Basic Data - undpgefpims.org€¦ · Web view2.5 5 % Increase in livelihood quality Index (income, health, debt and life security) of households from the baseline • Some socio-economic

2017 Project Implementation Report

2017Project Implementation Review (PIR)

Community-based forest managementBasic Data................................................................................................................................................Overall Ratings.........................................................................................................................................Development Progress.............................................................................................................................Implementation Progress..........................................................................................................................Critical Risk Management.........................................................................................................................Adjustments..............................................................................................................................................Ratings and Overall Assessments............................................................................................................Gender.....................................................................................................................................................Communicating Impact.............................................................................................................................Partnerships.............................................................................................................................................Grievances...............................................................................................................................................Annex - Ratings Definitions......................................................................................................................

Page 1 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportA. Basic DataProject InformationUNDP PIMS ID 4033GEF ID 3445Title SFM: Integrated community-based forest and

catchment management through an ecosystem service approach (CBFCM)

Country(ies) Thailand, ThailandUNDP-GEF Technical Team Ecosystems and BiodiversityProject Implementing Partner GovernmentJoint Agencies (not set or not applicable)Project Type Full Size

Project DescriptionThis projectÔÇÖs objective is to create an enabling policy and institutional environment for scaling-up integrated Community Based Forestry and Catchment Management (CBFCM) practices through innovative financing mechanisms. The project will achieve this objective by strengthening systemic capacities in sustainable forest and catchment management at the local, regional and national levels (Outcome 1), and by supporting the expansion of CBFCM coverage throughout the country through pilot testing of defined Payment for Environmental Services (PES) and biocarbon financing mechanisms (Outcome 2).The project will build capacities of MONRE to harmonise policies, plans and legal instruments to support CBFCM and PES and biocarbon schemes. It will also support the establishment of a multi-sectoral mechanism for CBFCM, with active with participation of all Regional CBFCM Networks, REOs, ONEP and RFD. This will act as an effective policy feedback, knowledge sharing and capacity development mechanism. The project will also strengthen national capacities to promote PES (including and biocarbon) in order to strengthen community incentives for effective forest and catchment management.

The project will support scaling up of CBFCM best practices using PES and biocarbon financing mechanisms at four sites, led by four Regional Environment Offices (REOs). These sites include Mae Sa Catchment (North), Tha Chin Catchment (Central), Lam Sebai Catchment (Northeast), and Pa-Ngan Catchment (South). The project will strengthen capacities of local authorities, landholders and the private sector to ensure that innovative financing mechanisms (PES) is used for improving livelihoods, global biodiversity conservation benefits and GHG emission reduction from land use and land use changes. In order to do this, the project will support catchment level ecosystem services valuation (incl. biocarbon) and assessment of benefits, trade-offs and various opportunity costs of land-use options taking into full account the ecosystem services. Biodiversity friendly PES & biocarbon financing strategies will be implemented, with institutionalization of payment distribution structures that fully consider gender and other social equity aspects.

Project ContactsUNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser Ms. Lisa Farroway ([email protected])Programme Associate Ms. Pakamon Pinprayoon

([email protected])Project Manager Ms. Aree Wattana Tummakird ([email protected])CO Focal Point Ms. Sutharin Koonphol ([email protected])GEF Operational Focal Point Mr. Wijarn Simachaya.Ph.d ([email protected])Project Implementing Partner Mr. Amnat Thongben ([email protected])Other Partners (not set or not applicable)

Page 2 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportB. Overall RatingsOverall DO Rating Moderately UnsatisfactoryOverall IP Rating UnsatisfactoryOverall Risk Rating Substantial

Page 3 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportC. Development ProgressObjective or Outcome

Description

Objective: To create an enabling policy and institutional environment for scaling-up of integrated community-based forest and catchment management (CBFCM) practices through harnessing of innovative financing mechanisms in ThailandDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Target level at end

of projectLevel at 30 June 2016 Cumulative progress since project start

The progress of the objective can be described as:

Off track

Outcome 1: Strengthened policy environment and systemic capacities to promote sustainable community-based forest and catchment management through PES and biocarbon financing mechanismsDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Target level at end


(not set or not applicable)

1.1 Number of national policies and plans (identified) that incorporate PES and biocarbon financing mechanism in support of CBFCM.

• Forestry and catchment management policies and legal instruments currently have limited inclusion of CBFCM

• National/ Regional and Provincial Plans do not include provisions for CBFCM or PES / biocarbon financing.

• Natural Resources and Environmental Policies and Plans adapt in implementation of CBFCM utilizing PES and biocarbon financing mechanisms as a mechanism for catchment and forest conservation and management

The project technical advisory team reviewed the drafts of the National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017 – 2021) and the Environmental Quality Management Plan (2017 – 2021) and found that the key policy and legal frameworks related to PES schemes and biocarbon in support of CBFCMare mentioned in these two Plans. As well as, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment assigned the groups of Regional Environment Office in North, Central, Northeast and South to formulate the Natural Resources and Environment Strategic Plan (2017 – 2021). This Strategic Plan uses the economic instrument such as PES schemes and biocarbon as the incentive to manage natural resources and environment in the regions.

