USAID SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT

USAID SUSTAINABLE FOREST

MANAGEMENT PROJECT Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning Plan

Contract Number: 7200AA18D00020

Activity Start Date and End Date: July 1st, 2020 to June 30, 2025

USAID SUSTAINABLE FOREST

MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Date: February 24, 2021

Contract Number: 7200AA18D00020

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency

for International Development or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS................................................................................................................... i

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2

1.1. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2. KEY DRIVERS ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. ACTIVITY PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.4. CONNECTION TO USAID PRIORITIES ............................................................................. 5

1.5. THEORY OF CHANGE ................................................................................................................. 6

1.6. THE PROJECT RESULT FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 8

1.7. MAJOR INTERVENTIONS ........................................................................................................... 8

1.8. ACTIVITY CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS .............................................................. 11

II. LEARNING .......................................................................................................... 12

2.1. LEARNING PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................. 12

2.2. COLLABORATION, ADAPTING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES ....................... 13

III. MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................... 15

3.1. PERFORMANCE MONITORING ........................................................................................... 15

3.2. CONTEXT MONITORING ........................................................................................................ 15

IV. EVALUATION PLAN ..................................................................................... 16

4.1. INTERNAL EVALUATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16

4.2. PLANS FOR COLLABORATING WITH EXTERNAL EVALUATORS .............. 16

V. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 16

5.1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................... 16

5.2. DATA STORAGE AND DATA SECURITY....................................................................... 18

5.3. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ................................................................................. 18

5.4. DATA QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 18

VI. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 19

VII. ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN MEL ............................. 20

7.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................... 20

7.2. RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................... 20

ANNEX I: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SUMMARY TABLE ........................... 22

ANNEX II: INDICATOR TARGETS ........................................................................ 24

ANNEX III: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS .................... 30

AMELP USAID Sustainable Forest Management Project (SFM)

i

ACRONYMS AAR After Action Review

A/COR Agreement/Contracting Officer’s Representative

ADS Automated Directives System

AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use

AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CLA Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting

CFM Community-based Forest Management

CFE Conservation-Friendly Enterprise

COP Chief of Party

C-PFES Carbon Payment for Environmental Services

DCOP Deputy Chief of Party

DO Development Objective

DQA Data Quality Assessment

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

FPD Forest Project Department

GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GVN Government of Vietnam

HO Home Office

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

IP Implementing Partner

IPS Indo-Pacific Strategy

IR Intermediate Result

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

PFES Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services

PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

PITT Performance Indicator Tracking Table

PDO Program Development Office

PMP Performance Management Plan

PPR Past Performance Report

SEDS Socio-Economic Development Strategy

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

TOC Theory of Change

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VNFF Vietnam Forest Protection & Development Fund

VNFOREST Vietnam Administration of Forestry

VIFORA Vietnam Forest Owners Association


2

I. INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Sustainable Forest Management Project Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan

(MELP) is to describe how the DAI led team will monitor, evaluate, and learn from data collected to

manage the Sustainable Forest Management Project. The MELP includes indicator definitions,

measurement methodologies and processes, and a framework for reporting progress toward

expected results of the Project objectives. This Project MELP covers the period from July 1, 2020 to

June 30, 2025. It proposes both performance indicators and the cost-effective data collection,

analysis and reporting procedures needed to assess achievements of the objectives of the Project as

well as evaluation and other learning data required to understand key elements of the Project’s

Theory of Change (TOC). The MELP describes the data management processes that will be used to

perform MEL throughout the life of the Project in order to inform adaptive management processes

required to achieve the desired results and will be updated annually. The MELP has been organized

to introduce the reader to the project context and key drivers of deforestation in Vietnam and the

Project’s TOC and assumptions to enable effective implementation. Then, the MELP describes

learning priorities, monitoring and evaluation planning and knowledge management before detailing

adaptive management strategies. Detailed indicators are annexed.

1.1. CONTEXT

Vietnam is a rapidly developing country; the average real GDP growth rate was 6.6 percent in recent

years. However, between 1991 - 2012 the country’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions grew by

an estimated 937 percent, averaging almost 12 percent per year1. The Government of Vietnam

(GVN) pledged in its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to reduce its emissions

by 8 percent unconditionally and by an additional 17 percent (25 percent total by 2030) conditional

on donor support2. These estimates include an increase in forest cover to 45 percent. Emissions

from the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector play a large role in Vietnam’s

overall emissions profile and present important opportunities for emissions mitigation and for

enhanced sequestration. The agriculture sector represented 27.92 percent of total emissions in

2014, while the land use change and forestry sector were a net carbon sink in the same year and

sequestered GHGs were equivalent to 11.67 percent of the country’s net emissions3. Despite

national increases in overall tree cover, there has been a reduction in both total hectares of natural

forests and forest quality in Vietnam. The largest gains in tree cover have been in the north and

along the central coast, while losses have been reported in the central highlands.

1.2. KEY DRIVERS

Forest loss and degradation are strongly associated geographically with high poverty rates,

population density, agricultural production areas, and existing forest stock. Deforestation and

degradation drivers include smallholder encroachment, commercial agribusiness, infrastructure

development and illegal logging. It is estimated that 43 percent of tree cover loss of Vietnam can be

attributed to deforestation through conversion to commodities, 31 percent to tree plantations, and

24 percent to shifting agriculture. The large and growing wood product industry has incentivized

logging of natural forests and conversion to plantations4. Encroachment of rubber, cashew, and

coffee plantations is also a driver of forest conversion.

1Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factsheet: https://www.climatelinks.org/resources/greenhouse-gas-emissions-

factsheet-vietnam 2 Tim Holland and Jon Winsten, Productive Landscapes - prioritizing investments in land-based climate

mitigation in Vietnam. 3 The third National Communication of Vietnam to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change 4 Seth Bogle, Rachmat Mulia, Nguyen Mai Phuong, Matthew S. Patterson, Todd Rosenstock, Nguyen Quang

Tan, and Karis Tenneson. 2019. Commodity Driven Forest Conversions from 2000-2015 in Viet Nam:

Estimates of Area and Carbon Impacts. USFS and ICRAFT with funding support from the USAID RDMA


3

Exhibit 1: Key Divers of Deforestation and Degradation

Unsustainable Natural Forest Use

Conversion to commercial

plantation

Conversion to small-scale

agriculture

Illegal logging for trade

Illegal NTFP and wood

harvesting for local use

High market demand

for timber/ wood

Limited livelihood

opportunities

Weak and inconsistent

law enforcement

Economic pressure for

forest owners

Short harvest circle tree crops

Clear cutting of plantations

Limited government

capacity and resources

to support

Right and benefits of

forest owner not well

defined

Furniture processing and the growing demand for high quality wood products

The Vietnamese wood processing industry has been experiencing fast growth over the past two

decades. In 2017, Vietnam exported almost $8 billion of wooden furniture, making Vietnam the

largest wood products exporter in ASEAN, the second in Asia (after China), and the sixth in the

world5. However, Vietnam’s wood industry faces several challenges. Domestic harvesting of timber

and wood products is both unsustainable and insufficient to meet demand. Most large, natural

hardwood species have been extensively logged from natural forest areas. In addition, the majority

of tree plantations are not sustainably managed nor are yields optimized. As a result, Vietnam

imports a significant amount of wood to meet demand by the furniture industry and other buyers.

Plantation management and sustainability

The development of plantation forests plays an important role in Vietnam’s wood processing and

export industries. Pulpwood crops, such as acacia, are the most prevalent cultivated crops on lands

that were previously forested. Acacia is an important economic crop and expanded in area by

roughly 400,000 hectares between 2010 and 20156. While there are some large corporate holdings,

acacia is mainly cultivated by smallholders in plots of five hectares or less and represents most of the

household income for these farmers.

Plantations that implement improved management practices and increase rotations to eight or more

years can achieve Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, higher quality wood products, and

better returns. However, most smallholders face significant barriers to adopting sustainable forest

management practices. These barriers include the “liquidity gap” poorer households face as a result

of longer rotation periods, a lack of technical capacity at the provincial level to ensure high quality

seedlings, threats of crop damage from storms, the need for organization among smallholders to

offset certification costs, and the need for greater GVN assistance.

Community forest management of natural forests

Despite a long history of government control of forest resources, the GVN has made great strides

in shifting to community-based forest management (CFM), also called co-management, particularly

through forest land allocation and transfer of forest tenure rights to communities. During the last 20

5 IUCN. How to increase the value of Vietnam’s forestry sector?. 05 June 2018. Source:

https://www.iucn.org/news/viet-nam/201807/how-increase-value-vietnams-forestry-sector. 6 Nambiar, E. S., Harwood, C. E., & Kien, N. D. (2015). Acacia plantations in Viet Nam: research and

knowledge application to secure a sustainable future. Southern Forests, 77(1), 1–10. Source:

https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2014.999301.


4

years, Vietnam allocated approximately 1,145,000 hectares of natural forests to communities to

manage through different pilot projects. While there has been progress in forestland allocation,

several problems still exist. The rights and benefits of households that receive forestland have not

been well defined. Farmers do not have the right to choose tree patterns and land-use methods and

must follow the instructions of state management agencies. Technical support, transfer of market

information, and other government support services are weak. State investment capital is insufficient

to support households, and high poverty rates remain an issue. Economic pressures for both

landowners and non-landowners drive illegal conversion and degradation of natural forests. In

addition, lack of clear regulations and resources for monitoring and enforcement weaken GVN

policies. Enforcing conservation of natural forests is extremely difficult even where surrounding

communities appreciate the value of natural forests. With regards to agricultural expansion into

forested areas, national-level regulations relating to conservation are often undermined at local

jurisdictional levels as a result of corruption or misaligned institutional priorities.

Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) implementation and expansion

Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) was institutionalized as a national policy in 2010

by Decree 99. A new Forestry Law gives PFES legislative force, and Decree 156 sets payment terms

and prices for some of these environmental services. The goals of the PFES program in Vietnam are

to improve forest quality and quantity, increase the forestry sector’s contribution to the national

economy, reduce the state’s financial burden for forest protection and management, and improve

social well-being.

The initial PFES business model was for small hydropower plants and power distributors to pay into

a Vietnam Forest Protection & Development Fund (VNFF), which then distributed cash to upland

communities for watershed protection, rehabilitation and management. By 2017, 44 provinces

established provincial Forest Development and Protection Funds to implement the national PFES

program. Total PFES revenues by the end of 2017 were over VND 8,219 billion (USD $350 million).

In 2017, PFES revenues were used to protect 5.98 million hectares of forest, or 45 percent of the

country’s forest areas. The PFES revenues benefit more than 500,000 households living in

mountainous areas of Vietnam7. The GVN approach to PFES also includes compensation for carbon

sequestration as a key forest environmental service and provides the legal basis for payments to

forest areas for carbon sequestration. Vietnam's current forestry law stipulated that large emitters

must pay forest owners who provide forests’ carbon sequestration services to emitters by

protecting forests and planting trees.

1.3. THE PROJECT PURPOSE

USAID/Vietnam seeks to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of natural forests,

and poor plantation management practices in Vietnam. Various political and economic driver s in

Vietnam, in the region, and internationally, have resulted in widespread forest degradation and

constrained development outcomes. This activity seeks to leverage several approaches to sustainable

land management to address the drivers of forest conversion and degradation in target areas.

Engagement with the private sector and improved co-management by communities, local authorities,

and the national government are at the core of these activities.

The GVN divides forests into three categories including special use, protection, and production.

Special use forests, which include both national parks and nature reserves, have the highest level of

protection and the highest biodiversity value. Protection forests, with a less stringent level of

protection than special use forests, include forests that provide critical ecosystem services such as

7 USAID Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) No. 72044020R0002 Attachment 1: Statement of

Objectives Vietnam Sustainable Forest Management. Included in Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES)

implementation and expansion in DAI Global-USAID/Vietnam Sustainable Forest Management Contract

7200AA18D00020


5

watershed protection, coastal protection, and wind and sand protection. Production forests are

areas designated for timber and non-timber forest product production and include both natural

forests and plantation forests.

This project will focus on reducing land-based emissions and increasing carbon sequestration in

Vietnam's natural production forests and plantation production forests. These forests provide

carbon, ecosystem, and economic services at local, national and global scales. In 2015, 50 percent of

forests in Vietnam were classified as production forests.

The purposes of USAID Sustainable Forest Management Project (the Project) in regard of each

group of forest are as follows:

1. Avoid Carbon emissions from natural forest conversion

2. Increase carbon sequestration through better management of plantation forests

3. Improve quality, diversity and productivity of natural production forests

The Project will be implemented in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development (MARD) from July 2020 to June 2025. The Management Board for Forestry Projects

(MBFP) of MARD is the Government counterpart for this activity and project owner. The Project

will focus interventions in seven provinces: Lao Cai, Son La, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Quang

Tri, and Quang Nam.

1.4. CONNECTION TO USAID PRIORITIES

The Government of Vietnam is developing its ten-year Socio-Economic Development Strategy (SEDS)

2021 - 2030 which seeks to develop an integrated, efficient, and sustainable economy. USAID/Vietnam

has aligned its Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) with the GVN’s 2021- 2030

SEDS.

The Project aims to contribute to the USAID/Vietnam Country Development Cooperation Strategy

(CDCS) for 2020-2025 for an “Open, prosperous, and secure Vietnam that is effective and inclusive

in tackling its own development challenges.” The CDCS has three Development Objectives. The

Project links to the Development Objective 3 (DO3): “Environmental Security Improved.” This DO

has four immediate results (IRs) and this project contributes to the achievement of IR2 – “Declines in

wildlife populations and amount of forest degradation reduced”.


6

Exhibit 2: Connection of the Project’s Objectives to USAID Priorities8

DO3: Environment Security Improve

IR2: Declines in wildlife population and

amount of forest degradation reduced

Improved quality,

diversity, and

productivity of

natural production

forests

Carbon emissions

from natural forest

conversion avoided

Increased carbon

sequestration

through better

management of

plantation forests

1. Community Forest

Management

Improved

2. Conservation-

Friendly Enterprises

in Forest-Dependent

Communities

Increased

3. Functionality of

Law Enforcement

Systems for Forest

Crimes Increased

4. Production Forest

Management

Practices Improved

5. Domestic

Resources for Forest

Management And

Protection Mobilized

1.5. THEORY OF CHANGE

Currently weak governance, lack of incentives and limited capacity of the related government

agencies are the key barriers for sustainable forest management. The theory of change of this activity

is that

1. IF community forest management is strengthened results in improving capacity of

government agencies and community for application of forest management model;

2. IF livelihood in the forest independent community is improved that strengthen conservation

friendly value chains;

3. IF law enforcement systems in forested areas are more functional that strengthen law

enforcement at community level;

4. IF plantation forests become more sustainable results in increasing production of sustainable

timber by small-scale forester, demand from processors for certified timber, and developing

market linkages between timber producers and industry; and

5. IF domestic resources for forest management, monitoring and protection are mobilized that

support to roll out carbon PFES policy,

THEN communities and management authorities will work together effectively to reduce drivers of

high carbon forest management, natural forest conversion, and unsustainable natural forest use

LEADING TO reduced deforestation and degradation of forests, and improved carbon sequestration

and environmental co-benefits.

Objectives

This Project’s goal is to increase the application of sustainable practices and implementation of

forestry laws and regulations in the management of protection and production forests to reduce and

8 This refers to the USAID result framework with development objectives and intermediate results in the

CDCS: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CDCS-Vietnam-Extended_Summary_Final_ENG.pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CDCS-Vietnam-Extended_Summary_Final_ENG.pdf


7

sequester carbon emissions. The project aims to achieve five mutually reinforcing objectives as

follows:

1. Improve and expand community forest management

2. Increase conservation-friendly enterprises in forest-dependent communities

3. Increase functionality of law enforcement system for forest crimes

4. Improve production forest management practices

5. Mobilize domestic resources for forest management and protection

Twelve tasks are currently prioritized to achieve the objectives. The Project logic model is

illustrated in the Exhibit 3 below:

Exhibit 3: Logic Model

Improved

quality,

diversity, and

productivity of

natural

production

forests

Carbon

emissions from

natural forest

conversion

avoided

Increased

carbon

sequestration

through better

management

of plantation

forests

5. Domestic

Resources for

Forest

Management And

Protection

Mobilized

1. Community

Forest

Management

Improved

2. Conservation-

Friendly

Enterprises in

Forest-

Dependent

Communities

Increased

3. Functionality

of Law

Enforcement

Systems for

Forest Crimes

Increased

4. Production

Forest

Management

Practices

Improved

Review and revise

CPFES roadmap.

Integrate software

to map and manage

PFES, CPFES

beneficiaries

Task 5.1

C-PFES piloted and

rolled out at

provincial and

national levels

Task 5.2 Awareness

of and capacity for

C-PFES and PFES

implementation

increased

Develop CFM

model, approach

and plans. Develop

guidelines, tools

and training to

participate in CFM.

Conduct market-

based VC analysis.

Develop and

promote PSE for

CFE VCs.

Law enforcement

analysis, action plan

and training for

environmental

justice system.

Revised

CPFES/ PFES

roadmap and

guidance

Replicable

CFM Models

VC

prioritization

assessment

and action

plans

Law

enforcement

assessment

and action

plans

Barrier and

opportunity

assessment

and timber

promotion

Task 1.1

Strengthened

capacity of GVN,

VIFORA, and forest

owners to develop

and implement forest

management models

and approaches

Task 1.2 Capacity of

communities to

participate effectively

in forest management

increased

Task 2.1 Value chain

barriers and

opportunities

identified

Task 2.2

Conservation-

friendly value chains

strengthened

Task 3.1 Law

enforcement

supported to

maintain forest

integrity through

analysis and action

planning

Task 3.2 Law

enforcement

practices improved

Task 4.1 Increased

production of

sustainable timber by

small-scale foresters

Task 4.3 Market

linkages between

timber producers

and industry

developed

Task 3.3 Increased

capacity of the

environmental justice

system

Task 4.2 Increased

demand from

processors for

certified timber

Assess planting,

certification and

insurance. Conduct

rapid appraisal of

processor capacity

and promote

certified timber.


8

1.6. THE PROJECT RESULT FRAMEWORK

Exhibit 4: Result Framework

Improved quality,

diversity, and

productivity of natural

production forests

Carbon emissions from

natural forest

conversion avoided

Increased carbon

sequestration through

better management of

plantation forests

1. Community Forest

Management Improved

1. Number of people trained

2&9. Number and percentage of

institutions with improved capacity

3. Number of policies proposed,

adopted, implemented

4. Amount of investment mobilized

5. Number of people receiving

benefits

6&7. GHG emission reduction

8. Number of hectares under

improved natural resource

management

2. Conservation-Friendly

Enterprises in Forest-

Dependent Communities

Increased

3. Functionality of Law

Enforcement Systems for

Forest Crimes Increased

4. Production Forest

Management Practices

Improved

5. Domestic Resources for

Forest Management And

Protection Mobilized






benefits




management









management






benefits




management

10. Number of conservation

friendly enterprises operated







benefits




management

11. Percent of people with access

to a land administration or service

entity

DAI/ Environmental Governance

Director

PbN/ Enterprise Development

Director/ DCOP

DAI/ Environmental Governance

Director

DAI/ Enterprise Development

Director/ DCOP

RECOFTC/ Community Forest

Management Director

The Project will use 11 indicators to measure the achievement of the Project purpose and

objectives, of which 10 are USAID standard indicators and 1 is custom indicators. Indicators

measuring specific purposes and objectives are illustrated in the Exhibit 4.

1.7. MAJOR INTERVENTIONS

Improve community forest management (Objective 1)

In Vietnam, a core component of CFM is the design and implementation of co-management plans

developed in conjunction with provincial authorities. The main challenges to successful CFM include

but are not limited to 1.) a lack of clear and integrated co-management plans, 2) insufficient

government support for forest management, 3) a lack of alternative livelihood opportunities and 4)

weak law enforcement. To address these issues, the Project will implement a comprehensive

approach to CFM that integrates land use planning, forest zoning and land allocation, benefit-sharing

mechanisms, forest monitoring and management systems, and financial management into a single

coherent forestry co-management model (Task 1.1). Under Task 1.2 the Project will also improve

awareness and community and local government capacity to develop and implement co-management

plans and improve forest allocation agreements in communities. The Project will work with the

forest protection department at the provincial and district levels to build their capacity to implement

and monitor co-management plans. The Project will implement approaches to achieving this

objective, which include, but are not limited to: 1) creating a baseline assessment of natural forests,

community forest allocation agreements, and use rights, 2) improving quality of forest allocation

decisions, 3) setting standards for forest quality, 4) creating co-management monitoring plans and

performance metrics, and 5) improving or increasing government resource allocation for forest

management and protection, including subsidies and PFES payments.


9

Increase conservation-friendly enterprises in forest-dependent communities (Objective

2)

While improving CFM and providing government subsidies and/or PFES funds may offer communities

some economic incentives to stop forest conversion and degradation activities, these payments may

not be enough to change current practices. Improved natural forest management and sustainable

hardwood harvesting may also offer communities additional revenue streams but, given the long

growth period of local hardwoods (20-30 years), these potential revenues rarely offer immediate

economic benefit. Lastly, distribution of revenues from CFM activities are often under allocated to

the poorest community members. In many forest-dependent communities, viable alternative

livelihoods are also necessary to reduce the economic drivers of forest conversion. Therefore,

communities which receive CFM support (Objective 1), will also benefit from conservation-friendly

enterprise development (Objective 2), and improved law enforcement and monitoring (Objective 3).

Conservation friendly enterprises will be supported through a value chain approach. Task 2.1 will

involve assessing barriers and opportunities to select sizable value chains that 1) have sufficient

existing market demand, 2) represent economically and environmentally sustainable alternatives, and

3) are scalable to ensure there is sufficient infrastructure and community interest, and low enough

financial and technical barriers to entry.. Under Task 2.2 the Project will provide assistance to

facilitate the establishment of producers-buyers partnership and sales agreements. The Project

support will aim to increase income for communities under CFM, strengthen conservation friendly

value chains and ultimately contribute to reduction of natural forest conversion.

Increase Functionality of Law Enforcement Systems for Forest Crimes (Objective 3)

Despite the ban on natural forest conversion in production forests, small-scale illegal forest

conversion into plantations or agricultural lands continues. Limitations in the ability of provincial

forest rangers to enforce the ban and deter future forest conversion contributes to emissions from

this sector. These limitations include the inability to detect illegal deforestation and low levels of

engagement by enforcement agencies, among others. Additionally, there are gaps in the capacity of

provincial authorities to monitor compliance with CFM and PFES commitments. Through this

objective, the Project will help Vietnam improve detection and monitoring of illegal deforestation,

reduce timber poaching, and strengthen compliance with PFES and CFM to reduce conversion of

natural forests.

The achievement of this objective will involve a suite of interventions to support law enforcement

practices, coordination, and action planning. Under Task 3.1 the Project will conduct a thorough

assessment of current institutional, financial and social barriers to law enforcement in the target

provinces and support provincial governments to develop action plans to focus training on barriers

including using technology and data to increase efficiency. Under Task 3.2 the project will work with

CFM communities (Obj 1) to support improvements in enforcement practices at the provincial level,

including application of laws and customary and social norms aimed at forest protection and

management and efficient use of financial resources for enforcement. The Project will arrange an

inter-agency coordination mechanism between forest rangers, policymakers and prosecutors to

improve efficiency in information sharing, communication, training, combating crimes and policy

making. Finally, under Task 3.3, the Project will construct a training curriculum to support the

environmental justice system. The goal of the training will be to provide prosecutors and

enforcement officers with guidelines and practices, to detect forest crimes, build an evidence base,

transfer resolution of cases to the corresponding administrative authorities and criminal court

jurisdiction, increase case resolution and prosecution and reduce corruption. The Project will use

creative leverage points such as social media and partnership with civil society to increase the profile

of law enforcement.

Improve production forest management practices (Objective 4)


10

The growing international and local furniture market has created a high demand for timber and

wood chips, while an insufficient domestic supply drives indiscriminate importation of timber from

abroad. Sustainable plantation management can improve yields of existing plantation lands, increasing

domestic availability of wood products, and indirectly decreasing the demand for illegal wood

products. There are a variety of forest management practices that can improve the quality and yield

of acacia plantations in the target provinces. These include increasing harvests to eight years or

more and avoiding clear cutting or burning of underbrush. Increasing harvests requires access to

improved seeds as well as implementation of a variety of silviculture techniques. Longer rotations

include faster growth rates in years five through eight and result in higher quality and higher priced

round wood products.

Plantations with improved management practices are also eligible for certification programs such as

the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Certified timber products command a market premium, and

there is a current shortfall of FSC-certified wood products available in Vietnam. However,

smallholders, which make up most acacia farmers in Vietnam, face significant barriers to certification

including: 1) high upfront cost to certification, 2) increase risk of income loss from storm or fire, 3)

delayed income, 4) limited technical capacity and, 5) value chains are adapted to short rotations.

Through this objective, the Project will help Vietnam adopt improved plantation forest management

at scale. Under Task 4.1 the project will assess planting, certification, and insurance schemes to

identify barriers and opportunities to increase production of timber for small holders and implement

best practice trainings. As production increases, demand will subsequently need to be developed

through cooperation with local and national wood processors. For example, under Task 4.2. Task

4.3, the Project will develop market linkages between the producers and industry through improving

institutional and technical skills of farmers groups to meet requirements of internationally recognized

standard certifications. The Project will implement approaches including but not limited to: 1)

increasing awareness and training for improved forest management practices, 2) supporting the

development of producer organizations (e.g. cooperatives), 3) increasing access to certification, 4)

leveraging partnerships with buyers , and 5) increasing access and use of innovative insurance and

loan programs.

Mobilize domestic resources for forest management and protection (Objective 5)

Currently, the GVN is working on improvements and expansion of the PFES system, which includes

improved payment systems, monitoring practices, and establishing policies on C-PFES. Improved and

expanded implementation of PFES and CPFES systems across Vietnam will also support CFM

activities by increasing the availability of subsidies to communities for actively maintaining and

protecting forests, leading to improved forest quality and a reduction in illegal logging. This could

result in additional carbon sequestration, improved livelihoods, and avoided forest conversion.

Additionally, revenues from the C-PFES program can be used for a variety of other complementary

practices such as improving monitoring, supporting law enforcement, and subsidizing reforestation

activities.

Under Objective 5, the Project will pilot CPFES activities while learning and adapting for broader roll

out (Task 5.1). Task 5.2 will include building the capacity of the national and local governments and

communities for CPFES awareness and implementation. Activities will include, ) 1)convening a

community of practice for C-PFES, 2) supporting the development of detailed guidance for

implementation, 3)facilitating collection of payments from high emitters and distribution of funds to

beneficiaries, 4) improving monitoring guidance and implementation, and 5) improving the capacity of

beneficiaries.

