GEF-6 GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW FOR FULL-SIZED/MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS THE GEF/LDCF/SCCF TRUST FUND. PIF Review

Transcription

1 GEF-6 GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW FOR FULL-SIZED/MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS THE GEF/LDCF/SCCF TRUST FUND GEF ID: 9600 Country/Region: Indonesia Project Title: Strengthening of Social Forestry in Indonesia GEF Agency: World Bank GEF Agency Project ID: Type of Trust Fund: GEF Trust Fund GEF Focal Area (s): Multi Focal Area GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s): BD-4 Program 9; LD-2 Program 3; SFM-1; SFM-2; Anticipated Financing PPG: $225,450 Project Grant: $14,317,909 Co-financing: $95,113,572 Total Project Cost: $109,431,481 PIF Approval: Council Approval/Expected: November 01, 2017 CEO Endorsement/Approval Expected Project Start Date: Program Manager: Paul Hartman Agency Contact Person: Project Consistency 1. Is the project aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework? 1 Not sufficient. Further information on the alignment with specific GEF-6 Focal Area programs are required. Please also identify project linkage with relevant Aichi Targets. Not sufficiently addressed. Tables A & E identify a number of focal areas and GEF results to which the project will contribute. A stronger September 5, 2017 Thank you. Relevant Aichi Targets have been indicated in the revised document. Noted. The project would contribute to the GoI's Social Forestry Program which identifies degraded forest lands and transfers the use rights for those lands to communities with the specific objective of supporting land restoration, improving forest management and conserving and 1 For BD projects: has the project explicitly articulated which Aichi Target(s) the project will help achieve and are SMART indicators identified, that will be used to track the project s contribution toward achieving the Aichi Target(s)? GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 1

2 rationale and more robust justifications are required to demonstrate contribution to BD, LD & SFM objectives and programs. Further, reflecting on the GEF Council decision under GEF/C.51/04 on the Update on the GEF-6 Resource Availability, the PM suggests adjustment in the budget request under the FAs: The $3m STAR under Climate Change FA (GEF grant + PPG) to be moved under Biodiversity FA with a stronger BD4-Program 9 linkage and benefit. It is also not clear how the project will contribute to BD 1 program 1 as indicated in Table A and highlighted as an outcome in program component 4 of Table B. The Agency should clarify or consider removing this objective. Please revise and make the information consistent between the table and the text. Please explicitly articulated which Aichi Target(s) the project will help achieve and identify SMART indicators that will be used to track the project's contribution toward achieving the Aichi Target(s) rehabilitating biodiversity consistent with the management plans developed through an inclusive and consultative process. The development of those management plans will be guided by sustainable forest management principles, forest restoration to address land degradation and generation of biodiversity benefits. The GEF financing will be targeted to areas recognized for high biodiversity values, including within e.g. recognized biodiversity hotspots or known to support threatened endemic species such Sumatra tigers and rhinos, orangutan, asiatic elephants, etc. Consistent with GEF Council approved policies and the use of GEF Agency project cycle, the details and the location of project intervention sites will be confirmed during project preparation and presented in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). The project is expected to contribute to the objectives of LD and SFM focal areas as the Social Forestry program objective is to convert the degraded forest lands into higher quality natural forest land through assisted natural regeneration, reforestation, and conservation for existing forest areas. Thank you. We have removed the BD 1 program 1 objective and revised the documents accordingly. The project contributes to Aichi Targets 1, GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 3

3 2. Is the project consistent with the recipient country s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions? BD 1 program 1 has been removed. Aichi targets have been identified. The contribution of the project to BD 4 program 9 has been clarified through the inclusion of a set of criteria that include global biodiversity value and the preliminary list of sites meeting the criteria and containing important biodiversity values. Cleared Not sufficient. Please clarify linkage with NBSAP, NAP, NC of the relevant Conventions. Linkage with key national policies are recognized. Not sufficient. Please clarify linkage with NBSAP, and NAP. The linkage to NBSAP and IBSAP have been identified, as has the project's contribution to Indonesia's CBD, LDN, and INDC commitments. Cleared 7, 15 and 18. The Project's Results Framework will have SMART indicators to measure project objectives including Aichi Targets. The Results Framework will be developed during project preparation and presented in the PAD. September 5, 2017 Noted. The project contributes to Indonesia's 2nd NBSAP dated 2004 which is 12 years old. However, Indonesia recently launched it updated IBSAP. The project would contribute to IBSAP and the design will incorporate its objectives. The project is also consistent with the National Report to the CBD dated 2015( 05-en.pdf). The report notes that social forestry is an important GoI program to address land degradation, strengthen biodiversity conservation, adaptation to climate change as well as mitigation objectives. Both the need to reduce deforestation, land degradation and biodiversity losses as well as to strengthen rehabilitation through mainstreaming GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 4

4 programs such as social forestry is recognized. Indonesia's National Action Plan for 2002 lists the following objectives. Three program areas of Chapter 12 of the Agenda 21 relevant to Indonesia are: 1. (B). Combating land degradation through, inter alia, intensified soil conservation, afforestation and reforestation activities; 2. (E). Developing drought preparedness and drought relief schemes; and 3. (F). Encouraging and promoting local community participation and environmental education, focusing on management effects of drought. Furthermore, page 20 of the National Action Plan lists social forestry as an activity under piloting as early as 2002 as a means to improve livelihoods and the environment issues confronting Indonesia. indonesia-eng2002.pdf The 2015 GoI supported Indonesia Land Degradation Neutrality report also notes that Indonesia's program for addressing land degradation includes the following which is consistent with the proposed project: i) Promotion on site forest management through forest management unit, divided into 3 categories namely conservation, production, and protection GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 5

5 forest management unit; ii) Public support and participation is critical for applying and implementing methods of prevention and rehabilitation control; and iii) Developing a partnership with local institutions and community and nongovernment organizations for an effective implementation of land degradation control. One of the most important national policy references to social forestry is to be found in Indonesia's Nationally Determined Contribution as follows: Project Design 3. Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers 2 of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? Drivers - Sufficiently described. Sustainability - Further information required on institutional and financial sustainabilities of the initiative. Scaling - Please further clarify and provide necessary information. Innovation - Further clarify. Not sufficient. - what are the innovative aspects of this project? - what is the project strategy for September 5, 2017 The project is anchored to the GoI's Social Forestry Program which is included within the GoI's five-year plan as one of the key priorities of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF). That plan calls for MoEF to transfer 12.7m ha of degraded forest land to communities and to support them in managing those lands for sustainable forestry outcomes. Detailed institutional and economic/financial analysis will be carried out as part of project preparation, including assessment of institutional and financial sustainability. 2 Need not apply to LDCF/SCCF projects. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 6

6 sustainability? - what is the approach to scaling up the project interventions? Please address accordingly. In the comments and response matrix the Implementing Agency has provided sufficient response to questions related to innovation, sustainability and scaling for clearance to be provided. We ask that these points be included in the body of the PAD when that is submitted. Cleared The incremental GEF financing will complement the GoI's Social Forestry Program. It will also complement the World Bank supported activities under the Sustainable Landscape Program including One Map project, FIP, DGM project and REDD+ (see more information in section 4 below). The incremental GEF financing will pilot activities in 300,000 ha of forest lands while enhancing the effectiveness and delivery of the broader Social Forestry Program. The lessons learned along with enhanced capacity of Social Forestry Program under the project will enable the DG Social Forestry to scale up its activities beyond the current target under the project, eventually improving outcomes toward the 12.7m ha target of the overall Social Forestry program. The project has a strong synergy with the national base-mapping exercise and forest boundary definition under the One Map initiative which collects information on the location and boundary of forests in priority biodiversity-rich and fire-prone areas. Given that effective implementation of the GoI's Social Forestry program requires accurate and agreed information on the boundaries and locations of degraded forests, as well as improved procedures to expedite transfer of those lands to communities, strong linkages GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 8

7 between the project and One Map program enable the GoI to significantly advance their Social Forestry objectives. For example, the project would go beyond mapping to provision of use rights, tools and resources for communities to develop and implement management plans to sustainably mange the land to increase forest cover and generate environmental services including biodiversity, climate mitigation and land degradation. Therefore, the innovation is inherent in the integration of this project with the Bank's overall engagement in the Sustainable Landscape Program especially with One Map project, FIP, DGM and REDD+. See above. See above re. Sustainability. Further sustainability is created by transferring the land to communities, providing the initial required support for this process and the fact that a Gov't Ministry also supports this process. See above re. scaling up potential. 300,000 ha is already a sizable project area GoI is committed to a target of 12.7 million ha of land. This project will strengthen gov't to achieve results at scale which can be replicated elsewhere once the how to knowledge and systems for GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 9

8 4. Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning? Incremental reasoning: Further information is required on baseline, gaps, and GEF alternative scenario. Project takes a landscape approach, then proposes social forestry as a solution. It is rather unclear why social forestry is the solution/answer to the current threats on fire and haze, and why it is the preferred approach among other potential approaches. Please clarify. Not sufficient. Please address above comments. The reasoning must be strengthened to better understand the incremental of the GEF financing. Social Forestry activities appear to be on-going as part of the baseline scenario in which 12.7 million ha of degraded forest land will be redistributed for community use and management. It is unclear how the 500,000 ha that is targeted for transfer for community management through the project provides additional value to the existing scenario. The incremental reasoning of the doing this at scale have been developed. September 5, 2017 The project is a core part of the World Bank's Sustainable Landscapes Program, which supports the GoI's efforts to reduce deforestation and land degradation. Specifically, the project is one of three pillars contributing to the GoI's fire and haze program as outlined in President Widodo's commitments at COP 21, namely through roll-out of the One Map Policy which aims to define the forest estate boundary, thereby reducing one of the major drivers of fires and forest conversion. Landscape approaches entail the implementation of the sustainable land management approaches including land use, land tenure and governance to achieve national development objectives. Therefore, social forestry is one of the options which can be used to addresses these issues in the appropriate context. Under business as usual scenario, one map and social forestry would be rolled out without consideration of the global biodiversity issues at hand, how to address these issues in the context land degradation or the mitigation options associated with reforestation and land restoration. Incremental GEF resources will be used to address these global environment issues. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

9 5. Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs? project is now better understood. GEF financing will improve the information base to strengthen decision-making, develop methodologies to facilitate transfer of appropriate degraded lands, and build capacity of local government and communities to execute such transfers. Furthermore, it will provide technical assistance for forest management and related livelihood activities so as to promote poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Cleared Not sufficient. Table B requires further details, including measurable global environmental benefits and targets on biodiversity, climate change mitigation (including tco2e), land degradation, and SFM. Please also complete table F. Targeted project sites need to be clarified, particularly to determine biodiversity benefit. It needs to be within the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in Indonesia. As described above, the GEF financing would contribute to the GoI's Social Forestry Program as well as the Sustainable Landscape Program including several ongoing World Bank support projects that directly lead to sustainable forest management by communities in high biodiversity areas, but on degraded, areas. Given that one of the core limitations of the Social Forestry program is the identification and transfer of lands for such purposes, and that One Map is the GoI's priority effort to improve land administration and boundary demarcation, through support to this project. GEF resources would directly contribute to resolution of this core bottleneck to achievement of the revised project target of 300,000 ha as well as the broader Social Forestry outcome targets. September 5, 2017 Noted. The details will be available after the preparatory studies expected to be financed under PPG, and presented in PAD. Noted. As explained above, the incremental GEF financing will be provided in communities which will be selected based on an agreed set of criteria. The criteria will include among others biodiversity considerations. Furthermore, the use of the Key Biodiversity process GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

10 Not sufficient. Please address the above comments. In particular, component on strengthening social forestry requires improved detail as the outcomes related to this component are broad and fairly generic. 1) In line with earlier comment by the GEFSEC (refer above), information is required on how community management areas that are the focus of the project will be specifically targeted to fall within globally important biodiversity landscapes. We note that not all of the target provinces identified as possible target areas contain globally significant forest or biodiversity. 2) Further detail is required on each of the social forestry schemes that will be implemented, including requirements for how lands will be used, protected and managed in accordance with the policy requirements of each scheme in order to ensure that these are not further degrading important landscapes. For example, community plantation forest isn't by itself a land management and listing of the related areas could be a useful tool for helping to inform interventions specifically financed under biodiversity focal area. However, the design of landscape approaches which are usually multi-focal in character and which may involve land restoration requires a series of factors to be considered once a project receives Council approval and project preparation proceeds. Once the project is approved by Council, the Bank will work with GoI to identify alignment with key biodiversity areas and areas for restoration which will be broadly described in the PAD. Done. See above. The Social Forestry scheme include: Community forestry (hutan kemasyarakatan - hkm), Village forestry (hutan desa - hd), Community forest plantations (hutan tanaman rakyat - htr), Customary forests (hutan adat ha), Community forestry on private land (hutan rakyat hr) and Forestry partnership (kemitraan kehutanan - kemitraan). The concept document has been updated, and additional details will be provided in PAD. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

11 approach that supports biodiversity conservation. How will the project ensure that this and the other identified schemes achieve benefits for GEBs. Please provide clarify and provide additional information. 6. Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 1) Criteria have been established for site selection that will help to clarify their biodiversity benefit. 2)The incremental benefit of the GEF financing has been more clearly detailed. Cleared Indigenous Peoples - Appropriate and strong involvement of forest dependent peoples will be an important element of the project. Further information is required on the socio economic situation of the population as well as relevant approaches/plans to ensure close involvement of these important stakeholders. Gender - Further information is required on how the project will promote women's empowerment and address gender issues. CSOs - there are many CSOs September 5, 2017 We fully agree that free, prior and informed consultation and engagement of adat and other forest-dependent communities are critical elements of the project design and implementation. Project preparation will include social assessment of potential areas to understand the specific characteristics of those populations (through socio economic, cultural and gender lenses) and to ensure that project design incorporates elements to best respond to the specific development needs of those communities. The Bank will apply it gender policies. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

12 involved in social forestry issues in Indonesia. Please clarify their potential roles and involvement in project. Not sufficient. All information lacking. Please adequately address above comments. It has been clarified that GEF financing will catalyze and help enhance the capacity and delivery of the GoI Social Forestry Program, including ensuring that marginalized community members such as women and/or women-headed households, receive benefits not only on access to land use rights but also on livelihood and enterprise development activities that are compatible with conservation objectives. Land allocation will consider gender issues including approach to ownership as will training opportunities. The GoI confirms that CSOs will be a critical part of the Social Forestry implementation. Indeed project implementation is expected to rely significantly on CSOs for elements such as outreach, community engagement, capacity building and TA provision. Availability of Resources 7. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources Please ensure that results of the socio economic, cultural and gender assessment of target populations that was referenced in the PID, and which will be undertaken during the PPG, are incorporated into the PAD and project design. Cleared GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

13 available from (mark all that apply): The STAR allocation? Yes, identified project finance is within the STAR allocation and in line with the earlier discussion: BD 10m, LD 2m, CC 3m, SFM 5.14m. Cofinance is low at this point. Please clarify that the project is blended with Bank loan to ensure appropriate scale and results. As noted above under section 1, please revise focal area grant amounts, while the total project grant can remain the same. Revise requests to BD, LD, and SFM, and delete CC. Focal area grant amounts and total project financing have been revised and are reflective of the LoE from the Indonesia OFP. Cleared The focal area allocation? Refer above. The LDCF under the principle of na equitable access The SCCF (Adaptation or na Technology Transfer)? Focal area set-aside? SFM September 5, 2017 While the project is part of the Sustainable Landscape Program and has strong linkages with Bank supported activities including One Map project, FIP, DGM and REDD+, a significant cofinancing for the project is provided by the GoI. The Bank team managing the Sustainable Landscape Program will also be managing this project. However, as requested by the GoI, the project is being processed as "stand-alone" to ensure the preparation and implementation would be fully aligned with the GoI's Social Forestry Program. Done. Noted. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

14 Please also note that the demand for SFM resources exceed the funding available, and will need to be rechecked at work program stage. 8. Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified? Cleared No, please address all above comments and resubmit a revised PCN document with GEF datasheet. Recommendations Review Date No, previous comments were not sufficiently addressed. Please address all above comments and resubmit a revised PCN document with GEF datasheet. Yes, the agency has addressed all remaining comments and the project is recommended for clearance. Review August 29, 2016 Additional Review (as necessary) December 12, 2016 Additional Review (as necessary) GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January

15 CEO endorsement Review Review Criteria Questions Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement Response to Secretariat comments Project Design and Financing 1. If there are any changes from that presented in the PIF, have justifications been provided? 2. Is the project structure/ design appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs? 3. Is the financing adequate and does the project demonstrate a cost-effective approach to meet the project objective? 4. Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk response measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience) 5. Is co-financing confirmed and evidence provided? 6. Are relevant tracking tools completed? 7. Only for Non-Grant Instrument: Has a reflow calendar been presented? 8. Is the project coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region? 9. Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets? GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 4

16 CEO endorsement Review Review Criteria Questions Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement Response to Secretariat comments Agency Responses Recommendation Review Date 10. Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan? 11. Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF 3 stage from: GEFSEC STAP GEF Council Convention Secretariat 12. Is CEO endorsement recommended? Review Additional Review (as necessary) Additional Review (as necessary) 3 If it is a child project under a program, assess if the components of the child project align with the program criteria set for selection of child projects. GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015 4