, and Agroforestry and Livelihood Specialist will support the demonstrations full time, at
a monthly salary of $1,850, increasing by 5% per year
c. At each site, contracting services to provide technical training in issues related to CBFWM will cost $17,500 per year, increasing by 5% per year; assuming 6 training
events @ $2,900/event
d. Travel costs include travel by project consultants from field sites to Jakarta and among field sites, at a unit cost of $880/visit, and assuming 17 person-visits in year 1; 14 in
each of years 2-3, 15 in year 4, and 20 in year 5
e. Equipment includes the purchase of two motorcycles at each site in year 1; maintenance and repairs for the motorcycles in each year thereafter, plus the purchase and
maintenance of minor field monitoring equipment, such as water flow monitors, etc.
f. Printing and publication assuming an average of 1000 copies per publication, at a unit cost of $2.10 per copy (including design and distribution costs), with an estimated 4
publications in year 1, 3 in year 2, 5 in year 3, 4 in year 4, and 8 in year 5
g. One Natural Resources Management Policy and Legislative Specialist working full time at each site @$2,200/month, increasing by 5% per year
h. Training by professional training experts in issues related to building government support for CBFWM; assuming a total of 10 training events in year 1, 16 events in each
of years 2-3, 12 events in year 4, and 10 events in year 5, at an average cost of $5,000/session in year 1, increasing by 5%/year (includes some travel costs for participants)
i. Travel is mainly associated with central and local government officials and/or CBO representatives visiting field sites, including inter-site visits; unit cost of travel is
assumed at $600/person/visit, with a projected 20 person-visits in year 1, 12 in year 2, 13 in year 3, 14 in year 4, and 11 in year 5; with costs increasing by 5%/year
j. Printing and publication assuming an average of 1000 copies per publication, at a unit cost of $2.10 per copy (including design and distribution costs), with an estimated
one publication in year 1, 4 in each of years 2-4, and 5 in year 5
k. One Outreach and Communication Specialist working full time at each site @$2,100/month, increasing by 5% per year
l. Training by professional training experts in issues related to policy analysis and development for local and central government officials and community members; assuming
2 training sessions per site per year at a cost of $5,000/session, increasing by 5%/year (includes some travel costs for participants)
m. Travel is mainly associated with central and local government officials and/or CBO representatives visiting field sites, including inter-site visits; unit cost of travel is
assumed at $600/person/visit, with a projected 30 person-visits in year 1, 16 in year 2, 24 in year 3, 24 in year 4, and 20 in year 5; with costs increasing by 5%/year
n. Project management will be provided by a National Coordinator, a Deputy Coordinator, and a Programme Assistant, working full-time, at an average of $3,000/month,
increasing at 5% annually
o. Travel is the cost of the National Coordinator visiting each project site twice a year, @$900/trip, increasing by 5% per year
46
p. Office supplies include computers, printers, communications equipment, etc. at six field sites plus the project coordination unit, assuming $3,000 per office initial
investment, supplies and maintenance at $5,000 per year, and replacement of some equipment in year 3.
q. NGO small grants programme; estimated 12 grants per year (two per site) at an average of $25,000/grant
47
STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT
PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Land degradation in Indonesia is characterized by processes such as deforestation, soil erosion, and
increased aridity. These result from processes such as unsustainable legal and illegal logging, forest
fires, conflicts of land and resource tenure, illegal entry and conversion of natural forest as well as legal
and illegal mining.
The proposed “Strengthening Community Based Forest and Watershed Management” (SCBFWM)
project is designed to enhance and scale-up the GoI's programs on community-based forest and
watershed management, by addressing inequitable distribution of benefits from forest resources and
lack of coordination among stakeholders and sectors, as major underlying causes of land and forest
degradation. The project is specifically designed to complement a) the 5-year national pledge of
approximately US$ 300 million to rehabilitate degraded forest and land distributed in 282 prioritized
watersheds located in 400 districts (33 provinces), and b) the GoI's annually approved pledge – from
the Reforestation Fund – for district reforestation.
Implementing the SCBFWM project will require multi-stakeholder partnerships including local
communities. Previous experience in Indonesia has shown that conservation objectives can not be
achieved if attention is not simultaneously given to community development. Therefore, the SCBFWM
project needs to pay attention to further pro-poor engagement linked to conservation. Community
contributions will be stronger if supported by individuals within the community who have the experience
and ability to cooperate or interact with other Parties or stakeholders.
B. INCREMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
Business-as-Usual
The involvement of community living around the forest in managing and conserving the natural
resources has been very limited. Community involvement is more associated with supporting
government initiatives than on forest’s sustainability. Collaboration between all levels of stakeholders
is weakened by the problem of coordination, not only among sectors but also within government
organizations.
Current approaches to rehabilitating degraded forests and watersheds lack
collaboration and coordination between different sectors and departments, leading to limited impact of
initiatives on the ground and threatening the sustainability of the outcomes achieved to date.
Strategic knowledge management is not part of any program so that existing knowledge is not
automatically incorporated into project design and implementation and lessons learned do not lead to a
continuous feedback for changes in approaches and practices. Most projects have more of a focus on
how to implement activities based on the outlined program rather than conducting evaluation on the
outcomes and outputs for sustainable impact. This means that current high levels of deforestation and
land degradation in Indonesia will continue, and the poorest segment of society – that which lives in
and around forests in the more remote parts of the country will continue to lose future development
options.
Under business as usual, in the absence of the SCBFWM Project, the Government of Indonesia would
provide budgetary support to CBFWM of about $33,510,000.
Global Environmental Benefits
The project will produce global environmental benefits within the context of sustainable development
and forest and watershed management through maintaining and/or restoring ecosystem services, such
as water and soil retention, carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation in the selected critical
watersheds. Reduced erosion and sedimentation and improved hydrological functions will reduce land
degradation.
Biodiversity conservation considerations will be incorporated into forest and watershed management
through the following:2









Critical watersheds have been selected in the main centers of species richness
The selected watersheds are all part of important protected area zones, so their sustainable
management will reduce the pressure on the areas being protected.
Threats to biodiversity have been identified and can be reduced at each of the six identified
sites through community-based forest and watershed management approaches
Periodic threat assessments are incorporated in project implementation and results
incorporated in knowledge management
Knowledge barriers related to the effective conservation of biodiversity will be identified and
addressed by the project
Wherever feasible, forest rehabilitation will apply assisted natural forest regeneration practices
Biodiversity conservation objectives will be integrated in watershed management strategies and
plans
Awareness-raising activities will emphasize the local, regional and global importance of
conserving biodiversity in forest and watershed management
Watershed zoning will consider biodiversity conservation needs
Through knowledge management, information on best practices on community-based forest and
watershed management will be accessible to communities and other stakeholders throughout the
country to facilitate replication of the activities beyond the project area. Knowledge gained will also be
packaged appropriately to be of interest to other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and
threats to watersheds and the environmental services that they provide.
Specific targets and indicators for biodiversity conservation impacts at
each site are listed in the Project Logical Framework, Part II below.
2
49
Logical Results Framework
The Goal towards which the project will contribute is to eliminate land and forest degradation in
Indonesia. The Objective of the project is to support effort in reducing forest and land degradation in
order to restore watershed functions and ecosystem services with the Outcomes being Forest and
Land Degradation reduced and watershed functions and ecosystem services restored.
To achieve this objective, three Outputs have been identified, which correspond with the three barriers
to effective measure to reduce forest and land degradation identified above. The five Outcomes are:
OUTPUT 1: Six critical watersheds with diverse ecological and socio-economic conditions
demonstrate improved management using CBFWM
Project costs: GEF: $4,115,818; Co-financing: $37,000,000, of which: GoI: $35,950,000; UNDP: $100,000;
ICRAF: $750,000; Ford Foundation: $200,000
In the absence of the project, there would continue to be a lack of successful CBM models that are
considered representative of the conditions in Indonesia. Although the GoI is committed to communitybased forest and watershed management, there are relatively few examples of successful models, and
those which do exist tend to represent atypical environmental or socio-economic conditions. Without a
number of examples of good CBFWM models, both communities and government officials at all levels
tend to be skeptical about the chances for success. Furthermore, without successful examples of
CBFWM, there is a tendency to “re-invent the wheel”, and to repeat mistakes encountered in previous
efforts.
This project will learn from the shortcomings of previous efforts to demonstrate models of CBFWM in
the following ways:
 The demonstration sites have been selected on the basis of representativity of ecosystems and
social systems that are characteristic of conditions leading to deforestation and land
degradation in Indonesia.
 Barriers related to government acceptance of the results of models have been carefully
analyzed, and project interventions designed to overcome these barriers
The project incorporates explicit interventions to promote replication and scale-up
Consequently, the project will develop and implement models of CBFWM at six sites, which have been
selected during implementation of the PPG to represent a diverse range of environmental and socioeconomic conditions found in Indonesia. It should be noted that the level of GEF funding to support
these demonstrations is insufficient.
Therefore, GEF funds will be initially focused on few
demonstration sites, supported by co-financing from the Ministry of Forestry and other relevant
institutions.
In order to secure this Outcome, eight Outputs will be required. These are:
Activity 1.1: Establishment of functional management group for CBFWM, where participation of women
and the landless increased at each demonstration site
Lessons both from elsewhere in Indonesia and from other countries have indicated that an essential
pre-requisite for an effective CBFWM model is a functional management group in which both
community representatives and local government officials provide support to the development and
implementation of the model.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this Activity include:

Assessment of existing institutional capacity of community-based organizations (CBOs) working
for CBFWM

Facilitate designing process of a socially-acceptable management structure

Formal registration of the functional management group

Targeted institutional and individual capacity building
50
Activity 1.2: Training and Capacity building to enhanced technical competence of members of CBOs for
CBFWM, including women and the landless
Technical competence of members of CBOs for CBFWM, including women and the landless, is a key
contributing factor in developing CBFWM at micro level, starting from a piece of land managed by a
single household up to an area managed by a number of households. Technical competence covers
the following aspects but not limited to: land and water conservation techniques, participatory forest
and watershed management skills, post-harvesting skills, community-based bio-monitoring skills,
institutional management and entrepreneurship skills.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this Activity include:

Training needs assessment, with special attention paid to the needs of women and the landless

Assessment of specialized approaches to training required to benefit women and the landless

Participatory designing process of training modules to address needs identified in the
assessments

Planning of training activities, including the need for on-going and repeated training

Training of trainers and dissemination on various technical aspects

Implementation of training plan
Activity 1.3: Development of Local participatory CBFWM management plan at each demonstration site
Locally-developed participatory CBFWM management plan would be ecologically and socially
appropriate, and would be able to address local problems and needs. This plan would also support the
process of building strong commitments among members of CBOs and other local stakeholders in
managing forest and watershed areas.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this Activity include:




Participatory assessment of current weaknesses, problems, and possible solutions
Establishment of consensus on interventions required to address weaknesses and problems
Identification of stakeholders’ responsibilities in implementing interventions
Formulation of micro management plan of CBFWM by each CBO at each demonstration site
Activity 1.4: Government recognition or endorsement (as appropriate) of CBFWM management plan in
demonstration sites
The level of government recognition, involvement and commitment is important in determining the likely
success of CBFWM. Lessons from previous attempts to promote CBFWM have indicated that,
whatever the level of involvement envisaged for government partners, successful implementation of the
locally-developed participatory management plan arising from Output 1.3 depends on recognition or
endorsement (as appropriate) by local government.
Indicative sub-activities to support this Activity include:
 A series of communications through formal and informal meetings between CBOs’ members and
government representatives
 Facilitation discussion on government recognition or endorsement (as appropriate) of CBFWM
management plans in multi-stakeholders fora such as Forum DAS (watershed forum)
Activity 1.5: Development of local CBFWM models delivering improved environmental services and
increased income
With a participatory management plan recognized or endorsed by local government, an effective model
of CBFWM can be developed since CBO members have assurance in managing their areas. Effective
51
and successful CBFWM models will improve environmental services and will increase socioeconomic
benefit. By having these two positive impacts, CBO members and other communities who have
received benefits will continue managing their CBFWM areas in sustainable ways.
Indicative sub-activities that contribute to the accomplishment of this Activity include:







Facilitation of implementation of CBFWM management plan based on upstream and downstream
approach
Identification and implementation of specific environmental protection actions such as bamboo
planting along the riverside to increase water quality and reduce soil erosion.
Identification and implementation of specific measures to increase incomes without adversely
affecting environmental quality. Possible examples include planting and management of
multipurpose tree species and promotion of sustainably harvested non-timber forest products
(rattan, fruits, honey bees, and others)
Facilitation of participatory monitoring to investigate problems and challenges faced by CBO
members in managing their CBFWM models and to identify potential solutions.
Facilitation of participatory action research to evaluate CBFWM achievements.
Facilitation of development alternative marketing, such as fair trade and green market.
Facilitation of formation of local marketing institution or local livelihood connection center.
Activity 1.6: Establishment of effective mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits and re-investment
Successful CBFWM models will contribute to the improvement of environmental services not only in
areas where the models located but also downstream areas. CBOs that have developed successful
CBFWM models should receive incentives, either financial or non-financial ones, from Parties
(stakeholders) who benefit from improved environmental services. Development of effective
mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits such as payment for environmental services or crosssubsidy mechanism will motivate CBO members and other Parties (stakeholders) to provide reinvestment for the development of CBFWM initiatives.
Indicative activities contributing to this Output include:




Exploration of potential mechanism of payment for environmental services
Facilitation of development of effective mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits and reinvestment
Development of transparent process in managing sharing investment among Parties
(stakeholders) that are involved
Development of participatory monitoring on implementation of the mechanism.
Activity 1.7. Communication media of examples of successful CBFWM and lessons learned from these
examples
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this Activity include:



Development and production of communication media of successful CBFWM and lessons
learned
Dissemination of above media
Extensive promotion on the CBFWM media developed in particular site (dissemination of
informative and attractive leaflets, local newsletter and electronic media such as radio,
television and others).
Activity 1.8: Fora of CBOs working for CBFWM provide basis for exchange of lessons learned and
replication
Fora for CBOs working for CBFWM are intended to become learning media among CBOs’ members
where they can reciprocally share lessons learned from managing their lands, forests and watershed.
52
Successful models of CBFWM need to be linked to government initiatives to combat deforestation and
land degradation, such as GERHAN and HkM. These programmes also provide an effective
mechanism to promote replication. Therefore, establishing CBO fora will provide not only the basis for
sustainability in the models supported by the project, but also create conditions conducive to
replication.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this activity include:



Facilitation of participatory formulation of fora for CBOs working for CBFWM
Facilitation of communication with local government so that the fora would be recognized and
be supported
Facilitation of meetings and comparative field studies for exchange of ideas and lessons
learned
OUTPUT 2: Governmental agencies provide support to formulate to the development of CBFWM
initiatives
Project costs: GEF: $ 1,187,818; Co-financing: $2,000,000, of which: GoI:$ 2,000,000
In the absence of the project, government support to CBM initiatives would remain weak.
Strengthening of existing CBFWM models, replication and scaling-up of successful CBFM models
needs political will and support from governments of various levels and governmental agencies of
related sectors. In other words, development of CBFWM initiatives can be effectively continued in
sustainable way if there is programmatic, technical and financial support from national and local
governments. It is necessary to ensure that governments understand that CBFWM will reduce their
overall costs in the long-term due to a reduced need to address environmental and social problems
arising from poor management of natural resources, and that therefore investment in CBFWM makes
economic sense.
Furthermore, replication and scaling-up of successful CBFWM examples requires efforts on the part of
local government agencies to assist communities in learning of the successful examples, and building
capacity to implement similar measures locally. These efforts will be succeeded and sustainable if
supported by governmental agencies together with other supports.
In order to secure this Outcome, three main Activities will be required. These are:
Activity 2.1. Generation of knowledge on CBFWM by trained government staff (at central and local
levels) and the knowledge utilization to support CBFWM-related programs
CBFWM has not yet received much attention in human resource development at government agencies,
resulting in widespread misunderstanding (and often associated suspicion) about the concept. This
Output will improve the level of knowledge and understanding among government staff.
Indicative sub-activities required to produce this activity include:

