October 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by David Hess, Allen Turner and Raymond Gervais from Social Impact, and Stepi Hakim from Management Systems International. MID-TERM EVALUATION OF LOWERING EMISSIONS IN ASIA’S FORESTS PROGRAM Evaluation Report iii MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE LOWERING EMISSIONS IN ASIA’S FORESTS (LEAF) PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT October 9, 2013 Contract Number: RAN-I-00-09-00019-00 Order Number: AID-486-TO-13-00004 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The LEAF Evaluation Team, Social Impact's Raymond Gervais, Al Turner and David Hess and Management Services International's Stepi Hakim, would like to express their deep appreciation to their many collaborators, colleagues, and supporters. First and foremost, our Contract Officer's Task Order Representative, Supattira Rodboontham, was our taskmaster and manager and did a superb job. Next, our great evaluation external team members: Suphasuk Pradubsuk (Bird) of RDMA REO, Nitasmai Ransaeva of RDMA Program Office, Linda Heath of USFS, Sarah Tisch of Social Impact, and Matt Ogonowski of USAID/Washington E3 Global Climate Change Office—they all brought intelligence, experience, and fresh points of view and humor to our work, especially traveling with us in LEAF countries. We greatly appreciated the insights and patience of Barry Flaming, the RDMA REO LEAF Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) who let us diagnose the effort that he is responsible for managing. All the leaders and staff of LEAF's Regional Office were extremely welcoming and helpful: David Ganz, Brian Bean, Peter Stephen, Jeremy Broadhead, Kalpana Giri, Chanin Chiumkanokchai, Nicole Kravec, and Phuong Chi Pham, LEAF Cambodia coordinator Limchun Hour, LEAF Lao PDR staff - Athsaphanthong Munelith, Christof Hahn, SengKham Inthiratvongsy, and Xaydara Viengsay, LEAF Vietnam staff - Ly Thi Minh Hai, Thann Van Chau, Vu Thi Kien Phuc, and Nguyen Vinh Quang, LEAF PNG Staff (Roy Banka and Michael Avosa), LEAF Thailand Staff (Somsak Soonthornnawaphat, Chawapich “Did” Vaidhayakarn, and Komchai Thaiying) and LEAF Malaysia staff (Azizan Madawah). We want to also warmly thank all the US and partner country governments, civil society, private sector, other donor, and community leaders who gave us their valuable time and insights that have greatly enriched the evaluation. RDMA leaders Michael Yates and Alfred Nakatsuma were welcoming and very clear in their views on LEAF and its future possible directions that oriented the evaluation. Home office SI and MSI staff—Chiara Cruciano, Dennis Wood, Julie Mandolini-Trummel, and Domoina Rambeloarison—were all fabulous in their support and tireless contributions to the quality of the work. Finally and most appreciatively, we want to thank our family and friends who put up with our long hours and late nights of "homework" and dealt with our long absences while we were out in LEAF country. We are responsible for the flaws in the document and hope it contributes to what is sure to be a bright future for the completion of the LEAF program. v CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv Contents ......................................................................................................................................... v Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................vii Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................viii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................1 Program Background ....................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations ..........................................................................................................2 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................2 Question 1. To What Extent Are the Program’s Objectives, Intermediate Results and Performance Indicator Targets Being Achieved Since Its Inception to Date? ....................................................................2 Question 2. What Factors (Both Internal and External to the Program) Help or Hinder in the Achievement of the Program’s Expected Outcomes as Detailed in the Cooperative Agreement?.....3 Question 3: What Specific Opportunities Exist to Enhance Programmatic Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability at the Regional Level? .....................................................................................................................5 Question 4: What Specific Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen the Regional Cohesive Approach of the Program? .....................................................................................................................................5 Question 5: What Adjustments, Corrective Actions and/or Areas for Improvement Are Needed to Ensure Progress Towards Achieving Expected Results During the Duration of the Program? ............6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................7 I. Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ........................................................................... 9 Evaluation Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................9 Evaluation Questions ....................................................................................................................................................9 II. Program Background ............................................................................................................. 10 III. Evaluation Methods & Limitations ....................................................................................... 12 Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................................................................12 Data Collection Methods ..........................................................................................................................................12 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................16 Limitations and Risks ..................................................................................................................................................17 IV. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ....................................................................... 18 Progress and Achievement on Objectives, Intermediate Results and Targets ............................................18 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................18 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................25 Helping and Hindering Factors ................................................................................................................................27 Findings: Helping Factors ......................................................................................................................................27 vi Findings: Hindering Factors ..................................................................................................................................29 Conclusions: Helping and Hindering Factors ...................................................................................................35 Opportunities to Enhance Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability at the Regional Level ........................36 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................36 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................41 Opportunities to Strengthen the Regional Cohesive Approach......................................................................42 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................42 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................46 Needed Adjustments, Corrective Actions and/or Areas for Improvement .................................................47 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................47 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................52 Gender Dimensions ....................................................................................................................................................55 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................57 Overall Management Recommendations ..........................................................................................................57 Regional Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 59 Country Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 62 Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 64 Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ..............................................................................................................65 Annex II: Data Collection Instruments ..................................................................................................................79 Annex III: Sources of Information ...........................................................................................................................96 Annex IV: Data Collection Schedule ................................................................................................................... 120 Annex V: Demonstration Site Analysis and Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................ 130 Annex VI: Demonstration Site Drivers That May Be Addressed ................................................................. 133 Annex VII: USAID Regional Sustainable Landscape Projects ......................................................................... 137 Annex VIII: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................................... 138 vii FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1: LEAF Results Framework (updated March 2013) .................................................................................11 Figure 2: LEAF Core and Replication Countries ......................................................................................................11 Tables Table 1: Allocation and Flow Data Collection ..........................................................................................................13 Table 2: Number of Informants by Type and Country ...........................................................................................14 Table 3: Number of Informants by Country of Origin or of Interview and by Gender ...............................14 Table 4: Number of Participants in the Curriculum Development Survey by Country and Gender ........16 Table 5: Evaluation of Satisfaction and Overall Assessment of LEAF’s Contribution to Curriculum Development ...........................................................................................................................................................21 Table 6: LEAF Training Events and Workshops .......................................................................................................22 viii ACRONYMS AFD Agence Française de Développement AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use ALP Asia LEDS Partnership AOR Agreement Officer's Representative ARBCP Asian Regional Biodiversity Conservation Program ARKN-FCC ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change ARLSP Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations ASOF ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry ASW ASEAN Single Window AWG-C ASEAN Working Group on Timber Certification BCC Basic Climate Change BDS Benefits Distribution System CA Cooperative Agreement CBFCM Community-based Forest and Catchment Management CBO Community Based Organization CCA Climate Change Alliance CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CI Conservation International CIFOR Center for International Forestry and Research CLiPAD Climate Protection through Avoided Deforestation Program CMM Carbon Measurement and Monitoring COP Conference of Parties CSO Civil Society Organization DAFO District Agriculture and Forestry Offices, Lao PDR DFRC Department of Forest Resources Conservation, Lao PDR DFRM Department of Forest Resource Management, Lao PDR DNP Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand DOF Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR DOFI Department of Forestry Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR EPF Environmental Protection Fund ESTH Environment, Science, Technology and Health EU European Union EWMI East-West Management Institute FA Forest Administration ix FAO Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations FCA Forest Carbon Asia FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank FCZ Fisheries conservation zones FFI Fauna and Flora International FGD Focus Group Discussion FIPD Forest Inventory Planning Division, Lao PDR FLEGT Forest Law, Enforcement, Governance and Trade FPIC Free, prior and informed consent FRIM Forest Research Institute Malaysia FSE Food Security & Environment, USAID Cambodia FY Fiscal Year GCC Global Climate Change GCC-SL Global Climate Change Sustainable Landscapes GEC Global Environment Centre GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GmbH (German: German Society for International Cooperation, Ltd.) GMS Greater Mekong Subregion GPS Global Positioning System HARVEST Helping Address Rural Vulnerabilities and Ecosystem Stability HQ Headquarter IFACS Indonesian Forest and Climate Support IGES Institute of Global Environment and Society INA Institute of National Affairs, Papua New Guinea IR Intermediate Result ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KFW Kreditanstalt Für Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank) KII Key Informant Interview LEAD Low Emissions Asian Development LEAF Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests LEDS Low Emission Development Strategies LMI Lower Mekong Initiative LUP&CC Land Use Planning and Climate Change M&E Monitoring and Evaluation x MAB Man and the Biosphere Program MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MOE Ministry of Environment, Cambodia MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Lao PDR MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRV Measurement, Reporting, Verification (carbon emission reductions) MSI Management Systems International MSKM Maesa-Kogma Man and Biosphere Reserve NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions/Approaches NCB National Coordinating Body NGO Non-Government Organization NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Co-Operation N-RAP National REDD Action Plan NSW National Single Window NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products OCCD Office of Climate Change and Development, Papua New Guinea ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning PA Protected Area PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, Lao PDR PARO Protected Area Regional Office, Thailand PES Payment for Environmental Services PFES Payment for Forest Environmental Services PMP Performance Management Plan PNG Papua New Guinea PPC Provincial People’s Committee, Vietnam PRA Participatory Rural Assessment P-RAP Provincial REDD Action Plan, Vietnam RAFT Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade Program RDCS Regional Development Cooperation Strategy RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center, Asia and the Pacific REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation REL Reference Emission Level REO Regional Environment Office, USAID/RDMA, Thailand RFD Royal Forest Department of Thailand RIL Reduced Impact Logging R-PP REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal xi RUA Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia RUPP Royal University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia SES Social and Environmental Safeguards SFB Supporting Forests and Biodiversity SI Social Impact, Inc SNV Netherlands Development Organization SOW Statement of Work SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program SUFORD Sustainable Forests for Rural Development, Lao PDR TA Technical Assistance TAO Tambon (Sub-District) Administration Office, Thailand TFF Tropical Forest Foundation TNC The Nature Conservancy TOCOR Task Order Contracting Officer Representative TWG Technical Working Group UN United Nations UNDP United National Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USFS United States Forest Service USG Unites States Government VCS Verified Carbon Standard VFD Vietnam Forest and Delta VNFF Vietnam National Forest Fund VNFOREST Vietnam Forests VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WOCAN Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management WWF World Wildlife Fund LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of the mid-term performance evaluation of the Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) program is to examine progress to date, to identify implementation challenges and areas for improvement and to recommend specific opportunities to enhance effectiveness and impact. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) Regional Environment Office (REO) created and funded LEAF to address climate change in a continuously evolving context of initiatives across the region’s countries and landscapes. Hence, this evaluation seeks to advise RDMA on (a) options for LEAF to best achieve its results while contributing to RDMA’s emerging Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS) and in harmony with bilateral Missions and their strategies and programs, and (b) how best to focus future USAID program resources for RDCS results achievement. The mid-term evaluation statement of work (SOW; see Annex 1) presented three evaluation questions, which were reorganized, with USAID approval, into the following five questions: Question 1. To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? Question 2. What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? Question 3. What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? Question 4. What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? Question 5. What adjustments, corrective actions and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? PROGRAM BACKGROUND RDMA awarded a five-year $20 million cooperative agreement for the LEAF program in January 2011 to Winrock International (henceforth Winrock), together with SNV—the Netherlands Development Organisation—and Climate Focus. Winrock added The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC, Regional Community Forestry Training Center) as a partner in October 2012. In December 2012, USAID added an additional $800,000 to include gender integration activities in the program. LEAF’s goal is to strengthen capacities of developing countries in the Asia region to produce meaningful and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry-land use sector, allowing them to benefit from the emerging international REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework. This goal is to be achieved through four objectives:  Replicate and scale up innovation through regional platforms and partnerships;  Establish policy and market incentives for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions;  Build and institutionalize technical capacity for economic valuation of forest ecosystem services and monitoring changes in forest carbon stocks; and 2 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Demonstrate innovation in sustainable land management. USAID/RDMA designed the LEAF program to achieve the following results:  National Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) policy, planning and institutional frameworks at the national, sub-national and/or local levels are being strengthened to support improved and equitable land management in at least four countries;  At least three million tons per year of GHG emissions reduced or avoided;  At least one million hectares of forest lands under improved management;  Replication of best practices, models and methodologies in at least six countries; and  At least $5 million of domestic and international investment in forest environmental services. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS As an evaluation that looks both forward and backward from the mid-point of the LEAF project, the LEAF evaluation used a non-experimental design based on qualitative data and a cross-sectional evaluation process. It looked at multiple subgroups, including women, youth and minority ethnic groups, at one point in time and across six different countries. The main data collection tools were document review, semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) and group discussions. Limitations that were overcome included availability of informants, recall and absence of baselines. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 1. To What Extent Are the Program’s Objectives, Intermediate Results and Performance Indicator Targets Being Achieved Since Its Inception to Date? Findings At the regional level, under the first objective, LEAF has engaged a network of partners and donors that are addressing policies, laws, regulations and best practices. It has carried out the first of four capacity steps to strengthen three of the four targeted regional platforms. Under its second objective, LEAF has helped advance jurisdictional REDD+ nesting approaches by, for example, helping draft new policy frameworks in Lao PDR and Papua New Guinea (PNG) and supporting a Provincial REDD Action Plan (P-RAP) in Vietnam’s Lam Dong province. Under its third objective, LEAF has delivered 25 workshop and training events and helped eight Mekong universities develop four modules of a climate change curriculum. LEAF’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system has not yet enabled LEAF to track how well the program is supporting the emergence of a critical mass of experts and engaged stakeholders applying new knowledge. Under objective four, LEAF has identified and begun to support sustainable forest management at sites in all countries except Malaysia and Cambodia. LEAF is contributing to long-term institutional and human resource strengthening in Lao PDR, PNG and Vietnam by partnering with organizations with long-term field engagement. LEAF has faced a lack of progress on a compliance market and the slowdown of the voluntary market for forest carbon credits, but donor funding (e.g., from the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and the Norwegian government) has grown. LEAF’s “no regrets” approach has enabled incentives and even funding based on multiple forest management benefits. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3 Conclusions LEAF has made progress in achieving important elements of all four objectives, but LEAF’s outcome targets for GHG emissions and forest hectares under improved management are overly ambitious and will likely not be met.1 The low probability of achievement of LEAF’s outcome targets could lead to two credibility issues: (1) LEAF’s credibility, especially for components in which targets could be achieved, could logically be questioned and, more significant in the longer term, (2) future comparable programs may face a similar credibility gap. LEAF’s experience of progress in Vietnam and limited progress in other countries supports lessons from USAID and donor experience elsewhere that progress on complex issues, such as forest management and climate change, requires consistent and high-quality investment in, and commitment to, institutional and human resource strengthening over the long term. Question 2. What Factors (Both Internal and External to the Program) Help or Hinder in the Achievement of the Program’s Expected Outcomes as Detailed in the Cooperative Agreement? Findings The key helping factors in the achievement of LEAF’s expected outcomes are related to its collaboration with partners and donors in replicating REDD best practices and promoting the standardization of REDD policy methodologies, particularly Measurement, Reporting, Verification (MRV), Reference Emission Level (REL) and Social and Environmental Safeguards (SES). This progress is due to the interest in and relevance of REDD+ for LEAF’s partners. In LEAF countries, helping factors include the following:  Vietnam has strong institutions and relatively better trained and more experienced government and other staff working on LEAF issues. Previous USAID and, in particular, RDMA programs have also contributed by laying a positive groundwork for LEAF at the national and sub-national levels.  Lao PDR has benefited from excellent personnel choices by LEAF through its leadership. They have built highly functioning networks at the national level and extended them out to work at the sub-national level.  Papua New Guinea showed that the LEAF team has found a high degree of positive political will for advancing climate issues such as forest carbon sequestration, particularly at the provincial level.  In Malaysia, LEAF has established good working relationships at the national level. LEAF is beginning a partnership with the Global Environment Centre (GEC), which is well positioned to contribute to avoided emissions and to regional engagement on peatlands. 1 No external expert the Evaluation Team interviewed believed that the targets could be achieved in the absence of a compliance carbon credit market. 4 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  In Thailand, various institutions have contributed support to emerging civil society engagement around the REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP). The first overall hindering factor for LEAF Program achievement is that, contrary to when the program was conceived in 2010, there is no apparent progress on an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that structures and establishes rules and governance at international levels on carbon emissions and sequestration compliance markets. Multiple benefits are also very important and LEAF emphasized them. The second overall hindering factor to LEAF’s success as a regional program is the fact that the REDD+ framework and its MRV, financial mechanisms and safeguards are all designed and carried out by sovereign governments based on their authority over natural resources in their national territory. There are two important hindering factors for Vietnam. First, although Vietnam is the world’s first country program to have advanced to UN-REDD Phase Two, UN-REDD program and Vietnamese government official positions at all levels diverged concerning the structure, objectives and activities anticipated as part of that program, and this constrains LEAF’s success in Vietnam. Second, Vietnam’s Payment for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) system—the most advanced Payment for Environmental Services (PES) system in the region, and maybe the world—does not include systematic data gathering, analysis or reporting on the changes achieved in improving forest health or on benefits impact. These deficiencies are important to LEAF since Vietnam’s PFES system is a major model for payments for performance related to multiple environmental benefits. Flaws in its PFES can be seen as constraints on the rigor and efficacy of any REDD+ activities. Conclusions Progress on the evolution of UNFCCC REDD+ compliance markets for forest carbon sequestration has faltered even while voluntary markets and pilot project funding continue. Absence of a compliance market for forest carbon sequestration credits and the growing weakness and lack of progress in establishing voluntary carbon credit purchase demonstration pilot activities will limit the incentive environment for REDD+ in LEAF’s remaining time. LEAF can make significant contributions to preparing institutions, technical staff and communities for forest and land management improvements under a “no regrets” rationale. LEAF’s regional knowledge sharing and technical support have proved useful in educating policy makers and strengthening national and sub-national technical capacities. However, greater LEAF efforts are needed to ensure national and sub-national forest governance, inventory and resource-use systems are technically capable of ensuring more sustainable management and lower emissions through increased carbon sequestration. LEAF has worked with government agencies effectively where it (a) had a strong local partner or a partner that has already developed influence and credibility in engaging with government, or (b) was able to provide meaningful support for one or more of the government’s priority activities. Over the longer term, strengthening engagement among civil society, the government and private sector stakeholders appears to be key in building capacity. USAID’s internal issues between regional and bilateral efforts were initially hindering factors in several countries but relationships of shared and mutually supportive objectives and activities between regional and bilateral leadership are now the norm for the completion of the LEAF program. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 5 Question 3: What Specific Opportunities Exist to Enhance Programmatic Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability at the Regional Level? Findings First, to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact and sustainability at the regional level, LEAF can work with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC) and Mangroves for the Future (MFF) to move the REDD+ agenda forward and to engage participation from the private sector and civil society organizations. Second, LEAF can engage with the ASEAN Working Group on Timber Certification (AWG-C) to develop a regional reference framework to implement a phased approach to forest certification by 2015. Third, LEAF could engage with the Lower Mekong Initiative’s (LMI) event on annual policy dialogue in which LEAF might contribute to addressing gender equity issues in LMI REDD+ and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. LEAF can invite non-LMI participants, particularly its current partners in Malaysia and PNG, to enhance the impact of actions and further build networks. Fourth, LEAF can increase engagement with the Asia Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) Partnership as another network for sharing lessons learned and best practices on LEDS, REDD+ and improved forest management in Asian countries. Fifth, LEAF can extend and adapt its successful coordination with USAID/Vietnam’s Vietnam Forest and Delta (VFD) Project to other LEAF partner countries and institutions. Conclusions LEAF needs to consider how to focus its current regional engagements with ARKN-FCC and MFF to achieve the most effective information sharing and other objectives. LEAF also would benefit from determining how it might contribute to other broader initiatives such as the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) and the related AWG-C, the LMI, Asia LEDS and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), as well as elements of work on timber certification (Forest Law, Enforcement, Governance and Trade [FLEGT] and the Lacey Act). Question 4: What Specific Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen the Regional Cohesive Approach of the Program? Findings LEAF’s cohesive approach was and continues to be the strengthening of capacities, information flows and sharing of best practices and experience-based information to advance improved forest management. LEAF suffers from the multiple personalities and objectives of any effort managed at a multiple-country level that deals with issues that are decided at the national and sub-national level. Regional cohesiveness is and will continue to be determined by the interest national and sub-national actors have in engaging with their neighbors. LEAF’s efforts have produced a strong start with partner institutions in improving the multi-country flow of information, technologies and experience LEAF could usefully support the advancement of the work plan of ASW. ASW’s objective is to accelerate cargo clearance within the context of increased economic integration in ASEAN. LEAF can further engage with LMI’s event on annual policy dialogue to contribute to addressing gender equity in REDD+ and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation within Lower Mekong countries. LEAF can help the Asia LEDS Partnership develop the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) component of the partnership. LEAF can engage with Sustainable Landscapes as another network for sharing lessons learned and practices on LEDS, REDD+ and improved forest management in LEAF countries. 6 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF could engage with the SPREP to share experiences in avoiding emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in PNG and in other countries through the SPREP network. LEAF could engage with the existing FLEGT initiatives and Lacey Act actions in LEAF countries including Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Conclusions LEAF’s site-based experience in applying MRV and SES with stakeholders to counteract drivers of deforestation and forest degradation can help strengthen regional cohesion by (a) strengthening networks for learning exchange and comparative analysis across sites; (b) informing ongoing regional and sub-regional initiatives, e.g., ASEAN Single Window trade standards—and FLEGT initiatives and Lacey Act actions in Cambodia, Lao PDR, PNG and Vietnam—that limit adverse impacts from drivers; (c) providing “evidence” for evidence-based decision making; and (d) informing advocacy, communication and transparency to promote improved forestry governance and address transboundary issues. Question 5: What Adjustments, Corrective Actions and/or Areas for Improvement Are Needed to Ensure Progress Towards Achieving Expected Results During the Duration of the Program? Findings Past investments by USAID, other donors and regional and local actors across the region have developed relationships and created bases of capacity and trust that are serving LEAF well as bases for its REDD+ and related climate change activities. LEAF and USAID have not fully applied the USG’s higher-level influence and convoking authorities in developing more effective entry to and/or building more effective support for Asian networks and platforms to advance reduced emissions through improved forest management. There is a historic regional and global opportunity for both RDMA’s leadership on LEAF and USAID/Vietnam’s bilateral leadership on Low Emissions Development to convoke donor dialogue on the differences between UN-REDD and the Vietnamese government on REDD+ Phase Two implementation. Vietnam’s experience offers the region lessons to adapt for the integration of incentives to improved forest and ecosystem management. LEAF’s partner universities and those in high-level technical national government positions appreciated access in training events to world-renowned experts on carbon and REDD+ and the sophistication of the tools, but LEAF has not yet facilitated their adaptation to introduce them to non-technical or field￾level staff. LEAF has not effectively carried out follow-up communication or support with trainees to assist them in using their training. Conclusions Without a site-level diagnostic and analytic document to orient its menu of activities, LEAF risks vague and unsustainable achievements when it could have clear results identified in a succinct framework. Despite the legitimate concerns raised about the diversity of very specific country contexts, the LEAF demonstration sites provide essential perspectives and balance to regional emphases, and in the case of Vietnam, offer regional and global lessons. The LEAF performance targets of fifteen million tons of carbon sequestered and one million hectares of forest under improved management are unrealistic at the project’s mid-point in 2013. LEAF’s most valuable outcomes are the uptake and application of learning by LEAF’s local partners. As a learning and capacity-building program, LEAF’s most significant measurements are not of the targets for its LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 7 outputs nor its emissions reduction outcomes, but rather of the capacities of its partners as they apply new skills, knowledge and understanding to do what LEAF—because of limited local capacity and the pressure to achieve targets—is too often replacing them in doing. LEAF’s work to build stakeholder capacity at the site-level, including participatory land use planning, and LEAF’s facilitation of learning across sites can help put in place necessary enabling conditions. For example, LEAF can facilitate stakeholder collaboration and help stakeholders formalize institutional arrangements and strengthen their commitment to implementing plans. Building on these fundamentals, LEAF will likely also contribute to higher order results: changes in institutional and individual relationships and behaviors— e.g., strengthening governance and sustainable management—that contribute directly to LEAF’s intended outcomes. USAID and its numerous partners, including LEAF, could play a more effective role in engaging regional actors and in responding to demand among regional and in-country stakeholders across sectors to become engaged in climate change discussions, decisions and plans, thereby moving towards increased investment. LEAF’s most important challenge and opportunity at this mid-point is to adapt its tools used at different levels to the range of institutions active at its demonstration sites, including the private sector and other interests that are driving deforestation and forest degradation. LEAF has not effectively carried out follow-up communication or support with trainees to assist them in utilization of their training, particularly regarding complex topics such as gender issues. LEAF has not adapted the generic concepts and tools of carbon measurement to particular situations faced by particular stakeholders. Nor has it developed sufficient direct, iterative engagement with a broad enough range of diverse field situations to generate lessons regarding the principles of best practices and how to adapt these principles to some of the basic contexts of resources, institutions/governance and drivers in Asia. Recommendations  LEAF should continue and increase its focus on approaches that advance the multiple benefits and community livelihood improvements of improved forest management at the regional, national and sub-national levels in regard to improved forest management and place less focus on carbon accounting aimed at REDD+ compliance.  LEAF should help its collaborating partners and associated stakeholders for each of its activities to establish a shared understanding of the issues they face and the direction and pace they wish to go forward towards a shared understanding among stakeholders of forests, drivers and governance, through comprehensive base documents and institutional assessments.  To maximize sustainability of its results and its partner organizations’ abilities to continue attaining them, LEAF should cease to be a “hub” and become a facilitator of emerging networks around specific issues and themes that its collaborations in each country find of highest priority and find ways to demonstrate the investment made.  LEAF should strengthen the capacities of partners within the region to design and access international technical expertise, to understand and address the priority gender issues at specific sites and to exchange and standardize approaches through activities that give partners increasing direct responsibility for these functions.  LEAF should support an increased exchange of learning from the most regionally advanced Vietnam REDD+ and PFES, structuring and facilitating engagement with LEAF country partners at multiple levels, including visits both to Vietnam and by Vietnamese partners to other LEAF countries and sites. Such learning exchanges should include contributions to more systematic REDD+ baseline data and standardized tools, through collaboration with other donors and other sustainable landscape programs. This may include joint learning activities with other programs throughout the region addressing those drivers and issues that are prioritized at LEAF’s sites. 8 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  LEAF should simplify REDD+ concepts, models and tools for use by the full range of “lay” stakeholders, including translation into local languages by LEAF’s partners as they work with local male and female leaders, women, youth and ethnic minorities at each site. Undertaking this work will allow groups typically left out of the information stream greater access to REDD+ knowledge and practice.  LEAF should coordinate with the United States Government (USG) to initiate engagement with ASW, LMI and the Asia LEDS Partnership. LEAF should focus/limit its engagement with “major counterpart” organizations to those with which it is collaborating directly on a specific priority initiative/theme or at a specific demonstration site.  LEAF should support curriculum development in universities in rolling out the curriculum development modules for site-based application and testing in all countries to enhance visibility and ownership of the four modules, including a rollout of condensed versions for senior-level decision makers.  LEAF should provide additional short-term technical assistance (STTA) to provide periodic post￾training coaching to LEAF participants that complete the in-country training on Gender Integrated Planning for REDD and to address specific research topics. The STTA could support investigating unintended consequences of increased household incomes such as gender-based violence or other specific concerns like human trafficking.  LEAF, if requested by Vietnamese authorities, should support efforts to understand and document the ways that PFES participation and benefits differentially involve and affect women and men and how the payments affect household economic, power and social relations, as well as how gender plays a part in resource tenure as well as the results of ecosystem changes in forest management from PFES payments.  LEAF should invest all needed resources in Vietnam to support P-RAP in Lam Dong and, as possible in other provinces, with capacity building for forestry and gender. If requested, LEAF should support the strengthening of the National REDD Action Plan (N-RAP).  LEAF should fully support its PNG work in planned collaboration with the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the provincial government, together with civil society organizations (CSOs) and community based organizations (CBOs), to strengthen and replicate participatory land-use planning and REDD+ activities in Madang Province.  LEAF should invest all needed resources in Lao PDR to develop its memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MoNRE), if and when requested, and help build its capacities, strengthen forest laws and regulation and REDD+ planning at the jurisdictional level (provinces) and continue field demonstration site activities in Attapeu and Houapanh.  LEAF should work in Thailand to support multi-stakeholder engagement through the national and site-level steering committees and site-level activities at the Maesa-Kogma Man and Biosphere Reserve (MSKM) Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) site. LEAF should continue to help in northern Thailand with advice on monitoring and technical capacity building for PFES.  LEAF should limit its activities in Malaysia to sites where state-level agreements are in place. This includes the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) in Pahang State and the peatland restoration activity with GEC in Selangor.  LEAF activity in Cambodia should be limited to curriculum development and perhaps limited policy support on addressing the drivers that perpetuate inequalities between women and men. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 9 I. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the mid-term performance evaluation of the LEAF program is to examine the progress of the program to date, to identify implementation challenges and areas for improvement and to recommend specific opportunities to enhance effectiveness and impact. USAID/RDMA/REO created and funded LEAF to address climate change in a continuously evolving context of USAID, donor and other initiatives across the region’s range of countries and landscapes and is vitally interested in how well LEAF contributes to reducing GHG emissions and slowing global climate change related to the use and management of Asian forests. Hence, the evaluation seeks to advise RDMA on options to best achieve LEAF program results, to identify LEAF’s highest potential roles in contributing to achievement of RDMA’s RDCS and harmonize with its partner bilateral Missions and their strategies and projects, and how best to focus and concentrate future USAID program resources for RDCS results achievement. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The mid-term evaluation SOW (see Annex 1) presented three questions, which were reorganized for the evaluation, with USAID approval, into the following five questions: Question 1. To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? Question 2. What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? Question 3. What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? Question 4. What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? Question 5. What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 10 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report II. PROGRAM BACKGROUND In 2010, USAID/RDMA carried out the Asia Regional REDD Program Planning Assessment, which identified and described the myriad threats Southeast Asia faces from continued deforestation and forest degradation that, among other things, are substantially reducing its carbon stocks. Achieving the region’s significant potential in the forestry and land-use sector for cost-effective emissions reductions will require widespread behavior change across public and private organizations, civil society and urban and rural communities through the creation and implementation of policies, laws, regulations and market incentives. In response to development challenges and opportunities identified in the 2010 assessment and in support of the USG GCC Initiative and other USG policy pronouncements, USAID/RDMA created the Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program and awarded a five-year $20 million cooperative agreement on January 20, 2011 to Winrock together with SNV and Climate Focus to carry out the program. Winrock added RECOFTC, Regional Community Forestry Training Center as a formal partner in October 2012. In December 2012, a program expansion was approved with an additional $800,000 to formally include gender integration activities in the program. Subsequently renamed LEAF, the program has an overall goal of strengthening capacities of developing countries in the Asia region to produce meaningful and sustainable reductions in GHG emissions from the forestry/land-use sector, allowing them to benefit from the emerging international REDD+ framework. This goal is to be achieved through four objectives:  Replicate and scale up innovation through regional platforms and partnerships;  Establish policy and market incentives for greenhouse gas reductions;  Build and institutionalize technical capacity for economic valuation of forest ecosystem services and monitoring changes in forest carbon stocks; and  Demonstrate innovation in sustainable land management. LEAF’s development hypothesis is that employing a regional learning-by-doing approach working across sub-national, national and regional levels will strengthen developing countries’ capacities to reduce GHG emissions from the forestry/land-use sector, providing tangible benefits in terms of climate mitigation, improved forest management and strengthened livelihoods, and allowing developing countries to benefit from the international REDD+ framework. The multi-faceted, learning-by-doing approach aims to directly build local capacities to plan and implement improved forest management and REDD+ programs. Overall, the following results are to be achieved through the five-year timeframe of the LEAF program:  National REDD+ policy, planning, and institutional frameworks at the national, sub-national, and/or local levels are being strengthened to support improved and equitable land management in at least four countries;  At least three million tons per year of GHG emissions reduced or avoided;  At least one million hectares of forest lands under improved management;  Replication of best practices, models, and methodologies in at least six countries; and  At least $5 million in domestic and international finances are invested in forest environmental services. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 11 Figure 1: LEAF Results Framework (updated March 2013) The LEAF program design incorporated all key recommended priority areas identified in the 2010 assessment except those related to investment finance and private sector engagement. The LEAF program’s Results Framework was revised at the end of 2012 as part of a revision to the program’s Performance Management Plan (PMP), which was approved in March 2013 (see Figure 1). LEAF activities are focused primarily in the four Lower Mekong countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) as well as Malaysia and PNG (see Figure 2). Program activities may potentially engage with an additional six countries in the region (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines) to share and replicate best practices and innovations. LEAF directs its operations through a regional office that includes all of the project’s designated key personnel, who provide guidance to a LEAF country manager, and collaborating partners in each of the six core countries. Only minimal funding for activities is provided to implementing partners beyond Winrock and the three main cooperating sub-agencies. Figure 2: LEAF Core and Replication Countries Core country Replications 12 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report III. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION DESIGN The key objectives of the LEAF mid-term evaluation are to assess achievements to date, precisely at mid-point of LEAF implementation, and to recommend actions for the completion of its life cycle. The approach looks both backward to achievements and shortcomings and forward to areas for improving impact, relevance, cohesion and sustainability. The use of qualitative approaches correlated with the focus of the majority of evaluation questions. The most effective design option was therefore a performance evaluation using a non-experimental design, based on qualitative data. The performance evaluation does not require a systematic search for cause and effect relations to impacts, as would an experimental design. It is based on inferential, less rigorous but nevertheless evidence-based findings. Although this design excludes a systematic search for causes and effects of impacts, it does involve inquiries into the evolution of processes and the achievement of some preliminary targets. The SOW called for the identification of implementation challenges, corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement in order to determine and formulate recommendations for the second half of the program’s cycle.2 All concerns were set out in descriptive or normative evaluation questions. The cross-sectional evaluation process allows the observation of a program’s effects on many sub￾groups. This method of evaluation was chosen because the program is implemented in six countries and targeted many types of beneficiaries. It also allows for flexibility to include many different contexts, categories of beneficiaries (including gender), states, degrees and factors of progress in program implementation. DATA COLLECTION METHODS In order to cover the six countries in the allocated time, the four-member core team (see Table 1) broke into two sub-teams (A and B), each conducting four weeks of data collection. The core team members were also joined by RDMA staff as well as USAID and United States Forest Service (USFS) experts. Sub-team A spent all its field time in its three allocated countries while sub-team B returned to Bangkok early to attend the last two days of the Curriculum Development Workshop (August 15–16). The Evaluation Team employed four types of data collection, with KIIs comprising the majority of data. 2 Though it may be considered outdated, some manuals on implementation evaluation (also bearing many other names) can highlight some approaches: King, J. A., Lyons-Moris, L. and Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. 1987. How to Assess Program Implementation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 13 Table 1: Allocation and Flow Data Collection Sub-Team A Sub-Team B Thailand  Cambodia Lao PDR Vietnam Thailand  David Hess  Raymond Gervais  Suphasuk Pradubsuk (Lao PDR, Hanoi)  Linda Heath (Hanoi)  Matt Ogonowski (Lam Dong) Thailand  Malaysia PNG Thailand  Allen Turner  Stepi Hakim  Linda Heath (Thailand, Malaysia)  Nitasmai Ransaeva (PNG)  Evaluation COR Supattira Rodboontham (PNG) Document review: The Evaluation Team received and reviewed more than 250 documents related to the LEAF program and activities. The Team assigned document review responsibility according to team member expertise. Annex III presents a full list of all document sources. Key Informant Interviews: The Team was given a prioritized list of approximately 295 informants selected by RDMA REO and the LEAF program. Informants were added when the Evaluation Team judged them relevant to the scope of the evaluation. The Team then sought to meet those set out as priority informants. A close examination of this list compared to Annex III B shows that if not all priority individuals3 could be met, given the constraints and the logistical issues of an evaluation in six countries, the vast majority of institutions were covered as well as almost 85 percent of the prioritized list of informants. This coverage can be favorably compared to other such types of evaluations. The Team interviewed a range of informants across the region (see Tables 2 and 3). Table 3 also presents the distribution of male and female informants in each country. The Team developed specific KII protocols for each group of informants so that questions were tailored to respondents. Evaluators remained flexible with their implementation of the specific protocols and made on-the-spot revisions to them based on the following criteria:  Time allocated to the interview by the informant;  His/her level of knowledge and understanding of LEAF;  Unplanned topics that were deemed important by both interviewer and interviewee; and  The complexity of sub-questions. The numbers in Tables 2 and 3 are logically linked to the importance of Bangkok in LEAF’s management and the length of the presence in sites. In Lao PDR, site visits combined with village meetings increased the number of informants, though most were not interviewed individually, as was also the case with silent participants in interviews. In Vietnam the non-LEAF program site visit was prevented for administrative reasons: at the last minute the Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) made a decision that could not be mitigated or countered. Therefore all informants were interviewed in Lam Dong Province 3 Individuals may have moved or been absent at the time of some shorter Evaluation Team visits. 14 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Table 2: Number of Informants by Type and Country Type of Informant Cambodia Lao PDR Malaysia PNG Thailand USA Vietnam TOTAL Country Administration4 0 14 7 10 11 0 16 58 Embassy Staff 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 5 LEAF 1 2 1 2 18 0 4 28 Partner 9 7 3 15 21 11 7 73 Researcher 4 2 7 3 8 3 10 37 USAID 3 1 0 2 11 6 5 28 Village Informant 0 16 0 2 3 0 0 21 Total 17 43 19 37 72 20 42 252 Percentage of Total 7% 17% 8% 15% 29% 8% 17% (Dalat) through two processes: a collective presentation during an entry meeting and individually in the days that followed. Table 3: Number of Informants by Country of Origin or of Interview and by Gender Country Female Male Total Percentage Cambodia 4 13 17 7% Lao PDR 7 36 43 17% Malaysia 6 13 19 8% Papua New Guinea 10 27 37 15% Thailand 27 45 72 29% USA 11 9 20 8% Vietnam 6 36 42 17% Grand Total 71 179 250 100% Percentage 28% 72% 4 No country administrators or decision makers could be met in Cambodia due to strict directives from the embassy in light of upcoming elections. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 15 Focus Group Discussions: FGDs had been identified in the inception report as a source of information; however, field conditions again dictated adaptations. The first adaptive factor was the slow LEAF program deployment—and therefore weak implementation—in sites, which meant that most villagers and other groups were not aware of many aspects of LEAF interventions. In most cases the Evaluation Team chose to transform the FGD into a group meeting, more informal but able to gather “stories” about past environmental interventions or perceptions of main issues relating to forests5 with some information on LEAF. An FGD was organized with participants at the curriculum development workshop in Bangkok. Short Survey: While not originally envisioned in the SOW, when questions arose about changes in participation in the curriculum development component,6 a short survey (see Annex II) was submitted to participants in this component’s workshop to complement the planned and implemented FGD. The implementation7 of this survey was delayed with consequences. The survey was administered to all remaining participants, and comprised questions about:  Identification (with gender and affiliation as core elements);  Association with LEAF;  Role in the curriculum development activity and questions on relevance of the component; and  Assessment of satisfaction. Table 4 presents the gender and country distribution of the survey respondents. 5 In Hat Vudomxay village (Lao PDR) villagers talked about a previous intervention by GEF/UNDP and compared it to LEAF. They further eloquently described climatic changes over the last 40 years and how they had affected their livelihoods. 6 During an interview in Vientiane one participant indicated that the university had decided to change its participant and send someone to the workshop with only 2–3 months of association with the curriculum development network. Once the survey was processed, results indicated strong stability in participants as only 4 of 25 surveyed participants had less than three months of collaboration with LEAF. 7 LEAF organizers had agreed to present the questionnaire to all participants at the beginning of the workshop. For reasons beyond the Evaluation Team’s control, sub-team B handed out the questionnaires during the last day of the workshop so that only 33 participants could be included. Of these, 27 were true participants, two of which did not complete the questionnaire, thus rendering them unusable. 16 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Table 4: Number of Participants8 in the Curriculum Development Survey by Country and Gender Country Female Male Total Cambodia 3 2 5 Lao PDR 1 1 2 Malaysia 2 3 5 Papua New Guinea 0 1 1 Thailand 4 2 6 Vietnam 1 5 6 Grand Total 11 14 25 Percentage 44% 56% DATA ANALYSIS As most information gathered came from KIIs, the analytical process was quite straightforward. Interviews were conducted by two or three team members in the vast majority of cases and two sets of notes were prepared. Each interview was assigned to one team member for a first transcription and then validated through comparison with the second set of notes. A final version was produced with validated exchanges. When both sub-teams were together, a similar process, albeit not identical, occurred; its objective was not one of validation but of isolating findings applicable to more than one country and therefore addressing global regional issues from LEAF’s experience or specific contexts. The documents for review were collected before and during field visits. Documents were processed and discussed in order to add to the set of key themes and issues identified during the inception phase. These findings were set in tables for each evaluation question and objective as the Team prepared the out-briefing presentation. First, sub-teams consolidated the most important findings, then, in a second step, the core team consolidated and defined answers to questions and themes. All 33 questionnaires from the unplanned short survey were processed but only 25 were kept. Furthermore, the most significant variables were set in tables and used as needed in the analytic portion of the report. 8 A total of 33 questionnaires were received; two questionnaires were incomplete and six questionnaires came from LEAF or partner personnel. The latter were considered in conflict of interest with respect to the questions related to participant satisfaction. All questionnaires were processed but only 25 were used. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 17 LIMITATIONS AND RISKS The Team identified the following potential risks for the evaluation:  Availability of informants: As is often the case, the evaluation was exposed to a risk of informant availability. Both USAID (by alerting the Team to potential limitations, e.g., in the Thailand Department of Natural Parks [DNP] counterpart’s availability) and LEAF (by helping contact local informants at field sites) were very helpful in enabling the Evaluation Team to manage this risk effectively. In a majority of cases, informants made themselves available for interviews as demonstrated by the numbers of informants in Table 2 and Annex IIIB. The Evaluation Team sought to speak with informants at all levels of experience, but primarily with individuals in decision-making positions and in control of important knowledge for the evaluation process. The Lam Dong Province authorities in Vietnam refused access to the identified non￾LEAF site for administrative reasons while in Malaysia, the Sabah State Forest Department did not make itself available, as described in more detail below. Some interviews were planned as KIIs but became group meetings with one informant and many silent attendants. The presence of silent informants did not influence or diminish the quality of the information gathered. In cases where unplanned informants were brought into the discussion, their presence enhanced the depth of the information and insights obtained.  Recall: The risk of informants not being able to recall relevant information did not materialize. This is because most association with LEAF is fairly recent. In addition to risks, the following limitations were identified:  The absence of baselines (IR 1, partially 3, and 4) rendered some analyses difficult. Most institutional baseline assessments—but for one—have not been completed so that an assessment of the state of institutions and their need for support and reinforcement could not be performed as planned.  LEAF has had little visibility in countries such as Malaysia and PNG, as its activities were planned to begin after those of the Mekong countries and, to date, have been limited mainly to short￾term workshops and participation in working groups. Hence, perceptions of the program and its importance were often narrow and thus required more in-depth interviewing approaches. The Evaluation Team was systematically faced with the challenge of determining if “national” experiences, and therefore informants’ accounts, applied to the regional program level, keeping in mind that the Team was separated for a good part of the field visits period (Annex IV: Data Collection Schedule). Analysis conducted after field visits brought the Team to an agreement on the generalizability of cross-national findings. 18 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENT ON OBJECTIVES, INTERMEDIATE RESULTS AND TARGETS Evaluation Question 1: To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? Findings LEAF is a far-reaching and comprehensive regional program with multiple levels of results, as witnessed in its Results Framework. From regional networking to monitoring of improvements in households’ well-being, the program has aimed to achieve ambitious results. The slow progress imposed by long and arduous registrations and approvals from government ministries and other levels of official authorities in most LEAF countries has impeded achievement of the targets. Other hindering factors are discussed in Section IV Hindering Factors. Though this rate of progress may be a combination of external requirements and internal human resource management problems during LEAF’s first months of implementation,9 LEAF was nevertheless working on foundations created by other USAID programs, including several with Winrock as lead implementing partner. In accordance with its first objective, through regional and country networks, LEAF has carried out 3 of 13 regional events in collaboration with regional platform partners. While regional events have helped deliver best practices, models and methodologies almost as targeted, LEAF’s performance management system tracks only delivery, not uptake or replication.10 As implementation at field sites has, except in Vietnam, not yet or only just begun, LEAF has not yet been able to assess its tools in use and adapt them accordingly for effective scale-up. The Evaluation Team observed only limited initial progress in transfer of best practices, methods and methodologies in REDD+ technical areas, socio-economic surveys and sub-national action plans. LEAF supported ARKN-FCC to develop a draft ASEAN joint submission for COP-18, Doha, Qatar 2012 (through a workshop in October 2012 in Jakarta).11 At the regional level, 9 It is important to note that LEAF senior regional cooperative agreement staff turned over all key positions in the program’s first years of implementation: Chief of Party and Forestry Advisor had new staff in the first year, the policy advisor changed in the middle of Y2 and Deputy Chief of Party at the beginning of Y3. 10 LEAF’s Performance Management Plan notes that “a model action, methodology, protocol, tool or technology is counted towards this indicator when it has been developed or adapted…[and] delivered to at least one regional platform…The indicator will not track the number of times the models have been replicated…” 11 See: Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2012. Terms of Reference. The 6th Meeting of ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Jakarta, 30-31 October. Jakarta: ASEAN; Broadhead, J. 2012. Drivers of Change in Southeast Asian Forestry. Jakarta: ASEAN; Ganz, D. J. 2012. The 6th Meeting of Asian Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Overview of LEAF and ARKN-FCC. Bangkok: Winrock International, LEAF; USAID-Asia. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 19 thus far, LEAF’s collaborating partners have tended to carry out discrete activities of limited scope such as this COP paper, instead of an integrated regional program of adaptive learning and exchange. An integrated program would provide increased coherence and direction to replace the one-off nature of actions noted to date. In its most advanced and promising component, LEAF has engaged a network of partners and donors that are addressing policies, laws, regulations and best practices. At the regional level, LEAF supports a work plan with ARKN-FCC. It has carried out the first of four capacity steps with three of the four regional platforms for strengthening. Forest Carbon Asia has an assessment and strengthening plan. Six of LEAF’s 13 regional events were carried out in collaboration with other international partners: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, and/or two USAID-funded projects—the global Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) project and the RDMA’s Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) project. During its first 2.5 years, LEAF’s limited options were to engage with government and with other donor agencies and initiatives as its main collaborating partners and, for curriculum development, with universities. At demonstration sites, LEAF is engaging with both government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs), as well as USAID bilateral Mission projects—most notably with the VFD Project and Supporting Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) in Cambodia. LEAF engaged the private sector in limited ways. LEAF activities have focused on policy, regulatory and technical issues without sufficient consideration of the potential engagements and roles of the region’s private investors. LEAF has involved private companies in limited ways in discussions on leveraging funding in Malaysia and Thailand. It has also invited New Chip Xeng (Honda) Co. Ltd in Lao PDR to present their feasibility study in national C accounting workshop. It worked with the Vietnamese government in policy development on carbon regulation, benefits distribution and carbon markets related to establishing its forest development funding mechanisms with attention to future private investment. Despite these initial actions, LEAF has not developed a comprehensive approach to supporting private investment in improved forest management for carbon sequestration, specifically by looking at incentive structures for private sector collaboration in REDD+ implementation.12 LEAF’s first two annual work plans describe a regional platform as a “key launching pad for replication and scaling up innovation, for leveraging resources, and for coordinating actions” and (as also noted in the revised Performance Management Plan [PMP]) “fundamental to the sustainability” of program results. LEAF also noted the importance of a wide range of other strategic and collaborative partners in carrying out its regional approach. The 25 “major counterpart organizations” listed in its most recent (tenth) quarterly report include the eight universities from the Lower Mekong countries that are collaborating on curriculum development, seven international donors (UN-REDD, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ], Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau [KfW], Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA], AusAID, FAO and Asian Development Bank [ADB]), the USDA Forest Service, international research and development centers (the Center for International Forestry and Research [CIFOR], the International Tropical Timber Organization [ITTO], the Institute of Global Environment and Society [IGES] and Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural 12 In LEAF’s Tenth Quarterly Report, Annex C, LEAF Field Activities. Mid-Term Assessment of Progress, numerous partners in multiple sectors are presented in all sites in all six countries. However, potential private sector partners are identified only for the site in Thailand (tourism operators) and the sites in Vietnam (consulting firms). 20 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Resource Management [WOCAN]) and TNC. The remaining four are LEAF’s “platform” partners, which include two largely virtual knowledge-sharing platforms (the REDD Desk and Forest Carbon Asia) and two networks, ARKN-FCC and MFF, that actively seek to engage regional stakeholders. While all four platform partners meet criteria that have evolved in LEAF’s approved annual work plans, only ARKN-FCC and MFF fit the definition of a regional organization as one with a strong presence of regionally based stakeholders. LEAF’s third annual work plan set forth “regional platform support and partner collaboration” as one of its four main “modes” for regional information exchange and learning. The other three modes are being carried out by LEAF directly, with some collaboration as described above: applying international technical expertise, supporting the exchange and standardization of approaches and functioning as a regional hub of expertise. Under its second objective, LEAF has been very active nationally in its focus countries:  Lao PDR: LEAF has contributed to the drafting process of the new land policy law and its new forest regulatory framework, and LEAF has helped advance the adoption of a jurisdictional REDD+ nesting approach for the country.  Papua New Guinea: LEAF helped the Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD) prepare the draft National Climate Change Policy, including some stakeholder consultation at the national level. The draft policy has been sent to the PNG Cabinet.  Vietnam: LEAF is working to advance the REDD+ institutional framework strategies and plans through its support of the Lam Dong Provincial REDD Action Plan (P-RAP). In fact, three donor organization technical experts from SNV and UN-REDD thought that the N-RAP was too vague and lacked guidance for provincial-level interventions. According to these Vietnam-based international experts, the provincial experience and learning did not feed into the N-RAP. LEAF’s support of the P-RAP was considered to have demonstrated the program’s potential capacity to guide other provinces as well as the revision of the national plan. In advancing achievement of LEAF’s third objective, the curriculum development component has developed four climate change modules with eight Mekong universities. These have potential for adaptation and replication in other countries. Two countries (Malaysia and PNG) joined very recently. Workshops sought to enhance capacities in highly technical sectors: MRV of carbon emission reductions13; and land-use planning in the context of climate change.14 It would have been virtually impossible to locate and survey participants in training sessions implemented by LEAF in its six target countries with such a tight schedule. A proxy approach was to survey participants in the curriculum development component at a LEAF workshop in August, as this can be viewed as a means of knowledge and expertise transfer at the regional level with support from trainers in LEAF’s network. The results of the short survey, used at LEAF’s August 2013 Curriculum Development Workshop, indicated a high level of appreciation for the technical quality of LEAF’s training events to date. Details are provided in Table 5. 13 Although workshops did not specifically target MRV as the main topic. 14 Saah, D., Barber, J., Ngoc, T. L., Stephen, P., Phuong, C. P., Thant, N. P., Lam, H. B. N. and Cao, T. A. 2013. Land Use Planning and Climate Change. Case Study: How Can Land Use Planning in Lam Dong Province Account for Climate Change Mitigation Opportunities? Draft Copy. Dalat: DARD and Dalat U. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 21 Table 5: Evaluation of Satisfaction and Overall Assessment of LEAF’s Contribution to Curriculum Development15 To what extent are you satisfied with the LEAF curriculum development process as a whole? Very Satisfied 8 Satisfied 16 Somewhat Satisfied 1 TOTAL 25 To what extent are you satisfied with the support you received? Very Satisfied 7 Satisfied 17 Somewhat Satisfied 1 TOTAL 25 How would you rate the level of participation in this LEAF process? Very Participatory 9 Participatory 16 TOTAL 25 How would you rate LEAF's contribution to curriculum development? Somewhat Low 3 High 17 Very High 5 TOTAL 25 15 Source: Survey done by Evaluation Team at the end of the August 2013 Curriculum Development Workshop. Note: not all possible categories are presented; null value categories were excluded. 22 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Levels of satisfaction and recognition of LEAF’s role were high in the surveyed participants surveyed. During meetings with university staff, the quality and relevance of national interventions and regional exchanges were noted with emphasis placed on LEAF’s lack of systematic follow-up after training was provided. Since many of the academics also participated in the more focused training sessions, the Evaluation Team thought it important to note it.16 Follow-up was desired in the form of access to more information and support to further participant networking, especially at the regional level. Table 6 presents the training events and workshops that LEAF has organized to date.17 This summary presentation indicates major emphases on capacity building and knowledge dissemination, with one important flaw: LEAF admitted not being able to quickly correlate individuals with the training it organized regarding key questions, i.e., how many training events one individual had attended, which individuals had been presented with multiple tools, or whether women trainees were more or less able to apply knowledge than their male counterparts. This would admittedly have required that LEAF go beyond the standard USAID indicator, which is an organizational comparative tool of some value for USAID but does not serve LEAF’s purpose as it attempts to fully meet IR 3.118 or 3.2. Table 6: LEAF Training Events and Workshops Event Type Number of LEAF Organized Events Training on Climate Change 5 Introduction REDD+ and Awareness 5 Forest Planning/Land-Use Planning/Forest Mapping 5 Forest Monitoring/Forest Inventory 3 Forest Policy/Governance 2 Carbon Measurement 2 Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) 1 Safeguards 1 Study Tour (on PES) 1 Person-Hours Trained: 14,468.25 LEAF’s revised PMP notes that the decision to change the indicator from number of people to number of person-hours was to “reflect the time dimension” and to “avoid potential problems of counting the same person multiple times.” The choice of a comparative but imprecise indicator (person-hours of training) and LEAF’s efforts to adhere to it mean that the expected results are poorly understood and 16 This comment was also voiced during the meeting in Attapeu, Lao PDR (See Annex IV schedule) by all provincial and district staff who had participated in training sessions. 17 Source: LEAF monitoring system: List of “Achievements counted under the indicators”: Indicator 3.1.1: Trainings and personal communication, Chanin Chiumkanokchai, LEAF Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist. 18 Individual and institutional capacity increased. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 23 impacts are not well documented on institutional strengthening in areas such as carbon measurement and the REDD+ framework. While the recently approved (March 2013) PMP calls for follow-up with a sample of those trained “to assess the overall outcome of LEAF’s capacity building efforts and how new skills and knowledge are applied,” LEAF’s M&E system as presently in place, based on USAID’s set of indicators, does not allow the Team to document and track how the program is supporting the emergence of a critical mass of experts in each targeted country. It provides no information from following up on whether and how training participants are applying their new knowledge. No information is available on gender differences on any of those questions. The titles, frequency and person-hours indicate that many important learning opportunities have been provided. In discussions with the Evaluation Team, past participants in all six countries underlined the technical breadth and depth of LEAF workshops. However, when a group of 10 past participants in Attapeu, Lao PDR19 were asked what they remembered or had used from those technical training events, all but two replied that little had been used in their work and all 10 participants replied that the level of complexity was too great and beyond their reach or that of their colleagues in district-level technical offices.20 In Vietnam, where participants tend to have more experience, this shortcoming was not reported as frequently. Findings from KIIs indicated the following:  Cambodia: In comments on LEAF’s effectiveness in institutional and individual capacity building through training events, organizational leaders reported that training events were overly technical in their subject matter and approaches. Other institutions and projects were deemed by these informants as more likely to meet Cambodia’s capacity building and gender equality advancement needs in forest management and climate change as commented on by representatives of the NGO sector.  Lao PDR: The weak and unstable institutional context in the sector points to one lesson: MoNRE’s capacity needs, at the national, provincial and district levels, require assessment and coordinated actions with other donors for this relatively new institution to successfully assume its greatly increased responsibilities to lead in REDD+ implementation and forest management.  Vietnam: There were significant achievements in advancing LEAF’s forest management and climate change objectives through development of the Lam Dong Provincial REDD+ Action Plan and other actions. The Evaluation Team was provided with a detailed briefing on LEAF’s participation and planned inputs to the Lam Dong P-RAP and was impressed by the degree and quality of the LEAF contribution to the process. Additionally, LEAF is providing support to strengthen technical capacities required to implement the plan when it is approved. There is still a clearly expressed high demand for increased and focused support from all levels of LEAF’s Vietnamese government partners. Discussions with foreign and national informants in all LEAF countries revealed a consensus that it is very unlikely for LEAF to achieve its targets for GHG emissions and forest hectares under improved management within the next 2.5 years (under Objective 4). 19 See mission schedule July 31. 20 Similar statements were made in Vietnam, August 12 and 13. 24 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report In implementing Objective 4, LEAF has identified demonstration sites in all countries, except Cambodia where the bilateral SFB program and other organizations will implement similar interventions. In Malaysia, the regional authorities in LEAF’s proposed target demonstration site in Sabah have not shown sufficient interest to advance government approvals. In the Winrock-led team’s mid-term self￾assessment, baseline household surveys were reported and details were provided on the LEAF implementing partners being supported.21 Quantitative targets for emissions and hectares under improved management will likely not be met and those for improved livelihoods will be difficult to meet on the basis of LEAF’s work in demonstration sites. The Evaluation Team finds that progress in all demonstration sites, except Lam Dong in Vietnam, has been slow and incentives will not be in place to produce these results. The Evaluation Team believes that the difficulties in meeting the major quantitative targets are related to the long time, significant funding and sustainability challenges that must be dealt with comprehensively to produce long-term and actually permanent land-use changes under REDD+. In that mid-term self-assessment, the LEAF management team estimated it will meet and even exceed the number of households with improved well-being. However, the Evaluation Team noted that concerns were expressed both by implementing partners22 and village households in Lao PDR23 and Thailand that livelihood activities have not yet materialized at this mid-point phase in program implementation. At each of the field sites visited, the global challenge of carbon emission reduction is interwoven with, and relevant to, a range of local issues. LEAF has begun to develop an understanding of the dynamic relationships among drivers, local communities and outside interests on the particular landscapes they have selected. LEAF has carried out household surveys and deforestation estimates in Lao PDR and Vietnam and assembled secondary documents related to each site. While it has not yet prepared an integrated study of the particular situation at each site, LEAF has begun to facilitate site-based multi￾stakeholder engagement to identify and prioritize landscape values and key management issues. Annex VI shows the drivers at specific sites that may be addressed to improve sustainable land management through application of LEAF’s innovations in methods and tools and as linked with policy and market incentives. Annex V summarizes the status of stakeholder working groups, key themes and tools and the analyses carried out to date. LEAF’s field experiences and dynamics will dictate the success or failure of achieving progress on Objective 4. Findings at the country level depict a variety of situations: 21 See: Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) and USAID. 2013. Tenth Quarterly Report: Annex C: LEAF Field Activities. Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. Bangkok: LEAF. 22 In the July 26 meeting with SNV, staff were preoccupied that livelihood-focused activities had not yet met LEAF beneficiaries’ expectations. In a July 29 interview the Department of Forest’s Forest Inventory Planning Division (DOF-FIPD) R+ and LEAF country coordinator wished for a more proactive support to livelihood activities. 23 In group meetings held July 31 and August 1, villagers in Vudomxay compared LEAF to past programs implemented by UNDP/Global Environment Fund (GEF) and those in Ban Tangao compared LEAF to a Basic Climate Change (BCC) project. They made clear that they expected more in terms of livelihood support. Indeed they were only echoing what they had said during FGD in LEAF’s own baseline study of July 2013: LAO PDR. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department of Forestry. 2013. Socio-Economic Baseline Survey. LAO PDR. Vientiane: USAID and LEAF, p. 25: “The other main intervention [beyond land and forest use planning] would be to promote alternatives activities to shifting cultivation and agricultural land expansion which will contribute to the livelihood improvement as well. These activities would be implemented along with land and forest use planning.” LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 25  Cambodia: No achievements were noted in Cambodia to date as USAID support to field activities is implemented through a robust technical and well-funded bilateral program. Earlier difficulties between RDMA and the U.S. Embassy and USAID/Cambodia have since been resolved so that coordination is now quite positive and limited LEAF activities could be useful.  Lao PDR: Technical trainings on REL, MRV and geographic information systems (GIS), as well as socio-economic surveys, have been carried out in addition to awareness raising in both field areas.  Malaysia: The field site for Sabah has not yet begun since no formal MoU with the State Government of Sabah has been issued.  Thailand: LEAF has not begun field activities at three MAB biosphere sites and its support to the development of Maesa-Kogma Man and Biosphere Reserve (MSKM) Management Plan was curtailed due to government delays on setting up the steering committee. However, at the MAB biosphere site in Chiang Mai province, LEAF has collaborated in a launch workshop at the provincial level, carried out a Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA) at one village at one site, developed relationships with a range of local leaders and facilitated dialog among some of them and carried out field work for a gender assessment and an institutional assessment.  PNG: LEAF’s selection of TNC as primary in-country collaborating partner provided it with a strong base of stakeholder engagement through the confidence and trust that TNC has developed over an 18-year period in Madang Province. In Madang Province and the Almami Local Level Government (LLG), LEAF has collaborated in a launch workshop at the provincial level, organized collaboration of an introductory workshop at the LLG level (three districts) and introduced itself to some local leaders at a participatory mapping workshop carried out by a local group with whom it is beginning to collaborate. No field activity has been started.  Vietnam: Initial REDD+ planning has been supported in Lam Dong including a socio-economic survey, awareness raising and technical REDD+ training. In Nghe Anh Province, LEAF has made progress in developing an alternative livelihoods program focused on improved cookstoves and community-based forest management. Conclusions LEAF has made progress in achieving important elements of all four objectives. LEAF’s design implies a large number of “moving parts” and concomitant transaction costs across countries, sectors and levels of political, administrative and socio-economic organization. LEAF’s extensive engagement with 25 “major counterpart organizations” adds to the burden of these many moving parts. LEAF has been able to concentrate attention, thus far, by focusing “technically” on a fairly narrow range of tools, seeking to spread them broadly across a range of potential stakeholder institutions. As LEAF continues working in demonstration sites, the challenge LEAF faces is to translate these tools for use at different levels to a range of local-level institutions, which will increasingly become its major counterparts. An important challenge will be the vertical links between levels to inform national decision-making frameworks. LEAF needs to continue and deepen the grounding of its tools, including gender methods, in applied practice at particular sites with these national and sub-national partners. LEAF’s focus on drivers of deforestation 26 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report and forest degradation provides an important potential means of engaging the private sector in REDD+ at the regional and national levels. Based on discussions with a broad cross section of LEAF partners, other donors and LEAF country actors, as well as the major change in LEAF context of no progress on a compliance carbon credit market (see Hindering Factors in Section IV), the Evaluation Team found that LEAF’s quantitative targets for emissions reductions and hectares under improved management to be overly ambitious.24 Two conclusions arise from the low probability for their achievement.25 The first is that the credibility of the LEAF program, especially for those components in which targets could be achieved, could logically be questioned. The Evaluation Team believes that the credibility of the program must be based more on what it can offer on the regional, national and sub-national levels in regard to improved forest management and less on carbon accounting aimed at REDD+ compliance. USAID’s Sustainable Landscapes approaches mainly advance the multiple benefits of improved land use, including forest management, biodiversity conservation, water availability and quality and scenic beauty. Those approaches are valid and can lead to greater carbon sequestration or lower emissions. The second more long-term issue is that future comparable programs may also be confronted by a similar credibility gap if they do not focus on multiple benefits beyond carbon sequestration or lower emissions. While the reasons for inclusion of the LEAF quantitative targets are understood, these targets merit reconsideration and recalibration. LEAF could be much more focused on improving the supply side of multiple benefits of improved forest management which also coincides with REDD+ progress. There are other ways to structure and achieve forest protection and climate change mitigation, such as performance payments not based on carbon, but rather on the promotion of alternative livelihoods activities (e.g., non-timber forest product [NTFP] harvesting), advancement of protected area management and incorporating forest protection into development (e.g., ecotourism, agroforestry). LEAF’s technical guidance (for example, under Objective 1, the “model actions, methodologies, protocols, tools and technologies,” and Objective 3), has been limited to the “technical” and generic analysis. With the exception of Vietnam, that has not been down-scaled to the sub-national level or to each specific demonstration site. The Evaluation Team concludes that the technical emphases in LEAF’s training have been on carbon accounting and multiple benefits of improved forest management have been under-emphasized. LEAF’s analysis and technical guidance for “institutional” areas, such as policy and markets (the enabling environment and drivers), have also been comparatively weaker. LEAF’s analytic, capacity-building and related supporting technical guidance for implementation at demonstration sites has not involved local demonstration site staff and partners to the degree necessary to build capacity and ownership and to exchange lessons across sites. The exception was the progress in advancing forest planning for REDD+ at the sub-national (provincial) level in Lam Dong Province in Vietnam. Progress is due largely to Vietnam’s previous advances, built on USAID and other donor programs, and to the country’s relatively strong human resources, technical institutions and robust decision-making processes. LEAF effectively took advantage of what they inherited in this province and sagaciously chose excellent Vietnamese country leadership, strengthened technical capacities and fostered networks of cooperation and collaboration. LEAF’s experience of progress in Vietnam and 24 No external expert the Evaluation Team interviewed believed that the targets could be achieved in the absence of a compliance carbon credit market. 25 Feedback on the evaluation draft noted that “other issues such as limited counterpart capacity, complex government procedural processes, limited staff resourcing per country are all factors” that make targets difficult to achieve. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 27 limited progress in other countries supports lessons from USAID and donor experience elsewhere that progress on complex issues, such as forest management and climate change, requires long-term institutional and human resource strengthening through consistent high-quality investment committed over long periods. In this regard, LEAF’s greatest value lies not as much in the numbers as in the narrative—not in the indicator targets per se, but in the lessons its partners are learning as they seek results across LEAF’s various forest, driver and governance landscapes and jurisdictions. With respect to LEAF’s learning-by-doing approach, the recently revised PMP’s most useful products are not the numbers it reports but the comparative tracking and learning processes it describes but which, for the most part, are not yet reported. HELPING AND HINDERING FACTORS Evaluation Question 2: What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? Findings: Helping Factors Helping factors at the regional level are related to LEAF collaboration with partners in replicating REDD best practices and promoting the standardization of REDD policies methodologies, particularly MRV, REL, SES. The progress here is due to the interest in and relevance of REDD+ for LEAF’s partners. There is a large set of institutions and individuals highly interested and engaged in climate change, forest management and economic development related to improved forest community livelihoods. Additionally positive are the many international and bilateral donors and technical partners active in advancing many of the elements of LEAF’s objectives. Finally, the fact that LEAF shares strategic and programmatic objectives with several large USAID bilateral projects helps to expand opportunities for LEAF success. 1. Vietnam In the Lam Dong Province demonstration site, the Evaluation Team found that the staff in the Lam Dong Province District Agriculture and Rural Development Office are technically qualified and have varying levels of experience. There is a public sector consulting company of forestry experts that is participating and contributing effectively to LEAF’s work. Excellent partners are also available from Dalat University, including staff involved in LEAF’s climate change curriculum efforts. The engagement of the high-quality stakeholders in the P-RAP work, LEAF trainings, workshops and other activities improves LEAF’s relevance and results on the ground in Lam Dong and lays the foundation for greater sustainability of forest management improvements and REDD+ implementation. The Team noted the participation of a very qualified senior woman official who is in charge of forest protection in the province. Previous USG (USAID), international and government progress in all enabling conditions laid a positive foundation for LEAF achievements. Asian Regional Biodiversity Conservation Program (ARBCP) was critical in providing training, technical assistance and other support that resulted, among other things, in the development and promulgation of Decree 99, which structured the implementation of the PFES system.26 LEAF was able to build directly on those achievements to advance training and then apply it, through technical and organizational assistance, to work on forest inventory and land-use 26 Numerous informants including high-level Vietnam government officials acknowledged the USAID contributions to this decree and the implementation progress of the PFES system. 28 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report planning leading to the drafting of the action plan for the P-RAP. The P-RAP is on schedule to meet the timeline called for by the Vietnamese government by end of 2014, and LEAF received credit from all key stakeholders for its major contributions to that progress. National and Lam Dong Province officials commented on the effectiveness of LEAF’s coordination with them, other donors, civil society and communities. The LEAF country manager, in particular, was recognized for her effective networking skills and her outreach and communication achievements. LEAF’s main achievements in support of provincial level forest data collection and analyses and the focus on REDD+ action planning in Lam Dong Province and Nghe Anh as well as livelihood support activities in Nghe Anh Province all benefit from LEAF’s strength in collaboration and networking. The positive relationship between USAID Vietnam’s VFD project leadership and LEAF’s regional and country teams is another major helping factor supporting LEAF’s progress at the national and provincial levels. The VFD project has considerably greater funding available and the two programs are actively collaborating to create and expand harmonized programs that expand and deepen the synergies in their activities and results achievement. 2. Lao PDR The lengthy official processes and weaknesses in the skills and experience of stakeholders and partners were mitigated to a great extent by LEAF’s very effective leadership in Lao PDR. The LEAF project implementation leadership coordinates effectively with government, donors, civil society and communities. Even in the face of personnel turnover in Attapeu Province, leadership managed to maintain lines of communication and successfully deliver technical training, data collection and reporting for the socio-economic surveys and planning assistance that advanced the LEAF work agenda in Attapeu and Huapanh Provinces. 3. Papua New Guinea The Evaluation Team confirmed the LEAF team’s June 2011 finding that a high degree of positive political will exists in PNG for advancing climate issues such as forest carbon sequestration, particularly at the provincial level. All of those interviewed at the provincial and community levels expressed interest in climate change, forest management and carbon mitigation education. At the national level, the OCCD observed that it had greatly strengthened its credibility with stakeholders. The director stated that its initial situation as an organization without a clear mandate helped make this possible, as this forced it to listen to other stakeholders. The director stated that “we don’t have an implementing role. We use our coordination role to try to understand the other agencies, and the different sectors,” where they have things common in and how they work together. The OCCD leads three active stakeholder working groups related to climate change: Low-Carbon Growth, Adaptation and REDD+. The latter includes sub-working groups for Forestry (led by the Forest Authority), Agriculture and MRV. LEAF is also represented in the OCCD REDD+ Technical Working Group. Among other helping factors noted by interviewees were that LEAF has recently provided timely policy support to the OCCD, that it has an in-country office and is “readily available for us to interact,” and it is aligned with TNC, through which it will be building on and “scaling up 15 years of presence” in Madang Province. 4. Malaysia Despite the difficulties faced in working with Sabah, LEAF has established good working relationships at the national level. One of those interviewed noted that, at the national level, LEAF being welcomed in Malaysia is “rare” and that the Ministry has “not always been so keen on working with other USG￾funded projects…they need to be comfortable with the foreign counterpart.” LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 29 LEAF is beginning a partnership with the GEC, which is well positioned to contribute to avoided emissions and to regional engagement on peatlands. GEC has been working closely with ASEAN to support the ASEAN Peatland Initiative since 2003, and is beginning to engage the private sector. GEC is the NGO implementer for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)-funded initiative, which seeks to demonstrate, implement and scale up sustainable management and rehabilitation of peatland forests in Southeast Asia. 5. Thailand Various institutions have contributed support to emerging civil society engagement around the REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP). With Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) funding, LEAF partner RECOFTC played a reportedly key facilitative role in helping stakeholders understand each other and helping some CSOs see that REDD+ is not a mechanism that should or even can be avoided, but rather one that community stakeholders need to understand. The Protected Area Regional Office 16 of the DNP in Chiang Mai identified the importance of LEAF’s support in engaging with communities, including providing seed money for community priorities, such as equipment for fire management, and inclusion of local leaders on a PES study tour “to give local people a vision of PES.” Findings: Hindering Factors Regional Findings 1. The Nature and Status of REDD+ The first overall hindering factor for LEAF program achievement is that, contrary to when the program was conceived in 2010, progress has slowed greatly27 toward an agreement through the UNFCCC that will structure and establish rules and governance at the international level on carbon emissions and sequestration compliance markets. Prospects for positive resolution are presently not promising. The lack of this fundamental building block for REDD+ implementation is very important for LEAF’s implementation since it is imbedded in the larger UNFCCC context. Forest carbon sequestration and payments to maintain forest carbon stocks remain fundamental for REDD+ and the changes in forest and land management that are advocated and emphasized in the LEAF program. There are donor funds available to support regional initiatives, but they are not the same as a functioning market. The fundamental significance of multiple benefits to improved forest management has become even more important in the absence of UNFCCC progress. There are myriad implications but one clear need is for all involved in REDD+ to avoid creating any further expectations of forest carbon credit payments as a mass market that is right around the corner. The Evaluation Team did not find that LEAF had advanced such expectations. Nonetheless, LEAF needs to deal with the great likelihood that it will not meet its GHG emissions reductions or forest hectares under improved management targets. However, it can make significant contributions to preparing institutions, technical staff and communities for forest and land management improvements that can lead to forest carbon sequestration. 27 Progress was made in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban, but there has always been skepticism about REDD for technical, economic and political reasons. Moreover, some stakeholders have quite actively worked to block REDD. 30 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report The Evaluation Team noted that RDMA, LEAF and others working on REDD+ advocate a “no regrets” framework whereby various benefits related to watershed management, biodiversity conservation and economic opportunities such as non-timber forest products (NTFP) and, as of FY 2013, sustainable agriculture and agro-forestry are valid for promoting improved forest management. Progress can likely be made in improved forest management utilizing that framework of multiple benefits. Nonetheless, forest carbon sequestration and payments remain fundamental for REDD+ and the changes in forest and land management that are advocated and emphasized in the LEAF program.28 They are fundamental because economic incentives are critical to sustaining forest management and land-use changes. USAID Washington and RDMA experts noted to the Evaluation Team that the issue of permanence of carbon sequestration is the Achilles’ heel of REDD+. Ongoing economic incentives in the form of payments for forest carbon credits would be an important foundation for sustaining forest carbon sequestration. Another regional level hindering factor identified by the Evaluation Team is that REDD+ is structured and controlled within national and sub-national authorities. This fact is based on national sovereignty over natural resources and land-use planning, tenure and related issues such as infrastructure planning. Faced with this reality, informants reported that, in the first year of LEAF implementation, difficulties were experienced in defining areas of responsibility in several countries. This included dialogue and collaboration on national and sub-national laws and policies on natural resources and climate change. The REDD+ framework and its MRV, financial mechanisms and safeguards are designed and carried out by countries and their governments in line with their own policies and laws (i.e., not regional) as they are sovereign state issues. Any demonstration or pilot activities must be designed, implemented, managed, reported and verified within the national and sub-national contexts of individual nations. Any training or instruction on REDD+ must take into account national and sub-national rules and institutions. At the same time, regional contributions are important in such areas as creating and supporting a regional pool of expertise, mobilizing resources, building partnerships and enhancing policy implementation by capacity building.29 RDMA’s programs, including those managed by REO, primarily produce results at the regional level. LEAF is such a program and the Evaluation Team found progress and challenges in the regional platform level (more on this below). Regional knowledge, lessons and capacity can be generated from the constellation of activities in different contexts. Working in a diversity of landscapes seems appropriate given the range of contexts. The dual focus on the regional and bilateral levels in LEAF’s design and implementation to date and the national nature of REDD+ mean that LEAF has at times chosen to function, in important ways, as a bilateral program in non-presence countries or an adjunct to bilateral USAID Mission programs in full Mission countries. In the case of Vietnam, LEAF was active prior to the formation of the full bilateral Mission and its environmental program and provided critical inputs to the VFD Project with which it now effectively collaborates. The Evaluation Team finds that the reality of REDD+ as structured and controlled within national and sub-national authorities exacerbated the tensions of RDMA’s REO acting at the regional and bilateral levels. This reality has created constraints for LEAF’s progress and, while great progress has been made, 28 REDD+ is but one scheme being designed to provide incentives to developing countries that can demonstrate this, but is not the only reason countries would want to improve forest management and enhance forest cover (i.e., many countries have national targets for forest cover they want to meet, with or without REDD+). 29 http://dephut.net/files/A%20Glance%20at%20ARKN-FCC.pdf. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 31 vigilance to maintain the focus on what is appropriate at the regional versus the national level will continue to be important for the remaining time in the program. Initially counterproductive USAID regional-bilateral dynamics are now essentially positive, but previous difficulties contributed to a slow start-up of LEAF activities in Cambodia. In Lao PDR, LEAF had more institutional space to work at the sub-national level, where it has made progress on initial field-level activities as well as offered national and sub-national policy advice and training. In Vietnam, LEAF launched activities prior to the development of USAID Vietnam’s new environmental program and it contributed importantly to the design of that program. Further, in Vietnam, LEAF built on previously implemented and highly effective RDMA-managed programs that had made major progress on forest management and payment for ecosystem services at the national and provincial levels. When, in 2011 and 2102, USAID/Vietnam designed and launched its environmental portfolio, LEAF successfully coordinated its results and activities with the Mission’s projects, particularly the VFD Project. Synergies have been identified and plans made that should lead to complementary support and achievements of the two programs. 2. USAID’s Internal Dynamics This hindering factor is closely related to the previous factor but focused on USAID’s internal relationships and assignment of authorities and responsibilities between RDMA and REO and USAID Missions or U.S. Embassies. The example of Cambodia was highlighted above. In PNG, LEAF and U.S. Embassy informants reported that relations of the LEAF Project with the USAID Mission and U.S. Embassy appear to be smoothly structured and positive. In the countries with no or limited USAID presence, Lao PDR and Malaysia, RDMA/REO has now worked out mutually satisfactory approaches for USAID decision making and information sharing between RDMA and the U.S. Missions that include LEAF program activities. In Thailand, LEAF is engaging with relevant institutions to enable it to achieve results that will advance program objectives. Vietnam’s situation was introduced in the previous section. LEAF and its primary Mission partners in the VFD project built on the complementarities of these regional and bilateral objectives and programs. The major potential benefits of Vietnam’s emerging global and regional REDD+ and PES leadership could be a focus for LEAF and VFD program collaboration. Leadership in RDMA REO and USAID/Vietnam could usefully engage to resolve critical policy dialogue needs (discussed below). Country Findings 1. Vietnam There are two important hindering factors for Vietnam, LEAF’s most critical country partner in the view of the Evaluation Team. The first is that Vietnam is the most advanced LEAF program country relative to REDD+ as the world’s first country program under UN-REDD Phase Two.30 There is a difference between the UN-REDD program and Vietnamese government official positions at all levels concerning the structure, objectives and activities anticipated as part of that program. The Evaluation Team found a critical need and opening for USAID and USG policy dialogue leadership to play an important role in resolving this constraint to Vietnam’s success. LEAF and the RDMA/REO have a vital role in working with USAID/Vietnam and its VFD Project in working on policy dialogue on this issue. USAID provided 30 http://www.dtinews.vn/en/news/021/30315/un-launches-redd-phase-2-in-vietnam.html. 32 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report critical technical advice in the design and launch of Vietnam’s REDD+ progress and its PFES system and is well positioned to support the brokering of a potential agreement to enable Vietnam to proceed with and to better succeed in implementing its UN-REDD Phase Two Program. UN-REDD reported to the Evaluation Team that the program was not intended to include payment for forest carbon sequestration that would reach beneficiaries such as forest owners and the communities and households who lease or otherwise contract for access to forest resources. All Vietnamese authorities with whom the Evaluation Team met expressed clear expectations that UN-REDD Phase Two would include a major component and funding to implement direct forest carbon payments to those beneficiaries as part of the PFES system. Indeed, the USAID-supported decrees creating the PFES system include direct reference to adding carbon payments. There are major funding sources that are intended to be made available from the Norwegian government and the World Bank that could support payments as well as technical assistance to implement UN-REDD Phase Two. The apparent current differences could actually work to synergistically bring improved forest management and forest carbon assessment and monitoring as well provide payments and technology transfer to improve forest￾dependent community livelihoods. The payments could be based on multiple benefits but the Vietnamese expect carbon credits to be one of those remunerated benefits. The second hindering factor is related to Vietnam’s PFES system. It is an extremely important initiative in improved forest management for Southeast Asia and globally, and is directly related to lowering emissions and carbon sequestration in forests. Design and initial rollout of Vietnam’s PFES system was comprehensively supported in Lam Dong and other provinces by USAID/RDMA. Vietnam’s PFES is one of the world’s first large-scale systems and is now being implemented in 27 provinces with payment in the amount of $85 million. In 2012, about 60 percent of the conservation and protection forests (333,500 hectares) in Lam Dong Province were included in the PFES system and $7.5 million was disbursed to over 16,000 households. Despite all of its progress, the PFES system, even in Lam Dong (Vietnam’s longest-standing and largest provincial PFES implementer as measured by hectares covered, funding and beneficiaries), lacks effective forest management improvement and household impact monitoring. Simply put, the PFES system does not include systematic data and information gathering, analysis or reporting on the changes achieved in improving forest health in any scientific or technical parameter (e.g., water quality,31 water availability, species diversity, forest cover, fire controls or deforestation decrease), nor does it include any systematic data and information gathering, analysis or reporting on the impact on or distribution among beneficiaries of its payments. The ways that PFES differentially provides women and men benefits and how the payments affect household economic and social relations, as well as how gender roles and social norms play a part in resource tenure, are also areas that are not currently examined in data collection about PFES implementation. The gaps in systematic and scientific data gathering, analyses and reporting are important because Vietnam’s PFES system is the most advanced PES system in the region—and maybe the world. According to all Vietnamese informants for the evaluation, PFES is intended to expand to include carbon sequestration payments as REDD+ is implemented in their country. 31 The Evaluation Team found that $150,000 of water quality monitoring equipment was installed by Winrock under a previous USAID project in one Lam Dong Province PFES watershed as the only attempt at scientific monitoring. The equipment lasted less than one year before breaking down and being removed due to lack of maintenance and parts. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 33 The Evaluation Team concludes that this deficiency is important to LEAF since the PFES system is a major model for payments for performance related to multiple environmental benefits. Significant flaws in PFES can be seen as constraints on the rigor and efficacy of any REDD+ activities that would be part of that system or modeled on it. Vietnam’s experiences, particularly with REDD+ and PFES institutional and policy development and implementation, offer important information to disseminate as lessons learned to other LEAF countries at the regional level. The PFES achievements, particularly with its Benefit Distribution System (BDS) in Lam Dong, have global and regional implications for REDD+ implementation. The Evaluation Team heard from foreign and Vietnamese informants and found in a draft USAID￾supported evaluation of the system, that PFES is an apparently successful wealth transfer mechanism as it transfers payments from a large number of hydropower electricity customers to Vietnamese government forest management boards, and through them to forest owners and the communities and households that contract with them for forest use.32 The study also detailed how gender influences have played a part in resource allocation for the PFES-supported communities and households who utilize the forests through leases, contracts and other arrangements with the forest owners. To repeat, impacts on forest management and on income distribution and livelihoods and how gender is reflected are not known. Forest control/management boards, constituted by forest officials and community representatives, perform limited and poorly understood functions in tracking illegal logging and forest fire incidents (the leakage effects of displaced logging in other countries must be included in understanding actions in Vietnam’s forests). The national and regional gaps in systematic and scientific data gathering, analyses and reporting are important due to the size of the Vietnamese PFES system, which makes it a potential model for adaptation and replication. It has evolved and adapted its structure rapidly without building the monitoring capacities noted here; the Evaluation Team believes that the efficient policy decision-making structures in Vietnam simply got ahead of the monitoring needs in order to get the program up and running in its collection and payment processes. If requested by Vietnamese authorities, USAID Vietnam’s VFD project and RDMA’s LEAF program could consider working with Vietnamese technical and managerial staff to support an urgently needed effort at monitoring forest and beneficiary impacts under PFES, starting in Lam Dong Province. VFD and LEAF are encouraged to examine other PFES and PES evaluation tracking systems as they consider these efforts in Lam Dong or elsewhere in Vietnam. 2. Cambodia The most critical hindering factor for LEAF either in relation to its first years of implementation or the remaining years is that the other multiple donor and NGO-supported initiatives, particularly USAID/Cambodia’s SFB project, constrain the niche for LEAF program contributions. It can best continue to complement those efforts with training and focused technical assistance. 32 Thuy, P. T., Bennett, K., Phuong, V. T., Brunner, J., Dung, L. N. and Tien, N. D. 2013. Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From Policies to Practice. CIFOR. 34 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3. Lao PDR According to LEAF country managers, reassignment of LEAF supervision and partnership to the relatively new MoNRE is potentially a hindering factor for the program’s progress in results achievement. LEAF only recently completed the lengthy registration process with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and is still continuing its related capacity building there. Drafting and negotiation for an MoU will reportedly require between three and nine months. According to multiple donor and Lao informants, MoNRE does not have as much technical capacity as MAF, where LEAF devoted major efforts to build that Ministry’s Department of Forest’s technical capacities. Transfer of limited personnel to the new ministry may obviate the training needs to a small degree. It will be a significant challenge for LEAF to work with MoNRE and its donor partners to determine how to continue work on national and sub-national REDD+ related policies, legislation and regulation and with MoNRE offices in the provinces, districts and communities of LEAF’s demonstration pilot areas. While LEAF has some experience working with MoNRE in the provinces, as well as with the Department of Forests, the program will need to continue to work with both related to their shared mandate for forest management (DOF on production forests and MoNRE on protection/conservation forests). 4. Malaysia LEAF worked with MoNRE and its donor partners to determine how the LEAF program could help develop forest information from Sabah and Sarawak that would conform to that available for the peninsular states (for which MoNRE has 40 years of forest change data). Despite LEAF’s ongoing discussions and a pending MoU with the Sabah Forest Department, no one was able to meet with the Evaluation Team, even though the directors of both Sabah and Sarawak forest departments had been invited to the all-morning meeting with the Evaluation Team chaired by the Deputy Secretary General of MoNRE and were at the Ministry in Kuala Lumpur during the Team’s visit. The lack of interest of Sabah State in cooperating with LEAF is a significant hindrance to working in Sabah, but will not affect LEAF’s other proposed activities in Pahang and Selangor States. 5. Papua New Guinea USG representatives urged caution with respect to engagement with the PNG Forest Administration (FA), given the FA’s performance and lack of transparency. LEAF’s June 2011 assessment of the status of REDD+ in PNG noted that “poor leadership and a lack of bigger picture planning have stifled national policy development on climate change and have created conflict within and between departments for mandate of the issues, and these factors have in turn scared away all the potential major donors from investment in this field.” The OCCD noted that LEAF has not specified the dollar value of the support it provides, which makes it difficult to justify its requests for counterpart contributions from the Government of PNG. 6. Thailand The Thai government’s expectation of direct funding from LEAF hindered planning and implementation of LEAF activities. The designated lead agency, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) explained that, while it appreciated LEAF’s technical assistance, it was accustomed to receiving grants or at least some financial support from donor partners to advance mutually agreed objectives. The DNP also noted that formal authorization and the establishment of national and site￾based steering committees required for LEAF implementation is also complicated because the four sites that the government designated are managed by two departments in one ministry and another department in another ministry. The DNP suggested that a future program such as LEAF should expect a delay of “at least one year” before endorsement. Nonetheless, some of those interviewed pointed out that increased civil society engagement, local stakeholder interest and the proposals to set up three of LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 35 the four site steering committees are indications that the DNP is prepared to collaborate more supportively. Conclusions: Helping and Hindering Factors The LEAF project was designed when the UNFCCC and REDD+ discussions and negotiations held significantly more promise of rapid progress in international discussions. The full effects of political and economic events and trends in many countries combined to slow anticipated advances in negotiations. Due to reasons far beyond the LEAF program, that progress has not occurred as expected. There is currently no progress on the evolution of UNFCCC REDD+ compliance markets for forest carbon sequestration even while voluntary markets and pilot project funding continue. There are many other important rationales for supporting forest carbon sequestration, improved forest management and related forest community livelihood improvements under “no regrets” approaches and multiple benefits delivery. The Evaluation Team heard of no successful voluntary market-funded REDD or REDD+ project in the region.33 Utilization of a “no regrets” rationale or approach to promoting improved forest management makes sense under the LEAF program. However, absence of a compliance market for forest carbon sequestration credits and the growing weakness and lack of progress in establishing voluntary carbon credit purchase demonstration pilot activities will certainly limit the incentive environment for REDD+ in the remaining time for LEAF. There are myriad implications but one clear need is to avoid creating any further expectations of forest carbon credit payments as a mass market that is right around the corner, something assiduously avoided by LEAF but not avoided by many promoters of forest carbon “deals,” often called “carbon cowboys.” Due to lack of progress on markets and to delayed implementation, LEAF will certainly not meet its expected GHG emissions reductions or forest hectares under improved management targets through the demonstration activities that it supports. LEAF can make significant contributions to preparing institutions, technical staff and communities for forest and land management improvements that can lead to forest carbon sequestration, but it is doubtful that forest carbon market payments will be significant. Funds-based payments generated from various donor sources can "prime the pump" with limited initial funding such as in Vietnam, but, in the view of the Evaluation Team, forest carbon projects will need on-going sources of market-based funding to attain permanent improved forest management and carbon sequestration. Another major change in LEAF’s design context is that REDD+, as developed in its initial implementation, has proved to be based on national-level decision making since land and forests are each sovereign nations’ exclusively controlled resources. Rulemaking through policies, laws and regulations is not regional in scope but national. That said, LEAF’s regional knowledge sharing and technical support have proved useful in educating policy makers and strengthening national and sub￾national technical capacities both in broadening perspectives (e.g., a study tour to Lam Dong to see PFES in action) and in deepening understanding of how to apply tools (e.g., through training in neighboring countries). However, LEAF’s field-focused efforts (involving national, sub-national and local levels) must be comprehensive and self-sustaining to ensure that national and sub-national forest governance, inventory 33 The Cambodia Oddar Meanchey project is currently the most advanced demonstration project but action is currently suspended due to uncertainty of government approvals and of carbon credit finance. 36 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report and resource use systems are technically capable of ensuring more sustainable management and lower emissions through increased carbon sequestration. Among LEAF’s primary countries, the evaluation found the greatest progress by far in establishing REDD+ as a reality in Vietnam at the national level and in Vietnam’s Lam Dong Province at the sub-national level. Vietnamese advances call for continued and, as needed, expanded LEAF and other support in order to succeed and achieve durable and real improvements in forest management and forest carbon sequestration. It is very likely that Vietnam’s successes can soon be shared and adapted across the region and, indeed, the globe. Of course each country has a different context that determines the options for and constraints on improved forest management. That said, effort should certainly continue to ensure that success in Vietnam is achieved because it may create a snowball effect. Lao PDR, PNG are other LEAF countries that indicate potential advances can be made in the time remaining for the program. LEAF has tended to work hand-in-hand with government. In several countries this has led LEAF to respond tactically rather than strategically when selecting opportunities on which to focus. LEAF has been able to work with government agencies more effectively, e.g., on approaches for the improved stakeholder engagement needed to “strengthen” a government institution, where LEAF has had either (a) a strong local partner or a partner that has already developed influence and credibility in engaging with government or (b) has been able to provide meaningful support for one or more of the government’s priority activities. Over the longer term, strengthening engagement among civil society, the government and private sector stakeholders appears to be key in building capacity. USAID’s internal issues between regional and bilateral efforts were hindering factors in several countries. They have been resolved positively and relationships of shared and mutually supportive objectives and activities are the norm for the completion of the LEAF program. OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL Evaluation Question 3: What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? Findings ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC) ARKN-FCC is a regional platform network established based on the decisions of the Eleventh Meeting of the ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry (ASOF), held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from July 31–August 1, 2008. The network aims to support ASEAN decision making and implementation processes by providing inputs based on policy-oriented research results, outcomes and policy analysis on forests and climate change. It is also intended to support the ASEAN member states for better understanding and learning from each other’s approaches in the implementation of forests and climate change activities and good practices. The network operation is under ASOF guidance. In other words, the administration process for event approval, for example, will take time because it has to go to member states of ASEAN. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 37 LEAF selected ARKN-FCC as LEAF’s regional platform partner to disseminate lessons learned on forest and climate change activities including research outputs from LEAF countries to the decision makers in ASEAN. If ARKN-FCC opens to greater participation, even in observer status, of civil society and private sector, then LEAF’s effectiveness, impact and sustainability could be enhanced. As an intergovernmental organizational network at the regional level, ARKN-FCC provides a platform for non￾official stakeholders and the broader research community to enhance forests and climate change policy processes in ASEAN,34 an explicit opening for such engagement. In a recent ASEAN report on developing incentives for sustainable management of peatland forests (prepared with the assistance of LEAF’s partner GEC), the ASEAN Secretariat’s Head of Environment Division highlights its grounding in “site-level and community-based” needs, through a “participatory process” that began with a working group and drew on partners from various sectors.35 LEAF engaged with ARKN-FCC by proposing to support ARKN-FCC’s 2013–2015 work plan. Specifically, LEAF expected that common guidelines on reduced impact logging and MRV could be shared at the regional level through ARKN-FCC meetings or events. LEAF also wanted to support policy work on decision-making tools on drivers, risk/threat assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Further, LEAF proposed to support an ARKN-FCC study tour on carbon markets in New Zealand. These activities are stated in the ARKN-FCC work plan for 2013–2015. In terms of LEAF’s contribution to the ARKN-FCC events or meetings to date, LEAF provided funding for the Sixth ARKN-FCC meeting held in Jakarta, Indonesia, on October 30–31, 2012. One of the results of the workshop was a confirmation of LEAF support for ARKN-FCC’s 2013–2015 work plan. ARKN-FCC did not invite private sector representatives to the meeting. CSOs and donor organizations were only represented by TNC and GIZ. While recognizing the importance of governments in making and enforcing policies and ARKN-FCC’s potential to influence such policies, the Evaluation Team questions whether LEAF’s support for ARKN-FCC policy work can effectively address the drivers of deforestation without private sector participation since private sector actors have been critical to exploitation of natural resources in Southeast Asian countries. LEAF priority countries may have lessons to learn from Indonesia, which has seen progress in policy in part through its engagement with private industry in such fora as the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. As a part of LEAF support for ARKN-FCC, LEAF facilitated the network’s first meeting on addressing drivers of deforestation and degradation held in Bangkok on April 9–10, 2013. This workshop resulted in a draft decision support tool framework for addressing those drivers. ARKN-FCC sent the draft to its members for further discussion. LEAF also facilitated the second workshop for the drivers of deforestation and degradation held in Jakarta on August 28–29, 2013. The workshop aimed to discuss the decision tool of the drivers. Even if LEAF failed to convince ARKN-FCC to invite representatives of private companies as observers or participants (or even presenters) at its second workshop, the Evaluation Team finds that it would be difficult to argue against LEAF inviting representatives of private companies to review and comment on this tool, given the insight they could provide on how policy 34 Article 3.5 of the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forests and Climate Change. 2009. Terms of Reference. Bangkok: ARKN-FCC. 35Macmillan, D.C. 2013. Development of Financing and Incentive Options for Sustainable Management of Peatland Forests in Southeast Asia. ASEAN Peatlands Forest Project and Sustainable Management of Peatland Forests Project. ASEAN Secretariat and Global Environment Centre. 38 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report might affect the incentive environment for land-use practices affecting forest conversion. It is expected that the final version of the tool will be presented at COP 19 in Warsaw in November 2013. The Evaluation Team understands that bureaucratic procedure inside the ASEAN secretariat is a recurring cause of delayed approvals. In Malaysia, officials noted that ASEAN is a “challenging” body to work through and that one needs to find a balance of official and unofficial ways to move a program forward. As a regional project, LEAF has no access to higher levels of the ASEAN Secretariat to facilitate implementation when it encounters delays in implementing its support to the ARKN-FCC work plan. During the field data collection for the evaluation, the Team was not able to contact the coordinator of the ARKN-FCC. The Team also could not meet the Thailand focal points for ARKN-FCC as they were attending the most recent Climate Change Convention meeting in Bonn. One of the participants at LEAF’s workshop on drivers at the ARKN-FCC noted that, at home, the “private sector is an area where we have been struggling. We have partnerships with NGOs, other government agencies, and with donors, but nothing on the private sector side…we need an interface person or entity—almost a neutral person—that can close the gap and between us…we don’t have the capacity to accept the risks—whether it’s even going to work or whether the interests are so far apart that we can’t come up with anything that’s viable.” The participant suggested that LEAF might help with “engagement and information sharing…or advice…or analysis on how we can work with the private sector—e.g., what it costs. If it’s not direct [engagement], then some form of analysis.” Mangroves for the Future (MFF) Through its regional and national coordinating bodies, MFF offers a strong network for generating lessons and sharing knowledge. MFF is an international partnership initiative co-chaired by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to promote investments in coastal ecosystems that support sustainable development. MFF has chosen mangroves as its flagship ecosystem and it builds on a history of coastal management efforts before and after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. MFF members consist of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Pakistan and Vietnam. Cambodia will be the tenth country to join MFF in October 2013. LEAF also has activities in some of MFF’s country members (Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam). Each MFF country member has a national coordinator and communications focal point. The national coordinators liaise between the MFF Regional Secretariat and the National Coordinating Body (NCB). The national communications focal points provide support to effectively deliver the overall MFF communications objectives and are responsible for all in-country MFF communications. The MFF’s management strategy is based on specific national and regional needs for long-term sustainable management of coastal ecosystems. This includes climate change mitigation that is relevant with LEAF’s activities on the terrestrial lands. Since each country member of MFF has a well-established coordinating body or steering committee that consists of representatives from government, CSOs, universities and the private sector, LEAF might use that national body to enhance LEAF’s network within the country. LEAF also might consider and learn how MFF has been successful in convincing the member country to invest 25 percent of country project fund as an in-kind contribution to project implementation in the country. The MoU between LEAF and MFF was signed in December 2012. In it, LEAF agrees to provide technical assistance to the MFF Regional Initiative implemented by FAO on Income for Coastal Communities for Mangrove Protection in Thailand, Vietnam and Pakistan. LEAF also agrees to provide technical assistance to MFF on an as-needed basis to review project proposals that have a focus on carbon market LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 39 incentives. However, work under this MoU has not started because the agreement between FAO and the IUCN is not yet signed. Site-Based Learning and Networks In several countries, the Evaluation Team came across informal learning networks at national, sub￾national and even international levels. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the Institute for National Affairs organizes periodic discussions among relevant stakeholders, and even organized a lunchtime discussion with one of the Evaluation Team members on his hands-on experience with forest and timber certification in Indonesia, which more than 20 people attended on extremely short notice. Group discussions in Thailand at both community and provincial levels included spirited exchanges around principles and practices and, as discussed in the following section, LEAF’s curriculum development activity offers practical lessons for strengthening learning networks. Site-based activities in Vietnam offer the most lessons to date from direct experience on the ground. Other USAID sustainable landscape projects could be important partners in such networks (See Annex VII). As a prime location of site-based learning, dissemination of Vietnam’s REDD+ and PFES experience could enhance effectiveness, impact and sustainability at the regional level. Vietnam is one of nine UN￾REDD program pilot countries. It was the first country to start the UN-REDD program, officially launched in Hanoi on September 17, 2009. The first phase was funded by the Government of Norway and executed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Lam Dong Province was selected as the pilot site. Phase One of the Program was completed in October 2012 and a funding agreement for a Phase Two was signed with Norway in December 2012. Phase Two is aimed at reducing emissions in six provinces, working with provincial, district and commune authorities, local communities and the private sector. UN-REDD Phase Two was launched officially in Vietnam on July 29, 2013 and is the first such program in the world. Vietnam is the most advanced LEAF program country and indeed is the global country leader on REDD+ implementation. The Vietnamese government established both a Cross-Ministerial REDD+ Steering Committee and a National REDD+ Office in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to lead on REDD+ in January 2011. The committee aimed to coordinate between and among ministries to develop policies related to carbon sequestration schemes and to develop the national REDD+ program. The government also has developed the National REDD+ Network, which consists of government agencies, NGOs, research institutions and the United Nations, with significant participation from other donors such as USAID, JICA, GIZ and others. Under this network, six sub-technical working groups (STWG) were established including those on MRV, Governance, SES, BDS, Finance and Private Sector. The National REDD+ Office coordinates and leads the Vietnam N-RAP, which features a Benefit Distribution System that is aligned with Decree 99 on Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services. The N￾RAP was signed by the Prime Minister on June 27, 2012. The MRV framework document developed through the National REDD Network has been endorsed by the National REDD+ Office. The differences between UN-REDD and the Vietnamese Government and the constraints and opportunities they create are noted above. The Evaluation Team noted the excellent collaboration and synergy between USAID/Vietnam’s VFD project and the LEAF program. The PFES system is intended to improve forest quality and quantity, increase the economic contribution of the forestry sector to the national economy, reduce the state’s financial burden from investment in forest protection and management and improve social well-being. PFES includes payments for watershed protection through improved forest management, scenic beauty preservation and other services involving protection of sources of biodiversity. In relation to PFES development in Vietnam, as of 2012, there are 27 provinces where the government has initiated plans and/or implemented activities of the 40 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Forest Protection and Development Fund. In 2012, total PFES revenue was about $85 million. Payments generated from electricity service customers of hydropower plants generated nearly 98 percent of the funding with revenue from water company service customers around 2 percent and from tourism service providers only 0.1 percent of total revenue. However, the disbursement of the fund to services suppliers is low, with overall disbursement of 46 percent of total collected funds. In 2012, PFES in Lam Dong Province generated roughly $7.5 million in revenue. It now covers about 333,000 hectares of forest and 16,000 households. The average payment to the households is between $17 and $20/hectare/year.36 There are 19 different donor projects supporting the PFES system. Two provinces were selected in 2009 (Lam Dong and Son La) as sites of official government pilot implementation of PFES, involving transfer payments from hydropower electricity customers, water service customers and tourism operators to forest owners and households and communities who use and are supposed to protect forest resources. Vietnam has incorporated REDD+ into its forestry sector and is developing the national capacity and infrastructure for REDD+ as mentioned above. In Thailand, one of the professors involved with the curriculum development activity offered a number of observations that demonstrate some of the experience and insight that may be useful for LEAF and USAID in developing opportunities to contribute to regional cohesion over the longer term. Based on his experience running a research network on decision support systems for climate change adaptation in agriculture with 12 universities working together with decision makers at different levels in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam, he noted among other things that:  A network of university and stakeholder agencies from similar countries within the region (he mentioned mainland Southeast Asia in particular) could develop “a study site in each of several different ecosystems, with a good monitoring platform, and use the sites to demonstrate the [key climate change] ideas…with hard data…and use them as learning platforms.”  “It takes a lot of energy [, time,] and long-term kind of engagement” to run a network. “The benefits of networking around CO2 and GHG would need [at least] five years.”  The four modules of LEAF’s curriculum could be part of network activities “to establish skills for different levels of participants” including “junior scientists and communities.” While the focus of his network has been adaptation, his thoughts on approach are insightful: “To move forward from here, I would try to develop cases…to show that a general model can be applied to different cases… and used by others. Cases from different ecosystems would play key roles…going from the generic to the specific, and what are the specific characteristics that apply to the generic, e.g., the adaptation ability for a given site, e.g., due to changes…delay of the rainy season…how to feed this into the policy level…it would be very useful.” The professor offered one additional observation relevant to regional cohesion. He noted that the integration of ASEAN into one community (in 2015) is “an example of a huge opportunity to work together, but we don’t see that much collaboration beyond government things. The private sector is 36 http://www.nature.org.vn/en/tai-lieu/mrf2011/PPP_09_PES_in_Vietnam.pdf. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 41 somehow very successful in coming together but not just networking…[with the private sector] you need to do something [specific and practical] together, like develop products together that you can make money with.” Conclusions The Evaluation Team concludes that the LEAF program should consolidate its regional platform work to maximize impact in the remaining two-plus years of implementation. To increase effectiveness, impact and sustainability, the emphases need to be on: (a) supporting platforms that actively engage regional stakeholders, in particular the ARKN-FCC and MFF; (b) sharing the Vietnam REDD+ and PFES lessons widely—and further lessons as these emerge from LEAF’s other demonstration sites; and (c) facilitating and supporting informal networks of stakeholders engaged on priority issues at LEAF’s demonstration sites. Effective multi-stakeholder engagement requires new kinds of leadership skills, attitudes and approaches, the development of which will benefit greatly from learning across countries. As a regional project without formal access to higher levels within the ASEAN Secretariat, the LEAF program may have difficulty in resolving recurrent delays in implementing its support to the ARKN-FCC work plan. (See also Regional Findings below.) As noted in the following on regional harmonization, LEAF should judiciously examine several opportunities to influence regional initiatives and to exchange experience with other USAID Mission programs and, in particular, their sustainable landscape projects (see Annex VII). LEAF also has opportunities to identify and share lessons from its “non-presence” countries that are relevant to LEAF’s countries. For example, in September, as the Evaluation Team was finalizing this report, the Indonesian president signed a new decree to create a national REDD+ agency, led by cabinet ministers and aimed at combating GHG emissions. LEAF’s work with ARKN-FCC and MFF offers different and important opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact and sustainability at the regional level. The program needs to continue and deepen its support to both organizations if they continue to demonstrate increasing outreach and effectiveness, particularly in drawing in the private sector and CSOs. ARKN-FCC provides a potential platform for sharing technical and policy papers and approaches, and enabling discussions among higher level technical and policy leaders in the member country governments. Dissemination and discussion of advances and difficulties faced by the range of governments in implementing REDD+ and promoting improved forest management in general could usefully be discussed. MFF is a dynamic and multi-faceted (public, private and civil society sectors) program that could advance sharing and application of climate change information related to coastal ecosystem management across the region. Vietnam’s experiences, particularly on REDD+ and PFES institutional and policy development and implementation, offer important information to disseminate as lessons learned to other LEAF countries at the regional level. The Vietnamese government has shown that strong commitment and active participation of partners and stakeholders (donors, international NGOs, NGOs, businesses and communities) are pre-conditions for REDD+ readiness success. LEAF could usefully maximize the transfer and adaptation of this lesson to other LEAF countries so that the REDD+ readiness process and pre-conditions for further phases can be effectively improved. LEAF collaboration with USAID/Vietnam’s VFD project could advance dissemination of Vietnam’s lessons very effectively. Lam Dong in particular was selected as one of Vietnam’s pilot provinces for the UN-REDD First Phase and is now one of two pilots for the second phase. The first phase was focused on overall REDD+ readiness, including the institutional infrastructure and REDD+ policy development (formulation of NRAP), contributing to formulation of reference levels and design of an MRV system and initiating consultation and awareness raising processes. It also aimed at institutional strengthening and capacity building of relevant organizations at both central and local levels. 42 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report During the first phase of the UN-REDD Vietnam program, a BDS was designed. The design of this system is based on experiences derived from the operation of the PFES Forest Protection and Development Fund in Lam Dong and Son La. The PFES achievements, particularly with its BDS in Lam Dong, have global and regional implications for REDD+ implementation. It becomes a strong foundation for implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms on carbon rights in REDD+. The weakness of PFES in monitoring of changes in forest management and on household and community impacts of the payments, particularly related to differential impacts on males and females, require LEAF consideration for technical assistance, training and other possible support to improve PFES implementation. In the region, Thailand, for example, has potential PES projects (such as eco-tourism) in the country that could be strengthened. Information exchange with, and further visits to, Vietnam could improve the Thai and other regional national government’s capacity in understanding and building PES programs. In Thailand, the insights of LEAF’s partner professor highlight the significant contributions that demonstration sites can make to enhance impact, effectiveness and sustainability. These include:  Organizing the demonstration sites into sites with comparable (although not necessarily identical) characteristics as learning platforms for applying key climate change concepts and tools, linked with a network of university and stakeholder agencies; and  Building on the curriculum development participants’ experience as a network and integrate them into LEAF’s demonstration site activities with local stakeholders. OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN THE REGIONAL COHESIVE APPROACH Evaluation Question 4: What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? Findings Regional cohesion in Asia is complex and dynamic. The political dimensions of Asia as a region do not align with USAID’s (or any other donor’s) categories and certainly do not align with the region’s landscapes.37 LEAF was designed as a regional, national and sub-national program in scope and focus. The cohesive approach was and continues to be the strengthening of capacities and sharing of best practices and experience-based information to improve forest management—leading to greater emissions reductions, better land/forest/watershed/ecosystem health and improved well-being for forest communities. LEAF suffers from the multiple personalities and objectives of any effort managed at a multiple country level dealing with issues that are decided and controlled at the national and sub￾national level. Like other “regional” donor programs (such as the UN-REDD program), the LEAF program is largely a portfolio of national and sub-national initiatives. 37 For example, two of LEAF’s “priority” countries divide islands with two other “non-presence” countries: PNG shares the same island with “non-presence” Indonesia. Malaysia’s two largest states share the same island with Brunei and Indonesia. Similarly, PNG is part of the South Pacific Region. Burmese immigrants are among the local stakeholders at LEAF’s field site in northern Thailand, despite coming from a non-LEAF country. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 43 Yet, although not inherently regional, informants identified three main kinds of opportunities for strengthening a regionally cohesive approach: LEAF’s regional platforms and networks of LEAF’s other partners, ASEAN trade relationships and various sub-regional initiatives. LEAF could readily consider engaging on any or all of these initiatives to enhance its impact, effectiveness, sustainability and regional cohesion. The Evaluation Team also finds that there are important new opportunities for advancing regional cohesion on REDD+ and improved forest management by LEAF. The Team advocates consideration of these organizations and initiatives to increase the regional impact and amplify regional coherence and does not believe such actions would expand the LEAF program beyond its mandate, but rather help achieve its original objectives related to regional cohesion and impact. Regional Platforms and Networks As noted above, LEAF has advanced at the regional level in working with ARKN-FCC and will soon also work with MFF and support two information-sharing nodes—the REDD-Desk and Forest Carbon Asia. However, regional coherence and cohesiveness is and will continue to be determined by national and sub-national actors as they engage with each other across their respective boundaries. LEAF’s efforts to date with these institutions have begun to accelerate and improve the flow of multi-country information, technologies and experiences. LEAF has developed a practical, hands-on understanding of key elements of learning platform and network development through its curriculum development activity. This experience ranges from the “nuts and bolts” (e.g., the use of Skype as a teleconferencing tool), to the essentials of a sustainable legacy (e.g., the coordination and facilitation of volunteer commitments from over-committed individuals across widely separated institutions). LEAF has also collaborated regionally with other USAID initiatives. Annex VII lists these and other USAID sustainable landscape projects in the region, including both bilateral and regional initiatives. Together, LEAF’s formal regional platform partners, networks of collaborating site-based partners and other USAID-supported initiatives offer opportunities for three kinds of regional exchange:  Exchanging learning and perspectives across the region, including sharing ideas, tools, successes, lessons, approaches and interventions and educating stakeholders on regional trends, common issues and challenges. This may include sharing experiences and/or insights on REDD+ policy and implementation, economic incentives, corruption and governance. Almost all interviewees stressed the value of learning from experience in other countries; several highlighted their visit to see the PES model in Vietnam. USAID/India suggested collaboration with its Forest-Plus project to help share India’s innovations and technologies (particularly on forest inventory) with other countries and expressed interest in learning about REDD+-readiness in other countries (particularly on benefit distribution systems, institutional frameworks and drivers).  Catalyzing emerging leadership. USAID/Indonesia suggested supporting regional environmental leadership development, for example, building regional champions on forest conservation, and advocacy and communication aimed at promoting forestry governance. Informants repeatedly stressed the importance of engaging a broader range of stakeholders—government, CSOs and private sector—at multiple levels. For example, USAID/Indonesia noted that while its Indonesian Forest and Climate Support (IFACS) project is focused primarily on government stakeholders, there are also important roles for the media, including journalists and bloggers, and the private sector. MFF representatives interviewed stressed the strategic importance of linking its in￾country and regional steering committees, all of which include government, civil society and private sector members. Some of those interviewed noted the importance—and the limited experience to date—of engaging the private sector, pointing out the relationships between 44 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report sustainable forest management and palm oil, pulp and paper and timber concessions. USAID/Indonesia mentioned a successful study tour in Thailand to a palm oil mill effluent site with local government, journalists and banking industry representatives. In Indonesia, IFACS’ work with timber concessions on reduced impact logging could be relevant to LEAF’s training on RIL in Malaysia and potentially elsewhere.  Supporting analysis and technical assistance. A bilateral mission representative pointed out that their programs keep them busy, often with not enough time and resources to analyze issues comprehensively and in depth. As shown in Annex V, LEAF’s demonstration sites offer opportunities to explore interrelationships across a rich range of drivers affecting forest management and carbon stocks. USAID Missions have suggested that a regional program would be well-placed to develop and test hypotheses, e.g., exploring the relationship between crop intensification and deforestation pressures across different sites, the impacts of forest conservation on food security, the interrelationships among economic incentives, forest conversion and carbon or the effectiveness of different approaches. The ASEAN Single Window (ASW) The 2015 ASEAN Economic Community requirements provide an opening for possible increase in LEAF impact through the ASW. ASW is a regional initiative to improve trade between ASEAN member states, including accelerating customs clearance and cargo release. To work effectively, member states must each set up a national “single window” (NSW) that connects and integrates with the ASEAN Single Window. At present, the ASW ensures compatibility of member states’ NSW with international open communication standards while also ensuring that each of those member states can then exchange data securely and reliably with any trading partner that uses those standards. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand have already implemented their NSWs, with roll-out plans for major ports and airports by 2015. Brunei and Vietnam are in advanced stages of development, while Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar are still in the early stages of NSW implementation. One of the categories of goods to be traded is forest products, such as timber. Under the ASEAN Economic Community Blue Print38, ASEAN intends to develop a regional reference framework to implement a phased-approach to forest certification by 2015. This is an opportunity for LEAF to engage with the ASEAN Working Group on Timber Certification (AWG-C) that has been operating since 2002. The group’s main objective is to encourage coordination and cooperation among the ASEAN member states in their efforts to implement credible forest certification. ASEAN member state experience with certification structures, processes and relationships (including private sector engagement and local capacity for and involvement in verification) builds on USAID’s prior investments with TNC and other partners, through the USAID RDMA-funded Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT) Program. RAFT provided assistance to ASEAN efforts to encourage legal timber trade and promote good forest management by contributing the guidelines on development of an effective Chain of Custody (CoC) mechanism for timber products from legal and/or sustainable sources. LEAF might continue this support by promoting the guidelines and linking them into the ASW so that certified timber trade can also be a multiple benefit of REDD+ improved forest management. The countries that have advanced NSW development such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are likely to more easily adapt the CoC 38 ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint, 2007 http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 45 system to the NSW system. However, there are needs for technical support to facilitate the countries that have not established the NSW and the CoC for their forest products in a place like Cambodia and Lao PDR. The resulting certification system will contribute clearly, if indirectly as a further multiple benefit, to improved forest management, forest carbon sequestration and improved livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. Sub-Regional Initiatives There are important new opportunities for advancing a regional cohesion through diverse initiatives at sub-regional levels. In relation to the specific themes and issues that LEAF is beginning to explore at its demonstration sites, collaboration with these and the initiatives described below offer opportunities to increase regional impact and strengthen regional cohesion without expanding the LEAF program beyond its mandate. Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI) LMI was created in July 23, 2009 in response to the meeting between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foreign Ministers of the Lower Mekong Countries—Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam—in Phuket, Thailand. The Ministers agreed to enhance cooperation in the areas of environment, health, education and infrastructure development. Since then, the five countries have sought to strengthen cooperation in these areas and build on their common interests. Burma formally joined the initiative in July 2012. LMI also facilitates annual ministerial foreign affairs meetings between the members of Mekong Countries on non-traditional security policy issues, such as Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment policy dialogue. Under the support of USAID, LMI has become a sub-regional framework to foster common interests between Burma, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam with the goal of enhancing cooperation in areas such as the environment, education, infrastructure development and agriculture and food security. As part of the LMI, USAID supports several climate change and environment programs. For example, the Mekong Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change project focuses on identifying the environmental, economic and social effects of climate change in the Lower Mekong River basin, which sustains the lives of over 70 million people. The project also assists highly vulnerable populations in ecologically sensitive areas to increase their ability to adapt their livelihoods to climate change impacts on water resources, agricultural systems, biodiversity and ecosystems. The LEAF program is one of several USAID LMI deliverables. LEAF participated in the LMI gender dialogue. LEAF might further engage with LMI’s event on annual policy dialogue to contribute to addressing the gender equity in REDD+ and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation within Lower Mekong countries. LEAF could invite non-LMI participation, particularly its current partners in Malaysia and PNG to enhance the impact of actions and further build networks. In that way, LEAF would facilitate the extension and adaptation of learning and models to those countries. The Asia Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS) Partnership The Asia LEDS Partnership (ALP) is a voluntary regional network comprised of individuals and organizations from the public, private and non-governmental sectors active in designing, promoting, and/or implementing LEDS in Asia. The goal is to advance the development of national-level and country-led strategic plans to promote economic growth while reducing GHG emissions—without causing trade-offs to other environmental pressures—in the Asia region. The partnership was launched in September 2012 in Bangkok. The partnership supports peer-to-peer learning, knowledge sharing and improved coordination and cooperation among partners. There is an opportunity for LEAF to help the ALP develop and elaborate the AFOLU component of the Partnership. New USAID rules on inclusion of agriculture in Sustainable Landscape actions and funding on emissions reductions offer other new opportunities for LEAF in contributing to LEDS work. While LEAF has not engaged substantially with 46 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report this voluntary regional network to date, it might engage with it as another network for sharing lessons learned and practices on LEDS, REDD+ and improved forest management in LEAF countries. This could also strengthen intra-country and international collaboration between the following government focal points of UNFCCC and ARKN-FCC: MoNRE and MARD in Vietnam, MoNRE and MAF in Lao PDR and Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) and DNP in Thailand. Pacific Region Network—Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) LEAF country partner PNG is a part of the Pacific region and a member of SPREP. The inclusion of other SPREP members in workshops on selected issues or themes could enhance regional cohesion. LEAF’s experiences in avoiding emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in PNG and in other countries could be effectively shared with other Pacific countries through the SPREP network. FLEGT and the Lacey ACT with ASW The EU’s FLEGT initiative implemented in timber producing countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia has strengthened the establishment of timber legality standards for the country. The standards are then utilized as the foundation system to link with the NSW and eventually the ASW. The U.S. Lacey Act is being enforced as well in the region and could be a relevant “hook” for LEAF engagement in chain-of￾custody issues. LEAF could engage with the existing FLEGT initiatives and Lacey Act actions in the LEAF countries such as Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. While those initiatives focus on the timber legality standards of the country as a basis for NSW, LEAF could play a key role in facilitating the link between the NSW to the ASW. The resulting improvements in forest management that can be attained with sustainable management through certification could directly support LEAF emissions reductions and other objectives. Conclusions As LEAF develops in situ experience in applying MRV and SES in particular landscapes with particular stakeholders to counteract drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, it can play an increasingly more effective role in strengthening regional cohesion in each of the areas noted above: strengthening platforms and networks, learning exchange, catalyzing leadership, analytic support, implementation of the ASW and collaboration with selected ongoing sub-regional initiatives. LEAF’s site-based experience can provide the “evidence” for evidence-based decision making and informing advocacy, communication and transparency to promote improved forestry governance. This may include engaging a broader range of stakeholders on difficult regional issues such as fire management and transboundary (intra-regional foreign direct) investment in, for example, illegal logging and timber/furniture manufacture. Progress in any of these areas could enhance LEAF’s attainment of its core objectives. Cross-site comparative analysis and hypothesis testing could build on LEAF’s performance monitoring system, if strengthened as described under Question 5, below. The Evaluation Team found that LEAF has not maximized its links with existing regional networks that share its objectives, such as Asia LEDS Partnership (on reducing GHG emissions) and LMI (on gender and climate change issues). Another potential regional framework that LEAF should engage is the ASEAN Working Group on Timber Certification (AWG-C), which promotes trading certified forest products within Asian countries through the ASW system among member countries and beyond to global the markets. FLEGT and the Lacey Act may be important points of entry in work on the ASW. The ASW in particular has practical, hands-on relevance to capacity for implementing climate change mitigation, particularly with respect to carbon MRV (especially reporting and verification, to which LEAF has given less emphasis in comparison to establishing initial carbon stock baselines) and REDD+, including the implementation of SES. Here, LEAF’s partners may have as much to gain as to contribute as LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 47 they begin to set up systems that safeguard people and landscapes and monitor and verify changes in forest condition and GHG emissions. NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND/OR AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Evaluation Question 5: What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? Findings Outcome Progress Measurements LEAF’s PMP identifies three of LEAF’s 10 performance indicators as Outcome indicators: quantity of GHG emissions reduced, number of hectares under improved natural resource management and number of households with improved well-being. Minimum target levels for the first two of these indicators were set by USAID in the Request for Applications issued in September 2010. The target level for GHG emissions was set at “At least three million tons per year of GHG emissions reduced or avoided.” The Evaluation Team was informed that this level was set in light of data from the previous RDMA RAFT project and based, in part, on data from forest types present in Indonesia. As already stated, the Evaluation Team found that no one working in any capacity with the LEAF program believes that there is any possibility that the LEAF program will attain the results indicated for emissions or hectares area under improved management. Nonetheless, it is likely that the PMP’s definition of the threshold for “improved management” has been set sufficiently low to allow the specific hectare targets, at least, to be met.39 Under the definition, any one of the following changes is sufficient to consider management “improved”: the completion of an emission-strategic local site assessment, the design of management actions with “appropriate participation,” the establishment of ongoing M&E, the demonstration of adaptive management or the demonstration of such “on-the-ground” management impacts as forest carbon stock increased, “illegal roads closed, snares removed or no-fishing zones demarcated [sic].” While LEAF has completed detailed assessments of forest cover change at sites in Vietnam and Lao PDR, LEAF has not yet worked with stakeholders to prepare site-level analyses that describe the specific interactions among forests, drivers and the institutional environment. While institutional assessments are under preparation for five institutions in Vietnam and four in Thailand and field work for gender assessments has also been carried out, the evaluation found no drafts of these documents yet under discussion among the in-country team members and partners. In carrying out its institutional, policy and other analyses—and, as noted earlier, its regional events—LEAF has tended to use its own staff or contract directly with consultants rather than work through in-country teams of partner institutions at each site. Annex V provides an overview of the analysis that LEAF has prepared for each site. Despite the program’s emphasis on capacity building, the PMP describes strengthened capacity modestly. First, it is defined as an output, i.e., as directly attributable to LEAF’s activities, rather than an outcome, 39As noted earlier, the less ambitious target for LEAF’s third (of three) outcome indicators, improved well-being of 1,250 households, as determined by “studying the target households’ self-perception”, is also likely to be met. 48 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report i.e., to which LEAF contributes but for which it is not solely responsible. Second, “improved capacity” for (a) regional platforms is defined as strengthening “one or more” of any of six aspects of organizational capacity and for (b) other institutions is to be defined through institutional capacity assessments and plans that identify “criteria or milestones” across a much broader range of attributes. As discussed earlier, LEAF management, as well as USAID/Cambodia staff noted that LEAF’s use of USAID’s standard indicator “person-hours” rather than number of persons trained has resulted in a system that is not highlighting progress in building individual capacity and the individuals trained within particular institutions. Finally, the Evaluation Team found that the LEAF implementing partner has provided only very modest funding to engage organizations outside of its consortium. Local organizations noted that this practice limited their abilities to professionally engage and build skills in achieving improved forest management and carbon sequestration. Regional Findings Regional and Cross-Sectoral Stakeholder Engagement—USAID Convoking Authority. The Evaluation Team found no evidence that LEAF and USAID had applied the USG’s higher-level influence in developing more effective entry to and/or building more effective support for Asian networks and platforms to advance reduced emissions through improved forest management. Potential higher-level engagement might include, for example, drawing on the USG’s convoking power among diverse stakeholders, coordinating with the USG’s Ambassador to the ASEAN Secretariat, and building on LEAF partners that have already developed working relationships with ASEAN. LEAF could extend that approach and work to collaborate with regional platform partners to advance mutual interest and achieve shared objectives and results in all events. Based on RDMA interviews, country level U.S. Mission interviews, and their shared objectives with LEAF, ASW, LMI and Asian LEDS are all viable collaborative partners for LEAF. As noted above, Missions also expressed interest in further support for learning exchanges, catalyzing leadership and analytic support. The RDMA Mission Director noted that he has seen interest among regional leaders for the U.S. to play a liaison role and “help us figure out how to talk to each other… across sectors.” Such engagement could also strengthen LEAF’s approach in specific countries. For example, at the Evaluation Team’s meeting with the FRIM, the U.S. Embassy Economic Officer for Environment, Science, Technology & Health (ESTH) noted that the U.S. and Malaysia recently signed a service and technology exchange agreement with the Government of Malaysia that includes climate change and “could facilitate ongoing collaboration among researchers.” Similarly, the LEAF AOR noted in his report following a May 2012 visit that the U.S. Embassy had asked how it “might be of assistance to LEAF and…efforts to promote better forest management in Malaysia and more broadly.” The AOR recommended that “RDMA and LEAF should think more strategically about how we might be able to proactively engage the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia.” Also, LEAF could explore building on local partners’ long-term relationships with regional entities. For example, one of LEAF’s partners in Malaysia, the GEC, has developed an effective working relationship with ASEAN through the ASEAN Peatland Management Initiative, which supports ASEAN’s sole environmental accord—on Transboundary Haze Pollution (signed by all ASEAN members in 2002, although reportedly still not ratified by Indonesia’s parliament). There is a historic and globally critical opportunity for both RDMA’s leadership on LEAF and USAID/Vietnam’s bilateral leadership on Low Emissions Development to convoke donor dialogue on the differences found by the Evaluation Team between UN-REDD and the Vietnamese government on REDD+ Phase Two implementation discussed above. As indicated in all interviews with forestry officials at the national and sub-national level, Vietnam is justifiably proud of its progress on the national PFES LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 49 Program. It expects eventual inclusion of forest carbon payments in that system during implementation of the UN-REDD program. UN-REDD officials indicated to the Evaluation Team that they believe that sub-national REDD+ progress must be pursued through major technical assistance and livelihood improvement activities and not through forest carbon sequestration payments. Vietnam is the first nation to launch UN-REDD Phase Two, and as such, Vietnamese officials expressed their urgent need to move forward quickly. Capacity Building. Most of LEAF’s training to date has been designed to introduce government officials and higher-level technicians to important technical concepts and issues related to carbon, forests and REDD+. These include training on MRV, reference level development, forest mapping, forest inventory, reduced impact logging, remote sensing, GIS, carbon assessment and land use planning, among others. The Evaluation Team found that the majority of training participants from LEAF’s partner universities and in high-level technical national government positions in all of those training events appreciated access to world-renowned experts on carbon and REDD+ and the sophistication of the tools. Nonetheless, as discussed above, non-technical or sub-national field-level officers stated that the tools were challenging to grasp effectively and apply to their work. LEAF has not yet facilitated their adaptation to introduce them to non-technical or field-level staff. LEAF’s follow-up on training has been limited. LEAF program managers acknowledge that there is no system at the regional or national level to track training results or to follow up on how trainees were or were not applying their training or if they had additional training needs. One additional difficulty cited in four of the six LEAF countries during interviews with training participants was that the largely government and government-related institutions that nominate participants seek to spread the opportunities for training among as many staff as possible rather than train selected persons in greater depth through a series of trainings covering topics in greater depth. The Team found that a high proportion of those interviewed who had participated in training could not recall specific content beyond the basic topics of the course. In addition, lower-level and/or field-level officials, including LEAF’s in-country staff, partners and prospective community-level beneficiaries in Thailand and PNG all mentioned that “governance” issues are more significant than “technical” issues as they attempt to move forward with stakeholders. In countries with a small number of technical personnel, e.g., PNG, many of those trained know each other and have brought aspects of what they have learned into their discussions, such as technical working groups. In general, the teams of partners that are beginning to be formed at specific implementation sites, however, have not received training together, e.g., in Thailand at the Mae Sa-Kog Ma biosphere reserve and in Vietnam among the smaller committees charged with PRAP development responsibilities in Lam Dong Province. Curriculum Development. While most participants noted that the four modules had not yet been finalized, all were satisfied with the process (6 of 19 respondents to the survey were “very” satisfied) and 11 said they were ready to begin using the materials. While the short-course modules are the most complete, one professor said he would be taking a semester module into his classroom in January. One professor said that if the curriculum is developed in ways that involves stakeholders, it would be possible to “reduce this scientific material down in such a way that local people would adopt…If they see benefit, they will pick it up…For example, in Lam Dong, Vietnam, the local community was actively involved in PFES…Same thing with curriculum…[Also,] if it’s easy to learn, they will adopt…put the curriculum[’s materials] into interactive mode…cartoons.” Participants and interviewees in three of six LEAF focus countries (Lao PDR, PNG and Vietnam) noted that development and delivery of other climate change curricula were also underway. For example, according to one professor, the University of PNG has introduced climate change into the curricula of “all five schools,” including courses on climate change in the Pacific, based on a text being used by six universities in the Pacific and developed with funding from the European Union; a course on 50 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report environmental law, with sections on climate change and biodiversity; and a course on sustainable development. The Evaluation Team also found that other donors, such as JICA in Lao PDR, and international NGOs, such as the Wildlife Conservation Society in Cambodia and Lao PDR, are developing or have developed climate change curricula working with local partner institutions. Prior Activities Throughout the Region. The Evaluation Team, in its many interviews and discussions throughout LEAF program countries, found that past investments by USAID, other donors and regional and local actors across the region have developed relationships and created bases of capacity and trust that are serving LEAF well as bases for its REDD+ and related climate change activities. The broad range of these activities includes the long-term presence of NGOs (e.g., TNC in Madang Province, PNG; WWF in Sabah State, Malaysia; SNV in Lao PDR and Vietnam; and CI, WWF and PACT in Cambodia), professional exchange groups (e.g., the botanists from both West Papua and PNG who meet every few years in Jayapura) and projects across varied resource and land use sectors, including agriculture and agroforestry. RDMA’s RAFT Project was also cited by USAID, other donors and various implementing partners as an important contributor to progress on many of LEAF’s objectives. The Evaluation Team found that LEAF had progressed most where it had identified and built on these earlier efforts as it has in its most important example in Vietnam in Lam Dong Province. Vietnam’s Success: Support Needs and Regional Implications. Exchanges of information and visits to sites demonstrating advances in Vietnam on REDD+ and PFES have begun under LEAF. A Thai delegation visited and offered positive and negative critiques on the applicability of Vietnam’s experience to their situation. Opportunities in Agriculture and Agro-Forestry. USAID global rules on the use of Global Climate Change Sustainable Landscapes (GCC-SL) funding, the source of LEAF program budget resources, changed for FY 2013. The LEAF program could now work on improving agriculture and agroforestry in its activities. Future sustainable landscape project design can systematically build on prior USAID achievements and relationships in agriculture and agro-forestry that prove relevant for regional and country-level achievements. LEAF might look at regional agricultural commodity trade, investments by Asian-based companies and other cross-border drivers of agricultural emissions. This could also potentially bring involvement from the private sector. Country Findings LEAF has identified partners and begun to work with the multiple and diverse stakeholders active at each site. As planned, LEAF has developed a consistent process40 to document drivers and governance arrangements, to determine interventions and to plan activities that will introduce best practices, models and methodologies that lead to GHG emission reductions, areas under improved management and improved livelihoods. LEAF has not yet completed a diagnostic site document for each site that integrates analysis of key elements basic to LEAF’s program. Thus, LEAF does not yet have solid foundations for learning and innovation on which to “ground,” at each site, the generic principles and guidelines that it has been seeking to promote through its workshops and training activities to date. With respect to the forest and related resource conditions at each site, LEAF has not “downscaled” to 40 Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) and USAID. 2013. 10th Quarterly report: Annex C: LEAF Field Activities. Mid￾Term Assessment of Progress. Bangkok: LEAF and Winrock International. 2012. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Workplan, FY 2012. October 2011 to September 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 51 its selected demonstration sites its sophisticated analysis at the regional level. With respect to the enabling environment, it has not described the institutions and key elements of governance at each site. With respect to market incentives and livelihoods, it has not described the key drivers as they function at each site. LEAF lacks an integrated analytic description of the way these three basic elements of nature, wealth and power41 of improved and sustainable forest and natural resource governance, natural processes (including plant and animal biodiversity) and management interact at each site. While LEAF has begun to introduce stakeholders to key concepts and tools of improved forest management, it has not yet engaged them in developing a common understanding of their particular situation and a mutually agreed-upon action agenda. Hence, LEAF’s collaboration with the multiple and diverse stakeholders active at each site is just beginning. LEAF lacks a basic, integrated understanding of where the program is beginning and where the program is going.42 This will affect the development of a strategy for using site￾based experience to inform the enabling policy and economic structures and processes that will sustain this “improved” management, as well as developing and scaling up the innovations and lessons learned across the portfolio of sites as envisioned the regional learning platforms. Cambodia. Based on repeated interviews and the Evaluation Team’s assessment of the donor activities at all important REDD+ sites in Cambodia, LEAF does not have a comparative advantage on REDD+ field activities compared to USAID/Cambodia bilateral activities and the many ongoing NGO and donor initiatives. It can usefully continue specific support related to gender and drivers of deforestation. Lao PDR. MoNRE and its sub-national levels are weak in REDD+ technical, policy, stakeholder engagement and gender. With the likely reassignment of the LEAF program in Lao PDR to that ministry, the process of registration and the strengthening of technical counterparts will require significant time in the next 6 to 12 months. Vietnam. Experience, talent and governance clarity provide a comparative advantage for additional REDD+ progress over the next 2.5 years. As discussed in several previous sections, there are very important opportunities for technical support to build on Vietnam’s success on REDD+ and PFES— improving both of these initiatives in Vietnam and disseminating the many important lessons to other countries and to other RDMA partners. An important role could also be played in supporting the resolution of differences between UN-REDD and the Vietnamese government on Phase Two implementation. Papua New Guinea. Stakeholders at all levels called for translation of carbon and REDD+ concepts and language into simple local language and for more on-the-ground implementation. These needs were stressed repeatedly, by officials at the OCCD, staff at the Institute of National Affairs (INA), staff on USAID and other donor-funded projects and all of the provincial government representatives and local leaders with whom the Evaluation Team met. In describing the extent of misunderstanding with respect to carbon and forests, one informant noted that in communities, “people are asking about the carbon seeds” and that even well-educated people don’t understand.” The USAID Mission emphasized the need for caution in working with some government agencies. Nonetheless, one observer asked, “with a very bad sector, how can you help correct that if you don’t work with it?” 41 http://rmportal.net/library/content/nature-wealth-and-power-emerging-best-practice-for-revitalizing-rural-africa/ 42 In this regard, it might be said that it somewhat mirrors the aggregate performance of REDD+ initiatives worldwide, especially related to the key facet of REDD+ that improved forest management and forest carbon sequestration is required to be permanent. 52 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Thailand. As noted earlier, LEAF and its partners have helped facilitate emerging engagement between civil society and national government. The local (Tambon) administrative offices expressed keen interest in LEAF’s technical assistance, including support for calculating emissions, learning best practices, including PES, from experience elsewhere and “more techniques for public awareness.” The DNP’s regional office has only limited budget for preparation and implementation of the MAB management plan, e.g., for forest fire control over all areas classified as high-risk. Local leaders see LEAF as a good way to engage with outsiders, which will help them resolve problems more immediate for them than climate change, e.g., the more than doubling of the local population of one village through in-migration by workers in the tourism industry. Local leaders see their citizens as understanding climate change best through the haze from fires because it directly affects them; it’s “in their eyes and nose as they breathe.” Malaysia. LEAF has offered assistance to help the Sabah Forestry Department develop the state’s REDD+ efforts and has identified five ongoing projects where it could develop partnering arrangements relatively quickly. For example, WWF has been collaborating with the Sabah Forestry Department on site-based activities for years. LEAF understands from Malaysian government sources that an MoU— which the Forestry Department put forth as a requirement before collaboration—has been agreed to but it has not been presented to LEAF program management. Nonetheless, the Department has neither signed nor commented upon the MoU that LEAF proposed months ago. This contrasts with LEAF’s proposed activities in Pahang and Selangor, where LEAF has identified local partners in FRIM and GEC that have well-established relationships with the state governments. Conclusions Overall Management Conclusions Institutional and site assessments. LEAF does not have a site-level diagnostic and analytic document to orient its menu of activities. Without an orienting document for each site, the program risks vague and unsustainable achievements when it could have clear results identified in a succinct framework. LEAF’s approach to and the status of its institutional capacity assessments affect the program in several critical ways: First, none of the planned in-country institutional capacity or gender assessments has been completed. To the Evaluation Team, this fact suggests that an analytic base that should contribute to baseline and strategy is lacking for Objectives 3 and 4. That the institutional baselines are incomplete for the regional platforms suggests a similar limitation for Objective 1. Second, the institutional capacity assessments’ contribution to a common base of understanding and commitment to specific capacity strengthening appears limited due to:  Limited hands-on engagement of the country manager and the implementing team of partners that is being (or should be) formed at each demonstration site;  Limited development of “ownership” of the assessment by the institution to be strengthened; and  Limited technical guidance and standard-setting in light of international best practices, certainly not approaching the depth of international technical guidance that LEAF has provided for the “technical" tools it has developed. Nonetheless, LEAF’s latent strengths can overcome these limitations. LEAF has put together a compelling portfolio of demonstration sites that represents the region’s range of forests, drivers, stakeholders and modes of engagement (e.g., PES) around improved forest management—and the multiple benefits that are both result and incentive for its improvement. LEAF’s nascent structures and LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 53 systems have engaged its staff and are poised to engage its stakeholders in learning from this portfolio. LEAF’s strengths also include the hands-on experience of its country managers and partners, e.g., RECOFTC’s and TNC’s prior experience with participatory appraisal and land use planning, and the partner universities experience with LEAF’s curriculum development activity, which includes network strengthening, REDD+, MRV, SES, and land use planning, all of which can strengthen land/forest use planning and management. Many of the helping factors noted earlier are strengths of LEAF’s partners and stakeholders, which LEAF can enhance as it facilitates collaboration at and across demonstration sites. Progress Measurements. The most important overall conclusion is that the LEAF performance targets related to 15 million tons of carbon sequestered and one million hectares of forest under improved management were probably always unrealistic and certainly are at the project’s mid-point in 2013. Continued emphasis and attention on attempting to achieve those targets will continue to distract LEAF resources and distort priorities for advancing regional and country-level progress on more important program results. LEAF’s most important challenge and opportunity at this mid-point is to adapt its tools used at various levels to the range of institutions active across the different sectors, countries and landscapes represented at its demonstration sites, including private sector and other interests that are driving deforestation and forest degradation. Regional Conclusions Regional and Cross-Sectoral Stakeholder Engagement. USAID and its numerous partners, including LEAF, could play a more effective role in engaging regional actors and in responding to demand among regional and in-country stakeholders across sectors to become engaged in climate change discussions, decisions and plans—thereby beginning to build the relationships and shared understanding needed for increased investment. LEAF has underutilized local partners and thus deprived them of the learning and capacity-building experience of designing, conducting and following up on regional and multi-stakeholder events. While LEAF was designed and awarded prior to USAID’s strong commitment to the principles of USAID Forward, LEAF has had many opportunities to apply those principles. For example, LEAF’s more than 20 regional activities that have been carried out alone or in association with other donors or donor-funded international partners could just as well be developed in collaboration with regional or in-country partners. The engagement of universities in curriculum development, LEAF’s two events with ARKN￾FCC, and one event with RECOFTC provide an initial base of experience on which to design future collaboration. LEAF partner WOCAN can support expansion of involvement of gender-focused organizations that have the capacity to reach both females and males and use gender analytic tools. The nascent partnerships at demonstration sites will offer further opportunities for inclusion of gender issues. Capacity Building. LEAF has been very active in providing training and technical support to build regional, national and sub-national capacities. Much of the training has been aimed at higher and more sophisticated levels of materials and presentations. That approach worked well with higher-level technical personnel but not well with lower and less experienced trainees. Regardless of the level of material or orientation, LEAF has not effectively carried out follow-up communication or support with trainees to assist them in utilization of their training. Curriculum Development. The most important opportunity for LEAF with respect to curriculum development is to get the materials into use at the field level and circulated among potential users as soon as possible. This will permit LEAF to receive valuable feedback from hands-on use of the curricula by others. The four modules developed under the curriculum development activity are ready to test with collaborating partners and other stakeholders at demonstration sites, through short courses and trainings of trainers. Draft modules are ready to circulate for review among other institutions that are 54 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report developing curricula. The feedback elicited from these experiments will enable LEAF to see directly how materials are being adapted to different contexts and audiences by different users—and hence to better prepare the materials for widespread replication. USAID, RDMA and Other USG Agencies—Collaboration and a New Opportunity. LEAF has made significant progress in collaborating and advancing RDMA’s agenda with USAID Washington, USAID bilateral embassies and U.S. Embassy staff where there is limited or no presence of USAID, and other USG agencies, notably USFS and USGS. It has done so, for example, in Vietnam, Lao PDR and PNG by aligning with policy and program priorities, cooperating and sharing information and including USG institutions and personnel in events. The changes in the FY 2013 OP Guidance to include agriculture and agro￾forestry may well provide LEAF the opportunity to work on those areas related to advancing REDD+ and improved forest management. Cross-border agricultural commodity trade policies and practices are areas for possible LEAF engagement. LEAF can also usefully work with RDMA REO in harmonizing its work to the RDCS and the bilateral Mission Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Inter-agency collaboration could also be engaged for addressing what LEAF could contribute on the ASW and timber trade issues. Country Conclusions As a regional program directed at building capacity and generating innovation and learning with respect to REDD+ and sustainable forest management, LEAF has not adapted the generic concepts and tools of carbon measurement to particular situations faced by particular stakeholders. If it does not adapt these, LEAF risks merely skating above the surface of the challenges that Asian countries face. To date, LEAF has not yet developed sufficient direct, iterative engagement with a broad enough range of diverse field situations to generate lessons regarding the principles of best practice and how to adapt these principles to some of the basic contexts of resources, institutions/governance and drivers in Asia. Building on its experience in Vietnam and deepening its experience in Lao PDR, Thailand and PNG together provide opportunities to do so. Despite the legitimate concerns raised about the diversity of very specific country contexts, the Evaluation Team concludes that the demonstration sites provide essential perspectives and balance to regional emphases and should be continued. In the case of Vietnam, the demonstration sites offer global as well as regional lessons and historic ground-breaking opportunities on all key LEAF and indeed USAID, USG and international forest and climate objectives. Cambodia. The presence and activities of ample USAID/Cambodia and other donor-supported efforts leads to the conclusion that LEAF activity could usefully be limited to curriculum development and perhaps limited policy support. Support for participation of Cambodians in LEAF regional events is also useful. Lao PDR. LEAF must quickly work to negotiate its MoU and approval to operate with MoNRE, if and once requested by them. In supporting further development of land and forest legislation, policies and regulations, LEAF must contribute lessons learned from its ongoing experiences in Attapeu and Houphan. Vietnam. LEAF’s most significant opportunity for strengthening capacity and improving forest and land resource management to reduce GHG emissions in Vietnam is to support the provincial stakeholders in completing their REDD+ action plans, with particular focus on forest information, livelihoods and gender. The most significant opportunity for increasing investment is, if requested by Vietnamese authorities, to strengthen capacity to monitor the results of the specific incentives of the PFES system as they affect behaviors and investments of jurisdictions and households and the degree and quality of forest management improvements resulting from this large PES effort. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 55 Papua New Guinea. LEAF has identified a significant opportunity to develop on-the-ground experience with carbon measurement and ecosystem valuation in response to clear demand from sub-national stakeholders. Coordinating closely with USAID/Pacific and collaborating with a range of civil society actors and government-sponsored technical working groups, LEAF has an opportunity to link this sub￾national experience and lessons to national and regional stakeholder fora. Thailand. The active interest of local governments and village leaders in PES models provides an ideal base for LEAF to extend its initial participatory diagnostic (using PRA methodology) to cover all concerned communities and thereby identify informal collaborative site-level activities that can begin to develop the multi-stakeholder engagement needed to improve overall management of the landscape and its carbon stocks and flows. To the degree that LEAF can support sound and mutually multi-stakeholder engagement at the watershed and sub-watershed levels, valuable lessons can be derived for consideration by the newly formed steering committees at both site- and national-levels. Malaysia. If the Sabah Forest Department will not sign the MoU with LEAF without any further prompting, LEAF’s further investment will merely drain attention from higher potential activities elsewhere. Collaboration with the GEC on peatlands offers LEAF an opportunity to explore alternative ways to strengthen ASEAN through its relationship with GEC. As a longer-term relationship, this may yield more lasting results than LEAF’s direct support as a time-limited project. GENDER DIMENSIONS LEAF has increasingly focused on how gender inequalities influence key issues and activities. It strengthened that work by adding a Gender Advisor with international experience, increasing its total CA funding by $800,000 for gender activities, and ensuring that gender coordinators were engaged at its major national coordination offices in Lao PDR and Vietnam. The Gender Advisor is extending gender analysis and program content throughout the LEAF program area, including training and mentoring others charged with consideration of gender issues and activities. The scope of this effort is such that its full achievement would be further advanced if additional short￾term technical assistance (STTA) could be considered for two purposes. First, to provide periodic post￾training coaching to LEAF participants that complete the in-country training on Gender Integrated Planning for REDD. This coaching work is essential as applying gender integration often is stalled after training once an individual encounters resistance. The STTA could support post-training learning application with additional input, feedback and even additional one-on-one training if needed. Second, to address country-specific research topics, the STTA could support investigation of social issues that might hinder women in communities from participating in LEAF supported activities. Additional STTA will allow the Gender Advisor to focus more on monitoring the pilot project work, reviewing the country-specific country action plans, identifying emerging best practices to be shared among LEAF stakeholders, developing additional practical analytic tools and finding innovative ways to use the autobiographic essays of gender change agents to inspire other LEAF participants. Examples of both post-training coaching and research opportunities are described below. Related to coaching, LEAF has sponsored major events collaborating with USAID and other donor projects to deepen LEAF participant knowledge on gender and REDD+, especially related to Social and Environmental Safeguards/Soundness. Differences in gender access to REDD+ benefits, gender roles in forest management and exploitation and resource tenure (land, forests and forest products) were discussed. LEAF has effectively if not comprehensively engaged excellent women professionals and community-level women in its activities. One of the most interesting people that the Evaluation Team interviewed, a Lao woman participant and leader in implementing LEAF’s socioeconomic survey in demonstration site 56 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report communities, stated that she was very appreciative of her participation in LEAF awareness training. She felt that, while LEAF was only beginning its work in her region, it was taking a very positive approach to women’s concerns and, in her view, genuinely engaged in how women can best play a role in REDD+ and improved forest management. Another outstanding female LEAF participant is the senior Forestry Sector official who is the senior forest protection official in Vietnam’s Lam Dong Province. She explained that she devoted great effort to ensuring that women’s interests and issues were front and center in her contributions to P-RAP planning and the implementation of the PFES system. That said, she acknowledged that women remain disadvantaged in Vietnam’s society and its institutions. These two women model behavior for other male and female LEAF participants. Gender differences are considered in the critical analysis LEAF has carried out on the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. However, the program’s analysis has not comprehensively included gender as an important factor related to institutional, policy and other elements of the enabling environment and markets. LEAF’s technical guidance has been limited to “technical” and generic analysis, with the exception of Vietnam, that has not been down-scaled to the sub-national level or to each specific demonstration site. LEAF developed an excellent Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit and Guidelines to integrate gender perspectives into program activities and REDD policy dialogues. These tools have been used in other forest mitigation programs for institutional strengthening. Additionally, LEAF workshops include a gender session to help participants understand men’s and women’s roles in REDD+ and how promoting gender equality and female empowerment can lead to better program impacts. Further, LEAF is now collaborating with UN-REDD and WOCAN to do more in-depth study both in demonstration sites and policy analysis. Attention to gender issues is becoming more of a priority in each LEAF country through existing national gender plans and agencies tasked with gender integration, reducing gaps between males and females and improving the quality of life for women. Addressing gender issues involves, at a minimum, changing of social norms and cultural beliefs about how things should be done, who should do them and how people should behave. Sensitive issues almost always emerge and need to be addressed with strategies that involve use of inclusive communication tools that extend beyond technical subject matter competence. While the LEAF gender training program recognizes this reality, a coaching plan should be developed for each gender focal point with tangible benchmarks that can be used for accountability and then aggregated to show regional progress. For instance, Vietnam made significant progress on policy and LEAF had value-added on gender in REDD+ policy, and the implementation is ongoing as planned. Vietnam is the only LEAF country that has a law on gender equality. The LEAF Gender Advisor was able to grant support by providing constructive comments on Vietnam’s roadmap of REDD+ safeguards, which was explained through intensive discussions with the Vietnam team. Further, on gender research, extending the Vietnam example further, the progress on P-RAP development and implementation of the PFES system in Lam Dong Province does not sufficiently address gender issues within improved forest management, watershed management or benefit distribution in forest protection payments. Women are very important actors in all those areas. According to an international expert close to the process, the P-RAP in the province is reportedly the most advanced in Vietnam yet does not include sufficient breadth and depth in considering gender in REDD+ implementation on a practical basis. For the PFES, it is especially important to understand and document the ways that PFES participation and benefits differentially involve and affect women and men and how the payments affect household economic, power and social relations, as well as how gender plays a part in resource tenure. These are ignored in data collection and analysis on PFES implementation and impacts. All need to be examined and factored into continued PFES implementation. A window of LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 57 opportunity for LEAF would be to support research on this issue, and it merits a slight expansion of its technical mandate in this area of PFES if requested by the Vietnamese authorities. It may be that the PFES system in Vietnam is systematically and positively affecting the status of women. Families involved in the PFES system have enjoyed sustained income increases over time. A LEAF study of whether this increased income has led to different gender roles between men and women, including whether and how it has affected decision making in these families, is warranted. Related to LEAF’s Climate Change Curriculum initiatives, it is not clear that all modules have sufficiently assessed how they address gender, youth and ethnic inclusion and deficiencies. All four modules require revision to ensure that the impacts of climate change and improved forest management include appreciation of the differential effects on all those groups. On the Evaluation Team’s finding that each demonstration site requires a complete diagnosis and clear strategy for achieving LEAF objectives set firmly in the context or local reality and needs, gender differences related to equality and female empowerment should be central and specific indicators should be developed to track any changes to the gap between males and females and the engagement of women. LEAF should seek to understand women’s and men’s roles, impacts and potentials for engagement in improved forest management, enhanced livelihoods and reduced GHG emissions. Low emissions development must include gender dimensions as an essential analytic and implementation building block. RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Management Recommendations  LEAF should increasingly base the credibility of the program on what it can offer on the regional, national and sub-national levels in regard to improved forest management and less on carbon accounting aimed at REDD+ compliance. LEAF should align its work on USAID’s Sustainable Landscapes approaches that advance the multiple benefits of improved land use, including forest management and forest community livelihood improvements. Those approaches are valid and can lead to greater carbon sequestration or lower emissions. While the reasons for inclusion of the LEAF quantitative targets for emissions reductions and hectares under improved management are understood, these targets merit revision to levels more likely to be achieved in the next two-plus years or elimination. Therefore, LEAF should deepen its growing focus on improving the supply side of multiple-benefit improved forest management that also coincides with REDD+ progress. There are other ways to structure and achieve forest protection and climate change mitigation, such as performance payments not based on carbon, alternative livelihoods activities (e.g., NTFP harvesting), protected area management, incorporating forest protection into development (e.g., ecotourism agroforestry), etc.  LEAF should help its site partners work with stakeholders to develop site assessments for each demonstration site.  LEAF should develop a simple diagnostic “profile” at each site as a starting point towards a shared understanding among stakeholders of three basic kinds of issues at each site:  The resource systems (Nature [N] the forests in which carbon is stored, the water, biodiversity and other ecosystem service “values”); 58 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  The driver and livelihood pressures (Wealth [W] related to income, food, markets and investment); and  The institutions (Power [P] governance and decision-making). In developing the “profiles,” LEAF should explore with stakeholders likely causes, implications and interrelationships. The Nature, Wealth and Power framework could be useful to consider adapting and applying for profile development. Gender could be factored in effectively with such a framework.  LEAF should derive principles and lessons for adapting its tools for widespread replication across a range of neighboring countries and landscapes of varying characteristics. LEAF can thus develop an overall framework (that addresses the three elements of N, W and P), and to build on the multi-stakeholder learning at sites through regional events.  LEAF should take advantage of this site-level opportunity through methods that enable people to express what they know, to participate in the analysis, to understand and “own” the tools and to be creative together in finding solutions. If the intention of site-level work is to design activities and lessons that endure in time and can be spread in space, the design cannot be something prepared by LEAF and merely validated with stakeholders. Rather, site-level work must involve the key stakeholders from the beginning. The real value of LEAF’s site-level work is that only at the site level can the technical requirements for carbon management (which include both the tools needed to gather information and the stakeholder agreement on specific actions) be opened up to the opportunity for participation. LEAF’s challenge is to ensure a fit between people and technology. LEAF should take full advantage of its portfolio of “demonstration” sites to:  Test “proof of principle” for the involvement of local stakeholders with different levels of skill, knowledge and formal or informal education in applying MRV, SES, economic valuation and related tools;  Adapt the MRV, SES and valuation tools and training to the different skill and experience levels of practitioners and stakeholders working together within their respective enabling and incentive (policy and market) environments;  The site documents should also bring partners together around baseline and monitoring information as a tool for planning and action, and—at the regional level—learning across sites. LEAF should bring partners together around initial baseline and monitoring information, which can be used as a springboard for further planning, information gathering, action and evaluation. LEAF’s site-level work should take existing information and work locally to improve baselines and monitoring information as needed for action and evaluation. Site-level work may also enable downscaling LEAF’s technical analysis (e.g., the “South and Southeast Asia REDD+ Atlas” that LEAF used to select sites, which already contains data and analysis down to the province level). LEAF should apply MRV across all areas of baseline and performance, including:  Beyond REDD+, across multiple forest/land resources/uses,  Within REDD+, for both carbon and SES measures, and  Individual and institutional capacity building, including the structures and processes of PES and multi-level, multi-stakeholder engagement. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 59 LEAF should also help facilitate agreement on (standardization of) tools and protocols for MRV and valuation across sites and countries.  LEAF should finalize institutional assessments and set milestones. LEAF should design the assessments so that a local consultant collaborates fully with the country manager and the implementing team of partners that is being formed at each demonstration site, and applies a standard, yet locally adapted, approach to self-assessment. Ideally, each partner institution selected for strengthening should be responsible for its own self-assessment (vision and mission, strategies, policies and procedures), human resources, awareness, service provision, et alia (see LEAF PMP, p. 15). LEAF should identify key local collaborating partner institutions in PNG and Lao PDR and facilitate self-assessments as soon as practicable. Regional Recommendations Stakeholder Engagement and Regional Harmonization  The LEAF Program should consolidate its regional platform work to maximize impact in the remaining two plus years of implementation. To increase effectiveness, impact and sustainability, the emphases need to be on (a) supporting platforms that actively engage regional stakeholders, in particular the ARKN-FCC and MFF; (b) sharing the Vietnam REDD+ and PFES lessons widely—and further lessons as these emerge from LEAF’s other demonstration sites; and (c) facilitating and supporting informal networks of stakeholders engaged on priority issues at LEAF’s demonstration sites. LEAF should facilitate regional cross-learning, grounded in the experience of particular sites, among its diverse collaborating stakeholders at multiple (sub-national and national) levels. Such cross￾learning should include contributions to more systematic REDD+ baseline data and standardized tools, through continued deeper collaboration with other donors active at its demonstration sites and wider coordination with other sustainable landscape programs throughout the region. This may include joint learning activities with other USAID projects, e.g., in Indonesia and India, and other donor programs addressing those drivers and issues that are prioritized at LEAF’s sites. Both site￾based adaptive learning and the associated regional exchanges should include the academic stakeholders who have been collaborating on the (to date rather “ungrounded”) curriculum development activity. LEAF should build on the strengths of “helping factors” noted earlier, e.g., the comparatively better trained and more experienced partner staff in Vietnam, its excellent in-country staff and its positive partner and stakeholder relationships. At the regional level, LEAF should coordinate with USG to initiate engagement with ASW, LMI and the Asia LEDS Partnership. Engagement should be targeted and concentrated as discussed in the text above on LEAF-related issues. FLEGT and the Lacey Act may be important points of entry in work on the ASW. Given USAID’s new rules on use of Sustainable Landscape funding, LEAF should look at regional commodity trade, investments by Asian-based companies and other cross-border drivers of agricultural emissions. This could also potentially bring in the private sector involvement of businesses trading agricultural commodities and interested in links to sustainability, such as for low￾methane rice cultivation, no-till agriculture or reduced fertilizer use. Capacity Building  LEAF should carry out the remaining regional events in collaboration with regional platform partners, serving less and less as a “hub” and increasingly as a facilitator of 60 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report emerging networks around the specific issues and themes that its collaborations in each country have found of highest priority. LEAF should build on the experience and nascent relationships with curriculum development partners to strengthen learning (and learning networks) among site stakeholders and to continue to strengthen and explore sustainable structures and processes for decentralized (non-“hub,” including site-to-site) regional and sub-regional exchange of learning as tools are applied at different sites.  LEAF should develop within regional partners the capacities to carry out LEAF’s “modes” of “applying international technical expertise to inform regional dialogue” and “supporting the exchange and standardization of approaches.” This could include developing mechanisms for partners to access and work with experts directly and accompanying partners as they design and carry out workshops (as noted above), design terms of reference in response to priority issues that emerge from site-based work and organize peer reviews of proposed approaches.  LEAF should adopt as fully as possible under the terms of its cooperative agreement USAID’s Forward principles that strengthen partners’ roles and utilization of training through follow-up and networks of knowledge management and communities of practice among participants. To the degree practicable, LEAF should carry out activities through local partners. Regional events should draw directly on and encourage the adaptive learning and exchange that will be developed at sites and continued after training events. Nonetheless, LEAF should continue to seek out and include relevant experience from non-“LEAF” sites and among other partners to analyze, synthesize and disseminate broadly within LEAF partner countries’ organizations and relevant non-LEAF country organizations, using their regional platform partners and their own website.  LEAF should document and track how the program is supporting the emergence of a critical mass of experts in each targeted country. Information should be collected and analyzed on whether and how training participants are applying their new knowledge.  LEAF should increase exchanges of learning from the Vietnam REDD+ and PFES The advances in REDD+ and PFES indicated above translate into many opportunities for LEAF to support the exchange of information and visits from other LEAF country partners to Vietnam and LEAF Vietnamese partners to other LEAF countries. More should be done to both support improved success in Vietnam and expand the knowledge available in the region on Vietnam’s performance. Detailed discussion in above sections identifies how LEAF could contribute in Vietnam and how it could disseminate lessons.  LEAF should simplify REDD+ concepts, models and tools for use by the full range of stakeholders. These simplified versions of its models and tools should be translated into local languages and cultural concepts by LEAF’s local partners as they work with local stakeholders. Learning how to adapt and apply basic principles and best practices from international experience will take time. Although inefficient, the direct experience of learning-by-doing will likely increase site stakeholders’ understanding more than additional formal trainings. These learning activities should be carried out in collaboration with local leaders and women, youth and ethnic minorities at each site. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 61  LEAF should support curriculum development in universities in rolling out the curriculum development modules for site-based application and testing in all countries to enhance visibility and ownership of the four modules, including a roll-out of condensed versions for senior-level decision makers (see following recommendation). As noted above, wherever practicable, LEAF should carry out such activities through local partners and should integrate the universities more directly as members of LEAF’s nascent site-based and national teams of partners and/or stakeholder working groups.  LEAF should structure opportunities as soon as possible for major government, civil society and private sector decision-makers to experience condensed versions of the modules to enhance their understanding of and commitment to key issues and actions. LEAF should take full advantage of the opportunities at demonstration sites to identify and involve private firms, in particular, whose decisions are affecting the priority forest and land use changes linked with emission reduction. Gender  LEAF should provide additional short-term technical assistance (STTA) for two purposes: 1) To provide periodic post-training coaching to LEAF participants that complete the in-country training on Gender Integrated Planning for REDD. This coaching work is essential as applying gender integration or often gets stalled after training once an individual encounters resistance. The STTA could support post-training learning application with additional input, feedback and even additional one-on-one training if needed. 2) To address specific research topics, the STTA could support investigating unintended consequences of increased household incomes such as gender-based violence, or other specific concerns like human trafficking that are reported as factors that need consideration in the activities focused on emissions reduction. Additionally, related to gender, if requested by Vietnamese authorities, LEAF should support efforts to understand and document the ways that PFES participation and benefits differentially involve and affect women and men and how the payments affect household economic, power and social relations, as well as how gender plays a part in resource tenure. All need to be examined and factored into continued PFES implementation.  LEAF’s Climate Change Curriculum initiatives’ modules should effectively address gender, youth and ethnic inclusion and deficiencies. All four modules require revision to ensure that the impacts of climate change and improved forest management include differential effects on all those groups.  LEAF’s demonstration sites require a complete diagnosis and clear strategy for taking account of local reality and needs, gender differences related to equality and female empowerment. They should be central to the analysis.  LEAF should develop specific indicators to track any changes to the gap between males and females and the engagement of women.  LEAF should seek to understand women’s and men’s roles, impacts and potentials for engagement in improved forest management, enhanced livelihoods and reduced GHG emissions. Low-emissions development must include gender dimensions as an essential analytic and implementation building block. 62 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Country Recommendations LEAF demonstration site work should continue to provide essential perspectives and balance to regional emphases and to provide specific ground-level experiences in improved management related to REDD+. In the case of Vietnam, the demonstration sites offer global as well as regional lessons and historic opportunities on all key LEAF and indeed USAID, USG and international forest and climate objectives. Vietnam  LEAF should invest all needed resources in Vietnam to support P-RAP in Lam Dong and, as possible, with other provinces, with capacity building for forestry and gender. If requested, LEAF should support the strengthening of the N-RAP. If requested, LEAF should support PFES system strengthening on monitoring improved forest management and household impact monitoring, including understanding gender dynamics in benefit distribution. This would include monitoring forest management and household impact in more local jurisdictions or watershed  LEAF should continue its work in Nghe Anh on alternative livelihoods relative to REDD+ with attention to gender differences. VFD and LEAF staff all called for this continued contribution. Papua New Guinea  LEAF should fully support its planned collaboration with TNC and the provincial government, together with CSOs and CBOs, to strengthen and replicate participatory land use planning and REDD+ activities in Madang province of PNG.  LEAF should link experience and lessons to national stakeholder fora. In the meantime, LEAF should engage selected individuals who have received training to take part in site-based activities. LEAF should support the participation of CSO and CBO leaders in regional fora and exchanges, in addition to government, NGO and academic leaders (who have been the principal participants to date). Lao PDR  LEAF should invest all needed resources in Lao PDR to develop its MOU with MoNRE, if and when requested, and help build its capacity.  LEAF should continue to strengthen forest laws and regulation and REDD+ planning at the jurisdictional level (provinces).  LEAF should continue field demonstration site activities in Attapeu and Houapanh to a logical conclusion in advancing REDD+ development at the site level. Thailand  LEAF should support multi-stakeholder engagement through the national and site-level steering committees and site-level activities. At the MSKM MAB site, LEAF should help strengthen capacities, including structures and processes as well as tools and skills, for PES system monitoring of forest management, including fire control and non-carbon values such as water quality, and household impact in all of the local jurisdictions and subwatersheds, including understanding gender dynamics in benefit distribution. As a site-based model is developed well at MSKM MAB site, the model should be extended, building on the multi-site workshop concept already begun. LEAF should continue to help in northern Thailand with advice on monitoring and technical capacity building for PFES. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 63  LEAF should highlight the significant contributions that each demonstration site can make to enhance impact, effectiveness and sustainability.  LEAF should organize the demonstration sites into sites with comparable (although not necessarily identical) characteristics as learning platforms for applying key climate change concepts and tools, linked with a network of university and stakeholder agencies.  LEAF should build on the curriculum development participants’ experience as a network and integrate them into LEAF’s demonstration site activities with local stakeholders.  LEAF should continue to support more fruitful engagement between the state and civil society on REDD readiness, coordinating with international partners active in Thailand to help strengthen common understanding and longer-term vision across sectors. Malaysia  LEAF should limit its activities to sites where state-level agreements are in place. This includes FRIM in Pahang State and the Peatland restoration activity with GEC in Selangor. Through the latter partnership, LEAF should explore alternative ways to engage with ASEAN, including multiple stakeholder working groups.  LEAF should suspend site-based activities in Sabah, Malaysia until state-level agreements are in place. If an agreement is signed, LEAF should identify additional local partners with which to collaborate, to ensure that the capacity for engagement across sectors is strengthened. If an agreement is signed, LEAF should also explore more fully WWF’s and other partners’ longer-term relationships with the Sabah forest department to identify significant lessons and opportunities for aligning collaboration more effectively. Cambodia  LEAF activity should be limited to curriculum development and perhaps limited policy support on gender and drivers. Support for participation of Cambodians in LEAF regional events is useful, but care should be applied to ensure that participants effectively learn and apply training to their work through consistent LEAF and other USAID follow-up and tracking. 64 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEXES LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 65 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LOWERING EMISSIONS IN ASIA’S FORESTS (LEAF) PROGRAM I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A) Identifying Information 1. Program: Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) 2. Award Number: CA-AID-486-A-11-00005 3. Award Dates: 1/20/2011 – 1/19/2016 4. Funding: $20,791,272 5: Implementer: Winrock International 6: AOR/alternate AOR: Barry Flaming / Danielle Tedesco The LEAF program is implemented by Winrock International (henceforth “Winrock”) together with SNV – the Netherlands Development Organisation, Climate Focus, and The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC). A five-year cooperative agreement was awarded on January 20, 2011 for the activity under the working title “Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program.” Winrock added The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC, Regional Community Forestry Training Center) as a formal partner in October 2012. In December 2012, a program expansion was approved with an additional $800,000 to formally include gender integration activities into the program. B) Development Context 1. Background and USAID’s Response Climate change is one of the century’s greatest challenges, and low‐carbon, climate‐resilient growth has become a top priority for US Government (USG) development assistance and diplomacy. The Asia region is central to US and international efforts to address global climate change due to: its significant and growing share of global greenhouse gas emissions; dependence on climate‐sensitive livelihoods such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism; and high physical vulnerabilities. To avoid the worst impacts, global carbon emissions must be halved from today’s levels within a period of 40 years, requiring an unprecedented transition to clean energy and dramatic reductions in deforestation rates. Deforestation and land use change are estimated to account for a significant proportion of total global emissions,43 with over half of this originating in Asia where land-based carbon emissions represent one of the largest sources in the national emissions profiles of many developing nations. 43 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated this contribution at approximately 14-17%. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 66 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Political momentum for addressing deforestation has grown dramatically, beginning in December 2007 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bali firmly placed forests on the international political climate change agenda by including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) as a major component of the Bali Roadmap. Over the last several years, the concept has broadened from avoided deforestation and forest degradation to include a wider range of forest sector opportunities (including sustainable forest management, forest conservation, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks), and is now referred to as REDD-plus (REDD+). In December 2009, the Copenhagen Accord strongly recognized the significant mitigation role of forests and called for “the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD+, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.” The ongoing negotiations are encouraging developing nations to support and participate in a new international framework that would provide financial incentives for protecting and enhancing globally￾important forest carbon stocks. In support of the Copenhagen Accord, the United States Government made a commitment of $1 billion over three years (2010-2012) under its Global Climate Change Initiative to support reduced emissions and increased sequestration related to forests. The Asia region’s extensive forest resources cover about 26% of the total land area44 and, in addition to carbon storage, provide a wide range of important environmental services for the 900 million people45 that depend upon them directly for their livelihoods and survival. Asia’s forests provide habitat for the region’s rich terrestrial biodiversity and also help to maintain important watersheds, such as in the Mekong River basin, upon which tens of millions of people depend. However, despite their intrinsic, economic, and societal values, natural forests in Asia continue to disappear at high rates due to a combination of myriad threats, including conversion to agriculture and plantations, illegal logging, unsustainable extraction of timber and other forest resources, changing climatic conditions, infrastructure development, and urbanization. Forest degradation—unsustainable harvesting and land￾use practices such as selective logging, fuel wood gathering, forest fires and other anthropogenic disturbances—has also contributed to substantial reductions in forest carbon stocks. The forestry and land use sector is a significant source of Southeast Asia’s current and projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is seen as having significant potential for achieving cost-effective emissions reductions. Achieving this will require widespread behavior change to minimize carbon losses through deforestation and degradation and maximize carbon storage on the landscape, and will be complicated by growing pressures on land resources resulting from population growth, consumption patterns, and climate uncertainties. The USG interagency climate change strategy identifies the development challenge as a “transition towards land use practices that store and sequester more carbon than was occurring under previous land use patterns, while maintaining a country’s ability to produce food and conserve land that provides environmental services such as clean water, biodiversity, and cultural and recreational uses” and to “promote land and forest uses that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; conserve land and forested areas that are storing significant amounts of carbon; provide sound governance of land and forest areas to reduce emissions; and provide economic alternatives to 44 FAO, Asia-Pacific Forestry Outlook Study, 2010. 45 Chao, S. 2012. Forest Peoples: Numbers across the World. Forest Peoples Programme. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 67 wide-spread forest clearing.” 46 Slowing deforestation and ensuring the sustainable management of forests in the region is therefore one of the most urgent tasks for climate change policy, investment, and action. In 2010, USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) conducted an Asia Regional REDD Program Planning Assessment (http://www.usaid.gov/rdma/programs/en.html) to identify regional opportunities and challenges related to climate change mitigation in the forestry-land use sector. The assessment indicated that there is considerable potential in Asia for meaningful emissions reductions as a result of improved land use practices; however, current capacities were generally found to be quite low and disparate among countries in the region. Certain aspects of REDD+ implementation and capacity building can benefit from regional cooperation and may be more cost-effectively addressed through regional approaches, including the dissemination and use of international methodologies and standards for greenhouse gas accounting and estimation. Countries in particular geographic regions share common implementation challenges due to shared histories, linked economic systems and drivers, and similar forest ecosystem types. Regional cooperation would also help to address issues of transboundary leakage, whereby forest protection in one location is simply transferred as deforestation to another location, often across national borders. A number of countries have publicly expressed interest in regional cooperation on REDD+ to address common challenges in dealing with methodological issues as well as addressing international leakage concerns. In order for REDD+ to be successful, the fundamental problems that have impeded sound forest management in much of Asia—poor land use planning, unclear land tenure, perverse economic incentives, weak governance and law enforcement, corruption, and lack of community participation—still remain and will need to be overcome. In response to this development challenge and in support of the USG’s Global Climate Change Initiative, USAID/RDMA launched the Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) program in 2011 to support developing countries to implement low carbon land use practices and strengthen capacities to mitigate climate change through improved forest management. The overall goal of the LEAF Program is to strengthen capacities of developing countries in the Asia region to produce meaningful and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry-land use sector, this allowing them to be able to benefit from the emerging international REDD+ framework. Under the LEAF program, this goal is to be achieved through the following four specific objectives: 1. Replicate and Scale-up Innovation through Regional Platforms and Partnerships 2. Establish Policy and Market Incentives for Greenhouse Gas Reductions 3. Build and Institutionalize Technical Capacity for Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Monitoring Changes in Forest Carbon Stocks 4. Demonstrate Innovation in Sustainable Land Management REDD+ is a new, complex, and constantly evolving process. A number of other donors and development partners are actively supporting national REDD+ programs and pilot activities globally and in Asia, including Norway, the UN-REDD Programme, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Germany (GIZ - Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH and KfW - Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau), and others. Since the LEAF program has begun implementation, a number of new USAID programs have also been established, including notably in Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Pacific region 46 FY11.International Climate and Clean Energy Budget Request, November 27, 2009 draft, page 36. 68 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report (Papua New Guinea). USAID/RDMA also supports the regional Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program supporting developing country capacities in greenhouse gas inventories, market readiness and low emissions development strategies (LEDS). LEAF and LEAD contribute to the U.S. Government’s global initiative for Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development Strategies. In addition, USAID supports a number of relevant global programs, including SilvaCarbon; Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities; and the Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program (SWAMP), which also collaborate with USAID/RDMA regional programs. 2. Target Areas and Groups LEAF activities are focused primarily in the four Lower Mekong countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam) as well as Malaysia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) (see map below). Program activities may potentially engage with an additional six countries in the region (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, and the Philippines) to share and replicate best practices and innovations LEAF’s target beneficiaries include regional organizations and initiatives, national and sub-national government agencies, forest managers, university professors, and communities. Under Objective 1, LEAF partners with regional organizations and initiatives to share lessons learned and scale up innovations, including the UN-REDD Programme (UNDP, UNEP, and FAO), the Asian Development Bank’s Greater Mekong Subregion program (ADB/GMS), Mangroves for the Future (MFF), Forest Carbon Asia (FCA), the REDD-Desk, and others. Activities under Objective 2 focus on national policy makers and regional organizations such as the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network for Forestry and Climate Change. Objective 3 has a two-track focus involving: a) capacity building for national and sub-national government REDD+ task forces, and b) curriculum development for forest and climate change training with university professors. Objective 4 involves demonstration activities at the sub-national level, targeting forest managers, local government agencies, and communities. These include jurisdictional-level activities in Lam Dong and Nghe An provinces in Vietnam; Houaphanh and Attapeu provinces in Laos; Chiang Mai and Ranong provinces in Thailand; Madang province in PNG; and the States of Sabah and Pahang in Malaysia. LEAF is not implementing field demonstration activities in Cambodia due to the USAID-funded SFB Program operating there, but is engaging Cambodian participants through regional training and capacity building activities under the other LEAF objectives. C) Approach and Intended Results LEAF’s development hypothesis is that employing a regional learning-by-doing approach working across sub-national, national, and regional levels will strengthen developing country capacities to reduce Core country Replication country LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 69 greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry-land use sector, providing tangible benefits in terms of climate mitigation, improved forest management, and strengthened livelihoods and allowing developing countries to be able to benefit from the international REDD+ framework. The multi-faceted, learning-by-doing approach aims to directly build local capacities to plan and implement improved forest management and REDD+ programs. Working at the sub-national level in forest areas is intended to result in measurable improvements in forest land management, GHG emissions reductions, and local livelihoods. Linking sub-national activities to national policy development will help strengthen enabling conditions for sustained emissions reductions and low carbon development. Through partnering with regional organizations and platforms, innovations and best practices will be shared widely across the region for replication and scaling up. Taken together, the program’s approach is expected to lead to measurable and sustainable improvements in forest management and resulting emissions reductions, while helping countries put in place the systems and processes needed to participate in and benefit from the international REDD+ framework. Overall, the following results are expected to be achieved through the five-year timeframe of the LEAF Program:  National REDD+ policy, planning, and institutional frameworks at the national, sub-national, and/or local levels are being strengthened to support improved and equitable land management in at least four countries;  At least three million tons per year of GHG emissions reduced or avoided;  At least one million hectares of forest lands under improved management;  Replication of best practices, models, and methodologies in at least six countries; and  At least $5 million in domestic and international finances are invested in forest environmental services. The LEAF program’s results framework (Figure 1, below) outlines the program and was developed as part of the program’s performance management plan (PMP). D) Implementation In working to achieve the program goal to strengthen capacities of developing countries in the Asia region to produce meaningful and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry￾land use sector, LEAF is implementing a range of activities across its four objectives. To implement the program, principle partner Winrock has assembled a consortium of partner organizations with specific skills and roles to play. Specifically, SNV is recognized for its expertise in community forestry, rural development, livelihoods, and local renewable energy and is leading implementation of activities in Vietnam and Laos where it has a long-established presence. Climate Focus is a leader in climate policy development and is leading policy activities under LEAF Objective 1. New consortium partner RECOFTC is contributing to capacity training and curriculum development as well as assisting with program activities in Thailand. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service is providing some targeted technical assistance to the LEAF program through separate, direct funding from USAID/RDMA related to forest monitoring, curriculum development, and land use planning. Some illustrative activities being supported by the program to date, organized by program objective, are as follows: 1. Replicate and Scale-up Innovation through Regional Platforms and Partnerships  Supporting Forest Carbon Asia and The REDD Desk as priority platforms for sharing models, tools, and innovations 70 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Supporting the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network for Forestry and Climate Change to serve as a sustainable regional platform for policy dialogue and collaboration between member states  Establishing regional collaborative partnerships with the UN-REDD Programme, ADB/GMS, MFF, and others  Co-leading a joint initiative for promoting greater gender equality in forest management policy and practice in collaboration with UN-REDD and Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources (WOCAN) 2. Establish Policy and Market Incentives for Greenhouse Gas Reductions  Supporting ASEAN regional guidelines for the establishment of forest emissions baselines  Assisting Laos in revising its national forestry law  Integrating forest carbon as an environmental service under Vietnam’s ‘Decree 99’ 3. Build and Institutionalize Technical Capacity for Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Monitoring Changes in Forest Carbon Stocks  Providing training on forest carbon measurement and monitoring  Regional training of national REDD+ Task Forces and Technical Working Groups  National and subnational trainings on reference level development for the forestry-land use sector  Forestry and climate change curriculum development with Mekong university professors 4. Demonstrate Innovation in Sustainable Land Management  Developing sub-national low emission development strategies (REDD+ Action Plans)  Designing benefit sharing systems and analyzing incentives for scaling up innovations with regional platforms and partners  Developing an operational framework for Participatory Carbon Monitoring In addition to its formal program partners, LEAF has also participated in USAID/RDMA’s Students with Solutions mobile phone application contest and co-hosted an Asia regional training event on social and environmental soundness with USAID Washington’s Forest Carbon, Markets, and Communities (FCMC) program. LEAF has also collaborated with USAID/RDMA’s Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program on regional capacity building for low emission land use planning for the forestry and land use sectors. In November 2012, a program expansion was approved with an additional $800,000 to formally support a dedicated gender advisor and include additional gender integration activities into the program. Implementation methods and partners are thoroughly detailed in the cooperative agreement, annual work plans, and annual reports. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 71 Figure 1. LEAF Results Framework (This is the updated Results Framework, shared with the Evaluation Team in June 2013) 72 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report E) Existing Data A variety of program-related documents are available and will be provided to the Contractor upon award:  Strategic Choices for United States Fast Start Financing for REDD+. October 2010.  U.S. REDD+ Programs: Addressing Climate Change by Conserving and Restoring the World’s Forests. December 2010. (http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/policies_prog/redd.html)  USAID Climate Change and Development Strategy, January 2012.  (http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/policy_planning_and_learning/documents/GCCS.pdf)  Asia Regional REDD Program Planning Assessment, 2010 (http://www.usaid.gov/rdma/programs/en.html)  LEAF cooperative agreement and program description  LEAF annual work plans (FY11, FY12, FY13)  LEAF Performance Management Plan (PMP) – versions 1.0 and 2.0  Quarterly and Annual reports  LEAF tools and technical reports (many available at: http://www.leafasia.org/ and Forest Carbon Asia - http://www.forestcarbonasia.org/publications/tools/)  USAID. 2011. “Getting REDD+ Right for Women: An analysis of the barriers and opportunities for women’s participation in the REDD+ sector in Asia”  Request for Applications for: Supporting Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) Program, USAID/Cambodia; Vietnam Forests and Deltas (VFD) Program, USAID/Vietnam; and Mangrove Rehabilitation for Sustainably-Managed, Healthy Forests (MARSH) Program, USAID/Pacific  USAID/RDMA-funded Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) program documents  USAID/RDMA/REO Global Climate Change Data Quality Assessment report From July to October 2012, USAID/RDMA undertook a data quality assessment of key standard indicators being used to monitor performance across all of its implementing partners under its entire Global Climate Change (GCC) portfolio. The report findings, conclusions, and recommendations provide useful insights into the status of performance management for USAID/RDMA’s climate change programs, including LEAF. II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A) Evaluation Purpose USAID/RDMA’s Regional Environment Office (REO) is The Contractor must achieve the following three objectives in conducting a mid-term performance evaluation of the LEAF program: 1) Assess progress to date towards agreed program objectives and under each of the four intermediate results; 2) Identify implementation challenges, corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period; and 3) Recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. The scope of the mid-term performance evaluation must encompass all the key activities that contribute to the achievement of the LEAF program’s overall goal and objectives. The Contractor must provide data-based evidence in support of the evaluation findings. The mid-term evaluation will be used to improve the performance of the second half of the program and make necessary adjustments to enhance LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 73 the measurement of outcomes when the program is complete. The evaluation is also expected to be of use to donors, NGOs, host country governments, and other USAID missions working to address REDD+ issues inside and outside of Southeast Asia. B) Audience and Intended Uses USAID, implementing partners, USG program partners, NGOs, and participating host country government agencies are the primary stakeholders for the evaluation. Bilateral USAID Missions in Asia, USAID/Washington, and the U.S. Forest Service will take a particular interest in any lessons for success, as well as USAID’s E3 bureau, who will be able to disseminate evaluation findings to missions with similar programs. NGOs and multilateral organizations operating in this sphere (such as for example, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF, UN-REDD, the Asian Development Bank) would also benefit from reviewing evaluation results, which may help identify REDD+ implementation challenges and best practices. Specific USAID missions in the region which will be interested in the findings of this evaluation include Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Pacific region (Papua New Guinea). This table summarizes how these audiences will or could use the evaluation results. Evaluation Task Principle Information Users Assess progress to date towards agreed program objectives and intermediate results USAID/RDMA, implementing partners, participating host country partners Identify implementation challenges, corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to program management and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the program period USAID/RDMA, implementing partners, participating host country partners Recommend specific opportunities to enhance programmatic effectiveness and impact at the regional level and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program. USAID/RDMA, implementing partners, NGOs, USAID bilateral Missions, participating host country partners C) Evaluation Questions The Contractor must answer the following three questions in the evaluation. 1) To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 2) What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement and what adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 3) What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming), and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? The evaluation questions were reworked by the Evaluation Team, and approved by RDMA in the Inception Report, submitted July 2013. The Team broke question 2 and 3 into two different questions each, with the below final Evaluation Questions: 74 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Question 1. To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? Question 2. What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? Question 3. What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? Question 4. What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? Question 5. What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? III. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A) Evaluation Design Following the award, additional sub-questions for each of the three main evaluation questions will be provided to the Contractor for consideration and further discussion. The Contractor’s conceptual approach used to answer these questions must focus on actual results and expected targets, key informant interviews, site visits, and consultations with relevant stakeholders. The Contractor’s consultants will examine the current and past performance of LEAF from the start of the agreement through the evaluation period. The consultants should have no direct association to the project or to any of its implementing partners. While the evaluation should address past performance, in the Contractor must also provide forward-looking recommendations on possible strategies for improving the second half of the program and accelerating regional efforts to slow, halt, and reverse trends in deforestation and associated carbon emissions. Suggested areas to be more focused or expanded will be useful in order to achieve expected outcomes. The Contractor’s evaluation must also address gender implications as a way to promote gender equality in forest management. The Contractor’s consultants are required to gather information on the program, analyze that information, and provide answers to the key evaluation questions. The Contractor’s consultants are to work in conjunction with other team members to plan and implement the proposed evaluation. USAID/RDMA and the full evaluation team will be involved with design, planning, and logistics, but the consultants are expected to provide the leadership and direction, as well as having the final responsibility for all evaluation duties and deliverables. B) Data Collection and Analysis Methods The Contractor’s independent external consultants, is required to evaluate this multi-faceted program in a timely manner across a six-country region. Data requirements, collection methods, and required analyses will be determined by the Contractor in collaboration with USAID/RDMA and under the direction of the Contractor’s independent team leader (not affiliated with USAID or the program). Consistent with ADS 203.3.1.6 guidance on evaluation methodologies, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in data collection and analysis must be employed by the Contractor in the process. A triangulation method should be applied by the Contractor to increase level of validity in data collection and processing of results. Details on final datasets, collection methods (including interview questions, questionnaire form and key informants to be interviewed), and analytical framework(s) will be approved by the TOCOR as part of initial work plan approval. The Contractor must disaggregate data by sex, where relevant, and level of intervention (regional; national/country; and sub-national). National/country level data will be particularly important for the six countries where LEAF LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 75 is primarily focused (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea), with a particular emphasis on the three countries where bilateral USAID Missions have related programming (Cambodia, Vietnam, and PNG) in order to ensure that LEAF’s regional efforts are synergistic and adding value to those bilateral programs. The Contractor must begin its data collection with a desk study of existing documents and information, followed by consultations with key stakeholders in the Asia region to further refine the implementation approach. This will be followed by interviews of partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries in the program’s target countries, and potentially other countries as appropriate. Details on these illustrative approaches and the evaluation questions they are anticipated to help answer are provided in the table below. Data Collection and Analysis Methods Question(s) Answered Desk Study: Review existing documents and information listed in section 1.E. above. Work with USAID/RDMA to acquire additional documents and information as needed, and prioritize primary data collection where gaps remain. 1, 2, 3 Also serves a planning role Internal Consultations: Meet or conference call with key stakeholders in Washington and Southeast Asia for recommendations on specific areas of consideration. These may include but are not limited to USAID/RDMA, Asia Bureau, E3 Bureau, relevant USAID missions (e.g. Cambodia, Vietnam, Pacific) and the US Forest Service. This is separate from the survey or interview process by which data may be collected among some of the same stakeholders. 1, 2, 3 Also serves a planning role External Interviews and Focus Group Discussions: In-person interviews and focus group discussions with program implementing partners, collaborating partners, program beneficiaries, and USAID bilateral missions will allow for a range of perspectives and give depth to the evaluation. Such consultations will be limited to individuals and organizations in the program’s target region, to be prioritized based on mission and other stakeholder consultation, drawing from the range of stakeholders the program is engaged with. USAID/RDMA will provide a preliminary list of stakeholders to the evaluation team, to be finalized in conjunction with RDMA. Stakeholders may include but are not limited to: (a) implementing partner headquarter and field staff; (b) cooperating country government staff, focusing on the six LEAF target countries and those directly involved in REDD+ efforts; (c) staff and implementing partners of USAID/RDMA and other USAID missions and programs which have engaged or could engage with LEAF; (d) USG Federal Agency Partner staff including the USFS and USGS; (e) staff of multilateral organizations and development partners such as ADB, World Bank, UN agencies, JICA, GiZ, etc.; (f) national and local NGOs and community representatives; and (g) other international NGOs working to address forest mitigation and REDD+ such as WWF, Fauna and Flora International, Wildlife Conservation Society, The Nature Conservancy, and others. The decision on whether to conduct an interview or focus group depends on a variety of factors including the type of questions and analyses planned, individual and cultural norms and preferences, and efficiency. Where a focus group is suitable, it may be appropriate to separate men and women, or participants from different countries and/or organizations. Different types of questions will need to be tailored to the specific target stakeholder group. The data will be analyzed by using transcription and/or coding methods as appropriate. Targeted follow-up phone calls with stakeholders outside the priority geographic region, such as in the six LEAF ‘replication countries’ may also be utilized. On-site visits to areas of LEAF demonstration activities will enable the evaluation team to meet with and interview direct program beneficiaries, verify activity outputs and outcomes, and observe first-hand program impacts. 1, 2, 3 76 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report C) Methodological Strengths and Limitations Methods Strengths Limitations Desk Study  Provide valuable information on substantive issues and generate a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods.  Help to focus efforts and prioritize issues and gaps  Time consuming  Depends on resource availability  Lack of consistent data collection  Limited baseline data Consultations  Provide valuable information on substantive issues and generate a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods.  Provide greater depth and insights and general surveys  Depends on availability of key stakeholders  Need to consider time zone difference.  Quality/reliability of data Individual Interviews  Potentially data rich, detailed answers  Might need to interview through translators (possible loss of meaning and data richness)  Might have informants’ bias Focus Group Discussion  Can generate a broader range of ideas and responses.  Can include a greater number of participants in less time and result in rich discussion, if facilitated well  Might need to conduct discussion through translators (possible loss of meaning and data richness)  Some respondents may dominate in answering IV. TEAM COMPOSITION The Contractor’s evaluation team must be comprised primarily of three (3) independent external consultants, as follows: 1) Team Leader (international consultant) 2) Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist (international or local consultant) 3) Evaluation Specialist/Administrative and Logistical Support (local consultant) The evaluation will be led by the “Team Leader” and supported by subject matter experts (referred to as Evaluation Specialists) from the team leader’s home organization and/or local organizations. The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall implementation of the evaluation and ensuring that all expected tasks and deliverables are achieved on time and of high quality. S/he must have significant professional experience coordinating similarly complex evaluations, and leading evaluation teams. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and must have a master’s level degree with 15 years of technical experience in a relevant analytical field (e.g. REDD+, natural resource management, forestry, and/or climate change mitigation), although doctorate level credentials are preferred. The Team Leader must have a solid understanding of REDD+/Sustainable Landscapes programming. It would be highly desirable for the LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 77 Team Leader candidate to have direct knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, evaluation policy, regulations, and procedures, particularly requirements of Sustainable Landscapes programs. S/he will oversee the overall drafting of the evaluation framework, including methodology determinations; organization of calendar/travel/meetings; overseeing the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyzing the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA to draft the evaluation report. The Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist will support the team leader in the implementation of the evaluation. S/he should have significant professional experience implementing similarly complex evaluations involving multiple stakeholders. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and should have a master’s level degree with 10 years of experience in a relevant analytical evaluation field (e.g. natural resource management, forestry, and/or climate change mitigation). S/he must have a solid understanding of REDD+/Sustainable Landscapes programming. It would be highly desirable to have knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, regulations, and procedures, particularly requirements of Sustainable Landscapes programs. S/he will contribute to the overall drafting of the evaluation framework and participating in the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyzing the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA to draft the evaluation report. The local Evaluation Specialist will provide additional technical support to the evaluation team as well as support administrative and logistical functions necessary to carry out the evaluation. S/he should be a national or local expert from the region, and have strong organizational skills. S/he should have strong English speaking skills and a master’s level degree with 10 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant field (e.g. program management, project evaluation, natural resource management, forestry, and/or climate change mitigation). S/he will be responsible for assisting in coordinating the desk study, interviews, and other data collection, and providing overall administrative and logistical support to the team. If it is difficult to find team members who have both evaluation and technical skills/experience, then the Contractor may field a team composed of an experienced evaluator as team leader with technical experts on the team itself could be considered. The Contractor must field an evaluation team that provides complimentary skills and together possesses the technical, evaluation and managerial skills to submit high quality deliverables that meet the objectives of the task order without requiring significant revisions and substantive/significant input from the TOCOR and additional team members. The Contractor’s consultants will be supervised by the TOCOR based at USAID/RDMA, while working closely with the LEAF program’s Agreement Officer Representative (AOR) to gain in-depth information of the program activities. The TOCOR and/or alternate will provide strategic direction and guidance throughout the evaluation process, including the development of the work plan, any data collection tools, and evaluation report outline, approach, and content. In addition to the independent external consultants, the evaluation team may be complemented by additional team members from USAID and other organizations as follows:  Forestry and Sustainable Landscapes Specialist (USAID Washington and/or USAID/RDMA)  Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist and/or Program Development Specialist (USAID/RDMA)  Forestry and Climate Change Specialist (US Forest Service) These team members will provide complimentary technical assistance in their area of expertise and assist in the overall evaluation implementation, participating in consultations, and in helping draft the report. The exact participants will be confirmed with the evaluation team following award. It is 78 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report expected that these four team members identified above will be able to participate for a period of 2-3 weeks each, and focusing on assisting in conducting consultations and overall programmatic strategic review. V. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT The LEAF program supports activities in primarily six countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea), and the evaluation team is anticipated to visit and conduct consultations in each of these. Other USAID Missions have related programming in Cambodia, Vietnam, and PNG, so these three countries will be important focal countries in order to make sure that LEAF is well coordinated and complementary to these other USAID investments. In addition to visiting national capitals, the evaluation team may visit up to three or four provinces where field activities are being conducted. These will be finalized in consultation with USAID/RDMA, but for initial planning and budgeting purposes include: Lam Dong province, Vietnam; Attapeu province, Lao PDR; Chiang Mai province, Thailand; Madang province; Papua New Guinea, and the State of Sabah, Malaysia. LEAF is not implementing field activities in Cambodia due to the USAID/Cambodia-funded Supporting Forests and Biodiversity Program operating there. The evaluation team will receive support from USAID/RDMA in selecting priority organizations and places to visit during the evaluation, and in gaining country clearance where appropriate. The evaluation team is expected to schedule interviews or other modes of data collection with key stakeholders, though USAID and LEAF can assist in providing contact information. USAID/RDMA can facilitate hosting some consultations at USAID/RDMA offices in Bangkok, but working space or other support cannot be provided to non-US government members of the evaluation team. The evaluation team is also responsible for making their own hotel, air travel, and local transportation arrangements in accordance with U.S. requirements for allowable carriers and per diems. Team members should have the necessary language skills for countries of focus, or engage local language interpreters to support interviews and reviews of local language documents and records, where necessary. All evaluation team members are responsible for their own workspaces, computers, and travel arrangements. LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 79 ANNEX II: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS INTERVIEW INSTRUMENTS47 Questionnaire for key informant interviews: USG and USAID staff Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.2 How is the project learning adaptively, e.g., through assessment of program implementers’ performance? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 47 Building on the observations made in the field – and tests –the LEAF evaluation team adjusted protocols so as not to overburden informants with very long interviews. These tools were used as described in Evaluation Methods on the basis of relevance to informants’ experience and their knowledge of topics. Decisions were made ad hoc individually at the outset of each interview; they allowed for more focused and relevant interviews to be conducted 80 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 2b.3 What expected and unexpected outcomes have occurred at the regional, country, and project levels? 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3a.2 What has been the dynamic of the regional/bilateral relationship relative to achieving shared results? 3a.3 How should the regional program select among its activities to focus and concentrate its efforts to best achieve results, e.g., through opportunities with high potential for impact and/or through changing its balance of “field” and “regional” activities? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.1 How cohesive is LEAF’s current regional approach? 3b.2 What contributions to regional cohesion have occurred? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 81 Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews: LEAF Core Team Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.2 How is the project learning adaptively, e.g., through assessment of program implementers’ performance? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2a.2 What is the current status of “emerging international REDD+ framework” in relation to the achievement of LEAF’s expected goal [of allowing countries to benefit from it]? 2a.3 How is the current status of the REDD+ framework affecting international partners and how is this affecting regional cohesion and, in turn, local partners? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 2b.3 What expected and unexpected outcomes have occurred at the regional, country, and project levels? 3a What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? 82 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3a.2 What has been the dynamic of the regional/bilateral relationship relative to achieving shared results? 3a.3 How should the regional program select among its activities to focus and concentrate its efforts to best achieve results, e.g., through opportunities with high potential for impact and/or through changing its balance of “field” and “regional” activities? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.1 How cohesive is LEAF’s current regional approach? 3b.2 What specific mechanisms and supports have been introduced to build regional alliances, processes and systems? 3b.3 What contributions to regional cohesion have occurred? 3b.4 How is each country policy developed in order to follow up and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program at the national, sub-national, and local levels? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 83 Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews: LEAF Platforms and International Collaborating Partners Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.2 How is the project learning adaptively, e.g., through assessment of program implementers’ performance? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.4 To what extent are new capacities and networks contributing to sustainability, scaling up and replication? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.2 What is the current status of “emerging international REDD+ framework” in relation to the achievement of LEAF’s expected goal [of allowing countries to benefit from it]? 2a.3 How is the current status of the REDD+ framework affecting international partners and how is this affecting regional cohesion and, in turn, local partners? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 3a What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? 84 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3a.2 What has been the dynamic of the regional/bilateral relationship relative to achieving shared results? 3a.3 How should the regional program select among its activities to focus and concentrate its efforts to best achieve results, e.g., through opportunities with high potential for impact and/or through changing its balance of “field” and “regional” activities? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.1 How cohesive is LEAF’s current regional approach? 3b.2 What specific mechanisms and supports have been introduced to build regional alliances, processes and systems? 3b.3 What contributions to regional cohesion have occurred? 3b.4 How is each country policy developed in order to follow up and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program at the national, sub-national, and local levels? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 85 Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews: LEAF University partners Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.2 How is the project learning adaptively, e.g., through assessment of program implementers’ performance? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.4 To what extent are new capacities and networks contributing to sustainability, scaling up and replication? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.3 What contributions to regional cohesion have occurred? 86 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews: Regional Stakeholders Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.4 To what extent are new capacities and networks contributing to sustainability, scaling up and replication? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.3 How is the current status of the REDD+ framework affecting international partners and how is this affecting regional cohesion and, in turn, local partners? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 3a What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3a.2 What has been the dynamic of the regional/bilateral relationship relative to achieving shared results? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.1 How cohesive is LEAF’s current regional approach? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 87 3b.2 What specific mechanisms and supports have been introduced to build regional alliances, processes and systems? 3b.3 What contributions to regional cohesion have occurred? 3b.4 How is each country policy developed in order to follow up and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program at the national, sub-national, and local levels? 88 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews: Host country stakeholders Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Name: Title: Organization: Sex: Male Female Email: Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1.0 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.1 What progress has been made toward achieving LEAF’s objectives and indicator targets and on project activities under each of the four intermediate results? 1.2 How is the project learning adaptively, e.g., through assessment of program implementers’ performance? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.3 How is the current status of the REDD+ framework affecting international partners and how is this affecting regional cohesion and, in turn, local partners? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 3a What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3a.2 What has been the dynamic of the regional/bilateral relationship relative to achieving shared results? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 89 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.4 How is each country policy developed in order to follow up and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program at the national, sub-national, and local levels? 90 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Focus Group Discussions Core Questions: Recipients of Training Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Participants: Name Organization/Affiliation Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Questions 1 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.4 To what extent are new capacities and networks contributing to sustainability, scaling up and replication? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 91 Focus Group Discussions Core Questions: Sub-national stakeholders Mid-term Performance Evaluation Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Program Date: Participants: Name Organization/Affiliation Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Country: Cambodia Laos Vietnam Thailand Malaysia PNG Interview Questions 1 To what extent are the program’s objectives, intermediate results, and performance indicator targets being achieved since its inception to date? 1.3 How has stakeholders’ capacity improved? 1.4 To what extent are new capacities and networks contributing to sustainability, scaling up and replication? 1.5 How well is LEAF contributing to reducing specific gaps affecting gender equality and women’s empowerment? 2a What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder in the achievement of the program’s expected outcomes as detailed in the cooperative agreement? 2a.3 How is the current status of the REDD+ framework affecting international partners and how is this affecting regional cohesion and, in turn, local partners? 2a.4 With which local stakeholders has LEAF engaged and how has LEAF involved them in the identification, design, and implementation of program activities? 2a.5 How well and extensively have innovations been applied by host country stakeholders? 2b What adjustments, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement are needed to ensure progress towards achieving expected results during the duration of the program? 92 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2b.1 What changes in program context have occurred that have required implementation adjustments to ensure program results achievements? 2b.2 How have IPs and local stakeholders made decisions and implemented them to change program elements to respond to changing conditions? 3a What specific opportunities exist to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming)? 3a.1 What other current REDD+-related initiatives and/or other specific opportunities have potential to enhance programmatic effectiveness, impact, and sustainability at the regional level? 3b What specific opportunities exist to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program? 3b.4 How is each country policy developed in order to follow up and strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program at the national, sub-national, and local levels? LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 93 Questionnaire Presented to Participants in the Curriculum Development Workshop48 Note: The information in this questionnaire is considered confidential and will not be attributed to any participant. Most questions will be used for statistical purposes. Identification Given Name: _______________ Name:_______________ Gender: Female Male Age: ___________ Country of residence: Cambodia Lao PDR Malaysia PNG Thailand Vietnam Other: ______________ To what university/institution are you affiliated? ________________________________ What is your present academic level? Bachelor Masters Incomplete PhD Completed PhD Association to LEAF How long have you known about LEAF? Less than 3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months More than one year How did you get involved with LEAF? (More than 1 choice is possible) Contacted by Winrock/LEAF Program Delegated by university/institution authorities Delegated by supervisor Other: ____________________________ 94 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Have you participated in meetings (including teleconference meetings) on LEAF’s curriculum development? Yes No How many meetings (including teleconference meetings) have you participated to? 1-2 3-4 More than 4 Role in Curriculum Development Activity Have you had any direct role in curriculum development in LEAF? Yes No What contribution did you make? (Please indicate more than one if applicable) Information about national context Development of curriculum content Preparation of presentations Identification of global themes Inventory of sources Presentation of techniques Development of networks Case studies development Other :_______________________ Have you elaborated any of the topics in the developed curriculum? Yes No If Yes: Was it reviewed/shared with other module team members? Yes No How relevant do you think curriculum development of LEAF topics is for your own work? Very relevant Relevant Somewhat relevant Not at all How relevant do you think curriculum development of LEAF topics is for your institution? Very relevant Relevant Somewhat relevant Not at all How likely is it that you will use this curriculum at your institution? Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not at all How likely is it that colleagues in your institution will use this curriculum? Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not at all Assessment of Satisfaction To what extent are you satisfied with the LEAF curriculum development process as a whole? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not at all To what extent are you satisfied with the support you received from LEAF in this process? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not at all LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 95 How would you rate the level of participation in this LEAF process? Very participatory Participatory Somewhat participatory Not at all How would you rate LEAF’s contribution to curriculum development in your country or in the country that your program is supporting? 3 2 1 0 Scale 0 low to 3 very high 96 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX III: SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BACKGROUND MATERIAL  Aguirre Division of JBS International. 2013. Mid-Term Evaluation of the Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program (HEEAP). Washington: USAID  An, P. V. 2010. Mechanism for PFES in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam. Dalat: DARD  Aruna Technology. 2012. Phase 1 Report: Forest Stratification and Forest Cover Change Mapping for the Lowering Emission of Asia's Forest (LEAF) Project. Final. Vientiane: LEAF  ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forests and Climate Change. 2009. Terms of Reference. Bangkok: ARKN-FCC  ASFN. 2012. Mitigation and Adaptation: Managing Forest Conflicts in the Context of Climate Change for the ASEAN Region.  Asia Regional Biodiversity Conservation Program, Winrock International, and for International Development. 2011. Payment for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study on Pilot Implementation in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam 2006-2010. Little Rock: Winrock International  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2005. ASEAN Peatland Management Initiative. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2012. Closing Remarks of Director General of Forestry Research And Development Agency The Ministry Of Forestry Of Indonesia As ASOF Leader Of Indonesia in the Closing Ceremony of the 6th ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network On Forestry And Climate Change (ARKN-FCC) Meeting Jakarta, 30 - 31 October 2012. Jakarta: ASEAN  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2012. Report on the 6th Meeting of ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC) Jakarta - Indonesia 30- 31 October 2012. Jakarta: ASEAN  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2012. Submission by Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. To Ad Hoc Working Group On Long Term Cooperative Actions (AWG-LCA)-15 on Agenda Item 3 (b)(iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. Jakarta: ASEAN  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2012. Terms of Reference. The 6th Meeting of ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Jakarta, 30-31 October. Jakarta: ASEAN  Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). 20132. Points of Remarks Opening Session of the 6th Meeting of ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network of Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Jakarta, Indonesia, 30-31 October. Jakarta: ASEAN  Bradley, A., Setyowati, A. B., Gurung, J., Yeang, D., Net, C., Khiev, S., and Brewster, J. 2013. Gender and REDD+: An Assessment in the Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD+ Site, Cambodia. Phnom Penh: PACT  Broadhead, J. 2012. Drivers of Change in Southeast Asian Forestry. Jakarta: ASEAN  Chemonics International Inc. 2013. Asia Regional Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment (FAA 1118/119) for Effective USAID Development Programming. Washington: USAID  Climate Focus. 2013. Terms of Reference. Consultant to Conduct a Study on REDD+ Field Activities in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Climate Focus LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 97  Dalat University and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Institutional Capacity Development Plan for Dalat University, Vietnam. Dalat: LEAF  Dembowski, D. and Walsh, S. 2002. Evaluation of the US-Asia Environmental Partnership. Arlington: Development Associates for USAID  Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. 2012. ASEAN-German Programme on Response to Climate Change: Agriculture, Forestry and Related Sectors (GAP-CC). Jakarta: LEAF  Development & Training Services Inc. and Tetra Tech Inc. 2012. A Data Quality Assessment for Regional Environment Office of the Regional Development Mission for Asia. Washington: USAID  Elwell, N. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 7: Gender Mainstreaming in REDD+ Projects: The Example of LEAF. Washington: USAID  Embassy of the United States of America, Phnom Penh Cambodia. 2011. Action Memo for the Chargé: Approval of the USAID/RDMA's Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Project in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: U.S. Embassy  Flaming, B. 2012. Session 4: What Climate Change Issues are Most Relevant and Important in the Mekong Region in Regards to Forestry and NRM? Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. LEAF Program. Bangkok: LEAF  Food and Agriculture Programme of the United Nations. 2013. Viet Nam secures a further US$30 million to combat climate change - first country globally launch a National UN-REDD Phase II Programme., 1. Rome: FAO.  Forest Protection Department and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Institutional Capacity Development Plan for Forest Protection Department, Lam Dong Province, Vietnam. Dalat: LEAF  Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia. 2013. National Forest Inventory (NFI). Kuala Lumpur: Forestry Department of Malaysia  Forestry Department. 2013. Activity and mechanisms to share the benefits of REDD + and PFES in Lam Dong province (in Vietnamese). Dalat: DARD  Gamoga, G. 2012. Progress on the PNGFA REDD Initiatives in PNG. Bangkok: LEAF  Ganz, D. J. 2012. Overview of LEAF and ARKN-FCC. Jakarta: ASEAN  Ganz, D. J. 2012. The 6th Meeting of Asian Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Overview of LEAF and ARKN-FCC. Bangkok: Winrock International, LEAF; USAID-Asia  Ganz, D. J. 2012. What are the Major Challenges Facing Mekong Universities for Integrating Climate Change? How is the Job Market Changing and How do we Adequately Prepare our Students? Bangkok: LEAF  Giri, K. 2012. De-brief on Lower Mekong Initiative - Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Policy Dialogue. Bangkok: LEAF  Giri, K. 2012. Gender in Forest Tenure: Prerequisite for Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal. Washington: Rights Resources  Giri, K. 2012. Gender Mainstreaming Strategy & Checklist. Bangkok: LEAF  Giri, K., Gurung, J., Setyowati, A. B., and Lebow, E. 2011. Getting REDD+ Right for Women. An Analysis of the Barriers and Opportunities for Women's Participation in the REDD+ Sector in Asia. Washington: USAID  Government of Papua New Guinea. 2010. Interim Action Plan for Climate-Compatible Development: Document for public consultation. Draft—Not for distribution. Moresbi: G. of PNG  Government of Vietnam. 2010. DECREE. On the Policy for Payment for Forest Environmental Services.  Government of Vietnam. Prime Minister. 2008. DECISION. On The Pilot Policy for Payment for Forest Environmental Services. 98 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Government of Vietnam. Prime Minister. 2010. Decision Approving the Scheme on Implementation of the Government's Decree No. 99/2010/ND-CP of September 24, 2010, on the Policy on Payment for Forest Environment Services.  Hour, L. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Key Social and Environmental Soundness Challenges. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 2013. JICA's Support to Forestry & Nature Conservation in Vietnam. Hanoi: JICA  Käkönen, M., Karhunmaa, K., Bruun, O., Kaisti, H., Tuominen, V., Thuon, T., and Luukkanen, J. 2013. Climate Mitigation in the Least Carbon Emitting Countries. Dilemmas of Co-benefits in Cambodia and Laos. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre  King, J. A., Lyons-Moris, L., and Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. 1987. How to Assess Program Implementation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.  LAO PDR. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Department of Forestry. 2013. Socio-Economic Baseline Survey. LAO PDR. Vientiane: USAID and LEAF  Leggett, M. 2011. The Status of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea. USAID Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Program. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF; Winrock International  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) and ASFN. 2011. Policy and Governance in ASEAN Region; Relationship between Forestry and Climate Change. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Baseline Survey Questionnaire for Institutional Capacity Building. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Participant Sign-In Sheet. Template. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. LEAF Household Survey. Questionnaire. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Meeting/Workshop Description Template. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Policy Group: "What are the Challenges and Opportunities in Linking National/Provincial/District/LG through a REDD+ Program?". Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Snapshot on Government Position of REDD+: OCCD. TNC/LEAF Consultation Workshop Meeting. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Training/Workshop Questionnaire Template. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Biomass Assessment. LEAF Training Report. Vientiane: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Follow up on Action Model, Methodologies, Tools. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building for REDD LEAF program. Methodology Concept Note (Draft). Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. International Experience with REDD+ and National Forest Funds. Viet Nam. Bangkok: USAID Asia and LEA  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF M&E Plan - version 2.1 Updated 4-Jun￾2013. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Monitoring and Evaluation Tool/Templates List. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Training Summary Report. Template. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Training Checklist. Bangkok: LEAF LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 99  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest - LEAF. Hanoi: LEAF-Vietnam  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Memorandum of Understanding. Template. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Practical Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Terms of Reference. Farmer to Farmer Volunteer - Gender and Natural Resource Management Specialist. Phnom Penh: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. The REDD Desk Strengthening Plan. Bangkok: LEAF  Luong, P. H. 2013. Overview on Vietnam Forest Protection & Development Fund (VNFF). Bonn: MARD  Macmillan, D.C. 2013. Development of Financing and Incentive Options for Sustainable Management of Peatland Forests in Southeast Asia. ASEAN Peatlands Forest Project and Sustainable Management of Peatland Forests Project. ASEAN Secretariat and Global Environment Center.  Madang Provincial Government. 2013. Memorandum of Understanding between Madang Provincial Government (MPG) and Civil Society Organisation Forum (CSO) Forum of Madang and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Madang: Madang Provincial Government  Management Systems International. 2011. Final Program Evaluation: Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program. Final Report Part 1. Washington: USAID  Masripatin, N. 20132. Activities to Date. Jakarta: ASEAN  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). 2011. CIRCULAR. Methods guiding identification of payment for forest environmental services (PFES).  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development aMoF. 2012. JOINT CIRCULAR. Instructions on the mechanism of managing and using the payment for forest environment services.  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2012. CIRCULAR. Guiding the PFES validation procedures.  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Vietnam Administration of Forestry. 2013. Raising Capital and Revenues for Forest Funds Through Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES). (A Case Study On VNFF In Vietnam). Bonn: MARD  Natural Capital Advisors. 2011. The Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT) Alliance. Final Evaluation. Washington: USAID  Ngu, L. V. 2010. Monitoring Quality of Forest Environmental Services in Da Nhim Watershed, Lam Dong Province. Dalat: DARD  Ogonowski, M. 2013. US Global Climate Change Programs: Advancing Low Emission Development. Washington: Climate Leadership Conference  O'Rourke, M. and Arsenault, B. 2013. Cambodia coordination worksheet: RDMA activities. Phnom Penh: U.S. Embassy  Payuan, E. 2013. Experiences on Forest Development Funds in Other Countries. Phnom Penh: RECOFTC  Petrova, S. and Goslee, K. 2013. LEAF Reference Level Training Report. Vietnam and Laos. Bangkok: Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF)  Philip, E. 2013. National REDD+ Implementation: MRV. Bangkok: REDD+  Prayurasiddhi, T., Pichaisiri, A., and Chaiwatana, S. 2013. Wildlife Conservation in Thailand. Bangkok: Department of National Parks  Prime Minister. 2008. DECISION. On The Pilot Policy for Payment for Forest Environmental Services.  Rizvi, A. R. 2009. MFF Strategic Framework for Gender Equality Integration. Bangkok: Mangroves for the Future 100 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Royal University of Phnom Penh. 2013. Royal University of Phnom Penh. Masters Programme in Biodiversity Conservation. Global Climate Change. 213 Course Syllabus. Phnom Penh: RUPP  Russell, D. 2012. Integrated Landscape Scale Conservation. The Four-S Approach. Washington: Draft  Russell, D. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 3: Principles of Social and Environmental Soundness from Natural Management (NRM) for REDD+. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  Russell, D. and Elwell, N. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 6: REDD+ Stakeholder Engagement. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  Russell, D. and Notman, E. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 10: Social and Environmental Assessments, Indicators, Information, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification. Washington: USAID  Saah, D., Barber, J., Ngoc, T. L., Stephen, P., Phuong, C. P., Thant, N. P., Lam, H. B. N., and Cao, T. A. 2013. Land Use Planning and Climate Change. Case Study: How Can Land Use Planning in Lam Dong Province Account for Climate Change Mitigation Opportunities? Draft Copy. Dalat: DARD and Dalat U.  Scheyvens, H. 2013. Policy Brief: CB Forest Monitoring for REDD+: Lessons and Reflections from the field. Kamiyamaguchi: IGES  Scheyvens, H., Poruschi, L., Bun, Y. A., Fujisaki, T., and Avtar, R. 2013. FPCD-IGES Community￾based Forest Monitoring Project April 2013 Report. Kamiyamaguchi and Port Moresby: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and Foundation for People and Community Development (FPCD)  Social Impact and Management Systems International. 2013. Mid-Term Evaluation of Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Program. Work Plan. Arlington: Social Impact  Social Impact and Management Systems International. 2013. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Asia's Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking. Inception Report. Washington: USAID  Social Impact and Management Systems International. 2013. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Asia's Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking. In-Brief. Washington: USAID  Strack, C. 2012. The 6th Meeting of Asian Regional Knowledge Network on Forest and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC). Update on REDD+ UNFCCC Negotiations. Bangkok: Winrock International, LEAF; USAID-Asia  Streck, C. 2012. Update on REDD+ UNFCCC Negotiations. Jakarta: ASEAN  Swan, S. 2013. LEAF Input into the Draft Roadmap for Environmental and Social Safeguards for Vietnam's National REDD+ Action Programme. Review from Gender Perspective. Hanoi: LEAF  Swan, S. and McNally, R. 2011. High-Biodiversity REDD+: Operationalising Safeguards and Delivering Environmental Co-benefits. Hanoi: SNV  Tetra Tech Inc. 2013. Seeing the Forest for the Trees. An Evaluation of USAID/Indonesia's Forest Resource Sustainability Program (Forest). Final Report. Washington: USAID  Thanh, T. K. 2010. Impacts of PES/380 on Socio-Economic Da Nhim Watershed, Lam Dong Province. Dalat: DARD  Thanh, T. K. 2012. Socio-Economic Survey for Assessing the VN Government Pilot Policy on Payment for Environmental Services for Lam Dong Province. Ho Chi Minh City: Winrock  The Center for People and Forests. 2012. Forests and Climate Change after Durban. An Asia-Pacific Perspective. Bangkok: RECOFTC  The REDD Desk. A Database of REDD Activities on the Ground. REDD Countries: Cambodia. Consultable: http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/cambodia  The REDD Desk. A Database of REDD Activities on the Ground. REDD Countries: Laos. Consultable: http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/laos LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 101  The REDD Desk. A Database of REDD Activities on the Ground. REDD Countries: Malaysia. Consultable: http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/malaysia  The REDD Desk. A Database of REDD Activities on the Ground. REDD Countries: Papua New Guinea. Consultable: http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/papua_new_guinea  The REDD Desk. A Database of REDD Activities on the Ground. REDD Countries: Vietnam. Consultable: http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/vietnam  Thi Bich Thuy, N., Chi Thanh, N., Phuong Thao, N., Thanh Nam, P., Bonnardeaux, D., and Riedle, D. C. 2011. Payment for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study on Pilot Implementation in Lang Dong Province, Vietnam 2006-2010. Little Rock: Winrock International  Thong, N. T. and Enright, A. 2012. Socio-economic Baseline and Analysis of Drivers of Deforestation. Cat Tien Landscape, Lam Dog Province, Vietnam. Hanoi: SNV  Thuy, P. T., Bennett, K., Phuong, V. T., Brunner, J., Dung, L. N., and Tien, N. D. 2013. Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From Policies to Practice. Hanoi: USAID  Tulyasuwan, N. 2012. Land Tenure and PES in Northern Thailand. A Case Study of Maesa-Kogma Man and Biosphere Reserve. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Cambodia. Arlington: Winrock International  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Lao PDR. Arlington: Winrock International  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Papua New Guinea. Arlington: Winrock International  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Thailand. Arlington: Winrock International  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Vietnam. Arlington: Winrock International  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. LEAF-TNC Collaboration. Some Early Ideas. Bangkok: USAID-Asia: LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. LEAF Work in PNG. Proposed Collaboration with TNC & Adelbert Communities. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Introducing the LEAF Program. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Southeast Asia Regional Training Workshop. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programs and Projects. Bangkok, November 5-9, 2012. Workshop Summary Report. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Policy Brief: Filed-Based PES Activities in the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Man and Biosphere Reserve. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Brief - Cambodia. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Brief - Lao PDR. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF 102 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Brief - Malaysia. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Brief - Papua New Guinea. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: Pilot PES in Mae Sa-Kog Ma Man and Biosphere Reserve. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Support - Thailand. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Policy Brief: REDD+ Policy Brief - Vietnam. Bangkok: USAID and LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. National Forest Inventory Training. 20-23 May 2013, Sandakan Sabah. Sampling for Carbon, Soil, Deadwood and Litter. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Road to REEDiness - Making RELs Work. Workshop Proceedings. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. CSOs/Local Community/Women/Ethnic Group Review of Draft Thailand Readiness-Preparation Proposal (R-PP). Workshop Report. 7-8 March 2013. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  U.S. Agency for International Development and Regional Development Mission for Asia. 2010. Request for Applications: Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA  U.S. Agency for International Development and Regional Development Mission for Asia. 2010. Request for Applications: Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program. Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA  U.S. Agency for International Development, Winrock International, and Asia Regional Biodiversity Conservation Program. 2013. Payment for Environmental Services and the Lam Dong Province, Vietnam Experience. Hanoi: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2010. Asia Regional REDD Program Planning. Assessment Report. Bangkok: USAID Asia  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2010. Strategic Choices for United States Fast Start Financing for REDD+. Executive Summary. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2011. Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD). Statement of Work. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Mangrove Rehabilitation for Sustainably-Managed, Healthy Forests (MARSH). Request for Applications #RFA-492-12-000027. Manila: USAID Philippines  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Supporting Forests and Biodiversity (SFB) Project. USAID-Cambodia-442-12-00001-RFA. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. USAID Climate Change & Development Strategy. Climate Change Development. Clean Resilient Growth. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Vietnam Forest and Deltas (VFD) Program. USAID-Vietnam 440-12-023-RFA. Hanoi: USAID Vietnam  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. Fisheries, Aquatic Productivity and Food Security. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. LMI: Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. USAID Biodiversity Policy. Advance Biodiversity Conservation as an Essential Component of Human Development. Draft. Washington: USAID LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 103  U.S. Department of State, for International Development, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture (including U.S. Forest Service), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and U.S. Department of the Interior (including U.S. Geological Survey). 2010. U.S. REDD+ Programs. Addressing Climate Change by Conserving and Restoring the World's Forests. Washington: U.S. Government  United Nations. 2011. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Sixteenth Session. Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties. New York: United Nations  UN-REDD Programme. 2012. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: Women in REDD+. Geneva: UN-REDD  UN-REDD. 2011. The Business Case for Mainstreaming Gender in REDD+. Rome: FAO  Vurong, K. H. 2010. Experience of Da Nhim Commune, the First Commune Implementing "Payment for Forest Environmental Services" in Lam Dong. Dalat: DARD  Wilkinson, G. and Putz, F. E. 2012. Report on the Asia-Pacific Workshop. Reduced-Impact Logging: Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies in the Emerging Forest Carbon Economy. Bangkok: USAID-Asia; LEAF  Williams, P. J. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 9: Safeguards, Standards and Safeguard Information Systems. Bangkok: USAID; LEAF  Williams, P. J. 2012. Social and Environmental Soundness in REDD+ Programming and Implementation. Training Workshop, 5-9 November 2012. Session 11: Land and Resource Tenure and Carbon Rights. Washington: USAID  Winrock International. 2011. Evaluation of Existing Regional Platforms. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA  Winrock International. 2011. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Performance Management Plan (PMP). Version 1. Washington: USAID  Winrock International. 2011. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Program. Program Description. Washington: USAID  Winrock International. 2011. Memorandum of Understanding between Forest Carbon Asia and The Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest (LEAF) Program, Winrock International. Bangkok: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2011. Pilot Site Selection in Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. Bangkok: USAID￾RDMA  Winrock International. 2011. Rapid Assessment of the Political, Legal and Institutional Setting. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA  Winrock International. 2012. Memorandum of Understanding between The Nature Conservancy Field Office Papua New Guinea and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest (LEAF) Program, Winrock International. Bangkok: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2012. Memorandum of Understanding between IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and The Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest (LEAF) Program, Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. Bangkok: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2012. Memorandum of Understanding between The Global Canopy Foundation and the REDD Desk and The Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forest (LEAF) Program, Winrock International. Bangkok: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2012. South and Southeast Asia REDD+ Atlas. Version 1.0. Arlington: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2013. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Performance Management Plan (PMP). Version 2. Washington: USAID 104 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) and United States Forest Service. 2011. Getting REDD+ Right for Women. An Analysis of the Barriers and Opportunities for Women's Participation in the REDD+ Sector in Asia. Washington: USAID  World Bank. 2012. 4o Turn Down the Heat. Why a 4o C Warmer World Must Be Avoided. Washington: World Bank  Yeang, D. and Brewster, J. 2012. REDD+ Demonstration Activities in Cambodia: The Case of the Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD+ Project. Phnom Penh: PACT  Zurek, M., Pritchard, L., and Broadhead, J. 2013. ARKN-FCC Decision Support Tool. Identifying and Addressing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Bangkok: LEAF  Zurek, M., Pritchard, L., Broadhead, J., and Galt, H. 2013. Identifying and Addressing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the ASEAN+PG Region. Background Paper. Draft. Bangkok: LEAF MANUALS AND TOOLS  Bamberger, M. 2013. The Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluation. Arlington: Social Impact  Broadhead, J., O'Sullivan, R., Pritchard, L., Costenbader, J., and Conway, D. 2013. Decision Support Tool. Integrated REDD+ Accounting Frameworks: Nested National Approaches. Arlington: Winrock International; SNV  Harris, N. L. and Casarim, F. M. 2010. User Manual for the USAID Forest Carbon Calculator. Draft. Washington: Winrock/USAID  Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). 2013. Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for Low Carbon Development: Learning from Experience in Asia. Kanagawa: IGES  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Measuring the Economic Benefits from LEAF's Pilot Site Work. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Road to REDDiness Second Annual Regional Workshop. Tools for Reference Level Development and Design of REDD+ Strategies. Bangkok: LEAF and USAID  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Communication Scheme: LEAF Climate Change Curriculum Development. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Curricula Syllabus: Carbon Measurement and Monitoring (CMM). Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Curricula Syllabus: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES). Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Curricula Syllabus: Basic Climate Change (BCC). Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Curricula Syllabus: Land Use Planning and Climate Change (LUPCC). Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Climate Change Curriculum Development Training Workshop. Bangkok, 5-16 August 2013. Agenda. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Milestone and Data Tracking Sheet. Version 2.1, Updated 4-Jun-2013. Country: Vietnam. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. LEAF Milestone and Data Tracking Sheet. Version 2.1, Updated 4-Jun-2013. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Learner-Centered Teaching Methods: TOT Training Modules. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Learner-Centered Teaching Methods: TOT Modules. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Process: LEAF Climate Change Curriculum LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 105 Development. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Stages: LEAF Climate Change Curriculum Development. Bangkok: LEAF  Office of Assistance Resources. 2013. Guidance for FY 2013 Operational Plans. Annex 11: Supplementary Guidance for Global Climate Change. Washington: USAID; Department of State  Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources. 2012. Guidance for FY 2012 Operational Plans. Annexes and Key Issues Definition. Washington: USAID; Department of State  Social Impact. 2012. The Social Impact Code of Ethical Conduct for Evaluators. Arlington: Social Impact  Social Impact. 2013. Evaluation Task Orders Quality Assurance Procedures. Arlington: Social Impact  Social Impact. 2013. Tips for Developing and Writing Recommendations. Arlington: Social Impact  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Assessing Draft Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development and World Bank. 2011. PRA Techniques. Washington: USAID and World Bank  U.S. Agency for International Development. 1996. Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips. Using Direct Observation Techniques. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 1996. Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips. Conducting Key Informant Interviews. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 1996. Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips. Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2010. Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips. Constructing an Evaluation Report. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2011. USAID Evaluation Policy. Evaluation Learning from Experience. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Defining Evaluation Questions. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Defining "Quality Evaluation". Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Engendering Evaluations. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Reducing Threats to Validity for Qualitative Methods. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Checklist for Use of Qualitative Methods and Approaches. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Elements of an Integrated Mixed Methods Approach. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Evaluation Matrix. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. How-to Note. Preparing Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. PM's Checklist for Assessing Final Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. STA's Checklist for Assessing Final Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Summary Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. Contract SOW. Washington: USAID 106 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. Graphic Standard Manual. