ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY
Small Grants Programme by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (BMZ-No. 2011 66545)
SGP Indonesia First Call for Proposals:
Collaborative management planning exercise to further define priorities and align stakeholder interests in Gunung Leuser National Park and Way Kambas National Park.
Output: a collaborative management and associated financial plan.
8/15/2017
i
Table of Contents
1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SGP Objectives and principal Thematic / Intervention Areas .......................................................... 2
3. Project area (Eligible protected areas / AHPs) ................................................................................. 2
4. Conservation Issues / Challenges ..................................................................................................... 3
5. ACB-SGP interventions and opportunities in Indonesian AHPs ....................................................... 4
6. Eligible Proponents ........................................................................................................................... 5
7. Interventions under this Call ............................................................................................................ 5
8. General Types of projects eligible for funding ................................................................................. 6
9. Amount allocated for funding of collaborative management planning ........................................... 7
10. The maximum and minimum grant amount and management costs .......................................... 7
11. Project implementation period and expenditure eligibility period ............................................. 7
12. Project grant rate ......................................................................................................................... 7
13. Eligible expenditure, co-financing and contribution in-kind ........................................................ 7
14. Project selection criteria to be observed during planning ........................................................... 8
15. Grant Proposal Review and Assessment ...................................................................................... 8
16. Payment system ........................................................................................................................... 9
17. Partnership projects ..................................................................................................................... 9
18. Time, place and manner for submitting applications .................................................................. 9
19. Language of the application form .............................................................................................. 10
20. List of annexes to the application required ................................................................................ 10
21. Documents for download / attached ......................................................................................... 10
22. Communications and additional information concerns ............................................................. 10
1
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CALL FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME
UNDER THE GERMAN FINANCIAL COOPERATION WITH THE ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY
FOR THE PROGRAMME BMZ 2011 66545
“ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME”
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry
(MOEF) of Indonesia, hereby announces the first call for proposals for the Small Grants Programme for
Indonesia under a technical competition procedure for the funding of projects through a Medium Grant
for the amount of EUR 100,0001 and duration of up to 4 months.
In this round, a total of one (1) Grant is available for a collaborative management planning exercise in
Gunung Leuser National Park and Way Kambas National Park. The grant aims to further define priorities
and align stakeholder interests and resources. The planned output / deliverable is a collaborative
management and associated financial plan.
Deadline for submissions: 12:00 (JKT Time), 30 SEPTEMBER 2017
1. Background
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity has received assistance of German Financial Cooperation to support,
through a Small Grants Programme (SGP), the efforts of the ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP) to protect the
biological diversity and improve livelihoods in and around (adjacent areas) their core zone. Indonesia
and Myanmar were selected as the initial countries to pilot the SGP.
In order to have a visible impact and with regard to efficiency considerations, KfW and ACB decided to
focus the SGP’s initial phase on selected AHPs in the two countries of Myanmar and Indonesia. It is
understood that this does not preclude other countries to be considered for possible further phases.
The SGP aims to support a collaborative management, or co-management, approach for government-
managed protected area landscapes and adjacent areas through multi-level co-management as a means
to link the protected area officials with the local stakeholders. This approach highlights eight thematic
fields of protected area management; introduces the concept of establishing protected area working
groups; and a jointly developed, collaborative PA Management Plan, linking the core zone and the
buffer zone agendas, comprising key landscape stakeholders.
It is important that applicants familiarise themselves with the SGP, its approaches and Grant Making
process, which is summarised in the Programme Management Manual (PMM). The PMM is available in
the English language on http://xxx.xxx.xxx2.
11 The amount for the call for proposals is expressed in EUR, financial proposals shall be made in EUR, using the average
monthly exchange rate published in the Official Journal of the European Union (in the C series), calculated for the last 6 months,
where EUR 1 = <national currency>) 2 The website for the Small Grants Programme is still under development. The PMM will be provided upon request from the
contacts indicated in this document.
2
2. SGP Objectives and principal Thematic / Intervention Areas
The Small Grants Programme is intended for funding projects which contribute to the achievement of
the following objectives:
a. To improve biodiversity protection in line with the interests of the local population directly
dependent on selected AHPs and adjacent areas;
b. To improve the livelihood of local communities directly dependent on selected AHPs or adjacent
areas
In Indonesia, the SGP pursues three specific objectives, namely:
Specific Objective 1 Sustainable livelihoods:
Households and communities located in the priority areas benefit directly from the small grants
programme, with improvements to their livelihoods
Specific Objective 2 Biodiversity Conservation:
Biodiversity threats to the two ASEAN Heritage Parks are reduced.
Specific Objective 3 Co-management strengthened:
Political and social support is increased for the integrity of AHPs and their values by District
officials, government agencies and local stakeholders.
In order to address identified threats and contributing to programme and specific objectives, the SGP
supports interventions (Outputs) for the following thematic areas:
1. General protected area management (co-management)
2. Research and monitoring:
3. Law enforcement:
4. Habitat and species management
5. Community outreach and conservation awareness
6. Community Development (livelihood development)
7. (Eco)Tourism
8. Sector Policy Development
3. Project area (Eligible protected areas / AHPs)
Two ASEAN Heritage Parks in Indonesia have been pre-selected for grant funding under the SGP: (a)
Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) and (b) Way Kambas National Park (WKNP), both located in
Sumatra. Further, adjacent areas and identified buffer-zones to the parks are considered eligible. During
the first mission to both parks, and in agreement with the Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation
(KKH), the following areas have been identified as priority:
In WKNP, the programme focuses on two villages, specifically Braja Harjosari, and the Rantau
Jaya Udik II in Lampung Timur (east) District, because these are the conservation villages’ model
in Way Kambas. These areas are also linked priorities for the Activities Performance Indicators
(API) for the park. It is also recommended to support activities in Section I of Way Kanan and
Section II of Kuala Penat.
In GLNP the SGP focuses on Area III of the park because it provides a microcosm of all the issues
faced by the park, and includes all the flagship species and areas.
An expected outcome of the collaborative planning process in both AHPs is the confirmation of priority
areas to be supported.
3
4. Conservation Issues / Challenges
The attached Concept Note on Collaborative Management Planning provides more details on the
Conservation Issues / Challenges.
In August 2016, the relevant stressors/threats for both parks were discussed, validated, and agreed
upon (see Table 1 below) and management planning was added as an additional conservation issue.
Both GLNP and WKNP have management plans that are of a good quality and the inclusion of this
stressor recognises that the plans now need to be further developed to include the very progressive and
positive multiplicity of stakeholder interests that is a defining feature of both NPs.
Table 1 Stressors
Both WKNP and GLNP face a number of very pressing challenges that are summarised below:
Integration into the local administration and economic activity: integrating the NPs at the local
level is cross-cutting. It effects many aspects of the parks management from encroachment
through law enforcement to managing sustainable use activities. For instance, sustainable use
options such as ecotourism, which might offer mechanisms to link conservation management
with local economic livelihood development are proving hard to regulate effectively due to
institutional and agency separation of responsibilities (e.g. tourist guides in GLNP are licensed by
the District and not the NP making it hard to enforce rules and regulations).
Financing: both WKNP and GLNP face considerable financing gaps in their budgets. The
progressive approach to NGO participation is very positive but this is not integrated into a
cohesive financial plan for the purposes of planning. Weaknesses in local participatory planning
are a barrier to sharing costs in the buffer zones and there are very limited opportunities for
revenue raising (non-tax revenues) within the protected areas.
Land conversion in the buffer zone: both parks face considerable challenges due to the
conversion of habitat outside the national park, with a likely associated loss of ecosystem goods
and services and increased vulnerability to future shocks (e.g. climate change, edge effect, etc.)
is worrying. Economy and ecosystem are probably more resilient if they are diverse. However,
there has been a steady decline in the areas of semi-natural or natural forest around both parks
in favor of intensive cash crop and plantation farming that is both structurally and genetically
homogenous. The long-term impact on both protected areas is an uncertainty. However, a
possible precautionary approach is to intervene in land use in the immediate areas or buffer
zones around the NPs, and try to reverse the trend of land conversion from one of high diversity
to one of little diversity to support the NPs aims and objectives.
Limitations on sustainable use opportunities restrict the options for developing sustainable use
systems at the community level and will require innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. payment
for ecosystem services) which, while possible, are very challenging to establish.
STRESSORS
AHP
trad
itio
nal
agr
icul
ture
smal
l -fa
rmer
ori
ente
d ag
ricu
lture
trad
itio
nal
live
stoc
k
her
din
g an
d g
razi
ng
expl
oita
tion
of w
ildlif
e an
d
fore
st p
rod
ucts
wild
life-
hum
an c
onf
lict
inva
sive
exo
tic s
peci
eso
ver
/ des
tru
ctiv
e fi
shin
gsm
all-s
cale
log
gin
g /
fuel
woo
d ex
trac
tion
mar
ket-
ori
ente
d lo
ggin
g
fire
ind
ustr
ial m
inin
g /
geo
ther
mal
pol
luti
on
loca
l min
ing
bou
ndar
y co
nflic
ts &
lan
d
clai
ms,
enc
roac
hmen
tro
ad /
infr
astr
uctu
re
con
stru
ctio
nse
ttle
men
ts /
encl
aves
recr
atio
nal
/ to
uri
stic
use
man
agem
ent
unit'
s ca
paci
tym
anag
emen
t pl
ann
ing
Gunung Leusser FS 2012
TRA August 2016
Way Kambas TRA 2016
4
Species loss due to illegal activity: illegal activity inside the parks is driving species loss, in
particular of a number of flagship species. This highlights some of the complexity of the
challenges. It is most likely that increased financing would resolve the law enforcement issues
inside the boundaries of the NPs. However, there is a pressing need to integrate law
enforcement interventions with external agencies such as the police and judiciary in order to
provide a more measured response to criminal activity and gain support from the police and
courts.
Focus on flagship species: there is a clear focus on a small number of charismatic flagship
species (e.g. tigers, rhinos, elephants and orang-utans). However, both WKNP and GLNP are
globally important hotspots for biodiversity and it is important that the focus of management is
broadened out to clearly recognise their global significance in this respect. For instance, both
NPs are recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and important centres for plant diversity.
While there is no doubting the importance of these two parks for their flagship species and the
efforts and investments thus far, a more holistic approach is critical for a conservation approach,
for expanding the opportunities of financing and as a means to expand conservation land
management outside of the national park boundaries (large charismatic flagship species are
difficult to manage outside of protected areas).
5. ACB-SGP interventions and opportunities in Indonesian AHPs
The attached Concept Note on Collaborative Management Planning provides more details on the ACB-
SGP interventions and opportunities in the AHPs..
Given the issues outlined above, challenges to linking land management for conservation with
sustainable livelihoods and resulting habitat conversion in the buffer zones, barriers to greater
integration into the local administration, non-financial challenges to law enforcement and finance to the
NPs per se, the small grants will be targeted at activities which enhance local participation, strengthen
law enforcement, and link habitat management to benefits.
Due to the high level of existing NGO support and the limits of NP influence on land use issues affecting
change in the buffer zone or areas immediately adjacent to the NPs, it is important that the precise
nature of these activities is determined and fine-tuned through the collaborative planning exercise.
Therefore, the ACB, based upon the objectives of the existing PA management plans, the understanding
of the existing investment priorities, and the findings and assumptions outlined in previous sections,
recommends that in order to achieve the greatest impact the SGP shall prioritize on four thematic areas:
• General park management - a collaborative management planning exercise in order to further
define priorities and align stakeholder interests. While the output of this will be a collaborative
management plan and associated financial plan this will be an important process to effect an
adaptive and systemic change in the park management.
• Law enforcement - support will be given to establishing and increasing SMART patrolling in both
protected areas. This will be further supported by inter-agency collaboration, awareness and
capacity building with external law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.
• Habitat and species management - this will involve rehabilitation of degraded areas inside the
parks but concentrating mainly on areas outside the parks with a view to increasing the diversity
of habitats outside the parks and the areas of semi-natural habitat in order to reverse the trend
in land conversion to intensive monocultures, and also targeting specific species such as white-
winged wood duck and Storm’s stork which are dependent upon vulnerable wetlands and may
expand their available range. Attention should be given to activities which might provide wild
5
resources currently illegally collected inside the park an opportunity to be produced and
harvested in rehabilitated areas. Careful thought should be given to any removal of non-
productive oil palm. In such cases preference should be given to the innovative use of
experimental management techniques which look at the use of oil palm as nursery trees with a
phased removal over the project period to avoid catastrophic shocks to soils and any existing
biodiversity.
Community development - community-based habitat restoration in the buffer zone and areas
immediately outside the NP will seek to catalyze additional resources from national
programmes in order to restore important habitats for community use, and to protected
important ecosystem services through community forestry approaches and the restoration of
wetland functions. Support to livelihood development based upon habitat restoration and
sustainable use of biodiversity will then focus on enhancing the buffer zone and areas
immediately outside the NP and will involve support to community-based enterprises and
enterprises based in the local communities in order to build capacity, strengthen the
communities’ internal governance and ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits
from activities such as eco-tourism development. A defining principle of this approach will be to
link benefits with wise management of biodiversity and ensure that costs incurred by the park
are also accounted for by the enterprises and other agencies.
There will be cross-cutting elements addressing the remaining four thematic areas such as:
• Wildlife research and monitoring (where it applies to impact monitoring of identifying a species
protection needs, etc.);
• Community outreach and conservation awareness (where it applies to the specific
interventions);
• Ecotourism (where it provides a clear linkage between biodiversity conservation and community
development, for example as a motivation), and;
• Sector policy development (where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream
experience and lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable
development).
6. Eligible Proponents
• National non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which (i) support biodiversity conservation,
livelihood and community development related to AHPs and adjacent areas, (ii) operate on a
non-profit basis, i.e. those whose activity is not meant to generate profit or which allocate profit
for their statutory goals, (iii) registered in Indonesia with either MoEF or the respective eligible
AHP and active for at least 18 months prior to the announcement date of the call for proposals.
• International NGOs working in the field of biodiversity conservation and livelihood development
which are officially registered in Indonesia or have signed MoUs with the respective
governmental authorities for the implementation of proposed activities in the relevant areas.
7. Interventions under this Call
ACB and KKH invite eligible proponents to submit a proposal for the eligible AHPs under the following
thematic area:
6
Intervention Priorities Eligible for Funding under this Call
Way Kambas National Park Gunung Leuser National Park
1. General park
management
A collaborative management planning
exercise in order to further define
priorities and align stakeholder
interests. The output of this will be a
collaborative management plan and
associated financial plan.
This will be an important process to
effect an adaptive and systemic change
in the park management. Details for the
establishment of a 5Y Protected Area
Management Plan are as per attached
Concept Note
A collaborative management planning
exercise in order to further define
priorities and align stakeholder
interests. The output of this will be a
collaborative management plan and
associated financial plan.
This will be an important process to
effect an adaptive and systemic change
in the park management. Details for the
establishment of a 5Y Protected Area
Management Plan are as per attached
Concept Note
Information on examples of measures that may be implemented under the Small Grant Programme is
included in the Programme Management Manual.
8. General Types of projects eligible for funding
Eligible Activities and Investments address both biodiversity and livelihood aspects in the two AHPs and
adjacent areas in Indonesia. They include, inter alia, activities for conservation management, small
equipment and investments for park and wildlife management, planning exercises and processes for
stakeholder participation, livelihood alternatives and improvements as well as small, localized studies,
awareness campaigns and conservation training.
It would not be acceptable to try circumventing the AHP authorities in the planning or implementation
process. Projects are only eligible for funding if:
(i) related to or based on AHP Management Plans, objectives and priorities therein.
(ii) Developed in cooperation with and explicitly approved by the AHP-Warden. Proponents need
to consider that Park Wardens should take ownership of the activities in the long-term, which
in turn will enhance policy formation by the conservation agency at the national level.
In line with these main thematic priorities, the following table introduces examples for eligible activities
and investments.
Thematic area for grant
items
Suggested AHP
counterparts3
Examples of specific activities and investments
General park
management
Senior AHP staff Facilitation of processes/capacities for encouraging
stakeholder participation
Travel for meetings and information exchanges
Participatory management planning
Zoning
PES (including REDD)
Study tours (in-country)
3Please note that in sites with low AHP staffing levels, some sections may be less clearly defined
7
Activities and investments that cannot be funded under the SGP comprise, among others, large park
infrastructure (roads, large buildings), introduction of non-native species into protected areas, weapons
and ammunition, displacement or re-settlement of people and communities, travel costs which are not
directly part of a project, conference travel, regular staff salaries and recurrent costs.
9. Amount allocated for funding of collaborative management planning
The collaborative management planning activity in the two AHPs under this call shall be supported with
the total amount of EUR 100,000, calculated at EUR 50,000 (fifty-thousand Euros) to be provided per
AHP. A detailed financial / cost proposal and breakdown per AHP is expected as part of the proposal.
The amount made available in the call for proposals comes from funds of the German Financial
Cooperation with the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity KfW Ref.: BMZ 2011 66545.
10. The maximum and minimum grant amount and management costs
The amounts indicated in the budget are given in EUR. The minimum amount of funding under the Small
Grants Programme is EUR 5,000, equivalent to Indonesia Rupiahs (IDR) 78,000,0004, while the maximum
amount of funding is EUR 150,000, equivalent to IDR 2,346 mil. Project management costs cannot
exceed 10% of the total eligible costs of the project.
11. Project implementation period and expenditure eligibility period
The duration of SGP projects is categorised by its grant-volume. For this call, based the availability of
already existing PA Management Plans for GLNP and WKNP, the grant period is shortened with consent
of ACB, PIA, and AHP Management to a period of four (4) months.
12. Project grant rate
The maximum project grant rate may not exceed 80% of eligible costs. The applicant is committed to
provide own contribution amounting to at least 20% of eligible costs of the project, of which one half
can be in-kind ( e.g. voluntary work), and the other half should be in cash.
13. Eligible expenditure, co-financing and contribution in-kind
Expenditure is considered eligible according to general rules, in line with Chapter 7 of the Programme
Management Manual (PMM). Cost of new or second-hand equipment is eligible under the project.
ACB's methodology for calculating indirect costs is based on the Indirect Cost Policy by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation.
Detailed conditions for the settlement of direct costs shall be specified by ACB as the Grant Authority in
the project contract/agreement.
The Project Grantee provides project co-financing in the form of cash or kind. In case of projects
implemented by NGOs, in-kind contribution in the form of voluntary work may constitute up to 50% of
the co-financing required for the project. Own contribution within the remaining scope is submitted in
the form of cash.
Where in-kind contribution is provided to the project in the form of unpaid voluntary work, the value of
that work is calculated by the applicant considering:
the amount of time worked voluntarily for the project without payment, expressed as the
number of hours, and
the standard hourly and daily rate for a given type of work provided.
4 As per 01 August 2017 and http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm
8
14. Project selection criteria to be observed during planning
As a rule, preference will be given to projects that are the closest fit to the SGP and demonstrates a
leading role for local civil society organizations.
Priority will be given to grant projects which meet the following criteria:
• Demonstrate a direct and clear relationship between the grant project and the overall
programme goal;
• Clearly state project objectives, deliverables, biodiversity conservation, and livelihood
interventions and investments;
• Contribute to conservation whilst addressing social issues (poverty, livelihood vulnerability)
amongst resource users;
• Planned and implemented jointly between 2 or more groups of stakeholders;
• Use collaborative management/participatory approaches in innovative ways to address
conservation problems;
• Demonstrate a clear implementation and technical monitoring concept (“hand-holding”) with
adequate technical specifications and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders;
• Clearly mitigate main threats to the habitats and biodiversity of the protected area;
• Demonstrate direct impacts on AHP bio-diversity and long term ecological sustainability;
• Target villages which are located in areas of high biodiversity or with good accessibility to the
protected area. These may include (i) villages situated inside a protected area, (ii) villages with
overlapping land and natural resource rights with the protected area; (iii) villages with lands
adjoining protected areas. Villages with no land adjoining the protected areas are lower priority.
• Demonstrate best practice in the implementation of activities and model approaches which
have potential to be scaled up;
• Demonstrate a clear strategy for the sustainability of funded items, such as maintenance and
management concept; financial and social sustainability;
• Establish appropriate costs for grant activities;
• Clear, logical relationship between the problem statement, the objective of the project, and the
conservation and livelihood activities proposed.
15. Grant Proposal Review and Assessment
Proposals are assessed in two stages, which consists of administrative and substantive assessment.
Administrative Review is done by the Consultant and the SGP Project Coordinator. At the stage of
formal assessment, the applicant shall have the possibility to supplement the missing documents. Only
projects that meet all formal criteria shall be subject to substantive assessment.
Substantive Review is carried out by ACB through its Technical Working Group (TWG), the Consultant,
and supported, if warranted, by independent experts who have relevant knowledge of areas related to
the projects under assessment. The TWG makes use of the selection criteria to evaluate and score the
proposals.
Proposals that obtain less than 70% of points possible to be obtained in the substantive assessment,
including at least 1 point under each assessment criteria, shall not be considered. Detailed project
selection criteria (formal and substantive), along with the number of points awarded for each criterion,
are included in the Programme Management Manual.
The proposal with the highest technical score will be selected.
9
16. Payment system
Funding will be provided within a system of advance payments which depends on (i) size of the grant
and (ii) its duration. Information on the disbursement schedules and financial management of grants
that may be implemented under the Small Grant Scheme are included in the PM Manual.
Micro-Grants (up to six months): advance payment up to the level of 80% of the total amount of
funding for individual projects,
Small Grants (06 to 12 months): advance payment up to the level of 40% at award and 40% after
successfully reaching set milestones,
Medium grants: (up to 18 months) advance payment up to the level of 40% at award and 40%
after successfully reaching set milestones
The remaining 20% shall be paid after final acceptance of deliverables and approval of the final report.
The advance payment is paid to the Grantee on the basis of the costed workplan, which becomes an
integral part of the concluded Grant Agreement.
Should the verification of incurred expenditure by project-partners become necessary, this can be done
by an independent and certified auditor. The auditor checks and confirms the declared cost against the
PMM, domestic law and accounting practices in the country of the project partner.
17. Partnership projects
ACB and KKH encourage the applicants to submit applications in partnership with in-country partners. If
an application is submitted in a partnership, it is necessary to append a document which confirms the
establishment of the partnership, in the form of a letter of intent or a partnership agreement. Prior to
the conclusion of the grant agreement, it will be required to present a signed partnership agreement.
Workplans have to indicate the responsibilities taken by partners for specific and identifiable
deliverables.
18. Time, place and manner for submitting applications
The call for proposals under the Small Grant Scheme is held in the period from 31 August 2017 to 30
September 2017.
The application shall be submitted on a form available at the website of the ACB (http:/xxx.xxx.xx.xx in
the tab Call for proposals). The application signed by an authorised person together with the required
annexes should be submitted in paper and electronic version (CD/DVD). The application in the electronic
version should be in the PDF file format serviced by e.g. Adobe Reader (pdf). The CD must also contain
scans of all the necessary documents. The application submitted in an electronic version must be
identical with the paper version.
The application form together with the required annexes shall be submitted in 1 paper copy (A4 format)
and 1 electronic copy to the following address:
Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr.
SGP Project Coordinator
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity
3/F ERDB Building, UPLB Forestry Campus
Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines
Tel. # +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989
The application has to be submitted in a sealed envelope or package, via post office, courier mail or in
person, during the office hours of ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity <09:00 to 15:00>, with the deadline
10
until 30 September 2017 by 12:00 noon, Philippine time. The envelope or package containing the
complete documentation has to show clearly visible in the English language the following information:
Application for project funding under the SGP “ASEAN Heritage Parks”,BMZ2011 66545;
Full name of the applicant;
Address of the applicant;
Project title.
If the application is sent via post office or a courier mail, the date of delivery of the application to the
seat of the Programme Operator cannot be later than 30 September 2017, at 12:00 noon Philippine
time.
19. Language of the application form
The application form and all the required annexes should be submitted only in English irrespective of
whether the project is submitted by a national entity only or in cooperation with an international
partner.
20. List of annexes to the application required
Required annexes have to be submitted together with the application form. Information on the required
Annexes is included in the Programme Management Manual.
21. Documents for download / attached
The application form should be developed in line with the following programme and application
documents:
Proposal Format;
Small Grants Programme - Programme Management Manual
Project selection criteria;
For Indonesia: Memorandum of Understanding on implementation of the ASEAN Heritage Parks
Small Grants Programme between the ACB and the MOEF;
These documents are available for download at http://xxx.xxx.xxx5
22. Communications and additional information concerns
All inquiries concerning the call for proposals should be directed to any of the following persons:
Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr.
SGP Project Coordinator
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity
3/F ERDB Building, UPLB Forestry Campus
Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines
Tel. # +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989
5 As previously mentioned, the SGP webpage is still under development; the documents will be provided upon request from the
indicated contacts.
Concept Note
1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY RELEVANT TO COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Project Activity Developing Collaborative Management of Way Kambas National Park and Gunung
Leuser National Park
Participatory Management Planning for targeted ASEAN Heritage Parks
Background The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has received assistance of German Financial
Cooperation to support, through a Small Grants Programme (SGP), the AHPs’ efforts to
protect the biological diversity and improve livelihoods in and around (adjacent areas)
their core zone. Further, the SGP at all times works to build capacity of local partners
and to support collaboration of all governmental, non-governmental, academic and
private sector organizations related to the programme. Based on Feasibility Studies (FS)
of 2011 and 2012, Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Myanmar are regarded the initial
countries to pilot the SGP. KfW and ACB decided to focus the SGP’s initial phase on
selected AHPs in the two countries of Myanmar and Indonesia.
ASEAN member states have declared certain national parks and reserves as ASEAN
Heritage Parks (AHPs) based on their uniqueness, diversity and outstanding values, in
order for their importance as conservation areas to be appreciated regionally and
internationally. AHPs are defined within the ASEAN context as “Protected areas of high
conservation importance, preserving in total a complete spectrum of representative
ecosystems of the ASEAN region”. There is now a total of 38i AHPs in the system; the
AHP network is motivated by recognition of the high biodiversity values of SE Asia and
the need to address common threats. Major Categories of AHPs include natural parks,
natural reserves, cultural sites, prehistoric sites and Peace Parks.
For biodiversity, Indonesia counts internationally among the most important countries
in the world: it is home to 7 major biogeographic regions, centred on the major islands
and their surrounding seas. Indonesia ranks as one of the 17 “megadiverse” countries: 2
of the world’s 25 “hotspots”, 18 WWF “Global 200” ecoregions, and 24 of Bird Life
International’s “Endemic Bird Areas”ii. Indonesia is home to 8,157 species of vertebrate
fauna (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, and fish), of which 270 mammals, 386 birds, 328
reptiles, 204 amphibians, and 280 fishiii are endemic. About 10% of the world's (1,900
species) butterflies are found here as well as some 1,500 species of algae, 80,000
species of spores plant, 595 species of lichen, 2,197 species of ferns and ca. 16 % of
plant seed flora (30,000-40,000 species). There are as much as 6,000 species of flora
and fauna used daily for food, medicines, cosmetics, dyes and other purposes; genetic
diversity translates into stable livelihoods and income opportunity.
The Government of Indonesia has undertaken significant efforts to protect its
biodiversity through the establishment of a protected area network comprising round
about 27.5 million ha in 558 management unitsiv of various denomination: 220 nature
reserves, 77 wildlife reserves, 51 national parks, 123 nature recreational parks, 27 grand
forest parks, and 11 hunting parks.
Gunung Leuser, Lorenz, Kerinci Seblat and Way Kambas National Parks are designated
ASEAN Heritage Parks. All four AHPs are key biodiversity areas and amongst the 37 top-
priority sites for action. These four national parks have been assigned as the core areas
of the ASEAN Heritage Park programme with the primary purpose to promote and
demonstrate a balanced relationship between conservation and livelihood efforts.
AHP SGP in
Indonesia AHPs and the contained biodiversity are, with little exception, not immune against the
common problems of any protected area, e.g. rapid population expansion, fast
economic growth and persistent poverty weak laws and enforcement, land use
intensification and urbanisation, land tenure and resource use rights conflicts with local
communities and loss of habitat. As any other PA and more often than not, AHPs
remain alien to populations living in adjacent areas and are regarded as imminent
threat to livelihoods.
This holds for Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSBP), Way Kambas National Park (WKNP) as
well as for Gunung Leusser National Park (GLNP); all are located in Sumatra, key
biodiversity areas, amongst the national 37 top-priority sites for action and designated
AHPs. Sumatra, among other designations, contains 13 Important Bird Areas, and the
UNESCO World Heritage Site’s Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (covering the
national parks of Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan). The
protected area (PA) network for Sumatra covers 4.52 million ha and includes Gunung
Leuser National Park (1.01 million ha) one of Asia’s largest protected areas as well as
the much smaller Way Kambas National Park (0.125 million ha). A reportedly significant
lower deforestation rates against comparable areas outside of the network can be seen
as the common denominator for the PA system.
WKNP and GLNP have been selected for participation in the ACB SGP. Both parks are
well established, with strategic and subsequent management plans as well as Zonation
(core, buffer zones) Plans in place. Zone boundaries, however, are occasionally
contradicted by actual utilization of lands, e.g. at WKNP village’s boundaries are sitting
directly on WKNP’s core area. This means to revisit and re-negotiate zone boundaries as
one means to enhance the park’s conservation effort.
The four flagship species of the Gunung Leuser NP are Elephant, Orangutan, Tiger and
Rhino, thus stabilising and increasing the population are the objectives set. Some of the
problems and issues of the parks relate to environmental fees for the local community
management and ecotourism activities. The Park Management hopes activities under
the SGP will support the sustainable utilization of natural resources through better
collaboration of the NP with local government and local communities. Further, the
management flagged the need for habitat restoration for and improved information
about the flagship species as important for success as the local communities’
involvement in the management of the national park. The development of nature
tourism could provide income opportunities, which would reduce the pressure on the
park’s resources.
The five flagship species of the Way Kambas AHP are Tapir, Elephant, Tiger, Sun bear
and Rhino. The Park Management works towards a performance indicator for a 10%
increase of the flagship species over 5 years. Important issues in the area are human-
elephant conflicts, forest fire, illegal logging and illegal hunting. The park management
sees as potential activities to be included in the SGP ecotourism, habitat conservation
and activities for involvement of the local community. The latter should aim at
stabilising and improving the income situation. Causes of forest fire in Way Kambas
were reported as a mixture of natural cause during the dry season and accidental fires
caused by illegal hunters.
Collaborative
Management Fortress approach versus collaborative approach
During the last four decades, there has been a rapid development of protected area
management approaches, resulting in two alternative approaches. The fortress
conservation approach focuses investments on protection measures and largely
excludes the economic and development aspirations of the local people vvi
. However,
these enforcement investments are relatively costly, requiring fairly intensive, long-
term funding commitments - with no social benefits. They may also lead to social
conflict and non-compliance with conservation-related regulationsviiviii
, and lose both
local political and social support. In the absence of social fencing, notable declines in
targeted large mammals have occurred from commercial poachingix .
The alternative approach takes account of the needs of communities and stakeholders
within the broader social-ecological landscape, through buffer zone managementxxi
,
integrated conservation and developmentxii
and collaborative managementxiii
; all focus
on local communities while aiming to preserve biodiversity within reserves. However, a
number of reviews of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs)
suggest that have largely failed to reconcile conservation and development agendas xiv
,xv
,xvi
,xvii
,xviii
.
Co-management
Collaborative management, or co-management, has been promoted as a means to
bridge the gap between the protected area and local stakeholders. It has been defined
in different ways, e.g. ‘the sharing of power and responsibility between the government
and local resource users’xix
, or ‘governance systems that combine state control with
local, decentralized decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the
strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each’xx
. Co-management is a continuous
problem-solving process, rather than a fixed state, involving extensive deliberation,
negotiation and joint learning within problem-solving networksxxi
. This presumption
implies that co-management research should focus on how different management tasks
are organized and distributed concentrating on the function, rather than the structure,
of the system. Such an approach has the effect of highlighting that power sharing is the
result, and not the starting point, of the process.
Carlsson and Berkes (2005) recommend that the co-management approach should
include (1) defining the social-ecological system under focus; (2) mapping the essential
management tasks and problems to be solved; (3) clarifying the participants in the
problem-solving processes; (4) analyzing linkages in the system, in particular across
levels of organization and across geographical space; (5) evaluating capacity-building
needs for enhancing the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at various
levels; and (6) prescribing ways to improve policy making and problem-solving.
Bloomquist (2009) proposes that multiple and polycentric institutional arrangements
operating (imperfectly) may offer prospects for improved sustainable management of
natural resourcesxxii
. Berkes (2002) suggests there is a need to design and support
management institutions at more than one level, with attention to interactions across
scale from the local level upxxiii
.
Multi-level co-management in Asia
In 2013, Parr et al. described an approach for managing government-managed
protected area landscapes through multi-level co-management, as a means to link the
protected area officials with the local stakeholders, including village and district
representativesxxiv
. This approach tentatively made some notable recommendations: it
highlighted the need to recognize seven fields of protected area management,
introduced the concept of establishing protected area working groups and proposed a
bridging supervisory body be established linking the core zone and the buffer zone
agendas, comprising key landscape stakeholders. However, the multi-level co-
management system was mooted based upon an unconnected assortment of
management examples from four protected areas in Lao P.D.R. and Vietnam.
A subsequent review of the multi-level co-management system in Periyar Tiger Reserve,
a Learning Centre of Excellence in Southern India (India Eco-development Project 2004),
demonstrated that this well-financed government protected area also established three
landscape protected area bodies, recognized six specialized fields of protected area
management, established protected area working groups in research, law enforcement,
habitat management, community development and ecotourism (Parr, in press). A
review of the management system in Mount Kitanglad Range Natural Park revealed that
the ASEAN Heritage Park established a Protected Area Management Board, under
which no less than 10 working groups functioned.
Elsewhere, in Southeast Asia, Thailand has established multi-stakeholder Protected
Area Committees in all its national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, though these bodies
are largely ineffective due to the lack of incentives for local stakeholder involvement.
Laos has some of the most promising co-management systems, particularly at Nakai
Nam Then and Hin Nam No National Protected Area. In Indonesia, some well cited co-
management models include Bunaken Marine National Park xxv
.
Purpose of the
Concept Note The results gap analysis of the first SGP-ACB mission to both parks has identified a lack
of integration of the programs and activities of stakeholders in support of AHP and a
shortfall in zoning. This is remarkable, given the remarkably high level of NGO
collaboration in both WKNP and GLNP already existing, it is important that this is both
coordinated and broadened out to include other non-state partners (e.g. District
Government and local communities). Furthermore, although there are existing ten-year
strategic plans already in place, there is an opportunity to include these key players in
the planning process in a coordinated manner and with management objectives which
are more broadly shared between stakeholders.
The benefits of this process are:
A common vision for the future of the AHPs shared by all parties;
Alignment of interests in different sectors and different agencies;
Greater coordination of resources within the AHP;
Identification of resources, skills, and activities gaps;
The ability to affect land use in the buffer zones for the benefit of biodiversity
conservation and the maintenance of a flow of ecosystem goods and services;
Integration of the AHPs into the local development frameworks, and;
More effective communication between different parties involved in land
management.
Before the SGP can be operationalized it is necessary to develop a collaborative
management planning framework to “direct the traffic”. The initial “trigger” for the
SGPs therefore, should be a collaborative management plan to achieve the long term
vision of the management plan which includes:
State
Local government,
Non-state stakeholders (NGOs and local communities)
Activities arranged into discrete Management Actions which will contribute to
achieving a management objective
Management objectives organized into thematic areas which correspond to
work programmes (e.g. general park management, species and habitat conservation,
wildlife research and monitoring, )
Critically, the national parks are unlikely to achieve their objectives on the state
subvention alone.
Financial support from the non-state sources is vital to the park achieving the objectives
of the management plan. Therefore it is also necessary to develop a financial plan to
support the collaborative management plan which includes the full financial investment
required to implement the plan, the sources of funding (e.g. NP, SGP, local government,
donor, NGO, etc.), available funds and the funding gaps.
Financial planning needs to take account of all the financial resources available to the
park (state, non-state and donor funds). The financial planning needs to be organized so
that key work programmes or thematic areas (e.g. general park management and
administration, law enforcement, etc.) can be disaggregated from others (e.g.
awareness and education, community development, etc.) in order that spending on the
thematic areas (work programmes) is visible and funding gaps can be easily identified
and addressed.
In this way, the SGP will contribute to removing some of the most critical barriers
preventing the achievement of results (e.g. partnership coordination, integration of
park and district development plans, linkages between conservation benefits and costs,
an ability to affect conservation management outside the NPs boundaries), the SGP is
results-based and can easily be demonstrated to be contributing to the NPs KPIs (Annex
11, 14 & 15), the SGP will be used to finance an individual management action under a
Thematic Area or work programme and these activities will be clearly linked to an
objective necessary to reach the long-term vision of the management plan.
The purpose of the collaborative management plan is to align the interests of all the
stakeholders towards a common vision which includes the conservation of biodiversity
and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and service both inside the AHP and
immediately outside its boundaries.
Policy and
environmental
regulation at the
Government of
Indonesia (GOI)
The GOI policy and environmental regulation, particularly on sustainable forest
conservation, have the main regulations, such as follows:
1. Law Number 5/1990 concerning the Conservation of Biological Natural
Resources and the Ecosystem mentioned that conservation area and biosphere reserve
should be protects and preserve for the purpose of research and education.
2. Law No 5/1994 regarding Ratification of Convention on Biological Diversity;
3. Government Regulation No 28/2011 regarding KPA (Nature Protected Area)
and KSA (Nature Reserve Area), mentioned that national park as a conservation areas is
managed by zoning system and there are 3 (three) principles of conservation, namely
protection, preservation and sustainable use of natural resources;
4. Government Regulation Number 26 Year 2008 regarding National Spatial
Planning;
5. Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. p.49 / Menhut-II / 2011 on National
Forest Plan (RKTN) Year 2011-2030;
6. Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number P.39/Menlhk-
Setjen/2015 on the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2015-
2019;
7. Regulation of the Director General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource
Conservation Year 2015-2019 Number: P.7/KSDAE-SET/2015 of the Strategic Plan of the
Directorate General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation Year 2015 to
2019;
8. Management Plan and Strategic Plan of WKNP and GLNP;
In regard of international regulation on environmental and conservation area issue,
then the proposed project has also take into account of International policy and
regulation such as follows:
1) Declaration of UNESCO year 1981 regarding Gunung Leuser Biosphere Natural
Reserve;
2) Strategy Seville on UNESCO Document 28C/Resolution 2.4 of the 28th
UNESCO
General on November 1995;
3) Madrid Declaration on Program the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) UNESCO in
2008;
4) Declaration of UNESCO on GLNP area as a Natural World Heritage Site;
5) Declaration of ASEAN Heritage Park Committee V on GLNP and WKNP as
ASEAN Heritage Park;
Location for the
Planning Process The Collaborative Management Planning will take place at the two nominated AHPs:
Gunung Leuser National Park – Area 3
Way Kambas National Park – entire park
Planned Outcome
and Duration of
action
Outcome: Draft and final approved Five-Year Management Plan for implementation of
conservation and livelihood interventions for the AHPs Gunung Leuser National Park
and Way Kambas National Park.
The validity of the Management Plan follows GOI regulations, i.e. 5 years (60 months).
Overall duration of Management Plan preparation: 4 months of which
1) Preparation, methodology, work-planning, mobilisation - two weeks
2) Preparatory works for draft documents - three months
3) Review and draft final - two months
4) Approval process
Key Stakeholders National Park Management
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation (KKH)
Local Government
Non-Government Organizations
Local Communities
Objectives of the
action 1. To strengthen the existing PA Management and Zoning Plans for the two
ASEAN Heritage Parks Way Kambas National Park and Gunung Leuser National
Park with full participation and ownership by key stakeholders in accordance
with standing national policies
2. To develop a collaborative five-year management plan that integrates the
existing Protected Area Management Plans and the various, already existing
commitments and activities by contributing stakeholders
Justification Protected areas governance and participation in planning and management.
Both GLNP and WKNP have a remarkably high level of collaboration with the non-
governmental (NGO) sector; with NGOs providing both technical and financial resources
to support key areas of the national park. This collaboration, between NP and NGOs is
clearly an important component of conservation in Indonesia and is widely accepted
and acknowledged by the NPs.
Despite this close relationship, there is no formalised structure to allow NGOs to
participate in the planning and management except on an ad hoc basis for specific
interventions. While this approach to NGO involvement is very positive it needs to be
strengthened and formalised through a participatory structure that allows regular
review of plans to ensure interventions remain adaptive and is firmly embedded in the
management planning and subsequent management plan.
Without this formal structure, possibly an advisory committee or similar forum with
clear roles and responsibilities, opportunities for greater synergies and efficiencies in
the allocation of financial, material and technical resources may be lost.
The protected area management plan is the central policy document for the national
park and the management authority. “The preparation of the plan is the first
opportunity for the authority to carefully consider the longer term priorities for the park
and engage all the relevant partners and stakeholders in this process”xxvi
. Essentially the
management plan is not only a technical plan for the national park; it must also describe
the means of governing the protected area. Ultimately, the management plans’ primary
function is to ensure that the ecosystem(s) contained within the national park are
resilient to the pressures and challenges in the future that might otherwise destroy its
natural values.
“Governance is the means for achieving direction, control, and coordination that
determines the effectiveness of management” xxvii
. While there is no doubt that the
state, through the management unit, remains the highest authority in the national park,
“resilience is determined not only by a systems ability to buffer or absorb shocks, but
also by its capacity for learning and self-organisation to adapt to change”xxviii
. Therefore,
a governance system that enables a broader participation in planning and management
should arguably be more resilient (effective for biodiversity conservation purposes)
than one which restricts participation of stakeholders or ignores opposing views.
Each park presently has a management plan; this is a ten-year strategic plan largely
based upon the national strategic objectives. These objectives need to be aligned with
local level interests both within the park and the buffer zone.
Therefore, a prerequisite for the SGP should be the development of management plans
which provide a structured approach to stakeholder participation and collaboration in
the planning process and subsequent management. As was found to be the case in
Myanmar, a management plan is a prerequisite for directing the SGPs, which are, by
their very nature, financial interventions. However, in the case of WKNP and GLNP
these plans will likely be more sophisticated due to previous planning experience and
their second generation status.
Expected outputs
Please note:
Indicators for
Outputs 1 – 3 need
to be set in the
proposal)
1. Stakeholder commitment as an effective management of the AHPs WKNP and
GNLNP increased
Indicators:
a)
b)
c)
Clarification :
Lack of commitment by relevant stakeholders, e.g. local/district governments, PA
managers, and communities to conservation is often deep-rooted in their sectoral view
and respective interests as well as in the absence of communication. A limited
understanding of benefits, and a coordinated and mutual re-enforcing approach to
conservation and socio-economic development interventions can often be observed. .
Through intensive dialogue and consultation with local government, supported by
training workshops for decision makers involved as well as for local communities,
understanding of role and functions of PAs and the sub-set AHPs should improve. For
effective management planning, a clarification of interests and obligations needs to be
part of the exchange. With an improved understanding of options and potential
benefits commitment for an improved AHP management seems to be more obtainable.
2. Collaborative management and financing plan for AHPs WKNP & GLNP
developed
Indicators:
a)
b)
c)
Clarification:
The collaborative planning process will commence with a series of stakeholder dialogue
series to introduce integrated natural resource conservation and sustainable
development participated by stakeholders such as KKH, district governments, Forestry
Provincial Office, the Head Office of WKNP & GLNP, scientists from research institutions
and universities, NGO, private sector, local communities, and other users and/or
beneficiaries of biological resources in the area. The border zone of AHPs should be
agreed by stakeholders. In the meantime the capacity of officials of the National Park as
key actors in management planning of protected area still need to be increased.
Therefore formulations of the plans have been set based on these steps as mentioned
in indicators for output 2.
3. Community awareness on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
and community-based livelihood development as well as governance
enhanced.
Indicators:
a)
b)
c)
Potential
Approaches and
Methods:
To achieve of the project objective, the following approaches and methods are
suggested :
(1) Consultative and participatory methods as the preferred main approach to ensure
involvement and enhancing ownership during the planning process and beyond;
(2) The Planning Support Team (PST) will work collaboratively with all the primary
stakeholders at the national, provincial and district levels in view of gaining the
support and increasing ownership on the project dealing with managing of AHPs
WKNP &GLNP.
(3) Expert meeting/discussion and stakeholders’ consultation both National and
Regional for information sharing and dissemination of WKNP & GLNP.
(4) Joint review of existing PA Management and Financing Plans as well as current
technical and financial support by other stakeholders;
(5) Stakeholders meetings at different levels on collaborative AHP’s management
carried out for sharing information and experience;
(6) Joint formulating of the draft collaborative management and financing plan;
(7) Identifying/re-negotiating/re-confirming zone boundaries (core / buffer) of AHPs
WKNP & GLNP;
(8) Identifying and agreeing on utilisation levels within the buffer zones of AHPs WKNP
& GLNP;
(9) Involve local NGOs in project activities to facilitate communication between the
government (local government and the national park authority and local
communities).
Main activities
Pls. note:
Activities have to
be further
developed as part
of the technical
and financial
proposal.
The main activities will include:
Activities for Output 1:
Activity 1.1 Coordination and consultation meeting amongst key stakeholders for the
effective AHPs WKNP & GLNP collaborative management planning process
Activity 1.2
Activity 1.3
Activities for Output 2:
Activity 2.1 Asses the existing conflict of interests in implementing integrated
conservation natural resource and development.
Activity 2.2 Collecting data and information on design and zonation border of AHPs
WKNP & GLNP.
Activity 2.3
Activities for Output 3:
Activity 3.1
Activity 3.2 .
Activity 3.3
Expertise and
operational
capacity:
Planning Support
Personnel and organisation of registered national and international NGOs operating in
Indonesia have a wealth of experience in project management in various locations and
contexts, particularly in regard of conservation efforts.
The planning support will be executed by qualified national specialists. The foreseen
Team team comprises, at the minimum, of the following specialists:
1. PA Management and facilitation specialist (team-leader, rapporteur, and
responsible for overall delivery) with proven experience in Collaborative
Management Planning;
2. Community livelihood and conflict resolution specialist (co-rapporteur);
3. Policy analysis specialist
4. Documentation specialist
5. GIS specialist
Deliverables of the
Planning Support
Team per AHP
(1) Detailed workplan two weeks after mobilisation;
(2) Capacity building and awareness training necessary for the planning process;
(3) Clarified institutional arrangements supporting collaborative AHP’s management
and forest law enforcement;
(4) A draft collaborative AHP’s management and financing plan developed with and
communicated to primary stakeholders;
(5) Boundaries of AHP’s core area and buffer zones identified and mapped;
(6) Agreed interventions/utilisation levels within the buffer zone;
(7) Initiated approval process for management plan and zoning;
(8) An agreed priority list for SGP Interventions in accordance to set Thematic Areas;
(9) A proposal for a series of technical trainings for improving capacity and skills on
conservation and community based livelihoods for selected stakeholders;
Partners Specific for this planning process, the grant proponent will assume all responsibilities
for coordination and implementation of the activities, with clear coordination with the
managements of WKNP and GLNP. The WKNP & GLNP is a unit under the Directorate
General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation of the Ministry of
Environment and Forestry, has capabilities, expertise to manage the NP as core zone of
the AHPs.
The grant proponent will work together with experts/consultants, local district Planning
Department (BPDA), forestry service of districts level, communities group, local NGO,
university or other relevant institution to implement some activities in the field.
MANAGEMENT PLANNING - INTERVENTION LOGIC
Examples
Impact Increased understanding of park conservation values, threats to these values, mitigation measures and optimal co-management interventions among all key stakeholders involved with two ASEAN Heritage Park landscapes in Indonesia.
Pre- and post-project attitudes of <district, village>, park staff, community-based organizations and villagers lead to increased support to protect the park.
Outcomes Sustainable livelihoods: Well-balanced allocation of limited funds to target livelihood interventions in each AHP prescribed in plan Biodiversity conservation: Improved protection of biodiversity values in each AHP Co-management: Strengthened collaboration among key partners involved with AHP protected area landscapes
Participatory threat analysis meetings held amongst different groups of stakeholders and identification of priority mitigation grant packages Livelihood grants provided by SGP and other organisations to buffer communities which directly mitigate specific threats and linked to conservation agreements Improved enforcement effort based on the agreed Management Plan and arrests as well as improvement in biodiversity values (vegetation cover and populations of key species and rare species) Regular three-monthly meetings of the Township Environment and Conservation Committees, with Minutes of Meetings Establishment and functioning of community-based organizations related to protected area issues
Objectives and Indicators
Overall development objective To produce a five year collaborative management plan for Gunung Leuser’s Area 3 and Way Kambas NP with full participation and ownership by key stakeholders by 28 February 2018, and subsequently implement it. Immediate objectives 1. To promote participatory planning and co-management in two ASEAN Heritage Parks in Indonesia involving small grants delivery. 2. To strengthen participation involvement of local communities in PA management planning through promoting the delivery of small grants into buffer zone communities to mitigate threats to four ASEAN Heritage Parks 3. To strengthen biodiversity conservation interventions through PA management planning in four ASEAN Heritage Parks
By 28 February 2018, draft 5-year Management plans produced with process clearly described inside the document. Final evaluation report on participatory planning process. By <when>, community-based organizations in community development, outreach and/or ecotourism delivering programmes in the buffer zones (and core zones, if applicable) of the ASEAN Heritage Parks By <when>, community-based organizations and priority villages are promoting the delivery of small grants and reduced threat mitigation in targeted ASEAN Heritage Parks. By <when>, international and national conservation NGOs are promoting biodiversity conservation co-management and
participatory management planning in four ASEAN Heritage Parks.
Output and Output Indicators Please elaborate
Preparatory Phase Summary monthly reports produced on
protected area management activities A report produced on baseline surveys
relevant to each AHP Minutes of Meetings produced for all
meetings Orientation study tour reports to other PAs
in Indonesia with an Collaborative Management Plan
Participatory threat analysis reports for each stakeholder group
Biodiversity assessments reports Socio-economic reports on priority villages
produced for each ASEAN Heritage Site Management Planning Process Draft management plan sections prepared
by core management planning team (Park Directors and senior staff) to allocate responsibilities and drafting of sections
Minutes of meeting of regular meetings of working groups and community based organizations to develop five year work programmes
Involve villages through community based organizations
Minutes of Meeting for special meetings to review management plan progress
Draft zoning scheme prepared Final draft management plan prepared Plan Review and approval Summary reports and photographs of public
hearings in villages Minutes of meeting of review and approval
process by respective GoI entities Minutes of meeting of review and approval
by KKH
*All outputs are written documents for contributing to the management plan so no indicators are required
II. Relevance of the Interventions The main threats to the key biodiversity features in the two targeted ASEAN Heritage Sites are identified below.
In August 2016, the for both parks relevant stressors/threats were discussed, validated, and agreed upon (see
Table 1 below) and management planning was added as an additional conservation issue. Both GLNP and
WKNP have management plans that are of a good quality and the inclusion of this stressor recognises that the
plans now need to be further developed to include the very progressive and positive multiplicity of
stakeholder interests that is a defining feature of both NPs.
Table 1 Stressors
Both WKNP and GLNP face a number of very pressing challenges that are summarised below:
Integration into the local administration and economic activity: integrating the NPs at the local level
is cross-cutting. It effects many aspects of the parks management from encroachment through law
enforcement to managing sustainable use activities. For instance, sustainable use options such as
ecotourism, which might offer mechanisms to link conservation management with local economic
livelihood development are proving hard to regulate effectively due to institutional and agency
separation of responsibilities (e.g. tourist guides in GLNP are licensed by the District and not the NP
making it hard to enforce rules and regulations).
Financing: both WKNP and GLNP face considerable financing gaps in their budgets. The progressive
approach to NGO participation is very positive but this is not integrated into a cohesive financial plan
for the purposes of planning. Weaknesses in local participatory planning are a barrier to sharing costs
in the buffer zones and there are very limited opportunities for revenue raising (non-tax revenues)
within the protected areas.
Land conversion in the buffer zone: both parks face considerable challenges due to the conversion of
habitat outside the national park, with a likely associated loss of ecosystem goods and services and
increased vulnerability to future shocks (e.g. climate change, edge effect, etc.) is worrying. Economy
and ecosystem are probably more resilient if they are diverse. However, there has been a steady
decline in the areas of semi-natural or natural forest around both parks in favor of intensive cash crop
and plantation farming that is both structurally and genetically homogenous. The impact on both of
the protected areas, long term, is an uncertainty and we cannot be precisely sure what this might be.
However, a precautionary approach might be to intervene in land use in the immediate areas around
the NPs (the buffer zones) and try to reverse the trend of land conversion from one of high diversity
to one of little diversity to support the NPs aims and objectives.
Limitations on sustainable use opportunities restrict the options for developing sustainable use
systems at the community level and will require innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. payment for
ecosystem services [PES]) which, while possible, are very challenging to establish.
Species loss due to illegal activity: illegal activity inside the parks is driving species loss, in particular
of a number of flagship species. This highlights some of the complexity of the challenges. It is most
likely that increased financing would resolve the law enforcement issues inside the boundaries of the
NPs. However, there is a pressing need to integrate law enforcement interventions with external
STRESSORS
AHP
trad
itio
nal
agr
icul
ture
smal
l -fa
rmer
ori
ente
d ag
ricu
lture
trad
itio
nal
live
stoc
k
her
din
g an
d g
razi
ng
expl
oita
tion
of w
ildlif
e an
d
fore
st p
rod
ucts
wild
life-
hum
an c
onf
lict
inva
sive
exo
tic s
peci
eso
ver
/ des
tru
ctiv
e fi
shin
gsm
all-s
cale
log
gin
g /
fuel
woo
d ex
trac
tion
mar
ket-
ori
ente
d lo
ggin
g
fire
ind
ustr
ial m
inin
g /
geo
ther
mal
pol
luti
on
loca
l min
ing
bou
ndar
y co
nflic
ts &
lan
d
clai
ms,
enc
roac
hmen
tro
ad /
infr
astr
uctu
re
con
stru
ctio
nse
ttle
men
ts /
encl
aves
recr
atio
nal
/ to
uri
stic
use
man
agem
ent
unit'
s ca
paci
tym
anag
emen
t pl
ann
ing
Gunung Leusser FS 2012
TRA August 2016
Way Kambas TRA 2016
agencies such as the police and judiciary in order to provide a more measured response to criminal
activity and gain the support the police and courts.
Focus on flagship species: there is a clear focus on a small number of charismatic flagship species (e.g. tigers, rhinos, elephants and orang-utans). However, both WKNP and GLNP are globally important hotspots for biodiversity and it is important that the focus of management is broadened out to clearly recognise their global significance in this respect. For instance, both NPs are recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and important centres for plant diversity. While there is no doubting the importance of these two parks for their flagship species and the efforts and investments thus far, a more holistic approach is critical for a conservation approach, for expanding the opportunities of financing and as a means to expand conservation land management outside of the national park boundaries (large charismatic flagship species are difficult to manage outside of protected areas).
Further to this, the WKNP management office added river pollution as a threat to the park. The pollution is
caused by the intensive cultivation activities at Raja Basa Lama I, specifically in National Tropical Fruit
Cooperation (PT.NTF). The pesticides they use in cultivation, and the cow faeces they dispose in a dumpster
leak to the river. The source of the pollution is near the upstream of Way Kapuk Bawah which is located at the
boundary of the park. This river connects to Way Kambas flowing inside the park posing a serious threat to the
wildlife in the park.
Threat Mitigation through the Small Grants Programme The planned management interventions should address the above stressors and identified threats:
At Area 3 of Gunung Leuser National Park, the interventions should reduce <to be elaborated
according to the TRA>. It may also resolve solutions for mining issues.
At Way Kambas National Park: the interventions should reduce <to be elaborated according to the
TRA>.
Participatory threat analysis and developing mitigation packages
Participatory threat analysis workshops should be held with four priority target audiences, these being the (i)
the relevant district authorities; (ii) the ASEAN Heritage Park staff (the senior staff being the core management
planning team); (iii) the community-based organizations and the local/regional NGOs and (iv) the villages
themselves.
The participants are requested to list the threats to each ASEAN Heritage Park. They are then requested to
rank the threats according to whether they consider them (a) high (b) medium or (c) low levels of threat. Then
against each level of threat they are requested to consider development interventions most suited to mitigate
the threats.
III. Linking Management Plan and SGP as Methodology for Sustainability: For the purpose of linking the MP with developing grant interventions for Indonesia, four thematic areas were
identified which should lead to the achievement of the expected outcomes/objectives.
Therefore, the ACB, based upon the objectives of the existing PA management plans and the understanding of
the existing investment priorities and the findings and assumptions outlined in previous sections recommends
that in order to achieve the greatest impact the SGP should focus on four thematic areas:
• General park management;
• Law enforcement;
• Habitat and species management, and;
• Community development.
However, there will be cross-cutting elements addressing the remaining four thematic areas such as:
• Wildlife research and monitoring (where it applies to impact monitoring of identifying a species
protection needs, etc.);
• Community outreach and conservation awareness (where it applies to the specific interventions);
• Ecotourism (where it provides a clear linkage between biodiversity conservation and community
development, for example as a motivation), and;
• Sector policy development (where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream experience and
lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable development).
The priority thematic areas can be further defined as:
General park management: a collaborative management planning exercise in order to further define
priorities and align stakeholder interests. While the output of this will be a collaborative management
plan and associated financial plan this will be an important process to effect an adaptive and systemic
change in the park management.
Law enforcement: support will be given to establishing and increasing SMART patrolling in both
protected areas. This will be further supported by inter-agency collaboration, awareness and capacity
building with external law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.
Crosscutting:
Community development and ecotourism: community-based habitat restoration in the buffer zone
and areas immediately outside the NP. This will seek to catalyze additional resources from national
programmes in order to restore important habitats for community use and to protected important
ecosystem services through community forestry approaches and the restoration of wetland functions.
Support to livelihood development based upon habitat restoration and sustainable use of
biodiversity. This will focus on enhancing the buffer zone and areas immediately outside the NP and
will involve support to community-based enterprises and enterprises based in the local communities
in order to build capacity, strengthen the communities’ internal governance and ensure an equitable
distribution of costs and benefits from activities such as eco-tourism development. A defining
principle of this approach will be to link benefits with wise management of biodiversity and ensure
that costs incurred by the park are also accounted for by the enterprises and other agencies.
Table 1: Thematic Areas for SGP Intervention in Indonesia
Area of management for grant items
Suggested AHP counterparts (note that in sites with low AHP staffing levels, some sections may be less clearly defined)
Specific activities and investments
Main Focus of SGP
General park management Senior AHP staff Facilitation of processes/capacities for encouraging stakeholder participation Travel for meetings and information exchanges Participatory management planning Zoning PES (including REDD) Study tours
Law enforcement Law enforcement section Patrolling in protected areas Patrolling in buffer zones Boundary monitoring Informants networks Travel for meetings and information exchanges GPS and digital cameras Law enforcement training
Habitat and species management
Habitat and species management staff
Reforestation (native trees) Forest fire management Wetland restoration Ecosystem restoration
Community development Community-based organizations on community development
Village land-use planning Travel for meetings and information exchanges Farming Small-scale animal husbandry; fish farms Agroforestry, nurseries Fruit trees, timber trees, NTFPs, Small economic activities; women empowerment Water harvesting Participatory boundary demarcation Community capacity building
Cross-cutting
Community outreach and conservation awareness
Community-based organization on Community outreach
Community conservation meetings Student and teacher conservation activities Problem households engagement Enforcement agency awareness raising Media (local radio, videos, multimedia, exhibición)
Wildlife research and monitoring
Wildlife research staff Wildlife monitoring equipment (camera traps, binoculars)
Participatory research (natural resource use groups)
Data management information systems
Survey training
Ecotourism Community-based organization on ecotourism
Community-based ecotourism Village guides Entrance fee sharing
Sector policy development KKH, Park Management, Where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream experience and lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable development).
Table 2: AHP Management plan objectives and activities
Park GLNP WKNP
Objective & activities
1. Planning documents availability (Management Plan, Zoning, Block) 1. Integrity region as a whole maintained intact and the existence of
neighbourhood appreciated by the public.
2. Insolubility the ecosystems degradation in GLNP area 2. Ensuring the sustainability of ecosystems that can support the
realization of priority wildlife habitat in WKNP.
3. Village conservation development at buffer zone in GLNP 3. Decrease the level of disruption to the ecosystem and biodiversity of up
to 50% of the disorder in 2015.
4. Increasing the population endangered species 4. Plants and animals and their ecosystems recorded properly for the sake
of tourism and the economy.
5. Increasing the PNBP on environmental services activity 5. Involve communities around the area to be more active in supporting
the management WKNP region.
6. Increasing the ecotourism business development 6. Increase the utilization of leading attractions and develop new tourist
attraction.
7. Operation the water environmental services business 7. The realization of the management of nature in the utilization zone to
guarantee the preservation of the object-oriented, participation and
welfare of the community, as a source of income, and the satisfaction of
visitors to materialize so that non-tax revenues increased.
8. Development Nature Conservation Group (KKA), Nature Lovers
Group (KPA), Local Community Group
8. The realization of an independent management area at resort level
through research-based management (RBM).
9. Decrease the hotspot at GLNP area 9. Achieve sound management organizations and resilient, supported by
intelligent human resources, quality and quantity sufficient
10. Decrease the fire area 10. Realizing WKNP as a location for research or reliable natural laboratory
are supported by adequate infrastructure.
11. Improving the human resources capacity of the Forest Fire
(Dalkarhut)
12. Completion case the poaching, trading, wildlife trade, illegal
hunting, fire forest, and degradation area.
13. Safeguard conservation area on the threats
14. Fulfillment the facilities standards of the forest safeguard
infrastructure on GLNP
15. Improving the human resources safeguards on GLNP
16. Availability the performance achievement institutional on GLNP
Table 3 provides the Thematic Areas (colour-coded) the management objectives and the API from the 10-year strategic plan to demonstrate the synergies between management plan objective, API and Thematic Area (and subsequent SGP intervention).
Table 3: Thematic Areas, Management Objectives, API
Management Plans 2015 – 2019 Objectives & activities Key Performance Indicators (Annex 1 and 2)
SGP Thematic Area GLNP (Balai Besar) WKNP (Balai Kecil) GLNP WKNP
1 General park management 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16 1, (7), 9 1, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
2 Wildlife research and monitoring (4), (13) 4, 8, 10 3, 11
3 Law enforcement 12 2 12, 13
4 Habitat and species management 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 (2), 3, 7 2, 4, 9, 10, 11 7, 9, 10, 12
5 Community outreach and conservation awareness
8 (1), 5 8
6 Community development / Ecotourism 3, 6 (5), 6, (7) 3, 6 8, 13
7 Sector Policy Development
The main implementing partners will be the Park Management, district and villages as well as registered
NGOs and CBOs. The beneficiaries will be the priority villagers and households living in the adjacent areas
(buffer zones). The project is of sufficient duration (five years) that relationships will be strengthened. The
development of a five years management plan may assist sustainability in the medium-term. As the
debriefing in Way Kambas and Medan as well as the wrap-up meeting with MoEF / KKH indicates, Park
Managements and the involved NGOs feel that landscape protected area management is a valuable
approach. One of the key features of the initiative is that it respects both sustainable development and
environmental preservation principles, which is absent in fortress approaches to biodiversity conservation.
If successful, the project may well have multiplier effects within the protected area network of Indonesia; it
may also have international impacts through promotion by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity.
ENDNOTES i As of 2016 with Bai Tu Long National Park in Viet Nam as the most recently declared AHP ii https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=id#facts.
iii Kekinian Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia 2014/ Elizabeth A. Widjaja, Yayuk Rahayuningsih, Joeni Setijo Rahajoe,
Rosichon Ubaidillah, Ibnu Maryanto, Eko Baroto Walujo dan Gono Semiadi–Jakarta: LIPI Press, 2014. iv
Statistik Direktorat Jenderal KSDAE. 2015. Kementerian lingkungan hidup dan Kehutanan, Ditjen KSDAE, Jakarta. v Sanderson, S.E. and Redford, K. 2003. Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty
alleviation. Oryx. 37: 389–390. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S003060530300070X vi
Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Davenport, L. and Rao, M. 2002. Making parks work: Strategies for preserving tropical
nature. Washington, DC: Island Pres. vii
Romero, C. and Andrade, G. 2004. International conservation organisations and the fate of local tropical forest
conservation initiatives. Conservation Biology.18: 578–580 viii
Robbins, P., McSweeney, K., Waite, T. and Rice, J. 2006. Even conservation rules are made to be broken: Implications
for biodiversity. Environmental Management.37: 162–169 ix
Corbett, R.T. 2007. The impact of hunting of the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests. Biotropica. 39: 292–303.
DOI:10.1111/j.17447429.2007.00271.x x Wells, M., Brandon, K.E. and Hannah, L. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local
Communities. Washington DC: World Bank, WWF, USAID. xi
Ebregt, A and De Greve, P. 2000. Buffer zones and the management, policy and best practices for terrestrial
ecosystems in developing countries. Theme Studies Series 5; Forests, Forestry & Biological Diversity Support Group,
National Reference Centre for Nature Management: Wageningen, the Netherlands: International Agricultural Centre. xii
Hughes, R. and Flintan, F. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of
the ICDP Literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Developmen xiii
Borrini Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas:
Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN xiv
Idem Well et al 1992. xv
Wells, M., Guggenheim, S., Khan, A., Wardojo, W. and Jepson, P. 1999. Investing in Biodiversity. A Review of
Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. The World Bank, Washington, DC. xvi
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource
management. World Development. 27: 629–649. xvii
Idem Hughes, 2001. xviii
Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Nzooh, Z., Sunderland, T.C.H., Amougou, V., Defo, L. and Sayer, J.A. 2009. Exploring the
effectiveness of integrated conservation and development interventions in a Central African forest landscape.
Biodiversity Conservation. 18 (11): 2875–2892. DOI:
10.1007/s10531009-9613-7
xix
Berkes, F., George, P. and Preston, R. 1991. Co-management: The evolution of the theory and practice of joint
administration of living resources. Alternatives. 18 (2): 12–18 xx
Singleton, S. 1998. Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement. University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor. p.7. xxi
Carlsson, L and Berkes, F, 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of
Environmental Management. 75: 65-67. xxii
Bloomquist, W. 2009. Multi-level Governance and Natural Resource Management: The Challenges of Complexity,
Diversity, and Uncertainty. In: V. Beckmann and M. Padmanabhan (eds.) Institutions and Sustainability, pp.109-126,
Springer Science and Business Media xxiii
Berkes, F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In: The Drama of the Commons
(E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich and E.U. Weber, eds.) National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 293-321. [Online] http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10287.html xxiv
Parr, J. W.K., Hoang Van Lam, Hoang Van Tue, Nguyen Bich Ha, Nguyen Van Lam, Insua-Cao, P., Nguyen Ngoc Quang,
P., Nguyen The Cuong and Crudge, B. 2013. Multi-level Co-management in Government-designated Protected Areas –
opportunities to learn from models in Mainland Southeast Asia. PARKS. 19 (2): 59–74. xxv
Erdman, MV., Merrill, PR. Mongdong, M., Arsyad, I., Harahap, Z., Pangalila, R., Elverawatim R, and Baworo, P. 2004.
Building Effective Management Systems for Decentralized Protected Areas Management in Indonesia: Bunaken
National Park Case Study. Natural Resources Management Program xxvi
New Forest Protected National Park, Management Plan, UK. xxvii
Eagles, P. F. J. 2008. Governance Models for Parks, Recreation and Tourism. In K. S. Hanna, D. A. Clark and D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Transforming Parks: Protected Area Policy and Management in a Changing World. (pp. 39-61). London, UK: Routledge. xxviii
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY
Small Grants Programme by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (BMZ-No. 2011 66545)
Proposal Format
31 July 2015
Small Grants Programme of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity
Proposal Format
I. Project Key Information
Project title:
Country:
Project Start: (DD/MM/YYYY) Project End: (DD/MM/YYYY)
Core Area: 1) Biodiversity Conservation↓ (Drop down menu)
Thematic Focus: 1) General protected area management↓(Drop down menu)
Project Type: Information/knowledge management↓(Drop down menu)
Contract Amount: EUR (max. 50.000 EUR)
Proponent:
Name of Institution/Organization:
Contact Person: (Name and Position)
Mailing Address:
Telephone:
Physical Address:
Implementing Partner Institution (if any):
Name of Institution/Organization:
Contact Person: (Name and Position)
Mailing Address:
Telephone:
Physical Address:
II. Introduction
Project summary
Short summary of the project: description of the project context, proposed approach, relevance of the
project to the Objectives of the ACB-SGP. Max. 2000 characters
Organizational Background
Give information about the organization to demonstrate that the proposing organization has the
experience, capacity and commitment to successfully implement the proposed project. Max. 1000
characters.
III. Project concept
Context
Short description on the present status regarding the project area including the core problem which the
project is addressing (problem statement or challenges the project intends to address). Max. 1000
characters.
Rationale
Indicate importance of proposed project to the ACB-SGP. Please reflect the relationship of the project to
other relevant programmes and how it is integrated into country strategy (sectors, projects). Max. 1000
characters.
Target group
Target group is the population or other stakeholders, including government and communities living
within the adjacent areas, identified as the intended direct or indirect recipient of the intervention. Max.
1000 characters.
IV. Strategy
Overall Objectives
Define the overall objective of the proposed project. Please be reminded that the objectives have to be
formulated in a measurable way. Max. 500 characters.
Specific Objectives
Define the specific objectives of the proposed project. Please be reminded that the objectives have to
be formulated in a measurable way. Max. 500 characters.
Results / Outcomes
State the desired outputs and direct benefits addressing the identified needs and problems. The
expected results are the measurable changes which occurred by the end of the project as a result of the
planned intervention. Max. 500 characters.
Key indicator
Include key indicators for each of the outcomes. Max. 1000 characters.
Key Personnel
List the key personnel who will be responsible for completion of the project, as well as other personnel
involved in the project.
Support to the ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme
Please describe how the project is relevant for the ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme and the CBD Aichi
Targets (e.g. Promoting cooperation and sustainability, addresses conservation targets, sharing of
lessons learnt). Max. 1000 characters.
Gender
Please give a brief description how the project considers gender aspects in its activities. Max. 1000
characters. (www.oecd.org/dac/gender and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/27/42310124.pdf)
Risk to Successful Implementation
Identify and list the major risk factors that could arise in the project and could jeopardise the expected
result. Please also propose risk mitigation measures to address potential risks. Max. 1500 characters.
Knowledge Management, Communication and Replication of Project Results
How do you plan to capture and share the knowledge, lessons learnt and good practices gained through
the implementation of the project, also with respect to ACB’s role. How will results of the project be
communicated within AMS? Max. 1500 chracters
Sustainability
Please formulate how the use of the project results can be ensured also after the project’s conclusion
(e.g. which methods, approaches, instruments or concepts will be used on a sustained base by the
Target Group or other actors). Max. 1500 characters.
V. Activities and Finances
Activities
Provide details of what will actually be done to accomplish the project objectives, in a logical framework.
Specific activity description in packages, each one belonging to one of the indicators (please use bullet
points). Max. 1500 characters.
Activity Cost Milestone Plan
Please provide a work and financial plan (use Activity Cost Milestone template ). Max. 1000 Characters.
VI. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation
Please describe the methods and procedures to pursue and assess project progress during the
implementation (e.g. reporting schemes and schedules, field assessment/quality control) All projects
may be audited upon request by ACB.. Max. 1500 Characters
Call for Proposal Collaborative Management Planning Small Grant Programme in Indonesia
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) telah menerima bantuan Kerjasama Keuangan Jerman dalam mendukung Program Hibah Kecil (Small Grants Programme/SGP) terhadap upaya perlindungan Taman Warisan ASEAN (ASEAN Heritage Park-AHP). Dukungan program ini ditujukan untuk melindungi keanekaragaman hayati dan memperbaiki mata pencaharian masyarakat di dalam dan sekitar kawasan Asean Heritage Park. Pada tahapan pertama, Indonesia dan Myanmar terpilih sebagai negara pertama untuk menjadi pilot SGP. AHP terpilih untuk menerima hibah di Indonesia adalah Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas. SGP bertujuan untuk mendukung pendekatan pengelolaan kolaboratif, atau pengelolaan bersama, pada lansekap kawasan lindung yang dikelola oleh pemerintah dan wilayah sekitarnya melalui pengelolaan bersama multipihak sebagai sarana untuk menjembatani pengelola kawasan konservasi dengan pemangku kepentingan setempat. Pendekatan ini menyoroti delapan bidang tematik pengelolaan kawasan konservasi; memperkenalkan konsep pembentukan kelompok kerja kawasan konservasi; dan Rencana Pengelolaan kolaboratif (Collaborative Management Planning) kawasan konservasi yang dikembangkan bersama para pemangku kepentingan. Tahapan awal pelaksanaan SGP adalah penyusunan Collaborative Management Planning
(CMP). CMP merupakan dokumen perencanaan kegiatan yang disusun untuk Taman
Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas. Dokumen ini selanjutnya akan
menjadi panduan dalam penyusunan proposal kegiatan oleh LSM lokal. Anggaran untuk
penyusunan CMP masing-masing EURO 50.000 untuk BBTN Gunung Leuser dan EURO
50.000 untuk BTN Way Kambas yang dilaksanakan dengan durasi 1-3 bulan.
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), bekerja sama dengan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK), dengan ini mengumumkan Call for Proposal untuk Penyusunan Collaborative Management Planning (CMP) - Small Grant Programme in Indonesia. Project Executing Agency (PEA) dan otoritas kontrak: ASEAN Center for Biodiversity Project Implementation Agency (PIA): Direktorat Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati (KKH) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK) Prakualifikasi a. Nasional, lelang terbuka untuk pihak ketiga dalam penyiapan dan pelaksanaan
Perencanaan Pengelolaan Kolaboratif (Collaborative Management Planning) di Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas.
b. Pelaksana: NGO Internasional maupun nasional yang mempunyai kerjasama dengan Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Balai Taman Nasional Way Kambas.
c. Proposal yang disampaikan mencakup proposal teknis dan pembiayaannya untuk
masing-masing taman nasional. Formulir aplikasi dan dokumen pendukung dapat dikirimkan dalam 1 berkas asli (format A4) dan 1 berkas elektronik format pdf degan subject surat elekteronik : CMP_SGP_Indonesia kepada alamat dibawah ini: Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr. SGP Project Coordinator ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity 3/F ERDB Building, UPLB Forestry Campus Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines Tel. # +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989 [email protected] dengan ditembuskan (electronic copy) kepada Ratna Kusuma Sari Chair of National Working Team- SGP Direktorat Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati Ditjen KSDAE-Kementerian LHK Gedung Manggala Wanabakti Blok VII lantai 7 Jl. Gatot Subroto, Jakarta 10270 Tel/Fax +62 21 5720227 Email : [email protected] Batas Waktu: 24 November 2017 Informasi lebih lanjut mengenai Kerangka Acuan Kerja (Concept Note) tersedia pada lampiran 1 dan 2.
![Bestuursverslag - Deloitte US · Consolidated [member] EUR 220,512,000 EUR 154,741,000 Separate [member] EUR 117,800,000 EUR 0 Current liabilities Consolidated [member] EUR 184,259,000](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5c752de609d3f22e5a8c48a9/bestuursverslag-deloitte-us-consolidated-member-eur-220512000-eur-154741000.jpg)
