  USAID USGS Other partners USFS Other partners DOS USFS Other partners USGS Other partners    4 12 13 15 17 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Contracting tech. staff to be based in gov't Visits by international consultants Study tours In-country mentoring/technical assistance National workshops Regional workshops N=38 (Respondents could select maximum 3 choices) geographic information systems ( 3 11 15 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Not at all satisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Totally satisfied N=32 Effectiveness of support for access to Earth observation data by SilvaCarbon/CARPE/GFOI? 1 8 17 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Not at all satisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Totally satisfied N=31 Capacity building and technical assistance relating to use of Earth observation data? 3 14 11 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Not at all satisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Totally satisfied N=31 Level of access you (or your team) have to Earth observation data, facilitated by SilvaCarbon/CARPE/GFOI   Not satisfied at all, 4 Somewhat satisfied, 8 Mostly satisfied, 18 Extremely satisfied, 8 How satisfied are you with your level of communication with SilvaCarbon program?   9 34 4 0 50 Yes No Don't know N=47 Is there currently sufficient institutional capacity in your country to meet the country’s forest carbon monitoring and reporting goals without outside support?        -                    ấ a. Was a gender advisor, Ministry of Gender, or representative of any women’s group included in the national work plan development or in any work planning since? (Q. 2a) How? 2. SUSTAINABILITY 2.3 At the completion of your country’s involvement in the SilvaCarbon program, what degree of certainty do you have that your program will have the sufficient institutional capacity and enough trained/experienced individuals to proceed with implementation? (Q.2a) 2.4 How effective have the SilvaCarbon activities been in addressing your needs? Are activities tailored to fit your team’s need? Your country’s needs? (Q. 1b) Please explain. 2.8 Has your organization had any experience partnering with other donors or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? If yes, please describe. (Q. 1b) 3. DATA USE & REPORTING 3.4 How satisfied are you with the level of access you (or your team) have to Earth observation data? (Q.1c) __Very satisfied __Mostly satisfied for landsat __Somewhat satisfied overall __Not at all satisfied Please explain—why or why not? 4.1 What forest and terrestrial carbon measurement and monitoring methodologies do you currently use here? (you, your team, institution or ministry) (Q. 1a) For example: __Videography: Plot-level biomass estimation __CLASlite: Approach to monitoring deforestation and forest degradation __CLASlite + LiDAR Landsat: mapping carbon stocks directly __Airborne Taxonomic Mapping (AToMS) __Decision Tree Matrix: biomass est. (Amazon Basin) using remotely sensed data & ground plot data __CATHALAC Tropicarms __Normalized difference fraction index: Combining spectral and spatial data to map canopy damage __DETER: Brazil’s Real-time Deforestation Detection System __Our Planetary Skin __Terrestrial Observation and Prediction Program (TOPS) __DTIM __FRIED 4.2 Do these methodologies meet your needs for measurement, verification, and reporting (MRV)? (Q.1a) __Yes X Not yet Please explain how/why/why not? 5. STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES & COORDINATION 5.3 In looking at the relationship between the SilvaCarbon program and partner country/ministry activities (forest inventory, MRV, etc.) here? How would you rate the following: (Q. 2a) a. Awareness of each other’s entire program efforts (e.g., objectives, focus, scale)? __very high __moderate __low __almost nonexistent __don’t know b. Mutually reinforcing efforts—that is, shared or having a consensus on strategies and priorities? __very high __moderate __low __almost nonexistent __don’t know c. Compatibility of procedures, processes, data format, and computer systems? __very high __moderate __low __almost nonexistent __don’t know d. Common/shared or complementarity of performance measures? __very high __moderate __low __almost nonexistent __don’t know 6. RECOMMENDATIONS a. In your country? b. Within your region? if c. Globally? 6.2 Based on your experience what measures could the SilvaCarbon program take to enhance sustainability of results? 1.2 Do you feel that SilvaCarbon’s interagency relationships have helped in attaining your agency mandate or interests within the program? [Q.3a] Why or why not? 1.3 [USG only] How satisfied are you with the current structure of USG interagency relationships under SilvaCarbon? [Q.3a] Why or why not? What could be improved?(Q. 2a) 1.4 What about relationships between SilvaCarbon USG and other donors, globally and in countries? Do you know of mechanisms (if any) at the regional/country level to support donor coordination in accomplishing SilvaCarbon objectives? Are you aware of any partnering with other donors and/or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? If yes, please describe. (Q. 1b) Are you aware of any areas where there has been a duplication of effort between SilvaCarbon and other programs or donors? How effective would you say SilvaCarbon and GFOI cooperation has been in contributing to: A) Demonstrating to countries the different data, methodologies, and tools that are available in order for them to compare and contrast the techniques best suited to their needs? B) In helping countries meet their remote sensing and field data integration needs? Please explain. 1.7 [IF COUNTRY EXPEREINCE WAS MENTIONED] In looking at the relationship between the SilvaCarbon program and partner country activities (forest inventory, MRV, etc.), on the whole, how would you rate the following: (Q. 2a) a. Awareness of each other’s entire program efforts (e.g., objectives, focus, scale)? very high moderate low almost nonexistent don’t know b. Consensus on strategies and priorities? very high moderate low almost nonexistent don’t know [REFERENCE, AS NECESSARY]:  Objective 1. Demonstrate and compare forest and terrestrial carbon measurement and monitoring methodologies.  Objective 2. Build capacity of selected developing countries to use forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management methodologies and technologies.  Objective 3. Facilitate, in cooperation with the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites and the GEO Global Forest Observation Initiative, the coordinated collection and dissemination of earth observation data related to forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management.  Objective 4. Strengthen the community of forest and terrestrial carbon technical experts.  Objective 5. Interagency cooperation and collaboration.] 2.4 Do you believe these objectives provide the necessary foundation to guide SilvaCarbon’s work? Going forward, would you reconsider particular objectives or add new objectives? 3.1 Have you participated in capacity needs assessments for forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring carried out for all SilvaCarbon partner countries? If yes, which country? What have been your observations on their progress in meeting needs? Always Most of the time About half Infrequently Not at all don’t know 3.4 What do you think of the nature of SilvaCarbon work in countries where workplans have not been developed? Does it create obstacles? 3.5 How effective is SilvaCarbon at addressing capacity needs and gaps and tailoring activities to partner country needs? (Q. 1b) Please explain with specific examples. 4.1 [Tech Team only] What forest & terrestrial carbon measurement and monitoring methodologies are currently being used in national forest monitoring systems among SilvaCarbon partner countries? (Q. 1a) For example: Videography: Plot-level biomass estimation CLASlite: Approach to monitoring deforestation and forest degradation CLASlite + LiDAR Landsat: mapping carbon stocks directly Airborne Taxonomic Mapping (AToMS) Decision Tree Matrix: biomass est. (Amazon Basin) using remotely sensed data & ground plot data CATHALAC Tropicarms Normalized difference fraction index: Combining spectral and spatial data to map canopy damage DETER: Brazil’s Real-time Deforestation Detection System Our Planetary Skin Terrestrial Observation and Prediction Program (TOPS) DTIM FRIED University of Maryland algorithm for developing land cover maps _______________________________________________________________________ 4.2 How effective has SilvaCarbon been in working with beneficiary partners/country teams to a. review the various methodologies and technologies b. determine which methodologies best fit their individual needs, capacities, and long-term planning? What are the challenges and needed impovements? Has SilvaCarbon program helped improve consistency in technical understanding among the community of technical experts? [Q.1d] Why or why not? a. Have any of these happened as a result of SilvaCarbon and GFOI collaboration? Which country(s)? b. Have any of the county’s demand for Earth observation data related to forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management been met as as a result of collaboration between SilvaCarbon and GFOI? 4.9 To what degree is SilvaCarbon support sufficient to train technical staff to learn and independently use the necessary tools and methodologies to meet their countries’ forest and terrestrial carbon management needs? a) meeting their international reporting requirements under the UNFCCC? (Q. 1b) b) affecting any changes in government or agency forest management policy? Examples? EXAMPLES/ISSUES Workforce turnover within partner country institutions. South to South cooperation In-country coordinators Utilizing national capacities Focus on in-country TA versus workshops a) meet international requirements for forest and terrestrial carbon MRV? (Q.2a) b) maintain the level of capacity developed for forest monitoring? c) maintain the level of capacity developed for terrestrial carbon monitoring? 6. STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES and RECOOMENDATIONS d. At the country-level,? e. At the regional level(s)? f. Globally? We are interested in hearing about your experience with the SilvaCarbon Program. What is your involvement/connection with SilvaCarbon activities? Programmatic planning, management, facilitating and/or participating in workshops, training, technical expertise, other? How long have you been involved with SilvaCarbon? What are your agency’s global forest carbon monitoring goals? 1.1 What is your agency’s role in the SilvaCarbon program? 1.2 Do you feel that SilvaCarbon’s interagency relationships have helped your agency pursue its mandate or interests within the program? [Q.3a] Why or why not? 1.3 [USG only] Are you satisfied with the current structure of USG interagency relationships under SilvaCarbon? [Q.3a] Why or why not? What could be improved? 1.10 What do you think are the most significant challenges or barriers (if any) to improving program coordination among USG agencies? (Q. 2a) And among other donors and partners in country? What about relationships between USG and other donors? Are you aware of any partnering with other donors and/or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? If yes, please describe. (Q. 1b) 1.7 Are you aware of any areas where there has been a duplication of effort between SilvaCarbon and other programs or donors? 1.8. Do you know of mechanisms (if any) at the regional/country level to support donor coordination on climate change, forest management, and carbon measurement-related capacity building activities? 