444 International Union for Conservation of Nature...PROJECT DOCUMENT . The Restoration Initiative (TRI) Myanmar . Reversing forest degradation and deforestation and restoring forested

1

444

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Country: Myanmar

PROJECT DOCUMENT

The Restoration Initiative (TRI) Myanmar

Reversing forest degradation and deforestation and restoring forested landscapes through local multi-stakeholder management

Brief Description of the project

The Restoration Initiative (TRI) Myanmar project is a sub-project (or “child project”) of the global programme ‘The Restoration Initiative (TRI) – Fostering innovation and integration in support of the Bonn Challenge’. Its goal is to reverse forest degradation and deforestation and restore forested landscapes through local multi-stakeholder management. It also aims to influence national and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks in Myanmar to incorporate principles of forest landscape restoration.

The project will operate in Sagaing region of Myanmar, as well as nationally – in terms of policy influence and capacity building.

The project will improve the sustainability of forest landscapes, enhance livelihoods, help conserve biodiversity, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by restoring ecosystem functionality (habitat and ecological processes) and generating flows of ecosystem services for local and national needs.

It will do this by addressing root causes (drivers), threats (and the pressures that cause the threats), and barriers, restoring and rehabilitating degraded forests and deforested areas, building capacity to manage forest landscapes (including agricultural lands) sustainably and share the benefits equitably, promoting appropriate, comprehensive, and integrated policy, law, and regulations, ensuring rule of law, and encouraging trust and respect between stakeholders.

2

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAC Annual Allowable Cut ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations AWP Annual Work Plan CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCVFV Central Committee for the Management of Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women CEO Chief Executive Officer CF Community Forest CFI Community Forestry Instructions, 1995 and revised 2016. CFPPA Community Forest Products Producers Association CSO Civil Society Organization DALMS Department of Agriculture, Land Management and Statistics DFMP District Forest Management Plan DLUP District Land Use Planning ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessments ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESMS Environmental and Social Management System (IUCN guideline) EU FLEGT European Union - Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FD Forest Department FFF Forest and Farm Facility FLR Forest Landscape Restoration FPIC Free prior informed consent FSP Full-size Project GAD General Administration Department GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Green House Gas GIS Geographic Information System GPFLR Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration GRET International development NGO, governed by French law GVA Gross Value Added HCVF High Conservation Value Forest IBA Important Bird Area ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency KBA Key Biodiversity Areas LCG Land Core Group LUC Land Utilization Certificate M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MATA Myanmar Accountability and Transparency Initiative MERN Myanmar Environment Rehabilitation-Conservation Network METTA Metta development foundation MOECAF Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry MONREC Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation MTE Myanmar Timber Enterprise MTMA Myanmar Timber Merchants Association NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action NBSAP National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-governmental organization NLD National League for Democracy NPC National Project Coordinator NPD National Project Director NRRPM National Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme in Myanmar NSC National Steering Committee NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product PAs Protected Area System PFE Permanent Forest Estate PIF Project Identification Form (GEF) PMU Project Management Unit PPF Public Protected Forest PPG Project Preparation Grant (GEF) PSC Project Steering Committee

3

PWC PricewaterhouseCoopers RECOFTC The Centre for People and Forests REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Plus) RF Reserved Forest ROAM Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology SME Small and Medium Enterprises SRI System of Rice Intensification TAG Technical Advisory Group TOC Theory of Change ToR Terms of reference TRI The Restoration Initiative UF Unclassified Forest UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USDP United Solidarity and Development Party VFV Virgin Fallow and Vacant Land WEPA Water Environment Partnership in Asia WHO World Health Organisation WRI World Resources Institute

4

Contents

1 Project Profile ............................................................................................................................. 7 2 Project Results Framework ......................................................................................................... 8 3 Background and situation analysis (Baseline course of action) ................................................ 13

3.1 Background and context ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Environmental context ................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Socio-economic context.................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.3 Institutional, sectoral and policy context ....................................................................................... 23 3.1.4 Past and planned national actions and projects ............................................................................. 31

3.2 The global environment problem ........................................................................................................ 36

3.3 Threats and root causes ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.3.1 Threats to Myanmar’s forest landscapes........................................................................................ 39 3.3.2 Root causes (drivers) ...................................................................................................................... 42

3.4 Barriers ................................................................................................................................................ 42 3.4.1 Information and knowledge barriers .............................................................................................. 43 3.4.2 Governance and rule of law barriers .............................................................................................. 44 3.4.3 Social licence barriers ..................................................................................................................... 47 3.4.4 Capacity and capability barriers ...................................................................................................... 47

3.5 Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................................................ 49

3.6 Background and baseline situation of the Project area ...................................................................... 55 4 Intervention strategy (alternative) ........................................................................................... 61

4.1 Project rationale and expected global environmental benefits .......................................................... 61 4.1.1 Project goal and expected impact .................................................................................................. 63 4.1.2 Theory of change at program level ................................................................................................. 63 4.1.3 Theory of Change at landscape level .............................................................................................. 65

4.2 Project components, their expected outcomes and outputs and planned activities ........................... 70 4.2.1 Components and Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 70 4.2.2 Outputs and activities ..................................................................................................................... 71 4.2.3 Likely field interventions ................................................................................................................. 74

4.3 Risk analysis and risk management measures .................................................................................... 76

4.4 Consistency with national priorities and plans .................................................................................... 78

4.5 Project alignment with IUCN Programme ........................................................................................... 79

4.6 Incremental cost reasoning (for GEF projects) .................................................................................... 80 4.6.1 Baseline or business-as-usual scenario (without the GEF project) ................................................. 80 4.6.2 Incremental reasoning .................................................................................................................... 81

4.7 Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 82 4.7.1 Financial and economic sustainability ............................................................................................ 82 4.7.2 Institutional sustainability .............................................................................................................. 82 4.7.3 Social sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 83

4.8 Replication ........................................................................................................................................... 83

4.9 Communication and knowledge management ................................................................................... 83

5

4.10 Environmental and social safeguards ................................................................................................. 85 5 Institutional framework and implementation arrangements ................................................... 86

5.1 Alignment and Integration with the TRI Program ............................................................................... 86 5.1.1 TRI Program Institutional Structure and Linkages .......................................................................... 87

5.2 National decision making and planning .............................................................................................. 89 5.2.1 Project execution modality ............................................................................................................. 90

5.3 Procurement plan ................................................................................................................................ 98 5.3.1 Procurement in general .................................................................................................................. 98 5.3.2 Consultancies and contracts ........................................................................................................... 99

6 Stakeholder engagement and participation ........................................................................... 107 7 Monitoring and evaluation plan ............................................................................................. 114 8 Project financing and budget .................................................................................................. 116 9 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 117 10 References .............................................................................................................................. 118

6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Forest cover in Myanmar in 2015, showing major forest types ....................................... 13 Figure 2: A conceptual framework of the interaction between ecosystems and socio-economic systems. 16 Figure 3: Myanmar – estimated total population 1965 to 2015 ..................................................... 17 Figure 4: Myanmar’s ethnic composition by group ......................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Location Map of Myanmar (a) and its administrative units (b) ........................................ 25 Figure 6: Myanmar Land Use and the Permanent Forest Estate ..................................................... 30 Figure 7: Global distribution of forest and landscape restoration opportunities ............................ 37 Figure 8: Teak extraction in Myanmar 1918 to 2014 (including estimated illegal extraction and wastage) 45 Figure 9: Other (non-teak) timber extraction Myanmar 1918 to 2008 (including estimated illegal extraction and wastage) ....................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 10: Teak marked for felling by region 2009-15, compared with estimated sustainable Annual Allowable Cut ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 11: A conceptual diagram of stakeholders relevant to FLR in Myanmar ............................ 49 Figure 12: Map of six selected Townships in Sagaing Region .............................................................. 56 Figure 13: Theory of Change for landscape level intervention ............................................................ 67 Figure 14: Forest landscape intervention matrix .................................................................................. 69 Figure 15. TRI program institutional structure ..................................................................................... 88 Figure 166: TRI Myanmar Child Project Implementation and Execution Structure ............................. 91

List of Tables Table 1: Ecosystem services classification ..................................................................................... 16 Table 2 Area of plantation established in Myanmar 1981-2017 (ha) ............................................... 32 Table 3: National Restoration and Rehabilitation Program Myanmar targets .............................. 32 Table 4: Myanmar's GEF projects relevant to FLR ......................................................................... 34 Table 5: Summary of threats, root causes and barriers ................................................................ 49 Table 6: Project area by land use .................................................................................................... 55 Table 7: Population in the Project area - 2016 ............................................................................... 56 Table 8: Planned forest restoration activities in Project area 2017-2020 ...................................... 62 Table 9: Project theory of change ................................................................................................... 64 Table 10: Risk consequence .............................................................................................................. 76 Table 11: Risk matrix ......................................................................................................................... 76 Table 12: Risks and risk mitigation measures ................................................................................... 77 Table 13: Project consistency with national policy ........................................................................... 79 Table 14: Baseline and alternative approach ................................................................................... 81 Table 155: Child Project Alignment with TRI Program .......................................................................... 89 Table 16: Project Steering Committee composition ......................................................................... 92 Table 17: Technical advisory group composition ............................................................................. 97 Table 18: Forest restoration committee composition ...................................................................... 97 Table 19: Stakeholder engagement ................................................................................................ 107 Table 200: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.................................................................................. 114 Table 21: Budget by component ..................................................................................................... 116

7

1 Project Profile

Project title The Restoration Initiative (TRI) Myanmar Reversing forest degradation and deforestation and restoring forested landscapes through local multi-stakeholder management

Project Number (GEF ID/IUCN ID) 9264/ P02746

Project type (FSP or MSP) FSP

Trust Fund GEF Trust Fund

GEF strategic objectives and focal areas BD-4 Program 9, CCM-2 Program 4, LD-2 Program 3, LD-3 Program 4, SFM-3, SFM-4

IUCN programme priority Global Result 2, sub results 2.1 and 2.2; Global Result 3, sub results 3.1 and 3.3

Geographical scope Republic of the Union of Myanmar

Project executing agency The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Duration of project (including expected start and end dates)

Commencement: January 2018

Completion: December 2021

Project cost (Summary)

Item USD

A. GEF financing 2,652,293

B. Co-financing

- MONREC 11,564,000

- The Nature Conservancy 500,000

- Co-financier 3

C. Sub-total co-financing 12,064,000

D. Total (A+C) 14,716,293

8

2 Project Results Framework

Results Hierarchy Indicator(s) Baseline Mid-term Target(s)

End of Project Target(s)

Means of Verification Assumptions/

Risks Source Frequency Responsibility

Global Environmental Goal: To contribute to the restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes to provide global environmental benefits and enhanced resilient economic development and livelihoods, in support of the Bonn Challenge.

Project Development Objective: To reverse forest degradation and deforestation and restore forested landscapes in Myanmar through local multi-stakeholder management

Component 1. Policy Development and Integration

Outcome 1:

Enhanced support for forest landscape restoration among Myanmar national and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks

1.1: Existence of a national Bonn Challenge pledge from Myanmar

1.2: Number of township-level FLR strategies adopted.

1.3: Number of protected area FLR plans adopted

1.4: Number of watershed FLR plans adopted

1.1: No Myanmar Bonn Challenge pledge

1.2: The are no township-level FLR strategies

1.3: There are no PA plans that incorporate FLR principles

1.4: There are no watershed management plans that incorporate FLR principles

1.1: Draft Bonn Challenge pledge available, indicating approximate scale of the commitment

1.2: Progress towards revised national policies and frameworks

1.3: 3x township-level FLR strategies completed.

1.1: Myanmar makes a formal pledge to the Bonn Challenge

1.2: Six township-level FLR strategies completed and incorporated into the National Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme in Myanmar (NRRPM).

1.3: Two protected area FLR plans completed and officially adopted

1.4: One watershed FLR plan completed and officially adopted

www.bonnchallenge.org

National commitment documents

Analysis of relevant policies, legislation, and regulations

Review of NRRPM

Review of officially published protected area FLR plans

Review of officially published watershed FLR plan

Workshop reports

Annual project progress reports

Reviews, mid-term and final evaluations

Assumption: National and sub-national policies can be amended within the time frame of the project to include landscape principles

Risk:

Insufficient political will or other constraints to implement reforms necessary for landscape restoration

Output 1.1. National cross-sectoral policy advisory group on FLR established

1.1.1: Number of advisory group meetings

1.1.1: Zero 1.1.1: Two 1.1.1: Four

Terms of reference, list of members, agendas and minutes from cross-sectoral policy advisory group meetings, attendance records, working papers

http://www.bonnchallenge.org/

9




Risks Output 1.2: Township-level ROAM plans completed (adapted for Myanmar)

1.1.2: Number of Township-level ROAM plans completed

1.1.2: Zero 1.1.2: Six 1.1.2: Six ROAM plans completed

Review of township-level ROAM plans

Output 1.3: Protected area FLR plans completed

1.1.3. Number of protected area FLR plans completed

1.1.3: Zero 1.1.3: Two 1.1.3: Two protected area FLR plans completed

Review of protected area FLR plans

Output 1.4: Watershed FLR plan completed

1.1.4 Number of watershed FLR plans completed

1.1.4 Zero 1.1.4: One 1.1.4: One watershed FLR plan completed

Review of watershed FLR plan

Component 2. Implementation of Restoration Programs and Complementary Initiatives

Outcome 2: Deforested and degraded landscapes in process of restoration, incorporating FLR best practices

2.1: Number of ha of deforested and degraded land in restoration transition

2.2 Number of women and men benefiting from the project

2.3 Tonnes of CO2eq of direct emissions reduction or sequestration through the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks (over a 20 year period)

2.1: Zero

2.2: Zero

2.3: Zero

2.1: 44,502 ha of deforested and degraded land in restoration transition

2.2: 300,000 women and men benefit from the project, through increased supply of ecosystem services and provision of improved livelihoods



2.3: 3,032,336 tonnes of CO2eq sequestered/avoided

GEF TRI Tracking Tools

Annual project progress reports with gender disaggregated data


Forest Department reports

Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division reports

GIS information on land use change

Project-commissioned studies and reports Carbon stock reports if available

Post-doctoral grant reports

Assumption:

A FLR approach will result in improved restoration and rehabilitation of deforested and degraded landscapes, increased flows of ecosystem services including carbon storage, and improved livelihood opportunities

The target of 89,005 hectares assumes the co-benefits of the NRRPM

The target of 600,000 assumes co-benefits from the NRRPM in the project area

Risk:

FLR efforts do not achieve an increase in ecosystem services, or livelihoods or additionality for carbon sequestration

Output 2.1: Implement ROAM strategies at the township/village level.

2.1.1: Number of ROAM strategies implemented

2.1.1: Zero 2.1.1: Zero

2.1.1: Six ROAM strategies implemented

GEF TRI Tracking Tools


10




Risks Output 2.2: Protected area ROAM strategies implemented

2.2.1: Number of protected area ROAM strategies implemented

2.2.1: Zero 2.2.1: Zero

2.2.1: Two protected area ROAM strategies implemented


Forest Department reports

Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division reports

GIS information on land use change

Project-commissioned studies and reports Carbon stock reports if available

Post-doctoral grant reports

Output 2.3: Watershed ROAM strategy completed

2.3.1: Number of ROAM strategy completed

2.3.1: zero 2.3.1: Zero 2.3.1: One watershed ROAM strategy implemented

Output 2.4: Monitoring of biodiversity and carbon impacts of FLR activities implementation are carried out.

2.4.1: number of monitoring reports on biodiversity and climate change mitigation impacts

2.4.1: Zero 2.4.1: Two mid-term reports

2.4.1: Two final reports

Component 3. Institutions, Finance and Upscaling

Outcome 3.1: Targeted institutions at sub-national level have the capacity to plan for and implement FLR interventions

3.1: Number of staff within township and field-level institutions with knowledge and direct experience of planning and/or implementing FLR

3.1: Zero

3.1.1 A total of least 80 staff in the targeted institutions with knowledge and direct experience of planning FLR

3.1.1 A total of at least 200 staff in targeted institutions with knowledge and direct experience of planning and/or implementing FLR

Annual reports from the targeted institutions



Assumption: Training improves capacity and trainees are able to apply learning in practice.

Risk: Lack of interest, lack of suitable trainers and suitable training material

Output 3.1.1: Township-level institutions are trained in FLR approaches, community forestry, agroforestry and SME development

3.1.1: a)Number of capacity building events and number of women/men attending

3.1.1: b)Number of cross-sectoral (e.g., agriculture, livestock, forestry, environment, energy, mining, irrigation, fisheries) planning and implementation meetings

3.1.1: Zero

3.1.2: Zero

3.1.1: a) Six township level training held

3.1.2: b)Two cross-sectoral planning and implementation meetings held

3.1.1: a) 6 x 2 township level training held covering FLR approaches, community forestry, agroforestry, and/or SME development

3.1.2: b) 4 cross-sectoral planning and implementation meetings held



Project-commissioned studies and training reports

GEF Tracking Tools

11




Risks

Output 3.1.2: Field-level institutions are trained on forest landscape management and restoration in target areas

3.1.2: a) Number of restoration leaders identified and social networks (e.g., women’s groups, community forestry groups, etc.) developed

3.1.2: b)Number of women/men attending township / district level training

3.1.2:a)Zero

3.1.2: b) Zero

3.1.2:a) 6 restoration leaders identified and 3 social networks developed

3.1.2: b) 50

3.1.2:a)12 restoration leaders identified and 6 social networks developed

3.1.2: b)at least 100 participants attending district and township level trainings.




GEF Tracking Tools

Outcome 3.2: Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into FLR initiatives increased

3.2: Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into FLR initiatives

3.2: Zero 3.2: 500,000 USD

3.2: Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into FLR initiatives increased by US$1 million


Reports on FLR investments

Assumption: The implementation of FLR strategies and increased investment do not aggregate existing social issues.

Risk: No suitable investors can be identified.

Output 3.2.1: New SMEs are established and operational

3.2.1: Number of SMEs developed and tested

3.2.1: Zero 3.2.1: One

3.2.1: At least two SMEs developed and tested




GEF Tracking Tools

Output 3.2.2: FLR investment proposals are submitted to potential investors

3.2.2: Number of FLR investment proposals developed

3.2.2: Zero 3.2.2: One

3.2.2: At least two FLR investment proposals developed and pitched to potential investors

Component 4. Knowledge, Partnerships, Monitoring and Assessment

Outcome 4: Improved knowledge of best practices on forest landscape restoration among key stakeholders

4.1: Degree of FLR awareness among target audiences

4.1: Zero 4.1: Scorecard rank 3

Scorecard results based on UNDP/UNEP/GEF monitoring guidelines of capacity development in GEF projects

Assumption: Improved knowledge will remove barriers of adopting FLR approaches.

Risk: Stakeholders do not adopt FLR

12




Risks

Output 4.1: TRI-Myanmar engages in south-south exchanges

4.1.1: Number of TRI exchange events held,

4.1.2: Attendance by men/women

4.1.1: Zero

4.1.2: Zero

4.1.1: One

4.1.2: Six

4.1.1: Three TRI exchange events held

4.1.2: 15 key stakeholders participate

Annual project progress reports



GEF Tracking Tools

Output 4.2: Monitoring system provides, relevant, accurate and timely information for project implementation and the TRI global project

4.2.1: Quality and timelineness of project reports to GEF

4.2.1 Zero

4.2.1: Timely submission of 2 PIRs to GEF Sec and GEF IEO; Quality of reports rated Satisfactory or above

4.2.1: Timely submission of all PIRs to GEF Sec and GEF IEO; Quality of reports rated Satisfactory or above

Output 4.3: Improved knowledge of best practices on restoration in the target sites

4.3.1: Number of farmers participating in farmers’ exchanges

4.3.2: Number of villages involved in knowledge sharing and upscaling activities

4.3.1: Zero

4.3.2: Zero

4.3.1: 50 farmers participate in farmers’ exchanges

4.3.2: 60 villages in 6 townships in Sagaing region are involved in knowledge sharing and upscaling activities aimed at improving knowledge of best practices on restoration

4.3.1: 150 farmers participate in farmers’ exchanges

4.3.2: 135 villages in 6 townships in Sagaing region are involved in knowledge sharing and upscaling activities aimed at improving knowledge of best practices on restoration

Output 4.4: TRI-related best practices and lessons-learned published on TRI web portal and other media.

4.4.1: Number of TRI-related best practices and lessons-learned documents published

4.4.1: Zero 4.4.1: Two 4.4.1: Five FLR studies/reports published:

Output 4.5 National organisations are equipped with new knowledge related to FLR

4.5.1: Number of national organisations benefiting from TRI knowledge products and/or events

4.5.1: Zero 4.5.1: Fifteen

4.5.1: Thirty national organisations benefit from TRI knowledge products and/or events

13

3 Background and situation analysis (Baseline course of action)

3.1 Background and context

3.1.1 Environmental context

Forty-four per cent of Myanmar’s terrestrial area is classified as forest (see Figure 1), and if other wooded areas are included, 67 per cent of Myanmar is classified as forest and other wooded area (FAO, 2015). Myanmar’s permanent forest estate (PFE) covers about 20 million ha, or 30 per cent of the country's land area.

Figure 1: Forest cover in Myanmar in 2015, showing major forest types

(Source: MOECAF, 2015).

Forests within Myanmar’s PFE are under the authority of the Forest Department and are classified as either protected areas, reserved forests, or protected public forests (see section on Forest policies and laws). Forests outside the PFE may be classified either as public forest or wasteland, sometimes referred to as unclassified forest (see section on land use).

In recent decades, Myanmar’s forests have been heavily over-extracted for timber and converted to both commercial and semi-subsistence agriculture. From the early 2000s to present, Myanmar’s forest cover declined from 58 per cent to less than 44 per cent of the country’s land area. At the same time, the quality of Myanmar’s forests has declined, with dense forest declining from 45 per cent to just 18 per cent between 1990 and 2010 (FAO, 2015). Much of the decrease in extent and condition of Myanmar’s forests is the result of pressures of over-harvesting for timber, both legal and illegal, local use, and conversion to industrial plantations for rubber, cassava, oil palm and sugarcane.

14

3.1.1.1 Conservation zoning

Protected areas - As of September 2015, there were 39 protected areas in Myanmar, seven of which are recognised as ASEAN Heritage Parks (MOECAF, 2015). Protected areas cover approximately 5.75 per cent of the country’s land area or about 38,900 sq. km. (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation: Forest Department, 2015).

Reliable information on the state of Myanmar’s protected areas is difficult to access. Raitzer, Samson and Nam report that protected areas appear not to be covering critical biodiversity or habitat for critical species; are subject to ineffective protection; are subject to widespread violation of protection rules, including hunting and encroachment; have low levels of staff management capacity; and many lack implemented planning documents (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Key Biodiversity Areas - Key biodiversity areas (KBAs) are specific sites of global biodiversity significance. In Myanmar, 132 KBAs have been identified, of which several are already within protected areas. Preserving these areas from degradation is a priority for ensuring the viability of habitat and species conservation (Myanmar Biodiversity, 2017). Understanding where KBAs are and the factors that make an area a KBA is critical to the development and implementation of a landscape approach; this information provides a basis for planning and negotiating forest management and restoration actions that are likely to provide the best potential for conserving the values of a KBA whilst also ensuring local communities do not bear all the costs and few of the benefits associated with conservation.

Important Bird Areas -Areas that are internationally recognized as being globally significant habitat for the conservation of bird populations are known as Important Bird Areas (IBAs). In a list dated 2004, ICIMOD notes Myanmar has 55 IBAs, covering and area of 54,364 sq. km, 36 of which were unprotected at the time (ICIMOD, 2017). IBAs are automatically listed as KBAs.

Ramsar sites - Myanmar has three sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites), with a surface area of 58,243 ha (Ramsar, 2017).

3.1.1.2 The state and trend of Myanmar’s forests

Myanmar’s forests have been degrading rapidly due to over-extraction of forest products:

• Over-harvesting of timber in recent decades, with estimated total extraction levels (both official extraction and illegal extraction) far above the estimated Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for both teak and other hardwoods (Springate-Baginski, et al., 2016).

• Growing domestic extraction for fuelwood, poles, Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) and timber.

• Prevalent commercial trade in wildlife and plants (e.g. snakes, tigers, leopards, elephants, pangolins, bears, owls, birds, orchids, and medicinal and aromatic plants) leading to declining forest health (Nijman & Shepherd, 2014).

Myanmar’s forests are also being deforested because of land use change:

• Expansion of smallholder agriculture. • Conversion to large scale plantations for agricultural crops (cassava, oil palm, betel palm, and

sugarcane) and tree crops (especially rubber and fast growing timber and pulp species). • Expansion of mining, hydropower projects and other infrastructure (e.g. roads).

15

The pressures on Myanmar’s remaining forests are likely to accelerate following its transition to a market-based economy, rapid urbanization and growing demands for goods. The stronger incorporation into the global economy is leading to the opening of the country and to greater interest in foreign investment in land use and natural resources.

The loss and degradation of Myanmar’s forests threatens the country’s rich biodiversity and increases risks to livelihoods for about one third of Myanmar’s population who depend on forests. Effectively managed forests could make a significant contribution to livelihoods, and strengthen the political and economic reform processes (Jenkins & Blundell, 2017).

Deforestation and forest degradation reduces hydrological ecosystem services that are critical for agriculture and its resilience, and produces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that lead to climate change.

The field missions suggest that for much of northern Shwebo district and southern Katha district in Sagaing region, a general pattern of deforestation and forest degradation can be summarised by the following processes:

• In recent decades, many forests in Sagaing region were subject to commercial-scale logging by the Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE) or its sub-contractors. It was reported that sub-contractors often harvested far more logs than permitted under the prescribed AAC, and additionally extracted logs from outside the specified coups.

• Logging (or in some cases a series of logging events) created easier access to the PFE through the construction of roads.

• Following improved road access, settlements were established and/or grew within forest areas. The widespread extraction of timber, fuelwood, and other forest products, often more than the productive capacity of the forest, was undertaken, usually illegally.

• In many areas, parts of the PFE were then converted to small scale agricultural holdings and villages.

• In some areas (notably in East Katha and East Tijyiang townships), large scale agriculture concessions with Reserve Forest (RF) areas of the PFE enabled extensive clear-felling of good condition forests and conversion to agriculture.

The outcome of the above process is that large parts of the forest estate in the Project area are fragmented and degraded, and in places the forests remain in name only, having been converted to agriculture.

Most forests in the Project area have lost at least some ecosystem functionality and have a reduced flow and range of ecosystem services. In severe cases, the forests have been transformed, through the processes discussed above, from diverse and productive ecosystems into heavily degraded forests that have low biodiversity and low productivity of ecosystem services.

Ecosystem functionality is the interaction between organisms [biodiversity] and the physical environment; it includes stocks of natural capital (e.g. water, plants) and ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, soil development, water budgeting, and flammability (Biology on line dictionary, n.d.). For the purposes of this Project, ecosystem functionality is defined as the capacity of a system to produce ecosystem services. An example of the relationship between ecosystems and socio-economic systems is shown in Figure 2.

16

Figure 2: A conceptual framework of the interaction between ecosystems and socio-economic systems.

(Source: Adapted fromMaesa, et al., 2016)

Ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005). They include provisioning services – e.g. timber, food, water, fuel – regulating services – e.g. regulation of climate and natural hazards such as floods – and cultural services – e.g. religious and cultural values, tourism opportunities; as well as the supporting services that are necessary for the supply of other ecosystem services – e.g. nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production.

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (European Environment Agency, 2016) recognises three categories of ecosystem services as shown in Table 1.

Although the exact nature of the very complex relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functionality and ecosystem services is still poorly understood, it is evident that human modification of ecosystems alters ecosystem functionality and, in turn, this changes the flow of ecosystem services and the benefits that society derives.

Table 1: Ecosystem services classification (Source: European Environment Agency, 2016)

Ecosystem Service Definition Examples Provisioning services Tangible goods and services that can be

exchanged or traded, as well as consumed or used directly by people.

Provision of food, water, and other raw materials.

Regulating services Ways in which ecosystems control or modify parameters that define the environment of people; these are ecosystem outputs that are not consumed but affect individuals, communities and populations and their activities.

Climate regulation; watershed regulation such as purification and flood control; and biological processes such as pest control, pollination, and genetic diversity.

Cultural services Non-material ecosystem outputs that have symbolic, cultural, or intellectual significance.

Recreational services; spiritual and cultural connection; landscape amenity; health services; social cohesion and involvement.

3.1.2 Socio-economic context

3.1.2.1 Population and demographics

Three factors affect total population: mortality, fertility, and net overseas migration.

Ecosystem

• Ecosystem functionality• Stock of natural capital

• Abiotic (geology, soil, air, water)

• Biodiversity• Ecological processes

• Plant, animal and microbial activity

• Nutrient cycling• Water cycle• Fire regime

Flow of Ecosystem Services(provisioning, regulating, cultural)

Socio-economic system

• Benefits• Energy (e.g fuelwood)• Materials (e.g. timber)• Water• Nutrition• Pest and disease regulation• Hazard protection (e.g. floods)

• Value• Economic• Social and cultural• Health

• Response• Policy, law, regulations, rule of

law• Institutional arrangements• Social and cultural actions

Influence(human, intellectual, financial,

manufactured, social)

17

Myanmar’s population has more than doubled in the past 50 years, from 24 million in 1965 to 53.8 million people (51.8 per cent female, 48.2 per cent male) in 2015 (see Figure 3). In recent years, however, the average annual population growth rate has declined from a peak of about 2.5 per cent per year in 1968 to about 0.9 per cent per year in 2015 (UN Data, 2017).

Myanmar has a decreasing mortality rate -- from 18.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year in 1965 to 8.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year in 2014 (Knoema, 2017). It also has a total fertility rate (2010-2015) of 2.3 births per woman, above the benchmark fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman which will support a stable long-term population rate in the absence of changes in mortality and net overseas migration. Myanmar has experienced negative net overseas migration over the past decades. Annual numbers of people migrating out of the country have varied from 800,000 (2005-2010), to 100,000 (2010-2015)(UNICEF, 2017).

Assuming current trends, Myanmar’s population is projected to increase to 58.6 million people by 2050 (UNICEF, 2017).

Myanmar’s population is mostly rural based, although the proportion of the population that is rural based has declined from 75 per cent in 1990 to 66 per cent in 2013. Conversely, the percentage of Myanmar’s population living in urban areas has increased from 25 per cent in 1990 to 34 per cent in 2013 (UNICEF, 2017).