• Technical review on the draft of National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017-2021) and the Environmental Quality Management Plan (2017-2021) were completed. The National Environment Quality Plan does contain a PES conceptual framework and propose guidelines and mechanisms for implementing PES schemes and bio-carbon• Meanwhile the Environmental Quality Management Plan is currently implemented with the highlight on: i) PES scheme for natural resources and environmental management and ii) bio-carbon financing mechanism for the impact of climate change management so that the Regional Natural Resource and Environmental Management Strategies include PES, though the modality for practical application and implementation of PES does not appear obvious. The four pilot cases also used as a model for other REOs to implement the Regional Natural and Environmental Management strategies by using PES scheme as main economic instrument for natural resources and environmental management

Page 4 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Report(not set or not applicable)

1.2 Existence of a multi-agency/multi- sectoral mechanism for CBFCM/PES -Biocarbon dialogue, consultation with inclusive participation from all relevant government organizations, CSOa, academia, private sector and CBFCM community networks.

• Seperated and disorganized data base with limited access

• Lack of key agency under MONRE or government agency taking clearly responsibility, control and monitoring in this regards.

Ad-hoc Working Group established under the National Environmental Board on Economic Instrument for forest and catchment management

At present, the Office of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) acts as the focal point of CBFCM Project. Ad-hoc working Group should be under the Bureau of Natural Resources and Environment Strategy, under the Office of Permanent Secretary of MONRE.

• As a result from the national reform agenda and the 20th year strategy, MONRE has established a permanent office and MONRE will use this office to coordinate a multi-agency PES ad-hoc working group, picking up from what CBFCM has initiated and translate into actions with other relevant organisations to implement PES schemes and bio-carbon for forest and catchment management.


1.3 Institutional capacities strengthened at national (M&E office) and regional levels (4 pilot REO training centres) to implement PES and biocarbon financing schemed in support of CBFCM

• Limited knowledge and understanding in PES and Biocarbon mechanism and measures

• At least 4 REOs can develop mechanisms in applying PES into pratical CBFCM and natural resource management

An expert from School of Development Economic, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) has been hired to strengthen at national and regional levels. The following tasks have been completed: training need assessment for applying PES schemes conducted; courses for capacity building under training need assessment established; training under established courses in order to develop capacity for PES implementation; capacity assessment scorecard prepared, courses for using of appropriate tools and measurements with indicators at the local level established; and courses for capacity building in order to implement PES schemes and biocarbon established.

• 3 training courses on the implementation of i) PES scheme and biocarbon financing scheme; ii) economic instrument for natural resources and environmental management and; iii) economic valuation of natural resources have been implemented with the participation of 40 staffsfrom REOs at different levels including project staff and 4REO staff.Trained REOs staff will be implemented PES scheme in line with the knowledge gained from participating the training.• 2 curricula of PES scheme and economic instrument were developed and prepared for building capacity of MONRE both at central and REO levels. The curricula is integrated into the existing training programme of MONRE for capacity building of relevant staff involving in natural resources and environmental management.


1.4 Existence of an active national CBFCM data base (that includes relevant information such as natural resource consumptions rates/patterns, biodiversity levels, PES & biocarbon data) generated through baseline studies and

Currently no such database exist in Thailand

Creation of a National CBFCM PES/biocarbon financing database and mechanisms for information dissemination and knowledge sharing.

The team led by the Department Head of the Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, Silpakorn University, was hired to develop central CBFCM baseline data: establishing system baseline data linkages, developing guideline for baseline data management and major responsible

• Central CBFCM database has already been activated to link information between REOs and central office. The Office of Permanent Secretary is the host of the central database. There are also budget allocation with the appointment of staff to manage the database.• Mobile Application was developed

Page 5 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Reportparticipatory M & E and identification of best practice.

agency, and organizing training on using of developed baseline data.

for community to link with the private sector in which community can directly propose for collaboration on PES and natural resources management at local level.Information from the application will be reported to the ROEs and central office to update the database.


Off track

Outcome 2: Expanded CBFCM coverage through pilot testing and up-scaling of best practice using PES and biocarbon financing schemes and mechanismsDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Target level at end



2.1 Number and Type of PES and biocarbon financing schemes developed and applied (in place) for CBFCM in the 4 pilot sites.

Currently there are no PES and biocarbon financing strategies and schemes developed and/or applied for CBFCM within the 4 REO pilot site regions.

At least 4 PES and biocarbon financing schemes (1 for each REO region pilot site) are developed and implemented during the project cycle.

There are no PES schemes implemented at this stage in 4 pilot sites. In Mae Sa watershed, REO1 and communities developed "Menu for Buyer-Seller" from the Community Action Plan, completed buyer analysis, succeeded in the negotiation with the Provincial Waterworks Authority Regional Office 9, Amphur Mae Rim, Chiang Mai Province, drafted and agreed on MOA, financial mechanism and Mae Sa Watershed Fund for PES schemes. In Mae Sa Watershed, PES schemes will be implemented in Quarter 3/2016 (July – September 2016). Furthermore, there has been an on-going discussion and negotiationwith the collaboration with Maesa Elephant Camp and Resort groups in Mae Sa Watershed. In ThaChin Watershed, REO5 and communities have developed "Menu for Buyer- Seller" and analyzed buyers. The preparing for negotiation is in process. In Lam Sebai Watershed and KohPhangan, REO12 and REO14 developed "Menu for Buyer-Seller". The preparing for negotiation is also in process

• A total 11 Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to implement PES scheme and biocarbon were signed consisting of 2 in Mae Sa watershed, 4 in Tha Chin watershed, 2 in Lam Seibei watershed and 3 in KohPhangan watershed. 2 (in Mae Sa) out of 11 are under implementation.• In Mae Sa, MoAs signed with the Provincial Water Works Authority and a private canopy-walk tour operator (Eagle Track) to implement the construction of living weirs.• In Tha Chin, MoA signed with TTW Public Company Limited to work on water quality monitoring and training for youth conservation network for water monitoring. MoA signed with Samutsakorn Provincial Administrative Organisation (PAO) to conduct the training activity for mangrove plantation. MoA signed with Phan Thai NorsignTambon Administrative Organisation (TAO) and Phan Thai Norasign Foundation to support the activity on mangrove plantation.• In Lam Sebei, MoA signed with UbonBioethernal Group Company Limitedto train community on natural fertilizer. MoA signed with SS KarnSura Company Limited to construct fire bulk.• In KohPhangan, MoA signed with

Page 6 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportNira’s Home Bekery to construct artificial coral reef. MoA signed with KohPhanngan Hotels Association and HaadRint Village Committee to work on crab bank activities.