1.5 In looking at the relationship between the SilvaCarbon program and partner country activities (forest inventory, MRV, etc.), on the whole, how would you rate the following: (Q. 2a) a. Awareness of each other’s entire program efforts (e.g., objectives, focus, scale)? very high moderate low almost nonexistent don’t know b. Consensus on strategies and priorities? very high moderate low almost nonexistent don’t know c. Compatibility of procedures, processes, data format, and computer systems? very high moderate low almost nonexistent don’t know [REFERENCE, AS NECESSARY]:      a. Are there other elements not covered by SilvaCarbon’s current objectives that should be included? a. 9.4. What is the process for selecting a country as a SilvaCarbon bilateral partner country? 3.3 Have capacity needs assessments for forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and analysis been carried out for all SilvaCarbon partner countries? If not, why not? We understand that there are countries with which SilvaCarbon has not developed workplans. In these cases, what is the nature of SilvaCarbon planning and coordination relationship with partner governments? a. Does the lack of a workplan create obstacles? If not, why does the arrangement work? If so, what are the reasons for not developing workplans with those countries?             3.4 How effective is SilvaCarbon at addressing capacity needs and gaps and tailoring activities to partner country needs? (Q. 1b) Please explain with specific examples. 4.1 [Tech Team only] What forest & terrestrial carbon measurement and monitoring methodologies are currently being used in national forest monitoring systems among SilvaCarbon partner countries? For example:               4.11 Do you feel there is greater consistency in technical understanding among the community of technical experts as a result of SilvaCarbon support? [Q.1d] Why or why not? a. What aspects of monitoring and reporting could be improved? [Q.3c] 6.3 Looking at all SilvaCarbon partner countries as a group, at the completion of a given country’s involvement in the SilvaCarbon program, how confident are you that the country will have sufficient institutional capacity and enough experienced individuals to meet international requirements for forest and terrestrial carbon MRV? (Q.2a) 6.4 What are the most critical risks to sustaining and utilizing the national capacities that have been enhanced with SilvaCarbon support? 6.5 How can SilvaCarbon address the issue of workforce turnover within partner country institutions in order to ensure capacity that has been created remains in place? 6.6 What steps does the SilvaCarbon team take to ensure sustainability of results when winding down engagement with a partner country? 7. STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES 8. RECOMMENDATIONS g. At the country-level, or within the countries in which you are working? h. At the regional level, or in the regions in which you are working? i. At the program level?  ---- --- ---- - - - - - -           3 Signature Date 3/01/2014 Name Marc Shapiro Title Project Leader,GCCM&E Project Organization Development&Training Services, Inc. EvaluationPosition? Team Leader Team member EvaluationAward Number(contract or otherinstrument) AID‐RAN‐I‐00‐09‐00015, AID‐OAA‐TO‐12‐00001 USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer(IP) name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Performance Evaluation of SilvaCarbon I have real or potential conflicts of interestto disclose. Yes No If yes answeredabove, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts ofinterest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member whois an employee ofthe USAID operating unit managingthe project(s) being evaluatedorthe implementing organization(s)whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or issignificant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s)whose projects are being evaluated orin the outcome ofthe evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct orsignificantthough indirect experiencewith the project(s) being evaluated, includinginvolvementinthe project design or previousiterations ofthe project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employmentwith theUSAIDoperatingunit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s)whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience withan organizationthat may be seen as an industry competitor withthe implementing organization(s)whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceivedideastoward individuals, groups, organizations,or objectives ofthe particular projects andorganizationsbeing evaluated that could biasthe 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. 1 March 13, 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Josh Brann, Nils Junge, Svetlana Negroustoueva, Claudia Rossel, and Marc Shapiro of Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS).This SILVACARBON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT: ANNEX XVII – ONLINE SURVEY INSTRUMENT GCC M&E SilvaCarbon Performance Evaluation: Annexes i Acknowledgements: The authors and dTS would like to thank the many people and institutions that supported the design and execution of the performance evaluation of SilvaCarbon. In particular, USFS and USGS staff provided invaluable guidance and support in obtaining necessary documentation and maximizing learning opportunities. Laura Arntson was instrumental in the design of the evaluation, the drafting of the data collection instruments, and data collection. Karen Joyce was a key facilitator in the synthesis and analysis of the quantitative data from the online survey, and Lindsay Lucas provided vital logistical and coordination support. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development USAID Contract Number AID-RAN-I-00-09-00015, Task Order Number AID-OAA-TO-12-00001 Global Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation Task Order Implemented by: Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS) 4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 402 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: +1 703-465-9388 Fax: +1 703-465-9344 www.onlinedts.com GCC M&E SilvaCarbon Performance Evaluation: Annexes ii EVALUATING CURRENT RESULTS AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SILVACARBON PROGRAM IN SUPPORTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR FOREST AND TERRESTRIAL CARBON MONITORING March 13, 2015 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. AUTHORS Josh Brann, Karen Joyce, Nils Junge, Svetlana Negroustoueva, Claudia Rossel, and Marc Shapiro. SILVACARBON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT: ANNEXES Dear participant, Welcome to the on­line survey designed as part of dTS’ evaluation of the SilvaCarbon program. dTS has been asked by  the Office of Global Climate Change/E3 Bureau of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to  conduct an independent evaluation of the SilvaCarbon for the purpose of finding out how well the program has been  meeting the needs of internal and external stakeholders like you, and make recommendations for the program going  forward.  SilvaCarbon, led by the United States government, is a capacity­building component of the GEO Global Forest  Observations Initiative primarily implemented by the US Forest Service (USFS) and US Geological Survey (USGS) in  several regions, including Central Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In Central Africa, SilvaCarbon is a  complementary component to the USAID/CARPE program that focuses on National Forest Inventory and Remote  Sensing Forest Monitoring. In Latin America, the SilvaCarbon program is implemented by the US Forest Service (USFS)  and US Geological Survey (USGS) and coordinates efforts with EPA, Smithsonian, NASA and other USG forest  monitoring related programs such FCMC. In Latin America the regional workshops has been mostly defined as GFOI  workshops, and other countries like Mexico and Brazil (GFOI countries) are welcome in this exchange. For the regional  South and Southeast Asia program, please consider all SilvaCarbon workshops organized under the GFOI umbrella, as  well as regional events organized with partners like UN­REDD and USAID LEAF. The country based SilvaCarbon  activities has been led by either USFS, USGS or EPA.  You are invited to participate, on a free and voluntary basis. Depending on your role, you may be asked to answer up to  25 questions and it should only take you about 15 minutes to complete. If you don't know an answer to a question, or if it  is not applicable to you, please select "Don't Know or N/A." For questions requiring numerical or dollar values, enter  numbers with no spaces or punctuation except decimal points. Your answers will be aggregated with all other survey respondents; there are no personal identifiers in this survey, and  your name will not be identified or linked to any quotes unless you request it. The aggregated survey responses will be  used for analysis by the evaluation team.  Following the survey, you will have a chance to contact the research team members with any concerns or questions. You  will also be asked if you would like to participate in an individual interview.  The evaluation report is expected to be completed by March 2015 and will be circulated to the SilvaCarbon Program  participating agencies, USAID/GCC, the U.S. Department of State, and other stakeholders shortly thereafter. The report  can also be shared with all those interviewed, upon request. By clicking "YES, CONTINUE" you will have agreed to participate in this survey. Do you want to continue? 1. Introduction * nmlkj Yes, continue. nmlkj No, thank you. BG1. What is your sex? BG2. What is the timeline of your engagement in SilvaCarbon (including GFOI, CARPE) activities? BG3. In which countries are you primarily involved in SilvaCarbon related activities? Please check all that apply. 2. Background Information More than 2 years 1­2 years Less than 1 year Initial involvement nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Most recent involvement nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj * nmlkj Male nmlkj Female gfedc Brazil gfedc Colombia gfedc Costa Rica gfedc Ecuador gfedc El Salvador gfedc Guatemala gfedc Guyana gfedc Honduras gfedc Mexico gfedc Nicaragua gfedc Peru gfedc Bangladesh gfedc Cambodia gfedc India gfedc Indonesia gfedc Lao PDR gfedc Nepal gfedc Philippines gfedc Thailand gfedc Vietnam gfedc Japan gfedc Malaysia gfedc Singapore gfedc Democratic Republic of Congo gfedc Republic of Congo gfedc Cameroon gfedc Gabon gfedc Central African Republic gfedc Kenya gfedc Equatorial Guinea gfedc Burundi gfedc Chad gfedc Norway gfedc Italy gfedc Switzerland gfedc The Netherlands gfedc Germany gfedc Finland Other (please specify) Other  BG4. What SilvaCarbon activities have you participated in? gfedc Conduct needs assessment gfedc Participate in regional workshop(s), including GFOI and CARPE gfedc Participate in study tours gfedc Participate in national workshop(s) gfedc Global oversight, coordination gfedc Work plan development gfedc Receipt of technical assistance, expertise and skills transfer from experts gfedc Provision of technical assistance in­country and regionally gfedc Program Implementation gfedc Organize/provide technical contribution to national workshop(s) gfedc Other (please specify) Other  BG5. What are your key professional responsibilities? Check maximum 3 options. 3.  gfedc Advocacy gfedc Involved in national MRV system gfedc Coordination gfedc Forest management specialist gfedc Communications gfedc Government decision­making and policy gfedc Mapping gfedc Involved in REDD+, REDD desk/cell gfedc Involved in the national forest inventory gfedc Soil scientist gfedc Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialist gfedc Program or institutional management gfedc Remote sensing specialist gfedc Other (please specify) Other  BG6. Please identify your primary professional affiliation in relationship to SilvaCarbon? 4.  * nmlkj Headquarters FAO nmlkj Country government institutional partner nmlkj Headquaters SilvaCarbon United States government (USG) agency (e.g. USAID, USFS, USGS, NASA, Smithsonian, Department of State) nmlkj Country FAO office nmlkj Country civil society organization, beneficiary of SilvaCarbon nmlkj In­country SilvaCarbon United States government (USG) agency (e.g. USAID, USFS, USGS, NASA, Smithsonian, Department of State) nmlkj Other UN, World Bank nmlkj Country university / academia, beneficiary of SilvaCarbon nmlkj Other non­USG bilateral donor nmlkj Non­USG capacity building delivery/implementation partner (e.g. university, civil society, etc.) CI1. Are you familiar with your country’s forest and terrestrial carbon management goals? 