Training needs assessment

Design and preparation of training materials and training courses

Facilitation of trainings on CBFWM

Post-training assessment and design of on-going activities to re-enforce training
Activity 2.2: Implementation of provincial and district programs that support CBFWM
Implementation of Community based Forest Management (CBFM) national policies that support
CBFWM at the local level will be more effective if provincial and district governments establish
programs that support CBFWM. While government officers who would be directly involved in CBFWM
will be trained under Output 2.1, there is also a need to mobilize awareness and promote action among
officials who are not directly involved in CBFWM, but whose support is required to ensure that local
policies and plans are consistent with the promotion of CBFWM.
53
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this activity include:



Awareness-raising events for government officials at provincial and district levels on the need to
develop CBFWM-supported programs
Facilitation of participatory review of provincial and district development programmes to ensure
consistency with the CBFWM approach
Facilitation of development of long, medium, and short term programs of provincial and district
governments that support CBFWM.
Activity 2.3: Ensuring governmental incentives do not discourage CBFWM initiatives
Provincial and district development programs should not create perverse incentives that encourage
mis-management of natural resources. Furthermore, local government policies should not discourage
local communities from developing, replicating, or up-scaling CBFWM initiatives. In some cases,
especially in areas where there has been little tradition of CBFWM, it may be necessary to create
positive incentives, at least in the short-term, but in all locations it is necessary to ensure the abolition
of any negative incentives.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this activity include:
 Assessment of the types of incentives that are in effect and which discourage communities from
developing CBFWM models
 Review of existing regulations and measures to create appropriate incentives
 Formulation and endorsement of modifications to existing regulations and measures, based on
previous review
 Establishment of a monitoring system to assess, on an on-going basis, the effectiveness of
incentives to promote CBFWM
OUTPUT 3: Coordination among and between different levels of government generates
consistent policies and programmes that support CBFWM
Project costs: GEF: $996,939; Co-financing: $2,250,000, of which: GoI: $1,850,000; UNDP: $400,000
Forest policy in Indonesia is mostly produced by forest related government institutions. At the national
level, the MOF and at the regional level, the Forestry Offices have legal standing to make national and
regional policies and programmes. At the regional level, policies are very much influenced by the local
budgetary system. In many cases, differences in priorities between the national and regional levels
result in possible conflicts. These conflicts may occur between sectors, e.g. between forestry and non
forestry sectors, and have been seen in several locations. Coordination among and between different
levels of government is required for better implementation of CBFWM in the field.
In the absence of the project, lack of coordination among and between different levels of government
would continue to pose a barrier to effective implementation of CBM. Incomplete or weak legal and
policy frameworks would continue to hamper replication and scaling-up of CBM.
Parties (stakeholders) that have developed CBFWM initiatives, including local communities, need to
have security in continuing their efforts. Forest policy in Indonesia is mostly produced by forest related
government institutions. At the national level, the MOF and at the regional level, the Forestry Offices
have legal standing to make national and regional policies and programmes. At the regional level,
policies are very much influenced by the local budgetary system. In many cases, differences in
priorities between the national and regional levels result in possible conflicts. These conflicts may occur
between sectors, e.g. between forestry and non forestry sectors, and have been seen in several
locations. Coordination among and between different levels of government is required for better
implementation of CBFWM in the field. Supportive legal and policy instruments at levels of government
are significant keys that can provide security, including tenurial security. The case of forest farmers in
West Nusa Tenggara can be taken as an example. They have been participating in a pilot project of
government-sponsored community forestry program (HKm) for a number of years where they are
allowed to manage state forest land. However, these farmers do not feel secure as they haven’t
received HKm permit. They have additional problem as the forest area where they work has been
54
proposed as grand forest park by local government. Legal implication of this proposal is the forest
farmers would no longer be allowed to work in the area.
National legal and policy instruments that support local governments in establishing local legal and
policy instruments in CBFWM are highly needed. By having such instruments, local governments
would be more active in strengthening and developing CBFWM. In order to achieve good coordination,
the required Outputs are:
Activity 3.1: Review/analysis of where coordination is needed
The decentralization of government in Indonesia has resulted in a situation where there are
inconsistencies in many sectors between central and local government policies. Such inconsistencies
frequently result in a lack of clarity concerning what is, or is not possible. For example, management of
“traditional” forest lands (hutan adat) has been interpreted by some administrations as CBFWM, but
government policy on this point is not consistent. Additionally, policy is often not consistent even at
the same level of government across sectors. The result is a very complex situation, in which it is
known that inconsistencies exist, but analyses of the impacts of such problems have not been
conducted, and solutions are therefore not clear. Activities under this output will generate an analysis
of where coordination is currently lacking. This applies both to coordination among sectors at the
national and local level, and coordination within sectors at the central versus local levels.
Indicative sub-activities required to produce this activity include:

Analysis of central government policies related to CBFWM in all relevant sectors

Identification of institutions responsible for implementation of policies and canvassing of the views
of officials regarding the appropriateness of the existing policies

Analysis at six sites of local policies within each sector vis-à-vis national policy in order to identify
discrepancies

Discussions with relevant local officials regarding the origin and impact of any discrepancies

Analysis at six sites of local policies across sectors that relate to CBFWM
Activity 3.2: Establishment of functional fora for coordination among and between level of governments
The national government has recommended to regional government that coordination fora should be
established covering issues such as CBFWM. This is in response to a recognition that governmentcommunity mechanisms are required for effective CBFWM, so that local and national policy can
respond to lessons generated as examples of CBFWM are established. However, so far few regions
have established such fora, usually due to the lack of clarity resulting from the policy inconsistencies to
be addressed under Output 3.1. Some who have established fora are Central Sulawesi, and the Lake
Toba water catchment area. Resolution of policy inconsistencies identified under Output 3.1 will allow
the establishment of fora where they do not already exist, and the strengthening of fora where they
have been established.
Indicative sub-activities required to achieve this activity are:




Identification of participants in coordination fora at each site
Development of forum structure, functions and processes
Organization of meetings to discuss policy inconsistencies
Analysis of institutional arrangements required to ensure sustainability of the forum
Activity 3.3: Development of drafts or new legal and policy instruments that will be carry out with
participatory approach on CBFWM at all levels
Comprehensive review and analysis of existing legal and policy instruments would help the project and
related Parties (stakeholders) in communicating with the decision makers on the need to have revision
on certain regulations and policies or to have new regulations and policies.
55
The project can provide technical assistance by facilitating participatory process of developing drafts of
revised or new legal and policy instruments at all levels.
Indicative sub-activities required to deliver this activity include:
 In response to weaknesses identified under Output 3.1, stakeholders’ views are sought
concerning appropriate policy modifications
 Drafts of revised or new legal and policy instruments at various levels are developed through a
participatory process
 Senior provincial and national policy makers are engaged in facilitating endorsement of revised
policy documents
Incremental Reasoning
The GEF funding will be focused on a strengthening community based programmes of CBFWM. This
responds to past lessons that community involvement is the most effective means to ensure reduced
land degradation and deforestation.
However, barriers exist that prevent these lessons from being mainstreamed. Barriers include
institutional inertia, local institutions failing to counteract short-term financial interests, incomplete
administrative coordination, and limited legal and policy support to CBFWM. GEF funding will address
these barriers so that the additional models of community-based forest and watershed management
developed under the project can be replicated and scaled-up.
Co-financing
The Ministry of Forestry will provide $41 million in co-financing, mainly through Watershed
Management and Social Forestry programmes. This fund is not an extra fund added on top of the
grant received from GEF for this project, but will complement it. UNDP will provide $500,000; Ford
Foundation will provide $200,000 while ICRAF will provide a total of $750,000.
Summary of Costs
RESULT
Business as Usual and Costs
Project Costs
Local Benefits:
Local
economic
development
comes at the cost of natural
capital, thus reducing options for
future development.
Effective community-based natural
resource
management
demonstrated, resulting in increased
equity in local economic benefits,
and strengthened local institutions.
Conditions
created
to
allow
replication and scale-up.
Global Benefits:
Continued deforestation, resulting
in loss of globally significant
biodiversity
and
forest
environmental services, such as
soil and water retention.
Deforestation addressed on up to
500,000ha, and conditions created
to allow replication and scale-up,
thus conserving globally significant
biodiversity
and
forest
environmental services, such as soil
and water retention
OBJECTIVE/OUTCOME:
To
support effort in reducing forest
and land degradation in order to
restore watershed functions and
ecosystem services
GoI: $$33,510,000
56
GEF: $7,000,000
($5,474,974 for program and $
1,525,027 for administration and
M&E)
Co-financing: $42,450,000, of which:
GoI: $41,000,000
ICRAF: $750,000
UNDP: $500,000
Ford Foundation:$200,000
OUTPUT
1:
Six
critical
watersheds
with
diverse
ecological and socio-economic
conditions
demonstrate
improved management using
CBFWM
GEF: $ 4,115,818
Co-financing: $37,000,000, of which:
GoI: $35,950,000
UNDP: $100,000
ICRAF: $750,000
Ford Foundation:$200,000
GoI: $30,263,060
Activity 1.1: Establishment of
functional management group
for CBFWM, where women and
other marginalized groups (e.g.
landless
farmers)
actively
participate,
at
each
demonstration site
The CBO that will be established
could be less than 5 and ignore to
the women and the landless group
5 CBOs will be established at each
demonstration sites during 4 years
GoI: $6,932,000
GEF: $ 454,472
GoI: $ 8,000,000
Activity
1.2.
Training
and
Capacity building to enhanced
technical
competence
of
members of CBOs for CBFWM,
including women and the
landless
Less than 150 CBO member will
be trained and could be the
participant selection will not
enough pay attention to women
and the landless in the community
150 CBOs’ members trained
through
government-sponsored
community forestry program (HKm
program)
and
other
relevant
programs
GoI: $3,380,400
GEF: $ 340,338
GoI: $4,000,000
ICRAF: $250,000
Activity 1.3: Development of
Local
participatory
CBFWM
management plan at each
demonstration site
There is no management plan
established
At least 1 management plans will be
established at each demonstration
site
GoI: $5,208,864
GEF: $ 650,352
GoI: $ 6,000,000
Activity
1.4:
Government
recognition or endorsement (as
appropriate)
of
CBFWM
management plan in selected
sites
No final CBFWM management
plan that recognized and endorsed
Activity 1.5: Development of
local
models
to
deliver
improved
environmental
services and increased incomes
No ES model will be developed
At least 2 CBFWM management
plans recognized or endorsed
across demonstration sites
GoI: $3,700,600
GEF: $ 558,122
GoI: $4,000,000
GoI: $4,890,780
At least 1 ES model will be
developed at each demonstration
site
GEF: $ 637,855
GoI: $5,500,000
ICRAF: $400,000
Ford Foundation: $100,000
Activity 1.6: Employment of
effective
mechanism
for
equitable sharing of benefits
and re-investment
Effective mechanism for equitable
sharing and re-investment that
implemented could be less than 6
It will be 6 mechanism for equitable
sharing of benefits and reinvestment effective implemented
GoI: $3,900,780
GEF: $ 478,391
GoI: $4,500,000
ICRAF: $100,000
Ford Foundation: $100,000
57
Output
1.7.
Communication
media
of
examples
of
successful CBFWM and lessons
learned from these examples
Communication media will be
published on less than 3 media
and or not well distributed
3 communication media will be
developed and distributed
GEF: $ 526,150
GoI: $945,660
GoI: $2,150,000
UNDP: $100,000
Output 1.8: Provision of lessons
learned
exchanges
and
replication Fora of CBOs at local
and provincial levels
The fora CBO that will be
established at the project less than
3
and not well functioned
3 fora of CBOs will be established at
the end of project
GoI: $1,303,976
GoI: $3,000,000
OUTPUT
2:
Governmental
agencies provide support to the
development
of
CBFWM
initiatives
GoI: $1,640,000
Activity 2.1.
Generation of knowledge on
CBFWM by trained government
staffs and it utilization to
develop
CBFWM-related
programme
Governmental staff who will be
trained fewer than 50 person
GoI: $295,140
Activity 2.2:
Implementation of Provincial
and district programs that
support CBFWM
Activity
2.3:
Provision
of
governmental
incentives
promote CBFWM initiatives
GEF: $ 470,139
GEF: $ 1,187,810
Co-financing: $2,000,000, of which:
GoI:$ 2,000,000
435 governmental staffs will be
trained at the end of project
GEF: $ 312,579
GoI: $ 345,000
Supporting from provincial and
district could be for less than 6
CBFWM activities
6 CBFWM activities will be
conducted at each demonstration
site
GoI: $699,300
GEF: $ 462,271
GoI: $790,000
Might be only one CBFWM
incentives established due to
inadequate on technical assitance
4 CBFWM incentives will be
established across demonstration
sites
GoI: $645,560
GEF: $ 412,960
GoI: $865,000
OUTPUT 3: Coordination among
and between different levels of
government
generates
consistent
policies
and
programmes
that
support
CBFWM/PHBM
(joint
forest
Management)
GoI: $1,606,940
Activity 3.1: Review/analysis of
where coordination is needed
Review report could be published
only at national level
GEF: $996,939
Co-financing: $2,250,000, of which:
GoI: $1,850,000
UNDP: $400,000
One review report at each
demonstration site at the end of
project will be published
GoI: $738,840
GEF: $ 411,077
GoI: $900,000
UNDP: $175,000
Activity 3.2: Establishment of
functional fora coordination
Fora collaborative will be less than
12
and
not
across
the
58
It will be 12 fora collaborative across
demonstration among and between
among and between of level
government
demonstration sites
GoI: $391,100
Output 3.3: Development of
drafts or new legal and policy
instruments that are prepared
with participatory approach on
CBFWM at all levels
The participatorially developed
draft will be drafted but not at all
demonstration site
level government at the end of
project
GEF: $ 354,727
GoI: $ 450,000
UNDP: $125,000
One
Participatorially-developed
drafts or new legal and policy
instruments in place at each
demonstration site
GoI: $477,000
GEF: $ 231,135
GoI: $500,000
UNDP: $100,000
59
II.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
MoF holds the national mandate for UNCCD on assessment and application. This is in line with the
“National Report: Combating Land Degradation in Indonesia, Progress report on the implementation of
the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), April 2002”, which among others
stipulated that the National Focal Points are the Director of Watershed Management and Land
Rehabilitation, and Director, Bureau of Foreign Cooperation and Investment.
The Watershed Management Directorate is responsible for the preparation of policy formulation,
standardization, technical guidance and evaluation in the field of watershed management. This is
reflected in the Natural Resources Rehabilitation and Restoration Programme (RPSDA) and
Sustainable Utilization Programme of Natural Resources (PRSDA) of the Long Term National
Development Plan (RPJP 2005 – 2025) and the Medium Development Planning (RPJM 2004 – 2009
and the coming RPJM 2010 - 2014).
In implementing the aforementioned mandate, the Directorate of Watershed Management works
closely with the Directorate General of Forest Planning (DG Planology) that carries out the Forest
Resource Accounting (Neraca Sumber Daya Hutan) as an input for sustainable forest management.
The Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA) will take the biodiversity and ecology
consideration of integrated watershed management in a landscape context. In terms of general natural
resources database system, the MoF collaborates with the National Survey and Mapping Coordinating
Agency (Bakosurtanal). For the aforementioned reasons MoF is designated project Implementing
Partner of the SCBFWM project.
Under the mandate of Implementing Partner, MoF, its Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and
Social Forestry, Directorate of Watershed Management will execute the project on behalf of the GoI
under the National Implementation (NIM) modality of the UNDP. It will be responsible for ensuring
active cooperation of, and coordination with, the relevant project stakeholders, and for ensuring that all
activities are executed accordingly and as per the approved Project Document and in line with the
UNDP’s rules and regulations on project management, financial management and procurement
policies, as stated in the Project Implementation Guidelines (PIMG).
II. 1. Project Implementation guidelines
As an Implementing Partner, MoF will appoint a National Project Director (NPD) who will ensure the
delivery of the project outputs and the judicious use of project resources. This will ensure that the
expected project outputs are delivered using the most efficient and cost effective implementation
strategies, procedures, resources.
Project management will be led by the National Project Manager (NPM), supported by a team of
technical and operational staff housed within the Ministry of Forestry. Facilities and operational support
for the project team will be provided by the Ministry of Forestry as part of its in-kind support to the
project.
A Project Board will be established and will comprise of the representatives of the project stakeholders
(such as: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Public Work, Ministry of Agriculture, BAPPENAS, Ministry
of Finance, and Ministry of Home Affairs), MoF, UNDP, ICRAF and Ford Foundation. The Project
Board will play the role of an advisory committee where the NPD will serve as the Executive of the
Project Board.
UNDP together with the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor for Land Degradation and Biodiversity
in the Asia-Pacific region will carry out the GEF oversight that is referred to as project assurance.
UNDP will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), including organizing project reviews,
project audits, approving annual implementation work plans and budget revisions, monitoring progress,
identifying problems, suggesting actions to improve project performance, facilitating timely delivery of
project inputs, and provide linkages to the other sub-regional, Asia-Pacific regional and global
initiatives. All M&E functions will be carried out in line with standard UNDP and UNDP-GEF
procedures. UNDP CO co-financing is accommodated in the Annual Work Plan with Direct
implementation (DIM) modality and is assigned in Output 5. Project Management, separate from the
GEF funded Outputs.
60
SCBFWM Organisation Structure
Project Board
Senior Beneficiary
BAPPENAS, Min. of Agriculture,
Public Work, Environment,
Community Representatives
Executive
Senior Supplier
Ministry Of Forestry
(National Project Director)
UNDP, ICRAF, Ford
Foundation
National Level
Project Assurance
UNDP (Environment Unit) &
BPKP
Regional Partners
Local Governments,
Private Sectors, Research
Institutions, Universities,
NGOs and others
Project Management Unit
Project Manager
Finance & Administrative
Assistants, Office Clerks
Technical Support
Forestry & WSM, Public Outreach &
Communication, Policy &
Legislation, Agro-forestry &
Livelihood Specialists
**Head of
BPDAS
(6 Sites)
Regional Level
Short Term Technical
Assistants (STTA), UN
Volunteers (UNV)
Site Coordination
Regional Facilitators,
Administrative Assistant &
Office Clerks
NTB
CBOs
NTT
CBOs
North Sumatera
CBOs
Lampung
CBOs
Central Java
CBOs
Central Sulawesi
CBOs
II. 2. Ministry of Forestry Coordination and UNDP Support Services
Ministry of Forestry Coordination
Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry (DGLRSF) of Ministry of Forestry as
executing agency of the project will act also as coordinating body in relation with other governmental
and non-governmental organizations concerned for the smooth implementation of the project.
Watershed Management Centre (or Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai, BPDAS) is the technical
executing unit of the Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry, and it will be
involved mainly in facilitation of coordination of project implementation at district and provincial levels.
Institution in provincial government level such as Regional Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA),
Forestry and Agriculture Offices, and others will be facilitated by BPDAS from time to time. In the
meantime, in District level, the Regent, BAPPEDA, District level Forestry and Agriculture offices and
other related institutions including “watershed fora” would be actively involved in the planning and
implementing of the project. This mechanism will synchronize and synergize the activities among
sectors as well as their parallel funding in the project site to achieve some of specific project outputs
and outcomes.
As a Nationally implemented project, BPDAS role in SCBFWM will be as the executing hands of the
Directorate of Watershed Management of the Ministry of Forestry, whereby the district level project
activities implementation will be closely guided, however no funding will be directly channelled to local
governments, and all funding expenditure will be managed by the Ministry of Forestry. The project will
follow the DIPA for National Implementing Partner execution.
61
“Lembaga Adat” or customary communities as well as local Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
would also be given an important role to support the project. Local people/communities will play an
important role in a participatory or community based approaches which will be applied in planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation age of the Project.
UNDP Support Services
Provision of services by UNDP will cover the operational, administrative and substantive matters. The
administrative and operation may include recruitment of human resources to International procurement
for certain products and services upon request from the implementing partners to monitoring and
evaluation of certain themes, and or mainstreaming, e.g. Gender Balance and Human Rights based
approach. Whereby substantively UNDP will act as catalyst and facilitator to bring benefit to
beneficiaries (CBOs and their coverage of certain number of households), and bridging between the
National level fora and district level actions. The latter is made possible as there are many on-going
projects dealing with community based initiative in the UNDP Indonesia’s patronage, such as the
Global Environment Facility Small Grants Project, UN Joint Initiative in NTT, Aceh and Papua, UN
REDD that will also focus in Central Sulawesi as its pilot site, Civil Society Organization Project by
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Unit, Papua Development Project by Poverty Reduction Unit and
Access to Justice Project by Governance Unit. These projects’ role hence is to enhance coordination
and lessons learned sharing.
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) also will act as relay people to the community, to assist the project in
bringing the project objectives to and from the community themselves, as the volunteers will be
recruited from the local youth and or as close as possible those young Indonesia professionals who are
familiar with the local tradition and customs, and to stay amongst the community themselves. The
effectiveness of the UNVs has been tested in the implementation of other UNDP projects in regards to
for example dialogue and trust building between Government and Community, and or Community and
other stakeholder groups.
II. 3. Collaborative arrangements with related projects
According to FAO (2006), the development of programs relevant to sustainable and integrated
watershed management should have these principles, (1) give top priority to strengthening subsistence
farming and implementing soil and water conservation; (2) use a mass-employment method of land
development, if possible, in order to provide quick-cash for the affected community; (3) give incentives
to those using the conservation principles on their land management – in this case, subsidies on
credit/loan will be effective; (4) support quick-cash activities (for example, handicrafts, animal-feed
improvement, and animal husbandry) during the farming off-season; and (5) intensify technical aids
and information-giving in those areas unfamiliar with the conservation matters.
Based on the FAO’s 5 principles, therefore, the CBWM programs have been, and are being,
implemented by various institutions in Indonesia are complementary to the SCBFWM programs.
The aim of SCBFWM in a number of proposed sites is to reduce forest and land degradation in order to
restore watershed functions and ecosystem services, where the upstream-downstream approach will
be very effective. Both the Directorates of Watershed Management and Social Forestry will put the
community based activities as their main focus of this project, any social forestry models, such of
community and village forests, will be facilitated by the project.
Programmes similar to those which will be supported under the SCBFWM project have already been
implemented in some places in Indonesia. Each has its own characteristics in the realization of
sustainable watershed management. Watershed Management (WSM) programs being carried out in
Indonesia mainly use the upstream-downstream approach, regardless of the existing administrative
boundaries. In addition, it is expected that, during the implementation, those programs can be
integrated into other programs done by various institutions/departments, especially those implemented
in the same areas.
Several community-based watershed management (CBWM) programmes adopting the upstreamdownstream approach and promoting PES mechanisms have been implemented in Indonesia.
Examples are activities undertaken by USAID ESP Program in North Sumatra and in 3 provinces on
Java and by WWF in Lombok, South Papua (Bikuma Watershed) and Aceh. In the meanwhile, ICRAF
has been carrying out programmes in West Lampung, West Sumatra and Kali Konto. Similarly, the
62
World Bank has worked at Cidanau in Central Sulawesi, where they demonstrated the CSR
mechanism. Other NGOs, have been working in Bengkulu, West Kalimantan and South Sulawesi.
The CBWM programs put great emphasis on the program implementation, whereas SCBFWM is
directed towards the community empowerment so there will be capable human resources for the
program implementation.
General lessons learned
1. The establishment of integrated watershed management schemes takes time for preparation
and partnerships. Partnerships are critical to success. Without these, schemes can become a
potential source of conflict, whereas a co-operative approach can reduce time and costs.
Awareness raised of the scheme needs to be continued and done systematically.
2. The integrated watershed management process requires well managed community
engagement, and the information provided to landholders surround watersheds before, during
and after the process is critical.
3. Support from local and national government must be secured at the onset to ensure
acceptability from other relevant stakeholder groups. It is important for the government to
remain a supportive partner of the programme
4. Conservation as a project goal is meaningless to the local communities until the project outs
translates positively to their well being
5. It is important to include local people who understand the culture and approaches of the groups
who will be involved
6. Orientation and training are needed for all relevant actors and stakeholders toward to
sustainability of integrated watershed management program
Co- financing
Co-financing for 5 (five) years on SCBFWM project implementation will be secured from a diverse
range of sources. These are budget of relevant stakeholders for 2009:
Table 6. Co-financing Budget for Implementation of SCBFWM
Name of Co-financier (source)
Classification
Type
Amount ($)
Directorate General of Land
Rehabilitation
and
Social
Forestry (RLPS), Ministry of
Forestry (MoF)
National
Government
In-Cash3
41,000,000
UNDP Indonesia
Implementing
Agency
In Cash
500,000
ICRAF
International
Organization
In Cash
750,000
Ford Foundation
International
Organization
In Cash
200,000
Total
42,450,000
Co financing indicated in the PIF was US$41 million. This has already been fulfilled by a full cofinancing budget of RLPS MoF, UNDP Indonesia, Ford Foundation and ICRAF amounting
US$42,450,000 (see Annex 3).
In the co-financing letter (Annex 2) the term “in-kind” refers to “in-cash” as stated in
table 6. Under MoF, in cash type within the collaborative scope is all the government budget
which is available to be disbursed throughout the MoF forestry program implementation. This
fund has actually been budgeted by MoF’s for five years plan program (2009-2013), with the
exception that it would not go through directly to the partner’s administration system once it
is secured for collaborative activities, instead, it will normally be stated as “in kind”
contribution.
3
63
Based on field survey and interviews with key persons of relevant stakeholders, such as local
government officials, Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Regional I , II
and IV of Centre of Forestry Development Control (or Pusdal) of MoF, Ministry of Agriculture and
NGO, there are potential co-financing budget relevant to SCBFWM programs for 2009. if indeed they
are available, this would double the budget to US$ 42,450,000. The trend of upward budget for
SCBFWM, based on the valid information from key representatives of relevant stakeholders, the
budget will be increase at least 10-15% annually (in anticipation of inflation). Therefore, the
sustainability financing for the next 5 years project will be secured.
II.
4 PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS FINANCED BY UNDP GRANT
II. 4. 1 Scope of Work
The government regulations on foreign aid fund disbursement stated below are for projects
implemented by Central Government as most UNDP projects focus on the Capacity development of
central government.
II. 4. 2 General Principles
Based on the applicable provisions for foreign grant management, the general principles that should be
satisfied are as follows:
1. All state revenues and expenditure that are state obligations in the fiscal year concerned should be
incorporated into the APBN.
2. The total or portion of foreign loan/grant amount stipulated in the foreign loan/grant agreement
document (NPPHLN) should be embodied in the DIPA document.
3. In the case of determined APBN, the amount or portion of the foreign loan/grant amount should be
embodied in the APBN-Revision.
4. In the case of a direct cooperation between UNDP and a non-governmental organization, the grant
aid should not be provided through the mechanism of the state budget but rather directly between
UNDP and the said organization. Thus, the channelling of grant aid funds to the non-governmental
organization will not be recorded as state revenue.
5. In the case of a direct cooperation between UNDP and another UN agency and not to be further
“sub contracted”, the grant aid shall be reported as grant aid included in the state budget but may
or may not be channelled through state mechanisms depending on the policies and procedures of
the UN agency concerned as applicable in such cases
Based on the above, it is concluded that the management of foreign loan/grant to the government
should be recorded in the APBN mechanism.
The advantages of such recording include the following:

Access to the Tax exemption facility for implementation of government activities that in part or in
whole are funded by the foreign grant.

UNDP’s grant can be recorded as government revenue in APBN.
II.
5. AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS
The Government will provide the UNDP Resident Representative with certified periodic financial
statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP
(including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and
Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or
by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.
Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables will be prepared
and develop by the Project Management Unit for the decision of the Project Board.
64
III.
MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION
Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF
procedures by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) in Indonesia with support
from UNDP/GEF Regional Centre in Bangkok (RCB).
The Logical Framework Matrix provides impact and outcome indicators for project implementation
along with their corresponding means of verification. The M&E plan includes: inception report, project
implementation reviews, quarterly operational reports, a mid-term and final evaluation, etc. The
project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception
Meeting following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of
project staff M&E responsibilities.
III.1
Project inception phase
A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government
counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional
Centre, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate. A fundamental objective of this Inception
Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and
objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the
project's logframe matrix.
This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting
additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with
precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected
outcomes for the project.
The purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the
UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO
and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and
complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCB staff vis à 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,
as well as mid-term and final evaluations.
Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related
budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. The IW will also provide an
opportunity for all Parties (stakeholders) to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within
the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict
resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be
discussed again, as needed in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's
implementation phase.
III.2
Monitoring responsibilities and events
A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, 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 Steering Committee
Meetings, or other relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms and (ii) project related Monitoring
and Evaluation activities.
Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Manager
based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO
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 Project Manager 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-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF at the RCB.
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
65
proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan.
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.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly
meetings with the project local implementation group, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This
will allow Parties (stakeholders) to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project
in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.
UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have
field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception
Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering
Committee can also accompany, as decided by the PSC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the
CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all PSC members, and
UNDP-GEF.
Annual Monitoring will be ensured by means of the project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings4 being
the highest policy-level meeting of the Parties (stakeholders) directly involved in the implementation of
a project. PSC meetings will be held at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within
the first twelve months of the start of full implementation.
The project implementation team will prepare a harmonized Annual Project Report and Project
Implementation Review (APR/PIR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at
least two weeks prior to the PSC for review and comments. The APR/PIR will be used as one of the
basic documents for discussions in the PSC meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the
SC, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the PSC members. The project
proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR/PIR
preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may
also be conducted if necessary.
III.3
Project monitoring reporting
The Project Manager 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 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
would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional
Centre in Bangkok or consultants, as well as 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,
prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation
requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame.
The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities,
coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, 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 Country Office and UNDPGEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.
The APR/PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF5. It has become an essential
management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting
lessons from ongoing projects. It also forms a part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight,
2
A SCM mechanism as such is similar to the Tripartite Review (TPR) formally required for the UNDP/GEF projects, and
differs from the latter only in the composition of the review panel, which, in case of the SC, is broader that that of the TPR.
5
The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR (standard
UNDP requirement) and PIR (GEF format), UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized format - an APR/PIR
66
monitoring and project management, as well as represents a key issue for the discussion at the
Steering Committee meetings. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, an
APR/PIR must be completed by the CO together with the project implementation team.
The APR/PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally prior to the SCM. The
APR/PIR should then be discussed at the SCM so that the result would be an APR/PIR that has been
agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the key stakeholders. The individual
APR/PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area
clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters.
Quarterly Progress reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided
quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. See
format attached.
As and when called for by UNDP, 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.
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.
III.4
Independent Evaluation
The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:
An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the mid of the third 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 (stakeholders) to the project
document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO
based on guidance from the Regional Centre in Bangkok and UNDP-GEF.
An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Steering Committee
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 the UNDP CO based on guidance from the RCB and UNDP-GEF.
Audit Clause
The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements,
and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF)
funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The
Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial
auditor engaged by the Government.
III.5
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. The project will identify, analyze, and
67
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, and the need to communicate
such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less
frequently than once every 12 months.
Vice versa, whether it is within UNDP units or with external partners and network, other projects and
initiatives would also enrich the project implementation, examples to this are the CPRU community
based monitoring tools for gender balance criteria and check list already available, and also
Institutional Capacity Building module from the CSO project.
UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and
reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for
these activities.
Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget
Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Inception Workshop
Project Manager
UNDP CO
UNDP GEF
Budget US$
Excluding project team
Staff time
Time frame
$29,000
Within first two
months of project
start up
Project Team
UNDP CO
Project Manager will oversee the
hiring of specific studies and
institutions, and delegate
responsibilities to relevant team
members
None
Immediately
following IW
To be finalized in
Inception Phase and
Workshop.
Indicative
cost
$68,000/year
(includes
costs
of
independent consultants,
travel and laboratory
costs)
Annually
Project Team
UNDP-CO
UNDP-GEF
Government Counterparts
UNDP CO
Project team
UNDP Regional Centre in
Bangkok
Project Manager
UNDP CO
None
Annually
None
Every year, upon
receipt of APR
None
Following
Project
IW
and
subsequently
at
least once a year
Periodic status reports
Project team
5,000
To be determined
by Project team and
UNDP CO
Technical reports
Project team
Hired consultants as needed
15,000
To be determined
by Project Team
and UNDP-CO
External Evaluations
Project team
UNDP- CO
UNDP Regional Centre in
Bangkok
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Project team
UNDP-CO
External Consultant
Project team
UNDP Regional Centre in
Bangkok (suggested formats for
documenting best practices, etc)
UNDP-CO
Project team
110,000
At the mid-point
and end of project
implementation.
Inception Report
Measurement of Means
of
Verification
for
Project
Purpose
Indicators
APR and PIR
TPR and TPR report
Steering
Meetings
Committee
Terminal Report
Lessons learned
Audit
68
None
At least one month
before the end of
the project
Yearly
42,000 (average 8,400
per year)
2,845/year (include trip
Yearly
to sites, 4 times)
Visits to field sites
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA
fees)
UNDP Country Office
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit (as
appropriate)
Government representatives
TOTAL indicative COST (Excluding project team staff time
and UNDP staff and travel expenses)
Impact Measurement Template
Key Impact
Indicator
Target
(Year 5)
Yearly
15,000 (average two visit
per year)
US$ 570,225
Means of Verification
Sampling
frequency
Location
Area of land under communitybased management
939,430 ha
Data extracted from government
statistics on HKm , PHBM, Village
Forest (Hutan Desa) and
Customary forest (Hutan Adat) and
data from SCBFWM project
reports
Previously barren land planted
by community groups in
Indonesia during the final year
of the project
58,766 ha
Data extracted from government
statistics on HKm and data from
SCBFWM project reports
Annually
All sites
Data extracted from government
statistics on HKm and data from
SCBFWM project reports
Annually
All sites
interview with village leaders,
CBOs leaders and members
Annually
All sites
Rp.635,470
interview with village leaders,
CBOs leaders and members
Annually
All sites
The amount of funding provided
to support community-based
management of natural
resources in the 6 provinces in
which the demonstration sites
are located
USD
5,214,300
Government’s documents on
budget allocation
Annually
6 provinces
The number of applications for
HKM permits that cover areas
which straddle administrative
borders in Indonesia
39
Government reports
Annually
Nationally
A set of improved legal and
policy
instruments drafted and
communicated among law and
policy makers at provincial and
district levels
1 set drafted
in 4 out of 7
districts;
drafts in
others
Collation of district and provincial
government records, supported by
field interviews
Beginning,
mid, end of
project
All sites
Proportion of land in the six
demonstration sites that is
rehabilitated and appropriately
managed
Proportion of (a) women and (b)
the landless involved in
community groups across the 6
demonstration sites
Average monthly household
income generated from
community-managed areas
24%
(a) 30%
(b) 25 %
Annually
Nationally
In accordance with the programming policies and procedures outlined in the UNDP User Guide, the
project will be monitored through the following:
Within the annual cycle