Mobilization of resources by the Project will not be restricted to PFES and C-FPES but also

interventions from the rest of Objectives. The MELP will consolidate these Project results. For

example, from Objective 2 investments mobilized from promoting NTFPs (e.g. tugn oil); from

Objective 4 investments mobilized from certifiable plantations due to extending timber harvesting

rotation from producing biofuel (not certifiable) to sawlogs (FSC certifiable).


11

1.8. ACTIVITY CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS

The following table identifies risks, potential impacts and mitigation measures.

Exhibit 5: Activity Critical Risks

Assumptions/Risks Objectives

Possible impacts if

assumption/risk

proves wrong/right

Mitigation measures

Staff turnover, local authority

rotation, and policy changing

Obj. 1-5 Poor project quality and

objectives cannot be fully

achieved

Strategic human resource

development plan, contingency

human resource plan

Weak incentive realization of

local authorities for CFM

Obj. 1 Unsustainable CFM Awareness raising and capacity

building on CFM, promote CFM co-

benefit sharing mechanisms

Delayed approval of Community

Forest Management Plans

(CFMP)

Obj. 1 Unable to address CFM

issues

Promote active participation of

relevant GVN agencies in the

process to ensure timely approval

Rights to CFM land tenure are

not strong

Obj. 1 Lack of motivation of

local communities to

apply the Project

practices

Analyze land use planning and land

use re-allocation and build into

CFM models.

Natural disasters: typhoon,

whirlwind, flash flood, landslide

Obj. 1, 4 &

5

Demotivate growers to

apply longer rotation

practices

Build disaster risk reduction

capacity among the stakeholders

and advocate CF as safety net

Plant diseases and forest fires Obj. 1 & 4 Demotivate growers to

apply longer rotation

practices, loss income

Improve plant seedlings and provide

technical trainings for foresters;

Improve forest fire prevention and

fighting

The COVID-19 pandemic will

limit investments from GVN and

private sectors

Obj. 2 Supply chains unwilling to

take on any new

investment risk

Lower investment risk through

diversification of resources from

other sources such as community,

donors, banks, funds

Law enforcement agencies are

unwilling to join coordination and

information sharing for forest

protection and management

Obj. 3 Low level of coordination

on combating forest

violations and crimes

Promote agencies as partners and

define and implement an inter-

agency coordination protocol

Law enforcement agencies

unwilling to change status quo

Obj. 3 Ineffective law

enforcement leading to

forest loss and

degradation.

Work with enforcement agencies

to develop the law enforcement

action plans and support

implementation and monitoring

Local governments do not

effectively reduce corruption

Obj. 3 Ineffective law

enforcement leading to

forest loss and

degradation.

Use social media and SBCC

strategies to highlight the role of

law enforcement on environmental

crimes and anti-corruption.

Small scale foresters not willing

to apply sustainable timber

production practices

Obj.4 Quality of timber is

reduced and leads to

negative environmental

impacts

Apply market-based public-private

community partnerships to develop

model for certifiable timber

Supply of saw-logs decreases

sharply due to COVID-19

Obj. 4 Foresters lose motivation

to invest in large timber

production

Diversify local and international

market


12

Prime Minister does not approve

C-PFES policy

Obj. 5 Delay implementation of

C-PFES and lose PFES

opportunity

Advocate to VNFF for alternative

solutions to identify PFES revenues

(i.e. carbon trading, REDD+)

II. LEARNING

2.1. LEARNING PRIORITIES

The Project will focus on addressing the below learning questions. The Learning Agenda will guide

the Project Management Team in formulating workplans, activities and help to ensure the project

will reach its objectives

Exhibit 6: Learning Agenda

Objectives Learning Questions Learning activity

For all objectives

What areas of policy can be improved/updated/revised/developed to strengthen sustainable forest management (SFM)?

Initial assessments

What is the level of engagement and commitment of related government agencies in adoption of proposed tasks? Do the related government agencies have sufficient resources (human, financial and mechanism) for adopting and internalizing the proposed activities?

Initial assessment, joint planning workshops, lesson learnt review

Has the Project’s support contributed to more sustainable and locally owned development results? If so, how and under what conditions is this possible?

Planning workshop, quarterly reports and reviews, pause and reflect, lesson learnt review

Is the Project achieving its intended results within the objectives? If yes, what are enabling the achievement? What are hindering achievement of the results?

Quarterly reports and reviews, pause and reflect, monitoring per MELP

Are there any negative consequences as a result of the Project support? If so, what are they and how can they be prevented or mitigated?

Quarterly reports and reviews, monitoring per MELP, community consultation

What is the perception of government staff and local communities about the Project ’s support on capacity building? Do they consider the support useful, effective, and efficient? In what ways can the Project improve in response to these feedbacks?

Training pre- and post- tests, community consultation, pause and reflect

How does the Project support the promotion of gender equity and social inclusion? Are the strategies effective?

Gender strategy/ GESI Action Plan

How effective does the capacity development of GVN and communities in CFM models lead to the sustainable forest management?

Activity assessment

Community forest management

To what extent are CFM models sustainable beyond the project's life?

Activity assessment

What are the capacity gaps that government agencies and local communities need to improve for better application of CFM?

Capacity development need assessment

What are the key barriers to implement CFM models in target provinces?

CFM assessment, lessons learnt from previous models

What are the effective approaches for scaling up CFM models in target provinces?

Review the process of CFM


13

Objectives Learning Questions Learning activity

How does the Project promote women and ethnic minorities participating in the CFM models? How does the project promote equal right for women in land tenure?

Activity Report, land tenure right survey

Livelihood

What conservation friendly livelihood activities within the CFM system are most suitable for local communities? What commodities are most suitable for scaling up?

Value chain assessment

How to promote conservation friendly enterprises for SFM? Value chain assessment

What are the appropriate approaches for engaging the value-chain actors in the identified commodities?

Value chain assessment, conservation enterprise lessons learned review

How to ensure that improved livelihood will translate into enhanced natural resources - social behavioral change communication (SBCC)?

Behavior change assessment (i.e. Knowledge Attitude and Practices (KAP)

What strategies promote women led enterprises and women participation in project livelihood activities? Are the strategies effective?

Activity Report

Law enforcement

What are the main barriers to improving law enforcement? Law enforcement assessment

What types of tools and practices are best suited t to assist local authorities to better detect crimes and violations?

Law enforcement assessment

What are the laws and customary enforcement norms that the Project’s support should focus on to improve SFM?

Law enforcement assessments, planning workshops, lesson learnt review

How GESI issues are considered in the law enforcement Lesson learnt review

Production forest management

What are the key barriers for plantation owners to apply longer rotation practices?

Barrier and opportunity assessment to map sustainable wood production

What are the appropriate approaches for engaging plantation owners, producers and related actors in collective producer organization?

What are the appropriate techniques to improve plantation practices that have higher timber quality and more SFM?

What strategies promote women led enterprises and women participation in production of forest management? Are the strategies effective?

Activity Report

Mobilizing resources

What are the challenges in mobilizing revenues from C-PFES? C-PFES roadmap review

If the C-PFES is not approved, what other types of revenue streams should the Project prioritize to mobilize resources for sustainable forest management? What type of interventions to improve PFES revenues for sustainable forest management?

Analyze timing and challenges of C-PFES viability and consult with GVN to propose solutions

What strategies promote gender equity in distributing resources such as PFES?

PFES roadmap review, activity report

2.2. COLLABORATION, ADAPTING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES

The Project will integrate Collaboration, Learning and Adapting (CLA) into the project activity

design, implementation process and dissemination of results. This will allow the project to


14

continuously learn from implementation and adjust activities to be in line with changing context,

political dynamics or unexpected barriers.

Collaboration is done both internally and externally. Internal collaboration is most effective

through consistent discussions between the Project implementing partners (DAI, RECOFT,

Preferred by Nature) and USAID (Vietnam and Washington DC). This will make sure all partners

have a common understanding and expectation of the project objectives and critical assumptions. It

allows partners to learn and share expertise between organizations and experts which will increase

effectiveness in implementation. Key internal collaboration activities include start-up workshop,

work plan meetings and quarterly reviews, weekly team meetings and informal discussions. External

collaboration is most effective through close working relationships with the community and

government partners from the grassroot level to central government stakeholders. Consistent

coordination and communication with these actors increase ownership by the government and

communities and ensures sustainability of the project activities. The stakeholders will be involved in

the activity design, planning process, and activity implementation. The Project will ensure take a

locally-owned approach and ensure appropriate resource commitment adaptive monitoring

involvement with an eye towards sustainability and hand over at the project end.

Learning occurs at all stages of the project cycle, from startup, through implementation and

closedown. At the activity design stage, the Project will complete a series of initial assessments to

understand the local context, barriers and opportunities for each objective. This will allow the

Project team to define the best approaches and interventions. During implementation, continual

pause and reflect sessions, activity assessments, quarterly team meetings, and bi-annual and annual

planning workshops will be key to facilitating information-sharing and providing feedback loops that

enable quick recognition of challenges and nimble responses to address them.

Exhibit 7: Collaborating, Learning and Adapting

Collaborating: activity design,

planning workshops, frequent

engagement, quality assurance

process, resources commitment,

locally-owned approach and activity

adopting plan

Learning: initial assessments,

quarterly review, pause and reflect,

activity assessments, continuous

stakeholder feedbacks

Adapting: continuous

adjustment of strategy, intervention

activities and project targets.

Integrating feedbacks into

interventions

The Project will continuously adapt by integrating feedback into the project activities and

implementation strategy. Feedback from stakeholders will be collected and document throughout

implementation, particularly through pause and reflect sessions and planning workshops. Quarterly

review meetings will allow the Management Team to learn and adjust the activities and strategies to


15

adapt to the causal and contextual circumstances. The Project will document lessons learned

through regular performance reporting to USAID and through other venues such as workshops,

communication activities and technical papers.

Exhibit 8: Learning Schedule

Learning activities Frequency

Initial assessment and baseline (L) Once (beginning of the project)

Pause and reflect (L) Quarterly, annually (the end of each

quarter)

Indicator progress report (M) Quarterly, annually (10 days from the

end of quarter)

Annual workplan (M, L) Annually (July)

AMELP update (L) Annually (July)

Data quality review and internal DQA (M) Annually (the end of November)

Internal quarterly progress meeting (M, L) Quarterly (the end of each quarter)

Context monitoring (M) through stakeholder feedback

(informal discussion, formal meetings, field observation)

Annually (the end of November)

*M: Monitoring, L: Learning

III. MONITORING PLAN

3.1. PERFORMANCE MONITORING

The Project will conduct ongoing and systematic collection of output and outcome information for

two purposes: (1) to track progress and inform implementation internally so that the project team

can adjust as necessary, and (2) to communicate project progress externally to stakeholders,

including USAID and the GVN. The collected information will be used to monitor the quantity,

quality, and timeliness of activity outputs and outcomes throughout the life of the activity.

The Project has selected 11 indicators to track activity progress. Of these indicators, 10 are

standard F-indicators and 1 are custom indicators. Further detail on the project indicators can be

found in Annex I (Indicator Summary Table), Annex II (Indicator Targets), and Annex III Indicator

Reference Sheets). Please refer to Section V of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MELP)

for operational details on data management and roles and responsibilities.

Indicator data will be collected as relevant activities occur and will be reported quarterly or annually.

Data collection methods will vary depending on the indicator, but it is anticipated that the Project

will use direct observation of project activities, primary data, secondary data, self-assessment tools,

and the USAID AFOLU calculator (for greenhouse gas emissions).

3.2. CONTEXT MONITORING

Context monitoring will occur over the life of the activity, with a focus on the GVN policy

environment, key personnel change, socio-economic conditions, and the coronavirus pandemic

situation. Context monitoring will take place through direct observation and active discussion with

relevant stakeholders and will be summarized in performance reporting. In addition, any

environmental, pandemic, economic, and social factors that may affect project implementation will

be closely monitored based on observations by the Project staff. Context monitoring will be aided


16

by the assumptions/risks (Section 1.8) and learning questions outlined in Section 2 (Learning Plan) of

this MELP.

IV. EVALUATION PLAN

4.1. INTERNAL EVALUATIONS

No formal internal evaluation is planned during the Project implementation, but the team will

continuously review program activities, successes, and obstacles, and evaluate performance along

with input from local partners. Through a collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) approach, the

project will modify technical approaches and activities as appropriate. A list of evaluation questions

will be used to aid the review process along implementation of the activity:

Effectiveness (Achievement of Objectives)

What is the status of implementation of respective activities against the workplan?

Are we achieving the outputs and outcomes that we expected at this point in time?

To what extent have recommended models, approaches, guidance, policies on sustainable forest

management from the Project activities been adopted and applied?

Have the activities contributed towards any change in work practices of the government agencies,

enterprises and communities?

Relevance

To what extent are the Project activities aligned with the USAID designed objectives and purposes?

To what extent are the Project activities aligned with the Government strategies and policies?

Sustainability

How likely is the Government, enterprises and communities to continue with the recommended

models and approaches that have been introduced through the Project?

4.2. PLANS FOR COLLABORATING WITH EXTERNAL EVALUATORS

The Project will work with USAID to support any planned external evaluations by providing

monitoring data, responding to data-collection efforts, connecting USAID to stakeholders, and

validating findings. Any evaluation will be reviewed by the Project management staff and changes will

be made to workplans as necessary.

V. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

5.1. DATA COLLECTION

The M&E Director leads the implementation of the AMELP. This includes developing M&E data

collection tools, creating and maintaining the M&E data management system, supervising data

collection, aggregating and reporting data from project activities, as well as ensuring data quality

throughout the project’s life. Data collection methods vary depending on each specific indicator,

detailed data collection methods are outlined in the PIRS (Annex III). The data collection process is

shown in the Exhibit 10 below. For the output indicators such as training, policies, funds mobilized,

etc., data will be collected during or immediately following the relevant activity. Data will be

collected using a specific data collection form for each indicator by an assigned staff. The provincial

Managers are responsible for coordinating activities with Provincial Project Management Unit


17

(PPMU) and verifying data, data consolidation and storage which will then be reported to the Field

Director and Technical Directors on a monthly basis. The MEL Team will communicate directly

with Technical Directors and Provincial Managers to check data accuracy and verify supporting

documents. The Team will contact field staff for verification or supplementary documents as needed.

The MEL Team will provide trainings for all the Project staff for consistent understanding of the data

collection methods and reporting mechanism. This will aid to increase quality of data and ensure

timely data submission.

For outcome indicators the MEL Team will work with Technical Directors to develop appropriate

methodologies and assessment tools to measure the results. During implementation, the assessment

process will be conducted annually by the MEL Team in collaboration with technical staff and

relevant stakeholders.

After data is collected, the MEL Team will compile the data across different provinces and objectives,

and enter it into the Project database for analysis, internal review, and reporting to USAID. Data is

reviewed monthly on a rolling basis.

Field Activities

Field staff

• Data Collection

Provincial Managers

• Data verification

• Data consolidation, data processing

• Storage: data/supporting document

Field Director and Technical Directors

• Data review

• Calculating component-specific indicators

• Data submission

MEL Team

• Training/Coaching

• Quality Assurance, Learning

• Consolidating and reporting indicators

• Database update/maintenance (back-up)

Management Team (COP, DCOP, HO)

• Review and Reporting

Report Monthly and Quarterly

Quality Assurance,

FeedbackReport Monthly and Quarterly

Feedback

After activity/event completed

Annually (outcome)

Report Monthly Feedback

Report Monthly

Quality Assurance,

Feedback

Report

Monthly

Exhibit 9: Data Management and Reporting


18

To aid the analysis, data will be disaggregated by the five objectives (CFM, conservation friendly

enterprises, law enforcement and policies, production forest management, mobilizing domestic

resources) and provinces (Lao Cai, Son La, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Quang Tri, Quang

Nam). All individual-level data will be disaggregated by gender and ethnicity, as available and

appropriate.

5.2. DATA STORAGE AND DATA SECURITY

The Project data management will strictly follow guidance in the USAID Development Data, ADS

Chapter 579. Raw data and soft copies of supporting documents are stored on the Project server in

a cloud-based system. Access is password protected and limited to the Project MEL Team and

Management Team. A backup copy of the data is stored on a hard drive with access restricted to the

MEL Team only.

The processed data is stored in a Web/Excel database with limited analysis functions and can be

shared with partners and relevant stakeholders. This database setup allows partners to quickly

review project results without access to raw data. Internally, data is reviewed monthly by the

Project management staff, and is compiled and reported quarterly in performance reports.

Personal information such as names, gender, and phone number may be collected during project

activities. Phone numbers are used to cross-check and verify beneficiary participation. Participants’

phone numbers are stored only on hard copy sign-in sheets, which are stored in the Hanoi office in a

locked cabinet with restricted staff access. The Project does not share any personally identifiable

information with partners or other stakeholders.

5.3. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Indicator data is processed and analyzed using Microsoft Excel or R (if advanced statistical analysis

required) using different data analysis methods, depending on the type of data the user requires.

Power BI will be used for visualization of the results and dashboard. For online or offline surveys

using mobile devices, the Project will use DAI Collect, a DAI survey tool, to design and process data.

For paper-based survey, Epidata software will be used for processing which can then be exported to

Microsoft Excel or R for analysis. Analyzed data will be used to track activity progress toward

expected results and for reporting. Data will also be used for learning and adaptive management.

In addition to internal use, the Project will design a simplified Microsoft Excel database or web-based

Information System for use by external partners and stakeholders to provide an overview and

summary analysis of the Project results and progress.

The Project will report achievement of the project target to USAID and GVN quarterly for output

indicators and annually for outcome indicators. The Project MEL Team will verify all the results and

evidences before submitting to USAID and GVN.

5.4. DATA QUALITY

To ensure high data quality, the Project’s MEL Team will develop guidelines for data collection and

processing for each indicator and provide training for all staff and partners on forms, templates, and

specific types of documentation necessary for verification. After data is received from technical staff,

the MEL Team will conduct data validation using phone calls or face-to-face conversations with the

staff and beneficiaries. For example, to validate training data, the MEL Team will randomly select and

call 5-10% of participants, based on the sign in sheets, to verify their participation. On a quarterly

basis, the MEL Team will conduct spot checks by randomly selecting field activities for observation

without prior notification of field staff. In addition, the MEL Team will conduct annual internal Data

Quality Assessment (DQA) in each province that addresses the five data quality standards of validity,

reliability, integrity, precision, and timeliness.


19

Data validity: Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result. The Project’s MEL

Team will ensure that the activity aligns with the indicator being used and that the indicator aligns

with the Results Framework. The team will also ensure that the Project’s contribution to the specific

activity is clearly articulated and recorded and that, where applicable, rigorous methods are used to

reduce measurement errors (type I and II) and sampling issues.

Data reliability: Data should be collected using consistent practices across components, provinces,

and time. The Project will ensure data reliability by developing easy-to-understand guidelines for data

collection and processing as a reference by technical staff. The Project’s MEL Team will provide early

and consistent training for staff on specific data-collection forms and guidelines for each indicator.

Data integrity: Data should have safeguards to minimize transcription errors or manipulation for

personal or political reasons. The Project’s MEL Team will provide training to ensure that technical

staff involved in data collection have a clear understanding of data collection and security

procedures. The MEL Team will upload data to the Project’s password-protected server with access

rights limited to the MEL Team and the Project Management. A backup copy of the database will be

stored on a hard drive. In addition, signed hard-copy data will be used for verification and reviewed

for any evidence of manipulation and duplication. Hard copies of data collection forms and backup

documentation will be stored in the Hanoi office, with access limited to the MEL Team.

Data precision: The data should have a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision-

making. Where applicable, the MEL Team will ensure that data falls within an acceptable margin of

error.

Data timeliness: Data should be available within a reasonable timeframe, be current, and be timely

enough to influence management decision-making. The Project’s MEL Team will review all activities

on a weekly basis and follow up with technical staff if any activities are not present in the submitted

data. The MEL Team will use quarterly performance reporting as a dedicated space to review

progress with the technical staff and address any shortfalls.

VI. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Project will use an adaptive management strategy by building continuous feedback loops into

project activities and strategy to determine the need for course correction. Adaptive management

will be used to adjust based on new learning and may result in shifts in activities, workplan or

staffing. As the project receives new information or context shifts occur, the COP, MEL team and

Directors, in consultation with USAID, will determine and define changes to respond. The project

will use learning sessions such as Pause and Reflect, workplan reviews, and quarterly and annual

reviews to reflect on activity progress and assess the implications of new information in the social,

political or economic context of target provinces.

Exhibit 10: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Schedule

MEL Activity Frequency Adaptive Action

Initial assessment and

baseline (L)

Once (beginning of the

project)

Adjust activity design, define

project targets

Pause and reflect (L) Quarterly, annually (the end

of each quarter)

Adjust activities and workplan

Indicator progress report (M) Quarterly, annually (10 days

from the end of quarter)

Annual workplan (M, L) Annually (July) Reflect P&R sessions in activity

development

AMELP update (L) Annually (July) Adjust targets and strategy


20

Data quality review and

internal DQA (M)

Annually (the end of

November)

Ensure quality and validity of data,

improve adaptive management

Internal quarterly progress

meeting (M, L)

Quarterly (the end of each

quarter)

Adjust targets and strategy

Context monitoring (M)

through stakeholder feedback

(informal discussion, formal

meetings, field observation)

Annually (the end of

November)

Adaptive management, adjust

activities

*M: Monitoring, L: Learning

VII. ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN MEL

7.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The MEL Team will be led by the MEL Director and will coordinate MEL-related tasks with support

from the Home Office MEL Specialist, Deputy Chief of Party and Chief of Party. Technical Directors

and Provincial Managers, with support from the MEL Team, will be responsible for collecting data

and supporting documents related to their assigned targets. The Provincial Managers will coordinate

with partners to fulfill their MEL-tasks. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the MEL Director will

facilitate a meeting on MEL with Technical Directors and staff. The team will discuss specific MEL

tasks and how to achieve MEL targets. A comprehensive MEL guide will be developed after the

meeting with specific MEL activities, staff responsibilities, required supporting documentation, and

deadlines for completing the activities. This plan will be reviewed quarterly with the technical staff so

they are aware of progress and can share lessons learned. The MEL Team will inform the technical

staff if activities are not on track and assist them with developing action plans to achieve targets.

Activity assessment, data quality assessment, and context monitoring will be conducted annually by

the MEL Team. The assessment results will be reflected to technical staff and the Management Team

to adjust the implementation strategy and activity plan as needed. The MEL Team will also update

the MELP to be suitable with the current context.

Exhibit 11: Roles and Responsibility in MEL

MEL Team• Develop MEL plan, methodologies, templates, data

collection tools

• Provide training/coaching

• Conduct data quality assurance, context monitoring,

activity assessment; verify data and evidences

• Facilitate learning activities, provide feedbacks for

adaptive management

• Maintain and update database system

• Analyze data for reporting

Technical Team• Coordinate with partners on MEL related tasks

• Collect data and evidences

• Consolidate data into forms/ templates

• Verify data from the field and partners

• Adjust implementation plan and strategy based on MEL

feedback

• Process data for reporting

Guidance, support, learning for

adaptive management

Feedbacks,

input data and evidences

Management Team (COP, DCOP, HO)• Provide support

• Coordinate strategic planning for achievement of

indicator targets

• Adjust implementation plan and strategy based on MEL

feedback

Coordination,

MEL supportCoordination,

Technical support

Input for

adaptive management

Achievement of objectives

Technical feedback

7.2. RESOURCES

The monitoring, evaluation, and learning budget is primarily staff time, of which approximately

$439,665 is explicitly allocated for the MEL team over five years Additional support will be provided

by the Chief of Party, Project Assistant, and Provincial Manager. The Project has budged $38,500

over five years for annual pause and reflect sessions ($7,700 per a year). Additionally, the Project will


21

conduct a baseline, mid-term and end-line survey to measure the perception of land tenure. The

budget for this survey is approximately $59,500. Travel is expected by the MEL Team based in Hanoi

to provinces and has been sufficiently budgeted for in the approved final budget.


22

ANNEX I: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SUMMARY TABLE

Indicator Objectives Data Source Frequency Unit of

Measure PPR

(Y/N) Baseline

Value

Target

FY21 LOP

Indicator 1: EG 13-1 Number of people trained in sustainable landscapes supported by USG assistance

All Objectives

Sign-in sheet; Agenda; Training materials; Summary sheet

Quarterly People Yes 0 50 25,388

Male 0 35 17,265

Female 0 15 8,123

Indicator 2: EG 13-2 Number of institutions with improved capacity to address sustainable landscape issues as supported by USG assistance.

