November 2014
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Integra Government Services International LLC. 
EVALUATION
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Supporting 
Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) Project 
AID-442-TO-14-00002
2
3
MID-TERM 
PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION:
USAID/CAMBODIA SUPPORTING FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY 
(SFB) PROJECT
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
AID-442-TO-14-00002
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
4
(intentionally left blank)
i
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Evaluation Methods 1
Evaluation Questions and Findings 12
Recommendations Addressing Approaches 3
Recommendations Addressing Fine-Tuning 3
Conclusion 3
INTRODUCTION 5
Evaluation Purpose 5
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 7
Evaluation Methods 7
Evaluation Design 7
Analysis Framework 7
Field Work 7
Limitations 8
FINDINGS 9
CONCLUSIONS 26
RECOMMENDATIONS 26
Recommendations addressing 2.1: Approaches 26
Recommendations addressing 2.2: Fine-tuning 28
REFERENCES 29
Project Documents and USAID Guidelines 29
Other References 29
Annex A: Evaluation Statement of Work 32
Annex B: Evaluation Design Matrix 37
Annex C: Interview Tool for Communities, Women, and Indigenous 39
Annex D: Questionnaire for NGOs 44
Annex E: Questionnaire Results 46
Annex F: People Interviewed 54
Annex G: Communities Visited 57
Annex H: Schedule 59
Annex I: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest 65
ii
ACRONYMS
CCF Community Conservation Forests 
CDC Cambodia Development Council
CF Community Forest
CFMC Community Forest Management Committee
COP Chief of Party 
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party
ELC Economic Land Concession 
EPL Eastern Plain Landscape
EWMI East West Management Institute 
FA Forestry Administration 
GHG Greenhouse Gas 
ICT Indigenous Community Land Titling 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries
MoE Ministry of Environment
NGO Non-Government Organization 
NRM Natural Resource Management 
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products 
ODC Open Development Cambodia 
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
PLCN Prey Lang Community Network
PLL Prey Lang Landscape
PMEP Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
RECOFTC The Center for People and Forests
REDD Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia
RUFF Royal University of Phnom Penh
SMART The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool
SFB Supporting Forests and Biodiversity
SPF Seima Protected Forest 
TWG-FR Technical Working Group on Forest Reform 
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
UMD University of Maryland
VCS Voluntary carbon standards
WI Winrock International
WWF World Wildlife Fund 
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID/Cambodia’s Supporting Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) project is a four-year, $20 million 
assistance activity supported by USAID Global Climate Change - Sustainable Landscapes and Biodiversity 
funding, initiated in November 2012. This mid-term evaluation was conducted to (1) assess the 
effectiveness of the SFB project’s design, implementation, and management approach; and (2) propose 
key actionable recommendations for USAID and Implementing Partners to improve project 
performance. The program is implemented by Winrock International (WI), with participation of the World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society WCS), RECOFTC (People and Forests) and East-West 
Management Institute (EWMI). The overall goal of the SFB is improvement of the conservation and governance of 
the Eastern Plains and Prey Lang landscapes. The SFB results framework includes three main objectives: 
1) Effectiveness of government and key natural resources managers at national and subnational levels 
to sustainably manage forests and conserve biodiversity enhanced.
2) Constructive dialog on forest management and economic development at the national and sub￾national levels improved.
3) Equitable economic benefits from the sustainable management of forests increased.
EVALUATION METHODS
The evaluation team was given six overarching questions, which were addressed through desk studies,
key informant interviews, community interviews, and focus group discussions that targeted user groups 
(resin, honey, communal land titling, etc.) Care was taken to ensure that the evaluation design and 
interview processes were gender sensitive, following gender best practices. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS
1. What evidence exists to date to demonstrate that the SFB project has made progress towards its stated goal 
and objectives of reducing forest loss, conserving biodiversity, and improving natural resource management and 
governance?
According to the data provided by SFB to the evaluation team, the deforestation rate in the two 
landscapes (Goal 1) when averaged together was reduced from 2.64% to 0.132% over the seven 
quarters of the project to date. Although there were no deforestation targets given by SFB for Goal 1, 
these figures represent a significant decline for which SFB can take credit.
Overall, NRM (Goal 2) is being improved by SFB both in project areas and nationwide. According to SFB 
data, there are 206,948 hectares of biological significance under improved NRM, and community 
knowledge and engagement in managing their forest resources has increased. Without exception, all 
communities that were visited by the evaluation team spoke positively about the work of SFB and 
partners to support them in learning about forest values, laws, sustainable livelihood enterprises and 
other activities that protect their resources.
Biodiversity is not adequately addressed in the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP). 
There is no clear definition of biodiversity, nor are there adequate indicators to measure performance in 
terms of biodiversity conserved. Indicator G.2 measures the number hectares of biological significance
and/or natural resources under improved natural resource management. Improved management is
addressed in the project indicators, but the correlation between threat mitigation and biodiversity 
conservation necessary for adaptive management is weak.
2
2. Which technical approaches (e.g., communal land titling, enterprise development, strengthening protected area 
management, working at national vs. local levels, small grants, etc.) appear to be most effective, and which 
appear to be least effective or most challenging to implement?
Communal land titling models produce mixed results. In the communities surveyed, they are effective in 
bringing communities together, giving them a sense of ownership, and increasing their technical 
knowledge of land resources. They also provide a legal basis to protect the land. Yet it can take years to 
deliver the needed training and technical input to support the approach. Further, the legal protection 
offered is only weakly enforced. The Community Forests are the weakest of the models, in part because 
the land allocated to them is generally degraded, and relatively unproductive. Communities indicate that 
they could not continue efforts to protect the forest without SFB or donor support.
Policy work in support of these technical approaches should be more proactive and effective. There has 
been some success; SFB has helped in the final stages of the approval process for the new Protected 
Area Guidelines. Significant progress has been made on the REDD+ activity in Seima, which is close to 
formal validation, and would benefit from more focused community work and technical support. Those
approaches that appear to be working best are the oldest; initiated before SFB began. New SFB 
initiatives, like constructive dialogue and small grants also appear to be off to dynamic starts. 
3. What overarching contextual challenges or constraints can be observed? How can these be considered in next 
work plan?
The political climate is the overarching constraint to the SFB project. It is characterized by high levels of 
corruption and a weak judicial system. Intense illegal logging and infringement by economic land 
concessions, in which powerful political and economic interests are complicit, are major challenges.
Despite heavy donor input to forest and natural resources conservation over the years, overall loss of 
forests continues. Unfortunately this constraint is largely beyond the scope of the SFB project.
4. Is the project’s approach to monitoring and evaluation appropriate for capturing project progress and enabling 
adaptive management?
Monitoring and evaluation tools are generally effective but need some adjustment to better capture 
project performance. Overall, the indicators do a good job in capturing how many people have been 
engaged in the SFB process, but are not as effecting in measuring quality of performance. Many of the 
indicators are not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related) enough to support 
adaptive management. Satellite imagery is a useful tool to look at overall changes in forests, but WI and 
its partner WCS use different data standards, and data is not interoperable, potentially impacting its 
usefulness for analysis. M&E indicators also need refinement. Most address output-level factors, but not 
results, and the indicators to capture the biodiversity work being done are lacking. A baseline for 
capacity building for natural resource management would be useful.
5(a). How has SFB design and implementation taken into account differences between 
stakeholder populations in terms of access, control, and ownership of natural resources, 
or their participation in relevant governance processes? Have project outcomes 
(intended or unintended) been different for different populations in the target area? 
SFB’s gender strategy is based upon best practices, and SFB has been successful in reaching its targets for 
30% female participation in trainings. It has produced important success stories supporting female 
leadership. There is room for improvement. Women described difficulty in participation in the larger 
village meetings and trainings out of embarrassment that their comments would be viewed as “stupid”. 
Training material is difficult for them to use, as many are illiterate. They felt small-group training would 
aid in their ability to understand. The need for increased youth engagement was expressed by 
informants.
3
5(b). How has the project facilitated synergy, coordination, and information sharing 
among and between USAID/Cambodia, its implementing partners and host government 
partners? 
Synergy, coordination, and information sharing between USAID, its partners and stakeholders were
weak during the first year of SFB implementation. Under the new Chief of Party (COP) leadership the
project is on a positive path, with many new activities such as monthly and quarterly meetings and team￾building exercises. Communication and coordination with government partners has improved over the 
course of the project. 
6. Do the existing administrative and management structures, including project staffing 
and partnerships appropriately support the implementation of the activities? 
SFB had a slow start during its first year, with many management issues to resolve primarily involving the 
working relations between the project's Prime Contractor, its Implementing Partners, and the 
Government. Under a new COP, who joined SFB at the beginning of the second year most management 
issues have been resolved, the PMEP has been approved and a number of new project activities, such as 
Constructive Dialogues, small NGO grants, and livelihood activities in the Prey Lang Landscape (PLL) are 
underway. This work and other initiatives are continuing in the draft work plan for year three.
RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSING APPROACHES
1. Protected area work should continue to be strongly supported and expanded through the SFB. 
2. Enterprise development activities should be assessed for sustainability beyond the life of the project, 
and for conservation linkages and contribution to the overall goal of SFB.
3. The strategy to address landscape issues in PLL should continue to expand in new ways being 
initiated that go beyond a more narrow focus on CFs in the buffer zone.
4. REDD+ activities in Seima Protected Forest, which is close to acquiring validation, should continue 
to receive strong SFB support. New REDD+ activities should not be initiated in other areas.
5. The small grants program should be expanded as planned, ideally with more grantees and longer 
granting cycles.
6. Constructive dialogue approaches should expand to include greater capacity building amongst 
communities and government officials, to ensure its continued benefit after the project ends.
7. Public awareness and advocacy programs should continue to be strongly supported. 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSING FINE-TUNING
1. There should be follow-up training, visits, and regular mentoring to ensure participants acquire 
skills. Simplified training materials for the illiterate and local language materials are needed. 
2. Indicators for SFB need fine-tuning for the remainder of the project. 
3. The GHG assessment report drafted by WI needs requested input from implementing partners.
4. Community forest patrols need a strategy to ensure adequate resources to be effective.
5. SFB staff needs additional capacity and training to be more effective.
CONCLUSION
SFB is a complicated project with many “moving parts” working in a challenging political environment 
The team found unanimous agreement that the project has surmounted initial challenges in coordination 
between the Prime Contractor, Implementing Partners and the Government, under the leadership of a 
new Chief of Party and rotations in director positions of WWF, WCS and RECOFTC. There was strong
optimism that the project is moving in a positive direction. It is hoped that the recommendations given 
here may help shape the next two years of the project to maximize its success. 
(intentionally left blank)
5
INTRODUCTION
EVALUATION PURPOSE
USAID/Cambodia’s Supporting Forests and Biodiversity (SGB) project is a $20 million effort supported 
by USAID Global Climate Change - Sustainable Landscapes and Biodiversity funding streams. SFB was 
initiated in November 2012 and is at the mid-point of its four-year duration. The purpose of this mid￾term evaluation is to (1) assess the effectiveness of the SFB project’s design, implementation, and 
management approach; and (2) propose key actionable recommendations for USAID and Implementing 
Partners to improve the performance of the project in the remaining period.
The desktop review for this evaluation began on September 15, 2014. Fieldwork was conducted in 
Cambodia through the month of October, concluding with a Mission debriefing on October 31, 2014.
Evaluation team members included: Pat Foster-Turley, PhD—Project Manager and Biodiversity 
Conservation Specialist; Elif Kendirli —Institutional Development Specialist; Srey Chanthy—Monitoring 
and Evaluation Specialist; and Chhun Delux—Climate Change and Adaptation Specialist.
The overall goal of the SFB project is “Conservation and governance of the Eastern Plains and Prey Lang
landscapes improved” following this theory of change: Lasting change requires action across multiple 
geographic scales with the participation of the full range of stakeholders.
Three linked requirements support this: 
• Consensus among key stakeholders at the national, subnational levels, and local level regarding 
forest management objectives and strategies;
• Sufficient levels of human resource capacity and technical systems to support achievement of 
management objectives; and
• Mechanisms that allow economic benefits for local livelihoods to be sustainably derived from 
forests and equitably distributed among stakeholders
The results framework for SFB includes three main objectives: 
• Objective 1: Effectiveness of government and key natural resources managers at national and 
subnational levels to sustainably manage forests and conserve biodiversity enhanced.
• Objective 2: Constructive dialog on forest management and economic development at the 
national and sub-national levels improved.
• Objective 3: Equitable economic benefits from the sustainable management of forests increased.
Winrock International (WI) is implementing the SFB project in partnership with the East West 
Management Institute (EWMI), The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTCC), the Wildlife 
Conservation Society (WCS), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Two Cambodian government 
agencies--the Forestry Administration (FA) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries (MAFF) 
and the Ministry of Environment (MoE) also play key roles in its implementation. A variety of other 
partners and stakeholders including ten small grant NGO awardees, Cambodian universities, and 
contracted implementers like PACT and Conservation International add to the mix. 
6
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project activities of SFB are focused on two large areas in Cambodia that are home to nationally and 
regionally important natural forests, as well as significant biodiversity. A map of these areas is provided 
in Figure 1.1. A recent extension to the PL landscape is not pictured here, but it now extends in the 
north to the border with Lao P.D.R.
Figure 1: Prey Land and Eastern Plains Project Areas of SFB
The Eastern Plains Landscape contains a rich mosaic of forest types. They range from open dry forests 
to evergreens, which still contain populations of threatened species including Asian elephants, Eld’s 
deer, giant ibis, a few vulture species, Siamese crocodiles and many documented species of lower 
vertebrates and invertebrates. The three protected areas in EPL have little government protection, but 
SFB partners Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have both been 
working in these areas and in communities around them for more than a decade. These organizations 
have been providing critical support for conservation and management for Seima Protected Forest 
(WCS), Mondulkiri Protected Forest (WWF) and Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary (WWF) before and 
during the SFB project, and they have a commitment to carrying this work forward after the SFB ends. 
The Prey Lang Landscape is an expansive primary forest that includes a diversity of forest types, from 
lowland evergreen to swamp forests, and serves as a critical watershed for the region. Although no in￾depth biodiversity surveys have yet been conducted here, the area is known to contain Asian elephants 
and many rare swamp species, along with mature resin trees and many non-timber forest products 
(NTFPs) that are utilized by surrounding communities. Although there is as yet no officially recognized 
protected area in PLL, work that is in part supported by SFB is aiming to change this. 
7
EVALUATION METHODS AND 
LIMITATIONS
EVALUATION METHODS
Evaluation Design
This mid-term evaluation of the SFB project was designed to address six questions provided by 
USAID/Cambodia using a variety of methods to enable triangulation of results. The design matrix for 
this evaluation is provided in Annex B.
Data for this evaluation was obtained from published and internet sources; and interviews with SFB 
Prime Winrock (WI) staff and implementing partners—World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife 
Conservation Society (WCS), People and Forests (RECOFTCF) and East-West Management Institute 
(EWMI); key government contacts at the national and subnational level; small grant NGOs; and 
communities. A number of specific community groups were interviewed, including communal land titling 
groups, livelihood groups (i.e. honey, resin, ecotourism, agricultural), and both women’s and indigenous 
groups.
Data collection tools included desk studies of published documents and Internet sites, SFB and 
implementing partner reports, USAID policy docs and other written material. Key informant interviews 
were conducted with stakeholders, NGO grantees, government officials, and others involved in the SFB 
process (Annex F). Community interviews and focus group discussions were conducted using a 
prearranged interview tool that allowed for flexibility where needed (Annex C). Women were also 
interviewed separately from men and a female translator worked with the team when indigenous groups 
were involved. A questionnaire survey including some quantifiable Likert scale questions (Annex D) was 
also distributed by email to representatives of all small grant NGOs and to the list of key members of 
the implementing partner teams that WI provided to the evaluation team. Unfortunately WI key 
members were not on this list and were not emailed the questionnaire. 
Analysis Framework
The team employed a Mixed Method Evaluation due to the need to evaluate both qualitative and 
quantitative data. To analyze the data, a combination of the Parallel Combinations and Multilevel
Combinations methods was used. Parallel Combinations ensures the integrity of the diverse data to be 
collected by analyzing an evaluation question using one data stream at a time. And given the multiple 
levels involved in the project system, the Multilevel Combinations method informed the overall 
performance of the project as different kinds of methods are best suited for collecting and analyzing 
information from national, provincial and community levels. The findings were then synthesized and 
triangulated. More information on this approach can be found in Annex B.
Field Work
The four-person evaluation team conducted interviews and meetings during four initial days in Phnom 
Penh then traveled throughout the PLL and EPL study area for the next fourteen days, followed by a 
final five days in Phnom Penh to gather final information and complete the analysis. The final schedule for 
work accomplished is presented in Annex G.
8
During this evaluation interviews were conducted with staff from 30 organizations and agencies both in 
Phnom Penh and in the provincial capitals of Mondulkiri, Kratie, Stung Treng, Preah Vihear and Kampong 
Thom. Although an effort was made to reach Provincial government officials in all the respective capitals, 
this turned out to be impossible due to scheduling difficulties and last minute cancellations. The final list 
of those who were interviewed by the evaluation team is presented in Annex F. Meanwhile back in the 
U.S., the Integra home office manager also had a lengthy conversation with the WI home office manager 
and provided a detailed report to the evaluation team for consideration in their work.
Community work was the most time intensive part of this evaluation. These sample communities were 
chosen to ensure a diversity of geographies, types of SFB-supported activities in the community, and SFB 
implementing partners. Ultimately the difficulties of traveling to remote areas during the rainy season 
put some of the original targets out of reach. The team managed to visit members of 6 commune 
councils (4 in EPL; 2 in PLL) and 15 communities (5 in EPL; 10 in PLL) listed in Table 3.1.
Table 1: Evaluation Team Field Work
Communities and Communes Visited During Evaluation
Eastern Plains Landscape Commune Councils: EPL 
Krang Tes (CCF) Krang Tes Commune Council 
Pouradet (CF) Srae Ampoum Commune Council
Pu Trom (ICT) Romnea Commune Council
Andaung Kraloeng (ICT) Sen Monorom Commune Council
O Rana (ICT)
Prey Lang Landscape
Kratie: Kampong Thom:
O Krasaing (CF) Prey Ou Kranhak (CF)
Prasat Teuk Khmao (CF) Prey Khlong Trapaing Sa-ang (CF)
Stung Treng: Kbal O Kranhak in Village Tbongtuk (CF)
Phnom Prasat (CF) O Bos Lev (CF)
Kraom (CF)
Preah Vihear: Commune Councils: PLL
Dang Phlet (CF) Preah Romkel Commune Council (Stung Treng)
Chhaeb Pir Commune Council
Prey Khlong Trapaing Sa-ang (CF)
Note: Community Forest (CF), Community Conservation Forest (CCF) Indigenous Community Land Titling (ICT)
LIMITATIONS
The primary constraints on this mid-term evaluation were time and distance. Four scheduled days in 
Phnom Penh did not provide enough time to adequately interview key stakeholders. Some important 
organizations, including donors, had to be eliminated from the schedule. There was also only time to 
briefly meet with WI staff at the onset of the project but provisions were made to have key WI staff 
accompany the evaluation team in the field during the entire two weeks. Extensive car travel together 
enabled much time for discussion but it would have been better if there was more initial and formal time 
before setting off to the field. A similar lack of time limited follow up interviews once the team returned 
to Phnom Penh with only four days for compilation and analysis of the interviews, data and results and 
presentation of these to USAID. Although members of the WI finance and M&E staff were interviewed 
by the evaluation team project manager, there was no time for further meetings with WI staff. 
Unfortunately the schedule for the evaluation was predetermined in the project scope of work before 
the team was assembled and reached Cambodia and could not be adjusted by the team. More time in 
Phnom Penh at both ends of this evaluation would have been very useful.
9
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results and analysis in this section are centered on the six questions presented to the team by 
USAID/Cambodia under evaluation purpose #1: Assess the effectiveness of the project’s design, implementation 
and management approach. Each question was broken down into a number of parts that were addressed by 
the evaluation team and fine-tuned during the course of the work through surveys and interviews. The 
overall findings are presented in this section on a question-by-question basis. Data from the survey of 
NGOs is presented in Annex E.
FINDINGS
Question 1: What evidence exists to date to demonstrate that the SFB project has made progress towards its stated 
goal and objectives of reducing forest loss, conserving biodiversity, and improving natural resource management and 
governance?
The SFB project is just finishing its second year of implementation, with a slow start under a different COP 
during the first year and a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan that was only approved in February 2014.
As of Quarter 7, when this evaluation was conducted, some of the baseline data required by the indicators 
had not yet been produced (see Annex E). Only two of the three goals mentioned in this evaluation 
question—reducing forest loss and improving natural resource management are directly included in the 
M&E plan. The third topic—conserving biodiversity—is not defined by SFB and not reported on directly. 
Reducing Forest Loss
SFB activities are directed at reducing forest loss (Goal 1) within two Cambodian landscapes: the Eastern 
Plains Landscape (EPL) and the Prey Lang Landscape (PLL). Within the targeted protected areas (and within 
SFB communities) forests continue to be lost, although the rate of loss appears to be rapidly decreasing 
(Table 1.1). According to the data provided by SFB to the evaluation team, the deforestation rate in the 
two landscapes (Goal 1) when averaged together was reduced from 2.64% to 0.132% over the seven 
quarters of the project to date. Although there were no deforestation targets given by SFB for Goal 1, 
these figures represent a significant decline that SFB can take credit for, a strong measure of success.
However, in communities where SFB is engaged, informants raised concerns over forest clearing and 
logging by outsiders, sometimes in agreement with individual community members. Encroachment by 
economic land concessions and other factors leading to decline in forest cover was also raised. In addition, 
rosewood, resin trees and other high value hardwood species are individually targeted and illegally logged 
within much of the project area. 
A recent report suggests that SFB has made a positive impact in slowing forest loss in Seima Protected 
Forest (WCS, 2014). The Snoul Wildlife Sanctuary borders the Seima Protected Forest (SPF), but has had 
no donor or NGO support and much of it has been deforested (Table 4.2). In SPF the core zone still 
remains relatively intact and the deforestation rate is 2% that of the areas outside of the protected area.
This demonstrates the relative success of the Seima program in an area that is otherwise facing high rates 
of deforestation.
10
Table 2: Deforestation Results up to Qtr. 7 of SFB (Source: SFB – WI, WWF, WCS, October 2014)
Goal Narrative Baseline
Results, Q1-
Q7
G1 Deforestation rate in priority landscapes decreased (%) 
2.640 0.132
Eastern Protection Landscape 
2.540 0.127
Prey Lang Landscape 
2.740 0.137
G2
Number of hectares of biological significance and/or natural 
resources under improved natural resource management as 
a result of USG assistance [standard indicator; HARVEST 
indicator] (ha)
 
- 206,948
Eastern Protection Landscape 
- 148,501
Prey Lang Landscape 
- 58,447
G3
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons 
of C02e, reduced, sequestered, and/or avoided as a result of 
USG assistance [standard indicator] 
 
- 58,321
Eastern Protection Landscape 
- 37,055
Prey Lang Landscape 
- 21,266
Table 4: Deforestation Rate in Seima Protected Forest (SPF) and Snoul Wildlife Sanctuary between 1998 
and 2014 (source deforestation assessment in Seima Protected Forest, WCS, 2014)
Table 3: Deforestation Rate in Seima Protected Forest (SPF) and Snoul Wildlife Sanctuary between 1998 
and 2014 (source deforestation assessment in Seima Protected Forest, WCS, 2014)
11
Conserving Biodiversity
According to SFB data, 206,948 ha are reported to support Goal 2. This land includes protected areas and 
many forms of community land management regimes. Parts of these areas - particularly the protected areas 
where WCS and WWF operate - may contain significant biodiversity. However, no project data captures 
the full extent of this, nor how much biodiversity has been impacted by SFB contributions.
This is because biodiversity concerns are not directly addressed in the goals and indicators of the SFB 
project. Instead, implementing partners that work most closely with biodiversity issues in their overall 
portfolios (i.e. WCS, WWF) attempt to report on their biodiversity conservation work through indicators 
related to training, meetings, management plans produced, and hectares under improved NRM. 
Goal 2 of the project addresses biodiversity indirectly, focusing on the “number of hectares of biological 
significance and/or natural resources under improved management.” The SFB Performance Monitoring and 
Evaluation Plan (PMEP) does not provide a clear definition of biological significance necessary to achieve the 
overarching goal of conservation. No capacity targets are established. These are critical factors in 
determining how much biodiversity is being targeted in this work.
One possible avenue to explore for indicators is non-timber forest products (NTFPs), the presence or 
absence of which can be a possible indicator of biodiversity. However the presence or absence of a variety 
of NTFPs have not been evaluated in many of the forests under communal management. Doing so may also 
lead to concerns about the ability of improved management to conserve biodiversity. The evaluation team 
visited ten communities that contained community forests (CFs) (see Table 1). The evaluation team found 
from talking to people that most of these contain no large trees and few non-timber forest products 
(NTFPs) that communities can utilize (like resin trees, honey and mushrooms). Although patrolling by 
communities may protect the few remaining rosewood trees, it can do little to conserve biodiversity 
overall since many native species no longer exist in these forests.
However, some initiatives supported by SFB include tools that monitor biodiversity (SMART, camera 
trapping and line-transect surveys) but cumulative data is needed before success can be claimed After the 
current SFB program expires, data now being collected by these methods may show that biodiversity has 
been conserved in the SFB project areas. Similarly, biodiversity surveys supported by USAID through SFB, 
such as WCS studies on gibbons and vultures, a WWF study on large cats, and a current ongoing survey by 
CI in PLL, may yield useful biodiversity conservation information and baseline data for the future. SFB 
efforts to ensure government legalization for a Protected Forest for the core area of PLL may help 
biodiversity conservation in the future, but only if genuine protection is implemented.
Improving Natural Resources Management (NRM)
Overall, NRM is being improved by SFB, both in project areas and nationally. According to recent SFB data, 
there are now 206,948 hectares of biological significance under improved NRM (Goal 2), including the 
various types of community management regimes within EPL and PLL. Interviews conducted by the 
evaluation team in project communities showed an understanding of the value of forests, the desire to 
protect them and growing community engagement in patrolling, ecotourism, NTFP collection and 
production and other related activities supported by SFB.
At the local level, management and governance is being improved in the communities through SFB trainings 
and meetings, and more recently in constructive dialogue activities addressing particular site-specific 
problems. Without exception, all communities that were visited by the evaluation team spoke positively 
about the work of SFB and partners to support them in learning about forest values, laws, sustainable 
livelihood enterprises and other activities that protect their resources. They also consistently requested 
that trainings be repeated, or refresher courses offered, as the material is difficult and new to them and 
they often don’t retain enough information from just one training event. A number of communities actively 
12
patrol their forests but others need more support to do so. All communities reported being short of the 
necessary equipment they needed, such as cameras, boots, raingear, tents, and hammocks. 
At the national level, the Protected Areas policy work supported by SFB and its official approval by the 
government represents a strong start towards government protection of these neglected areas. Open 
Development Cambodia (ODC) with its transparent and easy-to-access database on development activities 
in forests provides information that is accessed by many users both nationally and internationally. ODC has 
good prospects for sustainability with SFB support. 
Figure 2: Questionnaire Results for Different Approaches
Question 2: Which technical approaches (e.g., communal land titling, enterprise development, strengthening 
protected area management, working at national vs. Local levels, small grants, etc.) appear to be most effective, and 
which appear to be least effective or most challenging to implement?
The questionnaire survey provided to key NGOs and small grant holders asked respondents to rate the 
effectiveness of six approaches used by SFB, from “most effective” to “least effective,” and also offered a 
“don’t know” option. Two thirds of the questionnaires were returned, representing 15 respondents from 
11 organizations, and the results are presented in Table 1. The questionnaires and the full results are 
presented in Annexes C, D, and E.
According to these respondents, Protected Area Management is the most effective approach used by SFB, 
followed by small grants. Policy work at the national level was seen as the least effective.
The findings of the evaluation team, through interviews with more NGOs, government officials, and 
community members, and direct observations of fieldwork and projects echoed these findings.
Strengthening Protected Area Management
Ongoing work by SFB in Seima Protection Forest, Mondulkiri Protection Forest, and Phnom Prich Wildlife 
Sanctuary in EPL is helping to strengthen protected area management. USAID funding through SFB provides
training and management support for officials and nearby communities. It supports biodiversity surveys,
population assessments for key flagship species, SMART and InVEST monitoring tools and other initiatives,
while WCS and WWF directly support ranger salaries and patrol activities which are not allowable using 
13
USAID funds. This complex of activities and synergy of resources works together to strengthen the
management of these resources. The ultimate effectiveness of these management interventions in 
addressing the overwhelming threats to biodiversity will only be apparent over the long term. In the near 
term, a management effectiveness tracking tool1 that will help SFB to measure how its efforts have 
strengthened protected area management would be beneficial.
SFB has been working hard towards the establishment of a new protected area that would reclassify 
300,000 hectares of production forest to protection forest Prey Lang. Forestry Administration (FA) 
endorsement of a new Sub-decree to establish this protected area is expected shortly. Conservation 
International is currently undertaking a biodiversity survey and book to promote this idea, with support 
from SFB. Care must be taken in the establishment of this Protected Area, however, to insure that 
surrounding communities still retain rights to harvest NTFPs in certain areas. Although the government will 
not allow the development of community forests in the core area some areas need to be available to the 
communities for certain sustainable activities. Many of their resin trees, for example, are in the Prey Lang 
core area, outside of their existing CF boundaries. More protected area work in PLL is sorely needed.
Small Grants
The new small grants program has received unanimous positive feedback from implementing partners. The 
initial ten grants of about $50,000 each were awarded in June 2014, too recently for results to be evaluated 
by the team. Everyone familiar with these grants is impressed by the quality and coverage of the grantees 
that were chosen. The one-year duration of the grants, however, limits results that can be achieved. The 
grantees are enthusiastic about their projects. Interviews and the questionnaire show that the grants have 
enhanced grantee’s capabilities while also fulfilling the mission of SFB. Grantees are, however, struggling 
with the reporting requirements and financial accounting required by USAID but WI and USAID have been 
working to assist them. Once capacity can be strengthened for these grantees to fulfill these requirements, 
expectations for good outcomes are strong. Eventually some of these grantees may rise to the capacity of 
managing their own USAID grants.
Communal Land Titling
Communal land titling (also called indigenous community land titling) includes a variety of different 
approaches in different communities within EPL and PLL. Most of the communities visited by the evaluation 
team had or were in process of developing CFs, a long-standing mechanism that is officially approved by FA.
Villagers reported that without SFB or donor support they could not continue efforts to protect the forest. 
One community (Krang Tes) had a community conservation forest (CCF), a category of community forest 
not yet officially recognized by FA. The evaluation team also visited three communities with Indigenous 
Community Land Titling (ICT) and observed mixed results. 
All these communal land titling approaches are constructive in bringing communities together and creating 
a sense of ownership of their forests. The processes greatly enhance their understanding of the benefits of 
forests and provide communities with a legal basis from which to protect them. These different models 
have each demonstrated cases in which legal designation protected the land from further encroachment. 
Examples of cases where ICT was effective in protecting communities from encroachment include Pu Trom 
and Andaung Kraloeng.
 
1 1 Examples"include"WWF’s"Forest"Management"Effectiveness"Tracking"Tool"and"Rapid"Assessment"and"Prioritization"
of"Protected"Area"Management"methodology,"and"the"World"Bank’s"Management"Effectiveness"Tracking"Tool."The"
IUCN"World"Commission"on"Protected"Areas"has"published"an"overview"of"the"use"of"these"tools"(Leverington"et"al"
2008)."The"Convention"on"Biological"Diversity"provides"an"overview"of"the"approach"at"www.cbd.int/protectedS
old/PAME.shtml.
14
These processes, however, often take years to fulfill the legal requirements and require years of training 
within communities, as well as technical input from the government. An expedited process and a longer 
duration for CF titles would be useful. But, even with official status, community managed lands are not 
assured protection. Field site visits confirmed cases where the legal boundaries of existing titles were not 
being respected by outsiders. For instance in the case of O’Rana in EPL, the legally established ICT was 
encroached upon by wealthy landowners and the military. Another donor helped with court proceedings 
and the community regained their land, but the evaluation team was told that they are still are expecting 
this to be contested. And, the land in question had already been entirely cleared of trees. Another current 
case in Stung Treng involves a community that has met all the requirements to establish its CF after years 
of work, and has sent the final documents to the provincial level for signing. However, the process has 
been delayed because the national government granted an ELC containing some of the best forest land 
from the proposed CF area. These are some of the more clear examples, but all communities reported 
illegal outside logging in protected areas, including by the military (which, being armed, are particularly 
intimidating).
Enforcement on the ground is often weak or nonexistent. Most communities reported illegal activities in 
their areas and six of them specifically mentioned lack of enforcement. FA relies on community members 
to do patrolling but eight of the communities visited reported that they reduced the number of forest 
patrols because of lack of support and equipment for these efforts. In addition, some communities reported 
that even if they found transgressors and reported them, there was no FA follow up. The provincial FA 
officials interviewed in Mondulkiri and Stung Treng agreed this was the case and said they lacked the staff 
or resources to respond to community requests for support. 
Another issue that mars the effectiveness of CFs in particular is the fact that many of these areas (in seven
of the nine CF communities visited) include degraded forests with few if any NTFPs to harvest, and include 
large areas of agriculture and other non-forest activities. The government allocated these tracts of land for 
CFs (many with previously degraded sites), apparently in the expectation that communities would restore 
them. Some communities visited in PLL no longer collect NTFPs, or if they do they must travel long 
distances to protected forests where the resin trees still exist. Six of the nine communities visited reported 
that their community forests are too far away to access or patrol without support to cover the costs of 
transportation and fieldwork.
In the case of PLL, the strategy is to support scattered CFs along the buffer zone in hope that this will help 
to secure the buffer while the core can become a protected area. However, CF’s alone cannot achieve the 
goal of protecting forests and biodiversity in the buffer zone, given their weaknesses and the great distance
that often lies between them. Local FAs pay attention only to specific, often small CFs, and disregard the 
core areas where no CFs are established.
While these communal land titling approaches are effective tools, the evaluation team does not believe that 
they are sufficient by themselves to meet the goals of the project and to protect the broader landscapes in 
question.
Enterprise Development
SFB has two broad categories of enterprise development. Both are meant to enhance the conservation –
livelihood linkage by increasing the revenue of communities, thus reducing the incentive to destroy forest
resources. The two categories are 1) those that rely on sustainable use of forest products—i.e. honey, 
resin, mushrooms, bamboo, ecotourism—and 2); those that rely on agricultural approaches—chickens, pigs 
and rice.
The first SFB approach, involving NTFPs and ecotourism that is under development in EPL, has good 
prospects. The communities SFB works with in the EPL are all near large protected landscapes, and their 
NTFP and tourist potential is high. In Andaung Kraloeng, for example, gibbons are being habituated, and a 
15
few guides have been well trained to care for and monitor them. Management structures have been 
established, and work is now being focused on how to develop the skills of the village to manage and serve 
the growing numbers of tourists. In Krang Tes, EPL, villagers reported good results using new techniques 
introduced by the project for resin tapping and the protection of resin trees. They report receiving higher 
prices for their honey and resin since the project began two years ago.
In PLL, results are mixed. The “vulture restaurant” work in Preah Vihear, the Prey Lang extension area, 
appeared to have some positive results – this was the only community visited by the evaluation team that 
reported self-sufficiency and said that they could continue with their project if donor support didn’t 
continue. In the main area of Prey Lang, however, enterprise development work is new, and is focusing on 
agriculture and poultry production at the request of CF members, with the intention of addressing food 
shortages and promoting sustainable livelihoods. One village in Stung Treng reported that rice production 
training was helpful, but was done after they had already planted their rice for this year. Poultry raising, 
primarily by women, may add a small amount of income but it is difficult to say if this will replace the need 
to over-utilize the forests. Overall, the connection between enterprise development and the conservation 
of forest resources needs to be well-demonstrated as the project continues.
Increased economic opportunities do not necessarily result in the reduction of unsustainable behavior, or 
stop the recruitment of others to fill the niche vacated by those that begin to practice more sustainable 
economic activities. The project needs to identify the conditions under which economic activity reduces 
threats to biodiversity, and provide data that this is in fact happening. 
In addition, a four-year timeframe is probably insufficient to observe the impacts of enterprise development 
on biodiversity conservation. In communities where SFB implementing partners have been active for nearly 
a decade, the sustainability of enterprise development activities is promising. For instance, ecotourism 
ventures in Preah Vihear and in Seima are well along the way to sustainability and involved communities 
visited by the evaluation team were the only ones that expressed optimism that their efforts could 
continue without further outside support. New enterprise development initiatives under SFB with a 
relatively small window of support have less hope of being sustainable.
National Level Policy Work
Questionnaire respondents perceived this approach as least effective. Beyond the production of a new 
policy on management of protected areas, little national policy has resulted from SFB interventions. 
However, if they come to fruition plans to support the FA in the establishment of a new Protected Forest 
in Prey Lang will be a major accomplishment. Constructive dialogues under Objective Two of SFB also have 
the possibility of influencing change at the national level. This work has recently begun and it is too soon to 
evaluate any results. Overall, work at the national level has been limited but with continuing and increasing 
efforts, could yield positive results.
PES and REDD+
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and REDD+ are two related approaches in the SFB project that can 
help communities benefit from outside investments in their resources. Ibis rice, a “green” product 
supported by SFB, has given communities the tools, training and marketing to produce and sell rice that is 
organically grown and that commands a higher price on the market. In return for training and technical
assistance, participating communities sign an agreement not to log their forests or harm the wildlife and 
resources therein. This conservation agreement model seems to be working well, especially in terms of 
building well-developed institutions where the villagers themselves are taking ownership of the project and 
could expand to other areas. However it is not clear if this measure alone will make Ibis rice sustainable. 
There are significant business challenges with the existing model, including productivity, post-harvest 
16
milling, storage, and quality control issues, and an expert has been tasked to address them. This program 
might benefit from improved access to export markets to sell more rice. Direct involvement of the project 
however is prohibited due to requirements under the Bumper Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act.2
The results of the business challenge report may shed more light on options for ensuring sustainability of 
this program.
REDD+ can bring money into communities through the sale of carbon credits on the international market. 
A formal carbon market based upon caps on greenhouse gas emissions is not yet in place, however. At this 
point, the only option available for carbon credit sales is through a heavily discounted voluntary carbon 
market. However, there is significant work in the development of REDD+ readiness, in anticipation of the 
growth of the carbon market. REDD+ work supported by SFB in Seima Protection Forest is close to 
achieving official recognition. This is the result of impressive work by the partnership between WCS and 
Winrock’s Eco Services Team. Communities in the REDD+ Seima area have been trained on the 
importance of forest resources and REDD+, and some villagers, for instance in the village of Pu Trom, 
exhibited an impressive understanding of REDD+. The evaluation team also found other villagers’ whose 
understanding was limited, and in one village, a few villagers were concerned about all these documents 
they put their thumbprints on, and that REDD+ could result in their land being taken away. With more 
community work and with final government approval, REDD+ in Seima stands to be a model for the region.
Question 3: What overarching contextual challenges or constraints can be observed? How can these be considered 
in next work plan?
Overall Observations
SFB works in a country that struggles with poor governance, low levels of political commitment, and 
limited governmental capacities at all levels (Sophal Ear, 2007). According to the Transformation Index 
(BTI, 2014) corruption and a lack of transparency are endemic in the judicial system, the administration and 
almost all sectors. Cambodia ranks near the bottom of the 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index produced 
by Transparency International, ranking 160 out of 177 countries, with a score of only 20 out of a possible 
100 for the least corrupt countries.
Due in part to the above overarching factors at work in the natural resources sector, the amount of aid 
disbursed does not appear to prevent forest loss (Chart 4.4) and deforestation continues unabated (Chart 
4.5). These issues at the national, political, and power levels have arguably the most impact on project 
success but are very challenging for SFB to work with.
 
2 This"provision"prohibits"support"for"agricultural"products"that"would"compete"with"US"agricultural"commodities.
17
Figure 3: Aid disbursement in the conservation and environment sectors (original analysis by S. Chanthy, 
using data from CDC's Aid Effectiveness Reports, National Strategic Development Plans, UN Cambodia 
Country Assessment Report, FAO study, Open Development Cambodia
Figure 4: Forest Cover in Cambodia, 1973-2013 (ODC, 2014)
National Level
At the national level there are conflicting policies, goals and legal frameworks. Economic Land concessions 
(ELCs) have been issued in protected areas, many within the protected areas administered by MoE (though 
17 have since been cancelled). Three new ELCs were granted in the Seima Protected area at the end of 
2012, and approved at high levels of government, despite questionable legality. FA resisted these 
concessions and succeeded in reducing the size by approximately half. 
There is a difficult relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries (and its agency 
the Forestry Administration (FA)) and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) the two primary government 
15.3%
18.2% 19.6%
12.3%
14.6%
8.3%
16.7%
11.5%
36.5%
17.8%
22.7%
%48.00%%
%50.00%%
%52.00%%
%54.00%%
%56.00%%
%58.00%%
%60.00%%
%62.00%%
%64.00%%
%66.00%%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2002% 2003% 2004% 2005%2006% 2007%2008% 2009% 2010% 2011% 2012%
Forest'cover'(per'cent)'
Aid'disbursement'(million'US$)'
Year'
Environment%and%Conservation%(million%US$)% Forest%cover%(per%cent)%
18
entities SFB needs to work with. For instance, it is difficult to get them in the same room for quarterly 
meeting (see section 5b for more information). 
In the past ten years, victims of land conflict have rarely won in court cases. In forest crime hotspots like 
Prey Lang, impunity by illegal loggers and corruption in the state apparatus feed off each other in a vicious 
circle (Global Witness 2007). Poor landowners and land and forest activists often end up behind bars if 
they are lucky; if not, they are harassed, injured or killed. Chut Wutty, who spearheaded the Prey Lang 
Community Network, was killed by armed guards at an illegal logging site he was investigating (Franks L. 
2014). During the course of this evaluation a journalist investigating illegal logging in Kratie was murdered.
Such examples are commonly reported by the Phnom Penh Post. 
USAID constraints on budget use are another challenge SFB has been working with. For instance, USAID 
restricts the construction of buildings and does not permit payments to government staff. These two 
mechanisms, however, are among the more successful ways that forest loss has been slowed in protected 
areas. SFB funds approximately 80% of WCS’s costs for activities in the SFB landscapes, and 35% of WWF’s 
costs. These funds cover support activities and pay for non-patrol staff, allowing WCS and WWF to use 
their other sources of funding to support forest patrols. This restriction is one of the reasons that 
cooperative agreements that leverage outside resources make sense for the SFB.
Local Level
Working with sub-national or local institutions can be challenging as capacity is low, and officials are poorly 
paid. This can create a lack of motivation, and push officials to focus on how to find “incentives”. The 
interviews the evaluation team was able to have with local MoE officials in EPL, for instance, consisted of 
repetitive comments about “incentives” and “per diems”, and the need to supplement government official 
salaries. One FA official in Stung Treng, PLL was enthusiastic about the training received from SFB – but he 
couldn’t recall what any of the courses were about, even when asked in different ways by the evaluation 
team’s Cambodian members.
Another considerable constraint is the overlapping claims between ELCs and CFs and other village lands. 
These concessions, granted at the highest levels of government, can be hidden by shell companies, and it is 
difficult for the communities, even with SFB help, to identify ELC representatives for constructive dialogues 
that might help in these matters. One example of this is Phnom Prasat village in Stung Treng as recounted 
above in the section on CFs.
Further, widespread illegal logging and land encroachment with the involvement of powerful officials and 
military personnel is a major obstacle. Communities report that when the FA is unlikely to respond, for 
example as soon as it is dark, or on a weekend, illegal logging resumes in full force. Complicating matters, 
communities are required to tell FA when they are patrolling. This, community members report, lets FA 
alert the transgressors that they are associated with to stop their activities at those times. These issues 
come up even at higher levels. Transgressors are rarely penalized and many are thought to be connected 
with wealthy and powerful entities. This system greatly challenges SFB’s ability to ensure the protection of 
forests, no matter how many communities are trained to help.
Addressing Constraints in Future Work Plans
The constraints involving political and power issues at the national level are beyond the scope of SFB to 
address in their work plans but some of the issues at lower levels can and are being considered. The SFB 
Objective 2 concerning constructive dialogues is a good way to address some of the local issues of land 
conflict. The SFB team has already pinpointed a number of these cases and a matrix has been developed on 
how to address these. This work will be intensified in the next work plan and more results should be 
possible to report on in following quarters of implementation. 
19
Question 4: Is the project’s approach to monitoring and evaluation (tools, indicators, data collection methods) 
appropriate for capturing project progress and enabling adaptive management?
Overall Observations
The current Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for SFB was only approved in February, 2014 after the change 
in COP and some of the activities—small grants, constructive dialogues, public awareness campaigns, 
enterprise activities in PLL—have only recently begun and it is too early to report on them. The reporting 
systems have also undergone some changes since the beginning of SFB. Only current tools and reporting 
systems are discussed here.
Tools
The basic M&E tools include reports from partners and small grant NGOs. Their objective-based indicators 
and weekly and quarterly reports are adequate to capture progress. Weekly reporting was recently 
introduced. This met initially with some resistance from implementing partners and new small grantees. 
Over time these have been more positively received. Some partners and NGOs say that weekly reports 
are actually helping them keep better records on their own progress. The bulleted format of the weekly 
reports helps with the ease of reporting and with SFB’s ability to merge multiple submissions into a single 
report that is provided to USAID.
Data Collection Methods
Satellite imagery and mapping is a useful data collection method for this project. There is an issue, though, 
that different data sets and metadata standards used by WCS and by WI may make the results for different 
landscapes difficult to compare. WI’s deforestation assessment uses the global University of Maryland 
(UMD) data, which is not very good for the open “deciduous” forest. Also, the Seima REDD+ site has been 
measured following rules and approved methodology of VCS (VM0009), and it is expected that the results
on emission reductions to be generated from Seima REDD+ project will be released by the third party 
validator (SCS-Scientist Certificate System) in the coming months. The deforestation and GHG emissions 
assessment for the SFB/ USAID followed methods developed by USAID AFOLU Calculator 
(http://www.afolucarbon.org/) developed by WI. Interoperability of data developed by different 
implementing partners is essential, and incompatibility of data would indicate a significant management 
weakness.
Data collection methods include a recent livelihood survey conducted for communities in the project area 
and biodiversity surveys of various project areas. Further, implementing partners count the numbers of 
participants attending trainings and meetings, using this information to fill in data for USAID’s TrainNet.
These seem effective, but in the case of communities, may be cumbersome. For instance, making all 
community members sign a sheet whenever they attend a meeting or training is not a problem in many 
cases, but when indigenous people who have no recognizable signature are asked to use their thumbprints, 
this is a cumbersome process, confusing and often met with suspicion.
Indicators
Overall, the indicators do a good job in capturing how many people have been engaged in the SFB process, 
but do a lesser job in measuring actual results. The Objective level indicators for instance are:
0.1: Number of stakeholders actively engaged in improved forestry management practices
0.2.1: Number of conservation and NRM conflicts mitigated or acted upon as a result of USG assistance 
and 0.2.2: Number of conservation and NRM conflicts mitigated or acted upon as a result of USG
assistance
0.3.1: Number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable natural resources 
management and conservation as a result of USG assistance.
20
The sub-objective indicators are similar. Many address secondary matters, like “number of people trained,” 
“effective stakeholder participation in planning processes,” “number of people participating in income 
generating activities” that do not provide qualitative information concerning skills learned, how much 
money communities make from these enterprises; how stakeholders use the knowledge they have gained in 
planning processes, etc.
Some of the indicators are not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related) enough.
Many of these could be improved with data on how many hours the same people are trained (which there 
is already data collected on), how many stakeholders learning planning processes have worked on 
management plans, etc. Some of the human targets may also be above reachable goals due to the small 
populations of targeted communities.
Indicator 1.1.1, which measures the number of new CFs registered, misses measuring the work involved in 
moving through the many steps of CFs. Given the amount of years involved in fully registering a CF, and 
the challenge of even getting the government to register it when all the work is done (see example in 
Phnom Prasat, Stung Treng), this indicator does not adequately reflect the work achievement of 
implementing partners such as RECOFT.