 On a quarterly basis, a quality assessment shall record progress towards the completion of key
results, based on quality criteria and methods captured in the Quality Management table below.
 An Issue Log shall be activated in Atlas and updated by the Project Manager to facilitate
tracking and resolution of potential problems or requests for change.
69
 Based on the initial risk analysis submitted (see annex 1), a risk log shall be activated in Atlas
and regularly updated by reviewing the external environment that may affect the project
implementation.
 Based on the above information recorded in Atlas, a Project Progress Reports (PPR) shall be
submitted by the Project Manager to the Project Board through Project Assurance, using the
standard report format available in the Executive Snapshot.
 a project Lesson-learned log shall be activated and regularly updated to ensure on-going
learning and adaptation within the organization, and to facilitate the preparation of the Lessonslearned Report at the end of the project
 a Monitoring Schedule Plan shall be activated in Atlas and updated to track key management
actions/events
Annually
 Annual Review Report. An Annual Review Report shall be prepared by the Project Manager
and shared with the Project Board and the Outcome Board. As minimum requirement, the
Annual Review Report shall consist of the Atlas standard format for the QPR covering the
whole year with updated information for each above element of the QPR as well as a summary
of results achieved against pre-defined annual targets at the output level.
 Annual Project Review. Based on the above report, an annual project review shall be
conducted during the fourth quarter of the year or soon after, to assess the performance of the
project and appraise the Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the following year. In the last year, this
review will be a final assessment. This review is driven by the Project Board and may involve
other stakeholders as required. It shall focus on the extent to which progress is being made
towards outputs, and that these remain aligned to appropriate outcomes.
Quality Management for Project Activity Results
The Quality Management table for each Project Activity Results below will be developed by the Project
Manager during the Initiation stage of the Full Size Project, the AWP has explained in clear detail on
baseline value, indicator, target, means of verification risk and assessment however it will be difficult to
currently determined on the start and end dates as yet. (Kindly refer to ANNEX 3. Logical Framework
Analysis)
OUTPUT 1:
Activity Result 1
(Atlas Activity ID)
Short title to be used for Atlas Activity ID
Purpose
What is the purpose of the activity?
Description
Planned actions to produce the activity result.
Start Date:
End Date:
Quality Criteria
Quality Method
Date of Assessment
how/with what indicators the quality of the
activity result will be measured?
Means of verification. What method will be
used to determine if quality criteria has been
met?
When will the assessment of
quality be performed?
70
IV.
LEGAL CONTEXT
This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by
reference constitute together a Project Document.
a) The Revised Basic Arrangement for Technical Assistance signed 29 October 1954 between the
United Nations, the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the
International Civil Aviation Organisation, and the World Health Organisation and the
Government of the Republic of Indonesia
b) The Standard Agreement on Operational Assistance signed 12 June 1969 between the United
Nations, the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the
International Civil Aviation Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International
Telecommunication Union, the World Meteorological Organisation, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the Universal Postal Union, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organisation and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and the Government
of the Republic of Indonesia
c) The Agreement signed 7 October 1960 between the United Nations Special Fund and the
Government of the Republic of Indonesia, and
d) all CPAP provisions apply to this document.
Additionally, this document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is
incorporated by reference constitute together the instrument envisaged in the Supplemental Provisions
to the Project Document, attached hereto as Annex 7.
Consistent with the above Supplemental Provisions, the responsibility for the safety and security of the
implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing
partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner.
The implementing partner shall:
a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the
security situation in the country where the project is being carried;
b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full
implementation of the security plan.
UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the
plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required
hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement.
The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP
funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities
associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not
appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution
1267
(1999).
The
list
can
be
accessed
via
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all
sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document. ”
All activities herein shall comply with UNDP National Execution (NEX) Guidelines. The following types
of revisions may be made to the Project Document, with the signature of the UNDP only, provided it is
assured that the other parties involved in the Project have no objections to the proposed changes: (1)
Revisions which do not involve significant changes to the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of
the Project, but are caused by the rearrangement of inputs agreed to or by cost increases due to
inflation, etc.; and (2) Mandatory annual revisions, which re-phase the delivery of Project inputs or
increased experts or other costs due to inflation or take into account expenditures flexibility
71
List of Acronyms
APBD
APBN
APM
BD
APR
AWP
Baplan
BAPPENAS
Agency)
BP DAS
BKPEKDT
Bapedalda
Bakosurtanal
BPKH
CD
CSR
CBD
CBWM
CBFWM
CBFM
CCD/CLD
CIFOR
CO
COP
CPRU
Dishutbun
DAK
DAS
Dirjen
DR
DG-LRSF or
DitJen RLPS
ES
FSP
FAO
FORDA
GEF
GEF SGP
GERHAN
GNRHL
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (District Expenditure Revenue Budget)
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (National Expenditure Revenue Budget)
Atlas Project Management
Biological Diversity
Annual Project Report
Annual Work Plan
Badan Planology (Forest Planning Agency)
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning
Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai (Watershed Management Regional Offices)
Badan Koordinasi Pelestarian Ekosistem Kawasan Danau Toba (Toba Lake Area
Ecosystem and Conservation Coordination Agency)
Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan Daerah (Regional Environmental Impact
Mitigation Agency)
Badan Koordinasi Survey Tanah Nasional (National Survey and Mapping Coordinating
Agency)
Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan (Forest Mapping Agency)
Community Development
Corporate Social Responsibility
Convention on Biological Diversity
Community-Based Watershed Management
Community Based Forest and Watershed Management
Community Based Forest Management
Convention to Combat Desertification/Land Degradation
Center for International Forestry Research
Country Office
Conference of Parties
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Unit
Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (District Forestry and Estate)
Dana Alokasi Khusus (Special Allocation Funds)
Daerah Aliran Sungai Catchment Areas/Watershed
Direktur Jenderal (Director General)
Dana Reboisasi (Reforestation Funds)
Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry
Direktorat Jenderal Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan Sosial
(Directorate
General of Social Forestry and Lan Rehabilitation)
Environmental Services
Full-Sized project Proposal
Food and Agriculture Organization
Forest Research Development Agency
Global Environmental Facility
Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme
Gerakan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (Land Forest Rehabilitation Movement)
Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (National Movement on Land Forest
Rehabilitation)
72
GU
HKm
HTI
HPH
HPHTI
HQ
IPB
IBSAP
IFPRI
IA
IW
IR
ICRAF
JAVLEC
KPH
Kimpraswil
Kpts
Kepmenhut
Kepmenhutbun
Kepdirjen
LD
LLNP
Menhutbun
MDG
MDK
M&E
MOF
MOP
NSDH
NAP
NRP
NPD
NPM
NPO
NEX
NTB
NTT
NGO
NWMCP
PDAM
PERDA
Permen
PES
PIR
PIR
PSC
PMU
PHKA
Conservation)
Governance Unit
Hutan Kemasyarakatan Community Forestry
Hutan Tanaman Industri (Industrial Timber Estate)
Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (Forest Concessionaires)
Hak Pengusahaan Hutan Tanaman Industri (Industrial Timber Plantation Right)
Head Quarter
Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agriculture University)
Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
The International Policy Research Institute
Implementing Agency
Inception Works
Inception Report
International Center for Research in AgroForestry
Java Learning Center
Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan (Forest Management Unit)
Pemukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah (Regional Infrastructure and Settlement)
Keputusan (Decision)
Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan (Ministry of Forestry Decree)
Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (Ministry of Forestry and Estate
Decree)
Keputusan Direktur Jenderal (Director General Decree)
Land Deforestation
Lore Lindu National Park
Menteri Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (Ministry of Forestry and Estate)
Millineum Development Goal
Model Desa Konservasi (Conservation Village Models)
Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Forestry
Meeting of the Parties
Neraca Sumber Daya Hutan (Forest Resource Accounting)
National Actions Program
National Reforestation Program
National Project Director
National Project Manager
National Project Officer
National Execution
Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara)
Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara)
Non Governmental Organization
National Watershed Management and Conservation Project
Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (Public Clean Water Company)
Regional Regulation (Peraturan Daerah)
Peraturan Menteri (Minister Decree)
Payment for Environmental Services
Perusahaan Inti Rakyat (Community Small Holders/Nucleus Estate)
Project Implementation Review
Project Steering Committee
Project Management Unit
Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (Forest Protection and Nature
73
PP
PerPu
PPP
PPG
PROPENAS
PT
PMM
PPSDA
PRSDA
PRU
RATA
RHA
REDD
RES
RRL
RENSTRA
RLPS
RRP
RUPES
RCU
RPJP
RPJM
RPSDA
SD
SCBFWM
SGP
SFM
SLM
SCM
STAP
SUFS
SK
SK Menhut
STTA
RCs
ToR
TOT
TPL
TPR
TUL-SEA
TNC
UACP
UNCCD
UNFCCC
UNDP
USU
UGM
Unila
Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation)
Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-undang (Government Regulation for a
replacement of Law)
Per Person Per day
Project Preparation Grant
National Development Plan
Perusahaan Terbatas (Limited Enterprises)
Project Management Manual
Program Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam (Natural Resources Management
Programme)
Sustainable Utilization Programme of Natural Resources
Poverty Reduction Unit
Rapid Tenure Appraisal
Rapid Hydrology Asessment
Reduced Emission for Deforestation and Degradation
Reward for Environmental Services
Rehabilitasi dan Reboisasi Lahan (Land Reforestation and Rehabilitation)
Rencana Strategis (Strategic Planning)
Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan Sosial (Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry)
Re-greening and Reforestation Project
Rewarding to Upland People for Environment Services
Regional Coordinating Unit
Rencana Pengelolaan Jangka Panjang (Long Term Management Plan)
Rencana Pengelolaan Jangka Menengah (Medium Term Management Plan)
Natural Resources Rehabilitation and Restoration Programme
Sustainable Development
Strengthening Community Based Forest and Watershed Management
Small Grant Program
Sustainable Forest Management
Sustainable Land Management
Sustainable Community Management
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
Sustainable Upland Farming System
Surat Keputusan (Decree)
Surat Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan (Ministry of Forestry Decree)
Short Term Technical Assistance
Regional Coordinators
Terms of Reference
Training of Trainee
Toba Pulp Lestari
Tri Partied Review
Trees To multi-Use Landscape- South East Asia
The Nature Conservancy
Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project
United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nation Development Programme
Universitas Sumatera Utara (Sumatera Utara University)
Universitas Gajah Mada (Gajah Mada University)
Universitas Lampung (Lampung University)
74
Untan
Unibraw
UNV
VPA
WSM
WWF
Universitas Tanjung Pura (Tanjung Pura University)
Universitas Brawijaya (Brawijaya University)
United Nations Volunteers
Vectorial Project Analysis
Watershed Management
World Wide Fund for Nature
75