All Objectives

Institution development plan/ performance review;

Annually Institutions Yes

0 0 70

Indicator 3: EG.13-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or standards addressing sustainable landscapes formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported by USG assistance

Objective 1, 3 & 5

Summary form of the Project support and report (as available); copy of the policy; letter of submission to authority

Quarterly Policies Yes

0 0 34

Indicator 4: EG.13-4 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for sustainable landscapes as supported by USG assistance

Objective 2, 4 & 5

Summary form of the Project support and report (as available); Confirmation letter from donor, investor, or receiver, VNFF report on C-PFES

Annually Million USD Yes

0 0 12.5

Indicator 5: EG.13-5 Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non-monetary) associated with the implementation of USG sustainable landscapes activities

Objective 1, 2, 4 & 5

VNFF report on C-PFES, land tenure report; list of certified households

Annually People Yes

0 0 60,900


23

Indicator 6: EG.13-6 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2 equivalent, reduced, sequestered, or avoided through sustainable landscapes activities supported by USG assistance

Activity’s Purposes

Activity report; Policy document(s); AFOLU calculator

Annually Tons CO2e Yes

0 7,820,716

Indicator 7: EG.13-7 Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided from adopted laws, policies, regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as supported by USG assistance


Activity report; Policy document(s); AFOLU calculator

Annually Tons CO2e Yes

0 45,674,566

Indicator 8: EG.13-8 Number of hectares under improved management expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a result of USG assistance


CFM model report FSC report Related policies

Annually Hectare No

0 0 260,000

Indicator 9: CBLD-9: Percentage of USG assisted organizations with improved performance

All Objectives

Institution development plan/ performance review;

Annually % Organization

Yes N/A 0% 90%

Indicator 10: Number conservation friendly enterprises supported by USG assistance

Objective 2 & 4

Value chain development report

Annually Enterprise No 0 0 35

Indicator 11: EG.10-4.8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance

Objective 1 Activity report Annually Adult Yes 0 0 6,000


24

ANNEX II: INDICATOR TARGETS

Indicator 1: EG.13-1 Number of people trained in sustainable landscapes supported by USG

assistance

Disaggregation Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 LOP

Total target 50 4,530 9,823 8,935 2,050 25,388

Disaggregated by gender

Male 35 3,076 6,828 6,026 1,300 17,265

Female 15 1,454 2,995 2,909 750 8,123

Disaggregated by Objectives

O1. Community Forest

Management 50 1,680 2,240 1,680 - 5,650

O2. Conservation Friendly

Enterprises - 1,500 3,400 3,200 1,050 9,150

O3. Law Enforcement - 230 115 55 - 400

O4. Production Forest

Management Practices - 1,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 10,000

O5. Resources Mobilized - 120 68 - - 188

Target Note

O1. Community Forest Management

- Training on CFM model approach (Land use planning, forest land allocation, benefit sharing, forest zoning,

community forest management plans, forest monitoring, financial mechanism, GESI, etc.):

+ Location: Central and 7 provinces

+ Staff of forest management agencies: 1,450 (30% female participants)

+ Members of communities: 4,200 (30% female participants)

O2. Conservation Friendly Enterprises

- Capacity building for selected value chain actors including farmers, traders, enterprises and government

agencies on technical, processing, trading, branding, GESI

+ Farmers: 9000; officers, enterprises, traders: 150 (equally distributed to 7 provinces) (31% female participants)

O3. Law Enforcement

- Capacity building for law enforcement agencies, forest management agencies and judicial system on Law

enforcement for FPD, police, People Committees at district and commune levels (8 trainings, 50 people/

training) (12.5% female participants)

O4. Production Forest Management Practices

- Training for farmers, plantation owners, nurseries and processors: 10,130 - 35% Female participants

O5. Resources Mobilized

- Capacity building for central and provincial VNFFs and related agencies on PFES and C-PFES (2 trainings/ 5

years, 12 staff/ FPDF * 7 provinces) (15% female participants)

Indicator 2: EG.13-2 Number of institutions with improved capacity to address sustainable

landscape issues as supported by USG assistance.


Total target 0 7 21 28 14 70



Management 2 3 14 19


25


Enterprises 4 15 20 39

O3. Law Enforcement 2 2


Management Practices 3 4 7

O5. Resources Mobilized 3 3

Target Note

FY2:

- 2 provincial Women Unions and 2 provincial Farmer Unions applying: (1) market-based value chain

approaches; (2) guidelines, toolset for value chain development; (3) GESI guideline

- 3 Nurseries improving laboratory, nursery capacity, promotion, public private cooperation partnership and

connecting with farmer collective groups or cooperatives

FY3:

- VNFOREST, VFORA applying CFM models/ guidelines: 2

- 15 Conservation friendly enterprises improving: (1) institutional management (management structure reform

for better operation of business strategy); (2) business plans; (3) GESI guideline

- 4 Nurseries improving laboratory, nursery capacity, promotion, public private cooperation partnership and

connecting with farmer collective groups or cooperatives

FY4: O1, O3 and O5 target the same 8 institutions, targets distributed 3 institutions for O1, 2 institutions for

O3, and 3 institution for O5

- 7 Provincial Forest Protection Department (FPD) applying: (1) CFM models/ guidelines; (2) new techniques on

using user-friendly hand-held devices; (3) law enforcement practices for detection, investigation and handling of

forestry violations and crimes; (4) GESI guideline

- 20 Conservation friendly enterprises improving: (1) institutional management (management structure reform

for better operation of business strategy); (2) business plans; (3) GESI guideline

- 1 Central VNFF and 7 Provincial Forest Protection and Development Funds (FPDF) adopting: (1) new PFES

M&E system; (2) Adopt new PFES policy in project locations; (3) GESI guideline

FY5

- 14 Village Management Board applying: (1) CFM models/ guidelines, planning and GESI guideline

Indicator 3: EG.13-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or standards addressing sustainable

landscapes formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported by USG assistance


Total target - 15 15 4 0 34



Management 8 9 17

O3. Law Enforcement 7 5 4 16

O5. Resources Mobilized 1 1

Disaggregated by GESI mainstream

GESI mainstreaming policies 7 8 15

Target Note

FY2:

- Propose “Decree on Investment Policies for Forest Protection and Development, Forest Product Processing

and Trading” GESI mainstream - O3

- Develop 3 provincial inter-agency coordination protocols – O3

- Develop 3 provincial sustainable forest management policies – O3


26

- Develop 7 CFM plans at community level, approval by district authority (5 plans will be GESI mainstream) –O1

- Develop 1 GESI Action Plan in Forest Management for Provincial FPD – O1

FY3:

- Approve PFES policy - O5

- Develop 4 provincial inter-agency coordination protocols, 3 of which will be mainstreamed GESI - O3

- Develop 7 CFM plans at provincial level, approval by district authority (2 plans will be GESI mainstream) – O1

- Develop 1 Decree on administrative enforcement – O3

- Develop 2 GESI Action Plan in Forest Management for Provincial FPD – O1

FY4:

- Develop 4 provincial sustainable forest management policies - O3

Indicator 4: EG.13-4 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for sustainable landscapes as

supported by USG assistance


Total target 1.5 5 6 12.5



Enterprises 2.5 2.0 4.5


Management Practices 0.5 1.0 1.5

O5. Resources Mobilized 1.0 1.5 4.0 6.5

Target Note

FY3:

- Develop mechanism to mobilize funds from PFES for natural and production forests from FCPF: 500,000 (O5)

- Investment from private sector: 500,000 (O4)

- Mobilizing Fund from PFES 500,000 (O5)

FY4

- Investment from private sector in conservation enterprise development: 2.5 million (O2)

- Investment by plantation owners in certifiable timber management: 1 million (O4)

- Mobilizing fund from PFES and/or REDD+1,500,000 (O5)

FY5

- Mobilizing fund from PFES and or REDD+: 4 million (O5)

- Facilitate government funds (NTP-SPR, NTP-NRD, OCOP, NTP-Socio-economic development ethnic

minorities areas) contribute to selected value chain development: 2 million - O2

Indicator 5: EG.13-5 Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non-

monetary) associated with the implementation of USG sustainable landscapes activities


Total target 7,150 13,950 23,550 16,250 60,900


Male 3,575 6,975 11,775 8,125 30,450

Female 3,575 6,975 11,775 8,125 30,450



Management - 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 12,600


27


Enterprises - 3,000 6,800 6,400 2,100 18,300


Management Practices - 1,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 10,000

O5. Resources Mobilized - - - 10,000 10,000 20,000

Target Note

O1. Community Forest Management

- 14 CFM models. 500 people/model: 7000

- Land allocation: 1000ha/province; 5ha/HH; 4 people / HH; 800 people/province: 800*7=5600

O2. Conservation Friendly Enterprises

- Market-based value chains development (training, involve in production, processing and trading activity) the

same target household in indicator 1 (4 family members/ household)

O4. Production Forest Management Practices

- Provide training and support farmers for certification: 10,000 farmers


- Household received PFES fund (5,000 household *4)

Indicator 6: EG.13-6 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2

equivalent, reduced, sequestered, or avoided through sustainable landscapes activities supported

by USG assistance


Total target 0 135,598 1,222,353 2,620,625 3,842,140 7,820,716



Management 38,000 70,000 106,000 214,000

O3. Law Enforcement 135,598 542,392 996,783 1,405,377 3,080,150


Management Practices 507,000 1,014,000 1,521,000 3,042,000

O5. Resources Mobilized 134,961 539,842 809,763 1,484,566

Target Note

FY2

Two policies _O3 (Refer to

Indicator 7) 135,598 542,392 813,588 1,084,787 2,576,365

FY3

PFES policy -O3 0 183,195 320,590 503,785

Provincial inter-agency

coordination protocols- O5 134,961 539,842 809,763 1,484,566

Improve CFM for sustainable

forest management and land

allocation 40,000 ha (model

and scale up)

38,000 41,000 41,000 120,000

Improve forest management

practices (forest certification

saw-log plantation): 40,000 ha -

O4

507,000 507,000 507,000 1,521,000

FY4


28




O4

507,000 507,000 1,014,000

Scale up CFM models: 50,000

ha 29,000 36,000 65,000

FY5




O4

507,000 507,000

Scale up CFM models: 50,000

ha – O1 29,000 29,000

Indicator 7: EG.13-7 Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided from adopted laws,

policies, regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as supported by USG

assistance


Total target 17,492,167 26,645,138 1,537,261 - 45,674,566

Disaggregated by Years

Year 1 - 5 3,932,347 5,562,601 - 9,494,948

Year 6 - 10 6,779,910 10,182,910 - 16,962,820

Year 11 - 15 6,779,910 10,899,627 1,537,261 19,216,798

Target Note

FY2 Y 1-5 Y 6-10 Y 11-15

Two Policies: Provincial

sustainable forest management

policies (Son La, Hoa Binh, Lao

Cai) and Provincial inter-agency

coordination protocols (Son

La, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa)

3,932,347 6,779,910 6,779,910

FY3 Y 1-5 Y 6-10 Y 11-15

PFES policy (Thanh Hoa, Quang

Nam) and Provincial inter-

agency coordination protocols

(Lao Cai, Nghe An, Quang Trị, Quang Nam) - Only top-up

emission reduction added.

5,562,601 10,182,910 10,899,627

FY4: 2023-2024 Y 1-5 Y 6-10 Y 11-15

Provincial sustainable forest

management policies (Son La,

Hoa Binh, Lao Cai)-Only top-

up emission reduction added.

1,537,261

Indicator 8: EG.13-8 Number of hectares under improved natural resource management,

safeguards or sustainable business practices as a result of USG assistance


Total target 80,000 90,000 90,000 260,000

Disaggregated by Objective


Management 40,000 50,000 50,000 140,000


Management Practices 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000


29


Target Note

FY3:

- Improve CFM for sustainable forest management: 40,000 ha

- Improve forest management practices (saw-log plantation): 40,000 ha (including 2,000 ha certified) - O4

FY4

- Improve forest management practices (saw-log plantation): 40,000 ha (including 3,000 ha certified) - O4


FY5

- Improve forest management practices (saw-log plantation): 40,000 ha (including 4,000 certified) - O4


Indicator 9: CBLD-9 Percentage of USG assisted organizations with improved performance

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 LOP

Total target (no disaggregation) N/A 60% 75% 80% 90% 90%

Target Note

Target estimate based on indicator 2


Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 LOP

Total target (Objective 2 only) 0 5 10 15 5 35


Male-Led Enterprise 4 8 11 3 26

Female-Led Enterprise 1 2 4 2 9

Target Note

O2. Conservation Friendly Enterprises: 35 enterprises will be supported

Indicator 11: EG.10-4.8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine

areas as secure with USG assistance


Total target (Objective 1 only) - 500 3,000 N/A 6,000 6,000


Male 300 1,800 3,600 3,600

Female 200 1,200 2,400 2,400

Target Note

O1. Community Forest Management: target 7,500 households for land tenure activities. Target 500 households

perceived land right as secure in FY2 and 80% of 7,500 perceived land right as secure in the FY5.


30

ANNEX III: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

Indicator: EG.13-1 Number of people trained in sustainable landscapes supported by USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? Yes, for Reporting Year(s) 2021 - 2025

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Economic Growth (EG) 13: Sustainable Landscapes

DESCRIPTION

Sustainable landscapes programming slows, halts, or reverses greenhouse gas emissions from land use, including

forests and agricultural ecosystems.

Training is defined as a learning activity involving: 1) a setting intended for teaching or transferring knowledge,

skills, or approaches; 2) a formally designated instructor or lead person; and 3) a defined curriculum, learning

objectives, or outcomes.

Training can include long-term academic degree programs, short- or long-term non-degree technical courses in

academic or in other settings, seminars, workshops, conferences, on-the-job learning experiences, observational

study tours, distance learning, or similar activities as long as it includes the three elements above.

Coaching and mentoring, meetings, or other efforts that could have educational value but which do not have a

defined curriculum or objectives are generally not considered to be training unless they meet the three

definitional standards for training identified above.

The Project will provide following training topics but not limited to:

- Community forest management model approach such as land use planning, forest land allocation, benefit

sharing, forest zoning, community forest management plans, forest monitoring, financial mechanism;

- Value chain development, processing, trading, and branding

- Sustainable plantation of timber

- Law enforcement

- GESI, communication for forest management

PFES and C-PFES Only people who complete the training course are counted for this indicator. People who

attend multiple, non-duplicative trainings may be counted once for each training they complete in the reporting

period.

This indicator focuses on delivery of training that was made possible through full or partial funding from the USG.

This may include the provision of funds to pay instructors or lead persons, providing hosting facilities, or other

key contributions necessary to ensure the delivery of the training. This indicator does not include courses for

which the USG only helped to develop the curriculum. USG staff and implementers should not be included in the

calculation of people trained.

USAID ADS standards require that participants attend a minimum of 90% of total course hours to be considered

as completing a course. Participants will sign an attendant sheet each day of the training. If a participant leaves the

training earlier than scheduled, the moderator will note down the number of hours the participant attended the

training on the sign-in sheet for that day.

When to report: participants are counted, verified and reported in the quarterly report based on the last date

of a training. If a training ended at the end of a quarter, and the train documents have not yet been sent to MEL

team for verification before the deadline of reporting to USAID, the training data will be reported in the following

quarterly report.