A primary problem is that there are no obvious indicators that directly address biodiversity. The work by 
SFB in protected forests and wildlife sanctuaries includes strong efforts to conserve biodiversity such as 
biodiversity surveys and SMART reporting tools, but these results are not captured by indicators relating 
to Goal 2.”Number of hectares of biological significance and/or natural resources under improved NRM…”
These efforts no doubt do help in biodiversity conservation but it would be useful if there were some 
more direct indicators that that can capture their progress, consistent with the requirements for use of the 
biodiversity earmark and the USAID biodiversity code. This code requires:
• An explicit biodiversity objective
• An analysis of drivers and threats and a corresponding theory of change
• Intent, in site based programs, to positively impact biodiversity in biologically significant areas, and
• Indicators associated with the stated theory of change must be monitored for biodiversity 
conservation results.
Question 5A: How has SFB design and implementation taken into account differences between stakeholder 
populations in terms of access, control, and ownership of natural resources, or their participation in relevant 
governance processes? Have project outcomes (intended or unintended) been different for different populations in 
the target area? 
There appears to be sophisticated thought directed at gender strategy in the design of SFB, as seen in 
reports such as ‘Gender Strategy, Action Plans, and Checklists 2012 – 2016, and SFB has been generally 
successful in meeting the target of a 30% female participation rate for its trainings, in some cases surpassing 
it. SFB didn’t have a national gender specialist during the time of the evaluation, but the one who designed 
much of the gender strategy previously had produced a handful of compelling examples of ‘success stories’ 
of women across EPL and PLL being supported to develop their own leadership and decision-making skills.
The feedback from women-only focus groups conducted during the evaluation, however, provided some 
very specific suggestions as to how there could be some important qualitative improvement in the field 
implementation of a gender strategy. The evaluation team spoke to focus groups of women in all the 
villages visited. These groups consisted of women from specific activity groups – such as women active in 
the CF, CCF or ILT work, the CFMC itself, or a honey, resin or other livelihood group. There also 
appeared to be women present who were more broadly from the village and didn’t at least obviously 
belong to any of the above groups but who wanted to participate.
21
Women consistently reported a strong desire to participate more in the SFB trainings and activities. In 
many villages, just having a group discussion with only women (by the evaluation team) was a new 
experience and women reported enjoying it and wanting to do more of it (without being prompted by 
evaluators). Though they didn’t want to be cut off from doing activities with men, they reported that it is
easier to speak out and express themselves in women-only groups. Female members of the commune 
councils also consistently reported that women need to participate more in the SFB village activities. 
Participant observation supported this. In many meetings, most women, with the exception of a couple of 
empowered women, did not speak. Many more women spoke in the women-only groups. They also 
appeared to chat with each other in these women focus group meetings, conferring comfortably about 
what they wanted to say, or what they thought, before they turned to tell us. They reported this conferring 
helped them to understand the discussion or make sense of what they wanted to say and they could do 
this in women only groups. 
Women had a sense themselves, again without being prompted by specific questioning, that they didn’t 
understand enough about the land use and forestry issues related to their villages’ respective work with 
CF, CCF or ILT – it was mostly men or just the CFMC that did. In a few villages, in both EPL and PLL, they 
reported a concern that if they didn’t understand these issues better their communities’ future was 
endangered, as they were the ones that primarily teach their children. One woman in O’Rana village in 
Seima Protected Forest, a village experiencing external and internal difficulties with their ILT, said, “If we 
understood these issues [land use] better, we could resolve them because when the men get involved they generate 
violence.” Clearly resolving the land issues these communities face is complex, but certainly women having 
greater understanding of the issues can only enhance the prospects.
In a few villages, in both EPL and PLL, some concern came up from a couple of women in these discussions 
that demarcation of their land had happened in their absence, and they weren’t confident that it had been 
done correctly. Some women also expressed a lack of trust in the transparency of the demarcation process 
conducted by the CFMC with the FA and the participating NGO. They also lacked confidence they 
understood the process well enough.
One important specific feedback was a difficulty with the trainings, both for land use activities such as CF, 
CCF, and ICT and the livelihoods. Consistently, they reported they felt ‘embarrassed’ to speak in the larger 
village group meetings and afraid they would say something ‘stupid’. Many of the women (and villagers more 
broadly) don’t read and write, and that makes them feel less confident in these activities. They reported 
training materials are often written, which makes it difficult for them to follow. They reported a need for 
more simple materials. There was also feedback from women in villages that having smaller training events, 
for instance, smaller groups of households, would make it easier for women – both for their comfort level 
in speaking out, and also for their ability to take part given their household/children obligations.
The evaluation question above also queries how SFB design and implementation has taken groups such as 
youth into account in terms of access, control, and ownership of natural resources, or their participation in 
relevant governance processes. While it was not possible given fieldwork time constraints to have focus 
groups with youth groups, feedback from women’s focus groups expressed concern that youth were not 
sufficiently targeted or involved in SFB activities. Some women said that the youth are the ones that really 
needed to understand the forestry related issues – it was imperative for the future. They were concerned 
that only youth whose parents were very active in these groups knew much about the respective NRM 
groups. SFB is in the process of initiating some sophisticated strategies aimed at youth, so there appears to 
be promising prospects for addressing this.
Fieldwork constraints also made it difficult to do a more focused evaluation on how indigenous people or 
ethnic minorities more specifically are faring in SFB activities. One significant finding, however, was that 
translators for the Bunoung language in Eastern Plains are not being used sufficiently in training activities - a 
marked deficiency. On the topic of a need for a Bunoung translator for fieldwork, both WI and WWF staff 
22
at the local levels, and some staff at the national level, told the team it wasn’t necessary, that the Bunoung 
sufficiently understand Khmer. On site, however, there was quite a noticeable difference when a Bunoung 
translator was involved. People chattered constantly, whereas when someone addressed them in Khmer, 
only a few would speak out. They reported that while they understand Khmer and can communicate in it, 
many, including women and elder people, felt much more comfortable participating (and listening from 
observation) in their own language.
The evaluation team also observed some lack of understanding of straightforward power dynamics in 
community work on the part of SFB implementing staff. For instance, in one village in EPL, in the women’s 
group discussion it was revealed that it was difficult for villagers to speak out in the larger organized village 
meetings on ICT because many of them were in debt to the high ranking and wealthy members of the 
village who were also present. The WCS staff was surprised by this feedback. On questioning WI local staff 
in PLL on what their gender strategy was, it seemed to consist wholly of asking the village chief to get more 
women to come to the trainings. On questioning, local WWF staff in EPL also didn’t seem to have 
considered the power dynamics involved in not having a Bunoung translator. For example, letting the village 
chief translate when ‘necessary’ can result in the village chief or elite who have better command of Khmer 
language being able to control the process.
All this feedback was shared at the two regional debriefs conducted by the evaluation team in both EPL and 
PLL. The COP and DCOP were present at the regional debrief in PLL. The COP appeared to be 
committed to a high quality gender component for SFB. He had previously overseen gender training for his 
staff and was committed to improving it on the ground. During the debrief, he was receptive to the 
feedback, and spoke encouragingly to his staff about the importance of this. He was also at the time in the 
process of hiring a new gender specialist willing to spend time in the field, and took decisive initiative just in 
the time spent together with the evaluation team in the field to instruct his staff to look for two gender 
specialists, one for each landscape.
Question 5B: How has the project facilitated synergy, coordination, and information sharing among and between 
USAID/Cambodia, its implementing partners and host government partners?
In addressing this question, the SFB project can best be understood in two different periods – that of the 
difficult first year, and improvement and enhanced optimism in the second year, under the new current 
COP. The first year the project did not facilitate good synergy, coordination and information sharing 
between and amongst these respective groups. While there is consistent feedback that the first COP
lacked the leadership and vision required, he should not be used as a scapegoat for all the SFB’s growing 
pains and lack of progress. The team received triangulated reports indicating that he may been undermined 
by his own senior staff, and that personality clashes existed within and between some of the implementing 
partners at the director level.
The good news for SFB is that there is unanimous feedback that things have greatly improved under the 
new SFB COP since the end of 2013 who has demonstrated an openness in communication, and dynamic 
initiative to revitalize and improve the project. Supported by rotations in director positions of WWF, WCS 
and RECOFTC, working relations are in a process of improvement. There was reported optimism that the 
project is on a positive path forward. 
Year One: Lack of Trust In Working Relations
The first year of SFB can be characterized by a lack of trust in working relations between WI, the 
implementing partners and the relevant host government partners – FA and MoE. This year was regularly 
referred to as a ‘lost year’ by some implementing partners. It took six months to develop the first year 
work plan.
23
One example of this was confusion over the role of WI staff placed locally in EPL and PLL. The SFB staff 
placed in EPL would regularly want to come to sit in on WWF and WCS meetings locally, almost on a daily 
basis in the case of WWF who have neighboring offices to Winrock in Mondulkiri. While WWF and WCS 
felt they didn’t have anything to hide, it was unclear to them how the embedded WI staff added value to 
the project, especially when these local WI/SFB staff didn’t appear to have many other recognizable 
responsibilities. The first year in PLL, also, there was a project coordinator position staffed by WI that 
caused much confusion for RECOFTC, as there was a perceived lack of coordination and information 
sharing as to what WI was doing.
Another area of difficulty involved EWMI’s work supporting the Prey Lang Community Network (PLCN).
EWMI was active in the early stages of the project proposal and strategy development of the project. It was 
clearly written into the original project document that working to support the capacity of the PLCN was 
one arm of strategy to work across different levels with different approaches. This developed into an area 
of much difficulty, though, for both EWMI and SFB. WI staff was reported as having referred to the PLCN 
as an “illegal” or “illegitimate” group, directly drawing on government language (in apparent reference to its 
lack of official recognition). WI staff had issues with EWMI supporting PLCN meetings where government 
officials were not invited or present and at times asked EWMI to delay PLCN meetings. An environment 
lacking in trust or “safe space” developed. And from the other perspective, it made SFB’s work more 
difficult with its government counterparts who didn’t want to work with EWMI because of its work with 
PLCN. There was also tension between RECOFTC and EWMI over strategy in PLL – RECOFTC more 
focused on CF’s with EWMI more concerned about the landscape as a whole.
Synergy, coordination and information sharing was also markedly weak between WI staff and its host 
government partners, FA and MoE the first year at the national level. Part of the existing confusion stems 
from SFB originally being granted approval by the Council of Ministers, above the relevant ministries, in 
contrast to the more common procedure of establishing a working agreement with a specific ministry.
Interviews conducted by evaluation team found good synergy, coordination and information sharing 
between the lowest local level of government - commune councils, and SFB implementing staff across the 
landscapes. The commune council members interviewed were those across the landscapes that expressed 
the greatest awareness of this project being funded by USAID. One commune council member in Kratie, 
PLL reported that he had previously thought that CF was an issue that was the responsibility of the local 
village CFMC. It was only after an institutional capacity building workshop that SFB sponsored him to 
attend, which he specifically referred to as ‘USAID supported’, that he realized that CF issues were his 
responsibility, also, as a sitting commune council member. He found this to be revelatory and interesting.
Year Two: Moving Forward Positively
There is unanimous agreement that the SFB project is on a positive trajectory forward under the new 
COP, Curtis Hundley.
Several new, tangible developments have resulted in significantly improving synergy, coordination and 
information sharing amongst and between the implementing partners and the host government ministries.
Examples of this are monthly partner meetings which all partners report to be productive. Important issues 
are being worked out, such as indicators, reporting, etc., and the first Quarterly meeting was convened 
September 2014, to which FA and MoE were also invited. Other new activities consist of the increased 
sharing of SFB documentation and the creation of a shared database. Partners, such as WWF and WCS, are 
contributing to EWMI’s SFB project, ‘Open Development Cambodia’.
WCS and WWF in Cambodia have a long history of good working relations with each other and both 
reported already having good relations with USAID prior to SFB. The first year of SFB, while they were 
careful not to engage directly with USAID staff about SFB management issues, they had other projects that 
kept them positively engaged with USAID. The last year, via SFB, relations between WWF, WCS and 
24
USAID have only been enhanced and new and creative partnership initiatives are being discussed and 
implemented. 
The Director at FA reported that relations with SFB have improved greatly this year, though he would still 
like to receive more information and reports, and coordinate more closely on work plan development. He 
also said that relations with USAID have improved via SFB this last year and there is good coordination and 
synergy with the people at USAID he deals with. Two representatives from MoE came to the most recent 
SFB Quarterly meeting. They initially expressed frustration with SFB for not following appropriate 
government protocol, but the discussion evolved constructively towards the development of a plan for 
engagement with MoE. 
Fieldwork revealed mixed feedback from local officials from FA and MoE as to current coordination and 
information sharing with SFB staff. FA staff interviewed in Mondulkiri and in Stung Treng, PLL, reported 
positive working relations with local implementing partners and SFB staff. But on two different occasions, 
scheduled meetings of the evaluation team with FA staff in PLL were cancelled at the last minute. While it 
may be entirely possible the given reasons for cancelling were valid, it also seems possible there were other 
reasons. The FA official interviewed at the national level shared that local FA staff call him when there is 
any requests made of them involved with SFB, and he directs as to whether they can engage with the 
respective request or not. 
There are new initiatives built into the third year work plan for teambuilding efforts towards developing a 
“One SFB” team. The COP appears to be strongly committed to this and is leading the way for SFB in this 
regard.
Question 6. Do the existing administrative and management structures, including project staffing and 
partnerships, appropriately support the implementation of the activities?
Administrative
Financial reporting requirements for this project are very labor intensive – this is true for both the 
implementing partners and the small grant NGOs. Strict USAID reporting requirements challenge SFB staff 
to constantly regulate input, especially given the issues and difficulties that the implementing partners 
experience with it.
The small grants had just been awarded four months before this evaluation was conducted. Nearly all small 
grant recipients reported undue hardship due to the reporting requirements. One NGO with capacity 
stronger than many others says that these requirements significantly cuts into their fieldwork; while they 
used to spend one day in the office to meet reporting requirements of other donors, they now have to 
spend three days and only get two days actually in the field. Another small grant recipient stated that SFB 
makes up 20% of their work portfolio, but takes up 80% of their administrative officer’s time. Both of these 
small grant recipients said they would most likely not apply for follow-on grants for this reason. However, 
other small grant recipients recognized that this was a learning curve for them, their “tuition” for learning 
the standards that might someday enable them to manage USAID contracts directly. WI and USAID staff 
are helping the small grant NGOs face these reporting challenges and as the months progress these 
matters should start resolving themselves.
There were also triangulated reports from some of these small NGO recipient groups of negativity, of 
being ‘bullied’ and treated in a dismissive, arrogant way by WI. Both the COP and DCOP took this 
feedback seriously, and implemented decisive action. They removed the staff involved with the small NGO 
recipients from this responsibility, and now the DCOP will be the person to engage directly with these 
groups. They also had positive encouraging conversations with their staff about this and the staff response 
suggests a positive, adaptive capacity. 
25
Management
The COP and DCOP appear to possess dynamic leadership skills and make things happen quickly. The 
above example with the small grant recipients demonstrates this. Combined with the above mentioned 
action, they also reported speaking with their staff about shifting the thinking from an inflated sense of 
being the “Prime” to being in a service role to the project – the COP expressed this commitment to the 
evaluation team a number of times, and reported that he keeps sharing this with his staff. This will 
contribute to an improvement in the question above regarding relations with other implementing partners.
From a broad overview of the strategy of SFB, the current partnership structure between WI, WCS, 
WWF, RECOFTC and EWMI serves the project well. In terms of management and administration for all 
involved, however, this hasn’t been an easy day-to-day fit. WCS, WWF and RECOFTC, for example, have a 
long term programmatic approach to all their work whereas SFB is a four year project with tight USAID 
administrative monitoring requirements. Having long-term programmatic partners is invaluable to the 
project, so ongoing work addressing these difficulties constructively is worthwhile.
Another management issue regarding partnership structures has been confusion over the Objective 3 
Team Leader position, which is provided by WWF. There was some confusion from the beginning of the 
project about whether this was meant to be a management or advisory function. The first WWF staff to 
take this role left earlier this year, and there have been two people in the position since. Currently, the 
position is open and will benefit from an open hiring process.
26
CONCLUSIONS
The theory of change for this project is: Lasting change requires action across multiple geographic scales with the 
participation of the full range of stakeholders.
The SFB results to date are limited, especially given the slow start the first year. The three linked 
requirements are challenging work at best in the current political and power-base structure in Cambodia.
SFB is a complex project with many “moving parts”. The project does, however, under the leadership of 
the COP and the foresight of the current leadership of the implementing partners, appear to demonstrate 
some ability to adapt and be flexible in the face of difficulty and change. Demonstration of this quality is 
further supported by the results of the questionnaire administered by the evaluation team. Especially given 
third year work plan activities and new initiatives in motion, the project seems on track to speak to this 
theory, and possibly support it in its outcome.
It is hoped that the recommendations given here may help shape the next two years of the project to 
maximize success in this difficult climate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Two sub-questions have been provided by USAID/Cambodia to capture recommendations from the 
evaluation and these are considered separately. Each recommendation refers to one or more overall 
objectives (Obj) listed in parentheses in the recommendations that follow.
Evaluation purpose #2: Propose key actionable recommendations to improve the performance of the project in the 
remaining period.
2.1 Which SFB activities/approaches should be continued or expanded through the life of the project, 
and which should be reconsidered or improved?
2.2 What specific recommendations could be made to improve project performance for the remaining 
period and ensure greater sustainability of results once the SFB project ends?
Recommendations addressing 2.1: Approaches
1. Protected area work should continue to be strongly supported and expanded through the rest of 
SFB’s duration (Obj 1)
a. Camera trapping and SMART data collection tools in and around protected areas (which 
can add data towards long term species populations, a necessary conservation tool).
(Obj.1)
b. Efforts to get government approval for the Sub-decree to declare Prey Lang Protected 
Forest should be encouraged, as long as care is taken that this will not limit community 
access for NTFP collection and subsistence hunting. (Ob1 )
c. Further biodiversity surveys in project areas where these are lacking to determine the 
presence of rare and/or ecologically significant species. (Obj 1)
27
2. Enterprise development work should be carefully scrutinized for sustainability prospects after the 
project ends, for the strength of their conservation linkages, and their contribution to the overall 
goal of “Conservation and governance of the Eastern Plains and Prey Lang landscapes improved”
a. Already initiated efforts to improve livelihoods, where commitments have been made to 
communities for the remaining life of the project, should be continued.(Obj 3)
b. No new SFB supported NTFP enterprises should be initiated if they cannot be expected to 
be sustainable.(Obj 3)
c. New agricultural livelihood activities that cannot show a direct link to reducing forest loss 
should not be initiated. Existing agricultural activities should be evaluated to ensure that 
they pose no threat to biodiversity or the natural environment. (Obj 3)
3. The strategy to address landscape issues in PLL should continue to expand in new ways currently 
being initiated that go beyond a more narrow focus on CFs in the buffer zone. (Obj 1)
a. No new communities should be considered for CF work in the remaining years of SFB
since these could not be expected to be sustainable with only two years remaining of the 
SFB project. (Obj 1)
b. Efforts to gain more national attention to the Prey Lang forest and other landscape 
approaches should be scaled up, particularly those that address urban residents of Phnom 
Penh (with the potential to involve more people that care about forests) and youth 
throughout the country (since the forests are their heritage)(Obj 1)
4. REDD+ activities in Seima Protected Forest should continue to receive strong SFB support, as this 
model is close to acquiring validation. No new REDD+ activities should be initiated in other areas.
(Obj 1)
5. The small grants program should be expanded, with more grantees and longer duration of the 
granting cycles. (Obj 1)
6. Constructive dialogue approaches should expand to include greater capacity building amongst local 
communities and government officials, so as to ensure its continued benefit after the project ends.
(Obj 2)
7. Public awareness and advocacy programs should be strongly supported. (Obj 1)
a. Open Development Cambodia should continue to be supported in this work and to 
disseminate lessons learned throughout the region and the globe. (Obj 1)
b. The Prey Lang Community Network (PLCN) should be supported and other efforts to 
increase national recognition of Prey Lang should be continued as well (Obj 1)
c. Public awareness programs should also be considered for EPL, where threats are also 
serious. (Obj 1)
d. National public awareness campaigns about the value of forests and their imminent loss 
should be developed for Phnom Penh citizens, youth and school groups, and users of social 
media should be scaled up. (Obj 1)
28
Recommendations addressing 2.2: Fine-tuning
1. There should be repeat and refresher training, follow-up visits, and regular mentoring to ensure 
participants learn material. Training materials should be simplified, presented in languages 
comfortable to the participants and in ways that also include the illiterate. (Obj 1)
2. Indicators for SFB need fine-tuning for the remainder of the project (Obj 1,2,3)
a. Training indicators need to include measurements of extent of training for individual 
participants – i.e. person hours trained and # training events, instead of a narrow focus on 
# of new participants. An indicator reflecting material that has been learned and utilized 
and other factors that measure results from training efforts are also recommended. (Obj 
1,2)
b. Indicator 1.1.1 addressing the number of CF’s established should either be changed, or an 
additional one added to recognize the number of CF steps moved through, for better 
performance monitoring. (Obj 1)
c. Biodiversity indicators need to be added. (Obj 1). Some suggestions include:
• “Number of endangered flagship species (elephants/ibis/vultures etc.) monitored in 
targeted areas” (Note: This would easily include WCS and WWF work, but would not 
hinge on population numbers, which can fluctuate dramatically from year to year for 
many reasons beyond SFB’s control. In the two years remaining for SFB there is 
nothing it can claim about increasing populations of target species.)
• “Number of biodiversity surveys completed in targeted areas” (This would more 
obviously cover WCS and WWF surveys in existing protected forests and wildlife 
sanctuaries, and would also encompass new Conservation International survey work 
planned for Prey Lang forest).
3. The GHG assessment report drafted by WI needs more review in consultation with their partners 
WCS and WWF to ensure that the methodology and dates used are consistent. (Obj 1)
4. Community forest patrols require tents, boots and other field equipment for effective forest 
protection. Immediate direct assistance would help to expedite forest patrols in the near term, but 
in the long term, communities need a strategy to acquire the resources that they need, to be 
effective. (Obj 1)
5. SFB staff needs more capacity and training to be more effective (Obj 1, 2, 3)
a. Staff with strong gender and indigenous population experience need to be hired to work at 
the community level (Obj 1,2,3)
b. SFB staff could benefit by more training in community development, project management 
and other related areas (Obj 1, 2, 3)
29
REFERENCES
PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND USAID GUIDELINES
USAID 2014. Biodiversity Policy, Washing D.C 
USAID/SFB, 2014. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
USAID/SFB. 2014. Socio-Economic Baselines Study: Income and Livelihood of Engaged Communities in Prey 
Lang Landscape and Easter Plain Landscape
USAID/SFB. 2014. Seventh Quarter Report – April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014
USAID/SFB. 2014. Sixth Quarter Report – Jan 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014
USAID/SFB. 2013. Fifth Quarter Report– Oct 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013
USAID/SFB. 2013. Fourth Quarter Report – July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013
USAID/SFB. 2013. Third Quarter Report – April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013
USAID/SFB. 2013. Second Quarter Report – January 1 to March 31, 2013
USAID/SFB, 2013. Grants Manual Cooperative Agreement Number
USAID/SFB. 2013. Gender Strategy, Action Plans and Checklists (2012-2016)
USAID/SFB. 2013. Cooperative Agreement No AID-442-A-13-00002, Attachment B, Program Description
USAID/SFB. 2012. Year One Work Plan, FY 2013 (November 9, 2012 to September 30, 2013) 
USAID. 2013. Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Program FY 2012, Results and Funding Conservation 
Biodiversity, and Sustaining Forests
USAID. 2013. Technical Note: Conducting Mixed-Method Evaluations, Version1
USAID. 2012. How to Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports, Version1
USAID. 2011. Evaluation Policy: Evaluation from Learning Experience, Washington D.C
USAID. 2012. Climate Change and Development Strategy (2012-2016)
USAID. 2011. Land Tenure and REDD+ Risks to Property Rights and Opportunities for Economic Growth 
Property Rights and Resources Governance, Briefing Paper# 11
USAID. 2005. Biodiversity Conservation: A Guide for USAID staff and Partners, Washington DC.
USAID, (Undated), Cambodia Human Rights and Social Accountability Assessment
OTHER REFERENCES
Barquin, L., M. Chacon, S.N. Panfil, A. Adeleke, E. Florian, and R. Triraganon. 2014. The Knowledge and 
Skills Needed to Engage in REDD+: A Competencies Framework. Conservation International, 
Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature, Regional Community Forestry Training Center. Arlington, Virginia, USA
BTI, 2014, Bertelsmann Stiftiung Transformation Index, Cambodia Country Report. Accessed online at 
http://www.bti-project.org/reports/country-reports/aso/khm/index.nc
30
Council for Development of Cambodia, 2011. The Cambodia Development Effectiveness Report 2011. 
Accessed online at http://www.cdc￾crdb.gov.kh/cdc/aid_management/DER%202011%20FINAL%20(31%20Oct%202011).pdf
Clements, T, A. John, K. Nielsen, D.A. Setha, T. Milner-Gulland, Payments for biodiversity conservation in 
the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological 
Economics 69 (2010) 1283–1291
Ear, Sophal, 2007, The Political Economy of Aid in Cambodia. Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol 15, No. 
1, April 2007, pp 68-96.
Lambrick, F.H, N.D. Brown, A. Lawrence and D.P. Bebber, 2014, Effectiveness of Community Forestry in 
Prey Lang Forest, Cambodia Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 2, 372–381C 2014, DOI: 
10.1111/cobi.12217
Leverington, F., Hockings, M., Pavese, H., Lemos Costa, K., and Courrau, J. 2008. Management Effectiveness 
Evaluation in Protected Areas – A Global Study. Supplementary Report No 1: Overview of 
Approaches and Methodologies. The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN￾WCPA.
Milne, S. 2013. Under the leopard’s skin: Land commodification and the dilemmas of Indigenous communal 
title in upland Cambodia, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 54, No. 3, ISSN 1360-7456, pp323–339
Niesen, E, P. Zurita and S. Banks, 2010. Conservation agreements as a tool to generate direct incentives 
for biodiversity conservation, Biodiversity, 11:1-2, 5-8
Open Development Cambodia, 2014. Accessed online at http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net
RGC, National Strategic Development Plans, accessed online at 
http://www.mop.gov.kh/Home/NSDP/tabid/83/Default.aspx
Thibault, M.O, L. & Tom G, February, 2013, Preliminary Study of the Feasibility of a Tiger Restoration 
Program in Cambodia’s Eastern Plains
UN-REDD, USAID/LEAF, and WOCAN, Workshop Summary Report Asia-Pacific Workshop on Women’s 
Inclusion for Sustainable Forests and Climate: What Works? March 26-27, 2014 Bangkok, Thailand
UN-REDD, 2013. Guidance Note on Gender Sensitive REDD+ 
USG. 2010. Strategic Choices for United States Fast Start Financing for REDD+ 
USG, 2010. Climate Funding in FY 2010, Fast Start Financing, Consolidated State/USAID FY11 Global 
Climate Change (GCC), Supplemental Guidance May 20, 2011
Winrock International, 2014. Summary Document Reporting on Baseline Deforestation and Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions for USAID-SFB, P
WCS, 2014. Drivers of Deforestation in the context of REDD+ Seima Protected Forest (2010 – 2014), 
P18. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society
WCS (May, 2014), Gibbon Habituation, Andoung Kraloeng nature-based tourism development, 6 month 
progress report, unpublished.
31
WCS, 2014, Deforestation assessment in Seima Protection Forest, unpublished.
32
ANNEXES
ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation team must answer all evaluation questions below using evidence-based approaches1
. However, the 
mission is open to additional question(s) that the evaluation team might find compelling or useful to the activity and the 
Mission. 
Evaluation purpose #1: Assess the effectiveness of the project’s design, implementation and management approach. 
1. 1.1 What evidence exists to date to demonstrate that the SFB project has made progress towards its stated goal 
and objectives of reducing forest loss, conserving biodiversity, and improving natural resource management 
and governance? 
2. 1.2 Which technical approaches (e.g., communal land titling, enterprise development, strengthening protected 
area management, working at national vs. local levels, small grants, etc.) appear to be most effective, and 
which appear to be least effective or most challenging to implement? 
3. 1.3 What overarching contextual challenges or constraints can be observed? How can these be considered in 
next work plan? 
4. 1.4 Is the project’s approach to monitoring and evaluation (tools, indicators, data collection methods) 
appropriate for capturing project progress and enabling adaptive management? 
5. 1.5 How has SFB design and implementation taken into account differences between stakeholder populations 
(men, women, youth, minority or indigenous groups) in terms of access, control, and ownership of natural 
resources, or their participation in relevant governance processes? Have project outcomes (intended or 
unintended) been different for different populations in the target area? How has the project facilitated synergy, 
coordination, and information sharing among and between USAID/Cambodia, its implementing partners and 
host government partners? 
6. 1.6 Do the existing administrative and management structures, including project staffing and partnerships 
appropriately support the implementation of the activities? 
Evaluation purpose #2: Propose key actionable recommendations to improve the performance of the project in the 
remaining period. 
1. 1.1 Which SFB activities/approaches should be continued or expanded through the life of the project, and 
which should be reconsidered or improved? 
2. 1.2 What specific recommendations could be made to improve project performance for the remaining period 
and ensure greater sustainability of results once the SFB project ends? 
1 Use scientific data collection and analysis methods to generate evaluation findings to each specific question. The 
Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the 
compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or 
qualitative evidence 
Audience and Intended Use 
The audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Cambodia Mission, USAID implementing partners, and 
various host government agencies. USAID and Implementing Partners will use the findings and recommendations from 
this evaluation to inform and guide SFB activities to improve the project performance for the remaining period. USAID 
will also consider the findings, particularly the evidence-based findings, in the design of follow on project(s). An 
Executive Summary will be provided to the Office of the Council of Ministers and relevant line ministries. It is 
33
expected that the host country partners and donors will also be able to use the report to better assist them in their future 
goals. The final report will be posted on the Development Experience Clearinghouse website. 
Team composition 
A team of four people composed of one Project Manager (or Evaluation Team Leader), Institutional Development 
Specialist, Biodiversity Conservation Specialist and Climate Change and Adaptation Specialist). Two of them, 
including Project Manager, should be expatriates and the other two should be Cambodian. 
• Project Manager (International): Must have an advanced degree in forestry, biodiversity conservation, 
natural resources management, climate change or development studies, socio-economics, sociology, 
anthropology or other relevant fields. 
• Must have at least 10 years of field experience leading and evaluating development projects for USAID and 
other donors with a strong background on comprehensive aspects of natural resource management, 
biodiversity conservation, and climate change. 
• Must have demonstrated ability to conceptualize program evaluation methodology and processes. 
• Excellent analytical and report writing skills, fluency in spoken and written English are essential. 
• It will be a distinctive advantage if he/she has: 
o Knowledge of international comparative policy, legislation and their application to deliver conservation of 
forests and biodiversity.
o Experience in constructive dialogues and economic development in a forest environment.
o Knowledge and experience of Cambodian policies, legislation, and procedures in forestry and biodiversity.
o Previous working experience on gender, minorities and indigenous issues in natural resources management. 
The Project Manager will: 
• Finalize and negotiate the team’s work plan and assignments; 
• Establish assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks for each team member; 
• Ensure that the logistical arrangements in the field are finalized; 
• Facilitate team planning meetings and work with the Mission’s FSE team to set the agenda and other crucial 
components of the evaluation; 
• Manage team coordination meetings in the field; 
• Coordinate the workflow and tasks and ensure that team members are working on schedule; and 
• Take the lead in preparing, contributing, managing and coordinating team member input as well as, 
submitting, revising and finalizing the deliverables; 
One International and Two National Team Members: 
Additional team members will be individually expected to: 
• Possess an advanced degree in forestry, biodiversity conservation, natural resources management, climate 
change or development studies or other relevant fields. 
• Have at least four years of program/project implementation, monitoring and evaluation experience for USAID 
and/or other donor-funded projects, with a well-rounded background in environmental management, 
biodiversity and forest conservation, and climate change (especially REDD+). 
• Have excellent analytical and report writing skills, and be fluent in spoken and written English. 
As a team, the international and national team members will be expected to have among them the following 
qualifications: 
34
• Demonstrated ability in developing and applying various quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods 
evaluation techniques, such as surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and other relevant 
techniques. 
• In-depth understanding and demonstrated experience with: 
o The role and application of policy, legislation and governance interventions to deliver conservation of forest 
and biodiversity. 
o Cambodian policies, legislation, and procedures in forestry and biodiversity.
o Socio-economic and cultural issues in natural resources management, including the different roles and 
contributions of different populations (men and women, indigenous or minority groups, etc.). 
The team members will: 
• Support the Project Manager to help develop an evaluation plan, conduct a desk review, participate in 
meetings, collect data, analyze data and draft the final report. 
• Manage and coordinate the logistics for field visits as delegated by the Project Manager 
• Serve as interpreters for non-Khmer speaking international team members and for indigenous groups 
For all individuals in the evaluation team, evidence of previous relevant work will also be required in the form 
of resumes, work samples, and references to support the claim of knowledge, skills, and experience. 
USAID/Cambodia’s Contribution: A member of the USAID/Cambodia Program Office will be the Evaluation 
Team’s point-of-contact at post and will serve as the coordinator for this evaluation exercise. In addition, other Program 
Office and Food Security and Environment (FSE) staff will play a role in planning, providing direction, and the 
finalization of this evaluation. Members from USAID/Washington technical offices may also play a significant role in 
the evaluation. It is possible that one or more USAID staff will join the evaluation team during some or all of the field 
work. 
USAID/Cambodia can assist with limited logistical support, such as scheduling meetings with high level host 
government decision makers. The evaluation team should be prepared to work and travel independently, including 
generating their own evaluation schedule and corresponding meetings. Once in country, the team will arrange 
additional meetings as appropriate. The Mission’s FSE Team will be available to the evaluation team for consultations 
regarding resources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. A six-day work week is authorized 
while working in country. The team should provide their own laptops to prepare reports. The Mission cannot guarantee 
access to printing, copying, and other resources for non-USAID personnel, but will work where feasible and reasonable 
to support the administrative needs of the team. 
The evaluation team will be responsible for any necessary international and in-country travel and all related expenses 
(direct and indirect). This includes renting vehicles for field work in Phnom Penh and in the provinces. The timing of 
this evaluation will take place during Cambodia’s monsoon season. Remote sites may be difficult to visit if not 
impossible. The evaluation team should plan on flooding, traveling by boat, extremely challenging logistics, non￾Khmer speakers (indigenous groups) and difficult road conditions; a strong and flexible plan should be prepared to 
properly conduct the evaluation. 
Methodology 
The precise methodology and chronology of evaluation activities will be proposed by the contractor and approved by 
USAID/Cambodia through the Evaluation Framework (Deliverable #1, below). However it is expected that the 
evaluation will include a combination of the following activities (and others as needed): 
1. Documentation review (desk study): A number of policy, project design, and implementation related documents are 
available with FSE office and from implementing partners and sub-partners. This list includes project design 
documents, work plans, quarterly progress reports, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E Plan), Memorandums of 
Understanding (MoUs), and completed technical studies. These documents will be provided by USAID Cambodia and 
35
the SFB implementer as needed; however, the evaluation team should also research documents and reports (e.g., 
government, independent, NGO documents as needed) outside of the SFB project. 
The list project documents are available on this site: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8h5ahw9nl6nwkch/AAAat￾V5UCrIwMTV5It40Lfla 
2. Interviews with key informants involved in the project design and implementation processes. These may include 
USAID and project staff, local and national government institutions, implementing partners, sub-partners, other 
donors, and communities. 
3. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries as well as project field staff in the intervention areas. This may include 
community members, community networks, committees, and others if necessary. 
4. Field visits to project sites around the two landscapes – Prey Lang (PLL) and Eastern Plain (EPL). This should 
include visits to those communities and groups supported by SFB, community protected areas (CPAs), community 
forests (CFs), community conservation forests (CCFs), community based production forests (CBPFs) initiatives, 
Prey Lang Community Network, community enterprise groups, Community Forest Network and others. 
Timeline and Level of Effort 
The evaluation period includes preparatory work before arrival in-country and finalization of deliverables after the trip. 
The following is the illustrative timeline for each activity item that the evaluation team must conduct. The timeline for 
each item can be adjusted based on consultation between the mission and evaluation team if necessary. 
Proposed Timeline: 
Dates Task Project 
Manager 
Int’l 
Team 
Member 
National 
Team 
Member 
September 15 
– 19, 2014 
Document review, preparation work for all consultants, development 
and submission of evaluation plan to USAID/Cambodia (prior to 
arrival to Cambodia for the international expert(s). The evaluation 
plan will be reviewed by USAID Cambodia and possibly also by 
SFB team. 
5 3 3 
September 22 
– 26, 2014 
USAID Cambodia team review and comment on the evaluation 
framework 
September 29 
– 30, 2014 
Evaluation team makes necessary revision on the draft evaluation 
framework based on comments from USAID (if any) 2 2 2 
October 3 – 4, 
2014 International Expert(s) travel to Cambodia 2 2 0 
October 6 -7, 
2014 Team Planning Meeting 2 2 2 
October 8, 
2014 
In-brief meeting with FSE team and implementing partners. 
Introductory meeting with USAID Mission Director and senior 
management (possibly separate meetings). USAID will provide 
meeting venue for this in-brief. 
1 1 1 
October 9 –
October 24, 
2014 
Information and data collection and field debriefing: Meetings, 
interviewing with project stakeholders, partners, and government 
officials as well as field visits. The evaluation must present brief 
findings to SFB project team their respective offices in both 
landscapes before departing for Phnom Penh. 
14 14 14 
October 27 –
30, 2014 
Evaluation team performs data analysis and prepares for the 
debriefing. 4 4 4 
October 31 
Present debrief to USAID/Cambodia and implementing partners 
(possibly in a separate meeting). USAID will provide a venue for 
this de-briefing session. 
1 1 1 
36
November 1 -
2, 2014 International expert(s) depart Cambodia 2 2 0 
November 3 -
7, 2014 Write and submit draft report to USAID/Cambodia 5 3 3 
November 10 
– 21, 2014 
TOCOR will have 10 working days to review the draft report and 
return it to the Project Manager with comments 
November 24 
– 26, 2014 Project Manager finalizes report, submits to USAID/Cambodia 3 2 2 
Total Days 37* 32* 32 
*time of international travel is excluded. 
37
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX
Evaluation questions Data needed for answering 
the question
Data collection 
tools/instruments
Sources of data Methods of analysis
1. Assess the effectiveness of the 
project’s design, implementation 
and management approach.
Project results matrix for first 7 
quarters.
SFB staffing and operational 
structures
Quarterly reports
Technical reports on activities
Budget data 
Information from implementer and 
partner interviews
Interview data
Desk Study of key 
documents
Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Specific information 
requested of SFB
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
2. Which technical approaches 
(e.g., communal land titling, 
enterprise development,
strengthening protected area 
management, working at national 
vs. local levels, small grants, etc.) 
appear to be most effective, and 
which appear to be least effective 
or most challenging to implement?
Project results matrix for first 7 
quarters.
Quarterly reports for first 7 
quarters
Technical reports on activities
Interview data
Questionnaire survey results
Desk Study of key 
documents
Key Informant interviews 
Focus group interviews 
Specific information 
requested of SFB
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
3.What overarching contextual 
challenges or constraints can be 
observed? How can these be 
considered in next work plan?
Quarterly reports for first 7 
quarters
Interview data
Questionnaire survey results
Desk Study of key 
documents
Key Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
38
4. Is the project’s approach to 
monitoring and evaluation (tools, 
indicators, data collection 
methods) appropriate for 
capturing project progress and 
enabling adaptive management?
SFB M&E Plan
Quarterly reports
Interview data
Desk Study of key 
documents
Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Specific information 
requested of SFB
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
5a. How has SFB design and 
implementation taken into 
account differences between 
stakeholder populations (men, 
women, youth, minority or 
indigenous groups) in terms of 
access, control, and ownership of 
natural resources, or their 
participation in relevant 
governance processes? Have 
project outcomes (intended or 
unintended) been different for 
different populations in the target 
area?
Quarterly reports for first 7 
quarters
Information from implementer and 
partner interviews
Interview data
Desk Study of key 
documents
Key Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Specific information 
requested of SFB
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
5b.How has the project facilitated 
synergy, coordination, and 
information sharing among and
between USAID/Cambodia, its 
implementing partners and host 
government partners?
Quarterly reports for first 7 
quarters
Technical Working group minutes
Interview Data
Desk Study of key 
documents
Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Specific information 
requested of SFB
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
6. Do the existing administrative 
and management structures, 
including project staffing and 
partnerships appropriately support 
the implementation of the 
activities?
Quarterly reports for first 7 
quarters
Staffing and management structure 
of SFB
Interview data
Desk Study of key 
documents
Informant interviews
Focus group interviews
Specific information 
requested of SFB
Questionnaire survey
SFB personnel
Communities involved 
in SFB work
Small Grant NGOs
Implementing partners
Key government 
contacts
Parallel analysis 
Triangulation of available data
39
ANNEX C: INTERVIEW TOOL FOR COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, AND 
INDIGENOUS 
Community members will be interviewed in community group interviews, focal
groups or individually and asked the following questions depending on the make up of 
the group. Questions will be open-ended to enable more feedback.
A. Identify communities who have been recipients of support to develop and/or 
enhance NTFP, ecotourism, timber and agriculture economic activities.
Have you been contacted to be a part of a program to enhance your economic opportunities?
Yes No
Who and how did you get to know about the project?
• Government Extension Officer
• Commune Council
• Implementing Partner
• Sub-grantee
• Other, etc.
What kinds of support/assistance have you received from the program (SFB) to increase your economic 
opportunities?
Have you attended a training program?
Yes No
If not, why not?
If so, were you able to understand the training?
Yes No
Do you think it is useful and will contribute to your economic opportunities?
Yes No
Why or why not?
Were you able to implement the knowledge gained from the training?
Yes No
If not, please explain why?
How have you applied the knowledge? How confident do you feel about pursuing this strategy to enhance 
your livelihood? 
40
Not very Moderately Very 
Have you received follow-up with it? And how often?
Yes No
Have community-based structures been developed or strengthened to support you with financial 
management?
Have community-based structures been developed or strengthened to support you with marketing?
Yes No
Do you understand local and national policies related to the operation of your enterprise?
Yes No
Have you or do you know of anyone in your community who has implemented a successful viable 
sustainable livelihood initiative as a result of the SFB?
Yes No
If yes what kind of initiative?
What recommendation do you have for SFB to better improve your community?
B. Identify communities who are targeted as recipients for possible REDD+ payments.
Have you been invited to be involved in project planning and implementation through participatory 
processes?
Yes No
Have you attended a workshop, or training program?
Yes No
If not, why?
If so, did you understand what was happening?
Yes No
What was most important about it?
Was information shared with you that you understood regarding local land and resource tenure rights 
related to a possible REDD+ program?
Yes No
How will this affect your community?
41
Did you sign or agree to any REDD+ benefit sharing agreement with the government/NGOs? If so, did you 
know what were stated in the agreement?
Was the agreement written in Khmer or a local language that you could clearly understand? Do you feel 
involved in the decision-making process?
Yes No
Do you feel confident possible future benefits will be equitably shared?
Yes No
Has your feeling regarding this changed since the outset of this project?
Yes No
Please explain
What is the situation regarding logging, economic land concessions and mining in your community area?
How would rate the following problems affected your community? (scale 0 no affected --- 5 severely 
affected)
• Logging
• Economic land concessions
• Mining
• Others
·
How many new logging, ELC, mining agreements have been entered into since the SFB began in your 
community?
Has there been an improvement in dialogue regarding these issues in your area?
Yes No
Has there been improvement in dialogue regarding issues related to logging mining and/or concessionaires 
in your region with private companies, the government and NGOs since the beginning of this project?
Yes No
How confident do you feel regarding your ability to maintain or enhance your livelihood since the start of 
this project?
Not very Moderately Very 
Are you aware of your rights, access to, use of and control over natural resources?
Yes No
Has SFB helped you to better understand your rights?
Yes No
42
Has SFB helped you address/resolve at least one dispute related to logging, economic land concessions and 
mining in your community area
C. Focus group approaches:
Women and youth where possible: Speak with focus groups of women within targeted 
communities separately, with female language interpreter.
Speak with indigenous peoples (Kuy, Banong, etc.) separately from Khmer groups
Are you aware of SFB project activities in your community? Yes No
Have you been invited to be a part of (applicable trainings/workshop) by SFB in your community?
Yes No
Who informed you? and how were you informed about the training activity? If so, did you feel encouraged 
to go?
Yes No
Have you attended and completed a training program?
Yes No
If not, why?
Time Language
Distance of training venue Location of training venue Family obligations/home chores community norms 
Others………
What was it like to attend the training?
Were you able to understand the training?
Yes No
What did you like best about it?
Did the methodology used encourage your participation?
Yes No
Did you feel comfortable contributing to the discussion?
Yes No
Comments:
How has going to the training affected your activities since?
What effect has it had on your community to be involved in the trainings?
43
Did you feel confident that the dialogue/villages forum/training/community consultation conducted by the 
project can address your concerns?
If not, what are some approaches for the project to address your concerns? Of all the things we talked 
about, what do you think is the most important? Is there anything important we didn’t talk about?
Are there any recommendations you have for the project?
E. Regarding the models -CF, CBPF, CCF, CPAs, ICT
Are you familiar with the applicable models relevant to your community’s situation?
Yes No
Have you learned more about them from SFB?
Yes No
If so, did you understand what you heard?
Yes No
Did you feel comfortable contributing to the discussion?
Yes No
Did you, or someone in your community that you trust, receive training regarding the applicable model(s)?
Yes No
How will adopting this model affect your community’s livelihood?
What further support does your community need?
Since the start of this project in your community your engagement in activities/processes concerning forest 
conservation has: (choose one)
Increased considerably Increased a little Not changed Decreased a little Decreased 
considerably
Please explain:
44
ANNEX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NGOS
Name and Position: Code:
Agency: Gender:
 
(This information will be coded anonymously and your name and position will not be 
revealed)
1. How long have you be involved in the USAID Strengthening Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) project? 
Describe the nature or your involvement with this project.
2. Do you know what the goals of the Supporting Forests and Biodiversity Project are?
Yes No
3. How closely do these goals align with the goals of your agency? Please circle response from 1 
(completely) to 5 (not at all) or D/K for don’t know that best applies:
 (Completely) (Not at all) 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
4. How completely are these goals being met by the SFB project? (Please circle response from 1 
(completely) to 5 (not at all) or D/K for don’t know that best applies:
 (Completely) (Not at all)
 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
 
5. How well does SFB respond to your organization’s needs in your joint work? Please circle response 
from 1 (completely) to 5 (not at all) that best applies.
 (Completely) (Not at all)
 1 2 3 4 5
6. Please rate the following approaches in terms of how effective these are in meeting the SFB project’s 
overall goals of improving conservation and governance in the Prey Lang and the Eastern Plains 
Landscapes? Please circle response from 1 (most effective) to 5 (least effective) or D/K for don’t 
know:
(Most effective) (Least Effective)
Protected area management 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Community land titling: 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Policy work at national level: 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Local enterprise development: 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Public awareness campaigns: 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Small grants to local NGOs and others: 1 2 3 4 5 D/K
Please share any thoughts you have regarding the implementation of the above approaches by SFB.
45
7. In your opinion, what has SFB achieved in its first two years of implementation?
8. What have been some of the challenges or obstacles for SFB?
9. How well do the implementers of SFB adapt to difficult and changing situations? Please circle response 
from 1 (very well) to 5 (not at all) that best applies.
Very well Not at all 
 1 2 3 4 5
10. What recommendation(s) do you have that you think would help the implementers of the SFB project 
to improve their results?
11. In your opinion, how important is the collaboration between the SFB project and your agency in 
improving conservation and governance in the Prey Lang and the Eastern Plains Landscapes. Please 
circle response from 1 (very important) to 5 (not at all important) that best applies.
Very important Not at all important 
 1 2 3 4 5
12. Do you recommend this model to be adopted/replicated/extended in other areas of Cambodia?
Yes No
Thank you for taking the time to help us with the Mid-Term evaluation of the Supporting Forests and 
Biodiversity Project. 
Coding Key: 
Position: 1 = Technician; 2 = Business owner; 3 = Director/Representative/Deputy; 3 = Rank of senior 
manager/officer/coordinator and below
 
Agency: 1 = NGO; 2 = ELC operator; 3 = non-ELC private sector; 4 = non-government groups working 
with SFB
46
ANNEX E: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
3 | Page
Heading for Q1: Duration of respondent's involvement with SFB
Q1. How long have you been involved in SFB? (month)
N 15
Mean 12.07
Median 12.00
Mode 18
Std. Deviation 8.242
Variance 67.924
Range 28
Minimum 1
Maximum 29
There were 11 organizations that were sending back their completed 
questionnaires; 15 people responded to the request. The response rate is 
65.22%. On average, each respondent has been involved with SFB for 12 
months, on and off.
Heading for Q2: Respondent's knowledge of SFB goals
YES
100%
Q2. Do you know SFB goals?
All respondents (100%) said that they knew SFB goals.
47
4 | Page
Heading for Q3: Alignment of SFB goals with those of respondent's 
organization
More than half of the respondents believed that SFB goals align closely with their 
organizations' goals.
Heading for Q4: Goals of respondent's organization being met by SFB
Although more than half of the respondents agreed that SFB closely align with 
their organizations' goal, only 10% reported that SFB goals completely meet their 
organizations'.
48
5 | Page
Heading for Q5: SFB's response to needs of respondent's organization
Of the respondents 27% agreed that SFB responded well/completely to their 
respective organizations' needs in their joint work.
Heading for Q6: Effectiveness of different approaches to meeting SFB 
goals
49
6 | Page
According to the respondents Protected Area Management is the most effective 
approach to meeting SFB goals followed by Small Grant. Only a small 
percentage of the respondents agreed that the policy work is most effective in 
meeting SFB goals. However, more than 80% of them said that enterprise 
development is effective (i.e. rating from most effective to effective), followed by 
PA management (nearly 80%), and Public Awareness (close to 80%).
Calculated effectiveness indexes for the PA management and Small Grant have 
the same score (0.67), and the effectiveness index score for Public awareness is 
0.58. The rest is 0.53 (Enterprise Development and Policy Work) and 0.52 (ICT). 
But, quality of the standing forests and biodiversity by the end of the project will 
count (SC comment).
Q67, Q7 and Q8: Views of respondents regarding SFB approaches, 
achievements, and challenges
Q67.Share your thoughts regarding approaches (Q61, ..., Q66)
Q7.In your opinion, what has SFB achieved in its first two years?
Q8.What has been the challenges for SFB?
S/N Organization
Q67.Share your thoughts 
regarding approaches 
(Q61 - Q66)
Q7.In your opinion, what 
has SFB achieved in its 
first two years?
Q8.What has been the 
challenges for SFB?
1 Organization 1
No idea Livelihoods programs run 
at several sites
1.Coordination among 
partners, 
2.Agreement/disagreement 
on approaches, 3.Staff 
turn-over/leadership 
changes
SFB is well known to 
communities
Read reports on the 
project results
1.Lack of law enforcement, 
2.Ltd participation, 3.Road 
access, 4.Ltd gov't support, 
5.Community poverty, 6.Ltd 
info sharing, 7.Ltd 
knowledge
Very challenging 
approaches, both short 
and long term efforts 
needed
1.Conservation, 
2.Empowerment of people
1.Developing innovative 
idea, 2.Conservation-linked 
livelihood development
2 Organization 2
Very challenging 
approaches, more time 
needed, excellent 
partnerships with 
government and authorities 
needed
Read quarterly reports
1.Rapid environmental and 
social changes, 2.Working 
relationship with 
government with poor 
governance and capacity
Very challenging 
approaches, more time 
needed, excellent 
partnerships with 
government and authorities 
needed
Read quarterly reports
1.Rapid environmental and 
social changes, 2.Illegal 
logging/land clearing
50
7 | Page
3 Organization 3
1.Uncertainty for CFs in 
PLL as PLL is not 
legalized, 2.Specific 
distinctions for types of 
livelihood enterprise 
development in PLL
1.Progress made against 
many targets, 2.PLL 
scoping study
1.Engagement of 
MAFF/FA-GDANCP/MOE, 
2.Different views, Ltd trust 
PLCN vs. FA in PLCN, 
illegal logging, 3.Four 
partners in 2 landscapes
Unclear about request to 
include PLL as protected 
forest area
Many activities on 
dialogues, but no clear 
outputs
No formal project 
launching, thus difficult to 
coordinate/work at sub￾national levels
4 Organization 4 No idea
1.Small Grants to NGOs, 
2.Protecting 
forests/biodiversity, public 
awareness campaigns
1.Policy works, 2.Illegal 
logging/land encroachment, 
3.Enterprise development 
vs quick gain from logging
5 Organization 5
1.All approaches are 
relevant except fieldworks 
started too slow, 2.Small 
grant is too short
Natural Resources, only 
about own Savings Group 
project
1.Involvement/support of 
authorities/people to 
protect forests/biodiversity, 
2.Illegal logging/forestland 
encroachment, 3.Slow 
CFMP process/approval
6 Organization 6 No idea Not sure
1.Government liaisons at 
various levels, 2.No direct 
agreement with line 
ministries, 3.Managing 5 
partners across 2 
landscapes
7 Organization 7 No idea
Strong partnership with 
WWF, WCS, RECOFTC 
and EWMI
Limited participation of 
beneficiaries
8 Organization 8
Effectiveness:1.Small grant 
NGO is close to 
communities that can help 
them with enterprise 
development, 2.Policy 
work, and 3.Protected area 
management and public 
awareness
1.Capacity building on 
NRM, forest governance 
and technical skills for 
stakeholders and 
communities, 2.Biz group 
set-up, and 3.Stakeholder 
networking
1.ELCs against CFs, 
2.Commitment of 
government stakeholders
9 Organization 9 No idea
1.Communities know SFB 
goals/participate in it to 
protect forest and their 
rights, 2.Communities 
have dialogues with 
authorities, 3.Communities' 
interests in livelihoods
Need approval from 
provincial authorities
51
8 | Page
10 Organization 
10
1.Work with government 
on PA management and 
ICT, 3.Get participation of 
CSOs in policy work, 
4.Capacity building and 
fund to communities for 
livelihoods, 5.Clear 
message for public 
campaigns, 6.Support to 
small grant NGOs
Not sure Partnership principles
11 Organization 
11 No idea No idea No idea
Heading for Q9: SFB implementers' adaptation to difficult and changing 
situations
Close to half of the respondents (46%) reported that SFB implementers adapt 
well to difficult and changing situations.
52
9 | Page
Heading for Q10: Recommendations by respondents
Q10.Recommendations to improve SFB results
S/N Organization Q10.Recommendations to improve SFB results
1 Organization 1
More policy works and dialogues
1.Tech support/skills, 2.Good communication and relation 
with gov't/authorities, 3.Trust with communities
More efficient approach to enterprise development against 
short-lived SFB/project
2 Organization 2
USAID policies not aligned with Cambodia, changes in local 
level regulations for SFB to work with government and 
authorities needed
USAID policies not aligned with Cambodia, changes in sub￾national structures and regulations for SFB to work with 
government and authorities needed
3 Organization 3
No idea
No idea
4 Organization 4 1.More researches, 2.Capacity building for young 
generations, 3.More investments in livelihoods
5 Organization 5 1.More policy works, 2.Simplify SG admin/paperworks, 
3.Longer timeline for SG 2 years
6 Organization 6
1.Stronger tech direction to partners, 
2.Development/strengthening of existing livelihood strategies 
(not new ones), 3.Top priority is legalization of PLL (FA)
7 Organization 7 Larger small grant projects having mulit-year timeframe and 
allowing one grantee to work in both landscapes
8 Organization 8
Continue support for communities' income generation 
activities and improve biz networking to reduce land 
encroachment and illegal logging
9 Organization 9 Conduct more constructive dialogues
10 Organization 
10
Reduce paperwork, simplify ME, support to partners, better 
partnership principles, positive attitude towards partners
11 Organization 
11 No idea
53
10 | Page
Heading for Q11: Importance of collaboration between SFB and 
respondent's organization for natural resources conservation and 
governance
More than half of the respondents believed that collaboration between SFB and 
their organizations is important in improving conservation and governance in 
Cambodia, esp. in EPL and PLL.
Heading for Q12: Possibility for adoption, replication or extension of SFB 
model in Cambodia
An overwhelming majority of the respondents (80%) recommend 
adoption/replication/extension of the SFB model in Cambodia.
54
ANNEX F: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
Name Organization Contact Information Location Date 
Interviewed
National Level/Phnom Penh
Dr. Keo Omaliss Director/DWB FA omaliss@gmail.com Phnom Penh E/D Oct 8
Roath Sith Director/EEC MoE eetoffice@gmail.com Phnom Penh P/C Oct 6
Ross Sinclair Director WCS rsinclair@wcs.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 7
Alex Diment Snr. Tech 
Advisor
WCS adiment@wcs.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 7
Prak Munny Prog. Leader WCS mprak@wcs.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 7
Chhith Sam Ath Country Dir. WWF SamAth.Chhith@wwfgreatermekong.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 8
Thibault Ledecq Cons. Prog Man. WWF thibault.ledecq@wwfgreatermekong.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 8
Keo Chenda Prog. Leader WWF chenda.keo@wwfgreatermekong.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 8
Heng Da Staff RECOFTC kalyan@recoftc.org Phnom Penh E/D Oct 8
Tol Sokchea Advisor RECOFTC tol.sokchea@recoftc.org Phnom Penh E/D Oct 8
Terry Parnell Advisor EWMI tparnell@ewmi-praj.org Phnom Penh E/D Oct 9
Andrew Boname COP EWMI ABoname@ewmi-praj.org Phnom Penh E/D Oct 9
Toby Eastoe Site Manager CI teastoe@conservation.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 7
Tracy Farrell Sr.Tech Dir. CI tfarrell@conservation.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 7
Ms. Sarah Sitts Country Manager PACT ssitts@pactworld.org Phnom Penh Team Oct 8
Seak Sophat Director RUPP Sophat.seakt@rupp.eue.kh Phnom Penh P/C Oct 9
Dr Matthew Maltby COP USAID/HARVEST mmaltby@fintrac.com Phnom Penh D/C Oct 8
Mr. Chan Sophal DCOP USAID/HARVEST csophal@fintrac.com Phnom Penh D/C Oct 8
Dennis Cengel Former SFB COP Former SFB COP djcengel@hotmail.com Phnom Penh P Oct 8
Mr. Va Moeurn Director Mlup Baitong 
(MB)
vamoeurn@online.com.kh
mlup@online.com.kh
Phnom Penh P/C Oct 7
Mr Reoun Saron Director Media one Info@mediaone.org.kh; 
kborey@mediaone.org.kh
Phnom Penh E/D Oct 6
Mr Curtis Hundley COP WI chundley@winrock.org PP and Field Team
55
Mr. Boresh Sun DCOP WI bsun@winrock.org PP and Field Team
Mr. Ouk Sisovann Senior Project 
Advisor
WI souk@winrock.org PP and Field
Sophy Seng Snr. Finance 
Manager
WI sseng@winrock.org
Oen Hoeun Monitoring and 
Evaluation 
Specialist
WI Hoen@winrock.org Phnom Penh P/Oct 28
Elizabeth Gish Consultant, SFB WI nature.culture.consulting@gmail.com Phnom Penh P/Oct 28
Mondulkiri Province
Mr Nicolas Savajol Tech Advisor MIPAD 
supported by 
Nomad RSI
mipad.info@gmail.com Sen Monorom P/C Oct 10
Mr. Jack Highwood Advisor ELE jackhighwood@yahoo.co.uk SenMonorom PC Oct 10
Kim Vandy Director FLO vandy.kim@flocambodia.org Sen Monorom E/D Oct 10
Mr. Yous Pheary Director CED ypheary@ced-krt.org SenMonorom E/D Oct 10
Mr. Saron Ratana,
 Rith Onn
Staff Forest 
Administration 
(MDK)
Sen Monorom P/C Oct 10
Heng Kheng Deputy Chief Provincial DoE Sen Monorom E/C Oct 10
Heang Sarim Director CANDO candodevelopment@gmail.com Sen Monorom E/C Oct 10
Mr.Phoung Ponreay NRM & Training 
Mgr
WI pphoung@winrock.org Sen Monorom Team Oct 
10
Mr. Kong Sronos Regional 
Coordinator
WI skong@winrock.org Sen Monorom Team Oct 
10
Mr. Nhak Siveun M & E Specialist WI snhak@winrock.org Sen Monorom Team Oct 
10
Mr. Poul Phat Provincial 
Coordinator
WWF Poul.Phat@greatermekong.org Sen Monorom Team Oct 
10
Mr. Long 
Sovannarith
NRM Specialist WI slong@winrock.org Sen Monorom Team Oct 
10
Kratie Province
Kim Vandy Director FLO vandy.kim@flocambodia.org Kratie E/D Oct 15
56
Mr. Yous Pheary Director CED ypheary@ced-krt.org Kratie P/C Oct 13
Or Channy Director CRDT or_channy@crdt.org.kh Kratie P/C Oct 13
Stung Treng
Mr. Khem Ra Director PVT pvtstgkhemra@gmail.com Stung Treng Team Oct 
17
Mr. Va Sokha Local Contact Provincial FA (Tel: 088 649 4168) Stung Treng Team Oct 
17
Preah Vihear
Mr. Ang Cheatlom Exec. Director Ponlok Khmer 
(PKH)
cheatloma@ponlokkhmer.org; 
pkh@ponlokkhmer.org
Preah Vihear Team Oct. 
20
Mr. Ashish John Officer Director WCS Office ajohn@wcs.org Preah Vihear Team Oct 
20
Kampong Thom
Chun Vanthoeurn Director Mlup Baitong vamoeurn@online.com Kampong 
Thom
Team Oct 
22
Oeurn Sophath Regional coord. WI soeum@winrock.org
Mss.Eung Chanthorn M&E Specialist WI ceung@winrock.org Kompong Thom
Mr.Oun Rithy NRM Specialist WI roun@winrock.org Kompong Thom
Mr.Proum Kimhor Obj 2 Team 
Leader
WI Proum.kimhor@winrock.org Kompong Thom
SFB Staff All staff SFB Office Kampong 
Thom
Team Oct 
23
57
ANNEX G: COMMUNITIES VISITED
Date Community%Name Village/Commune%Name Group/Individual SFB%activities Participant
EASTERN'PLAIN'LANDSCAPE'(EPL)
10/10/14%
(AM)
Krang%Tes%Community%
Conservation%Forest Krang%Test%Village,%Krang%Test%
Commune.%
Community%Conservation%
Group/(whole%group) Community%conservation%forest,%
honey,%resin,%vegetable%growing,%
chicken%raising,%etc.
39%(14%women)
Women/Resisin/Honey%Group% 14%women
Men%Group /Resin/Patrol/Honey%
Group 25%men
Krang%Tes%Commune%Council First%deputy%commune%council%
chief
Community%forest%conservation%
activities,%involvement,%issues,%etc. 1%man
11/10/14%
(AM)
Pouradet%Forest%Community
Krang%Test%Village,%Krang%Test%
Communune.%
Community%Forest%Management%
Committee%and%Villagers Community%forest,%forest%
protection,%honey%and%resin
14%women
Woman%Group
Krang%Test%Village,%Krang%Test%
Communune.% Man%Group 5%men
Srae%Ampoum%Commune%
Council
Community%forest%activities,%
involvement,%forest%protection,%
reforestation,%issues,%etc.
5%members%
including%1%woman
11/10/14%
(PM)
Pu%Trom% Pu%Trum%Village% Pu%Tum%ICT ICT,%REDD+%and%Livelihood%(Pig) 11
Romnea%Commune%Council Commune ICT,%REDD+,%involvement,%issues,%
etc.
Two%men%members%
(commune%council%
chief%and%a%
councilor)
12/10/14%
(AM)
Andaung%Kraloeng%ICT Andung%Kraloeng%village
Andaung%Kraloeng%ICT
ICT,%REDD+,%ecotourism
14
Women%Group% 6
Men%Group% 8
Sen%Monorom%Commune%
Council Andung%Kraloeng%village Issues,%forest%protection,%women%
involvement,%etc. 1%(women)
12/10/14%
(PM) O%Rana%ICT O%Rona%village,%Sre%Khtum%
Commune
All%community%members
ICT,%REDD+,%Chiken,%and%Pig
18%(incl. 6%women)
Women%Group% 6
Men%Group% 12
PREY'LANG'LANDSCAPE'(PLL)
13/10/14% O%Krasaing%Community% Pat/Chanthy All%community%members Community%forest,%forest% 47
58
Forest%(Kratie) Pat/Chanthy Women%Group% protection,%honey%and%resin 30
14/10/14%
(AM)
Prasat%Teuk%Khmao%
Community%Forest%(Kratie)
Tonsong%Thleak%Village,%
Kampong%Cham%Commune
Community%Group%(Whole%
Group)
Community%Forest,%Rice,%Chicken,%
and%Resin
28
Women%Group% 15
Members%of%PLCN 5
Commune%Council%Meeting 3
16/10/14%
(AM)
Phnom%Prasat%Community%
Forest%(Stung%Treng) O%Rey%Commune
Community%Group%(Whole%
Group) Community%Forest,%Rice,%Chicken,%
and%Resin
35
Men%Group 23
Women%Group% 12
16/10/14%
(PM)
Kraom%Community%Forest%
(Stung%Treng) Preah%Romkel%Commune
Men%Group% Community%forest,%forest%
protection,%SRI,%chicken%raising
4
Women%Group% 6
16/10/14%
(PM)
Preah%Romkel%Commune%
Council%(Stung%Treng) Preah%Romkel%Commune Commune%council%chief Community%forest,%forest%
protection,%SRI,%ecotourism,%etc.
1
18/10/14%
(AM)
Dang%Phlet%Community%
Forest%(Preah%Vihear) Community
Community%forest,%ecotourism,%
resin%and%honey%gatherers,%Ibis%
rice
23%men/11%women
Chhaeb%Pir%Commune%
Council Commune
Community%forest,%forest%
protection,%chicken%raising,%resin,%
honey,%etc.
Three%persons
18/10/14%
(PM)
Prey%Khlong%Trapaing%Sa[ang%
Community%Forest%(Prey%
Vihear)
Community Community%forest,%resin,%honey,%
chicken%raising,%etc. 9%women,%5%men
21/10/14%
(AM)
Sam%Oung%Village,%Mean%Rith%
Commune,%Tom%Ring%District
Meeting%Prey%Lang Network%
Meeting% Prey%Lang Network% 7
21/10/14%
(PM)
Prey%Ou%Kranhak%Community%
Forest%
Chum%Svay%village,%Mean%Rith%
Commune,
Community%Group%,and%
Community%journalist%
Community%Forest,%Rice,%Chicken,%
Resin,%community%media%
10%(%2%community%
journalist)
21/10/14
Prey%Khlong%Trapaing%Sa[ang%
Community%Forest%(Kompong%
Thom)
women%only%(Sothira%Seng%
interpreted) 11%men/%4%women
21/10/14 Kbal%O%Kranhak%in%Village%
Tbongtuk
Mean%Rith All%community%members 6%men,%16%women
women%only%(Sothira%Seng%
interpreted) 16%women
22/10/14%
(PM)
O%Bos%Lev%Community%
Forestry%%(Kompong%Thom) all%community%members 12%men%%1%woman%
(rest%at%funeral)
59
ANNEX H: SCHEDULE
Time Focal person Agency/Community Responsible 
Person
Evaluation 
Team
Date: 06/10/2014 (MON)
08:00-10:45 Evaluation team meeting Team
10:45-11:00 Travel from Himawari to US Embassy, Phnom Penh
11:00-12:00 Panman (Albert Bellot) USAID Phnom Penh Team 
13:00 Lunch Break Team
2:00-3:00 Mr. Reoun Saron Creative Manager/Media One (small Grant) Elif/Delux
2:00 - 3:00 Mr. Roath Sith MOE/Depart of Environment Education Pat/Chanthy
3:00 to 5:30 Staff Winrock/SFB Team
Date: 07/10/2014 (TUE)
08:30-11:00 Ross Sinclair, and Alex Dimet Country Manager/Senior Technical Advisor/WCS Team
11:00-12:30 Trecy Farry, and Toby Eastoe Conservation International Team
1:00 to 2:00 Lunch Break Team
2:00 - 4:00 Staff WI Pat/Chanthy
2:00 to 3:00 Sarah Sitts Country Manager/PACT Elif/Delux
4:00 to 5:00 Mr. Var Moeun Executive Director/Mlup Baitong Pat/Chanthy
Date: 08/10/2014 (WED)
08:30-09:45 Staff WWF Team
Dr. Matthew Maltby
Mr. Chan Sophal USAID/HARVEST Delux/Chanthy
11:00-12:00 Albert Bellot USAID Phnom Penh--Official in-brief Pat/Elif
13:00 Staff SFB/Winrock Pat/Chanthy
2:00-4:00 Mr. Heng Da, and Tol Sokchea RECOFTC Elif/Delux
4:00-5:00 Dr. Keo Omaliss FA Elif/Delux
17:30 - 18:30 Dennis Cengel Former COP/SFB Pat
Date: 09/10/2014 (THU)
08:30-11:00 Terry Parnell, and Andrew 
Boname EWMI Elif/Delux
60
08:30-11:00 Dr. Seak Sophat
Ms. Pheng Sokline RUPP Pat/Chanthy
11:00-12:00 Mr. Teng Rithy NGO Forum Pat/Chanthy
13:30-17:00 Travel from Phnom Penh (Himawari) to Mondul Kiri (O Romis)
Date: 10/10/2014 (FRI)
8:30to 11:00 Krang Test Village
Mr. Prak 
Munny, 011 
555 486; Mr. 
Alex, 012 
454 554
Team and 
interpreter
Elif, Delux, 
and interpreter
Pat Chanthy
11:00-12:00 Senmonorom Commune Council Team
01:00 - 2:00 Lunch at Senmonorom; 
2:30-3:15 Forest Administration (MDK) Mr. Kong 
Sronoss, 012 
423 673; and 
Mr. 
Sovannarith, 
012 551 257
Pat/Chanthy
2:30-315 Provincial Department of Environment (MDK) Elif/Delux
03:30-4:30 Small grant NGO--MIPAD--Mondulkiri Indigenous People 
Association for Development Pat/Chanthy
CANDO-Small grant NGO Elif, Delux
03:30-4:30 Winrock Livelihoods consultant, Merrilene Peramung Team
18:00 Rest at O Romis Guesthouse
Date: 11/10/2014 (SAT)
7:30 Breakfast in town
9:00 11:30 Poradet Community Forest 
Mr. Kong 
Sronoss, 012 
423 673; Mr. 
Siveun; 017 
266 682
Delux Elif
9:00 to 10:00 Srae Ampum Commune Council Pat/Chanthy
13:00 Lunch at Waterfall with most of Winrock Team 
1:30 - 3:45 Pu Trom Mr. Kong 
Sronoss, 012 
423 673; Mr. 
Siveun; 017 
266 682
Delux/Elif
1:30 --2:30 Commune Council Pat/Chanthy
3:30-4:25 ELIE NGO Elephant Valley, indigenous land titling Pat/Chanthy
16:30-1730 Regional Debrief in MDK
Evaluation 
Team at WI 
office
TEAM
18:00 Rest at O Romis Guesthouse
61
Date: 12/10/2014 (SUN)
730 Depart Senmonoram Team
800-9:00
Meeting Anlong Kralang Village
Mr. Alex 
Dimet, WCS 
Staff
Team
Women Group Delux/Elif
Men group Pat/Chanthy
900 Visit Gibbons Team
10 Visit Waterfall Team
1030 Visit FA station in O'Reang Team
1130 Arrive in Seima Headquarters Team
1200 Lunch Seima Team
1:00-2:00 Presentation on WCS/SFB Seima Team
2:15 to 4:00 O Rona Community Elif/Delux
O Rona Community Pat/Chanthy
4:00 Depart for Kratie Team
Travel from Mondul Kiri to Kratie (Golden Dophine Hotel, 072 666 6666, 072 669 9999)
Date: 13/10/2014 (MON)
7:30-1:00
O Krasaing Community 7:30-8:30- Travel by car to Sambo 
district; 8:30-11:00- travel by boat to O-Krasang CF(Boat fee= 
120-150$); 11:00-12:30- Meet with CFMC & members; 12:30-
14:45- travel back by boat to Sambo; 14:45-15:45- travel by car 
to KRT town.
Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Pat/Chanthy
2:30-3:30 SFB Small grant NGO: CED Pat/Chanthy
3:45-5:00 SFB Small grant NGO: CRDT Pat/Chanthy
Date: 14/10/2014 (TUE)
07:30-1:00 Danh Phlet Community (7:30-09:00- travel to dong Plet village, 
Cheb pir commune. 09:00-11:00- Meet with CFMC) 
7:30 to 11:30
Prasat Teuk Khmao (10:00-11:30- Travel by boat from Boeng 
Char to Tonsong Thleak village, Kampong Cham commune. 
11:30-13:30- Meet with CFMC & members)
Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Elif/Delux
Women Group
Members of Prey Lang Network (in Prasat Teuk Khmao CF)
10:00-13:30
Kampong Cham Commune Council (13:30-14:00) Travel from 
Tonsong Thleak to Kampong Cham Commune council office. 
Meet with Kampong Cham commune council Travel to Sambo; 
Travel by car to KRT town.
62
14:30-16:45 Small Grant NGO: FLO Elif/Delux
18:00 Rest at Golden Dophine Hotel, 072 666 6666, 072 669 9999
Date: 15/10/2014 (WED)
8:00-12:30 Travel from Kratie to Stung Treng 
13:00 Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Team
14:00-15:30 SFB small grant partners (STRG)- PVT(Proum Vihear Thor) Team
15:30-17:00 Forest Admin Forest Admin (STRG)- Thala Boriwat Division-Mr. 
Va Sokha (Tel: 088 649 4168) Team
18:00 Rest Tonle Meas; 012 980 678
Date: 16/10/2014 (THU)
07:00 Phnom Prasat Community Forest, Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Team
Women Group Elif/Delux
08:00-10:30 O Rey Commune Council Pat/Chanthy
08:00-10:30 Travel to Preah Rumkil Eco-tourist and Lunch Team
10:30-01:30 Lunch
1:30--3:15 Kraom Community: 13:30-13:40- Travel to Kroam village 13:40-
15:15- Meet with CFMC and members of Kroam CF
Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Team
Women Group Elif/Delux
Men group Pat/Chanthy
01:30-03:15
Preah Rumkil Commune Council 13:30-13:40- Travel to Preah 
Rumkil commune council office.
13:40-15:15- Meet with Preah Rumkil commune council.
Team
18:00 Rest Tonle Meas; 012 980 678
Date: 17/10/2014 (FRI)
08:00-12:00 Travel from Stung Treng to Preah Vihear
14:00 - 15:30 SFB partners (PKH- Ponlok Khmer)-Small grant Mr. Ashis 
John, WCS 
Staff
Team
14:00 - 15:30 WCS staffs-Preah Vihear Team
Tmat Poy Community (Ibis Tourist site) Ashis Jonh/Elif 
18:00 Rest at Home Vattanak Hotel; 012 730 600
Date: 18/10/2014 (SAT)
07:00 Danh Phlet Community (7:30-09:00- travel to dong Plet village, 
Cheb Pir commune. 09:00-11:00- Meet with CFMC) 
Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 Pat/Chanthy
63
7:30 - 10:30
Chaeb Pir Commune Council (7:30-09:00- travel to Dong Plet 
village, Cheb Pir commune. 09:00-11:00- Meet with Cheb Pir 
commune council)
798 941
Pat/Chanthy
13:00
Prey Klong Trapeang Sa-ang community (12:30-13:30- travel 
from Cheb to Putrea village, Putrea commune. 13:30-15:30- Meet 
with CFMC of prey Klong Trapeang Sa-ang CF) Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Pat/Chanthy
12:30-15:30
Putrea Commune Council (12:30-13:30- travel from Cheb to 
Putrea village, Putrea commune. 13:30-15:30- Meet with Putrea 
commune council)
Pat/Chanthy
14:00-15:30 Travel Back to Hotel 
18:00 Rest at Home Vattanak Hotel; 012 730 600
Date: 19/10/2014 (SUN) - Travel to KGTHM (Sambo Village Guesthouse 017 924 612) 
Date: 20/10/2014 (MON)
08:00-10:40 SFB Team (KGTHM) Team
11::00-12:00 SFB Small grant partners -Mlub Baiton based in KGTHM Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Team
14:00-17:30 Team Meeting Team
18:00 Rest at Sambo Village Guesthouse 017 924 612
Date: 21/10/2014 (TUE)
07:00 Kbal Khla Community (09:30-11:30- Meet with CFMC) Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Pat/Chanthy
08:00-11:30 Sandan Commune Council (09:30-11:30- Meet with commune 
council/ and Sandan district governor) Pat/Chanthy
08:00-11:30 Prey Lang Network Meeting Elif/Delux
13:00 Prey Ou Kranhak Community Mr. Kimhor Elif/Delux
14:00-16:00 Meanrith Commune Council Pat/Chanthy
18:00 Rest at Sambo Village Guesthouse 017 924 612
Date: 22/10/2014 (WED)
07:00 Prey O Bos Leav Community Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Pat/Chanthy
07:00-12:00 Tumring Commune Council Elif/Delux
13:00 O Kranhoung Community
Mr. Oeurn 
Sophat, 078 
798 941
Team
18:00 Rest at Sambo Village Guesthouse 017 924 612
Date: 23/10/2014 (THU)
64
08:00-12:00 Preparation for regional 
debrief (KGTHM)
14:00-17:00 Regional Debrief- SFB Team 
Kampong 
Thom SFB 
office
TEAM
18:00 Rest at Sambo Village Guesthouse 017 924 612
Date: 24/10/2014 (FRI)
07:00 Travel from Kampong Thom to Phnom Penh (Himawari)
Date: 25/10/2014 (SAT)
Date: 26/10/2014 (SUN)
Date: 27/10/2014 (MON) 29/10/2014 (THU)
08:00-12:00 Teamwork
14:00-17:00 Teamwork
Date: 31/10/2014 (FRI)
07:00 USAID Phnom Penh
10:00-12:00 Albert Bellot
65
ANNEX I: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
66
Project Manager: Patricia Foster-Turley
67
Institutional Development Specialist: Elif Kendirli
Name Elif Kendirli
Title Institutional Development Specialist
Organization
Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
AID-442-14-00013
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), implementer 
name(s) and award number(s), if 
applicable)
USAID/Cambodia Supporting Forests and 
Biodiversity
I have real or potential 
conflicts of interest to 
disclose.
 Yes No
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, 
but are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an employee of 
the USAID operating unit managing the 
project(s) being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being 
evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or 
seeking employment with the USAID operating 
unit managing the evaluation or the 
implementing organization(s) whose project(s) 
are being evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation. 
I"certify"(1)"that"I"have"completed"this"disclosure"form"fully"and"to"the"best"of"my"ability"and"(2)"that"I"will"
update"this"disclosure"form"promptly"if"relevant"circumstances"change."If"I"gain"access"to"proprietary"
information"of"other"companies,"then"I"agree"to"protect"their"information"from"unauthorized"use"or"
disclosure"for"as"long"as"it"remains"proprietary"and"refrain"from"using"the"information"for"any"purpose"
other"than"that"for"which"it"was"furnished.
Signature
Date September 10, 2014
X
68
Climate Change and Adaptation Specialist: Chhun Delux
69
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist: Srey Chanthy
Name SREY Chanthy
Title M&E Specialist
Organization Independent Consultant
Evaluation Position? Team Leader  Team member
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
REPLACE Mid-Term Evaluation of 
Cambodia SFB
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), 
implementer name(s) and award 
number(s), if applicable)
Supporting Forest and Biodiversity
I have real or potential conflicts 
of interest to disclose. Yes  No
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may 
include, but are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an 
employee of the USAID operating unit 
managing the project(s) being 
evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are 
being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is 
significant though indirect, in the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
projects are being evaluated or in the 
outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant 
though indirect experience with the 
project(s) being evaluated, including 
involvement in the project design or 
previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or 
seeking employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the evaluation 
or the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience 
with an organization that may be seen 
as an industry competitor with the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
project(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, 
groups, organizations, or objectives of 
the particular projects and 
organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will 
update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary 
information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or 
disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose 
other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date 12/09/2014
70
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523