5.  * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No CI2. Does SilvaCarbon play a role in assisting your country to reach these goals? Explain 6.  * gfedc Yes gfedc No gfedc Don't know/not applicable If yes, please explain. CI3. To what extent do you expect the SilvaCarbon program to help the country achieve its forest and/or greenhouse gas inventory goals? (Q. 1b) CI4. How effective have the SilvaCarbon activities been in addressing the needs of your country? (Q. 1b) CI5. How much progress has been made in reaching national forest inventory and MRV system goals since SilvaCarbon program started in your country? (Q. 1b) 7.  * nmlkj 1 (Get us started) nmlkj 2 (Self­sufficiency, where we need minimal input) nmlkj 3 (Almost to the end) nmlkj 4 (All the way to reaching objectives) nmlkj 1 (least effective) nmlkj 2 (somewhat effective) nmlkj 3 (mostly effective) nmlkj 4 (extremely effective) nmlkj Not sure/not applicable nmlkj Reached our goal(s) nmlkj Almost reached our goal(s) nmlkj About half­way toward meeting our goal(s) nmlkj We have only just started nmlkj In the planning phase nmlkj Not yet started nmlkj Don't know/not applicable CI6. In your country, what group would you say has the most capacity to facilitate meeting the country’s MRV goals and forest carbon monitoring and reporting needs? CI7. Are there enough trained individuals in your country to implement the methodologies and techniques introduced by SilvaCarbon? (Q.2a) CI8. Is there currently sufficient institutional capacity in your country to meet the country’s forest carbon monitoring and reporting goals without outside support? (Q. 2a) * * * nmlkj Government staff nmlkj Academic institutions nmlkj NGOs nmlkj International consultants, locally­based nmlkj Contracted technical staff in government nmlkj National consultants nmlkj Consultants, working regionally nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know Please explain your answer 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know Please explain your answer 5 6 CI9. Does your institution need assistance and capacity building from SilvaCarbon to help your country reach MRV goals? CI10. Has your organization received recommendations from SilvaCarbon on technical approaches related to forest carbon monitoring? * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If yes, explain what kind of assistance? 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Other  CI11. Have these recommendations been used? CI12. Has SilvaCarbon program facilitated delivering good practice guides, manuals, and tools related to forest carbon monitoring, assessment and reporting to your organization? (Q.) CI13. What has been the most effective way to deliver good practice guides, manuals, and tools related to forest carbon monitoring, assessment and reporting? (check maximum 3): 8.  * * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain why. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know If yes, please provide example. 5 6 gfedc Regional workshops gfedc Contracting technical staff to be based in government gfedc Visits by international consultants gfedc In­country mentoring/technical assistance gfedc National workshops gfedc Study tours gfedc Other (please specify) Other  CI14. Have SilvaCarbon­supported meetings and workshops contributed to increased collaboration and greater consistency in technical understanding among the community of forest and terrestrial carbon technical experts? CI15. Has SilvaCarbon program implementation in your country directly or indirectly contributed to any changes in government or agency forest management policy? In any other policies? CI16. How do you (or your team) access Earth observation data related to forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management? (Q. 1c) Please explain. CI17. Does the SilvaCarbon program facilitate your access to Earth observation data? * * * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If yes, please provide example. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain why. 5 6 Other  Other  CI18. How does SilvaCarbon support your use of Earth observation data? Check all that apply. CI19. Do other international partners inititiaves facilitate your access to data? Please specify which one(s) CI20. Has your organization had experience partnering with other donors or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? (Q. 1b) CI21. Are you aware of any areas where there has been a duplication of efforts between SilvaCarbon and other programs or donors? * * gfedc Coordination gfedc Transparency of data collection systems gfedc Analysis of high resolution data gfedc Enhanced interoperability gfedc Integration of remote­sensing data and field data gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc GFOI gfedc FAO gfedc GOFC­GOLD gfedc CARPE gfedc Don't know gfedc Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know If "yes", please describe 5 6 gfedc Yes gfedc No If "yes," Please provide an example. 5 6 CI22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the: Effectiveness of support for  access to Earth observation  data by  SilvaCarbon/CARPE/GFOI ?  (Q.1c) Level of access you (or  your team) have to Earth  observation data,  facilitated by  SilvaCarbon/CARPE/GFOI  (Q.1c) Capacity  building and  technical  assistance  relating to use of  Earth observation  data? Technical guidance and  methodologies shared by  SilvaCarbon/CARPE/GFOI? Your level of  engagement and  communication  with  SilvaCarbon/US  government  partner  institutions? Check all that apply. 6 6 6 6 6 IA1. What role does SilvaCarbon/ US government partner play in assisting your country to reach forest and terrestrial carbon management goals? Explain IA2. How effective have the SilvaCarbon activities been in addressing the needs of your country? (Q. 1b) IA3. How much progress has been made in reaching national forest inventory and MRV system goals since SilvaCarbon program started in your country? (Q. 1b) IA4. How satisfied are you with your level of communication with SilvaCarbon program? 9.  5 6 * * nmlkj 1 (least effective) nmlkj 2 (somewhat effective) nmlkj 3 (mostly effective) nmlkj 4 (extremely effective) nmlkj Not sure/not applicable nmlkj Reached our goal(s) nmlkj Almost reached our goal(s) nmlkj About half­way toward meeting our goal(s) nmlkj We have only just started nmlkj In the planning phase nmlkj Not yet started nmlkj 1 (not satisfied at all) nmlkj 2 (somewhat satisfied) nmlkj 3 (mostly satisfied) nmlkj 4 (extremely satisfied) If "1 or 2," provide example. 5 6 IA5. How satisfied are you with the relationships between USG implementing SilvaCarbon and other donors working with them on related activities in this country? IA6. Please rate, how much SilvaCarbon support do you think this country needs in order to reach this country’s MRV goals? IA7. Currently, are there enough trained individuals in your country to implement the methodologies and techniques introduced by SilvaCarbon? (Q.2a) IA8. Is there currently sufficient institutional capacity in this country to meet the country’s forest carbon monitoring and reporting goals without outside support? (Q. 2a) * * nmlkj 1 (not satisfied at all) nmlkj 2 (somewhat satisfied) nmlkj 3 (mostly satisfied) nmlkj 4 (extremely satisfied) If 1 or 2, provide example. nmlkj 1 (none/Independent) nmlkj 2 (minimum support) nmlkj 3 (moderate support) nmlkj 4 (very intensive support) nmlkj Don't know/not sure nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain why. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain why. 5 6 IA9. In your country, what group would you say has the most capacity to facilitate meeting the country’s forest carbon monitoring and reporting needs? IA10. Are you aware of instances, when participation in SilvaCarbon directly or indirectly effected any changes in government or agency forest management policy? IA11. Has your organization had experience partnering with other donors or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? If yes, please describe. (Q. 1b) IA12. Does the SilvaCarbon program facilitate your country’s access to Earth observation data? * * * nmlkj National consultants nmlkj Government staff nmlkj International consultants, locally­based nmlkj Contracted technical staff in government nmlkj Academic institutions nmlkj NGOs nmlkj Consultants, working regionally nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," provide example. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes", please specify nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain why. 5 6 IA13. Which international partners and/or initiatives facilitate country’s access to data? IA14. How does SilvaCarbon program support country’s use of Earth observation data? IA15. Has SilvaCarbon facilitated delivering good practice guides, manuals, and tools related to forest carbon monitoring, assessment and reporting to relevant institutions in this country? (Q.) * nmlkj GFOI nmlkj FAO nmlkj GOFC­GOLD nmlkj CARPE nmlkj Don't know/not sure nmlkj Other (please specify) 5 6 nmlkj Facilitating transparency of data collection systems nmlkj Enhancing interoperability nmlkj Integration of remote­sensing data and field data nmlkj Coordination role nmlkj Analysis of high resolution data nmlkj Don't know/not applicable nmlkj Other (please specify) 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don’t know/no response If "yes," please provide an example. 5 6 IA16. What has been the most effective way to deliver good practice guides, manuals, and tools related to forest carbon monitoring, assessment and reporting? (check maximum 3) IA17. Have SilvaCarbon, including GFOI and CARPE­supported workshops and technical assistance contributed to increased collaboration and greater consistency in technical understanding among the community of forest and terrestrial carbon technical experts? * * nmlkj Visits by international consultants nmlkj Regional workshops nmlkj In­country mentoring/technical assistance nmlkj National workshops nmlkj Contracting technical staff to be based in government nmlkj Study tours nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Explain your answer? 5 6 PC1. What role have you/your agency played in SilvaCarbon work planning? (Q. 1c) Describe PC2. Are you aware of any specific groups that have not been engaged in SilvaCarbon planning or other activities that perhaps should be? Check all that apply. PC3. Was a gender advisor, Ministry of Gender, or representative of any women’s group included in the national work plan development or in any work planning since? (Q. 2a) 10.  5 6 * * nmlkj International bilateral or multilateral organizations nmlkj Groups representing indigenous populations (Q. 3b) nmlkj National government institutions nmlkj Civil Society Organizations nmlkj National institutions other than government (academia, research, etc.) nmlkj Groups representing women nmlkj Don’t know/not sure Please provide name and type of organization. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don’t know If "yes," provide example of specific instances. 5 6 Other  PC4. Are there mechanisms (if any) at your country(or regional) level to support donor coordination on climate change, forest management, and carbon measurement­related capacity building activities? (Q. 1b) PC5. Would you say SilvaCarbon, including GFOI and CARPE, support is well integrated into the overall carbon monitoring and measurement initiatives ongoing in your country? (i.e., R­PP, UN­REDD+ process?) (Q. 3b) PC6. Has participation in the SilvaCarbon program helped this country meet its international reporting requirements under the UNFCCC? (Q. 3c) (Q. 1b) PC7. In looking at the relationship between the SilvaCarbon program and partner country/ministry activities (forest inventory, MRV, etc.) in the country, how would you rate the following: (Q. 2a) * * a. Awareness of  each other’s  entire program  efforts (e.g.,  objectives, focus,  scale)? b.Level of  engagement of  national technical  staff in program  decisions and  implementation? c. Coordination  and consensus on  strategies and  priorities? d. Compatibility  of procedures and  processes? e. Interoperability  of format and  computer  systems? f. Integration of  remote­sensing  data and field  data? Please rate all. 6 6 6 6 6 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know If "yes," please provide an example. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," please provide an example. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know If "no," please explain. 5 6 PC8. Would you say that SilvaCarbon currently strikes the correct balance between capacity building through workshops and in­country technical assistance? * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain. 5 6 ST1. Have you participated in a study tour? 11. Study Tour nmlkj Yes nmlkj No ST2. How many study tours organized by SilvaCarbon program have you participated in? ST3. How satisfied were you with the technical content of the tour(s)? ST4. What were the most beneficial elements of the study tour? Explain. ST5. Do you have suggestions for improvement(s) for study tour organizers? Explain. ST6. Have you used knowledge and skills gained after the study tour(s)? 12.  * 5 6 nmlkj 1 nmlkj 2­4 nmlkj 5+ nmlkj 1 (not at all satisfied) nmlkj 2 (somewhat satisfied) nmlkj 3 (mostly satisfied) nmlkj 4 (extremely satisfied) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain (please specify) 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Explain: Please provide a concrete example for "yes," or reasons why "no." 5 6 Other  ST7. Would you say that study tours supported by SilvaCarbon have led to increased collaboration and greater consistency in technical understanding among the community of forest and terrestrial carbon technical experts? * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don’t know/not applicable If "no," please explain. 5 6 WS1. Have you participated in a workshop(s), organized by SilvaCarbon and/or GFOI, CARPE? 13. Workshop(s) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No WS2. How many workshops organized by SilvaCarbon program and/or GFOI, CARPE have you participated in? WS3. Have you used knowledge and skills gained after the workshop(s)? WS4. Would you say that meetings and workshops supported by SilvaCarbon (including those organized by GFOI and CARPE) have led to increased collaboration and greater consistency in technical understanding among the community of experts in your country and/or region? 14.  * nmlkj 1 nmlkj 2­4 nmlkj 5+ nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Explain: Please provide a concrete example for "yes," or reasons why "no." 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don’t know/not applicable If "no," please explain your answer. 5 6 FTE1. Would you consider yourself a part of community of forest and terrestrial carbon experts? 15.  * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No FTE2. Have you been involved in learning exchanges, regional forums, and networks to enhance knowledge and expertise sharing among countries through this community? (Q.1d) 16.  gfedc Yes gfedc No FTE3: How effective have these opportunities been in enhancing knowledge and expertise sharing in strengthening the community of forest and terrestrial carbon technical experts? 17.  nmlkj 1 (least effective) nmlkj 2 (somewhat effective) nmlkj 3 (mostly effective) nmlkj 4 (extremely effective) Please explain your answer 5 6 FTE4. What would you say about gender balance in this community? FTE5. How would you describe the activity of female participants in the community? FTE6. What forest and terrestrial carbon measurement and monitoring methodologies does your organization currently use? (you, your team, institution or ministry) (Q. 1a) For example: 18.  nmlkj Primarily men nmlkj Primarily women nmlkj Equal nmlkj Equally active with men nmlkj Less active nmlkj More active nmlkj DTIM information needs tool for selecting the metrics to monitor nmlkj FRIED optimization tool nmlkj University of Maryland algorithm for developing land cover maps nmlkj Videography: Plot­level biomass estimation nmlkj CLASlite: Approach to monitoring deforestation and forest degradation nmlkj CLASlite + LiDAR Landsat: mapping carbon stocks directly nmlkj Airborne Taxonomic Mapping (AToMS) nmlkj Decision Tree Matrix: biomass est. (Amazon Basin) using remotely sensed data & ground plot data nmlkj CATHALAC Tropicarms nmlkj Normalized difference fraction index: Combining spectral and spatial data to map canopy damage nmlkj DETER: Brazil’s Real­time Deforestation Detection System nmlkj Our Planetary Skin nmlkj Terrestrial Observation and Prediction Program (TOPS) nmlkj Other (please specify) Other  FTE7. Do these methodologies meet your needs for measurement, verification, and reporting (MRV)?(Q.1a) FTE8. Has SilvaCarbon’s support improved your team’s ability to use forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management methodologies? (Q. 1b) FTE9. How often have you or your staff used forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring and management methodologies and technologies developed/disseminated under SilvaCarbon in your daily work? (Q.1d) FTE10. Are there currently enough trained individuals in your country to implement the methodologies and related initiatives introduced by SilvaCarbon? (Q.2a) * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain how/why/why not? 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," please provide examples. If "no," please explain.  5 6 nmlkj Daily nmlkj Monthly nmlkj Several times a year nmlkj Once a year or less nmlkj Never nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer. 5 6 FTE11. Is there currently sufficient level of expertise and capacity in forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring in this country at this at this time reach national MRV goals without outside support, either financial or technical? (Q. 2a) FTE12. Have you and/or your institution been directly or indirectly involved in in affecting any changes in government or agency forest management policy, as a result of your involvement in SilvaCarbon (including GFOI and CARPE)? FTE13. To what degree is SilvaCarbon support sufficient to train technical staff to learn and independently use the necessary tools and methodologies to meet your countries’ forest and terrestrial carbon management needs? FTE14. Please rate how well SilvaCarbon strikes the balance between capacity building through workshops/trainings and in­country technical assistance? FTE15. Based on your experience what measures could the SilvaCarbon program take to strengthen the community of forest and terrestrial carbon experts? * * * (not balanced at all) (marginal balance) (fine balance) (perfect balance) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj * 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer. Why/why not? 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer. 5 6 nmlkj 1 (extremely insufficient) nmlkj 2 (somewhat insufficient) nmlkj 3 (relatively sufficient) nmlkj 4 (extremely sufficient) nmlkj Don't know/not applicable Please explain HQ1. What role have you played in SilvaCarbon program planning? Describe (Q. 1c) HQ2. Do you feel that SilvaCarbon’s interagency relationships have helped attaining your agency mandate or interests within the program? [Q.3a] Why or why not? HQ3. What do you see as the most significant challenges to coordination among USG agencies implementing SilvaCarbon program? (Q. 2a) (check all that apply) HQ4. Are you aware of any partnering with other donors and/or international organizations to generate synergies with the SilvaCarbon program? (Q. !B) 19. Headquarters 5 6 * * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer 5 6 Communication of regarding progress and challenges in the field travel the appropriate communication channels in order to reach the  Technical Team, the Steering Committee, and to the USG agencies and externally? gfedc gfedc SilvaCarbon’s internal programmatic decision­making process? gfedc Communication from the HQ level to reach all appropriate country partners? gfedc Other (please specify) 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," please describe. 5 6 HQ5. Are you aware of any areas where there has been a duplication of efforts between SilvaCarbon and other programs or donors? HQ6. What do you see as the most significant challenges to relationships and coordination between USG and other donors working on SilvaCarbon, including GFOI, CARPE, globally and regionally? Please explain your answer. HQ7. How well have SilvaCarbon and GFOI collaborated in their work (i.e. workshops, TA)? HQ8. How effective would you say SilvaCarbon and GFOI cooperation has been in contributing to the alignment of global sampling schemes of continuous satellite observations with in situ/field data collection? . 5 6 * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," please describe. 5 6 nmlkj 1 (nonexistent) nmlkj 2 (limited collaboration) nmlkj 3 (solid collaboration) nmlkj 4 (very high) nmlkj Don’t know/not applicable Please explain your answer 5 6 nmlkj 1 (nonexistent) nmlkj 2 nmlkj 3 nmlkj 4 (very high) nmlkj don’t know/no response Please explain.  5 6 HQ9. Can you provide examples of SilvaCarbon countries using GFOI designs for comparison? HQ10. Would you say SilvaCarbon support is well integrated into the overall carbon monitoring and measurement initiatives ongoing globally? (i.e., R­PP, UN­REDD+ process?) (Q. 3b) HQ11. How effective have the SilvaCarbon activities been in addressing needs of targeted beneficiaries? (Q. 1b) HQ12. Has participation in the SilvaCarbon program helped this country meet its international reporting requirements under the UNFCCC? (Q. 3c) (Q. 1b) 6 1 (least effective) gfedc Not  sure/not  applicable 6 2 (somewhat effective) gfedc Not  sure/not  applicable 6 3 (mostly effective) gfedc Not  sure/not  applicable 6 4 (extremely effective) gfedc Not  sure/not  applicable nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "yes," please provide an example. 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer 5 6 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain. 5 6 HQ13. Has SilvaCarbon program contributed to facilitating higher quality international reporting? (Q. 3c) * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If "no," please explain. 5 6 SWR1. What would you highlight as the most valuable approaches of the SilvaCarbon program for you and/or your team? (check all that apply) (Q. 2) SWR2. What would you say are weaknesses of the SilvaCarbon approaches? (Q. 2a) (please explain) SWR3. What recommendations would you offer to improve, strengthen, or enhance SilvaCarbon support? a. At a country level? b. Regionally? c. Globally? SWR4. How can SilvaCarbon and its partners assist countries in bridging the gap between scientific/technical issues and policy/decision­making? SWR5. Based on your experience what measures could the SilvaCarbon program take to enhance sustainability of results? 20. Strengths and Weaknesses, Recommendations * 5 6 At a country level? Regionally? Globally? 5 6 5 6 gfedc Enhancing data use gfedc Technology transfer through in­country technical assistance gfedc Enhancing data access gfedc Joint research activities gfedc Workshops gfedc Technology and knowledge transfers through study tours gfedc Other (please specify) SWR6. Do you have any other recommendations related to the SilvaCarbon program? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE EVALUATION OF THE SILVACARBON PROGRAM. If you would like to participate in an individual interview or would like to recommend someone else for participation in this survey, leave your contact information below or you may contact any one of evaluation team members listed here: Svetlana Negroustoueva (SNegroustoueva@onlinedts.com); Claudia Rossel (CRossel@onlinedts.com). nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Please explain your answer. How/why/why not? 5 6