2.2 Total area of cactchment forests within the 4 pilot catchment basins that benefiting from PES and biocarbon financing schemes

- Current accumulative total of all forest under community management in each of the 4 catchment basin pilot sites.

- Data collection on total coverage of community managed forests within each catchment basin will need to be undertaken at the start of the project.

• Collectively, 15,000 hectares are identified and designated CBFCM forests within the 4 pilot catchment basins.

As the PES schemes have not been operated in the pilot sites. The benefit is still at 0 hectare. However, the project has monitored and measured biocarbon sequestration for the second year, as well as implemented activities under Community Action Plan related to Menu for Buyer-Seller or PES schemes such as fire break line, the check dams, and reforestation.

• The coverage area is at 14,833.55 hectares under CBFCM forest management for 4 pilot catchment. The figure is slightly different from the project target, due to the revised demarcation in some of the pilot areas. The target areas consists of:• Mae Sa Watershed 8,381.35 ha• Tha Chin Watershed 2,385.43 ha• Lam Sebai watershed 207.20 ha• Pha Ngan Watershed 3,859.58 ha• By this reporting, which is the last PIR, the project has started to cover 10,973.97 ha under better CBFCM management through the agreed PES schemes.


2.3 Ton of CO2 sequestered and /or avoided emissions within the framework of implemented PES schemes accumulative of all 4 pilot project area catchment basin sites.

Some work on assessment of forest carbon has been initiated by the RFD and DWNP for Thailand's R-PIN application of the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Readiness Plan, as well as by independent studies by specialists in various universities. Forest carbon stock assessment will have to be undertaken for the 4 pilot sites.

• Existence of knowledge and data base of forest in term of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent sequestration

The RECOFTC trained local people and students measured biocarbon absorption for the second year in order to compare with the baseline data in 2014.

• Carbon stock assessment have been undertaken in 4 pilot sites• RECOFT conducted training provided forREO officers and communities on the understanding of biocarbon and how to monitor it. The database on biocarbon could be useful for REOs works in the future by providing information on GHG emission and carbon offset for further negotiation with private sector.• Data collection on Ton of CO2 sequestered and/or avoided emissions were collected in 2016 in comparison to baseline in 2014 in 4 pilot sites. The data collection in 2016 will show the amount of toncarbon-dioxide of carbon sequestration from forest and appropriate land of 4 pilot sites is increase 10% from baseline year (2014)


2.4 Keystone species population maintained or enhanced at the 4

Threats to forests and associated

• Existence on the keystone speciess

All pilot sites analyzed, identified and collected baseline data of indicator

• Following the trainings for REO officers and community members as

Page 7 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Reportpilot sites by reducing threats biodiversity continues

at demonstration sitesthreats reduction measures

species. They also identified mesures to reduce threats for indicator species. Communities have been trained to monitor the indicator species. REO5 has supported communities to implement activities under such measures.

reported in the previous year, a management plan to reduce the threats were developed in each pilot site with the identified indicator species of plants and animals with monitoring system by checking the abundant of the biodiversity. Community in each pilot site will take the responsibility to monitor the indicator species.


2.5 5 % Increase in livelihood quality Index (income, health, debt and life security) of households from the baseline

• Some socio-economic data can be obtained by the Community Development Department and the Department of Agricultural Extensions.

• For the 4 selected pilot sites, data collection must be designed specifically for the purpose of measuring livelihood changes resulting from the project.

• 5 % increase in livelihood quality of life index in the project's participating communities

All pilot sites have collected the second year of baseline data for socio-economic aspects. RECOFTC will establish the questionnaire for sustainable livelihoods quality index.

• As most of the MoAs on PES Schemes were signed in the final year of the project, the implementation in all pilot site is still in its starting phase. Therefore, there has been no change attributable to the project on the increase in livelihood quality of life index. However, the project has established a baseline of livelihood quality of life index in all pilot site (as of 2016), which can be used to measure the change going forward if the PES schemes continue after the project ends.


2.6 Capacities of local authorities and community land users in land use options that enhance PES and to ensure market-based payments from PES and biocarbon financing for improved livelihoods. Environmental Quality of key ES parameters such as water quality, soil nutrient levels, sedimentation.

- Local capacities in sustainable land use options must be assessed at the beginning of project.

- There has been some training provided to local authorities and community land user / community forest & watershed networks on sustainable land use practices

• At least 4 Tambon Administrative Organisations (TAOs) are actively engaged in PES/ biocarbon scheme implementation within their respective communities in support of CBFCM

• Overall land use practices in the four pilot catchment basins sufficiently

Capacities of local authorities and local people in the 4 pilot sites have been built through training workshops and study/exchange visits on the issues related to PES schemes and biocarbon. People in the communities and local authorities understand and have the willingness to support and implement PES schemes in order to manage and rehabilitate their watershed and ecosystem.