Figure 3: Myanmar – estimated total population 1965 to 2015

(Source: World Bank, 2017)

Most of the population, around two thirds, is of the Bamar ethnic group – who traditionally reside in the Ayeyarwady basin, and have their historic political centre around the Bagan/Mandalay area of the dry zone. Approximately one third of the population is composed of ethnic minorities, who reside in the upland areas and coastal areas (Shan, Kayin, Kayah, Kachin, Mon, Chin, Rakhine, Naga, Wa, Lisu etc., see Figure 4), although it is not possible to provide a precise quantification because ongoing conflicts have impeded the census.

18

Figure 4: Myanmar’s ethnic composition by group

(Source: Adapted from Wikipedia)

In coming decades, Myanmar’s main cities are expected to experience higher percentage growth than their respective rural populations, resulting in a further concentration of the population in urban areas. The increasing urban population in Myanmar is generating distinct pressures on the environment, both to provide goods and services (e.g. water, building materials, food) and to manage waste from urban populations.

3.1.2.2 Economics

Economic activity impacts natural capital, including Myanmar’s forests, through resource extraction, production, transport, use and waste generation. This includes pressures generated by agriculture, energy and transport infrastructure, mining, and forestry.

The country’s shift to a market-based economy and its search for foreign investment and for growing domestic and international markets is likely to generate substantial additional pressures on forests through the expansion and intensification of agriculture, growth in the mining and energy sectors and the development of infrastructure.

Without adequate regulation, supervision and risk mitigation, the pace and sequencing of Myanmar’s reforms and liberalization may undermine the expected benefits (Asian Development Bank, 2012). The longer-term success of the Project requires stakeholders to understand how economic activity generates pressures on the environment through for example, land use change, extraction of natural resources and waste products (e.g. synthetic fertiliser and pesticide residues) and how these pressures affect natural capital and ecosystem services (both in terms of market and non-market values).

The high rural population combined with low levels of income creates distinct pressures on the environment through the direct use of natural resources for both subsistence and livelihood purposes. Poverty in Myanmar is concentrated in rural areas, where poor people rely on agriculture, forests, and casual employment for their livelihoods. Many live near the poverty line and are sensitive to economy-wide shocks (The World Bank, 2016). Relatively poor rural communities and households tend to be highly reliant on natural resources for their well-being.

68

9

7

3.5

2.5

2

1.5

1.25

0.75

4.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bamar

Shan

Kayin

Rakhine

Chinese

Mon

Kachin

Indian

Kayah

Other (Wa, Naga, Lahu, Lisu and Palaung)

19

Rural livelihoods in the lowlands are mainly focussed on wet rice cultivation and to a lesser extent other crops and freshwater and marine fisheries. In upland areas, hill rice is the primary crop. There are a range of other livelihood activities based on forests and agriculture. Urban remittances increasingly augment rural household livelihoods.

Shifting cultivation is widespread in the uplands – historically this has been of low intensity and apparently sustainable – with many cultivators planting trees to signal fallow property rights as well as to ensure more productive fallows. However, with the expansion of settled agriculture, state forestry, and related undermining of traditional customary property institutions, fallowing practices have been undermined, and population increases have compounded pressures (Springate-Baginski, 2017).

Harvesting of forest products is a significant and increasingly important livelihood strategy, including for domestic supply, particularly fuelwood and timber. Rapid urbanisation, and associated increasing demand for forest products, and limited livelihood alternatives for rural people are adding to pressures on remaining forests.

Logging has been a major employer, officially and informally. Although evidence is very limited, many observers comment that once commercial logging companies build forest roads to extract timber, ongoing degradation of forest occurs subsequently through local extraction of timber and other forest products.

The following sections examine a selection of economic sectors that drive environmental changes.

Energy Myanmar is rich in energy resources, with hydropower and natural gas being the main sources of power. The hydropower potential is estimated to be over 100,000 MW and natural gas is a major export product earning US$3.6bn in 2012, with expectations that this will increase by US$2.7bn due to development of new gas fields (PWC, 2016).

Compared to most other countries in the region, Myanmar’s electricity consumption per capita is relatively low (164.5 kWh in 2013, (UN Data, 2017). For example, the average consumption of electricity in Thailand for the same year was 2,470.8 kWh per capita. Only one-third of Myanmar’s population has access to the electricity grid (The World Bank, 2016). Not surprisingly, Myanmar has plans to increase power generating capacity from 4,714 MW to over 29,000 MW by 2031, through the development of 41 new power plants. This increase is expected to raise the per capita power consumption to 493 kWh by 2020, and 854 kWh by 2025 (PWC, 2016).

The increase in the production and distribution of energy can generate pressures on the environment through land use change and habitat fragmentation with the construction of infrastructure – dams, gas wells, pipelines, roads, power grids. Dams can create pressure for deforestation when large areas of forest are flooded (Raitzer, et al., 2015) and ousted people relocated into forested areas. On the other hand, improved electricity supply can alleviate other environmental pressures, for example reducing the need for fuelwood for cooking.

Transport Myanmar’s road density remains low at 219.8 kilometres per 1,000 square kilometres of land area (The World Bank, 2016). However, the country’s transport system is experiencing a large-scale

20

upgrade of its road infrastructure (PWC, 2016) and the length of roads in Myanmar has been increasing (39,702 km in 2012 to 40,574 km in 2014 (Central Statistical Organisation, 2014)).

The expansion of transport infrastructure can increase pressures on the environment. New transport infrastructure often requires the removal of natural habitat and disturbance of species, can be a vector for invasive species and disease, and can enable rapid deforestation and forest degradation. On the other hand, improved transport is important to developing sustainable agriculture and forest industries and can, therefore, provide an incentive for forest restoration and improved forest management.

Water Myanmar has extensive surface and ground water resources, although there are considerable regional variations within the country. For example, lack of water in the Central Dry Zone and salinization in the Ayeyarwady Delta area, flooding in the deltas, flash floods in the mountains and Dry Zone, cyclones and surges along the coast are primary hazards (Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands , 2016). Rainfall is unevenly distributed over the country and over the seasons leading to floods, flash floods and to water shortages and droughts (van Meel, et al., 2014). It is estimated that total utilization of the nation's water resources is only about five per cent of the potential (WEPA, 2017).

The agriculture sector accounts for about 90 per cent of water used in Myanmar, whilst domestic and industrial use of water accounts for the remaining ten per cent. With the increase of population and enhanced need for water for economic activities, there is increasing pressure on use of surface water and extraction of groundwater (WEPA, 2017). Furthermore, as irrigation infrastructure is developed, consumption by agriculture, the major source of withdrawals, is expected to increase (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

At local level, access to safe drinking water depends largely on local arrangements through reservoirs, communal ponds, private collection of rainwater and groundwater (Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands , 2016).

Forests and woodlands play an important role in water quality and quantity as well as in mitigating the effects of flooding and landslides. Deforestation in the northern parts of Myanmar has large impact on landslides and other water related issues in the country (Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands , 2016). The compounding effects of land degradation, overutilization and unfavourable agricultural practices in Myanmar are diminishing water supplies for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Water demand is expected to increase as socio-economic sectors expand, the climate gets hotter and drier, and rainfall becomes more unpredictable.

Under a changing climate, losses in agriculture productivity are expected to increase, as most of Myanmar's food production relies on rain-fed agriculture. Climate change (e.g. monsoon variability, late onset, early finish, extreme precipitation events, and extreme heat events) is likely to seriously affect future development and economic growth in Myanmar (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

The Project can play an important role in restoring watersheds, protecting riparian zones, and reducing impacts of soil erosion. In areas of India similar in terms of aridity to Myanmar’s Dry Zone,

21

a state-backed watershed development program, involving upland reforestation combined with check dams, has been very popular as a landscape-level intervention for local agricultural development, capturing and retaining more precipitation to improve agricultural performance. Such approaches have been piloted in Myanmar in 2016 by the Pyoepin program, as well as by GRET (a French NGO) and others.

Metals and minerals In the early 20th century, Myanmar boasted a significant minerals industry, and was a major producer and exporter of tin, tungsten, lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and silver. However, since the early 1960s, the minerals industry in Myanmar has suffered significant decline (Gardiner & Sykes, 2016). The metals and minerals sector creates significant although often localised impact on Myanmar’s environment. These pressures include the physical footprint of mines and associated built infrastructure (e.g. processing infrastructure) and waste generation including pollution of waterways (Gardiner & Sykes, 2016). The sector will potentially increase as a driver of environmental change in Myanmar if the sector opens to foreign direct investment and begins to modernise and expand.

Mining has destroyed significant areas of forests. Poorly regulated gold mining occurs in North East Sagaing and across Kachin, and large areas have also been mined for other subsoil resources (coal, gems, rare earth metals and other minerals). Once mined land is abandoned, reforestation may present the best way to rehabilitate it. However, areas used for gold mining may contain high levels of mercury and arsenic, commonly used in refining. Environmental mercury represents one of Myanmar’s graver environmental safety issues, particularly in relation to pollution of the Chindwin river. The Stockholm Environment Institute reported that Chindwin river water is unsafe to drink due to elevated pollution levels (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2015). Forest restoration may contribute to bio-fixation of environmental mercury and arsenic and so help mitigate this hazard.

Agriculture and food production A primary cause of deforestation across the tropical developing world is agricultural expansion, and Myanmar is no exception (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Agricultural activities cover about 12.8 million ha (0.2 ha of agricultural land per person), or approximately 19 per cent of Myanmar’s total land area. Both crop yields and livestock numbers vary from year to year because of annual variations in weather conditions and markets. The sector contributes to 37.8 per cent of GDP, accounts for about 30 per cent of total export earnings and employs 50-70 per cent of Myanmar’s labour force (FAO, 2017) (Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2015). As mentioned above, agriculture sector is the largest consumer of water in Myanmar.

There is a tendency for the agricultural sector to see forests as an opportunity for expansion of agricultural lands (Woods, 2015). WWF identifies the principal driver of forest loss in Myanmar as large-scale conversion for agriculture or aquaculture and other drivers of forest loss as shifting cultivation, conversion to commercial rubber or oil palm plantations, and mining (WWF, 2014).

Landlessness dynamics are also a key issue. Many smallholders may be evicted for various reasons, or displaced by conflict or infrastructure development, and seek frontier land in which to settle. The Project area includes areas beside the Thapanzeik dam reservoir where communities have been resettled. There are also historical issues of lack of recognition of land tenure as populations in the past expanded and were encouraged to settle in forest land by the military administration. In recent years, the Forest Department has been degazetting extensive occupied lands in the PFE (although it

22

is unclear whether the Department of Agriculture, Land Management and Statistics (DALMS) are yet playing their role to re-register them as settlement lands). Many lands under shifting cultivation are being transferred under Community Forestry provisions, and it is yet unclear how successful this approach will be.

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) can mitigate some of the pressures generated by agriculture through forest buffer zones, livelihood agroforestry and targeted restoration to reduce erosion and improve waterways.

Fibre and timber Historically, timber has been a major export revenue earning commodity for Myanmar. Over the last 50 years, the military government maintained very high levels of timber extraction, and established the MTE to oversee the process. The high demand led to the overruling of the Forest Department’s sustainability principles (based on the Myanmar Selection System) with annual revenue targets. Timber also became a currency for patronage under the Than Shwe regime, with timber allocation slips being handed out to favoured clients which could be redeemed at MTE depots.

Illicit over-extraction of timber and other malpractice is widely accepted to have been rife in the industry. More details are provided in the section below on barriers.

Greenhouse gas emissions In 2016, 195 countries, including Myanmar, agreed to the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Most of Myanmar’s GHG emissions are from agriculture and deforestation. GHG emissions are likely to increase rapidly with the development of the economy and increases in the consumption of energy and goods and services. In 2015, Myanmar was reported to have negative net greenhouse gas emissions, largely as a result of its relatively low level of industrialization and the large amounts of carbon that continue to be sequestered by its remaining forest stands (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

FLR has the potential to reduce GHG emissions, at least in the short to mid-term through forest restoration and improved forest management that includes carbon storage objectives.

Regional and global connections Myanmar is connected to the world through economic transactions, exchange of materials, energy, financial resources, people, ideas, technology, and innovations, which affects the country’s socio-economic condition.

The shift of Myanmar’s economy to a market-based approach and an increasing emphasis on engaging in international trade will likely result in the economy becoming a bigger driver of environmental pressures. On the other hand, Myanmar’s increasing engagement with the international community at regional and global levels may assist Myanmar to manage drivers such as population change and economic activity to generate benefits for sustainable development, particularly through technological and institutional innovation and changes in human behaviour. There are opportunities to guide the drivers of environmental change in ways that enable economic and social wellbeing while maintaining natural capital.

The Project will explore how FLR can support the ecologically sustainable use of natural capital whilst also improving the productivity of forests and agriculture for human wellbeing.

23

3.1.3 Institutional, sectoral and policy context

3.1.3.1 Institutional governance and political reform

The constitution of the Union of Myanmar (2008) provides a solid base for developing FLR interventions in Myanmar given the importance FLR places on the promotion of equal rights, non-discrimination and the recognition of rights of women.

Article 21.a of the Constitution provides that every citizen shall enjoy the right of equality, the right of liberty and the right of justice, regardless of their race, birth, religion, official position, status, culture, sex and wealth. Moreover, the Constitution requires the Union to protect and conserve the natural environment (Article 45) and Article 390 calls on every citizen to assist the Union in carrying out the following matters: (a) preservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage; (b) environmental conservation; (c) striving for development of human resources; [and] (d) protection and preservation of public property.

Myanmar is in rapid political transition, emerging from decades of relative isolation from the world stage. The National League for Democracy (NLD) took office in April 2016, the first civilian led administration in decades (The World Bank, 2016).

There is a strong political commitment to change, focusing on major economic and political reforms including:

• Democratic governance and rule of law. • National unity and peace via reconciliation with political parties and ethnic armed organizations. • Market-oriented economic adjustments, inclusive growth, bottom-up planning, and

decentralization. • Improved management of government institutions. • Collaboration with the international community and Myanmar’s diaspora. • Removal of media censorship (Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development

Programme, United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Entity for Gender, 2016).

The Burmese military (also known as the Tatmadaw) seems to have accepted the need for reform, and initiated it, but at the same time it appears to seek to maintain control, both political and economic, and to minimise the impact of reform on its interests. The country remains under the 2008 military-era Constitution, in which 25 per cent of seats in both the upper and lower houses of the national parliament and regional parliaments are allocated to the military. Reform of the constitutional requires a 76 per cent majority, thus requiring military acquiescence. The military has many members in senior positions in the bureaucracy, and has formal control of several executive bodies, particularly the General Administration Department (GAD), which is the key administrative department across the country. The Myanma Timber Enterprise, for instance, has been under military control for decades.

Ethnic groups occupy much of Myanmar’s uplands, and many maintain traditional customary livelihood practices and institutions. There has been conflict in many ethnic areas since independence, provoked by perceived oppression from the centre, and lack of respect for traditional governance institutions especially relating to control of customary land.

There are on-going conflicts in the contiguous area of Northern Shan and South East Kachin. There are no signs that the conflict will be resolved soon. Despite a ceasefire, Karen areas remain militarised. In both areas, the prevalence of military forces facilitates a climate of illicit harvesting of

24

timber, particularly for export directly to China, and pressure on checkpoint staff to accept bribes to allow illicit timber to pass. Much timber has passed from timber bearing forests in Sagaing through Tatmadaw controlled conduits to the Ruili border area. Ethnic armed groups are also implicated to some extent in this trade, partly to finance their military actions. Illegal timber from Sagaing is also transported south to the Mandalay region down the Ayeyarwady, some of which is then loaded on trucks and transported to China via Lashio and Ruili (Springate-Baginski, et al., 2016).

Myanmar’s reform process presents both an opportunity for and a risk to reform of the forest sector. Myanmar’s reform process offers opportunities for the country to enter higher-value certified export markets for forest products, modernise the forest industry, expand the forest conservation estate, improve the governance of forests, and accelerate community-based management of forests. However, it could also accelerate the rate of loss of forests through poorly planned development of industrial scale agriculture, infrastructure, and urban development, entrench or worsen poor forest governance, and disenfranchise local communities or groups through appropriation of local forest resources.

Although gender equity is provided for in the constitution, global and regional indices as well as national data reflect continuing gender inequalities in Myanmar. The 2013 Gender Inequality Index ranked Myanmar 83rd of 187 countries, while the 2012 Social Institutions and Gender Index placed the country at 44th of 86 countries and 8th of nine countries in East Asia and the Pacific (Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Entity for Gender, 2016).

3.1.3.2 Decentralisation

The constitution allows for a decentralised system of administration in Myanmar. Accordingly, Myanmar is divided into 14 administrative units comprising seven States (Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Mon, Shan and Rakhine) and seven Regions (formerly called divisions) (Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Bago, Tanintharyi, Ayeyarwady and Yangon), see Figure 5. States and Regions are subdivided into districts, which are further subdivided into townships, sub-townships, wards, village tracts and villages (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

25

Figure 5: Location Map of Myanmar (a) and its administrative units (b) (Source: The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012)

Political federalisation is a key negotiating issue for ethnic groups, which the NLD has agreed although the Burmese military apparently has not. In the meantime, administrative decentralisation is occurring, and this includes for instance conservation policy and NTFP revenue administration. Both issues could provide strong opportunities for the Project; however, there are risks of poor forest governance if devolution occurs without sufficient safeguards.

The General Administration Department (GAD) of the military-led Ministry of Home Affairs forms the administrative Office of the Region/State. At the state/region level, the GAD provides administrative and coordination functions for the region/state government, the region/state hluttaw, as well as union ministries and state/region departments, including the Forest Department.

The GAD also plays a central role in administration at the village level. After passage of the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law in 2012, a selection process was implemented to elect the Village Administrator who previously was a direct GAD officer. The role of these local administrators is very important, as they represent the villagers’ direct interface with line departments. However, the lack of political and fiscal decentralization means that many of the departments that are handling the management of natural resources are unable to take effective advantage of the creation of state and region governments.

3.1.3.3 Sustainability policies and laws

Myanmar Agenda 21 (1997) provides overall direction for natural resource management and environmental conservation work.

The National Sustainable Development Strategy (2009) supports the goals of sustainable management of natural resources, integrated economic development, and sustainable social development.

26

The National Environment Policy (1994) aims to integrate environmental considerations into the development process to enhance the quality of life of all citizens and states that environmental protection should always be the primary objective of development.

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (MOECAF, 2015) provides a strategic framework for the conservation of Myanmar's biodiversity to address new and emerging challenges arising from political, economic, and social reform in Myanmar. It aligns targets and actions with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;

The NBSAP (2015) recognises the following legislation related to natural resources and biodiversity:

• Law Relating to Aquaculture (1989). • Pesticide Law (1990). • Freshwater Fisheries Law (1991). • Forest Law (1992). • Law Relating to Fishing Rights of Foreign Fishing Vessels (1989, amended in 1993}. • Myanmar Marine Fisheries Law (1990, amended in 1993). • Myanmar Mines Law (1994). • Protection of Wildlife and Protected Areas Law (1994). • Fertilizer Law (2002). • Plant Pest Quarantine Law (1993, amended in 2011). • Seed Law (2011). • Conservation of Water Resources and River Law (2006). • Environmental Conservation Law (2012). • Animals Health and Development Law (2012).

The Environmental Conservation Law (2012) and the Environmental Conservation Rules of 2014 stipulating implementation arrangements includes articles relevant to FLR. It aims “to reclaim ecosystems as may be possible which are starting to degenerate and disappear” and to ensure that “The relevant Government departments and Government organizations shall, in accord with the guidance of the Union Government and the Committee, carry out the conservation, management, beneficial use, sustainable use and enhancement of regional cooperation of…forest resources.” (WRI, 2016)

3.1.3.4 Land use policies and laws

The Thein Sein led USDP government that took office in 2011 introduced land-use legislation that is seen by many in civil society as regressive. The twin Farmland Law 2012 and Virgin Fallow and Vacant (VFV) Land law 2012 have enabled formal trade in land titles and large scale acquisition of land. Although not intrinsically problematic, these laws cannot be safely implemented in the context of a lack of pre-existing land records in which disputes have not been resolved. For many decades, Myanmar has lacked effective land administration under the State Land Records Department, which has not properly updated cadastral records since the 1930s, even for urban areas, and is widely perceived as corrupt (LCG, 2012). The changes to the legislation have already compounded pre-existing grievances and are creating new problems and perceived injustices.

The objectives of the National Land Use Policy (2016) are as follows:

27

• To promote sustainable land use management and protection of cultural heritage areas, environment, and natural resources for the interest of all people in the country.

• To strengthen land tenure security for the livelihoods improvement and food security of all people in both urban and rural areas of the country.

• To recognize and protect customary land tenure rights and procedures of the ethnic nationalities.

• To develop transparent, fair, affordable, and independent dispute resolution mechanisms in accordance with rule of law.

• To promote people centered development, participatory decision making, responsible investment in land resources and accountable land use administration in order to support the equitable economic development of the country.

• To develop a National Land Law in order to implement the above objectives of National Land Use Policy. (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2016).

The National Land Use Policy recognises the following land types and land classifications:

• Agricultural land (all land used primarily for agriculture production purposes, including growing annual or perennial crops, growing industrial crops, animal husbandry activities, land based aquaculture activities, and any agriculture production focused support facilities, and any agriculture.

• Production focused support facilities that are either currently cultivated or fallow). • Forest land (intended to capture those areas of the country that will be determined to be part of

the permanent forest estate). • Other land (Urban land, village land, religious land, public land, government administrated

vacant, fallow, virgin land and wasteland that are not classified as forestland and agricultural land, etc.).

The National Land Use Policy recognises the need for free, prior, informed, consent (FPIC) and environmental and social impact assessment. It sets out the requirements for environmental and social impact assessments and procedures related to land acquisition, relocation, compensation, rehabilitation, and restitution.

Whilst the National Land Use Policy does not specifically mention landscape approaches, it does embody many of the principles of landscape approaches including the need for engaging local stakeholders in decision-making, collaboration, and implementation of solutions. The Policy also recognises the need to establish agricultural and ecological conservation zones to encourage protection of land resources and the environment.

There are several competing policy imperatives around land use (e.g. tenure security for small holders, attraction of large scale land investments, conservation, timber production and so on). A detailed overall strategy for land use and planning beyond the general provisions of the Land Policy is yet unclear although likely to emerge through the Land Law development and implementation at the state/regional level through devolved planning processes. Pilot District Land Use Planning (DLUP) exercises that have been conducted in recent years provide an indication of the challenges ahead.

28

Land Tenure

Approximately 18-20 per cent of the agricultural land in Myanmar has been registered and titled, with farmers receiving a Form 7 as their title deed to a land parcel. To date, the majority of registered and titled land has been irrigated rice fields (le), in contrast to the more remote rainfed agricultural lands in the lowlands and uplands (ya and taungya respectively).

According to the Farmland Law of 2012, farmland comprises (irrigated) paddy land, (rainfed) ya land, kiang land, perennial plants land, dhani land, garden land, land with vegetables and flowers and alluvial islands. While the irrigated paddy land has benefitted from government protection and received titling, the rainfed lowland ya land and hilly rainfed taung-ya land have not been subject to land survey or registration; the only proof of long-term use that farmers have to safeguard their land is the annual tax receipts paid to the township. In many court and grievance cases where farmers have challenged business interests that are seeking to acquire their lands, these tax receipts have been used as proof of their long-term use. Ya land has been subject to extensive land grabbing and land concessions to the military’s favourites during the military regime. For the upland ethnic communities in Myanmar practising rotating fallow taungya or shifting cultivation, the urgency of finding a way to protect their land against land concessions and alienation is evident, as their fallow land could be considered “idle” and ready for land concessions under the VFV Law of 2012.

Rainfed agricultural ya land is found everywhere, including within areas designated as Reserved Forests. Land inside Reserved Forests has often been used for agriculture and village settlements for decades; sometimes, villagers are not even aware that their fields are located within an RF. This long-term use is recognised by the government and the FD; in 2015, it was decided that villages in the RF with more than 50 households cultivating adjacent land should be degazetted from the permanent forest estate and the farmers ideally receive Land Use Certificates.

The degazettement of RF lands for agriculture has happened in a number of instances in the TRI project area, as observed by the 2nd Social Assessment Mission, 2017. The cultivation of ya land inside Reserved Forests in the project area was also observed to have occurred in the case of a large number of villages that had been resettled as a result of dam construction. These villages would have been forced to move away from the reservoir when their paddy land was inundated, and would have been given ya land inside the RF for resettlement. Based on information gathered during the assessment in August 2017, some resettled farmers received Land Utilization Certificates (LUCs) for their land; however, many did not. Some were never told clearly where their piece of ya land compensation was located and were without agricultural land. A fair amount of cultivated ya land inside RFs is illegal cultivation. The RF has been opened up or encroached upon by farmers in need of land, but it has also been illegally opened up by agribusiness claiming thousands of acres for cash crops such as sugar cane.

The Forest Department is presently intent on restoring the PFE by re-occupying the agricultural ya land inside the RF, which it considers encroachment. If the land looks like a degraded RF, which may be the fallow land of upland communities, the FD at central level may endorse it fit for plantation by private individuals. Alternatively, an impetus for FD is to turn this land into Community Forests and in this way more speedily move towards the target of some 300,000 ha of CF by 2030. This alternative is being pursued in the TRI project area by the FD, where the forest user group for such CF would consist of the farmers whose land is included in the CF. The new CFI allow the partitioning of the CF into individual parcels, which means the original farmers can hold on to their land parcels

29

and plant trees. This modality for establishing a CF means that it is not the community as a whole that benefits, but only a small, select group with ya land inside the RF. The CFI also allow for turning a natural forest into a CF for community management, in which case the forest user group may consist of almost the whole village and the spread of benefits for daily sustenance would be much wider.

In addition to land and forest tenure in Myanmar, there is also state-controlled tree tenure. All standing teak trees in the country are owned or ‘reserved’ by the state according to the 1992 Forest Law article 8(a). However, according to article 8(b), the Minister may declare, alter or cancel (according to the locality) the species of reserved trees which are to be conserved by the Forest Department. This change is presently included in the draft of the new Forestry Law, which has not yet been promulgated. Once this is in place, the impetus for farmers to cultivate e.g. teak as part of TRI forest restoration is greatly improved, as the tree tenure would be their own private tenure. The question arises whether to support CFs with plantations of private teak parcels or to support teak planting in vacant communal land as a community asset. In the case of the latter, the whole village would make up the forest user group in order to establish tenure security for the village against agribusiness and commercial plantations, and the income from CF would go into the village kitty for schools, health clinics or other amenities.

3.1.3.5 Forest policies and laws

The Forest Law (1992) is a slightly revised version of the colonial 1902 Forest Law and is currently being revised. In its current form, the Forest Law supports conservation initiatives, sustainable forestry practices, and socio-economic benefits, and encourages private sector and community participation in forest management (WRI, 2016).

The Forest Policy (1995) includes six imperatives which the government must give the highest priority, to achieve broader national goals and objectives:

• Protection of soil, water, wildlife, biodiversity, and environment. • Sustainability of forest resources to ensure perpetual supply of both tangible and intangible

forest benefits for all generations. • Basic needs of the people for fuel, shelter, food, and recreation. • Efficiency to harness, in a socio-environmentally friendly manner, the full economic potential of

the forest resources. • Participation of the people in the conservation and utilization of the forests. • Public awareness about the vital role of the forests in the well-being and socio-economic

development of the nation.

The Forest Policy aims to maintain 30 per cent of the country's total terrestrial area under Reserved Forests and Public Protected Forest (PPF) and 5 per cent of total terrestrial area as Protected Areas (PAs). The PAs target was increased through the 30-year National Forestry Master Plan (2000) to protect 10 per cent of Myanmar’s total land area (WRI, 2016). FAO reports that 4.46 million ha of Myanmar’s forest area (or about 6.8 per cent of the terrestrial area of the country) are located within PAs (FAO, 2015). The Forestry Master Plan also requires that almost one million ha (2.27 million acres) of community forests will be established by 2030 (WRI, 2016).

The CFI (2016), which updates the original 1995 version, enables rural communities to co-manage forests. It sets the objectives of community forestry as follows:

30

• To support forest related basic needs such as wood and non-wood forest products for local community.

• To reduce rural poverty through employment and income opportunities for local community. • To increase forest cover area and to ensure the sustainable utilization of forest products. • To promote forest management system with peoples [sic] participation. • To enhance environmental services that can support climate change mitigation and adaption by

protecting against deforestation and forest degradation.

The similarity between the CFI (1995) and the CFI (2016) is that the forest user group does not have to be the community, but can be constituted by a few individuals. The difference is that the 2016 version allows partitioning of the CF into individual parcels that - if it is ya agricultural land in a RF – would correspond to the user group members’ agricultural ya land. A recent review found that implementation of community forestry starting in 1997 has been very slow due to limited incentives for community members to participate, elite capture and limited support from Forest Department staff (Tint, et al., 2014; Woods & Canby, 2011).

Administrative arrangements for managing forests Forests can be defined on one hand as biophysical ecosystems dominated by trees, and on the other as a legally defined area under administration of the Forest Department (whether or not they contain trees).

The two senses of forest intersect on the ground in complex ways. Remote sensing studies show bio-physical forest to extend around 31 million ha of Myanmar, at varying levels of stand density. On the other hand, the Permanent Forest Estate covers around 20 million ha and parts of this area have no actual forest, particularly in the most accessible and most heavily logged areas, for instance north of Mandalay (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Myanmar Land Use and the Permanent Forest Estate

(Source: Forest Department)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Land use Landadministration:

PFE

Exten

t ( ,0

00 ha

)

INLAND WATERBODIESOTHER LAND

OTHER WOODEDLANDUnclassified Forest*

Protected Areas

Public Protected Forest

Reserved Forest

FOREST

Note 1: ‘Forest here is taken to mean land with over 10% canopy cover. Note 2: Unclassified Forest extent is an estimate derived from the total forest land

31

Box 1 State forest categories and use rights

(adapted from (Woods, 2015) The Permanent Forest Estates (PFE) can be categorized into three types:

1. Protected Areas (PAs): This strict conservation category includes national parks, nature and wildlife reserves, and other conservation areas. These conservation areas do not permit any resource use except for conservation purposes.

2. Reserve Forest (RF): This multiple-use category includes both conservation and sustainable forest use. Forest reserves are established for watershed management, management for commercial logging, as well as local wood supply reserves for village use. Community forests can also be designated in these areas. This is the most common PFE category at 18 per cent of the PFE. Forest reserves have been targeted for allocating agribusiness concessions, whether degazetted or not. The ecological integrity of Forest reserves is increasingly compromised from mismanagement, the allocation of economic land concessions inside, infrastructure development, and fragmentation.

3. Protected Public Forest (PPF): This category is an alternative to forest reserves for protecting trees and restricting land use in non-reserved forested areas. Commercial logging is permitted, although PPF are intended more for conservation purposes compared to forest reserve areas. PPF tends to be better demarcated on maps and on the ground, so less discrepancy problems are encountered compared to forest reserve lands. Community forests can also be designated in these areas, although this is not usually the case. This is the least common category of PFE, at just six per cent.

The other major category of forestland, known as Non-Permanent Forest Estate, includes two sub-categories.

1. Public Forest (also known as unclassified forest or other woodland area or virgin land): This category describes forestlands outside of PFE which are at the disposal of the state. This category is often quite degraded but sometimes still has some limited tree cover. Villagers can harvest timber and non-timber products for subsistence (not for commercial purposes), unless law specifically prohibits a certain action, such as cutting state “reserved tree species” (e.g., teak). However, these regulations can be overridden with special permission from high-level authorities.

2. Wasteland: This land category is without clear delineation on purported use or institutional control. This land category is often used to allocate agricultural concessions (see agriculture legal analysis below for further discussion), although standing trees under this forestland category are under the authority of the Forest Department

3.1.4 Past and planned national actions and projects

The key national forest-related actions currently underway in Myanmar include:

• A review of Land policy and development of a comprehensive land law. • The decentralisation process. • A review of forest policy and the Forest Law. • The 10-year (2017 to 2026) National Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme Myanmar

(NRRPM). • EU-FLEGT. • REDD+. • Community Forestry.

National policies and laws have been described in detail in earlier sections. The most relevant planned actions are elaborated below.

3.1.4.1 Forest restoration and the NRRPM

Forest Department data indicate almost 1 million ha of plantation was established between 1981 and 2017 (Table 2). However, the NRRPM notes that the return from plantations is low and over one half of the plantations have been badly damaged for various reasons. The NRRPM does not elaborate on the reasons the plantations have been damaged, or whether these issues persist today.

The NRRPM aims to enhance economic and environmental conditions of the country by:

• Restoring degraded natural forests for the provision of goods and services.

32

• Restoring degraded forests into original composition and structure of forests as well as already established plantation into desired condition.

• Establishing Clonal Seed Orchids and Seed Production Areas and initiate activities for production of high quality and seeds and seedlings.

• Enhancing technical capacity of staff and to initiate applied research for reforestation activities. • Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization for reforestation activities.

Table 2 Area of plantation established in Myanmar 1981-2017 (ha) (Source: Department of Forests)

Commercial Plantation Watershed Industrial Village fuelwood

plantations

Mangrove Total

Teak Pyinkado Padauk Pine Others

World Bank 14,541 14,541

ADB II 10,872 1,983 12,855

Teak Special Plantation

64,750 64,750

Forest Department Plantation

385,970 54,323 16,391 21,717 14,263 137,152 72,488 181,941 1,376 885,619

Total 476,133 54,323 16,391 23,700 14,263 137,152 72,488 181,941 1,376 977,765

The NRRPM includes (but is not limited to) the restoration targets shown in Table 3 .

Table 3: National Restoration and Rehabilitation Program Myanmar targets (Source: Min. of Natural Resources & Environmental Conservation Forest Department, 2016)

Area acre ha Assisted Natural Regeneration 818,538 331,251 Community owned forests 770,332 311,743 Natural forests naturally regenerated 500,000 202,343 Private plantation 285,104 115,378 Commercial tree plantation 162,900 65,923 Enrichment planting 147,270 59,598 Old plantation restored 111,357 45,065 Village supply plantation 104,563 42,315 Watershed plantation 34,585 13,996 Mangrove plantation 29,690 12,015 Agroforestry plantation 16,714 6,764 Hill plantation 12,700 5,140 Greening plantation 8,000 3,237 SPAs established* 4,278 1,731

Total 3,006,031 1,216,499

Note: 1 ha = 0.4 acre.

* SPA: seed production areas

33

In addition, the NRRPM aims to extend the PFE by 41,854 square km (16,160 square miles) by designating areas as reserved/ protected forest.

3.1.4.2 FLEGT

The Forest Law Enforcement Governance Trade (FLEGT) process aims to promote innovative approaches for effective civil society engagement in the strategic development of a FLEGT process for Myanmar.

To do this, the FLEGT process is laying the foundation for civil society to participate in forest governance deliberations fully and proactively. The Project will benefit from improved enforcement and compliance within the timber sector that emerges from the FLEGT process, as well as the improved capability of civil society.

The Project can contribute to the FLEGT process through supporting approaches that improve governance, rule of law, and community engagement in the forest sector. There is currently a National ‘Interim Task Force’ facilitated by MONREC and involving the main stakeholders in the timber value chain. They are seeking to understand how best to improve compliance, to ultimately achieve low risk status from European authorities scrutinising imports. They have outreach activities to regions including Sagaing, and can play a role in supporting improved enforcement against illegal logging, and better transparency and civil society scrutiny.

3.1.4.3 UN REDD+ Myanmar

According to the UN REDD + Myanmar website, Myanmar is striving to reduce its GHG emissions and the government has recognized the potential of the REDD+ initiative to contribute to green development by protecting global environmental resources (forest carbon stocks and biodiversity), helping to reverse land degradation, helping to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor and aiding adaptation to climate change (Myanmar REDD+ Programme, 2016).

Myanmar has commenced steps to implementing REDD+ readiness activities, this includes six components:

• Management of REDD+ Readiness, Myanmar will establish the institutional structure to manage the REDD+ Readiness process.

• Stakeholder Consultation and Participation.

• Development and selection of REDD+ Strategies.

• Implementation framework and safeguards - the Institutional, Legal and Financial Frameworks for REDD+ implementation will be developed or consolidated.

• National Forest Reference Emission Level and/or Forest Reference Level

• National Forest Monitoring System - comprising a monitoring function and a Measurement, Reporting and Verification function.

It is not likely that these components will be completed before the Project is completed in Myanmar.

3.1.4.4 Community forestry

Community Forestry emerged in Myanmar following the Community Forestry Instruction issued in 1995, and revised in 2016. Since then, it has spread very slowly, mainly due to a lack of Forest Department field prioritisation, reluctance from communities or lack of significant donor support after initial implementation support through JICA and UNDP. However, in the last two years, the Forest Department has sought to resolve encroachment in the PFE through degazetting settlements

34

and registering occupied cultivated land as community forest. Consequently, there has been an ‘explosion’ of community forest handover across the country, although with rather over-rapid formation processes, which are likely to lead to weak local forest user group institutions. This coincides with the situation, where, as said mostly those farmers whose land is converted to CF make up the forest user group.

The community forest implementation and handover processes have been receiving increasing support from RECOFTC with Norwegian support. The Community Forestry Unit in the Forest Department and the associated Community Forestry National Working Group are also increasingly active in promoting and tracking community forest implementation, and are very keen to receive engagement and technical support.

Community forestry which involves most of the community holds enormous potentials for mobilising community support and labour input for the NRRPM.

3.1.4.5 GEF interventions

Myanmar has had many GEF projects that are relevant to the Project. Lessons from these have been considered in the project design. The GEF-FAO project - sustainable cropland and forest management in priority agro-ecosystems of Myanmar - is currently in operation and is relevant to the Project. The following table summarises the relevant GEF projects in Myanmar.

Table 4: Myanmar's GEF projects relevant to FLR

Project title Principal donor/ agency

Dates Budget Project objectives and Primary activities

Project Coordination Measures

Preparation of National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)

UNEP Approved in 2008

USD 200 000 from GEF, USD 30 000 from co-financing

NAPA development The NAPA was considered when defining the proposed project activities

Development of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)


USD 200 000 from GEF, USD 50 000 from co- financing

The goal of the project is to enable Myanmar to better meet its immediate obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, especially in relation to Article 6: General measures for conservation and sustainable use.

The NBSAP helped inform the proposed investment

Building Capacity for Regionally Harmonized National Processes for Implementing CBD Provisions on Access to Genetic Resources and Sharing of Benefits


USD750 000 from GEF, USD 750 000 from co- financing

The objectives of the project are to: (1) strengthen the capacity of Southeast Asian countries to implement the CBD provisions on ABS through the development of effective national ABS frameworks; (2) increase understanding of ABS issues among stakeholders and the general public and strengthen national capacity for country negotiators to have full understanding of issues and preferred options in the negotiation on the international ABS regime in a way that protects national interests and promotes equitable benefit sharing; and (3) improve public understanding of the contribution ABS can make to biodiversity

Lessons learned from the proposed project will help inform the project

35

Support to GEF Eligible Parties (LDCs & SIDs) for the Revision of the NBSAPs and Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD - Phase II


USD 6 118 200 from GEF, USD 5 513 640 from co- financing

The overarching goal of integrating CBD Obligations into National Planning Processes through Enabling Activities, the main objective of this project is to enable GEF eligible LDCs and SIDs to revise the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and to develop the Fifth National Report to the CBD

Lessons learned will help inform the project.

Adapting Community Forestry Landscapes and Associated Community Livelihoods to a Changing Climate, in particular an Increase in the Frequency and Intensity of Extreme Weather Events


USD 5 087 500 from GEF, USD 19 211 000 From co- financing

To increase the resilience of Community Forestry and associated local community livelihoods to climate change- induced risks in the Central Dry Zone, Rakhine Coastal State, and Ayeyarwady Region.

Considered in project design

Improvement of Industrial Energy Efficiency

UNIDO Approved in 2013

USD2 830 000 From GEF, USD 13 800 000 From Co- financing

To promote sustained GHG emissions reduction in the Myanmar industry by improvement of policy and regulatory frameworks and institutional capacity building for industrial EE and implementation of energy management system, based on ISO 50001, EnMS and optimization of energy systems in industry.

Considered in relation to fuelwood.

Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Myanmar

UNIDO Approved in 2013

USD 500 000 from GEF, USD 500 000 from co- financing

The overall objective of the proposed Enabling Activities (EA) is to strengthen national capacity and capability to prepare a National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the management of POPs with a basic and essential level of information to enable policy and strategic decisions to meet the requirements of the Stockholm Convention

Not used in the project

Strengthening Sustainability of Protected Area Management

UNDP Approved in 2013

USD 6 127 850 from GEF USD 17 896 300 from co-financing

Strengthen the terrestrial system of national protected areas for biodiversity conservation through enhanced representation, management effectiveness, monitoring, enforcement and financing

Considered in the design of the project

GMS Forest and Biodiversity Program (GMS- FBP) - Creating Transboundary Links Through a Regional Support

ADB Approved in 2014

USD 917 431 From GEF, USD 30 738 000 from co- financing

To strengthen transboundary cooperation for the sustainable management of a network of priority conservation landscapes in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)

Lessons learned will help inform the project.

Mitigation-focused Rural Productivity and Ecosystems Services Enhanced in Central Dry Zone Forest Reserves

ADB Approved in 2016

USD 4,787,000 From GEF, USD 45,700,000 from co-financing

To enhance rural productivity and ecosystems services in the Central Dry Zone forest reserves through integrated approaches to natural resources management (NRM)

Lessons learned will be used in the project and opportunities explored for collaboration by engaging them in project workshops

Fish Adapt: Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and Resilience of Fisheries

FAO Approved in 2015

USD 6,000,000 from GEF, USD

To enable inland and coastal fisheries and aquaculture stakeholders to adapt to climate change by understanding and reducing

Not directly relevant but lessons learned will be considered

36

and Aquaculture-dependent Livelihoods in Myanmar

12,885,000 from co-financing

vulnerabilities, piloting new practices and technologies, and sharing information.

Sustainable cropland and forest management in priority agro-ecosystems of Myanmar

FAO Approved in 2015

USD 6.183 mil $ From GEF, USD 13.611 mil $ from co-financing

To build the capacity of farming and forestry stakeholders to mitigate climate change and improve land condition by adopting climate smart agriculture and sustainable forest management policies and practices.

Discussions were held with FAO Myanmar representative and agreement in principle to collaborate

3.2 The global environment problem

The following section has been adapted from The Restoration Initiative (TRI) – Fostering innovation and integration in support of the Bonn Challenge PIF Document.

Deforestation and degradation of forest lands are major causes of biodiversity loss and associated ecosystem services upon which the well-being of humanity relies. In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimated that approximately 60 of ecosystems examined were degraded or being used unsustainably (Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005). This situation has not likely improved in the intervening 12 years.

Together, emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use accounted for 20-24 per cent of global annual GHG emissions, or net emissions of 12 Gt CO2e in 2010 (International Panel on Climate Change, 2014). Moreover, degraded lands contribute to loss of soil and water retention, biodiversity, create barriers to migration of species, reduce replenishment of underground aquifers, and overall, generate fewer and lower ecosystem services that societies seeking to achieve the goals of the three Rio Conventions so desperately need.

Agriculture is reported as a key driver of forest change, causing around 80 per cent of deforestation worldwide. Mining, infrastructure, and urban expansion are also important drivers that result in forest and landscape degradation. Use of forests for fibre and timber extraction account for more than 70 per cent of total forest degradation in Latin America and (sub) tropical Asia. Fuel wood collection, charcoal production, subsistence agriculture, uncontrolled fire and livestock grazing in forested landscapes are also important pressures on forests and land in developing countries.

Deforestation and forest degradation can threaten the livelihoods, well-being, food, water and energy security and the resilience capacity of millions of people (FAO, 2015). Degradation can also increase competition for scarce resources leading to conflicts between users and increased inequalities for certain groups, such as women, in relation to the use and control over resources. Furthermore, forest and land degradation generates GHGs and reduces capacity to sequester carbon.

Given the right tools and incentives, much of the deforested and degraded estate can be restored – that is, ecological integrity and resiliency enhanced and human well-being improved in deforested and degraded lands – through the restoration and better management of forests, woodlands, trees, and other woody plants at the landscape level.

The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) has identified more than 2 billion ha of deforested and degraded landscapes worldwide – an area larger than South America – where opportunities for forest and landscape restoration may be found, see Figure 7.

37

Figure 7: Global distribution of forest and landscape restoration opportunities

Most restoration opportunities fall into one of two categories:

• wide-scale restoration of closed forest or open woodland (shown in dark green in Figure 7), • mosaic restoration into a mix of agriculture, forests, and other uses (shown in light green).

Wide-scale restoration is generally suitable for less populated areas with less intensive land-use demands. Mosaic restoration, which accounts for nearly three quarters of global restoration opportunities, is appropriate for more populated areas.

Restoration is much more than planting trees. FLR is a landscape- and systems-level approach to managing the dynamic and often complex interactions between people, natural resources, and the different land uses that comprise a landscape. It uses a collaborative approach to harmonize the many land-use decisions of stakeholders with the aim of restoring ecosystem functionality as well as enhancing the socio-economic development of local communities.

As such, it employs a wide range of restorative approaches and tools, from satellite-aided biological and economic assessments of restoration opportunities, to design of payments for ecosystem service programs, to establishment of protective regimes for forests that facilitate rehabilitation (e.g. protection from fires or grazing or erosion control), to natural and assisted tree planting activities, including the use of agroforestry systems on agricultural land (see Box 2 for key principles and examples of FLR in practice).

Restoration, if it is to be sustainable and effective in arresting global land degradation trends, necessarily involves a number of complementary strategies that address drivers of deforestation and

38

land degradation, including strategies to increase the productivity and resilience of agriculture (i.e., Climate Smart Agriculture), programs and incentive mechanisms to slow, halt and reverse forest and forest carbon loss (e.g., REDD+), and other sustainable livelihood programs that reduce pressures on natural resources. Together, these strategies are mutually reinforcing, with restoration serving to increase the amount of productive land available for agriculture, agroforestry, and forest uses, and complementary strategies acting to reduce pressure to convert natural ecosystems and primary forest.

There are many local, national, and global benefits from restoration. Healthy, fertile landscapes provide homes for wildlife and human life, providing food, clean water, and materials for shelter. Sustainably cultivated and farmed woodlands yield biofuel and raw products that can be worked or processed for trade, stimulating local industry, and creating jobs. There are opportunities to grow new crops where trees once stood that can be harvested for agriculture, and reduce pressures to expand the agricultural frontier. Trees in agricultural landscapes can improve soil moisture and fertility, sequester and store carbon, and boost food production. And responsible tourism and other services can be developed as part of the rehabilitation mix. These forms of sustainable enterprise can inject new income and new life into threatened communities, relieving poverty, enhancing gender equality and women’s empowerment and funding improvements in education.

Box 2: Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) – key principles and practice

Given the great diversity of ecosystems and landscapes to be restored, and the different communities with a stake in restoration, FLR necessarily makes use of a broad array of tools and techniques. At the same time, the following FLR principles underpin successful and lasting approaches to restoration:

• Planning is done at the landscape level, which allows trade-offs to be made between conflicting interests

• Local stakeholders are actively engaged in the decision-making, collaboration, and implementation of the solution.

• Restoration strategies are forward-looking, tailored to local conditions, and adaptively managed over time.

• Landscape functionality is restored and managed to provide a suite of ecosystem goods and services. • A wide range of restoration strategies are considered, ranging from natural regeneration to tree

planting.

FLR has been proven to work worldwide, improving livelihoods, stimulating local economies, contributing to carbon sequestration and storage, and safeguarding biodiversity. Examples include: • Agroforestry to enhance soils, meet energy needs and improve food security, as in Rwanda, Ethiopia,

and China. • Ecological restoration of degraded lands in Brazil’s Mata Atlantica for improved connectivity and to

sequester 200 million tons CO2e per year, equal to more than 2 billion tons of CO2e by 2050. • Directing oil palm development to improved productivity of degraded lands as an alternative to further

land clearance in Indonesia. • Managing natural regeneration to secure urban water supply, as in the watersheds of Beijing and Rio

de Janeiro. • Nationwide reforestation of highly degraded landscapes, as in the Republic of Korea. • Active restoration of coastal mangroves to improve livelihoods from fisheries and create opportunities

for ecotourism, as in Costa Rica or Vietnam.

39

3.3 Threats and root causes

For the purposes of the project the following definitions are used:

Threats – when a pressure (or a combination of pressures) is likely to cause damage to forest functionality and consequently to the ecosystem services provided by forest landscapes that people depend on.

Root causes – the underlying human-caused drivers that generate pressures on the environment that change the state of the environment, resulting in impacts on society.

Barriers (section 3.4) – societal and natural factors that impede the mitigation of threats and root causes.

3.3.1 Threats to Myanmar’s forest landscapes

Myanmar’s environment and socio-economic condition is influenced by both contemporary (current day) pressures and a range of historical factors. Historical changes to forest habitats in Myanmar have impacts that persist today (for example, the long-lasting impacts of overharvesting logs).

Contemporary pressures on forests in Myanmar include land-use change, habitat fragmentation, over-harvesting of species, changes to surface and groundwater condition, pollution, introduction of invasive species, and climate change.

Myanmar’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change lists three main environmental stresses [pressures] that affect the country, climate related hazards/extreme weather events, deforestation and diminishing water resources (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012). These contemporary pressures have expanded in recent decades in line with the increased the demand for food, fibre, minerals, land, transport, and energy.

The main pressures and associated threats to forest functionality and ecosystem services provided by forests are outlined below.

3.3.1.1 Climate change

The observed climate variability and change in Myanmar from 1951 to 2007 includes the following:

• A general increase in temperatures across the whole country (~0.08°C per decade), most notably in the northern and central regions.

• A general increase in total rainfall over most regions, however, with notable decreases occurring in certain areas (e.g. Bago Region).

• A decrease in the duration of the south-west monsoon season as a result of a late onset and early departure times.

• Increases in the occurrence and severity of extreme weather events, including; cyclones/strong winds, flood/storm surges, intense rains, extreme high temperatures and drought (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Over the same period, Myanmar has experienced increased average rainfall and higher variability in rainfall (e.g. variation on the monsoon) (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

The observed changes in climate-related hazards in Myanmar include:

• An increase in the prevalence of drought events. • An increase in intensity and frequency of cyclone/strong winds. • Rainfall variability including erratic and record-breaking intense rainfall events.

40

• An increase in the occurrence of flooding and storm surge. • An increase in extreme high temperatures (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Stakeholders interviewed during the design phase of the Project mentioned climate-related hazards including increased frequency of drought and increased severity of flooding.

The predicted increase in intense rain events in combination with a reduction in vegetation cover will result in decreased rainfall infiltration. This will increase runoff, erosion and sedimentation of streams/rivers and lakes generating a threat to both agriculture and catchment values.

The predicted increase in droughts and extreme day temperatures will increase evapotranspiration from the canopy of trees, causing increased moisture stress. This will in turn increase the vulnerability of forests to fires.

Changing climates will also favour the encroachment of invasive plant/animal species including insect pests (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Forests are vulnerable to climate change, as forest tree species with long lifecycles have little ability for migration of species distribution or replacement with lines tolerant to new growing conditions (Raitzer, et al., 2015). This creates a threat to existing forests and plantations and a potential threat to planned restoration activities.

As forest cover declines, the effects of more intense rainfall will be exacerbated, as watershed runoff is increased and flooding risk rises (Raitzer, et al., 2015). Increased flooding risks creates a threat to agriculture, human settlements, and infrastructure.

Not surprisingly, Myanmar considers climate change to be a major challenge to its socio-economic development. The government recognises that ‘Myanmar is one of the most highly vulnerable countries in the world to the adverse impacts of climate change, facing threats from extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding and drought.’ The government notes that without action to adapt to these threats, the prospects for the economic development will be hindered and the environment degraded. (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2015)

3.3.1.2 Land use change and over-exploitation

Since the early 2000s to present, Myanmar’s forest cover fell from 58 per cent to less than 44 per cent of the country’s land area. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of dense forest fell from 45 per cent to just 18 per cent (FAO, 2015). Much of this decrease is the result of over-harvesting for timber, both legal and illegal, and conversion to industrial plantations for cassava, oil palm and sugarcane.

Myanmar’s NAPA identifies deforestation pressures as:

• Fuelwood consumption (the principle source of energy). • Unplanned and unrestricted agricultural expansion. • Aquaculture (e.g. shrimp farming in the Delta region). • Infrastructure development. • Commercial clear cutting (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Deforestation rates have varied across the regions. The central and/or more populated States and Regions show the highest losses of forest resources. The most notable being the mangrove forests in

41

the Ayeyarwady Delta and the remaining dry forests at the northern edge of the Central Dry Zone (The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012).

Overexploitation of forests for fuelwood, food and building materials is common. Much of the rural population relies on fuelwood for much of its energy requirements.

Within the Project area, land use change (particularly encroachment of forests for agriculture and settlements), habitat fragmentation and over use of species and habitats are significant threats to the sustainability of forests and the livelihoods of the people who depend on forest ecosystem services.

3.3.1.3 Pollution

With increasing urbanisation and industrial development in Myanmar, pollution from wastewater and solid waste has increased. As the country moves toward industrialization, with the growth of its urban population, waste composition will change and volumes grow. A more efficient solid waste management system will be needed to cope with increased waste pressure (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Pollution is likely to increase with the current rapid rate of economic development and this will increase pressure on natural capital including forests and agricultural lands. Mining is a major and growing source of water pollution and this is likely to increase with the opening up of the country to foreign investors (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Myanmar’s marine and river waters remain largely free of pollution. However, signs of higher pollutant concentrations are starting to be noted along the mouth of Yangon River and inland water bodies are starting to show chemical and nutrient loading, with high nitrate concentrations observed in Inle Lake and the Ayeyarwady River system (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Within the Project area the most likely source of pollution that threatens human health is from mining operations.

3.3.1.4 Invasive species

Myanmar’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015-2020) (MOECAF, 2015) notes that the information on invasive species is incomplete and the pressure (and therefore the threat) that invasive species create on the environment and the consequent impact on human society is not fully known.

Some studies indicate invasive species pose threats to rice crops and freshwater systems throughout the country and to agriculture in dryland areas.

3.3.1.5 The interaction of pressures on the environment

Pressures can interact with each other to generate cumulative impacts on the environment. For example, areas harvested for timber can lead to fragmented habitats that are subject to ongoing overuse for forest products and grazing leading and the introduction of invasive species. The effects of habitat loss on biodiversity are compounded by wildlife capture (Raitzer, et al., 2015).

Climate change interacts with and often worsens the impact of other pressures on the environment. The interaction of pressures can change the flow of ecosystem services to people by altering terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2013).

The interaction of pressures, including the impact of climate change, has implications for the management of, and threat to, agricultural lands and forests. Loss of productivity from agricultural

42

lands and forests can lead to increased poverty, loss of livelihoods, food and water insecurity, increased health problems and increased susceptibility to natural hazards.

3.3.2 Root causes (drivers)

Globally, the human-caused drivers of change to the environment are demographic, economic, socio-political, scientific, technological, cultural, and religious (Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005). In Myanmar, these drivers operate to various degrees.

The extent to which drivers result in adverse environmental impacts depends on a range of factors. These include total population pressure, demographic factors (e.g. rural vs urban population and demographic change), the type and volume of goods and services produced (for both domestic and export markets) and consumed, and the technologies used to produce energy, food, materials, transport and manage waste products. Keeping the environmental impacts of drivers within limits is a key to a sustainable future.

The root causes (drivers) of deforestation and forest degradation in Myanmar have been described earlier in section 3.1; they include demographic, socio-political and economic drivers.

In the Sagaing region, the drivers of environmental change that are most apparent include:

• Demographic factors – a high proportion of people live in rural areas and depend on natural resources.

• Economic factors – forests have been used by past governments to generate foreign exchange and funds for development activities at an unsustainable level. Many rural people struggling with poverty and livelihood opportunities has to depend on direct conversion of natural resources to satisfy livelihood needs. The current land use including farming practice is neither sustainable nor efficient.

• Socio-political factors – land use rights, forest use rights, governance issues and rule of law are all key drivers of change in the region.

Drivers are not inevitably bad for the environment. If managed well, drivers can offer benefits for the environment, particularly through technological and institutional innovation and changes in human behaviour that mitigate or reverse pressures that have negative environmental impacts.

3.4 Barriers

The barriers to mitigating threats and root causes can be categorised as follows:

• Information and knowledge barriers a. Villagers often have a poor level understanding of government processes, policies and

roles and there is a lack of transparency of government actions. b. The District Forest Management Plans and District NRRPM plans are not well aligned,

and neither explicitly includes FLR principles. • Governance and rule of law barriers:

a. There is limited social inclusion and participation in forest governance b. Weak rule of law, corruption, widespread grievances about past government practices

are not addressed effectively.

43

c. The lack of legitimate domestic and commercial supply of forest products encourages a shadow economy of illicit extraction of forest products, with bribes sometimes paid to Forest Department staff.

• Social licence barriers a. Forest Department/village relationships are poor in general, with unbalanced power

relationships encouraging corruption. b. Grievances over land tenure and use rights are common.

• Capacity and capability barriers a. There is a lack of incentives on citizens to conserve forests and regulate over-extraction. b. Motivation amongst Forest Department staff is variable and staff often have limited

capacity. c. The NRRPM is dominated by conventional forestry thinking – with adherence to forest

‘working circle’ concept, lack of inclusive participatory processes and a predominance of technical solutions (e.g. plantations) that do not adequately reflect socio-economic factors.

d. Community forestry is being promoted as a key element of the NRRPM, but implementation remains slow and the quality and sustainability has been questioned by some observers. In particular where in NRRPM the community forestry constitutes the conversion of farmers’ rainfed agricultural ya land inside the RF.

Each barrier is elaborated below:

3.4.1 Information and knowledge barriers

Myanmar is emerging from a period when information was controlled tightly and public access to data and knowledge limited. Whilst this situation is changing rapidly through both democratisation processes and the rapid adoption of internet and mobile devices, there remain substantial gaps in data, information and knowledge and challenges to accessing reliable, accurate, timely and useable information.

At local village level, knowledge of government policies and programmes often remains rudimentary and frequently incorrect. Extension programmes exist, but their penetration across the country varies tremendously. Experience of rural communities with government staff has, at least in some areas, left a legacy of mistrust. For example, some communities are unwilling to consider community forestry as they fear it is a ploy by the government to reduce their current use.

Obtaining digital information on land use, tenure and land use change is difficult, although improving slowly. This presents a challenge for land that is categorised as Virgin Fallow and Vacant Land (VFV).

Data on the condition of forests is being updated at national level through a national inventory. At the district and township levels, however, forest boundary and forest inventory information is often out of date and incorrect. Poor quality information and data can lead to poor quality decisions being made, or used as a reason for indecision, both represent a barrier to effective landscape restoration.

44

3.4.2 Governance and rule of law barriers

3.4.2.1 Land use governance

The status of VFV land is particularly problematic and unresolved and one of the more significant barriers to a landscape restoration approach. VFV land is mainly forest land which for various reasons (e.g. occupation and shifting cultivation, civil conflict, lack of capacity) has not yet been gazetted by the Forest Department, and has been categorised by the Department as UF. UF is under the administration of the DALMS whose main revenue generation model is through land taxes, and so their incentive is to lease these lands to business. Many businesses appear to have been securing leases under this approach. Although trees on VFV land are formally under the authority of the Forest Department, many lease holders appear to have been illicitly harvesting and selling the valuable trees in the process of land clearance.

Civil society has been campaigning strongly for revision to these laws, and in 2016 a new land policy was promulgated after substantial consultation. The Land Policy includes numerous provisions for an inclusive and locally appropriate and legitimated land use planning and management approach, and sets a precedent for a much more democratic new Land Law, which is currently under development.

The lack of clarity around VFV/UF remains a significant barrier to landscape level interventions.

3.4.2.2 Forest governance and rule of law

The forest sector has a long history of difficulties associated with rule of law and corruption during the era of military government. The military government’s desperate need to generate export revenues led to the overruling of the Forest Department’s sustainability principles (based on the Myanmar Selection System) with annual revenue targets. Timber also became a currency for patronage under the Than Shwe regime, with timber allocation slips being handed out to favoured clients which could be redeemed at MTE depots.

Illicit over-extraction of timber and other malpractices are widely accepted to have been rife in the industry. A final consideration is that upland forests have been the sites of armed struggle against the Burmese military, meaning that it was not normally possible to harvest these forests, putting additional pressure on accessible lowland forests. For these reasons, extraction of timber, both official and unofficial, has far exceeded sustainable offtake levels (Annual Allowable Cut), precipitating a dramatic collapse in the productivity of many timber-bearing forests (see Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10).

45

Figure 8: Teak extraction in Myanmar 1918 to 2014 (including estimated illegal extraction and wastage)

Figure 9: Other (non-teak) timber extraction Myanmar 1918 to 2008 (including estimated illegal extraction and wastage)

(Sources: Springate-Baginski et al. 2016, based on data from MOECAF)

46

Figure 10: Teak marked for felling by region 2009-15, compared with estimated sustainable Annual Allowable Cut (Source: MOECAF)

Myanmar’s timber industry has been dominated by a small number of very large conglomerates favoured by the military leadership under ‘National Entrepreneur’ status with preferential contracts (e.g. Max Myanmar, Kanbawza, Htoo trading, Dagon, AsiaWorld), with many smaller companies not having the same preferential treatment. The conglomerates have made huge fortunes from the timber trade, part of which has been reinvested into developing diversified business empires. Most of the larger companies have declining interest in the now relatively less profitable sector (Springate-Baginski et al. 2015).

On 1 April 2014, the Government of Myanmar placed a permanent ban on log exports hoping to gain greater control over the international timber trade and promote the export of more finished products. Concurrently, the Forest Department announced serious action, including prison sentences, to address illegal logging (Kollert & Walotek, 2015). Environmental groups such as WWF cautiously welcomed the Myanmar log export ban whilst noting that the ‘effect of the ban needs to be demonstrated over time, but it is a good sign of a commitment to control the legal export of timber from Myanmar’ (WWF, 2014).

In April 2016, the Government of Myanmar placed a 1-year moratorium on commercial logging nationally, and 10-year moratorium on logging in Bago Yoma. The national moratorium was conceived as a temporary measure to enable time for the government to review and restructure the logging industry. The national moratorium was partially lifted in March 2017, with lower log extraction levels and stricter control being enforced over AAC. Under the new arrangements, MTE is not permitted to sub-contract logging operations.

There are positive reasons for lifting the moratorium, including the fact that forest enterprises, including small-medium enterprises (SMEs), are major employers and they have invested in capacity,

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Num

ber o

f tre

es

2009-15 AAC 2009-15 Marked for felling

47

including an estimated 5,000 working elephants, so both enterprises and workers need access to logs. However, the concern for maintaining the ban is that forests have been overharvested and need time to recover. Resuming large-scale harvesting risks further damaging the productivity of Myanmar’s forests, at a time when there are already very few trees left above the legal girth limit to harvest.

During the design phase of the Project, there was evidence that the Forest Department is re-asserting control over logging activities as far as its resources allow. The re-commencement of logging by MTE in Sagaing Region was apparently being strictly controlled, with bans on sub-contracting by MTE and access to non-designated logging areas being enforced.

More problematic is the ability to enforce the rule of law on illegal timber harvesting. Illegal harvesting of timber and poles can be categorised as: a) harvesting by local people for domestic use and b) harvesting for commercial purposes through organised or semi-organised illegal trade routes. The former category is almost impossible for the Forest Department to control given the vast extent of the estate, poor access, limited departmental resources and the fact that people often have no viable alternative. The latter category of illegal logging commands a considerable part of the Forest Department’s attention, but is very difficult to ensure enforcement actions are effective. Illegal, organised logging is a substantial threat to the success of restoration efforts.

The shadow economy of petty corruption and bribery is exacerbated by low government salaries that create a perverse incentive for Government staff to ignore rule breakers or to extract bribes.

3.4.3 Social licence barriers

There is a lack of mechanisms for citizens to participate in planning and decision making over PFE and other forests, other than community forestry, even though decisions on forest management and restoration can have a direct, and sometimes significant, effect on communities and individuals.

Many rural communities distrust the government and large businesses. A legacy of past heavy handed and centralized approaches by the government as well as military interventions has eroded the trust between the community and the government. Even programmes such as community forestry that are designed to empower local people are seen by some communities as tactics by the government to impose taxation or by government officials to extract ad-hoc payments for services.

Allocation of large agricultural concessions to rich business people has also undermined trust when people were either removed from lands they occupied or were reduced to wage labourers for concessions that also reduced access to fuelwood.

Within the project area, there are at least two areas of the PFE that have been subject to large-scale concessions. Whilst the threat of further large scale land grabs appears to be diminished under the current government, the legacy of the existing concessions remains a threat to those areas.

3.4.4 Capacity and capability barriers

3.4.4.1 Forest Department capabilities

The Forest Department has a large cadre of professional forest officers, but also a very broad mandate and a complex and large area to manage. Staff numbers at District and Township level are

48

often below the officially designated number of staff. This situation is beginning to improve, but staff shortages are likely to present a barrier to change.

Field-based FD staff have a wide scope of responsibilities including: territorial and enforcement roles, PFE management roles and community forestry and extension roles. These widely differing roles create at least two management challenges relevant to landscape restoration. The first challenge is that it is difficult for staff to undertake extension and enforcement roles simultaneously. Attempting to do so tends to generate distrust and lack of credibility at community level. The second challenge is that the three roles require quite distinct and different skills and staff that may be proficient with the skills required for one role may not have the skills or the aptitude for the other roles. Separating the roles between staff (e.g. having an enforcement cadre separate from a community forestry cadre) and improving skills and capabilities may help alleviate this barrier.

3.4.4.2 Inter-agency cooperation

Weak collaboration and cooperation between line agencies is a common feature of governments all over the world. Landscape restoration is best effected through good coordination and cooperation between relevant line agencies, for example, the FD and the Department of Agriculture. Existing coordination mechanisms and cooperative arrangements remain weak in Myanmar. Weak cooperation and coordination is a barrier to effective landscape solutions.

Department of Agriculture (especially DALMS) and Department of Mining are particularly important as they play a direct role in managing other competing land use (agriculture and mining). FLR will not be successful without coordination with and from these other line agencies.

3.4.4.3 Community capacity

A review of community forestry found that implementation beginning in 1997 has been very slow due to limited incentives for community members to participate and limited support capacity (Tint, et al., 2014). This is supported by findings from the two missions during the design phases: community cited the lack of knowledge, information and extension service as reasons of both the difficulty in obtaining land use certificate and their low participation in community forestry.

More recently, there has been an effort to accelerate the rate of formation of community forestry user groups. However, some observers have commented that rapid hand-over of forests may come at the cost of incorrect identification of forest users, the absence of building effective skills and capabilities at community level and the increased likelihood of use right disputes and conflicts.

At village level, lack of awareness of alternative approaches to agroforestry, plantations, community forestry, community forestry enterprises and forest management are barriers to some elements of restoration. Local communities often have poor access to capital and are unable to risk ventures into enterprises without significant external assistance.

The FD’s community forest unit and numerous NGOs and CSOs have considerable skills in community forestry and are working hard at building capability within the FD, CSOs and communities.

49

Table 5: Summary of threats, root causes and barriers

Threats Consequences Root causes Barriers

Fore

st e

cosy

stem

s

Climate-related:

Forest fires Droughts Floods

Agriculture expansion including semi subsistence and industrial scale

Overharvesting of forest products (including wildlife)

Mining Invasive species

Biodiversity change and loss (increased threat to species, loss and degradation of habitat, loss of genetic diversity) Soil erosion Changes to

hydrological systems Pollution of waterways

from mining Changes to micro-

climate Loss of ecosystem

services

Global climate change High dependence on

natural resource use while land management practices remain largely low efficient and unsustainable Demographic factors

(high rural population growth) Unsustainable

Economic growth (lack of alternative livelihoods and dependence on natural resources) Poor governance and

rule of law

Inadequate or conflicting legal/regulatory frameworks at both national and landscape level

Power relations and historical distrust discourage community working with government on sustainable management of resources Lack of knowledge and

capacity, and field demonstration of FLR programs in Myanmar context Lack of capital to invest

in restoration Lack of economic

incentives, markets and infrastructure Inadequate

communication and knowledge exchange to scale up successful FLR strategies

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic w

ellb

eing

Climate-related:

Droughts Floods Severe weather

events Soil erosion Forest degradation Agriculture expansion

including industrial scale

Increasing risks to agriculture and livestock production Decreasing access to

water Loss of productivity

due to soil erosion and chemical pollution Increase in vector and

water borne diseases Loss of livelihoods Increase in community

conflict Increasing inequity

3.5 Stakeholder analysis

A stakeholder analysis was conducted according to the following categories: civil society, government, private sector, international organisations (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: A conceptual diagram of stakeholders relevant to FLR in Myanmar

Civil society Rural communities (disaggregated by ethnicity, gender, age, wealth,

occupation); CSO; NGO; academic & research organisations

Government Legislature; Executive (line agencies, MTE,); Judiciary; State/ region government

Private sector

'National Entrepreneur' (Crony); Military holding companies (e.g. U Paing/UMHCL); Small &

Medium Enterprises; Community Enterprises; Media & Journalists

Internationals

Donor projects, International organizations; Regional (ASEAN) Trading partners

50

From these categories, key stakeholders were identified and interviewed at national, state/region (Monywa) and local levels (Shwebo / Katha districts, and a range of townships, villages, households and individuals) during the design phase of the Project.

Community stakeholders

Rural communities in forested landscapes are generally interested in improving their livelihoods through improved tenure security for livelihoods assets, both for private and common lands. They are also interested in more secure supplies of ecosystem services, particularly forest products (e.g. fuelwood, timber) and improved local microclimate and water supply.

In general, there are poor, although not generally conflictual, relations between local communities and FD staff. This is due mainly to: (1) lack of secure legal access to domestic products; (2) lack of legitimate processes for expanding agriculture lands; and (3) officially sanctioned state over-extraction for logs in recent decades.

Communities in the Project area seem generally eager to improve their working relationship with the FD staff, and to work together to restore the productivity of the forests.

The project area also holds a mix of communities. Some were resettled 20 years ago as a result of the Thapanzeik dam; some are old settlements (villages of over 100 years old); and some are newly expanded settlements where older settlements have grown too big due to population growth and shortage of arable lands. The households with irrigated rice fields have, as a rule, received Land Utilization Certificates and titles to their land, as it is the government’s policy to register irrigated rice fields first. The resettled villagers have been given rainfed ya agricultural land inside the RF. However, they have reported that this new agricultural land is less productive than their old land. In several villages, young men have migrated out to work in the jade mines in Kachin State.

The 2nd Social Assessment Mission also visited villages in which Community Forestry had been started in the form now promoted by the FD. This entails designating the agricultural ya land of five to ten farmers’ inside an RF as a CF. Other villagers met were not interested in CF, as they either had limited capacity in agroforestry and other alternative forestry-based livelihood models, or farmers could not spare their ya land (even though considered illegal by the FD). Some farmers were concerned that CF is just another government program to take over land. The villagers were also hesitant to plant hardwood trees because of the long return cycle. Until recently, the planting of hardwood such as teak would not have been an option for villagers, as teak per definition belonged to the state. A recent change of policy may soon allow private citizens to own teak plantations and this had encouraged a couple of villagers to plant teak on their ya land.

Section 3.4.4.3 has covered some of the shortage of community capacities, which will not be repeated here.

Women:

The 2030 Agenda, with land-specific SDG indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1, and 5.a.2, provides global guidance to governments on tallying data on women’s land rights in law and in practice, both documented and as perceived by their beneficiaries.

51

Discussions with women focus groups about the possibility of forming women’s forest user groups in order to establish CFs of their own identified two main obstacles: lack of time; and the difficulties of obtaining land titles for women. The ability of rural women to exercise their tenure rights is often tied to their marital status and relationships with men who control land. This means that women who are the sole heads of their households are often the most dependent on productive assets such as forests and these women’s tenure rights are especially vulnerable.

Land rights in Myanmar are subject to a broad range of legal and customary land tenure arrangements and the realization of women’s tenure rights is complex and intersectional. Overarching statutory protections (e.g. CEDAW) calling for the rights of women to be enshrined in national constitutions may not be operationalized in the laws that regulate the everyday lives of local communities and women. Thus, the 2016 CFI does not mention women. Article 8 of the CFI deals with the setting up CF user groups, but there is no mention of women as management committee members. Statutory laws acknowledging the tenure rights of local communities rarely specify the rights of women in community-based tenure systems.

However, the National Land Use Policy (NLUP) that was subject to an all-Myanmar consultation with donor support and endorsed by the USDP government in January 2016 just prior to its stepping down has several articles on women’s rights. For example, Article 8(k) calls for equal opportunities for men and women over land resources, tenure rights and participatory decision making. It promises in Article 75 that the new National Land Law shall provide that men and women have equal rights to land tenure and management. Article 78(xv) on monitoring draws attention to the need to assess and analyse whether women's land rights are properly recognized and whether women may participate in land use decision making processes. When the NLD government came into power in 2016, its Legal Commission scrutinised the NLUP and removed the articles that recognized customary tenure of ethnic nationalities, but probably retained the articles on gender. By mid-2017, the debate and lobbying by CSOs on the NLUP had been replaced by a debate on the new Land Law and the new Agricultural Strategy.

It is necessary to contextualize women’s community-based tenure rights with the overriding national present policy objectives of the FD. These objectives aim at speeding up establishment of community forests. The FD is far behind schedule. One way to speed up is for the FD to turn agricultural land inside Reserved Forests into CF, as already described. The FD has a policy of calling for conversion of a village’s existing ya land inside a RF to become a (small) CF through introduction of agroforestry. The Forest User Group would automatically consist of the farmers whose land is included in the CF. These farmers can stay in control of their land, as Article 12 of the new CFI allows the CF area to be partitioned into the original parcels controlled by the individual farmers in the Forest User Group.

Unfortunately, this modality of establishing CF often excludes women, as they will not as a rule be seen by the FD as land holders. In this modality, the CF does not become a community asset, but rather, an investment by those who have control over the parcels of ya land inside the RF. The community cannot share the CF as a community-based resource. The trees planted, e.g., teak, will be difficult to share later at the community level, as teak represents an exchange value, not a use value. In this situation, the CF is not a real community forest and there is no women’s forest tenure found at the community level. In villages with CF visited by the project design team, only men had been sent for training and FD interacted with the men only.

52

The rights of rural women to community assets such as forests, lands, and other natural resources are necessarily connected to a host of related property rights. Women lack control over the ya land on which they depend and are less likely to be included in decision-making about land or included in the Forest User Groups. Where the CF is former ya land, the beneficiaries are by definition pre-selected. The Stakeholder Consultations revealed that FD is focusing on converting 80,000 acres of taungya. Taaungya is rainfed agricultural land (ya) in the uplands (taung), and is used for shifting cultivation by indigenous upland ethnic groups.

However, the CFI also allow for natural forest to become a CF. Where this has happened earlier, e.g. in Southern Shan State, the whole community forms the user group and all households can benefit from use value of the variety of forest products that a natural forest produces. It is noteworthy that in the FAO Forest and Farm Facility, which supports the development of forest-based small businesses, we see that it is the Southern Shan State that is most actively involved.

In a project context, it is evident that the nature of the natural resources, e.g. their tenure and their produce, which are addressed in forest restoration, predetermines the beneficiaries and the kind of governance structure that can be put in place. Single teak tree plantations will benefit the few persons claiming rights in the land where the trees grow. A large natural watershed forest undergoing restoration by planting numerous species will benefit the many, the whole community, including women. Thus, the approach at the local level must analyse the existing and planned biophysical nature of the resources that are to be addressed in the forest restoration to identify the flow of benefits. Local governance structures in many villages need women due to male out-migration from the villages, e.g. to Hpakant jade mines in Kachin State for labor opportunities. This may play havoc with the local governance systems, if there is inadequate legal recognition of women’s tenure rights.

The physical presence of rural women in meetings does not guarantee their substantive participation and influence. Cultural norms will dissuade them from voicing their opinions. This was confirmed by the women focus group discussions carried out during the 2nd Social Assessment Mission in August 2017.

TRI should therefore address the legislative weaknesses in the statutory CFI’s recognition of women’s rights to community forests. Community-oriented legal reforms that build on the local situation are most effective.

Civil society stakeholders:

There are several conscientious CSOs and NGOs working in the Project area on forest restoration and tree planting.

• ‘Greenland/Sein Aung So’ is the most prominent, involving several township level groups working on tree planting, mainly in civic areas and roadsides.

• Kadu Youth Development Association has also been active, particularly around Indaw Township. • The Myanmar Accountability and Transparency Initiative (MATA) Sagaing group – a network of

younger activists researching and advocating on natural-resource related governance problems, in relation to the national MATA network, which was initiated by Win Myo Thu/Ecodev in relation the EU FLEGT program.

53

The NGOs met during the design phase of the Project were keen to participate in the Project.

There are a range of national NGOs relevant to the project. However, whilst NGOs and CSOs have a range of skills, in general each lacks a sufficiently broad range of capacities to implement a complex FLR project. Additionally, there are no national NGOs that have any significant engagement in Sagaing Region.

There is weak communication between the FD and CSOs. There are no formal mechanisms for inclusion or coordination. As CSOs are not well briefed on FD activities or what the foresters are trying to do, they can misunderstand the FD system. This is a problem now that the FD is trying to reform, as CSOs can tend to criticise the FD based on past experiences without grasping ongoing reforms. In some places, CSOs are reluctant to get involved in CF at present. The FD can feel discouraged with the weakness of effective communication and cooperation between themselves, villagers and CSOs, especially in relation to tree planting in community forests. For example, regulations require Forest User Groups to transport seedlings, but they generally lack resources to do so and have uncertain motivations towards community forestry – as a result, the FD often has to transport and even plant seedlings on community forest. Another challenge to effective communication is a result of FD staff having to play multiple roles – community forestry extension, law enforcement, conservation etc.

Part of the difficulties stem from the history of dictatorship, and the fact that the FD was disempowered in order that the MTE subcontractors could overharvest the forests for national revenues and personal gain. Communities have come to see the state as oppressive, exploitative, and mismanaged. Sagaing is a very important region for forestry so it will be important the NGOs and CSOs develop well.

Besides the national civil society organizations, a number of regional and international organizations such as RECOFTC and FAO are found in the forestry sector. The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) has been collaborating with IUCN on advancing forest farm producer groups. FFF works to strengthen forest and farm producers’ organizations (i.e. member-based organizations such as community forest user groups, farmers groups, indigenous peoples’ associations) to improve land tenure and market access of smallholders among other things. FFF launched its activities in Myanmar in 2013. Following work in 2014 to help 6 NGOs support the establishment and strengthening of smallholder producer organizations and businesses, in 2015 the ambition was to build on that foundation by catalyzing township and State level associations of community forest user groups, built around business interests – and support a revision of the CFI to grant those community groups full commercial rights. In 2016, the Southern Rakhine Community Forest Products Producers Association (CFPPA) was finally formed and FFF support to the Community Forest National Working Group (CFNWG) started in January the same year.

In 2016, the number of community forest user groups that joined existing CFPPA’s or formed new ones at township level was significantly scaled up. In total, ten new CFPPAs were formed at the township level in Southern Shan (5), Southern Rakhine (2), Chin (2), and Ayeyarwaddy Region (1) and 2 new sub-regional level producer associations were formed in Southern Shan and Southern Rakhine States. It is anticipated that a national level federation will be formed soon to support the growing number of CFPPAs and to secure a seat at the Community Forest National Working Group (CFNWG) and related platforms at the national level.

54

Within the framework of FFF’s capacity building and learning program, the FFF team - in cooperation with the Myanmar Environment Rehabilitation-Conservation Network (MERN) in Yangon and the FD - organized a one-week training course on “Sustainable Timber Production and Value Chain Creation” for 44 persons from different institutions, educational backgrounds and regions (Rakhine, Shan, Chin states) in Myanmar.

Government stakeholders:

After a long period of disempowerment under the military rule, the FD is seeking to consolidate and develop capacity. FD staff are generally highly motivated to improve effectiveness through better cooperation with communities. Enforcement has been improving, and corruption, both major and petty, apparently declining. However, motivation and capacity remain serious concerns. The districts included in the Project area are understaffed compared to their allocated staffing numbers, sometimes as much as one-half of capacity in the townships targeted for project activities.

There is relatively weak formal coordination at the village tract, township, and district levels across government departments, and so there is a good potential to improve.

An important officer to engage with in the TRI planning with villagers on land use in the project area is the elected Village Tract Administrator who refers to the GAD. He oversees all villages in the tract and will often be the intermediary when villagers want to approach government line officers e.g. on land rights and land registration. Setting up committees for Re-scrutinizing Seized Farmlands and Other Lands the government set up the committees from central level and down. Thus, the tract administrator was by mid-2016 instructed to set up such committee to address land issues and grievances in the tracts concerned emerging from the comprehensive land grabbing by the earlier military government and its business connections.

Private sector stakeholders:

The forest-related private sector is in transition. Businesses linked to military patronage have in the past engaged in heavy and poorly-regulated over-extraction of timber. As forests have become exhausted, and the impact felt of the 2015 log export ban and the 2016-17 logging moratorium, many companies have abandoned the sector. Logging resumed in 2017, but only through MTE directly, and it seems the era of MTE subcontracting log extraction to private companies is now over.

Although legal logging (and related irregularities) has been reduced, illegal commercial-scale logging remains a serious concern, even though recent cases in 2017 seem to indicate enforcement seems to be strengthening. In the field, the routes for, and traders involved in illegally extracted timber seem to be widely known. On the other hand, domestic demand for forest products remains poorly addressed under current legal procedures, and so illicit extraction to meet domestic needs is a major challenge for forest management. There is an evident need for a more effective formal domestic supply system.

Large-scale agribusiness can obtain concessions over forest areas for conversion to cropland, for example sugar plantations. At least two large concession areas exist in Katha District. Both concessions have cleared valuable teak forest and the sites are now occupied by numerous small-scale farmers who supply sugar cane to the companies as well as grow other crops.

55

There are a small number of private companies that are interested in supporting farmers to develop new forest or agriculture markets, for example honey and agar wood production. These companies may provide an opportunity for improving livelihoods and developing sustainable SMEs.

3.6 Background and baseline situation of the Project area

According to the Myanmar population census report (2014), Sagaing is one of the largest regions in Myanmar, covering an area of 36,178 sq. miles. It is composed of nine districts and 45 townships. Districts include Sagaing, Shwebo, Monywar, Katha, Kalay, Tamoo, Mawlite, Khanni (ti) and Yinmarpin. Of these, Shwebo and Katha were included in the mission and will also be the priority districts for field implementation. Areas bordering Sagaing state include Kachin state (to the east), Mandalay (to the east), and Chin State and India (to the west and the north). The total population of Sagaing is 5,325,347 (52.74 per cent female and 47.26 per cent male). The average population density is 56.8 people per sq. km. Rapid population growth has driven many environmental issues, including forest encroachment, increased demand and consumption of forest products and NTFPs, mining and shifting cultivation - all of which contribute to forest and environmental degradation .1 The population of the Townships in the Project area is shown in Table 7 below.

Table 6: Project area by land use

Township Total Area PFE Agriculture Government administered

(VFV/UF)

Other (municipality, infrastructure,

water body)

Katha 554,037 259,600 121,347 138,935 34,156

Indaw 469,133 243,239 84,854 78,780 62,260

Tijyiang 446,381 225,781 125,482 24,064 71,054

Kaw Lin 467,324 218,786 132,181 65,624 50,733

Kyun Hla 659,822 402,224 54,700 99,232 103,666

Kanbalu 1,023,587 452,073 425,149 47,977 98,388

Total Acres 3,620,284 1,801,703 943,713 454,612 420,257

Total Hectares 1,465,078 729,124 381,907 183,975 170,072

1 Source: 10 -year Myanmar Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan, Sagaing Division.

56

Figure 12: Map of six selected Townships in Sagaing Region

Table 7: Population in the Project area - 2016

Male Female

Katha

82,325

85,409

Indaw

56,814

63,452

Tijyiang

63,736

66,219

Kaw Lin

69,782

75,515

Kyun Hla

46,017

46,537

Kanbalu

140,463

153,214

Total

459,137

490,346

A detailed situation analysis of potential project village tracts is provided below. Findings from the situation analysis informed the design of project interventions (4.1.3 & 4.2.2), particularly at the landscape level. The final selection of project village tracts will be decided through the process of

57

landscape-level ROAM assessments, with consideration to their representativeness of the overall landscape, potentials for impacts and supports from local stakeholders.

1) West Katha, Indaw and West Tijyaing communities (Katha District): Well-established settlements with relatively good road access and adjacent to forest areas

The project design situation analyses revealed the following:

• State and trend of natural resources. There are some, but not many trees on farmlands. Most of the forests surrounding the villages are secondary forest, with low stocking of trees as a result of both historical factors (logging) and contemporary pressures (harvesting for forest products, fire). Forests vary from degraded to moderate condition; some plantations exist in the area. Villagers reported considerable changes (loss) of wild faunal species over recent decades. The condition of forests in the area has declined in recent years, initially as a result of heavy commercial scale over-harvesting, followed by constant harvesting pressure, fires and hunting. The forests nearer the villages are often in a more degraded condition than more distant forests. Some areas had been recently cleared (and were ready to be burnt) in preparation for forest plantation establishment. The area has both permanent streams and semi-permanent streams; some villages have bores for water supply. The Ayeyarwady River borders Katha and Tijyiaing and the forests west and south-west of Tijyiaing were reported to be important sub-catchments. Agriculture is based on semi-subsistence and semi-commercial rice cropping. Some vegetables and tree fruit crops are grown for domestic consumption. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. The areas closest to the village provide fuelwood, poles, water and NTFPs. Some areas are managed for timber/pole production (notably the older plantation sites). The areas further from the villages are used by local people for poles, timber, bamboo and hunting. Local people depend on forests for a range of ecosystem services including water, flood mitigation, fuelwood, bamboo, some NTFPs (e.g. medicinal plants and some limited hunting), grazing for livestock. The Tijyiaing community met by the project design team noted that the loss of forest has seen an increase in flooding of agricultural and village land.

• The benefits and costs of these flows to different social groups. Men and women use the forest for different purposes. Men collect poles and timber from the forest and some men engage in hunting. Women use the forest for water, medicinal plants, bamboo shoots and fuelwood. Illegal charcoal production is evident. The forests are an important element of local livelihoods, particularly during hard times when other livelihood options are reduced (e.g. during drought periods).

• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the following needs:

o West Katha and Indaw villagers: Reverse deterioration of agricultural productivity due to flooding and climate change. Secure more sustainable supply of forest products – especially water, fuel, timber, and wild foods. Desire improved relationship with FD.

o West Tijyiang community: Secure improved catchment values from forests to alleviate flooding, forest products, climate change mitigation and water supply. Awareness raising around CF options needed.

2) East Katha and East Tijyiaing communities (Katha District): Extensive conversion of the permanent forest estate under large-scale agri-business leases followed by relatively intense settlement.


58

• State and trend of natural resources. There are few trees on farmlands as the area was cleared extensively for sugar cane production. There are few natural/semi-natural forests left in the area, and what does remain is generally in poor condition. Some (poor quality) forest plantations exist in the area. The area has seen dramatic environmental change in recent decades with the large scale conversion of high forest to agriculture. The area has some semi-permanent streams and is bordered to the west by the Ayeyarwady River. Sugar cane is the main crop grown, but there are also other crops grown for domestic consumption and sale including rice, mango, penguin peas and sesame. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats. There have been recent efforts to establish community forestry in the area.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. Most of the communities have limited access to forest and tree resources other than what exists on their farms or nearby ‘wastelands’.

• The benefits and costs of these flows to different social groups. There are few current flows of ecosystem services from forests in the area as the forests have largely been cleared.

• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the following needs:

o East Katha Yinke Reserve Forest settlers: Interest in community forestry and agroforestry plantations.

o East Tijyiang community: Address village environmental deterioration (e.g. flooding, soil erosion) that is linked to forest loss. Improve tenure security and re-establish forest and trees.

3) Thapanzeik Dam catchment communities, including Kyun Hla Township (Shwebo District): Extensive and recent conversion of the forest estate following resettlement of local people to make way for the dam and the associated lake.


• State and trend of natural resources. The area retains areas of (degraded) forests amid areas that have relatively recently been cleared for resettled communities. There are some trees on farmlands and patches of forests nearby, often with low stocking of trees. There is ongoing encroachment of Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary (see below). The condition of forests in the area has declined in recent years as a result of clearing and over-harvesting. The area has few permanent streams and water supply is a serious local concern. The Thapanzeik dam reservoir offers little benefit to relocated communities. Road transport is difficult with roads often impassable during the wet season. Lake transport is considered hazardous. Agriculture is based on semi-subsistence (relatively low yield) cropping. Few vegetables and tree fruit crops are grown for domestic consumption. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. The forests provide a wide range of products including fuelwood, poles, building materials and limited NTFPs (mushrooms). Some, although not all, people in the communities note that the loss of forest has led to a decline in the availability of forest goods and services.

• The benefits and costs of these flows to different social groups. Men and women use the forest for different purposes. Men collect poles and timber from the forest. Women use the forest for water, medicinal plants, bamboo shoots and fuelwood. The forests are an important element of local livelihoods, particularly during hard times when other livelihood options are reduced (e.g. during drought periods).

• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the following needs: Secure rights to use agricultural land (men and women); increase the supply of fuelwood (women), reduce the impact of flooding (men and

59

women); increase income generating opportunities (men and women).

4) Kaw Lin communities (Katha District): Settlements and agriculture established with the permanent forest estate. A history of heavy logging pressure in the past, and more recently some ongoing encroachment.


• State and trend of natural resources. The villages in this area have trees on farms and substantial areas of secondary forest, a result of both historical factors (logging) and contemporary pressures (harvesting for forest products, fire). Forests vary from degraded to moderate condition; some small community forest areas exist. Forests nearer the villages tend to be more degraded from constant pressure of fuelwood and pole harvesting. Villagers reported considerable changes (loss) of wild faunal species over recent decades. The condition of forests in the area has declined in recent years, initially as a result of heavy commercial scale over-harvesting, followed by constant harvesting pressure, fires and some limited hunting. The area has both permanent streams and semi-permanent streams; some villages have bores for water supply. Agriculture is based on semi-subsistence and semi-commercial rice cropping. Some vegetables and tree fruit crops are grown for domestic consumption. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats. There is some encroachment of forest areas.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. The areas closest to the village provide fuelwood, poles, water and NTFPs. The areas further from the villages are used by local people for poles, timber, bamboo and hunting. Local people depend on forests for a range of ecosystem services including water, flood mitigation, fuelwood, bamboo, some NTFPs (e.g. medicinal plants and some limited hunting), grazing for livestock.

• The benefits and costs of these flows to different social groups. Men and women use the forest for different purposes. Men collect poles and timber from the forest and some men engage in hunting. Women use the forest for water, medicinal plants, bamboo shoots and fuelwood. Illegal charcoal production is evident. The forests are an important element of local livelihoods, particularly during hard times when other livelihood options are reduced (e.g. during drought periods).

• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the following needs, a) improve productivity of hillslope forests near the villages, and b) implement CF to improve the supply of fuelwood and other forest products.

5) Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary including parts of Kanbalu and Kaw Lin Townships (Shwebo and Katha Districts): A long standing conservation area whose conservation values are under pressure from illegal hunting, encroachment, forest harvesting and fire.

The situation analyses revealed the following:

• State and trend of natural resources. The area includes a secondary but relatively good condition forest. The forest is largely regrowth from harvesting in the 1930s. The area contains one of the few remaining populations of the endangered Eld’s deer (Panolia eldii). It previously had a population of Dhole (Cuon alpinus, wild dog), now considered locally extirpated. The sanctuary has been encroached by agricultural expansion and is used by local villagers for hunting (illegal), collection of forest products and access to other areas. The surrounding farmlands have some tree cover, although often low stocking. There is ongoing encroachment of Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary on the southern boundary, and long standing

60

disputes about the rights to be settled in or near the park appear unresolved. The condition of the forest has declined in recent years as result of over-harvesting, fire and hunting. The area has few permanent streams and water supply is a local concern. Agriculture is based on semi-subsistence (relatively low yield) cropping. Few vegetables and tree fruit crops are grown for domestic consumption. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. The forests provide a range of products including fuelwood, poles, building materials and limited NTFPs (fruits).


• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the following needs: Secure rights to use agricultural land (men and women); increase the supply of fuelwood (women), reduce the impact of flooding (men and women); increase income generating opportunities (men and women).

6) Elephant route and Bat Cave, Kanbalu Township (Shwebo District): The area has a large proportion of forest, interspersed with agricultural lands. The western section of the area is fully forested and contains a population of wild elephant. The eastern section of the area is largely forested and runs up and over an escarpment that is immediately west of the Ayeyarwady river. A cave that contains a population of bats is currently the focus of a Sagaing regional development effort to establish a conservation information/education center and promote eco-tourism.

The situation analyses revealed the following:

• State and trend of natural resources. The area retains large areas of forest that vary in quality from reasonably good to degraded forests amid areas that have been cleared for agriculture, notably along the main roads. Most farms include trees and there are patches of forests nearby. In places, there is heavy use of forests for products such as bamboo. Historical pressures on the forests include commercial logging that has left a network of roads. The Regional Government has recently constructed a substantial road from the main highway to the bat cave area. A small population of wild Asian Elephant exists in the area, and the herd size was reported by local people to have been increasing. Human-wildlife conflicts do occur. A population of bats is also resident in the Karst caves. The area has some permanent streams, but when streams in the forest dry up it was reported that elephants tend to come out into farmland. Agriculture is based on semi-subsistence cropping. Vegetables and tree fruit crops are grown for domestic consumption. Domestic livestock includes cattle, pigs and goats.

• The current flow and trend of ecosystem services. The forests provide a wide range of products including bamboo, fuelwood, poles, water, building materials and NTFPs.


• An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and how these will affect development needs (gender disaggregated). The local community identified the need for reducing human wildlife conflict. Other ecosystem service needs still need to be identified.

61

4 Intervention strategy (alternative)

4.1 Project rationale and expected global environmental benefits

Overall, the project design applies the following principles:

• Do no harm. • Do good wherever possible. • Follow a rights-based approach.

In addition, the project will apply the following operational principles:

• People centred (e.g. determining the ecosystem service needs of communities). • Participation and empowerment of poor and marginalised groups including women by

enhancing opportunities for the poor. • Recognize local knowledge, organisational and institutional capacity.

The Project introduces a different rationale than has been conventionally applied to forest restoration in Myanmar. Forest Landscape restoration will:

• Focuses on restoring the ecological functionality of forests and woodlands, and through this enhances the production of ecosystem services, rather than on simply maximizing new forest cover.

• Encourages stakeholders to make site-based decisions within a landscape context, ensuring, at the very least, that such decisions do not reduce the quality or quantity of forests or the ecosystem services they provide at a landscape level and, ideally, that the decisions contribute towards improving ecosystem functionality at a landscape-level.

• Requires that local needs be addressed and balanced alongside national-level priorities and requirements for reforestation, thus making local stakeholder involvement in planning and management decisions essential.

• Strongly discourages actions that would result in human well-being or human rights being traded off against forest restoration. Such trade-offs are unsustainable, often unethical, and tend to be counterproductive in the medium to long term.

• Recognizes that neither the solutions to complex land-use problems nor the outcomes of a course of action can be predicted accurately, especially as ecosystems and land-use patterns change over time. FLR is therefore built on adaptive management and requires that necessary provision be made for monitoring and learning.

• Requires a package of restoration tools (the rehabilitation and active management of degraded primary forest; the active management of secondary forest growth; the restoration of primary forest-related functions in degraded forest lands; the promotion of natural regeneration on degraded lands and marginal agricultural sites; ecological restoration; plantations and planted forests; and agroforestry and other configurations of on-farm trees).

• Requires supportive local and national policy frameworks. Adapted from (Maginnis & Jackson, 2005).

The Project will achieve the above through activities and processes that complement the government’s effort, through:

• Integrating a landscape approach with the NRRPM.

62

• Assisting relevant line agencies affecting forest and landscape resilience (particularly the Forest Department) to work more effectively with communities in planning and action processes.

• Enhancing adaptive co-learning processes.

The anticipated impacts of the project include:

• An increase in the extent of forest cover and amount of carbon stored. • Forest ecosystem functionality and biodiversity improved. • The flow of ecosystem services increased including:

o provisioning services such as fuel wood, timber, water, NTFPs, food, animals fodder, medicinal aromatic plants.

o regulating services such as local climate regulation, flood, catchment regulation, carbon storage.

o Cultural services such as recreational and spiritual values. • Adaptation to climate change and resilience improved.

The project will operate at both national level (for policy influence and up-scaling) and local level (in Sagaing region) for implementing a FLR approach. At the local level, the project will operate in six Townships (see Figure 13) and 12 village tracts. Six townships in two districts (Katha and Shwebo) of Sagaing Region were identified during the project design phase. These districts and townships were selected in consultation with FD based on priorities of the department, the importance of these areas for biodiversity and the potential for restoration, and the feasibility in terms of access to the site.

Through participatory ROAM processes, the Project will transform the way that restoration activities are implemented in 89,005 ha as shown in Table 8 (based on NRRPM). This will demonstrate the effectiveness, impacts and relevance of FLR in Myanmar, and provide the evidence base for scaling up FLR through NRRPM.

Table 8: Planned forest restoration activities in Project area 2017-2020

Restoration typesKatha Indaw Tijyiang Kaw Lin Kyun Hla Kanbalu Total (acre)

Assisted Natural regeneration 3000 8850 1600 2800 1200 1050 18,500 Enrichment planting 400 400 1600 200 900 1050 4,550 Economic plantation 800 880 880 880 1200 900 5,540 Watershed plantation 300 300 Domestic Supply 9797 7274 15275 36820 69,166 Village fuel wood plantation 80 80 80 80 100 420 Private plantation 800 1200 600 800 370 3,770 Community forest 21982 2771 9728 5522 17631 46892 104,526 Agroforestry 40 40 40 40 180 340 Pruning and cleaning 500 465 180 400 200 400 2,145 Thinning 940 250 600 700 200 925 3,615 Patching old plantation 500 3200 98 1576 425 1174 6,973 Seed production area 20 45 26 91

Total (acre) 38839 25410 30701 50163 21936 52887 219,936 Total (ha) 15,718 10,283 12,424 20,300 8,877 21,403 89,005

Township

63

4.1.1 Project goal and expected impact

The overall goal of the project is to reverse forest degradation and deforestation and restore forested landscapes in Myanmar. It will seek to:

• Influence national and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks in Myanmar to incorporate principles of forest landscape restoration;

• Demonstrate the restoration of ecosystem functionality (habitat and ecological processes) at selected sites in Sagaing region, through local, multi-stakeholder, co-management arrangements;

• Generate enhanced flows of ecosystem services (fuelwood, timber, poles, water, food, climate change adaptation and mitigation, etc) at selected sites in Sagaing to help meet both local and national needs.

• Enhance overall landscape resilience through generation of enhanced livelihood options and alignment of community development models with sustainable use and restoration of natural resources.

• Enhance ecosystem functionality (stock of natural capital and ecosystem processes) in order to generates flows of ecosystem services for local needs (fuelwood, water, poles, food, local climate regulation etc.) and national needs (catchment values, timber, climate change adaptation and mitigation etc.).

4.1.2 Theory of change at program level

The transformational changes to achieve the above project goals require interventions that: o Address root causes (drivers), threats, and barriers. o Demonstrate FLR models and strategies to restore and rehabilitate degraded forests and

deforested areas. o Strengthen capacity (knowledge, awareness, capabilities, financial capital) to manage

forest landscapes (including agricultural lands) sustainably, and share the benefits equitably.

o Promote appropriate, comprehensive, and integrated policy, law, and regulations. o Ensure adequate rule of law. o Encourage trust and respect between stakeholders (transparency, accountability,

respect for human rights, fairness, and equity).

Based on a thorough consideration of the project’s context and baselines, particularly in light of the threats, root causes, and barriers (Table 5), the project is designed around the following theory of change (Table 9).

A timetable for the Project is included in Annex 1.

64

Table 9: Project theory of change Root causes and barriers Project outcomes That Address Root Causes and Barriers Underlying Rationale/Theory of

Change Project components Assumptions

Inadequate or conflicting legal/regulatory frameworks at both national and landscape level

Poor governance and rule of law

Outcome 1: Revised policies and regulatory frameworks support forest landscape restoration, including a commitment to the Bonn Challenge, which enables improved forest functionality and increased flows of ecosystem services (including biodiversity, accelerated low GHG development and emissions reduction, and sustainable flows of ecosystem services for livelihoods).

Indicator 1.1: Myanmar makes a formal pledge to the Bonn Challenge

Indicator 1.2: Six township-level FLR strategies completed and incorporated into the National Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme in Myanmar (NRRPM).

Indicator 1.3: Two protected area FLR plans completed and officially adopted

Indicator 1.4: One watershed FLR plan completed and officially adopted

Improved regulatory and policy framework supports on-going and future forest restoration efforts.

Component 1. Policy Development and Integration

National and sub-national policies can be amended within the time frame of the project to include landscape principles;

Power relations and historical distrust discourage community working with government on sustainable management of resources

Poor governance and rule of law

Lack of knowledge and capacity, and field demonstration of FLR programs in Myanmar context

Demographic factors (high rural population growth)

Global climate change


Indicator 2.1: 89,005 ha of deforested and degraded land in restoration transition

Indicator 2.2: 600,000 women and men benefit from the project, through increased supply of ecosystem services and provision of improved livelihoods

Indicator 2.3: 3,032,336 tonnes of CO2eq sequestered/avoided

The ROAM process adapted for Myanmar is put in place to support multi-stakeholder dialogues on integrated landscape management including clarifying land tenure and consensus building.

The FLR strategy resulting from the ROAM process will be implemented to showcase on-ground FLR techniques and tools, enhance community and government stakeholders’ capacity in the up-take of FLR strategies, and diversify livelihood options and generate climate mitigation benefits.

Component 2. Implementation of Restoration Programs and Complementary Initiatives

The ROAM process and FLR strategy can be integrated with the planning and implementation of NRRPM.

A FLR approach will result in improved restoration and rehabilitation of deforested and degraded landscapes, increased flows of ecosystem services including carbon storage, and improved livelihood opportunities.

High dependence on natural resource use while land management practices remain largely low efficient and unsustainable

Unsustainable Economic growth (lack of alternative livelihoods and dependence on natural resources)

Lack of capital to invest in restoration

Lack of economic incentives, markets and infrastructure



Indicator 3.1.A total of at least 200 staff in targeted institutions with knowledge and direct experience of planning and/or implementing FLR

Indicator 3.2: Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into FLR initiatives increased by US$1 million

Strengthening cross-sectoral planning and implementation as well as field level institutions can support FLR strategies implementation. The development of sustainable livelihood models and value chains can demonstrate models of FLR investments.

Increased investment can economic incentives for up-take of FLR strategies.

Component 3. Institutions, Finance and Upscaling

Training improves capacity and trainees are able to apply learning in practice.

Benefits from the implementation of FLR strategies and increased investment does not aggregate existing social issues.

Inadequate communication and knowledge exchange to scale up successful FLR strategies


Indicator 4.1 Scorecard rank 3

Improved knowledge will remove barriers of adopting FLR approaches.

Component 4 – Knowledge partnership, Monitoring and Assessment

Improved knowledge will remove barriers of adopting FLR approaches.

65

4.1.3 Theory of Change at landscape level

The following section has been adapted from A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level (IUCN and WRI, 2014).

The FLR process involves operating at different scales, from national to local. This requires a multi-layer and iterative planning process. For example, national policy and plans set the overall framework for FLR, provincial and municipal plans provide more refined strategy and opportunities to link local FLR plans. Local FLR plans identify local stakeholders, opportunities and risk and detailed FLR interventions.

The iterative FLR planning process is designed to ensure that national and sub-national needs for ecosystem services (e.g. catchment protection, biodiversity conservation, timber, climate change mitigation) are considered at village level when planning restoration and village level needs for ecosystem services (e.g. fuelwood, NTPFPS, water) are determined by the people most affected by changes in forest condition and functionality.

FLR focuses on strengthening the resilience of landscapes and creating options to adjust and optimize the type and flow of ecosystem services as societal needs change, or new challenges arise. For the Project, the following FLR principles will be applied at village and township levels:

• Maintain a dual focus on:

o Landscape. Restoring entire landscapes as opposed to individual sites. This typically entails balancing a mosaic of interdependent land uses across the landscape, such as protected areas, ecological corridors, sustainably managed forests, agroforestry, agriculture, plantations and riparian strips to protect waterways.

o Human well-being and equity. Restoring entire landscapes generates opportunities to improve and equitably share the benefits that come from increasing the flow of desired ecosystem services, thereby improving human well-being.

• Involve stakeholders. Engage stakeholders in an inclusive and participatory planning and decision making process regarding restoration goals, implementation methods, risk management and trade-offs.

• Restore ecosystem functionality. Restore natural capital and ecological processes that underpin ecosystem functionality, thereby generating improved flows of ecosystem services. For example, restoring habitats, improving species and genetic diversity, restoring predator-prey relationships, restoring hydrological and natural disturbance (fire, flood) processes.

• Generate improved flows of ecosystem services. Create an improved flow of ecosystem services, that have been identified as important during stakeholder consultation and planning processes, by:

o Applying a suite of strategies. Use a wide range of technical strategies for restoring trees on the landscape, ranging from natural regeneration to tree planting.

o Tailoring interventions to local conditions. Adapt restoration strategies to fit local social, economic and ecological contexts; there is no “one size fits all”.

66

o Addressing pressures that cause adverse changes to ecosystem functionality, ecosystem services or human well-being.

o Adaptively managing forest landscapes. Adjust the restoration strategy over time as environmental conditions, human knowledge and societal values change. Use lessons from monitoring and evaluation to adjust forest management and the flow of benefits to people.

As explained in previous sections, six townships in two districts (Katha and Shwebo) were identified during the project design phase. These districts and townships were selected in consultation with FD based on the criteria described in Section 4.1.

Within these six townships, the project will focus on 12 target village tracts in six townships using the approach to project implementation shown in Figure 13, and described in detail below (adapted ROAM process). The 12 village tracts in six townships have not yet been selected and will be identified during the township level workshops in the first year of implementation.

District FLR workshop: The project will organise a district FLR workshop to kick off the ROAM process in the six townships. With the target of restoring about 89,000 ha of degraded land in collaboration with the NRRPM in mind, the project team will engage local stakeholders and partners to conduct an integrated FLR situation analysis, identify degradation drivers and FLR opportunities, and develop an integrated FLR strategy at landscape level using the Theory of Change to define the local objectives of FLR in the tracts concerned. Stakeholders should be engaged throughout this process to facilitate the clarification of land tenure and the integration of FLR action plans into the District Forest Management Plan (DFMP) and NRRPM plans. In addition, the ROAM process will help identify local leaders and foster partnerships on community forest management, SME development and agroforestry and rural development, in order to develop social networks and capital that can support successful FLR interventions.

Township level workshops will aim to familiarise stakeholders with the project, to inspire people to support restoration efforts, to consider the 10-year forest management plan and the NRRPM approaches in terms of FLR principles, to build cross-agency collaboration for FLR, and to identify key villages to apply FLR.

The project team will facilitate these workshops, supported by partner NGOs/CSOs, and follow principles of FPIC. Marginalised groups will be specifically included and their needs prioritised wherever possible. In addition, all project interventions will be analysed in terms of their benefits to men and women, and women’s needs will be taken into account when prioritising FLR interventions.

67

Figure 13: Theory of Change for landscape level intervention

As described in Figure 13 above, the adapted ROAM process at village and township levels will use the following steps. These steps are not necessarily linear, but rather an iterative process. It is also recommended early on during the project period, the iterative ROAM process should identify tracts in which to start work and inform the tract administrator so as to put the stakeholder discussion in a more concrete context. Furthermore, with the village administrator and FD map all the resource units in the tract in order to tease out the tenure for each resource unit along with the legal and regulatory framework for such tenure observed.

A. Inspire people. Raising awareness of the project issues and approach, seeking to mobilise communities and stakeholders to participate, identifying key ones to partner with, facilitating the formation of township and village planning groups (ensuring inclusiveness).

B. Clarify land tenure and forest use, and address tenure and rights issued that are raised. Before any field interventions can be contemplated, in the context of the decades of military rule, it will be important to work with local people towards a shared understanding of land tenure, ownership and rights. Through this process grievances may be identified, recognised and where possible clarified. The involvement of different departments will be important at this stage (particularly land records).

C. Undertake an integrated situation analysis. The purpose of the situation analysis is to identify the priority issues for FLR engagement at each location. This is important as there is great variation between the proposed sites, and ensuring local interest requires the specific needs and opportunities are well understood, not only by the project team but also by the local

68

communities and other stakeholders. The situation analysis should be conducted with multi-stakeholder participation in order to co-develop a shared understanding. Restoration priority maps will be produced to help inform decisions. The integrated FLR situation analyses at village and township levels will include:

o State and trend of natural resources (forests, water, agriculture, soil, meadows, fishery etc.). Drivers and pressures on environmental change.

o The current flows and trend of ecosystem services (timber, fuelwood, fodder, NTFPs, water, climate regulation, natural hazard, and disease regulation etc.)

o An assessment of benefits and costs of these flows to the different social groups (including gender-disaggregated information on incomes, poverty levels, negative impacts, equity.)

o An assessment of needs for ecosystem services and development needs (gender disaggregated). This aspect should identify what are the users’ various (and possibly competing) needs for ecosystem services from the landscape, what deficits they suffer, and what opportunities there are to remedy these through the project. For example, firewood and clean water and timber may all be in short supply and the supply situation deteriorating. The needs for ecosystem services should be disaggregated by gender, wealth, and location (e.g. local needs versus national needs).

o An identification of priority issues for FLR engagement. Based on the above analysis the stakeholders should be able to clarify local development opportunities and goals, ecosystem service needs and potential conflicts, pressures on and threats to forest landscapes, equity in terms of benefits and costs, regulatory mechanisms, rule of law.

D. Identify opportunities, design actions, negotiate, agree on a plan. Inclusive participatory planning and negotiation processes that consider the local context will lead to agreement on a suite of FLR interventions that:

o Are locally-appropriate to bio-physical and socio-economic conditions o Deliver desired changes to ecosystem functionality o Generate needed ecosystem services o Achieve equitable sharing of costs and benefits and improve human well-being o Are within the risk appetite of stakeholders (the risk that stakeholders are prepared to

accept in pursuit of FLR objectives) This involves:

o A wide range of technical strategies for restoring trees on the landscape such as natural regeneration, enrichment planting, seeding, plantation establishment, agroforestry, silvicultural treatments, depending on local bio-physical and socio-economic conditions

o A variety of management approaches from locally- to nationally-managed forests; o A range of economic interventions, such as local enterprise development and eco-

tourism. E. Implement, monitor, evaluate and adapt. The project and partners will provide a range of

support towards successful FLR action plan implementation. The implementation of FLR plans requires the coordinated application of finances, human resources, materials, and knowledge and capabilities. It also requires safe and reliable access to the area and a social license to operate (ongoing social acceptance of FLR within the local community and by other stakeholders). The action plan implementation will be reviewed with the planning groups on an annual basis, and revised according to experience and evolving challenges and opportunities. An

69

effective monitoring system of the FLR interventions will be established and implemented under Output 4.2.

The project team will implement this process across the project area. It will be essential for the project team to be able to establish a rapport with the local communities and stakeholders. The project will therefore aim to work with and through local NGOs and CSOs.

The participation of women will be an integral part of this project’s implementation. During the ROAM processes, stakeholder consultation (especially at community levels) will consider separate meetings with man and with women. Women will be encouraged and supported to participate in technical trainings at an equal gender ratio. Women representatives will be supported to participate in the decision-makings relevant to landscape restoration, such as the normal functioning of farmland management boards at village tract levels or other restoration related initiatives. This project will also consider supporting women-only community forestry groups and other restoration related livelihood schemes featuring female leadership.

Figure 14 provides a graphical representation of how various approaches to FLR are relevant to the condition of the forest (stock and trend of natural capital, condition of ecological processes and flow and trend of ecosystem services) and the level of dependency of local people on forests.

Figure 14: Forest landscape intervention matrix

(Adapted from Fisher, et al., 2008)

To ensure the best possible technical support for the project in highly specialised technical fields, the following post-doctoral studies will be conducted to support implementation of the adapted ROAM process:

• Biodiversity baseline and monitoring of the project area;

• Carbon monitoring of the project interventions;

• Land tenure and use rights affecting FLR, using the project area as a case study to illustrate how land tenure and use rights affect the implementation of FLR; provide recommendation for land right dispute resolution for the project area and nationally;

70

• Law and policy affecting FLR nationally, using the project area as a case study to illustrate the impacts of such law and policies in the implementation of FLR; provide recommendation for improving landscape governance for the project area and nationally.

In the event that no suitable post-doc applicants are found, the last two studies will be carried out as consultancies (land tenure; law and policy).

4.2 Project components, their expected outcomes and outputs and planned activities

This section outlines the four components of the Project and describes how they link and the activities that will be undertaken to achieve the planned outputs and outcomes.

4.2.1 Components and Outcomes

The project has the following planned Components and associated Outcomes:

• Component 1: Policy Development and Integration; - Outcome 1, Enhanced support for forest Landscape restoration among Myanmar

national and subnational policy and regulatory frameworks Indicator targets:

1.1: Myanmar makes a formal pledge to the Bonn Challenge

1.2: Six township-level FLR strategies completed and incorporated into the National Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme in Myanmar (NRRPM).

1.3: Two protected area FLR plans completed and officially adopted

1.4: One watershed FLR plan completed and officially adopted

• Component 2: Implementation of Restoration Programs and Complementary Initiatives; - Outcome 2, deforested and degraded landscape in process of restoration, incorporating

FLR best practices

Indicator targets:



2.3: 3,032,336 tonnes of CO2eq sequestered/avoided

• Component 3: Institutions, Finance, and Upscaling; - Outcome 3.1 Targeted institutions at sub-national level have the capacity to plan for and

implement FLR interventions - Outcome 3.2. Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into

FLR initiatives increased.

Indicator targets:

3.1.1 A total of at least 200 staff in targeted institutions with knowledge and direct experience of planning and/or implementing FLR

71

3.2: Value of resources (public, private, development partners) flowing into FLR initiatives increased by US$1 million

• Component 4: Knowledge, Partnerships, Monitoring and Assessment; - Outcome 4, Improved knowledge of best practices on forest landscape restoration

among key stakeholders Indicator targets:

4.1: Scorecard rank 3, based on UNDP/UNEP/GEF monitoring guidelines of capacity development in GEF projects

4.2.2 Outputs and activities

Project outcomes will be delivered through achieving the following outputs and activities.

Outcome 1: Enhanced support for forest Landscape restoration among Myanmar national and subnational policy and regulatory frameworks

Outputs under Outcome 1

Output 1.1. National cross-sectoral policy advisory group on FLR established

Output 1.2: Township-level ROAM plans completed (adapted for Myanmar)

Output 1.3: Protected area FLR plans completed

Output 1.4: Watershed FLR plan completed

Activities under Outcome 1

o Encourage national commitment to the Bonn Challenge and promote engagement in FLR through:

o A national cross-sectoral policy advisory group on strengthening the institutional and financial framework for FLR.

o A FLR policy workshop at regional/national level, to present the outcomes of the field component.

o Provision of technical assistance from IUCN in calculating and formalizing a pledge to the Bonn Challenge.

o Engagement with regional and global Bonn Challenge processes. o Provide policy relevant advice for national and sub-national policies, strategies, and plans, in

particular by: o Supporting the Forest Department to revise District Forest Management Plans and

National Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme in Myanmar (NRRPM) plans. o Advising on national level revision based on the revised District Forest Management

Plans from the field component. o Identifying national and international financing strategies for the implementation of

the NRRPM based on FLR principles. o Policy advice and policy briefs for other sectors such as livestock, water, rural

development, mining, etc. o Organise regional FLR inception workshop in Sagaing Region to familiarise stakeholders with

72

the project, to inspire people to support restoration efforts, to consider the NRRPM approach in terms of FLR principles, and to commence the process of up-scaling.

o Organise district level workshops to familiarise stakeholders with the project, to inspire people to support restoration efforts and to consider the District Forest management Plan and the NRRPM approaches in terms of FLR principles.

o Carry out ROAM processes for target townships, protected areas and watershed.

Outcome 2



Output 2.1: Implement ROAM strategies at the township/village level.

Output 2.2: Protected area ROAM strategies implemented

Output 2.3: Watershed ROAM strategy implemented

Output 2.4: Monitoring of biodiversity and carbon impacts of FLR activities implementation are carried out.


• Implement ROAM processes adapted for Myanmar at the township/village level. The adapted ROAM processes for Myanmar are described in details in the section below (section 4.2.3).

• Implementation of ROAM processes will depend on FLR strategies developed under outcome 1. A detailed description of potential field interventions is in Section 4.2.3 )

• Conduct complimentary monitoring and evaluation to verify the intended impacts, particularly on impacts on gender equal social benefits, conservation of carbon and biodiversity values.

Outcome 3




Output 3.1.1: Township-level institutions are trained in FLR approaches, community forestry, agroforestry and SME development

Output 3.1.2 : Field-level institutions are trained on forest landscape management and restoration in target areas

Output 3.2.1: New SMEs are established and operational

73

Output 3.2.2: FLR investment proposals are submitted to potential investors


Local institutions and capacity are crucial for the ROAM process and, in particular, for the development and implementation of integrated FLR strategies in the project area. Outcome 3 supports building local institutions and capacity in FLR, through engaging local stakeholders and partners in the ROAM process to identify FLR opportunities that would enhance the well-being of rural populations and forest dependent communities. With stronger local institutions and capacities, local communities are in a better position to channel necessary resources to FLR actions and to receive the benefits from the implementation of FLR actions, either through enhanced well-being, diversification of livelihoods or stronger local leadership and ownership of local natural resources. Therefore, under this outcome, the Project will: • Organise district and township level training on topics relevant to the FLR interventions

developed under Outcome 2. After the training, follow-up activities will be implemented as part of the implementation of the FLR action plans under Outcome 2.

• Organise cross-sectoral planning and implementation meetings. These meetings will support the ROAM process implemented under Outcome 2 and will help build institutional support for FLR.

• Support the establishment of stakeholder platforms/ farmers’ groups/ SMEs. The project will also aim to identify restoration leaders and seek opportunities to develop social networks (see section 4.2.3).

• Provide policy advice and organise forums and outreach activities with the aim to increase public and private investment in FLR.

• Provide support to the development of at least two SMEs in the project area. • Develop FLR investment proposals at local/sub-national level based on the outputs from ROAM

processes with clarified land tenure and FLR options analysis (see 4.2.3). To support the implementation of these activities, the project will seek collaboration with partners with the following mandates and expertise: • Agriculture and agroforestry improvement • SME development opportunities • Farmers’ association for rural development.

These partnerships will aim to support the capacity of local people and institutions to implement the township-level FLR strategies and village FLR actions, aiming to enhancing the well-beings of rural and forest-depend communities through sustainable management of ecosystem services benefits at the landscape level, and inspiring rural populations to form local institutions on self-governance of natural resources.

Outcome 4



Output 4.1: TRI-Myanmar engages in south-south exchanges

74

Output 4.2: Monitoring system provides, relevant, accurate and timely information for project implementation and the TRI global project

Output 4.3: Improved knowledge of best practices on restoration in the target sites

Output 4.4: TRI-related best practices and lessons-learned published on TRI web portal and other media.

Output 4.5 National organisations are equipped with new knowledge related to FLR


• Project stakeholders will participate in TRI global events. The project will actively seek exchange with other TRI child projects, in particular those in the Asia region, and will seek to provide opportunities for Myanmar to participate in high-level events aimed at promoting FLR.

• In collaboration with the TRI Global Programme, the project will establish and implement an effective monitoring system of FLR interventions. This will include monitoring of biophysical changes (carbon, biodiversity) but also of the flow ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits.

• Organise farmer-to-farmer exchanges and knowledge sharing and upscaling activities, with the aim of enhancing and replicating knowledge of FLR in Sagaing Region. 135 villages (or around 15% of the 912 villages in the two target districts) will be involved. Activities will be aimed at expanding the adapted ROAM model to other villages and adjust existing restoration plans using landscape principles.

• Put in place an effective knowledge management system (including communications strategy). • Publish FLR studies/reports on topics developed under Outcomes 1, 2 and 3. • Disseminate knowledge products to sub-national and national stakeholders through different

media/events. While the main focus of the project is Sagaing Region, the project also aims to enhance the FLR framework nationally and share lessons with other countries in the region and globally. In addition, through the TRI Global Programme, Myanmar will benefit from FLR experiences and lessons learned of other developing countries.

4.2.3 Likely field interventions

As described under Outcome 2, the exact nature of: a) the technical strategies for restoring trees in the landscape; b) the approaches for managing trees and forests; and c) the economic and livelihood interventions to be applied in the project area will vary from site to site and depend on the outcomes of the situation analysis and planning phases of the FLR interventions. However, using Figure 14 as a guide, it is possible to provide examples of interventions that may be applicable for the project sites. The project village tracts selection will consider representativeness of different degradation patterns across the whole project area so as to facilitate future scaling up.

Tenure and use rights:

• Accelerate the process of establishing community forest in both areas. Help secure use rights to land (most likely via CF for farmers using land in the RF).

75

• Resolve long-standing tenure issues for agricultural lands and accelerate the process of community forest establishment. The Forest Department to better enforce rule of law with illegal harvesting and transport of timber by commercial operators. Local community to support Forest Department enforcement efforts by timely and accurate reporting suspicious activity.

Improve livelihood security and community well-being:

• Through ROAM assessments, the project will be able to identify a clear landscape level FLR action plan to restore ecological functionality and socio-economic well-being of relevant communities, and the technical packages to implement the restoration objectives. These include identifying livelihood options that support restoration objectives, such as agarwood plantation, bamboo and other NTFP (eg. honey) products. Together with market value chain studies of the identified local products, the project will be able to identify bankable proposals / livelihood development models to be trialed and supported in project areas;

• Improve agricultural and livestock productivity through the introduction of new and improved crops and livestock, and the introduction of improved farm management practices (e.g. water harvesting, soil management, crop rotation, organic fertilisers).

• The project will partner with local CSOs to build local capacity for small-holders and interested community members to assess value-added markets for local farm and forest products, through supporting the set-up of SMEs for technical training, coaching and financial support in the form of community seed funds.

• Seek extension support from Forest department in managing community forestry and other forest related livelihood activities, and help improve the productivity of trees on farms through agroforestry, focused on tree species that are of most value to local people and best suited to the agro-ecological conditions of the areas.

• Seek extension support from the Agriculture department to: a) trial new production models or farming methods that would help reduce impacts on watershed or other environmental conditions, and b) identify and trial management strategies that reduce crop damage from elephants.

Improve the flow of ecosystem services from the forests (village and township priority), and improve biodiversity and catchment values (national and district priority).

• Intervention 1 – Pro-community restoration: Improve the condition and productivity of the forest within 2 km of the village boundary through: a) establishing community forests, a) natural regeneration (requiring protection from harvesting and fire), b) establishing plantations in areas identified as priority by the villagers (stream sides to reduce flooding impacts, bare forest areas), c) planting preferred bamboo species and encourage regeneration of bamboo in selected areas, and Consider joint management approaches for nearby forests whereby the Forest Department and local people agree on forest management approaches, the security of access for local people, the flow of benefits from the forests and whether or not any commercial use of the forest will be allowed.

• Intervention 2 – Pro-community forest management, conservation and benefit sharing: Improve the condition and productivity of forests that are further than 2km from the village boundaries through: a) promoting natural regeneration and assisted natural regeneration, enforce rules on illegal harvesting of forest products and wildlife, b) developing and

76

enforcing agreed rules on harvesting of fuelwood and other forest products; and c) develop agreed benefit sharing mechanisms;

• Intervention 3 – Restoration and Conventional Forest Management and Conservation: Some of the more remote and higher value forest areas can have their productivity and structure improved through more effective management including; protection, natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration and in some cases plantation in areas that have the highest potential to produce timber, improve watershed values and provide other ecosystem services for local needs. d) introducing new local rules for hunting and enforce these rules to enable wildlife populations to recover and sustainable harvest rates to be introduced.

• Elephant Area: Establishing plantations in areas that have the highest potential to provide elephant corridors, produce timber, improve watershed values and provide other ecosystem services for local needs;

• Bat Cave Area: Support the Regional Government’s plans to develop the bat cave area and increase tourism including through improved conservation and management of the site and surrounding area, including guidelines and rules to minimise the negative impacts of visitors on the bats and to minimise the risk of transfer of disease form bats to humans. Support opportunities for local communities to benefit from eco-tourism.

4.3 Risk analysis and risk management measures

The risk analysis uses a likelihood (Almost Certain, Likely, Moderately Likely, Unlikely, Rare) and consequence approach (see Table 10) through a risk matrix approach (Table 11) to identify risks and potential mitigation measures (Table 12).

Table 10: Risk consequence Rating Livelihood loss Forest use rights Ecosystem functionality Ecosystem services Insignificant Zero Minor temporary Virtually no disruption No change (other than

improvement) in flow of ES Minor Some minor

short term loss Some minor short term loss

Minor, short term disruption No change

Moderate Minor medium term loss

Minor medium term loss

Moderate, short term disruption

Moderate, short term disruption of ES flow

Major Moderate or long term loss

Moderate or long term loss

Moderate long term disruption

Moderate long term disruption of ES flow

Catastrophic Major or permanent loss of livelihood

Major or permanent loss of rights

Major or permanent loss Major or permanent loss of ES flow

Table 11: Risk matrix Likelihood Consequence Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Almost Certain Moderate High High Extreme Extreme Likely Moderate Moderate High High Extreme Moderately likely Low Moderate Moderate High High Unlikely Low Low Moderate High High Rare Low Low Moderate Moderate High The following table provides an indication of the risks and the mitigation measures and controls that may be required to manage the risk. The risks rated as “high” will require particular attention during project implementation in order to ensure that the project objectives will be met.

77

Table 12: Risks and risk mitigation measures

Risk Likelihood Consequence Rating Mitigation measures Political risks

Political instability Moderately likely Major High

The country is experiencing a period of rapid change and whilst the political situation is stable and improving, there remains a potential risk. Maintaining close observation of political changes (including what may eventuate at the next election) and adapting project interventions to mitigate consequences will mitigate risk. It is unlikely that the military will reassert control, but this needs to be kept in mind.

Government and/or private sector fails to invest in restoration

Moderately likely Moderate Modera

te

The government is committed to forest restoration and therefore also this project. However, there is a risk that other priorities deemed to be more urgent could emerge during the life of the project and threaten the sustainability of expected outputs and outcomes. The project will seek financial commitments from the government and private sector to sustain the initiative. The involvement of partners will assist in mitigating this risk. The Global TRI Project will assist in the development and testing of financing tools and risk mitigation instruments that demonstrate the potential for restoration to yield a high return on investment.

Insufficient political will or other constraints to implement reforms necessary for landscape restoration

Unlikely Moderate Moderate

Support for restoration is already reflected to varying degrees in national legislation and policies, and will be further strengthened through the project supporting policy development and awareness-raising. The project will identify and support champions of restoration at all levels, from the public and private sectors.

Technical and operational risks

Fraud, theft, or mismanagement

Moderately likely Major High

Effective project management and administration policies, procedures, and actions. Regular independent audit

There is insufficient capacity or NRRPM budget to support the proposed transformational changes

Likely Major High

Capacity building at national and sub-national levels to enable a range of institutions at different scales to effectively coordinate and engage in restoration and sustainable land management. Collaborative engagement with local communities The provision of continuous support and monitoring by the project team will provide rapid response support to emerging implementation challenges. Engage in South-South learning and knowledge sharing, and partnerships with other supportive organizations and initiatives.

Environmental and social risks

The project worsens livelihood situations of target communities and


Rigorous application of the IUCN environmental and social safeguards and the guidance provided in the ESMs-enhanced

78

or creates or worsens gender inequities

ROAM Process Framework. Regular monitoring and evaluation of gender-disaggregated socio-economic indicators.

Individuals may experience short-term losses when converting rainfed subsistence or cash crop agriculture (inside RF) to agroforestry that creates delayed returns

Moderate likely Moderate Modera

te

The project will provide the best available information on risks and returns of any proposed restoration options, and seek consent from participating individuals. It should also provide suggestions for alternative short-term income.

Individuals with no prior established farmland in the RF may not become members of CF user groups and hence would not benefit from the project’s CF-based FLR interventions if the sites identified in the ROAM process are constituted only by sites with existing farmland in RF.

Moderate likely Moderate Modera

te

As much as possible, as part of the local level situation analysis the project will make efforts to map and identify forest areas that make up natural degraded forest areas in need of restoration and for which communal tenure can be established. As such it will be ensured that not only sites with rainfed agricultural ya land inside the RF are selected for CF-based FLR interventions.

The modality of establishing CF user groups for converted agricultural land risks excluding women as they may not be seen by the FD as land holders (Land Use Certificates for private ownership of agricultural land issued by the DALMS usually only records the names of heads of households)

Likely Moderate High

Promote the set-up of women only CF groups if conditions are ready, or specific a percentage representation of women in any CF groups receiving support from the project.

Climate change and variability and extreme weather events (e.g. drought) undermine the sustainability of restoration investments

Likely Major High

Strengthening resiliency to anticipated climate and weather impacts will be embedded into restoration planning and investments, using a systems-level, landscape approach and adaptive management.

Introduction of invasive species Unlikely Moderate Modera

te

There is a risk of introducing invasive species by accident during processes of restoration. Care will be taken in the selection of species to avoid invasive species.

The project becomes a source of conflict or inequity


The project will be established through a consultative process and decisions made with a bottom-up consultation as much as possible.

4.4 Consistency with national priorities and plans

The project is designed to support and enhance the ten-year NRRPM and is fully consistent with national forest and environment-related policies and laws, including the NBSAP. A summary of how the project will be consistent with national policy is given in Table 13.

79

Table 13: Project consistency with national policy

Policy Consistency National Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation Myanmar Plan

The project supports the implementation of the NRRPM, and seeks to help maximise effectiveness through developing mechanisms based on a landscape approach

30 Year Forestry Sector Master Plan and 10-year District Forest management plans

The project supports implementation of the Master Plan (particularly extending the forest estate and forest cover) and the DFMPs, and will enable their adaptive development to ensure they are harmonised with the NRRMP

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

The project supports the achievement of the NBSAP, through improving habitats in Sagaing, increasing forest cover and improving protected area management.

Community Forestry Instruction 2016

The project supports the CFI and its implementation.

National Land Use Policy 2016 The project is fully aligned with the National Land Use Policy.

Because policy and law in Myanmar are in a state of flux as political and economic changes occur, it is difficult to predict accurately how consistent the project outputs will be with future changes. Early indications are that the project will be highly consistent with planned changes to land law and forest law and policy.

4.5 Project alignment with IUCN Programme

The IUCN Programme 2017–2020 was approved by the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September 2016.

IUCN works under the principle that nature conservation and human progress are not mutually exclusive. Facing tremendous forces of transformation such as climate change and dramatic socioeconomic inequality across the world, there are credible and accessible political, economic, cultural, and technological choices that can promote general welfare in ways that support and even enhance our planet’s natural assets.

The Project has strong alignment with IUCN’s Global Results, Sub Results and 2020 Targets as described below.

Global Result 2 Natural resource governance at all levels enables delivery of effective conservation and equitable social outcomes by integrating good governance principles and rights-based approaches.

Sub-results (SR) 2.1 – Credible and trusted knowledge for assessing and improving natural resource governance at all levels is available from IUCN.

2020 Target – 15. Community-led, cultural, grassroots or protected area governance systems that achieve the effective and equitable governance of natural resources are recognised (as best practices/pilot testing), supported and promoted, while respecting the rights of nature.

SR 2.2 – Governance at national and subnational levels related to nature and natural resources is strengthened through the application of the rights-based approach, and incorporation of good governance principles.

2020 Targets –

https://www.iucn.org/what/global_programme/resources/

80

16. Intervention points in which rights regimes related to natural resources are clear, stable, implementable, enforceable, and equitable have increased and are effectively integrated with other rights regimes – particularly for women, indigenous people, youth and the poor.

17. The capacity of institutions (including protected area and customary institutions) to undertake decision making in a participatory, inclusive, effective and equitable manner is enhanced, especially for facilitating the active participation of women, youth and indigenous peoples as key stakeholders.

18. Intervention points in which natural resource governance has the capacity to halt illegal natural resource use, through the promotion of rule of law and access to justice, have increased.

Global Result 3 Societies recognise and enhance the ability of healthy and restored ecosystems to make effective contributions to meeting societal challenges of climate change, food security, human health and well-being, and economic and social development.

SR 3.1 – Credible and trusted knowledge on how nature-based solutions can directly contribute to addressing major societal challenges is available and used by decision makers at all levels.

2020 Targets –

24. Key nature-based solutions interventions promoted by IUCN, (e.g. Forest Landscape Restoration, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Mangroves for the Future, river basin management and protected areas) are equipped to systematically assess and monitor the requisite in-country enabling frameworks, including legal, customary, institutional, and resourcing mechanisms for implementation

SR 3.3 – Intact, modified and degraded landscapes, seascapes and watersheds that deliver direct benefits for society are equitably protected, managed, and/or restored.

2020 Targets –

28. New national, sub-national or corporate planning and investment frameworks are effectively implemented in productive ecosystems to contribute to biodiversity conservation, sustainably deliver ecosystem goods and services and promote ‘land degradation neutrality’.

29. Restoration processes and methodologies make demonstrable contributions to the restitution of key ecosystem services in degraded landscapes, watersheds, and seascapes.

30. Legal, customary, and institutional mechanisms and resourcing are effectively implemented to maintain intact, natural and semi-natural ecosystems that deliver benefits to society, including existing and new protected areas.

4.6 Incremental cost reasoning (for GEF projects)

4.6.1 Baseline or business-as-usual scenario (without the GEF project)

Without the GEF project, the approach to forest restoration will continue to focus primarily on technical forest solutions such as plantations without realising the benefits of a more inclusive approach that seeks to improve forest functionality and increase the flow of desired ecosystem services to both local and national levels.

The business-as-usual scenario will not likely be able to address the key pressures that are causing forest degradation and deforestation and will not purposefully address the underlying drivers of change. A range of restoration activities will still be implemented under the 10-year NRRPM, but the success of these interventions is likely to be lower without the GEF project.

81

The current reviews of land use policy and forest policy will be undertaken without the GEF project, but they will not have the benefit of policy-relevant advice from the practical implementation of a landscape approach, nor from the broader learning of other GEF-TRI child projects. This is a lost opportunity to reform policy and law to improve forest condition, increase rural livelihoods, and optimise the flow of ecosystem services to society.

4.6.2 Incremental reasoning

The project is a child project of the global GEF project The Restoration Initiative (TRI). The purpose of TRI is to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes that provide global environmental benefits and enhanced resilient economic development and livelihoods, as a contribution to the Bonn Challenge. The Program will deliver global environmental benefits above and beyond the baseline of national and international action on restoration.

Overall, TRI will contribute to the achievement of the CBD Aichi 2020 Biodiversity targets, including target 15, which aims to restore at least 15 per cent of world degraded ecosystems by 2020.

The Project will contribute to the global targets through a bottom-up approach to removing barriers to forest and landscape restoration in Myanmar. The project is supported by a Global Learning, Finance, and Partnerships project to capture and disseminate best practices, provide financing tools and bankable models for attracting investment, and leverage key partnerships to yield cost savings and realize greater impact than possible under a fragmented, project-by-project approach.

Incremental GEF resources will support the development of a more inclusive forest restoration approach that delivers critical ecosystem services, including avoided emissions and carbon sequestration, which would not likely be fully realised under current approaches. The project will build on and complement the NRRPM by providing:

• An improved approach to restoration and forest management through multi-stakeholder engagement at landscape scale.

• Policy relevant lessons that address both drivers and pressures of forest loss and degradation. • Increased capacity for the Forest Department, NGOs, CSOs, and local communities in the target

areas to restore and sustainably manage forests. • Improved democratisation of forest governance including through participatory management of

forests that aims to generate ecosystem services and enhance forest functionality. • Enhanced tenure and use rights over community forests. • Improved benefits to local communities and national needs including through an increased flow

of ecosystem services, enhanced food security and climate change resilience.

It is estimated that the project will lead to the sequestration or avoided emissions of 3,031,340 tCO2eq during the lifetime of the project.

Table 14: Baseline and alternative approach

Baseline Project Alternative Global Benefits

Deforestation and forest degradation will continue apace.

Forest management will be unable to address unsustainable use of forests.

An FLR approach will enable greater value from forest restoration and forest management by restoring ecosystem functionality and improving the flow of ecosystem services.

Improved forest condition and ecological processes.

Biodiversity conserved.

Carbon stored and emissions

82

The approach to forest management planning and restoration planning will continue to be largely top down and poorly matched with local needs and realities.

The flow of ecosystem services from forests will continue to decline in line with forest loss and degradation.

The capacity of the Forest department and the community to implement community forestry will remain low.

Planning of forest restoration will change to more inclusive, participatory approaches that inspire local communities to manage forests sustainably and halt and reverse negative pressures.

Capacity of the FD, other agencies, NGOs, CSOs and local communities will be built.

Improved Sustainable Forest Management approaches will be applied in target areas.

Community capacity to manage local forests sustainably for improved flows of ecosystem services will be increased in the target areas.

District Forest Management Plans and District Restoration Plans will be adjusted to include FLR principles.

avoided.

Improved flow of ecosystem services.

4.7 Sustainability

The outcomes of the project have been designed to optimise the chance of sustainability. The FLR approach has been tested successfully in many countries and the project is backed up by the Global Project and their knowledge will be used by the project to support sustainable outcomes.

At sub-national level, the project will support the integration of landscape principles and approaches into planning and delivery mechanisms that already exist in government, civil society, and the private sector. This will help avoid the need to develop new sub-national institutional and planning arrangements that are unlikely to be sustained.

The project also includes considerable capacity building that will provide stakeholders with enhanced awareness, knowledge and capabilities that are appropriate to conditions at various levels (national, regional, district, township, and village).

4.7.1 Financial and economic sustainability

The Government of Myanmar and other stakeholders have shown a willingness to co-finance the project and a desire to fully absorb and continue identified best practices. The NRRPM will continue for a further six years after the project closure, thereby providing a clear strategy and funding mechanism for the Forest Department to continue landscape restoration.

The project will explore opportunities for further co-funding that can be used for restoration and supporting livelihood opportunities, including a possible national forest restoration fund. The project will also support the establishment of sustainable SMEs that build on improved agricultural and forestry productivity.

4.7.2 Institutional sustainability

The project will only utilise technologies that are appropriate for the conditions in the Project area. Such technologies will be backed up by capacity building and support for appropriate organisations that can maintain the technologies after the project ends.

FLR also seeks to promote improved governance and rule of law which are important for sustainable institutions that are fair and just.

83

Community management and potentially co-management of forests and trees will provide an incentive for restoration, protection, and management. Improved flows of ecosystem services and opportunities for livelihoods will enable sustainability of locally-managed systems.

4.7.3 Social sustainability

The project will help rural communities work in a more cooperative manner to benefit from improved flows of needed ecosystem services that result from landscape restoration. Efforts will be focused on vulnerable sectors of society, such as women and the rural poor, to ensure they benefit directly from project activities and that such benefits continue and improve in the future.

FLR will also help rural communities adapt to the impacts of climate change and thereby increase community resilience and decrease risk.

4.8 Replication

The project is designed to create landscape level models that are appropriate for replication, including through the continued development and roll out of the government’s 10-year NRRMP.

The project includes delivery mechanisms that are designed to engage both government agencies and civil society organisations. This approach will both help build national and sub-national capacity and enable the replication and adaptation of approaches developed by the project to other areas and sectors. In addition, by engaging a range of delivery partners, project stakeholders will benefit from experience and lessons outside of the Project area (e.g. through farmer to farmer exchange).

By creating a direct link with the Global GEF Project, a two-way exchange and dialogue will be created enabling the sharing of data, information, and knowledge. The project pursues the same logical framework approach as the global Project to facilitate exchange and includes resources for sharing at sub-national, national, and international levels.

A series of highly focused consultancies and contracts (see budget) will provide a mechanism for targeted examination of key issues and for translation of these learnings into relevant and useable training packages. Funds have been assigned to translation and interpretation to ensure project lessons and lessons from the other Projects and partners can be communicated in Myanmar language and English.

The project also includes outcomes that are focused on providing policy relevant advice to national and sub-national (regional) policy forums. This will help ensure that lessons are taken into consideration by policy decision makers. A targeted consultancy will ensure that policy lessons are being learned and transformed into useable, influential advice.

4.9 Communication and knowledge management

The project includes a Monitoring and Evaluation and Knowledge Management Specialist position that will develop a communications and knowledge management strategy within the first six months of the project, utilising the tools and approaches developed by the Global TRI Project.

The communication and knowledge management strategy aims to i) ensure the project learning effectively contributes to project implementation, and ii) ensure the research findings have maximum uptake to contribute to national policy development and global TRI learning.

84

Towards this aim, the strategy will involve interactive process-oriented engagement with three key groups:

• The project community and immediate network of partners (including local government, civil society, and private sector)

• Policy and practice at national and international level (who may support the project and adopt and scale up lessons from the project)

• Wider civil society, particularly, but not only, in Myanmar (who may have an interest in the developments)

They will be engaged at international, national, and sub-national / local levels. The strategy will work to strengthen linkages within and between these groups and within and between levels, through developing broad based and participatory platforms for dialogue and influencing.

The central reference point for the project will be through a website. This will keep all partners, stakeholders and other interested parties updated on the latest developments, via news updates to maintained mailing lists (email, with paper as needed). The website will comprise: outline of the project and activities; access and circulation point for documents and data; discussion groups.

The project-related community – methods for communicating will include: i) the presentation of learnings in workshops; ii) publications on specific issues – via briefing series and weblogs; iii) learning groups coordinated by the project office (e.g. restoration methods, livelihood development and enterprise, suitable species etc.); and iv) e-bulletins summarising latest developments and activities.

A grievance mechanism for the project community will be created, involving an anonymous channel for individuals to send letters expressing concern or complaint. The mechanism will be publicised. Any letters received will be assessed by an independent multi-stakeholder panel meeting, convened on a regular basis. To minimise grievances it will be essential that the project implementing partners are highly attuned to community concerns, ideally local or regional NGOs with a track record of successful engagement in the area.

Policy and practice – those who make, influence, and implement policy, as well as other relevant development practitioners and their professional networks. It includes government bureaucrats and policy makers, civil society actors (from social movements, CSOs, and NGOs), donor and their project personnel, journalists, the private sector, and academic community. Policy influencing is highly contingent on and subject to the chaotic nature of the policy process; and policy makers and influencers have their own priorities and timetables. Therefore, the communications and influencing strategy for this group will be to build a close collaborative relationship, developing on existing relationships and access to policy circles. Activities will aim to develop shared learnings and promote recognition of potentials for improvements. The programme will necessarily be adaptive to conditions and opportunities, and will advocate for developing the ‘enabling environment’. Larger multi-stakeholder seminar workshops will be held for dialogue with the wider policy / stakeholder community, where appropriate through policy briefing formats. Overall, the main outputs will be in the form of presentations and policy briefing papers.

Wider civil society – a broad public platform for communication and influencing will be developed using a range of media and methods. This platform will then be used to support civil society to participate in forest restoration wherever they are and whatever their capacity. Methods will

85

include: i) public meetings and seminars; ii) press news releases and newspaper / print media articles; iii) radio interviews, discussions, and programming (public, commercial and community); and iv) documentary film making and broadcast through public and commercial channels.

Outputs will be in Myanmar language and English as appropriate.

4.10 Environmental and social safeguards

In compliance with IUCN’s Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) the project has been screened on the potential of triggering adverse environmental and social risks. The IUCN ESMS Screening Report is included as an annex to this project document (Annex 7). Despite overall impacts being considered to be largely positive as improved ecosystem services are expected to lead to improved livelihoods, the project has been classified as a moderate risk project. This is due to the fact that concrete restoration activities are not know at project approval stage as they will only be decided as part of the ROAM planning process during project implementation. Projects where project activities and pertinent context information are not known at approval stage would generally require the development of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). However, because the identified social risks are overall considered to be either minor or expected to be readily addressed with mitigation measures (see risk analysis in chapter 4.3) and the fact that the ROAM planning process already reflects a strong congruence with the main ESMS elements, it was decided to enhance the methodological guidance of the ROAM planning process rather than developing a separate ESMF. This has been articulated in the form of an ESMS-enhanced ROAM Process Framework which is attached in Appendix 8.

The ESMS-enhanced ROAM Process Framework formulates provisions for the five-step ROAM process to be implemented at the township and village levels based on the ESMS principles and considerations from the ESMS Standards. It further establishes a simplified ESMS procedures for identifying and managing environmental and social risks of the interventions to be selected in the village workshops (FLR and economic and livelihood interventions). It also describes the institutional arrangements for implementing the ESMS review procedures and for ensuring that the ESMS provisions for the five-step ROAM process are adequately followed. The latter includes the definition of roles and responsibilities and the provision to carry out ESMS Training for all projects staff and relevant project partners during the inception phase of the project.

86

5 Institutional framework and implementation arrangements

The following section provides details on how the Project is set up. Roles and responsibilities of all relevant bodies created by the Project are described and terms of references included as appropriate.

5.1 Alignment and Integration with the TRI Program

The project is one of 12 child projects of The Restoration Initiative (TRI), a GEF-supported program to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes to provide global environmental benefits and enhanced resilient economic development and livelihoods, in support of the Bonn Challenge. TRI is designed and led by three GEF Agencies – IUCN (lead agency), FAO and UN Environment – in partnership with TRI countries.”

The TRI program is comprised of 11 national child projects in 10 Asian and African countries, and is supported by a Global Learning, Finance, and Partnerships project (Global Child). The Global Child project will be responsible for facilitating overall coordination, monitoring, and adaptive management of the TRI Program, while at the same time providing key support along each of the four program components.”

The design of the TRI Myanmar includes mechanisms to ensure cross-fertilization between the Project, other TRI child projects, and the overall TRI program. Mechanisms may include:

• Participation in annual TRI knowledge sharing workshops; • Exchange and study visits with other TRI countries; • Project anticipates receiving and integrating support from the Global Child project. This

includes benefiting from provision of: o international experts and trainings on FLR- and TRI-relevant topics; o establishment and participation in TRI Community of Practice groups (via online and

other groups) facilitated by the Global Child project; o support for identification and integration of policies that are supportive of FLR,

including through partnership with the Global Child project in developing and utilizing relevant and high-value case studies and policy briefs;

o support for mobilization of FLR finance, including help in developing bankable FLR investment proposals;

o enrollment of Project stakeholders in a TRI course on FLR Finance to be developed by the Global Child project in partnership with Yale University, and made available beginning in 2018;

• The Project will develop knowledge products on in-country FLR practices, experiences, and achievements, for sharing with other TRI child projects, including through annual TRI knowledge sharing workshops;

• Project team member(s) will take part in regular monthly calls with the TRI Program Coordinator, to facilitate coordination and integration of efforts, and benefit from emerging opportunities;

• The Project will be responsive to any guidance received from the TRI Program Advisory Committee and the TRI Global Coordination Unit of the Global Child (see TRI Program institutional structure below);

87

• The Project will make use of Global Child provided standardized means (including standardized templates, and processes) for capturing and documenting lessons learned;

• The Project will make use of the Harmonized TRI Tracking Tool for reporting to the GEF, to facilitate comparability and utility of aggregated M&E data.

5.1.1 TRI Program Institutional Structure and Linkages

The TRI Program will be strengthened by the establishment and operation of a TRI Program Advisory Committee (PAC), supported by the TRI Global Child. The PAC will be comprised of representatives from the three TRI Partner Agencies, the GEF, as well as representatives from some or all of the TRI countries (TBD), and relevant external experts. The PAC will provide oversight and recommendations over the course of TRI implementation, to capitalize on emerging opportunities, facilitate linkages to existing and relevant restoration initiatives, and provide recommendations to address any implementation bottlenecks as they arise.”

Recommendations provided by the PAC are of an advisory nature only – TRI child projects are not bound to follow the advice of the PAC. However, experience has demonstrated the value that an advisory body, with substantial expertise and experience and a unique vantage point and perspective, can bring to a program. It is therefore anticipated that TRI Child projects will incorporate recommendations of the PAC into their work plans and operations.”

Specific functions of the PAC shall include:

• Provide overall strategic policy and management direction to the Program and Child projects; • Review progress of previously agreed Program work plans; • Review key milestones and points for review; • Discuss process forward, and any proposed changes to plans and main activities; • Facilitate linkages between the TRI Program and other relevant FLR initiatives where

appropriate; • Provide technical and substantive input to the TRI Annual Knowledge Sharing workshop

where appropriate.

The TRI Program will also be strengthened by the establishment and operation of a TRI Global Coordination Unit (GCU), housed within the Global Child project. Specific functions of the GCU shall include:

• Lead the focus on optimizing integration and capture of synergies among child projects; • Develop and implement a TRI Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the TRI Program

with effective linkages to all 12 child projects, based on the TRI Theory of Change, the results matrices in the project documents of all 12 TRI child projects, the TRI M&E Framework, as well as additional monitoring elements that may be required to achieve value for money assessments and other desired assessments, to ensure the systematic monitoring of the implementation of the TRI Program;

• Develop and implement a TRI Global Communications and Outreach Strategy supporting achievement of TRI communications objectives;

• Develop and implement a TRI Partnership Strategy supporting effective engagement and partnership with external programs, projects, institutions, and potential donors/investors,

88

that help foster achievement of TRI objectives, both at the Program- and child project-levels, and participation in appropriate external fora on behalf of the TRI Program;

• Organize and participate in monthly working group meetings with TRI child project managers; • Organize and participate in biannual meetings of the Program Advisory Committee; • Provision of secretarial services to the Program Advisory Committee; • Preparation of biannual Program Progress Reports for the Program Advisory Committee; • Coordinate adequate response to all specific issues and concerns raised by the Program

Advisory Committee.

Figure 15 shows the institutional structure and reporting linkages between TRI program constituents. Note that Child project reporting to the GCU will be largely identical to the bi-annual Project Progress Reports and annual PIRs submitted, respectively, to Implementing Agencies and the GEF. Therefore, additional reporting by Child projects to the GCU is not anticipated, except in the case of other studies on TRI Program efficacy, such as Value for Money studies, that this Child project may be asked to participate in during the final years of TRI implementation.

Figure 15. TRI program institutional structure

89

Table Detailing Alignment of Child Project with TRI Program

The GEF has suggested that all TRI projects include the following table in their CEO Endorsement Request documents to: (1) reinforce programmatic planning among TRI child project development teams, and (2) as a way to quickly and easily demonstrate to GEF Secretariat and GEF Council members, who will be reviewing child project documents, how the child project contributes to the overall TRI program and the delivery of enhanced programmatic benefits.

Table 15: Child Project Alignment with TRI Program

Criteria Child project design features aligned with criteria

Project interventions are designed/informed by forest landscape restoration best practices and are in line with support for the Bonn Challenge

The project design adopts the ROAM process at the landscape level and has a specific output on securing a national commitment to the Bonn Challenge

Project strategy employs TRI strategic approach, and includes work under each of the four TRI Programmatic components

The project strategy adopts a multi-layer strategic approach and includes outputs under each of the four TRI program components.

Project anticipates making use of supports from TRI Global Learning, Finance, and Partnership project (the Global Child project)

The project has specific outputs on knowledge product development and FLR finance. It will liaise closely with the Global Learning, Finance and Partnership project.

Project anticipates making contributions to the capture and dissemination of knowledge, for the benefit of all TRI child projects

Component 4 provides for learning exchanges and knowledge product production and dissemination. The project will employ a dedicated M&E and Knowledge Management Specialist

Project design recognizes institutional linkages with the Global Child project, including with TRI Program Advisory Committee, for adaptive management.

The project’s integrated tracking tool and project monitoring plan have included linkages to the annual TRI knowledge sharing workshops.

Project includes a planned activity and dedicated funding for participation in Annual TRI Knowledge-Sharing workshops

Yes. Component 4.

Project funding and anticipated global environmental benefits are in-line with estimates made at the time of PFD submission/approval

The project design has conducted a carbon impact assessment and provided an initial account of other global environmental benefits (Project document Section 3.2, 4.1.1). This further elaborates the global environmental benefits made at the time of the PFD submission / approval.

Other (including any additional support for partnership and knowledge sharing activities with TRI partners)

This will be done through the annual TRI learning event and regular communication with TRI partner based on field implementation needs.

5.2 National decision making and planning

This section outlines coordination with on-going and planned relevant activities in Myanmar.

90

The Project is designed to add value to the NRRPM. This includes:

• Reviewing how the District NRRPM’s align with the District Forest Management Plans and other relevant plans at the district level and making recommendations for improvements including the potential for incorporation of landscape principles and tools.

• Testing and demonstrating approaches for landscape restoration through the NRRPM.

The Community Forestry National Working Group, Community Forest Unit of the Forest Department, RECOFTC, and several other NGOs are important actors in the further development of community forestry in the country. The Project will build strong linkages with these groups.

The Land Core group and Land Policy Implementation process are important conduits to policy reform that is relevant to a landscape approach. The Project will maintain close attention to their work and seek to engage either directly or via other key stakeholders as appropriate.

The Project will also seek collaboration and exchange of lessons learned with national and local environmental NGOs, including the Myanmar Environment Rehabilitation-Conservation Network (MERN) and its 21 member organizations.

At the district level, the Project will engage with relevant planning systems through the Forest Department, including by providing policy relevant advice to incorporating landscape principles into planning. It will also partner with a local CSO (eg. Comprehensive Development Education Center, or CDEC) to facilitate ROAM process and community mobilization on development initiatives.

There are several relevant GEF funded projects in Myanmar and the FAO Country representative has already indicated a strong interest in building collaboration and coordination between the FAO forest project and the Project.

5.2.1 Project execution modality

The Project’s implementation and execution structure is shown in Figure 16 below. The IUCN Asia Regional Office (IUCN ARO) will be the GEF Implementing Agency; the Forest Department, in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC), will be the Lead Executing Agency. Upon request of the Government of Myanmar, IUCN Myanmar will support the Lead Executing Agency with the management and operational execution of the Project, including the establishment of a Project Management Unit (PMU), hiring of project staff, financial management, procurement of goods, and contracting of services following IUCN rules and procedures.

The Forest Department will appoint a senior officer as the National Project Director (NPD) (part time) who will be responsible for oversight of the Project on behalf of the Government. IUCN Myanmar will appoint a National Project Coordinator (NPC) (or Chief Technical Advisor) who will be in charge of the PMU and responsible and accountable for the delivery of the Project, in close coordination with the National Project Director.

The PMU will involve international/national/local NGOs and CSOs in the execution of specific components and activities. These are described in more detail in the section below on Letters of Agreement with partners. Potential partner NGOs/CSOs have been consulted during the project design phase. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has been implementing its Responsible Asia Forestry Trade (RAFT) program in Myanmar for several years and has worked closely with IUCN in Myanmar to identify restoration priorities and future policy requirements to support FLR. TNC has, therefore, been identified as a project partner to support Component 1 on policy development and integration.

91

The other organizations will be selected after the start of the Project through Requests for Proposals.

Figure 16: TRI Myanmar Child Project Implementation and Execution Structure

Funds received from GEF will be used to execute Project activities in conformity with IUCN’s rules and procedures (see ‘Procurement’). Co-funding provided for the Project by the Government shall be used by the Forest Department in conformity with Government rules and regulations.

In accordance with the present project document, progress in the financial execution of the project, and the Annual Work Plan and Budget will be approved by the Project Steering Committee. A strict firewall between IUCN’s role as the GEF Implementing Agency and its support to Project execution will be maintained.

5.2.1.1 Project Steering Committee

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established and chaired by the Forest Department with the participation of IUCN and at least one member from the Technical Advisory Group (TAG – see below), and representatives from other departments, NGOs, and the private sector. The PSC will meet at least once per year (and preferably twice per year). Its specific responsibilities will be to:

• Maintain oversight of project progress and achievement of planned results. • Review and approve technical and financial progress reports and approve the annual work plan

(AWP) and budget. • Oversee the organization, coordination, and implementation of the Project. • Facilitate cooperation between the PMU and the Forest Department and the Project’s

participating partners. • Advise the PMU on other on-going and planned activities, and facilitate collaboration between

the Project and other programmes, projects, and initiatives in Myanmar. • Facilitate the provision of co-financing and ensure that this is provided in a timely and effective

manner.

92

• Maintain oversight of ROAM process implementation and ensure compliance with the ESMS procedures, principles and standards.

Table 16: Project Steering Committee composition

Member Organisational representative

Forest Department Director General

Sagaing Regional Government Two representatives

Forest Department National Project Director

Department of Agriculture Director General

Department of Agriculture Land Management and Statistics Director

Department of Planning Director

IUCN Country Representative

Technical Advisory Group representative Representative

NGOs Representative

Private Sector Representative

5.2.1.2 Project Management Unit

The project will be delivered through a Project Management Unit (PMU). The PMU will be overseen by a National Project Director assigned (on a part-time basis) by the Forest Department and led and managed on a day-to-day basis by a National Project Coordinator (or Chief Technical Advisor) in close collaboration with the National Project Director.

This PMU will be situated in Katha Township, Sagaing Region and smaller field offices will be established in locations to be determined during the first year of the Project’s implementation.

The PMU will be responsible for day-to-day project operations.

The PMU will operate under the guidance of the PSC, taking advice from the TAG, to ensure the effective and efficient coordination and delivery of the Project.

The PMU will:

• Manage field operations in close collaboration with the Forest Department. • Manage project information and documentation and distribution of project reports, newsletters,

and training materials to relevant stakeholders. • Manage project M&E and assist the NPC to prepare biannual Project Progress Reports. • Liaise with IUCN when preparing financial reports. • Act as secretariat to the PSC. • Handle day-to-day project issues and requirements, coordinate project interventions with other

on-going activities and ensure a high degree of inter-institutional collaboration, and ensure the timely delivery of inputs and outputs.

• Organize workshops and annual meetings for the Project. • Develop work plans with detailed budgets for the next year to be approved by the PSC. • Develop bi-annual Project Progress and Financial reports and assist in the preparation of the

annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) and midterm and final evaluations.

93

• Prepare and submit to the PSC and IUCN project Progress Reports on outputs and outcomes achieved, financial statements, Annual Work Plans, and detailed Budgets.

TRI Myanmar Project staff

All project staff will be expected to demonstrate the following 12 capabilities, to a varying extent depending on the position they hold:

• Adaptability • Communicating • Decision making • Initiative • Integrity • Motivation

• Planning and organizing • Problem solving • Reliability • Stress tolerance • Team work • Work standards

The following section includes draft terms of reference (TORs) for key project staff positions. These terms of reference will require validation and adjustment by the project team at the commencement of the project.

1) The National Project Director (part time, Forest Department staff) will:

• Support the National Project Coordinator in the overall coordination of the project. • Manage the performance of the National Project Coordinator. • Act as secretariat to the PSC. • Oversee the work of the project team. • Oversee project M&E and assist the NPC to prepare biannual Project Progress Reports. • Oversee the development of work plans and budgets to be approved by the PSC. • Ensure that bi-annual project progress and financial reports, an annual Project Implementation Review

(PIR), and midterm and final evaluations are prepared. • Submit to the PSC and IUCN project progress reports on outputs and outcomes achieved, financial

statements, annual work plans, and detailed budgets. • Coordinate project interventions with other on-going activities and ensure a high degree of inter-

institutional collaboration, and the timely delivery of inputs and outputs.

2) The National Project Coordinator will:

• Lead and oversee the work of the Project Team. • Regularly communicate with project stakeholders including meetings with representatives of the 12 target

communities on a quarterly basis. • Develop work plans with detailed budgets to be approved by the PSC. • Oversee procurement in accordance with agreed procurement procedures. • Coordinate the implementation of project activities with the national and provincial teams, and ensure

the timely delivery of inputs and outputs, in close collaboration with the Project Manager. • Manage the performance of all project staff and consultants. • Manage project budgets and finances according to IUCN policies and procedures. • Manage project information and documentation and distribution of project reports, newsletters, and

training materials to relevant stakeholders.

94

• Organize workshops and annual meetings for the Project. • Develop bi-annual project progress and financial reports and assist in the preparation of the annual

Project Implementation Review (PIR) and midterm and final evaluations. • Submit to the PSC and IUCN project progress reports on outputs and outcomes achieved, financial

statements, annual work plans, and detailed budgets. • Manage project M&E and support the mid-term and final evaluations • Monitor, and regularly report on the progress of the Project against annual work plans, and budgets, and

identify issues that need urgent attention by the PSC. • Provide ESMS screening report for FLR interventions and ensure ESMS compliance of five-step ROAM

process according to the ESMS-enhanced ROAM Process Framework (Appendix 8). • Provide annual reports on the implementation of the ROAM process and demonstrate compliance with

ESMS procedures, standards and principles in all target communities.

• Ensure a high degree of inter-institutional collaboration with TRI Global and other related global, regional and national projects and identify opportunities for partnership and collaboration with other agencies, organizations and donors.

3) The Administration and Finance Officer will:

• Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Administration:

o Oversee the planning, coordination and implementation of administrative policies, procedures and systems, and ensure these are efficient and effective.

o Prepare personnel and services contracts, and procurement documents including submission of documentation to IUCN under the direction of the National Project Coordinator.

o Support recruitment processes and oversee the induction and training of personnel. o Assess staff performance and provide coaching and guidance to ensure maximum efficiency. o Manage office facilities and including office space, equipment and supplies. o Oversee project IT, data bases and communications systems. o Manage the Project’s assets (e.g. vehicles, computers, filed equipment) and asset register. o Provide regular reports and supporting the project team to prepare and submit six monthly and

annual reports. • Finance:

o Oversee the planning, coordination and implementation of financial policies, procedures and systems (including ant-fraud policies) and ensure these are efficient and effective.

o Prepare detailed budgets. o Ensure finance systems are accurate and kept updated with financial data including:

Daily transactions, invoices, bank deposits and payments. Bank statement reconciliation. Accounts payable and accounts receivable. Cash statements. Asset register. Balance sheets.

o Prepare monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports. o Prepare relevant documents for internal and external financial audits. o Participate in financial audits. o Maintain the project’s risk register

4) The Forest Restoration and Management Specialist will:

95

• Coordinate the implementation of the technical support to project activities with the project team and the pilot sites.

• Manage performance of all technical project staff and forestry, ecosystem services, and monitoring and valuation consultants.

• Manage delegated project finances according to budgets allocated to technical issues. • Monitor, and regularly report on the progress of the technical support aspects of the project against

annual work plans, and identify issues that need urgent attention by the project team. • Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Provide six-monthly and annual written reports on the technical aspects of project delivery, covering

issues such as project activities, outputs and outcome delivery, and the performance of staff/consultants. • Maintain linkages with other technical aspects of the Global TRI project and with relevant experts at

global, regional, national and sub-national levels and identify opportunities for technical cooperation and knowledge sharing.

5) The M&E and Knowledge Management Specialist will:

• Lead the project knowledge management. • Oversee the planning, coordination and implementation of knowledge management policies, procedures

and systems (including compliance with national laws), and ensure these are efficient and effective. • Develop a knowledge management strategy. • Prepare and manage knowledge management budgets. • Prepare knowledge management reports including on use of knowledge products, web site statistics, and

effectiveness of media campaigns. • Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Manage and implement capacity building in knowledge management. • Refine and lead the execution of the Project’s M&E plan. • Draw upon available tools and best practices for monitoring of FLR interventions, e.g., the Guidelines on

Measuring Progress for Forest and Landscape Restoration developed by WRI and FAO. • Liaise with the Global TRI Project to share knowledge and, as far as practicable, provide guidance to assist

the TRI Myanmar project to harmonize approaches and timing with other GEF TRI child projects.

6) The Community Forestry Support Specialist will:

• Coordinate the implementation of the technical support on community forestry with the project team and the pilot sites.

• Manage performance of all community forestry project staff and community forestry consultants and contractors.

• Manage delegated project finances according to budgets allocated to technical issues. • Monitor, and regularly report on the progress of the community forestry support aspects of the project

against annual work plans, and identify issues that need urgent attention by the project team. • Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Provide six-monthly and annual written reports on the community forestry aspects of project delivery,

covering issues such as project activities, outputs and outcome delivery, and the performance of staff/consultants.

• Maintain linkages with other community forestry aspects of the Global TRI project and with relevant experts at global, regional, national and sub-national levels and identify opportunities for technical cooperation and knowledge sharing.

7) The Gender and Social Networking Specialist will:

96

• Coordinate the implementation of the gender and social networking activities with the project team and the pilot sites.

• Manage performance of all gender and social networking aspects of project staff and consultants. • Manage delegated project finances according to budgets allocated to technical issues. • Monitor, and regularly report on the progress of the gender and social networking aspects of the project

against annual work plans, and identify issues that need urgent attention by the project team. • Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Provide six-monthly and annual written reports on the gender and social networking aspects of project

delivery, covering issues such as project activities, outputs and outcome delivery, and the performance of staff/consultants.

• Maintain linkages with other gender and social networking aspects of the Global TRI project and with relevant experts at global, regional, national and sub-national levels and identify opportunities for technical cooperation and knowledge sharing.

8) The Communications and Media Support Officer will:

• Lead the project communication and media activities (including the production of videos) • Oversee the planning, coordination and implementation of communication and media policies,

procedures and systems (including compliance with national laws), and ensure these are efficient and effective.

• Prepare and manage communication and media budgets. • Oversee the Project’s web presence. • Support the National Project Coordinator to engage effectively with the PSC and TAG. • Prepare communication and media activities reports including on use of knowledge products, web site

statistics, and effectiveness of media campaigns. • Manage capacity building in communications and media.

9) Technical Assistants will:

• Support the implementation of the Project’s field activities in close collaboration with the Project team and Forest Department staff.

• Coordinate project activities with stakeholders within and outside the relevant government agency and with communities at the municipal and local level.

• Coordinate the implementation of village and township level project activities with the project team. • Manage delegated project finances according to budgets allocated. • Monitor, and regularly report on the progress of the technical support aspects of the project against

annual work plans, and identify issues that need urgent attention by the project team. • Support the project team in working with the Local Forest Restoration Committees. • Provide six-monthly and annual written reports on project delivery, covering issues such as project

activities, outputs and outcome delivery, and performance of staff/consultants. • Maintain linkages with other pilot areas and identify opportunities for technical cooperation and

knowledge sharing.

10) Drivers will:

• Observe the road and traffic laws and regulations of Myanmar and always drive in a safe manner. • Drive vehicle for official travel and business, or as requested by Representative. • Maintain a high standard of service for all passengers, including punctuality. • Maintain a zero-blood alcohol level when on duty. • Ensure vehicle is kept secure, clean, tidy and in good working condition.

97

• Log all trips, daily mileage, gas consumption, oil changes and other relevant information. • Log official trips, daily mileage, gas consumption, oil changes, etc. • Provide assistant to the Administration and Finance Officer when working at the office.

The project will achieve some of its key outputs through consultancies, and Letters of Agreement (LoA) with key partners. These LoA are listed in the procurement section and the budget. Further detail on results-based LoA work plans and budgets will be developed during inception phase of the project.

5.2.1.3 Technical Advisory Group

A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) will be established to provide technical advice and inputs relating to project implementation and will be chaired by the National Project Director.

The members of the TAG, shown below, include relevant government agencies, research and educational organizations, NGOs, technical experts, and other relevant stakeholders to be agreed by the PSC. Technical experts may be invited in to discuss specific issues. The TAG will assist in providing a means for updating stakeholders at the national level about landscape restoration and for the project to obtain relevant technical advice and information about relevant issues.

Table 17: Technical advisory group composition


Forest Department National Project Director

Project NPC and project staff

Department of Agriculture Representative

Technical Committee representative Representative

NGO Project manager


5.2.1.4 Local Forest Restoration Committees (FRC):

The project will give consideration to the establishment of Local Forest Restoration Committees (FRCs) where no existing local bodies can fulfil a role at local level. The FRC will:

• Provide advice on actions related to participation of local communities at the pilot sites. • Provide advice on conflict management in relation to forest management and restoration. • Help raise public awareness. • Assist with communications between the government agencies and local communities and the

private sector.

The FRCs will comprise the Township Land Use Committee and civil society representatives.

Table 18: Forest restoration committee composition


General Administration Department Head of Township

Forest Department Township Forest Officer

98

Technical Committee representative Representative

NGO Representative


5.3 Procurement plan

The project executing agency will ensure that all procurement is in line with IUCN’s procurement policy.

5.3.1 Procurement in general

All procurement of goods and services will be made with complete impartiality based solely on the merits of supplier proposals, including such considerations as cost, quality, environmental impact, delivery, and payment terms.

All purchase decision shall take into consideration the environmental policy of the supplier and the environmental impact of the goods or services to be procured, with a view to minimizing the environmental impact of the procurement. Environmental considerations include an assessment of the need for the procurement and the environmental impact of the eventual disposal of any goods procured.

Goods shall only be accepted if they are received in good condition and meet the prescribed standard.

All purchases of services over CHF 25,000 (around US$25,000), from individuals, companies or organizations, shall be made based on a written contract or Purchase Order which shall set forth in detail the relevant terms of the contract including, without limitation, the proposed scope of work, deliverables, amounts and terms of payment, timelines and the Parties' relative responsibilities and liabilities for non-performance.

Procurement contracts must be entered only with responsible suppliers who are reputable, well established and are suppliers of the type of goods and services being purchased in the normal course of their business.

Procurement shall only be undertaken with suppliers who:

• Maintain ethical business practices always. • Are not involved in any form of corruption or any fraudulent activities. • Do not engage in any collusive or coercive practices.

The main procurement items are detailed in the budget. They include vehicles, contract services and staff. The Project area is relatively remote and requires transport on sealed and unsealed roads that are often in poor condition. The most suitable vehicles for project activity are dual cab four-wheel drive diesels and motorcycles. Vehicles will be procured at the commencement of the project to ensure the project activities are undertaken in a timely manner. Vehicles will be maintained in good order for the duration of the project, this will require procurement arrangements for insurance, vehicle servicing and repair and spare parts including tyres.

Office accommodation is likely to require rental of premises, some renovations, furnishing and equipping with computers, electrical surge protection and back up, security and telecommunications. Office accommodation(s) will be procured at the commencement of the

99

project and maintained in good order for the duration of the project. An option for co-locating with the Forest Department in Katha, as suggested to the project design mission by the Forest Department, should be investigated. If suitable office accommodation is not immediately available, arrangements shall be made to rent premises. Given the large distances in the Project area and the poor state of roads, it will be necessary to arrange several small sub-offices or depots in at least some of the townships included in the project activities.

The Project budget includes funds for: stationery and consumables; furniture, common equipment and renovation; field equipment for staff; biodiversity monitoring equipment; computer equipment; electronics; power generation and security; vehicle running costs; vehicle hire (for periods before vehicles can be purchased and for occasions when large numbers of people need transport e.g. training courses); tele-communications; project marketing and up-scaling materials; community forestry teaching materials; FLR training materials; utilities; and miscellaneous items.

5.3.2 Consultancies and contracts

There are a range of CSOS and NGOs that have the skills and capabilities required for the implementation of the Project. Procurement of their services will require careful processes to ensure that the most appropriate contractors can be sourced. Procurement of consultant and contract services will commence in year one and continue annually. Within the Project area, the choice of CSO and NGO partners is very limited. Members of these local CSOs and NGOs are often enthusiastic and well acquainted with the area, but may not have all the capabilities required for some outputs. Nevertheless, the project should make every effort to procure their services to assist in building local capacity and increase the likelihood of sustainability of project outcome.

5.3.2.1 Consultancies

The project includes a series of studies designed to improve knowledge and understanding of key aspects of socio-economic and biophysical conditions that impact on the management and restoration of forests and support the implementation of the project. The knowledge products generated through the project, including via the consultancies, will enable the development of policy-relevant materials that will be used to promote policy changes that incorporate FLR principles.

The consultancies are designed to be undertaken early in the life of the project to optimize the use of the results in project activities including on-the-ground restoration and providing policy-relevant advice. The consultancies are described briefly below.

1) National restoration policy framework (Law and Policy) (under Outcome 1)

Outcome 1 of the project focuses on the revision of policies and regulatory frameworks to support forest landscape restoration, including a commitment to the Bonn Challenge. The policy environment in Myanmar is evolving as part of broader economic and political changes. There are many stakeholders involved in policy reform processes. The Project can test policy ideas before they become enshrined in law and regulations, and has the opportunity to provide timely policy advice. However, the complex nature and speed of policy change processes suggest a need for the Project to adopt a targeted approach to policy and law to maximize the potential for effective influence.

The consultancy will assess the national institutional environment on FLR in Myanmar (with a particular focus on enabling conditions such as financial, tenure and licensing) and recommend the

100

areas, operational processes, stakeholders, and partners that are most relevant for the Project to focus on.

Objective - To provide relevant and timely analyses and advice on policy-relevant matters that will promote the integration of FLR into policies, laws, and institutions. Outcomes - The consultant will help deliver the following outcomes:

• National and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks support forest landscape restoration.

• Strengthened institutional capacities enable large-scale restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes and improvements in the flow of diverse ecosystem services

The consultant will assist the project team to deliver the following tasks:

• Assess existing laws, regulations, policies, and institutional arrangements that are relevant to FLR.

• Identify opportunities for improving laws, regulations, policies, and institutional arrangements that are relevant to FLR.

• Design, test and adapt policy interventions for various levels. • Develop policy briefs for use by the project with various levels and sectors. • Support the design and implementation of policy workshops and meetings. • Ensure a high degree of inter-institutional collaboration with TRI Global and other related

global, regional, and national projects and identify opportunities for partnership and collaboration with other agencies, organizations and donors.

• Assist with the planning and delivery of policy influencing training for target audiences.

2) Land tenure and use rights (under Outcome 2)

Forest landscapes in the Project area are often contested spaces. As mentioned previously, parts of the PFE have no actual forest, having been cleared for agriculture and settlements. Village communities met during the design phase of the project often mentioned concerns over their rights to land and a desire to have clearer tenure or use rights. In some places, the Forest Department has been working with local communities to secure some form of use rights through community forestry. In other areas, the issue of land tenure and use rights is likely to be a barrier to long term restoration and sustainable management of forests.

The consultancy will examine the nature of land use and use rights as it pertains to FLR and the NRRPM and recommend practical approaches and tools for managing and resolving land use and tenure conflicts as well as policy relevant advice that will assist the Government when making changes to the policy environment. Whilst the focus will be primarily on the project sites, lessons for other areas should be included where possible.

Objective - The consultant will support the project to develop practical approaches and tools for managing and resolving land use and tenure conflicts in the project area, as well as policy relevant advice that will assist the Government when making changes to the policy environment. Outcomes - The consultant will help deliver the following outcomes:

• National and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks support forest landscape restoration. (Outcome 1)

101

• Strengthened institutional capacities enable restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes and improvements in the flow of diverse ecosystem services (Outcome 3)


• Assess existing land tenure and use right laws, regulations, policies and institutional arrangements that are relevant to FLR.

• Assess the situation of land and use rights in the project area to illustrate the implementation of national / sub-national land tenure and use rights legal framework and how such framework affect the application of forest landscape restoration.

• Identify opportunities for improving land and use right laws, regulations, policies and institutional arrangements that are relevant to FLR.

• Design, test and adapt policy interventions. • Develop reports and policy briefs for use by the project with various levels and sectors. • Support the design and implementation of policy workshops and meetings.

3) Approaches to stopping Illegal logging (under Outcome 2)

Overharvesting of poles and timber is a key pressure on the forests within the Project area. Historically, over harvesting has been both legal (timber concessions and locally-permitted use), and illegal (both for commercial gain and domestic use). Recent changes to legal timber harvesting rules and approaches have reduced logging significantly. Illegal use continues unabated, despite significant efforts by Forest Department staff in recent times. Of greatest concern to successful FLR in the Project area is illegal logging for commercial purposes, as participants in this trade have little interest in forest restoration and no regard for rule of law. The Forest Department struggles to control illegal trade given itsr limited resources, the extensive nature of the forests and the road system, and the temptation for some to accept bribes or to inform illegal loggers of imminent enforcement activities. The Police do assist with forest enforcement activities on occasion, but, in general, the theft of timber and poles is not considered a priority policing activity. The continued theft of Myanmar's timber denies both the nation and local communities income generation opportunity, and is destroying natural capital and reducing the flow of much needed ecosystem services.

The consultancy will develop a set of practical options for reducing illegal logging for commercial gain. This will include options that involve the government taking the lead (e.g. Creating a joint fast response task force between the Forest Department, Customs and the Police to target known sites and offenders), options that involve the community (e.g. Awareness raising, confidential reporting and action systems), and options that involve technology (e.g. Real time satellite monitoring of hot spots, mobile device reporting systems). An assessment of potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to such approaches, and a cost benefit analysis of the various approaches will be undertaken. Whilst the focus will be primarily on the project sites, lessons for other areas should be included where possible. The improvement to rule of law will depend on the response by the Government.

Objective - To develop a set of practical options for reducing illegal logging for commercial gain. This will include options that involve the government taking the lead, options that involve the community, and options that involve technology. Outcomes - The consultant will help deliver the following outcomes:

102

• National and sub-national policy and regulatory frameworks support forest landscape restoration. (Outcome 1)

• Strengthened institutional capacities enable large-scale restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes and improvements in the flow of diverse ecosystem services (Outcome 3)


• Assess existing knowledge on efforts to combat illegal logging. • Identify opportunities for improving laws, regulations, policies, and institutional

arrangements that combat illegal logging. • Design options for reducing and halting illegal logging. • Develop reports and policy briefs for use by the project with various levels and sectors.

4) Additional consultancies

Provision has also been made in the budget for additional consultants that may be hired according to needs that arise during project implementation. This can be to support some of the LoA tasks described below, or general support to develop appropriate interventions in FLR, including policy-relevant products, practical field implementation, and approaches to developing capabilities amongst government and civil society actors

5.3.2.2 Letters of Agreement with partners

The Project includes a series of contracts or Letters of Agreement (LoA) with partners designed to both implement activities required to deliver project outputs, and build the capacity of civil society in Myanmar and thereby improve replication and sustainability. The LoAs may be with multiple partners or combined for delivery by one or more partners. These partners will also support the delivery of relevant training modules for the township and village level training.

The LoA activities are designed to be undertaken throughout the life of the project, they include:

1) Civil society organisation field team support to restoration and community forestry (under Outcome 2)

The sustainability and replication of FLR in Myanmar will depend, to a considerable extent, on the ability of CSOs to support local communities and the Forest Department, and to generate funds for FLR. The project includes staff that will build the capacity and capability of CSOs to work on FLR and community forestry, but in the mid-term, project staff should become unnecessary, once CSO skills and resources are built.

CSOs will therefore be engaged through one or more LoAs to support the project staff in undertaking key activities in the Project area and to build the requisite skills needed to operate independently from the project.

This LoA will also support the review and revision of District and Township planning processes that are relevant to FLR (including but not limited to Forest Department planning systems) to incorporate FLR principles and, as far as practicable, harmonise the plans so that government and community efforts are optimised and barriers to good landscape management are removed.

In addition, this LoA will support social networking. One key approach to strengthening civil society involves building capability for networking amongst CSOs, NGOs and communities. Peer to peer learning and exchange of knowledge helps spread ideas and build confidence. The LoA will support

103

the development of social networks of groups interested in FLR, community forestry, agriculture, agroforestry, SMEs etc.

2) Agriculture and agroforestry support (under Outcome 2)

The agricultural practices within the Project area have not apparently benefited greatly from either agroforestry or agricultural technologies, other than for rice. There are opportunities to enhance agricultural productivity, improve livelihoods, promote participation of women and other marginalized groups, decrease dependency on public forests, and increase carbon storage through agroforestry and improved agricultural practices within the Project area. Agroforestry and improvements to agriculture and livestock management are important tools for FLR. The skills needed to support agroforestry are not readily available in either the Forest Department or the Department of Agriculture. These skills do, however, exist in some CSOs and NGOs as well as in universities. A LoA with a partner will focus on supporting communities in the target sites to implement agroforestry, improved agriculture, and improved livestock management.

Prior to the implementation, the partner will conduct a study on agroforestry and agricultural improvement. The study will provide practical advice and recommendations on suitable tree and crop options, improvements to farming practices, appropriate technology (e.g. Integrated pest management, intercropping of plantations), an assessment of potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to such approaches, and a cost benefit analysis. Whilst the focus will be primarily on the project sites, lessons for other areas should be included where possible.

Objective – To provide practical advice and recommendations on suitable tree and crop options, improvements to farming practices, appropriate technology, an assessment of potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to such approaches, and a cost benefit analysis. To support target communities in the implementation of relevant FLR interventions. Outcomes - The LoA will help deliver the following outcomes:

• Forest landscape restoration implemented by stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society and local people, both men and women)

The LoA will assist the project team to deliver the following tasks: • Assess current use of trees and crops in the pilot sites (and elsewhere as appropriate). • Develop a suite of options for tree and crop selection, improvements to farming practices,

and adoption of appropriate technology. • Assess potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to such approaches • Develop cost benefit analyses for preferred options. • Identify opportunities for mitigating social, biophysical, and policy barriers. • Develop reports and policy briefs for use by the project with various levels and sectors. • Support the implementation of relevant FLR interventions.

3) Bamboo-based restoration model technical support (under Outcome 2)

Many of the degraded sites are in urgent need for rehabilitation with economic species and bamboo plantation has been identified as one of the more environmental friendly plantation that can be established and owned by communities with localized benefits.

104

Objective - To review the potential for sustainable, community managed bamboo plantation and bamboo based alternative livelihoods, and to support the target communities in implementing follow-up activities where opportunities are identified.

Outcomes - The LoA will help deliver the following outcomes:

• Forest landscape restoration implemented by stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society and local people, both men and women).

• Strengthened local capacities enable community-based restoration and maintenance of bamboo plantations and improvements in the flow of diverse environmental and ecosystem services to local community members.

The LoA will assist the project team to deliver the following tasks: • Assess existing plantation models, species, uses, management and markets for bamboo. • Review the technical, financial, and social viability of technologically improved, sustainable

production of bamboo. • Identify the potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to bamboo-based restoration

models. • Develop a practical set of recommendations and a cost benefit analysis for bamboo based

production and management. • Support the implementation of follow-up activities where opportunities are identified.

4) Small and Medium Enterprise Development (under Outcome 3)

The rehabilitation of degraded forest and the expansion of agroforestry and community forestry within the Project area will provide opportunities for the community and individuals to develop livelihood opportunities through forest/tree-based SMEs, and engage in markets. Currently, there is little opportunity or capacity to develop viable SMEs within the Project area. This LoA will review the technical, financial, and social viability of SMEs based on forest and tree products, and analyze the potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to such SMEs, in order to identify SME development opportunities.

A practical set of recommendations and cost benefit analysis of identified restoration strategies will be produced. The partner will then help to build the capacity of local communities in the target areas to develop SMEs that support sustainable management of the landscape.

Objective - To develop a practical set of recommendations and cost benefit analysis for forest/tree-based SMEs, and to support target communities to develop SMEs that support sustainable management of the landscape. Outcomes - The LoA will help deliver the following outcomes:

• Forest landscape restoration implemented by stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society and local people, both men and women).


The LoA will assist the project team to deliver the following tasks: • Review the technical, financial, and social viability of SMEs based on forest and tree products • Identifying the potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to SMEs • Assess existing and potential FLR-related SME opportunities for target sites • Develop a practical set of recommendations and a cost benefit analysis for SMEs.

105

The LoA will need to have demonstrated experience in the development of SMEs, cost-benefit analyses, and business planning and marketing.

5) Water and catchment management (under Outcome 2)

Within the Project area, there are important watersheds both for local catchment values and for the Thapanzeik dam. The NRRPM has 121 ha of watershed plantation planned and it is reasonable to assume that a considerable proportion of the area of community forest (42,000 ha overall) planned will affect watersheds. The LoA will secure the skills needed to advise FLR interventions that will generate the best possible outcomes for water and catchment management (e.g. choice of species, role of agroforestry, approach to site preparation and management).

6) Securing finances and funding for FLR (under Outcome 3)

The government has committed to a long-term program of forest restoration that includes generating support from the private sector. The project can assist with the development of financing mechanism for FLR. The work under this LoA with a suitable financier partner will include the following:

• Options for developing a national fund for restoration. • The business cases for private sector and donor investment in restoration. • The opportunity for developing environmental economic accounts or ecosystem valuation

approaches. • Assessment of, and recommendations for, innovative funding mechanisms that lead to sustained

financing. • Development of FLR investment proposals.

7) Biodiversity assessment and monitoring (under Outcome 2)

One of the intended outcomes of FLR is to halt, and as far as possible reverse, the loss of biodiversity. To determine how effective FLR interventions are at conserving biodiversity requires regular monitoring. Such monitoring needs to provide accurate, reliable, useable, and timely information in a cost-effective manner. This will include the development and refinement of cost effective approaches and the regular provision of data to the project and the Forest Department. Tools to track elephant movements and human wildlife conflict will be explored.

Information on biodiversity within the Project area is limited, dated and largely anecdotal. FLR has the potential to improve biodiversity by restoring habitat and creating wildlife corridors. However, done badly, restoration has the potential to reduce biodiversity through the inappropriate selection of species, the removal of habitat (e.g. during plantation establishment), and the disruption of ecological processes (e.g. Changes to hydrological values and fire regimes). Anecdotal evidence collected during the design phase of the project indicates that there has been a significant decline in the abundance of species and species associations over recent decades because of habitat change and hunting pressure. Illegal harvesting of wildlife, including in Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary, remains a key pressure in the Project area. A small population of wild Asian Elephant exists in Kanbalu township and human wildlife conflicts do occur. A population of bats is also resident in the Karst caves of Kanbalu township. These latter two species were reported to the project design team as having considerable significance to the Regional Government.

106

Objective - The LoA will provide practical advice and recommendations on suitable approaches to biodiversity assessment and ongoing monitoring, including, but not limited to participatory approaches that involve local communities and schools. The LoA will also support the monitoring of biodiversity for the duration of the project.

Outputs - The LoA will help deliver the following output:


The LoA will assist the project team to deliver the following tasks:

• Assess existing biodiversity monitoring systems and indicators. • Assess potential social, biophysical, and policy barriers to biodiversity monitoring. • Develop a cost benefit analysis of the various approaches. • Design, test and adapt biodiversity monitoring systems and indicators. • Provide practical advice and recommendations on suitable approaches to biodiversity

assessment and ongoing monitoring, including, but not limited to participatory approaches that involve local communities and schools

In addition, under this LoA consideration will be given to two consultancies on:

• Testing emerging audio technology for assessment of biodiversity (developed by The Nature Conservancy).

• Tracking movement of the elephant population through radio collar technology and to use this information to inform approaches to manage human wildlife conflict (e.g. through restoration of elephant corridors, encouraging elephants to avoid humans, and vice-versa).

8) Carbon monitoring (under Outcome 2)

Myanmar is undergoing REDD+ readiness preparations, but is unlikely to have systems, policies, and procedures in place during the life of the Project. It is important to obtain an understanding of the changes in carbon stocks in the Project area, and, as far as possible, assess the contribution of the NRRPM and FLR to avoided emissions, carbon storage and impacts on adaptation. The LoA will take into use the most effective an efficient means to validate the baseline carbon stocks and report regularly on changes. The partner will work closely with the global Project to assist in the development of approaches that can be used universally.

9) Post-doctoral research funds (under Outcomes 1, 2 and 3)

The Project includes funds in year two and three to support universities in Myanmar to provide post-doctoral opportunities for research into aspects of FLR that are relevant to the NRRPM and the outcomes of the project. These studies will provide relevant lessons for policy and practice and help build academic capacity for FLR in the country. Post-doctoral studies could include topics such as biodiversity assessment and monitoring, carbon monitoring, and could potentially also cover some of the consultancies mentioned in section 5.3.2.1 above.

Other services hired under the project will include: i) web site hosting and design; ii) translation and interpretation services; and iii) mid-term review and end-of-project review.

107

6 Stakeholder engagement and participation

Table 19 describes stakeholders consulted during the design phase of the Project, as well as issues raised and how these stakeholders can best be engaged in the project.

Table 19: Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder Discussion Interest in the project

Influence on the project

Impact of the project on the stakeholder

How to engage the stakeholder

A. Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

Local villagers

Thapanzeik Dam resettled villages (above reservoir)

Strong interest, as project could have high positive impact especially in longer term from improved productivity of livelihood-related forest, agroforestry, and agriculture, and clarified and strengthened tenures. Some possible adverse impacts in the short to medium term from regulating access and extraction of forest products within sustainable levels. Interest level varies across villages for a complex range of reasons. Poor road access to markets. Encroaching southern boundaries of Chatthin wildlife sanctuary

High High locally re. delivery

High Partner

East Katha Yinke Reserve Forest settlers

Interest in support to form CF and promote agroforestry plantation. Legacy of crony agri-business concession.


High Partner

West Katha villagers

Interest to receive support to secure more sustainable supply of forest products – especially water, fuel, timber, wild foods. Development of Township environmental restoration committee needed. Desire improved relationship with FD


High Partner

Indaw villagers Interest to receive support to secure more sustainable supply of forest products – especially water, fuel, timber, wild foods. Development of Township environmental restoration committee needed. Desire improved relationship with FD


High Partner

East Tijyiang community

Interest to participate – village environmental deterioration (e.g. flooding, soil) linked to forest loss. Desire improved tenure security and forest. Legacy of crony agri-business concession.


High Partner

West Tijyiang community

Interested to participate to improve catchment forests for forest products, climate change mitigation and water supply. Deterioration of agriculture due to flooding and climate change Awareness raising around CF options needed


High Partner

West Kawlin community

Interested to participate in implementation of CF to improve fuelwood and forest product supply. Ongoing agricultural


High Partner

108





expansion into degraded forest areas. Highly interested in management of hillside slopes

Chatthin boundary community

Low productivity agriculture and NTFP extraction from park. Interested to participate to resolve land tenure dispute with park, and improve agricultural productivity, reduce flooding. Poor road access to market.


High Partner

By gender To generalise – women are particularly concerned over edible forest products, water supply. Men are more concerned with fuelwood, agricultural related, timber, incomes. Men lead formal community administration including community forests. However, there is no apparent gender oppression or bias. Tree species choice is likely to be a gendered decision, needing sensitive facilitation to ensure women’s aspirations included.

High High locally

High Partner - involve women specifically

By occupation Legal access to domestic firewood, poles and timber is difficult. Generally, there is no effective system to supply domestic need from forests and extraction is criminalised, but tolerated de facto as it is impossible to police. Illegal commercial extraction involving local people is not perceived as particularly more illegitimate than state over-extraction. Farmers rely on a range of forest ecosystem services.

High High locally

High Partner – involve fuelwood collectors specifically

By wealth rank Wealth varies significantly between the 12 villages - the primary factor likely to be extent of fertile paddy land. There is a complex relationship between wealth and forest restoration incentives.

High High locally

High Partner - involve landless and poor households specifically

Local CSOs/NGOs

Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability (MATA) Sagaing

Group of young activist/advocate investigators. Linked with National MATA and Ecodev FLEGT project. Focussed on illegality in relation to forests, land grabbing, mining. Very motivated to collaborate.


High Potential partner

Greenland / Sein Yaung So (Katha & National)

Local chapters of national tree planting/regreening CSO in Katha and Kanbalu, with central office in Mandalay Local CF promoters / facilitators.

Kanbalu group initiated to promote tree planting and forest conservation in the dam catchment area. Training and orientation could build their capacities.


High Local Partner

109





Katha chapter has approximately 50 formal members and another 50 informal. Entirely voluntary. The local teams are highly motivated to restore forests, and keen to collaborate with project. Have been planting trees for several years, but around town, school, and civic areas rather than forest. Hesitant to engage in CF. Prefer Natural / Assisted Natural Regeneration to plantation

Kadhu Youth Development Association (KYDA), Indaw

Local CSO working on range of environmental and agricultural livelihood activities in Indaw (e.g. SRI, Indaw lake conservation), initially in conjunction with METTA Foundation, now receive funding under the CEPF/IUCN


High Local Partner, potential Region, and national partner

National NGO

EcoDev/ALARM Leading policy advocate and process supporter for FLEGT, CF and participation in forestry. Somewhat controversial. Initiating an FLR style project in Delta

High High High Adviser / possible partner

The Myanmar Environment Rehabilitation-Conservation Network (MERN)

National network of conservation and rural livelihood NGOs. MERN was established to promote networking among local environmental NGOs working on the rehabilitation and conservation of natural resources and other critical ecosystems important for the livelihoods, food security and resilience to natural disasters. MERN has 21 member organizations. Have experience of running mangrove restoration project (CLEARR) with strong implicit landscape approach, through members.

High High High Potential partner

BANCA Conservation NGO High High High Potential partner

FREDA Conservation NGO, have been involved in implementing CF


LCG Land focussed policy advocacy and technical support organisation.

High High High Potential partner /adviser

Friends of Wildlife

Engaged in revising Management Plan for Chatthin Sanctuary. Long record of accomplishment of wildlife related projects, and recent experience with landscape approach in Kachin.


Metta Foundation

Major national NGO supporting rural development, but mainly in ethnic areas. Very interested and committed to forest restoration for community ecosystem service benefits. However not so active in


110





Sagaing

Network Action Group (NAG)

National NGO implementing rural natural resource governance and livelihood development projects since 2008. Projects in Sagaing

High High High Potential partner – highly suitable project implementer

Thada Consortium

Leading national network of field NGOs implementing rural livelihood development projects across dry zone

High High High Potential partner – highly suitable project implementer

Comprehensive Development Education Center (CDEC)

NGO active in the Thada Consortium that support rural development initiatives in dry zone region.


B. Government

Legislature Strong expressed interest from President and State Councillor in National Restoration & Rehabilitation Program.

High High Low Policy fora

Executive

Forest Department

Strong interest to work with and through project, particularly to improve delivery of 10-year National Restoration Plan, 10-year District Forest Management plan and field level effectiveness.

Strong interest from DG, DDG, Regional Director Sagaing, all levels of staff.

High High High Main partner

Forest Research Institute

Technical backstopping for FD, & guiding policy effectiveness. Developed Restoration plan. Interested to improve. Have field research sites, including on near Katha town (Phet Sut).


Dry Zone Greening Department

Strong interest – focussed in 13 most arid/drought prone districts. ‘We have done large scale plantation in the past and it has failed’ ‘Restoration should be in line with economic development’

High High High Partner

Department of Agriculture

Interest – to help improve agricultural livelihoods through better landscape planning and ecosystem services to farmers, especially hydrological

High Medium Medium Potential partner

Department of Agricultural Land Management and Statistics

Clarifying land tenure, and resolving anomalies (e.g. VFV/UF, land concessions), resolving conflicts. Willingness to support the resolution of UF. / VFV issues.

Department of Agricultural Land management and Statistics (SLRD), Fixation of Land Taxation, Information of


111





prices of the crop, cannot provide any tenure right to FD Land. agricultural land, form 7 can sell, mortgage and transfer. VFV land cannot change, can extend 30 years, cannot sell/transfer. No right to provide tenure right, just only records

Other Departments

From meetings at National, Regional and district/township level we observed a wide interest & enthusiasm across depts.

- National NayPyiTaw workshop All departments expressed interest to participate and support in the project. - Regional (Monywa workshop) Similarly – a wide range of support and interest to participate in a ‘landscape’ approach

- District: At District level the Forest Department consults other departments on the 10-year Forest management plan. There is also GAD driven coordination meetings on a weekly basis.

GAD – play important role in land transfer between ag / forest

Coordinating with other departments is particularly important for the project in specific ways:

- Enforcement – police and judiciary - Watershed – Irrigation department - Resolving Unclassed forests – GAD

& Land Utilisation committee- the Chief Minister is head

Supporting livelihoods – Agriculture department

High High High Engage in advisory role

Myanmar Timber Enterprise

State timber extraction and marketing management agency. Undergoing reform to reduce political influence and address corruption problems and also overcapacity now that forests have been depleted by overharvesting. May be closed or more likely reduced in scale.

Low Low Low Not so relevant

FLEGT Interim Task Force

Multi-stakeholder government led platform to improve compliance of timber marketing for export, in relation to EU. Directly engaging with region/state governments and civil society. Will be valuable to help restrict illegal logging and as community timber matures to become suited to export

Low Moderate Moderate Advisory

Regional government

Chief Minister Sagaing highly motivated. Specific interest in land grabbing, illegal

High High Moderate Partner

112





logging, conservation, livelihood development. Student awareness and education centre development

Judiciary (& police)

Rule of law fundamental problem – in terms of congested, under capacity system and corruption. Project may reduce workload, strengthen understanding and effectiveness

Low (so far)

High High Partner

C. Private Sector

Favoured businesses (national and regional)

Have benefited from military patronage and disempowerment of FD to exploit forests for timber. Have secured numerous land leases in forests, including in Reserved Forests, which have been clear-felled, involving irregularities. Disinterest in compliance, rule of law, due process, and enforcement. Maintain predominant role in economy.

Low High in some areas (e.g. Katha, Tijyiang)

Variable With caution

Small – Medium Enterprises

Domestic timber/wood suppliers desire legitimate supply. Some are engaging in illegal activity due to lack of enforcement pressure. Strong potential for improving compliance and promoting community enterprises

High High High potentially

Potential partners

Media & journalists

Have played critical role in promoting awareness of environmental degradation and root causes, and supporting democratisation. Recent murder of prominent national journalist investigating illegal logging networks in Sagaing.

High High High potentially

Potential partners

D. International organisations

INGOs

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

US-based conservation NGO. Commitment to FLR. Recently opened Yangon office. Supporting RAFT timber compliance process

High High High Partner and co-financing source -assisting in implementation

RECOFTC Long-term support for CF process, scaling up and bringing strong regional record of accomplishment. Have been working closely with FD (CFNWG) to develop CF expertise, through demonstration sites and action research. Sagaing was excluded from their first round of seven demonstration sites, but they now wish to have activities there.

High High Moderate Potential partner – assisting in implementation

WCS New York-based conservation NGO. Extensive in-country experience on PA development.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Keep informed / advisory

113





FFI UK-based conservation INGO. Range of engagement.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Keep informed

GRET French-based INGO working mainly on research-oriented land advocacy. Engaged in dry zone near Monywa including on watershed development


World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

International non-governmental organization working on wildlife conservation and environment.


Donor-funded projects & programmes

Pyoe pin Active in integrated natural resource policy development and specifically in forest sector – have been instrumental in promoting CF, FLEGT, Forest Law development, multi-stakeholder inclusion. Have supported MERN, EcoDev, ECCDI, Thada Consortium, NAG amongst others. President and Hluttaw level access and influence

High Moderate Moderate Partner – seek to involve for policy influence

LIFT National donor basket fund for rural livelihood development. Final stage of current phase so unlikely to be able to co-fund. Tried to fund agroforestry project with ICRAF Yunnan, but no success and dropped midterm.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Possible co-funding

IWMI New Myanmar program. Can focus excellent technical skill and international capacity. Interest in dry zone irrigation and ground water, restoration methods

High Moderate Moderate Technical support - seek to involve for policy influence

International donors & agencies

SDC Interest in land related issues (supporting LCG), mapping (supporting Onemap), conservation (Gulf of Mottoma). SDC also funds LIFT. Nationally and focus area is in the SE.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Partner – seek to involve for policy influence

FAO Member of TRI, running one GEF project on “Sustainable cropland and forest management in priority agro-ecosystems of Myanmar”. Interested to coordinate. Forest and Farm Facility particularly keen. TRI global partner.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Keep informed, coordinate with their projects. Exercise caution

UN-REDD Supporting and building capacity of Myanmar government to engage in REDD process. There is so far scepticism across civil society for REDD agenda.

Moderate Moderate Moderate Keep informed, coordinate with their projects.

114

7 Monitoring and evaluation plan

Table 20 provides a summary of the main M&E activities, responsible person or unit, timeframe, and budgeted costs. The project includes provision for a full-time M&E and Knowledge Management Specialist who will design the M&E strategy within the first quarter of the project implementation and oversee all M&E activities in accordance with IUCN Evaluation Policy and Procedures, as adapted for GEF projects. The M&E and Knowledge Management Specialist will also maintain close contact with the Global Project to share knowledge and, as far as practicable, harmonise approaches and timing with other GEF TRI child projects.

Table 20: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Activity Responsible Timing and frequency Budgeted costs (GEF)

Recruit M&E and Knowledge Management Specialist

NPC First Quarter year 1 US$98,561

Periodic reporting to PSC (including on ESMS compliance of ROAM process)

NPC and NPD Twice per year Included in costs below for PSC meetings

PSC meetings PSC Once to twice per year, along with other project

activities

US$10,000

Inception workshop NPO First quarter year 1 US$10,000

Biodiversity monitoring PMU Annually US$28,000

Carbon monitoring PMU Annually US$28,000

Field based monitoring and evaluation activities with gender disaggregated data

PMU Continuously US$48,000

Mid-term review IUCN Year 2 to 3 US$12,000

End of project review IUCN Year 4 US$12,000

An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken between years 2 and 3 of the project and an End-of-Project Evaluation will be undertaken in year 4. The Mid-Term Evaluation will review progress and effectiveness of implementation in terms of the following:

• Relevance – The extent to which the project is contributing to the goal of the project and the forest policy imperatives of Myanmar.

• Effectiveness – The extent to which the planned outputs are being achieved. • Efficiency – The extent to which project and co-funding resources are being used effectively. • Impact – Recognising that assessing impact is often complicated and it is difficult to attribute

cause and affect relationships, the evaluation will attempt to assess the changes in conditions of people and ecosystems that result from the project.

• Sustainability – The extent to which conditions in Myanmar support replication (scaling up) and continuity of FLR in the country.

The PSC will consider the findings and recommendations of the evaluation and propose any adjustments to the project design and implementation strategy for the remaining duration of the project.

115

The End-of-Project Evaluation will follow a similar approach to that outlined above, with a broader remit to recommend lessons for the GEF, IUCN and other key stakeholders. The PMU will prepare the first draft of the terms of reference for the mid-term and end-of-project evaluations in consultation with the Forest Department.

In addition to the independent evaluations described above, the project will establish a comprehensive monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system, drawing on the knowledge of the Global TRI child project and IUCN. Funds have been allocated in the project budget to investigate and develop effective M&E tools and approaches for such things as biodiversity assessments and carbon budgets.

116

8 Project financing and budget

The overall budget for the Project from the GEF Trust Fund is $2.65 million. In addition, significant co-finance is committed for the implementation of the project, including USD $ 11,564,000 from the Forest Department, and USD $500,000 from The Nature Conservancy. A summarized budget by component as well as a detailed budget per component is provided in Appendix 2. The budget is designed to be in similar proportion to the funding sources and components of the Global TRI project.

Table 21: Budget by component

Budget (USD)

Component 1 596,618

Component 2 1,234,834

Component 3 441,949

Component 4 378,892

subtotal 2,652,293

117

9 Appendices

The following appendices are provided as separate documents.

• Appendix 1: Project timetable and M&E work plan • Appendix 2: Detailed budget by component and year • Appendix 3: Procurement plan • Appendix 4: GEF TRI harmonized tracking tool • Appendix 5: Signed co-financing letters • Appendix 6: GEF Operational Focal Point Endorsement Letter (from PIF stage) • Appendix 7: ESMS Questionnaire and Screening Report • Appendix 8: ESMS-Enhanced ROAM Process Framework

118

10 References

Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Volume 25, pp. 216-224.

Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Entity for Gender, 2016. Gender Equality and Women’s Rights in Myanmar: A Situation Analysis, s.l.: Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Entity for Gender.

Asian Development Bank, 2012. Myanmar in transition: Opportunities and challenges. Mandaluyong City: ADB.

Biology on line dictionary, n.d. Biology online. [Online] Available at: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Ecosystem_function [Accessed 24 March 2017].

Central Statistical Organisation, 2013. Natural Increase Rate, Birth, Death, Infant Mortality, Under Five Mortality Rates, Late Foetal Death and Maternal Mortality Ratios. [Online] Available at: http://mmsis.gov.mm/statHtml/statHtml.do

Central Statistical Organisation, 2014. UNION OF MYANMAR ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS BY REGION AND STATE. [Online] Available at: http://mmsis.gov.mm/statHtml/statHtml.do

Central Statistical Organization, 2015. Statistical database. [Online] Available at: http://www.mmsis.gov.mm/sub_menu/statistics/statDbList.jsp?vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE [Accessed 24 March 2017].

countrymeters, 2017. Myanmar Population. [Online] Available at: http://countrymeters.info/en/Myanmar

Ellison, D. et al., 2017. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Environmental Change, Volume 43, pp. 51-61.

Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands , 2016. Water in Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://myanmar.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/m/myanmar/nederlandse-ambassade-in-myanmar/water/factsheet-water-iwrm-nl-myanmar-15-03-2016-final-.pdf

Emerton, L. & Aung, Y. M., 2013. The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services in Myanmar and Optiosn for Sustainable Financing, Yangon: International Management Group.

Engvall, A. & Linn, S. N., 2013. Development, natural resources and conflict in Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/06/13/development-natural-resources-and-conflict-in-myanmar/

European Environment Agency, 2016. CICES - Towards a common classification of ecosystem services. [Online] Available at: http://cices.eu/ [Accessed 6 February 2017].

119

FAO, 2015. Global Forest Resources Assesment 2015. [Online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf

FAO, 2015. Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: building resilience and benefiting livelihoods. Rome: FAO.

FAO, 2017. Myanmar at a glance. [Online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/myanmar/fao-in-myanmar/myanmar/en/

Fisher, R. J. et al., 2008. Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction. Landscapes, People and Power. London: Earthscan.

Gardiner, N. J. & Sykes, J. P., 2016. Is Myanmar about to experience an exploration boom?. [Online] Available at: https://www.ausimmbulletin.com/feature/is-myanmar-about-to-experience-an-exploration-boom/

ICIMOD, 2017. Important Bird Areas. [Online] Available at: http://www.icimod.org/?q=3846

IUCN and WRI (2014). A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Working Paper (Road-test edition). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 125pp. www.iucn.org/roam

IUCN, 2015. The Restoration Initiative (TRI) – Fostering innovation and integration in support of the Bonn Challenge. Gland: s.n.

Jenkins, M. & Blundell, A., 2017. To avoid the "conflict trap", Myanmar should protect its forests. Thomson Reuters Foundation News, 3 January.

Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2015. Agriculture in Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://thailand.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/t/thailand/nederlandse-ambassade-in-bangkok/import/producten_en_diensten/handel_en_investeren/zakendoen_in_myanmar/factsheet-agriculture-in-myanmar-2015.pdf

Knoema, 2017. Myanmar - Crude death rate. [Online] Available at: https://knoema.com/atlas/Myanmar/Death-rate

Kollert, W. & Walotek, P. J., 2015. GLOBAL TEAK TRADE IN THE AFTERMATH OF MYANMAR’S LOG EXPORT BAN, Rome: FAO.

LCG, 2012. Review of Farmland and VFV Laws, s.l.: s.n.

Leimgruber, P. et al., 2005. Forest cover change patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990•2000. Environmental Conservation, 32(4), pp. 356-64.

Liu, F.-J.et al., 2015. Assessment of the three factors affecting Myanmar’s forest cover change using Landsat and MODIS vegetation continuous fields data. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH.

Maesa, J. et al., 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem services, Volume 17, pp. 14-23.

http://www.iucn.org/roam

120

Maginnis, S. & Jackson, W., 2005. What is FLR and how does it differ from current approaches?. In: Restoring Forest Landscapes: An introduction to the art and science of forest landscape restoartion. ITTO Technical Series No 23 ed. Yokohama: ITTO.

McQueen, D. (., 2015. Locally Controlled Forest Enterprises. London: IIED.

Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment., s.l.: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Forest Department, 2016. National Reforestation and Rehabilitation Program in Myanmar (NRRPM). s.l.:s.n.

MOECAF, 2015. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015-2020), Nay Pyi Taw: Forest Department.

Myanmar Biodiversity, 2017. Myanmar biodiversity. [Online] Available at: https://myanmarbiodiversity.org/portfolio-items/myanmar-key-biodiversity-areas/

Myanmar REDD+ Programme, 2016. MYANMAR REDD+ PROGRAMME. [Online] Available at: http://www.myanmar-redd.org/ [Accessed 8 April 2017].

Myanmar Times, 2016. Myanmar’s air pollution among the worst in the world: WHO. Myanmar Times, 30 September.

Natural Capital Coalition, 2016. Protocol, Natural Capital Coalition. [Online] Available at: www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol [Accessed 6 February 2017].

Nijman, V. & Shepherd, C. R., 2014. Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar-China border as a global hib for international trade in ivory and elephent parts. Biology Conservation, Volume 179, pp. 17-22.

PWC, 2016. Doing business in Myanmar. [Online] Available at: https://www.pwc.com.au/asia-practice/publications/myanmar-business-guide-2016.pdf

Raitzer, D. A., Samson, J. N. G. & Nam, K.-Y., 2015. Achieving Environmental Sustainability in Myanmar, Metro Manilla: ADB.

Ramsar, 2017. Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/myanmar

Rao, C. H. H., 2000. Watershed Development in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(45).

Springate-Baginski, O., 2017. Rethinking Shifting Cultivation in Myanmar. In: M. Cairns, ed. Shifting Cultivation, Getting the Policies Right. s.l.:CABI.

Springate-Baginski, O. et al., 2014. Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar's emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process. Forest Policy and Economics, p. 13.

Springate-Baginski, O., Treue, T. & Htun, K., 2016. Legally and illegally logged out: The status of Myanmar’s timber sector and options for reform, s.l.: Alarm.

121

Stockholm Environment institute, 2015. Developing River Basin Management Solutions In Myanmar. [Online] Available at: https://www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/3186 [Accessed 24 March 2017].

TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodivesity), 2016. Making nature’s values visible. [Online] Available at: www.teebweb.org [Accessed 6 February 2017].

The Asian Development Bank, 2017. ADB-Myanmar Partnership Strategy. [Online] Available at: https://www.adb.org/countries/myanmar/strategy

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation: Forest Department, 2015. http://www.fdmoecaf.gov.mm/eng/content/protected-areas-myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://www.fdmoecaf.gov.mm/eng/content/protected-areas-myanmar

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2012. Myanmar’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change, s.l.: The Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2015. Myanmar' s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution-INDC, Nay Pyi Taw: The Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2016. National Land Use Policy. s.l.:The Republic of the Union fo Myanmar.

The World Bank, 2016. Myanmar Overview. [Online] Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/myanmar/overview

Tint, K. O. S.-B. D. M. M. K. K. G., 2015. Unleashing the potential of community forest enterprises in Myanmar, London: IIED.

Tint, K., Springate-Baginksi, O. & Ko Ko Gyi, M., 2014. Community Forestry in Myanmar: Progress & Potentials, s.l.: ECCDI.

Tint, K., Springate-Baginski, O. & Gyi, M. K. K., 2011. Community Forestry in Myanmar: Progress and Potentials, Yangon: ECCDI.

UN Data, 2017. Country Profile Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=myanmar

UN Data, 2017. Electricity consumption. [Online] Available at: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=WDI&f=Indicator_Code%3AEG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

UNICEF, 2017. Migration profiles Myanmar. [Online] Available at: https://esa.un.org/miggmgprofiles/indicators/files/Myanmar.pdf

UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division), 2016. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA),. [Online] Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp [Accessed 6 February 2017].

van Meel, P. et al., 2014. Myanmar Integrated Water Resources Management Stratgeic study, s.l.: RVO, Netherlands .

122

WAVES (Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services), nd. About us. [Online] Available at: https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/about-us. [Accessed 6 February 2017].

WEPA, 2017. [Online] Available at: http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/state/myanmar/myanmar.htm

Wildlife Conservation Society, 2013. Myanmar Biodiversity Conservation Investment Vision, Yangon: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Woods, K., 2015. Commercial Agriculture Expansion in Myanmar: Links to Deforestation, Conversion Timber and Land Conflicts, s.l.: Forest Trends.

Woods, K. & Canby, K., 2011. BASELINE STUDY 4, MYANMAR: Overview of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, s.l.: Forest Trends and EU FLEGT Facility.

World Bank, 2017. Population, total. [Online] Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2015&locations=MM&start=1965 [Accessed 2017].

World Forum on Natural Capital, 2017. [Online] Available at: http://naturalcapitalforum.com/

WRI, 2016. Forest Legality Initiative Myanmar. [Online] Available at: http://www.forestlegality.org/risk-tool/country/myanmar

WWF, 2014. Log Export Ban Goes into Effect in Myanmar: Too Early to Determine Impact. [Online] Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/greatermekong/news/mekongmessenger.cfm?223112/Log-Export-Ban-Goes-into-Effect-in-Myanmar-Too-Early-to-Determine-Impact

Documents

444 International Union for Conservation of Nature...PROJECT DOCUMENT . The Restoration Initiative (TRI) Myanmar . Reversing forest degradation and deforestation and restoring forested