Indicator Type: Output

Unit of Measure: People


31

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Disaggregated by: Gender (Male, Female, Other), Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Training can contribute to strengthening capacity and

promoting strategic partnerships. Training also aids in sustainability as it often aims to improve the likelihood that

development partners will continue to implement relevant interventions after USG support has ended.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: The Project will be responsible for collecting the data required for this indicator, including data

collection, administration, data processing, and reporting. The data source for this indicator for each training

event will be all of the following items:

1. Sign-in sheets;

2. Training objectives and training agenda;

3. Training materials;

4. Summary sheet showing training objectives, materials, and name of instructor/ training leader.

Method of data collection and construction: Performance monitoring data will be collected using participant

training forms for all participants in all program-funded training events. The indicator is calculated as the number

of people completing each scheduled training event or session. Where appropriate, this definition of completing

will be standardized across all project activities, but it will be determined in advance of the training activity (i.e.,

not retroactively based on observed results) in every case. All participants whose activities meet the established

criteria will count as participating.

The Project will use the following method to avoid double counting of participants attending the same trainings:

- For trainings with multiple modules conducted discontinuously for the same people on the same subject,

participants will only be entered in the database when the training modules are completed to ensure that

no double count occurs.

- For refresh trainings for the same group of people, first, training subject, training materials, and target

trainees are examined to determine if the training is a “refresh” or a new training. The attendant lists of

the two trainings will be compared (name, address, and phone number) to remove duplication. Only

new participants of the training will be counted for that reporting period.

Participant training data will be entered into USAID TEAMS and DIS in accordance with USAID directives from

Washington and from the Vietnam Mission.

Individual(s) responsible: Technical Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: February 24, 2021


32


Indicator: EG.13-2 Number of institutions with improved capacity to address sustainable landscapes issues as

supported by USG assistance.



DESCRIPTION



This indicator measures increased capacity of institutions rather than individual capacity. Capacity is defined in

terms of how well an organization functions, carries out its mandate, prepares and implements plans and strategies,

provides services, achieves goals, and is able to sustain its operations over the long term.

Institutions with improved (i.e. better, additional or greater) capacity to assess or address sustainable landscapes

issues are institutions that have new or increased ability to use approaches, processes, strategies, or methodologies

for sustainable forest management.

Relevant institutions, in the context of this project may include the whole or relevant department of:

- Governmental entities (ministries, departments, agencies, and centers at national, provincial, and district

levels) such as Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Vietnam Forest Fund

(VNFF), Forest Projection and Development Fund (FPDF), Forest Protection Department (FPD),

Agriculture Extension Centers (AEC), etc.

- Social political organizations/agencies (the Farmers Union, the Women’s Union, and Youth Union)

- Private-sector entities such as (cooperatives, collective groups, enterprises)

- Village management boards

Indications of increased institutional capacity to engage with sustainable landscapes include, but are not limited to:

- Appling community forest management models

- Improving access to market, applying market-based value chain approach

- Improving institutional management for better operation of business strategy

- Improving business plans

- Applying new techniques on using user-friendly hand-held devices for collecting data and information on

forest administrative violations and crimes data

- Adopting new law enforcement practices for detection, investigation and handling of forestry violations

and crimes

- Adopting new PFES monitoring and evaluation system

- Adopting Carbon PFES policy for mobilizing resources for forest management

- Applying GESI guideline to ensure gender equality and social inclusion (e.g. ethnic minorities, people with

disability) in the institution activities

An institution can be reported as having its capacity improved in multiple years if it achieves meaningful

improvement in each of the years it is reported. However, each institution should only be reported once per fiscal

year.

When to report: an institution is counted on a rolling basis and report annually based on the reviewed date in

the performance review report.

Indicator Type: Outcome

Unit of Measure: Institution

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Disaggregated by: National government, sub-national government, other; Objectives


33

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): This indicator will measure the extent to which the

program has improved the capacity of local partners to undertake activities. The Project relies on local government

agencies, social organizations, and the private sector to participate in the program; indeed, it is these institutions

that will continue to support the communities to practice sustainable forest management thus reducing carbon

emissions in the future.


Data Source: For each institution, the following will be utilized as data sources:

1. Institutional improvement capacity plan (agreement or MOU) with agreed-upon milestones certified by

the target institution

2. The institution performance review report

3. Evidence of the milestone reached such as drafted/ approved/ adopted policies, plans, tools, models,

approaches and guidelines.

Method of data collection and construction: Once an institution is identified, where possible/appropriate,

the Project will develop a MOU or other agreement with institutions to outline means of cooperation or a plan

to improve capacity of the institution.

The capacity improvement progress will be divided into ladder stages, each stage will mark a milestone

achievement. The milestone achievement will be clearly defined in the plan with the target institution. The

milestone should be verifiable through evidence.

An institution will be counted as having improved capacity based on a collaborative performance review

undertaken with the institution, measured against agreed-upon milestones in the plan and the institution’s needs.

Progress will be documented through this review process, and the institution will only be counted as having

“improved capacity” if at least one major capacity area reached the milestones in the plan

Performance reviews will be updated for institutions that have already been counted as “improved capacity” and

the institution may be counted more than once during the LOP if they continue to make demonstrated progress

in their improvement plan.

Note:

In Vietnam, an institution may have its branches/chapters/representatives at different levels of the administrative

management system. In this case, the documented agreements between the Project and that institution

(regardless of administrative level of that institution) will be treated as evidence for identification of an institution.

For example, a provincial Forest Protection Department and District Forest Protection Department of the same

province could be treated as two different institutions if their roles in the program are different and documented

agreements between them and the Project are separated. Relevant institutions, in the context of Vietnam and the

nature of the Project collaboration with local partners, might include the whole department or relevant sub-

departments of an institution. For example, a particular unit in Forest Protection Department could be treated as

an institution if the Project only has an agreement with that Unit.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Changes in capacity may occur beyond the Project’s influence.



34


Indicator: EG.13-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or standards addressing sustainable landscapes formally

proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported by USG assistance



DESCRIPTION



Laws, policies, plans, strategies, regulations, or standards considered under this indicator are measures developed

to address sustainable landscapes and/or low emission development issues.

Policies, plans, strategies, regulations, or standards such as those related to forestry sector development, , payment

for ecosystem services, law enforcement practices, improved logging regulations, community forest management,

improved agricultural practices, promotion of partnership with conservation friendly enterprise, certification of

FSC, GESI action plans, or other relevant sustainable landscapes measures may be reported under this indicator.

Nationally significant measures may include sector-specific or provincial plans, strategies, policies, standards which,

if successfully implemented, could have a significant impact on sustainable forest management. The Project will also

mainstream GESI into policies where applicable to promote equal opportunity for women, ethnic minorities and

people with disability in the forestry sector.

“Formally proposed” means that a relevant government official or agency, organization, or non-governmental entity

with decision-making authority has proposed the measure, according to established procedures, preferably publicly

when this is appropriate to the given context. One example of a non-governmental entity could be a standard-

setting body for a profession or industry (e.g., an association that sets certification standards for sustainable timber

harvesting). The policy has been formally proposed or drafted by the agency or authority responsible; draft language

is under review; or comments have been solicited. The deliverable might be a draft resolution, a request for

comments, a decree, government circular, or directive to prepare a policy, or the complete-but-not-yet-approved

policy.

“Adopted” means officially codified or enacted by a government, organization, or non-governmental entity with

decision-making authority in its respective legal, regulatory, policy, or non-governmental system. The policy has

been formally signed by the appropriate authorities. It is a binding law of the GVN or a more local authority, or a

guiding policy of a ministry or agency as appropriate. The deliverable should be the precise language as it appears

in local law or the appropriate ordinances.

“Implemented” means that a measure is in force or being executed in the intended geographic locations and at the

intended administrative levels. The policy has been made binding and clear, concrete, credible steps have been taken

to ensure implementation. If the policy step involves creating a committee or office, that office should be staffed

and working.

“Updated or Reviewed” means that an existing policy that has been considerably revised, reviewed, or updated as

a result of project assistance should be officially approved or agreed to by GVN authorities.

If a measure is not yet adopted, it must at least be formally proposed within an official process to be reported.

Each measure may be counted once as “proposed,” once as “adopted,” and once as “implemented,” if appropriate,

within the same reporting period or across multiple reporting periods. The indicator summary sheet will include

an explanation of when each measure is being reported.

When to report: a measure is counted based on the submission date (for formally proposed) or signed date (for

adopted, updated or reviewed). If the submission or signed dates occurs at the end of a fiscal year, and the

supporting documents have not yet been sent to the MEL team for verification before the deadline to report to

USAID, the measure will be reported in the following annual report.

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): This indicator will specifically address the extent to which

governments and communities take action to address climate-change adaptation and mitigation issues, and to


35

address natural resource management/biodiversity conservation through the development of a legislative

framework and policy measures. Measuring it will allow USAID to assess the Projects’ success in influencing public

policymakers to take action to address climate change, as well as providing stakeholders with specific and accessible

information on the types of legislative and policy measures that have been implemented to address the challenge.


Unit of Measure: Measure


Disaggregated by: level: national, sub-national government; stage: proposed, adopted, implemented, Objectives;

GESI mainstreaming, Non-GESI


Data Source: For each measure, the following will be utilized as data sources:

1. Summary sheet of the Project’s intervention and report (if available);

2. Memos, minutes, or other communication with government agencies regarding the intervention to the

measure.

3. Official laws, policies, plans, strategies, regulations, or standards

4. Evidence of official measure proposal, adoption, and implementation such as submission letter, approval

documents, implementation report (where appropriate)

Method of data collection and construction: Data will be collected by the Project staff and implementing

partners. The data may include policy memos, minutes of policy committee meetings, official decrees, published

laws and regulations, draft strategy plans, signed agreements, and advocacy groups’ reports and communications.

This information may be supplemented by field visits if necessary and appropriate. The Project will use the

milestone tracking approach to assess and report on the status of the policy, plan, or strategy at significant steps

in the development, adoption, and implementation process.

Individual(s) responsible: Environmental Governance Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: the policy approval and adaptation progress may be influenced by political and

economic condition that is beyond the Project’s control



36


Indicator: EG.13-4 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for sustainable landscapes as supported by USG

assistance



DESCRIPTION



This indicator includes funds mobilized (or leveraged), enabled by USG assistance, for actions, activities, projects

or programs that avoid, reduce, or sequester GHGs from sustainable landscapes activities.

Funds may be mobilized from the public sector (e.g. other governments or public multilateral entities) or private

sector, including local community contribution (e.g. corporate investments, in natural and plantation forest areas,

cooperative investments) and should help advance the objectives established by the USG-supported program.

USG funding should not be counted under this indicator.

Mobilized funds reported under this indicator should be disaggregated as domestic or international. Domestic

finance is investment which originated within the country in which it is implemented (e.g. national government

funds to support implementation of a project within that country) and international finance is cross-border

finance (e.g. a private company based in one country contributing funds for a project in a different country).

Funds can be mobilized through a variety of instruments and vehicles, including common funding instruments,

parallel investments, or in-kind support such as human capital, natural capital, and materials. Examples of the

types of U.S. assistance that could mobilize finance include: investments made possible by financial interventions,

by policy interventions and technical assistance interventions such as:

- Engagement of ODA, loans and grant (or in-kind support) for technical assistance

- Engagement of private sector in value chain development, for products from natural forests and

plantation forests

- Facilitation of Government fund for socio-economic development, sustainable forest management, and

value chain development.

- Regulatory policy support for the creation or implementation of land-use planning, land tenure right

policies;

- Political, regulatory, or credit risk insurance and guarantees

- Regulatory policy support for the creation, implementation, or expansion of payment for environmental

services (PFES);

When to report: the funds are counted as mobilized when all the supporting documents stated in the

methodology section are collected and verified by the MEL team. The funds will be counted based on the

released date on letter, report, agreement, contract, etc. For the PFES activity, report of the fund mobilization is

only available in March of the following year, the fund will be counted in the year when the report is released. If

the fund mobilization occurs at the end of a fiscal year, and the supporting documents have not yet sent to the

MEL team for verification before the deadline of reporting to USAID, that fund will be reported in the following

annual report.


Unit of Measure: USD


Disaggregated by: Public-Domestic, Private-Domestic, Public-International, Private-International; Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): The mobilization of additional financial resources can

help catalyze resources needed for transformational change and contribute to long-term sustainability and

progress toward mitigation goals.



37

Data Source: The following will be utilized as data sources:

1. A summary sheet of the Project support describing how the Project facilitated the mobilization of

reported resources and include information such as: methodology used to assess mobilization, source of

funds, the financial instrument, and use of funds.

2. Depending on the fund sources, the documents could include letter, report, financial report, audit

report, MOU, partnership agreement, contract from partners when applicable (see more detail in the

method of data collection below)

3. Communication between the Project and partners for example emails, meeting note, (when available)

Method of data collection and construction: The value of funds mobilized from all sources will be

calculated in U.S. dollars, and the additional funds contributions will be reported annually. Documentation should

include a rationale for how the Project support has facilitated the mobilization of additional resources and include

information such as: source of funds by project/ activity name, type of project/ activity, and use of funds. The

Project will also file relevant policy decrees or agreements that result from the Project’s work.