• Capacities of local authorities and local people had been strengthened through the series of training workshops and study/exchange visit. This includes- Training to introduce PES scheme- Workshop to identify the threats to watershed and identify activity to cope with threats- Workshop to develop community action plan and ‘Menu for Buyer and Seller’- Study /exchange visit was conducted with at least 2 times per each community for all 4 pilot sites- Training on biocarbon measurement and monitoring indicator species and

Page 8 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Reportthrough various government and independent projects ES and PES / biocarbon financing.

improve. biodiversity• There are more than 8 study visits (at least 2 visits for each pilot sites) and exchange knowledge with other communities on community forestry management including land use management were conducted.


2.7 Number of national and regional level forums, meetings and documents highlighting best practice and lessons learned in using PES and biocarbon financing for CBFCM.

• Currently, PES knowledge is in limited (only in acdemic society) and has no communication process intoi watershed and communities levels

• PES study is limited and unclear formulation under Thailand context.

• At least 4 regional best practice/ lesson learned exchange forum on PES

• At least 1 National forum for PES policy strategies and collaboration (declaration of cooperation)

RECOFTC has synthesized and established best practice and lessons learned in using PES and biocarbon financing from CBFCM Project.

• Regional forum on strategic action plan for natural resource and management by using economic instrument especially PES scheme was conducted. Replication of the PES scheme was introduced to other 12 REOs (apart from 4 REOs in the project by using the model of 4 pilot sites. The project’s best practices and lessons-learned report will be published by MONRE.• National forum on lesson learned fromthe implementation of PES scheme and collaboration with other sectors will be conducted at the end of the projectto share the result from the project to the general public – particularly those who are interested in the applying PES scheme in their set up.


Off track

Page 9 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportD. Implementation Progress

Cumulative GL delivery against total approved amount (in prodoc): 86.9%Cumulative GL delivery against expected delivery as of this year: 86.9%Cumulative disbursement as of 30 June (note: amount to be updated in late August): 1,527,887.68

Key Financing AmountsPPG Amount 60,000GEF Grant Amount 1758182Co-financing 12,560,000

Key Project DatesPIF Approval Date Apr 12, 2010CEO Endorsement Date Sep 28, 2011Project Document Signature Date (project start date): Feb 27, 2012Date of Inception Workshop Dec 24, 2013Expected Date of Mid-term Review Oct 1, 2013Actual Date of Mid-term Review Apr 13, 2016Expected Date of Terminal Evaluation Feb 1, 2017Original Planned Closing Date Feb 26, 2016Revised Planned Closing Date Jun 26, 2017

Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board Meetings during reporting period (30 June 2016 to 1 July 2017)

Page 10 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportE. Critical Risk Management

Current Types of Critical Risks Critical risk management measures undertaken this reporting periodOperational The capacity building process for all relevant target groups have not been systemized, and integrated into the training/ capacity building

programmes at the national / and regional levels. Lack of communication strategy to build partnership. UNDP requested a meeting between the project management unit and consultants on trainings and capacity buildings to stress the need to ensure the integration.

Operational The project is still slow in making progress towards the remaining activities (develop outcome mapping, complete lessons-learned, organise closing workshop and final project board meeting) for project closure, with no clear plan and timeline. UNDP requested a meeting with acting Project Director and the Project Management Unit and develop guiding steps and work plan in July and August for the project team to follow. A consultant has been put in place (from UNDP budget) to support the development of outcome mapping, finalizing lessons-learned, and preparation of the closing workshop.

Page 11 of 21


F. Adjustments

Comments on delays in key project milestonesProject Manager: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.- The Project Steering Committee/Board Meeting during reporting period hes not been done.- There has been delays due to investigations following financial audit. During the second quarter of 2017,project activities have accelerated, frantically trying to catch up before project closure.Country Office: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.There have been delays in wrapping up project activities by May 2017 before the expected closing at June 2017. These are due to the lack of communication and taking immediate actions in the project management unit, resulting in delays in sending the budget to the pilot sites for disbursement and in contracting consultants to work on the wrapping up activities. The terminal evaluation final report is delayed from the original deadline of July 2017, due to the consultants' non-performance. The final report is expected by 15 September 2017.UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.(not set or not applicable)

Page 12 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportG. Ratings and Overall AssessmentsRole 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingProject Manager/Coordinator Moderately Satisfactory - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment The rating is moderately satisfactory due to some key milestones towards achieving the outcomes have been

met, particularly the completion of the PES scheme design. The project has been well progressed at site level with the participation of community and capacity building progress. The positive trend includes PES schemes and biocarbon being proposed in policy and plan at different levels.• At national level, the key policy and legal framework related to PES schemes and biocarbon in support of CBFCM is integrated in the Environment Quality Management Plan (2017-2012).• At regional level, strategic plan for natural resources and environmental management have been formulated in 4 groups of REO. At local level, local authorities have adopted and integrated the Community Action Plans into TAOs Development plan.• At ministry level, the Office of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), has established a unit resulting from the national reform agenda in which the unit has to deal with PES schemes and biocarbon with the mandate to: i) set up national strategy and integrity for natural resource and environment management; ii) coordinate with other relevant organisations in which PES scheme and biocarbon are the applications for the management of forest and land and iii) drive the application of PES and biocarbon to support the country’s natural resources and managemment..• Capacities of central officials and REOs have been strengthened through the training courses related to PES schemes and biocarbon.• For PES schemes, 11 MoAs have been signed to implement PES scheme and biocarbon at 4 pilot sites resulting in various activities at site levels (e.g. 16 living weirs were constructed in Mae Sa watershed, mangrove reforestation in Tha Chin, Fire bulk and patrolling team set up in Lam Sebei and etc.). The collaboration from the private sector will contribute to improve ecosystem services in form of conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources and environment through the engagement and management of community.• 4 technical advisors were contracted to provide technical input to ensure that the results are productive and meet the requirement of the project achievement particularly in the area of policy recommendation, capacity building, central baseline data and lesson learned from the project (focusing on PES schemes, biocarbon and CBFCM)

Role 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingUNDP Country Office Programme Officer Moderately Unsatisfactory UnsatisfactoryOverall Assessment The DO Progress is Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU) as the project is off track and is expected to partially

achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with significant shortcomings.It is true that the project design is complicated and ambitious, as pointed out by the MTR and the draft TE, but the project could have made more achievements if the project management had not been derided with so many shifts and change of senior management and project staff, incompetent management systems, affecting business continuity and resulting in the lack of timely adaptive management.The key achievement of outcome 1 is the integration of PES into the Regional Natural Resources and Environmental Management Strategies (which guide the action plans of the Regional Environmental Offices across the country), based on the experiences from the project. However, there is not evident indication as to how this will be practically implemented in a way that it will improve the country’s efforts on natural resources and environmental management. The ad-hoc interagency coordination body is assumed under the National Reform Task Force of MONRE, which may ensure that some of the project results will continue to support further application and exploration on how economic instruments including PES can help provide better incentives for conservation. The works improving data coordination and data system as well as capacity buildings for government officials have not been designed and planned systematically since the project started so there are piecemeal and not effective. Most have been pushed through only towards the end of the project, due to the implementation constraints which will be elaborated later.Outcome 2 is the most challenging in nature as it about getting a PES mechanism operational in each of the 4 pilot sites. Admittedly, the project design seriously underestimated the scope and the time that would have been needed to build the understanding of the key champions and stakeholders to get a PES scheme running. Coupled with the lack of effective technical support throughout the project, the most that can be achieved under this outcome are the agreements signed between private sectors and communities in each pilot site to collaborate on improving ecosystem services in each locality. The rest of the indicators which are related to having PES schemes up and running are not achieved, except for the indicators on building capacities of the local administration and the organization of national and regional forum on PES, which have been achieved.The agreements, nonetheless, could form a precursor on how the private sector can be engaged in a long-term and more meaningful way (than one-off CSR activities) to work with communities on natural resources and environmental management, with facilitating role of the regional environmental offices (REO) and/or other ‘facilitators’.

Page 13 of 21

2017 Project Implementation ReportIt should be noted that the partial achievement of this project is due largely to the commitment and efforts of the regional environmental officials in each of the pilot site, who have been working continuously with stakeholders to at least get to the point of having the agreements. Through their works with communities, awareness and capacity buildings on natural resources and management among local communities have also been strengthened, e.g. on the understanding about carbon stock and carbon monitoring, indicator species, and water quality monitoring.The practical steps each pilot REO has gone through in trying to get a PES agreement can provide valuable experiences and lessons learned for the application of PES and other economic instruments to support conservation.

The recommendation is that it will be crucial that these are well captured in the project’s lessons-learned. UNDP has stressed this critical need to have strong documentation on lessons-learned, to inform future efforts on PES and other economic instruments for conservation

The IP rating is Unsatisfactory (U) because implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces major implementation issues. Timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are off track with major issues and/or concerns. The project is not fully or well supported.The main reasons for the delay and the ineffective implementation, in this reporting period, which is the final year of the project are:(1) Immediately after the MTR, the focal unit of this project was changed from the Pollution Control Department to the Policy and Strategy Bureau under the Permanent Secretary Office. This was due to the restructuring within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), resulting in shifting the line of command of the regional environmental offices to be under the Office of the Permanent Secretary instead of under the Pollution Control Department. While the change to the Office of Permanent Secretary Office could have been positive to the project progress, especially for Outcome 1 on policy and institutional works, but the timing of the change was very bad as it was at the point that, after 2 years of project implementation, the key parties as well as project management unit started to have good understanding on what the project tried to get at, and what needed to be done to get the PES schemes implemented, and there had been some systems established in project management. The change of focal unit within MONRE tremendously impacted the continuity, momentum, system of project management, and the commitment to follow MTR’s recommendations. It took 4 months before the new project director could pick up the works. There have also been misunderstanding of project’s objective and targets leading to some deviation of emphasis of the project.(2) The audit result in Jun 2016 indicates some discrepancies in the project financial reports. It took 3 months (July – September 2016) before the issues could be resolved, during which period all new procurements and contracts were put to a halt. Eventually, it turned out that there was no fraud but the discrepancies were due to ineffective recording of financial data. This issue also reflects how the change of focal units within MONRE affecting the system of documentation and reporting; and reflects a management issue of the project regarding the high turn-over rate of project financial assistant. It was not until November 2016 that the project could start the disbursement again, hence the delays in the work plan as originally set in early 2016.The project has faced with the change of focal unit constantly throughout its implementation, as recorded in the previous PIRs. The lack of continuity and commitment has made any adaptive management to address the challenges of this technically complicated project, even more difficult.(3) The project board has not met since March 2016. It has not been used as a mechanism to guide the implementation nor to help the project management team to address the constraints.(4) The shortfalls on UNDP part to push the implementing partner to address the critical management issues, and the delays in getting technical support to the project and provide closer and a more systematic monitoring and capacity building process.

Role 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingGEF Operational Focal point (not set or not applicable) - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingProject Implementing Partner Moderately Satisfactory - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment The rating is moderately satisfactory because the project has progressed with the achievement towards the

outcome in the last year. The positive sign includes:• For outcome 1., there are policies and plans proposing PES schemes and biocarbon as the tool to support natural resources and environmental management at national, regional and local levels.• The Office of Permanent Secretary (OPS), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) is designated as the focal point to handle PES schemes and biocarbon with the establishment of permanent unit

Page 14 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Report(office) to handle PES schemes and biocarbon• Central baseline data system for PES and biocarbon has been established with the link related agencies and communities. Application has also been developed for communities and private sector to feed in information and data on the implementation of PES schemes.• Capacity building for central officials and REOs has been organized through the numbers of training courses on PES schemes and biocarbon.• Lesson learned and recommendations on policy, capacity building, central baseline data on PES schemes, biocarbon and CBFCM have been conducted.

Role 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingOther Partners (not set or not applicable) - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2017 Development Objective Progress Rating 2017 Implementation Progress RatingUNDP-GEF Technical Adviser Moderately Unsatisfactory UnsatisfactoryOverall Assessment This is the final PIR for this multi-focal area project aiming to embed innovative financing mechanisms such as

payment for ecosystem services (PES) and biocarbon financing within community-based natural resources management in Thailand. Now nearing project close, the project has recorded positive achievements but fallen short of many targets. It was challenged by lengthy implementation delays over the reporting period that were not managed effectively. Consequently, I have allocated a rating of progress towards development objectives (DO) of ‘moderately unsatisfactory’ and an implementation progress (IP) rating of ‘unsatisfactory’.

PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES (DO)

The project’s outcomes focus in parallel on putting in place the enabling national policies and capacity for PES in Thailand (Outcome 1) and demonstrating and upscaling PES mechanisms at pilot sites (Outcome 2). As indicated in the DO progress tab, neither outcome nor the project objective were fully achieved. By project end there is partial achievement of targets with significant shortcomings, resulting in my DO rating of ‘moderately unsatisfactory’. This aligns to the overall DO rating of the 2016 PIR and the ratings assigned by the Terminal Evaluation (TE). The PM rating of ‘moderately satisfactory’ is ambitious given that the objective and both outcomes are rated as ‘off track’.

Outcome 1 has seen little additional progress over the reporting period. Indicators on policy alignment, multi-agency coordination mechanism, and institutional capacity generally reflect the information reported in last year’s PIR. While positive to note that PES is now found within government strategies and that multiple agencies have been engaged, the lack of evidence that these have been operationalized and institutionalized raises questions about their long-term impact and sustainability. For example, while an ‘ad hoc working group on PES’ has been established, it is not yet clear whether it is operational with an approved work plan and allocated budget. Evidence of improved institutional capacity would have been easier had an amended form of the UNDP Capacity Development scorecard been used in place of trying to assess whether Regional Environment Offices (REO) had the capacity to develop mechanisms applying PES. The main reporting period achievement is the completion of the national PES/biocarbon financing database, and importantly, the allocation of government staff to manage it. Targets under Outcome 1 are ‘partially achieved’.

Positive progress has been made with Outcome 2 in the final year although it falls short of targets. This primarily results from the delay in establishing PES and biocarbon schemes in the four pilot regions. Eleven MoUs to implement such schemes have been signed over the reporting period. This is a very positive outcome as none were in place at the last PIR. However, only two of these are currently operational – agreements in Mae Sa watershed with the provincial watershed authority and a private operator to support the construction of ‘living weirs’. While the number of MoUs exceeds the expectation to have one PES scheme in each site, the project only made it halfway to its target to have four under implementation by project end. Implementation of the PES schemes was expected much earlier in the project term. Targets to achieve threat reduction and improvements in livelihoods and land management practices within the PES catchment basins have not been realized as it is not yet possible to show impact. However, there is some indication that capacity and awareness of local communities and REOs in implementing PES schemes has been built, and community-based threat management planning and monitoring is underway. Carbon stock assessment indicates a 10% increase in carbon sequestration at pilot sites by mid-term yet this was not re-assessed at project close and it is assumed that the project fell well short of the targets outlined in the CCM tracking tool. These benefits might be realized over coming years if the PES agreements are maintained. The question mark around sustainability of project outcomes was raised in last year’s PIR and the draft TE report and remains a potential concern.

The inability to clearly measure progress towards indicators has hampered meaningful evaluation of progress towards development objectives. This was noted in the mid-term review (MTR) but the results framework was

Page 15 of 21

2017 Project Implementation Reportnever amended, and nor was it critically assessed during the inception phase – one indication of the sub-optimal adaptive management (see IP section). Finally, while not integrated within the results framework, the project’s efforts to ensure gender equality and engage women in project activities are noteworthy.

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS (IP)

Implementation progress dropped in quality in the final stages of the project, with delays associated with changed institutional arrangements and audit irregularities. These delays constrained the project’s ability to implement work plans and achieve impact in its final year, and delivery, milestones and risk management were off track. I have allocated an IP rating of ‘unsatisfactory’, which is a downgrade to the overall IP rating of ‘moderately satisfactory’ given last year.

The most notable challenge over the reporting period was the lengthy delay in implementation following detected audit irregularities. While eventually resolved, these led to a five-month lapse in implementation – almost half of the reporting period. The delay (and the financial irregularities in the first place) resulted from the lack of familiarity with UNDP-GEF financial processes as the Project Management Unit (PMU) had been relocated to a different structural unit within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) late in the project. As outlined in the CO assessment, the change of focal point in MoNRE had a significant impact on implementation at both strategic and operational levels. The Project Board has not met over the past year, further restricting progress and sustainability of project outcomes.

There were also challenges with the PMU, with multiple changes in the financial assistant and insufficient attention to key project milestones and M&E. Additional support from UNDP was required to prepare for the TE and finalize multiple GEF Tracking Tools. Despite these challenges, the support and engagement of the REOs has remained consistently high and they have championed the project and its engagement with communities.

The implementation delays have restricted delivery. Nearing project close, cumulative delivery is at 87%. The audit-related delays meant that delivery against the 2016 budget was only 67% and some activities were not achieved. By end June, delivery against 2017 budget was at 51% with only a few months left of implementation.

These experiences – while partly beyond the control of the project – emphasize the importance of continuity in PMU staff and Project Director to effective implementation. The lack of continuity not only disrupted progress but challenged adaptive management and the avoidance and mitigation of risks. Two critical risks related to project sustainability remain in place and actions are underway to mitigate these and support the effective closure of the project. UNDP is supporting efforts to institutionalize training programs and has recruited a consultant to document lessons learned and arrange the closing workshop.

MTR and TE evaluators considered that the ambitious and complex project strategy was a key reason for its limited achievement. I consider that a greater challenge has been the project’s inability to manage adaptively. For example, the project did not capitalize on the opportunity to reorient project strategy following the MTR, and did not put in place corrective measures such as the recruitment of a Chief Technical Advisor.

ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

As the project will shortly be operationally closed, the action plan is concentrated on capturing and using project lessons learned. The draft TE report should be finalized as soon as possible so that recommendations to support sustainability of outcomes and documentation of lessons learned can be completed before the project is financially closed. While limited progress has been made with PES implementation, the project has clearly demonstrated that there is genuine potential for their use within Thailand. The project experiences in developing and planning PES schemes, and engaging local communities and private and public sector in them, should be carefully documented as guidelines for further adoption of PES in Thailand. These lessons can also offer insights for other UNDP-GEF projects working to establish and pilot PES schemes. In reviewing lessons learned, UNDP as GEF Agency should identify how it can offer additional transitional support to projects undergoing institutional and staffing changes to avoid the disruptions that challenged this project.

Page 16 of 21


H. Gender

Progress in Advancing Gender Equality and Women's EmpowermentThis information is used in the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP-GEF Annual Gender Report, reporting to the UNDP Gender Steering and Implementation Committee and for other internal and external communications and learning.

Has a gender analysis been carried out this reporting period? Please note that all projects approved in GEF-6 (1 July 2014 through 30 June 2018) are required to carry out a gender analysis.NoIf a gender analysis was carried out what were the findings?NoDoes this project specifically target woman or girls as direct beneficiaries?NoPlease specify results achieved this reporting period that focus on increasing gender equality and improving the empowerment of women.

Results reported can include site-level results working with local communities as well as work to integrate gender considerations into national policies, strategies and planning. Please explain how the results reported addressed the different needs of men or women, changed norms, values, and power structures, and/or contributed to transforming or challenging gender inequalities and discrimination.Gender equality has been mainstreamed into the project from the planning process. The project ensures representation of women and men in the project activities and ensure the access of both genders to PES schemes and biocarbon. The number of women participating in all pilot sites of CBFCM project is more than that of men. This due to the fact that men go out to work and many women stay home as housewives. Women participation in this project enables them to discuss, comment, suggest and implement the activities under the project together with men as equal. Women have developed self-confidence and dignity. The project has increased gender equality and improved the empowerment of women especially young women in terms of leadership.

Page 17 of 21


I. Communicating ImpactTell us the story of the project focusing on how the project has helped to improve people’s lives.(This text will be used for UNDP corporate communications, the UNDP-GEF website, and/or other internal and external knowledge and learning efforts.)The project is about the management of the natural resources and environment of the catchment with the use of the ecosystem service approach by the community. Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) is a tool using to seek for the collaboration between private sector and community for the activities with regards to the conservation of forest by local community. Community members in four pilot watershed catchments (i.e. Mae Sa, Tha Chin, Lam Sabei and Pha Ngan) are the main beneficiaries of the operation as they are living in the area. The benefits are i) the protection and conservation of natural resources in which the local community can use the products from the forest and ii) additional income generate for household as a result of the implementation of the project. The most notable achievement during the reporting period is the sign Memorandum of Agreement on the PES scheme and its implementation in all pilot sites.What is the most significant change that has resulted from the project this reporting period?(This text will be used for internal knowledge management in the respective technical team and region.)The signed MoA between community and private sector has given impact to the community for at least to protect the natural resource and environment with various activities. Biocarbon financing through PES schemes focusing on the work of community based forest catchment management in 4 pilot sites could be developed as model for future PES schemes in Thailand. In Mae Sa Watershed,two MOAs between two communities and governmental agency and private sector had supported two communities to construct living weirs in order to increase and improve water quantity. In Tha Chin Watershed, four MOAs between tree communities and governmental agencies and private sector had supported three communities to monitor water quality of Khong Pittaya Longkorn, training for monitoring water quality and ecosystem, as well as mangrove plantation for 16 ha. In Lam Sebai Watershed, two MOAs between Wung Or community and two private sectors had supported community to construct five line and set up patrolling team in order to protect from intruders and set up patrolling team in order to protect from intruders and forest fire. In Koh Phangan Watershed, three MOAs between Nai Whag community and three private sectors had supported community to construct artificial coral liff, crab bank and nursery rope for shrimps and crabs, as wall as solve the problem of seafood security. From MOAs in four pilot sites, communities, governmental agencies and private sectors had established the conservation fund which receives the money from agreement in MOAs. They also sets up the working groups in order to supervise, approve, monitor and evaluate activities and budget under MOAs. The MOAs show the agreement and awareness of private sectors to play a role in supporting conservation and the implementations under the MOAs build capacity of communities to conserve and manage their ecosystem. Moreover, the collaboration under the MOAs show the opportunities for communities to link collaboration from others to support their conservation initiatives.Describe how the project supported South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation efforts in the reporting year.(This text will be used for internal knowledge management within the respective technical team and region.)N/A

Project Links and Social MediaPlease include: project's website, project page on the UNDP website, Adaptation Learning Mechanism (UNDP-ALM) platform, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, as well as hyperlinks to any media coverage of the project, for example, stories written by an outside source. Please upload any supporting files, including photos, videos, stories, and other documents using the 'file upload' button in the top right of the PIR.www.facebook.com/cbfcmmaesawww.facebook.com/cbfcmthachinwww.cbfcn.reo12Ubon.go.th/iwww.facebook.com/cbfcm.phangan.1

Page 18 of 21


J. PartnershipsGive the name of the partner(s), and describe the partnership, recent notable activities and any innovative aspects of the work. Please do not use any acronyms. (limit = 2000 characters).This information is used to get a better understanding of the work GEF-funded projects are doing with key partners, including the GEF Small Grants Programme, indigenous peoples, the private sector, and other partners. Please list the full names of the partners (no acronyms please) and summarize what they are doing to help the project achieve its objectives. The data may be used for reporting to GEF Secretariat, the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP Corporate Communications, posted on the UNDP-GEF website, and for other internal and external knowledge and learning efforts. The RTA should view and edit/elaborate on the information entered here. All projects must complete this section. Please enter "N/A" in cells that are not applicable to your project.

Civil Society Organisations/NGOsAcross the 4 pilot sites, the project has been working closely with the local civil society networks and NGOs. The implementing partner of this project in the pilot sites are government agencies (i.e. regional environmental offices). By nature, they are not very well-experienced in community engagement and participation, hence there is a need to collaborate with in• Mae Sa watershed, the REO work closely with Winrock (Thailand), local CSOs and NGOs in the area, as important agents of change.• Tha Chin watershed, the REO work with We Love Tha Chin Group;• Lam Sebei watershed, the REO work with the Dong Yai Community Forest Group;• Pha Ngan watershed, the REO work with the Organic Farmers GroupIndigenous PeoplesN/APrivate SectorKey actors in the private sector in pilot areas engaged in PES schemes• Mae Sa Provincial Waterworks Authority, Mae Rim branch• Eagle Track Co. Ltd., is a private canopy –walk tour operation• TTW Public Company Limited is private company to produce water selling to the Provincial Water Works Authority• Maesa Elephant Camp Co., Ltd.• Samutsakorn Provincial Administrative Organisation• Phanthai Nora Singh Foundation has the mandate to conserve natural resources and environment particularly on mangrove conservation in Samutsakon province.• Phanthai Nora Sign Tambon Administration Organisation (TAO)• SS KarnSura CompanyLtd. Is a subsidiary company of Thai Beverage Company (Beer Change) with the business to produce local whisky.• Ubon Bio Ethanol Group Company Ltd;• KohPhagan Hotels Association• HaadRin Village Committee• Nira’s Home Bakery companyGEF Small Grants ProgrammeN/AOther PartnersN/A

Page 19 of 21


K. Grievances

Environmental or Social GrievanceThis section must be completed by the UNDP Country Office if a grievance related to the environmental or social impacts of this project was addressed this reporting period. It is very important that the questions are answered fully and in detail. If no environmental or social grievance was addressed this reporting period then please do not answer the following questions. If more than one grievance was addressed, please answer the following questions for the most significant grievance only and explain the other grievance(s) in the comment box below. The RTA should review and edit/elaborate on the information entered here. RTAs are not expected to answer these questions separately.

What environmental or social issue was the grievance related to?(not set or not applicable)How would you rate the significance of the grievance?(not set or not applicable)Please describe the on-going or resolved grievance noting who was involved, what action was taken to resolve the grievance, how much time it took, and what you learned from managing the grievance process (maximum 500 words). If more than one grievance was addressed this reporting period, please explain the other grievance (s) here.N/A

Page 20 of 21


L. Annex - Ratings DefinitionsDevelopment Objective Progress Ratings Definitions(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Project is on track to exceed its end-of-project targets, and is likely to achieve transformational change by project closure. The project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.(S) Satisfactory: Project is on track to fully achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Project is on track to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with minor shortcomings only.(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is expected to partially achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with significant shortcomings. Project results might be fully achieved by project closure if adaptive management is undertaken immediately.(U) Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. Project results might be partially achieved by project closure if major adaptive management is undertaken immediately.(HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets without major restructuring.

Implementation Progress Ratings Definitions(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Implementation is exceeding expectations. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are fully on track. The project is managed extremely efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.(S) Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are on track. The project is managed efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'good practice'.(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned with minor deviations. Cumulative financial delivery and management of risks are mostly on track, with minor delays. The project is managed well.(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces significant implementation issues. Implementation progress could be improved if adaptive management is undertaken immediately. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are significantly off track. The project is not fully or well supported. (U) Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces major implementation issues and restructuring may be necessary. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are off track with major issues and/or concerns. The project is not fully or well supported. (HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Implementation is seriously under performing and major restructuring is required. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones (e.g. start of activities), and management of critical risks are severely off track with severe issues and/or concerns. The project is not effectively or efficiently supported.

Page 21 of 21

Documents

Basic Data - undpgefpims.org€¦ · Web view2.5 5 % Increase in livelihood quality Index (income, health, debt and life security) of households from the baseline • Some socio-economic