The data collection methods are different between the funding sources as follows:

- Funds mobilized from GVN: an official report, decision or policy decree signed and stamped clearly

showing the amount of funds from GVN allocated for the activity should be collected. Funds will be

counted based on the time stated in the document or based on the date of document signed. With the

funding for forestry activities under GVN policy, the value of funds is counted when the support fund is

approved by the local government authority.

- Funds mobilized from donors: the Project will collect official letter from the donors or agency receiving

funds, or agreements/ contracts between funders and recipients clearly showing the amount of funds

granted for proposed activities. Funds will be counted based on the time state in the letter, agreements/

contract or based on the date written in the document.

- PFES funds: the Project will collect reports from provincial FPDFs or VNFF showing the total funds

collected annually. Given other report of the fund mobilization is only available in March of the following

year, funds will be counted in the year when the report is released.

- Funds mobilized from private sector including community/ individual: private sector may contribute in

different value forms such as direct funding, human capital, property, and materials. All the non-monetary

contribution will be monetarized to calculate the total contribution from each enterprise.

o If the contribution is in financial form, the value is counted when one of the following documents is

obtained:

1) A financial audit report/;

2) Investment plan with budget approved by government authority

3) MOU or Partnership Agreement between the enterprise and the Project with detail budget

plan for verifiable output milestones and a verified report from the Project staff on the

achieved outputs from the plan.

o If the contribution is property or materials, the value is counted when the property or materials are

transferred to the activity owner entity and an inventory report obtained. The value of the property

and materials will be calculated using the latest government price index.

o If the contribution is human capital, the value is counted when labor tasks are completed and

verified by the Project staff. The tasks must be clearly defined in the action plan agreed between the

Project and the enterprise. The Project will use the cost-norm in the Prime Minister’s Decision 38 –

2016 for calculation of the contributed value from number of working days and labor cost for each

activity.

-

Individual(s) responsible: Technical Directors

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: When it is not possible to access to the actual disbursement documents under the

Project context, the value of fund in the contract or agreement will be used for reporting. This value could be

different with the actual disbursement value.



38


Indicator: EG.13-5 Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non-monetary) associated

with the implementation of USG sustainable landscapes activities



DESCRIPTION



The implementation of sustainable landscapes strategies, programs or actions Carbon PFES policy, community

forest management (CFM), value chain development generates a range of benefits for stakeholders.

This indicator identifies the number of people in countries where sustainable landscapes activities are

implemented who have received livelihood co-benefits associated with these activities. People included in the

metric should be part of populations or households identified by a project with a documented relationship to the

project. Beneficiaries should be reasonably assumed to have received a documented benefit or service enabled

by USG assistance.

Beneficiaries may include, but are not limited to: members of a household with an increased income from PFES,

CFM, and value chain development or a newly secured land title, children attending a school renovated with PFES

or other fund sources supported by the Project, or members of a cooperative who have increased sales due to

increased market access.

Examples of monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: receiving additional income due to

government policies related to sustainable forest management such as PFES, C-PFES, CFM, and value chain

development that enhance achievement of climate change mitigation results.

Examples of non-monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: access to programs, services, or

education; infrastructure development; access to markets; preferential investment or finance terms; land titling or

registration; increased access to environmental services; newly defined rights or authorities; protection of

traditional livelihoods and customary rights; environmental and other benefits from avoided deforestation and

degradation, improved afforestation, or increased productivity from climate smart agricultural practices.

There are two types of benefits supported by the Project, direct benefits and indirect benefits:

- Direct beneficiaries are people from households who receive benefit from activities supported by the

Project such as involvement in community forest management model, land tenure, value chain

development for accessing market, or nursery development support. These beneficiaries are the direct

target beneficiaries of the Project field activities.

- Indirect beneficiaries are people in the households who benefit from the implementation of the

government policies supported by the Project (i.e. PFES households who benefit from the

implementation of a national C-PFES policy, FCPF or FEDD+ supported by the Project).

Individuals receiving benefits from more than one sustainable landscape activity, or receiving multiple benefits

from a single activity, should be counted once per fiscal year and they should be counted again in each fiscal year

if they receive additional benefits the next year.

When to report: the beneficiaries are counted based on the date they receive benefits. For the PFES receivers,

if the list of the receiver is not available, the report from VNFF will be used instead. In this case, the report is

only available in March of the following year, therefore the number of beneficiaries will be counted in the year

when the report is released. If the benefits occur at the end of a fiscal year, and the supporting documents have

not yet been sent to the MEL team for verification before the deadline of reporting to USAID, the beneficiaries

will be reported in the following annual report.


Unit of Measure: People



39

Disaggregated by: Male, Female, Direct, Indirect, Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): The realization of benefits, whether monetary or non-

monetary, from lower emissions land use strategies will create incentives to maintain and scale up these

strategies. The realization of benefits is a key component in sustaining results. This indicator is used to track the

benefits accruing to people because of the implementation of sustainable landscapes strategies and supports the

mitigation strategic objective of the Global Climate Change Initiative


Data Source:

1. PFES payment reports from VNFF and provincial forest protection and development funds (FPDFs)

related to the Project support such as Carbon PFES

2. List of households applying CFM models

3. List of households receiving direct support from the Project for value chain development

4. List of households in the cooperatives have increased sales due to increased market access.

5. Demographic data from GSO (for calculation of average people per households and gender data in the

SFM’s intervention locations)

6. Payment reports, land tenure right reports, and other related activity reports (where applicable)

Method of data collection and construction: Number of people receiving benefits will be calculated based

on the list of households receiving support in value chain development, market access, CFM models, or red book.

Average number of people per households and gender data will be obtained from General Statistical Office

(GSO) in all communes receiving benefits and used to extrapolate the number of individual beneficiaries receiving

benefits. In cases where documentation may be available at the individual beneficiary level, those reports shall be

used as documentation.

For indirect beneficiaries, because the policies supported by the Project may indirectly benefit large numbers of

people in the provinces receiving Carbon PFES payments, this category will use secondary data from provincial

PFDFs, VNFF, and GSO. To calculate the number of people benefiting indirectly from the program, three types of

data will be collected:

- Number of households receiving Carbon PFES payments as a result of the Project supported policies

- Average number of people per household in all provinces receiving Carbon PFES payment

- Proportion of male and female in all provinces receiving Carbon PFES payment

This data will be used to estimate number of people benefiting from the policies and activities supported by the

Project.

In areas with more than one activity benefiting people in the community, each person should only be counted

once per year, the list of beneficiaries will be compared (name, national ID, address, and phone number) to avoid

double counting.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Currently VNFF and provincial FPDFs only have data of the number of households

receiving PFES payments. In these cases, data of the number of individuals benefiting from Carbon PFES policies

may not be available. While number of provinces implementing Carbon PFES policies could be large, doing a

survey of beneficiaries will be expensive and inefficient. Therefore, the number of beneficiaries will be calculated

based on average number of people per households (from General Statistical Office data) and number of

households receiving benefits from the policies (from VNFF report). This will result in a reasonable estimate of

the beneficiaries but not an exact figure. However, in this context, this is the best estimation and the most

efficient methodology.



40


Indicator: EG.13-6 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2 equivalent, reduced,

sequestered, or avoided through sustainable landscapes activities supported by USG assistance



DESCRIPTION



This indicator reports the estimated quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in metric tons of CO2-

equivalent, reduced, sequestered, or avoided supported in full or in part by USG assistance, as compared to a

baseline level of GHG emissions. The baseline is the “business-as-usual” reference for GHG emissions that

would have occurred during the reporting period if there had been no USG intervention.

This indicator is a calculated estimate, and often not the result of direct emissions measurements. This indicator

applies to estimated GHG emissions reductions from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O)

and other global warming pollutants. Relevant sectors for projects that may report on this indicator include, but

are not limited to, climate change, natural resource management, agriculture, biodiversity, energy, industry, urban,

and transport.

This indicator applies to estimated emissions reduced, sequestered, or avoided, for the specified reporting

period. This can include both emissions reductions from activities implemented during the reporting period as

well as activities which were implemented during a previous reporting period but are still achieving ongoing

reductions in GHG emissions. Implementers are encouraged to include these continuing results by estimating

tons of CO2e avoided during the current reporting period. Regarding land use-related emissions reductions or

increased sequestration, if a U.S. government supported project continues to conserve the same hectares of land

as in a previous reporting period, those hectares should be included in the calculations for the current reporting

period to determine the emissions reductions of the project.


Unit of Measure: Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)


Disaggregated by: Geographic Location [Province]

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Reducing, sequestering, or avoiding GHG emissions will

slow the rate of climate change and reduce climate change impacts. Reducing GHG emissions can also have

strong ancillary benefits for air and water pollution, energy security, health, and gender issues.


Data Source:

1. Input data from the Indicator 8


41

Method of data collection and construction:

USAID has developed the Agriculture, Forest, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Carbon Calculator using standard

methodologies CO2 emissions reduction or sequestration in the Project will be estimated using the USAID’s

carbon calculator (http://www.afolucarbon.org/), based on the defined intervention area and other necessary data

collected from GVN records, or global imaging data.

Emissions will be calculated based on implementation of sustainable forest management-related activities or

policies, such as Carbon PFES, law enforcement, community forest management, and certification of FSC.

Emissions will be calculated using the USAID AFOLU Calculator based on hectares of forest under the policy or

implementation of the practices in each location.

The assumptions that are entered into the model take into account GVN and other site-specific data. Where

appropriate, the Project will override the default settings in the AFOLU calculator to reflect more accurate

information.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Indicator is an estimate using the AFOLU calculator based on available data. Where

improved data is available, the Project will work within the AFOLU calculator to update the estimation

parameters.



42


Indicator 7: EG.13-7 Projected greenhouse gas emissions reduced or avoided from adopted laws, policies,

regulations, or technologies related to sustainable landscapes as supported by USG assistance



DESCRIPTION



This indicator measures the cumulative projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced, avoided and/or

sequestered, over a period of 15 years, in metric tons of CO2-equivalent, from the time the policy took effect or

action was taken. The measure, technology, or action may be supported in full or in part by USG assistance. It is

acceptable to calculate the projected emissions reductions from a combination of adopted policies and/or actions

to which USG assistance contributed.

Relevant technologies include any sustainable landscapes related product, process, or infrastructure supported by

USG assistance that is installed or adopted which can reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

This indicator is applicable to all types of sustainable landscapes policies and actions, including, but not limited to,

forestry sector development, payment for ecosystem services, law enforcement practices, improved logging

regulations, community forest management, improved agricultural practices, promotion of partnership with

conservation friendly enterprise, certification of FSC, or implementation of sustainable landscapes activities that

result in emission reductions.

The Project will report on this indicator only once per adopted policy or action. Reporting may occur in the year

the policy was adopted, or the year the action was taken or implemented.

Results will be divided into three disaggregates: emissions reduced or avoided from the time action was taken or

the policy took effect through year 5, from year 6 to year 10, and from year 11 to year 15. The sum of the three

should be the total projected reduction in or avoided emissions.


Unit of Measure: Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)


Disaggregated by:

- Years 1 to 5

- Years 6 to 10

- Years 11 to 15

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Reducing, sequestering, or avoiding GHG emissions will

slow the rate of climate change and reduce climate change impacts. Reducing GHG emissions can also have

strong ancillary benefits for air and water pollution, energy security, health, and gender issues. This indicator is

used to inform programming and for reporting on the scope of projected impact of programs in sustainable

landscapes.


Data Source: The Project will use input policies from Indicator 3 for calculation of projected emission reduction

using AFOLU Calculator (see section below for more detail about the Calculator).

Method of data collection and construction:

USAID has developed the Agriculture, Forest, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Carbon Calculator using standard

methodologies. Projection of CO2 emissions reduction or sequestration in the Project will be estimated using the

USAID’s carbon calculator (http://www.afolucarbon.org/), based on the defined area affected by the policies,

actions or technologies. The area could be pre-defined in the policies or using other necessary data collected

from GVN records, or global imaging data.


43

Projected emissions will be calculated based on implementation of sustainable forest management-related policies,

actions or technologies, from the time the policy took effect or action was taken. If multiple policies/ actions

adopted in the same year and cover the same forest areas, those policies/ action will be combined. The project

will calculate projected emission reduction from the areas only once and the policy that has highest effective

factor will be used for calculation. If a policy/ action adopted cover the same forest areas that area already

calculated the projected emission reduction from previous year, the Project will only report the top-up projected

emission reduction (if any) from the new policies.

The assumptions that are entered into the model take into account GVN and other site-specific data. Where

appropriate, the Project will override the default settings in the AFOLU calculator to reflect more accurate

information.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Indicator is an estimate using the AFOLU calculator based on available data. Where

improved data is available, the Project will work within the AFOLU calculator to update the estimation

parameters.



44


Indicator 8: EG-13-8 Number of hectares under improved management expected to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions as a result of USG assistance



DESCRIPTION



Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), can be reduced,

avoided, or sequestered as a result of improved management practices, including: protection, restoration, and

management.

For hectares included under this indicator, the improved management approaches applied must be reasonably

expected to result in emission reductions.

‘Improved management’ includes protection, restoration, and management activities that reduce emissions while

promoting enhanced management of natural resources for one or more objectives, such as mitigating climate

change, conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem services, strengthening sustainable use of natural

resources, and/or promoting community participation. An area is considered to be under improved management

practices when, at least partially as a result of USG support, additional areas have been conserved or restored, or

additional emissions reductions are expected be achieved due to changes in management planning,

implementation of management plans or policies, or application of data to management decisions and

enforcement actions.

Hectares reported may include sustained improvements in previously reported hectares and/or new, additional

hectares. The same hectares should only be reported once per year per implementing mechanism.

‘Protection’ includes improved management activities that prevent the loss of native ecosystems. Examples of

protection include: reducing conversion of natural forests to agricultural lands or to plantation forest; preventing

or mitigating forest fires; halting or slowing illegal mining or logging; preventing the loss of biodiversity and native

ecosystems; and supporting the enforcement of designated forest areas.

‘Restoration’ includes improved management activities that expand the spatial extent of native cover types,

including forest and non-forest ecosystems, to areas from where they had previously been lost or degraded as a

result of human activity. Examples of restoration include: planting native trees in degraded forested areas;

peatland restoration; and rehabilitating mangroves or watersheds for improved ecosystem services.

‘Management’ includes improved management activities that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or

enhance carbon sinks on working or managed lands through improved management practices. Examples of

management include: planting fruit, wood-fuel, and/or timber trees for economic development; alternate wetting

and drying of rice; improved forestry, agroforestry and silvopastoral systems; nutrient management; and improved

grazing practices.

In the Project, activities lead to ‘improve management’ may include but not limited to:

- Implementation/ adaptation of policies such as forestry sector development, land use planning, land

allocation, PFES for carbon sequestration, community forest management, law enforcement practices for

detection, investigation and handling of forestry crimes, promotion of partnership with conservation

friendly enterprise,

- Application of law enforcement equipment or skills, knowledge from trainings by local authorities that

result in slowing illegal logging or preventing the loss of biodiversity and native ecosystems.

- Supporting the enforcement of designated forest areas through capacity building

- Reducing conversion of natural forest through value chain development, sustainable plantation practices,

community sustainable forest management models, land allocation, etc.



45

Unit of Measure: Area (hectare)


Disaggregated by:

- The type of intervention: Protection, Restoration, or Management; and

- The intervention land type: Forest or Non-Forest.

- Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Improved land management is essential for reducing

emissions from the land use sector. A spatial indicator is useful for determining the scale and potential impact of

sustainable landscapes interventions.


Data Source:

- Official documents from GVN such as forest inventory report, red book, GVN GIS map associated with

project areas

- GIS maps produced by the Project through remote sensing or field survey using GIS for calculating the

intervention area.

- CFM management plans, information forms and other supporting documents

Method of data collection:

Interventions that may result in improved management will be identified through the planning process. Detailed

interventions and implementation of plans will be developed with relevant partners and technical staff which will

define critical milestones that result in improved management. An information form will be provided for technical

staff to describe the theory of change behind how the intervention is expected to lead to improved management

and emissions reductions and what support from the project leads to improved management.

When the milestones are reached, the MEL team will review the information form and all other supporting

documents.

The total number of hectares will be obtained through secondary data through official government data sources,

which could include forest inventory data or updated GIS maps. If secondary data is not available, remote sensing

or field survey using GPS will be applied to obtain data. The CFM management plans which define total number

of hectares included in the plan to improve forestry management will also be considered supporting

documentation.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Actions that lead to improved management may take years to materialize. Data for

this indicator may not be available until three to five years into the Project, depending on the specific actions or

measure.



46


Indicator 9: CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance


If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: CBLD: Capacity Building

DESCRIPTION

This indicator measures whether USG-funded capacity development efforts have led to improved organizational

performance in organizations receiving organizational capacity development support.

Key concepts: Capacity is the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs

successfully. Capacity development is the process of unleashing, strengthening and maintaining such capacity.

Capacity is a form of potential; it is not visible until it is used. Therefore, performance is the key consideration in

determining whether capacity has changed. Organizations with improved performance will have undergone a

deliberate process undertaken to improve execution of organizational mandates to deliver results for the

stakeholders it seeks to serve.

Indicator Formula: This indicator should only be used when conditions (a) and (b), as described below, are met.

Targets should be set, and results should be reported using this formula for the overall indicator and each of the

disaggregates:

- Numerator = number of organizations with improved performance

- Denominator = number of USG-assisted organizations receiving organizational capacity development

support

Targets for both the numerator and denominator should be set for the aggregate; they do not need to be set for

the disaggregates. Results should be reported for both numerator and denominator for the aggregate and

disaggregate types.

Denominator calculations for the process of organizational capacity development:

Organizations should only be counted in the denominator if they have undergone an intentional and demand-

driven performance improvement process detailed in points (a) and (b) below.

i. The activity theory of change, award documents, work plan, or other relevant documentation reflects that

resources (human, financial, and/or other) were allocated for organizational capacity development.

ii. An organization demonstrates that it has undergone and documented a process of performance

improvement, including the following four steps:

- Obtaining input from the supported organization and/or any other relevant stakeholders to define

desired performance improvement priorities,

- Analyzing and assessing performance gaps (the difference between desired performance and actual

performance),

- Developing performance improvement plan and

- Using a performance improvement plan for which the organization will monitor and measure changes in

performance.

Each organization will only be counted once in the denominator at the beginning of the Project. At the beginning

of a fiscal year, after reviewing the performance improvement plan, if an old or new organization is in the plan for

supporting, it will be counted in the denominator, if the Project stops supporting an organization, that

organization should be taken out of the denominator.

Numerator calculations for organizational performance improvement: Organizations should only be

counted in the numerator if they are eligible to be counted in the denominator and have additionally

demonstrated measurable improved performance. In addition to meeting conditions (a) and (b) above,

organizations must meet the following condition:

iii. An organization demonstrates that its performance on a key performance activity in the plan has improved.

The organization counted in the numerator must be one of the organizations in the denominator and is assessed

as having improved performance.


47


Unit of Measure: % Organization


Disaggregated by: Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): USAID is reorienting its strategies, partnership models,

and program practices to achieve greater development outcomes and strive toward a future where foreign

assistance is no longer necessary. The approach, outlined in the Agency’s Policy Framework, emphasizes the

concept of “self-reliance”—defined as the capacity and commitment of a country to plan, finance, and implement

solutions to solve its own development challenges in an effective, inclusive, and accountable way. The Policy

Framework states that “self-reliance of communities and organizations within a country underpin countrywide

self-reliance.”

Capacity development also is a key component of USAID’s Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy and

Effective Partnering and Procurement Reform (EPPR) recommendations. The A&A Strategy states that “USAID

will shift from viewing successful local capacity building as an organization’s ability to receive and manage federal

funding directly to measuring success by the strengthened performance of local actors and local systems in

achieving and sustaining demonstrable results.”


Data Source: The same as indicator EG-13.2: For each institution, the following will be utilized as data sources:

1. Institutional improvement capacity plan (agreement or MOU) with agreed-upon milestones certified by

the target institution

2. The institution performance review report

Evidence of the milestone reached such as drafted/ approved/ adopted policies, plans, tools, models, approaches

and guidelines.

Method of data collection: The same as indicator EG-13.2.

Once an organization is identified, the Project will develop a MOU or other agreement with institutions to

outline means of cooperation or a plan to improve capacity of the organization.

The capacity improvement progress will be divided into ladder stages, each stage will mark a milestone

achievement. The milestone achievement will be clearly defined in the plan with the target organization. The

milestone should be verifiable through evidence.

An organization will be counted as having improved performance based on a collaborative performance review

undertaken with the organization, measured against agreed-upon milestones in the plan and the need’s needs.

Progress will be documented through this review process, and the organization will only be counted as having

“improved performance” if at least one major performance area reached the milestones in the plan

For the organizations that have already been counted as “improved performance” in the previous year, if they

continue to make demonstrated progress in their improvement plan, it will be counted again in the numerator in

the reporting year.


DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Changes in capacity may occur beyond the Project’s influence.



48



Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No (custom indicator)

DESCRIPTION

Enterprises are defined for this indicator as any entity engaged in production, processing, or trade in natural

resources. Enterprises can be an organized group of farmers, an informal business, a registered business, or a

multinational company that operates on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. Individuals collecting fuelwood or

other natural resource products solely for home consumption are not considered enterprises. Natural resource

enterprises can operate at multiple levels, whether locally, nationally, regionally, or globally.

A conservation friendly enterprise (CFE) is a formal or informal undertaking that generates income for one or

more people, usually based on natural resources with the purpose of achieving conservation and/or sustainable

resources management outcomes. While the primary benefit of a CFE for the participants in the enterprise is

income generation, there can be other benefits as well, both material and non-material.

This indicator includes CFEs (as defined above) receiving assistance, including business development services,

directly or through a USG-supported value chain or supply chain for USAID program purposes.

CFEs qualifications include at least one of the actions below but is not limited to the following:

- They are formed or upgraded with the support from the Project to generate income for their

participants

- They are supported by the Project to improve governance and bussiness development skills,

organizational development and management capacity, monitoring and evaluation capacity. - They have increase access to finance and markets

- Benefit sharing mechanism is established, and participant benefits increased as a result of the Project’s

support

When to report: a CFE is counted as supported when the enterprise reached a milestone of actions in the plan

and the information is verified by MEL team. The date for counting will be based on the date in the tracking

sheets and verification report.


Unit of Measure: Enterprise


Disaggregated by: Objectives; Female-Led Enterprise, Male-Led Enterprise

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

Supporting enterprises development within communities who live near forest is an essential activity for improving

livelihood conditions and supporting sustainable forest management practices. This indicator will allow the Project

to measure progress on livelihood development for the target communities who are practicing community forest

management.


Data Source:

- Information form detailing project assistance to the enterprise

- Business plan / enterprise development plan

- Progress tracking sheet

- Operation certificate (as appropriate)

- Signed contracts with suppliers for the commodities that supported by the Project (as appropriate)

- Sale report (as appropriate)

Method of data collection: Once an enterprise is identified, where possible/appropriate, the Project will

develop a MOU or other agreement with the enterprise to outline means of cooperation or a plan to support for

value chain development, operation or product promotion.

Appropriate documents as listed in the data sources section will be collected. The MEL Team will collect and

verify data on milestones reached and supporting documentation.

Individual(s) responsible: DCOP


49

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations:



50


Indicator 11: EG.10-4.8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure

with USG assistance


If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Economic Growth (EG) 10: Securing Land Tenure and

Property Rights for Stability and Prosperity (EG 10.4)

DESCRIPTION

This indicator measures the number of adults participating in a USG-funded activity designed to strengthen land

or marine tenure rights who perceive their tenure rights as secure.

Tenure refers to how people have access to land or marine areas, what they can do with the resources, and how

long they have access to said resource. Tenure systems can range from individual property rights to collective

rights, whether legally recognized or informal. What is included in the bundle of rights within each system varies.

This indicator is designed to capture adults who perceive their tenure as secure only in the reporting year. Adults

who perceived their tenure as secure before the intervention constitute the baseline. After the intervention has

begun individuals that continue to perceive their tenure as secure, or individuals that newly perceive their tenure

as secure, should be counted. This also means that yearly totals cannot be summed to count the total number of

individuals that perceive their tenure as secure over the life of the project.

Total number of adults who perceive their rights to land as secure if:

1) an individual believes that he/she will not involuntarily lose their use or ownership rights to land or marine

areas due to actions by others (e.g. governments or other individuals), and

2) the landholder reports a right to bequeath the land. The reported right to bequeath is particularly

important for gender equity, as women's ability to influence intergenerational land transfers is an important

aspect of female empowerment.


Unit of Measure: Adult


Disaggregated by: Male, Female; Land Tenure Type: Household, Community/Group, Leasehold, Cooperatives,

State; Objectives

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Secure tenure, as measured by formalization, contributes

to USG development objectives in several ways. Secure tenure promotes vibrant markets primarily by

incentivizing productivity-enhancing and resilient investments and facilitating credit access where other enabling

conditions are present. Where property rights are ill defined or cannot be enforced at minimal cost, farmers,

fishers, small business owners, and others who seek to invest productively must spend scarce resources

defending their land and/or resources, whether by building fences or defending court cases, thus diverting

valuable resources from investments that enhance productivity, such as soil and water conservation. Secure rights

to land and resources also allow for land and resources to be transferred at low cost through rentals and/or

sales, which allows the most productive land users to acquire additional land while enabling those who wish to

pursue other income strategies to transfer the value of their assets to other sectors. Where fiscal systems are

established, transparent, and equitable, land and resource governance can also have a positive impact on domestic

resource mobilization. Moreover, where financial markets are accessible, secure tenure can also enable rights

holders to access credit towards additional investments and act as an insurance substitute in case of shocks.

Measuring formalization, through legally recognized documentation, is complementary to tenure security

perception. Tenure may be perceived as secure, although rights are not formally documented. Alternatively,

tenure may be perceived as insecure even when there is a high degree of formal documentation. Both measures

are needed in order to measure project performance and track progress in achieving development objectives.


Data Source:

Survey of participants


51

Method of data collection:

Before the Project intervention, a baseline survey will be conducted to capture perceptions of adults who will be

the beneficiaries of the Project. Surveys will be conducted annually with the same target population to measure

the number of adults with perceived land rights as secure. Both those who perceived their tenure as secure

before the intervention or in the previous year and perceived their tenure as secure again, or individuals that

newly perceive their tenure as secure will be counted.

For consistency of the data, the survey will be conducted with married couples,

Individual(s) responsible: Community Forest Management Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Known Data Limitations: Given the time and expense involved in the collection of tenure security

perception data, this data may not be available on an annual basis, perception could be influenced by culture,

norm, and Government Law which is beyond the Project’s interventions. Further, it takes a long time to change

perceptions.


Documents

USAID SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT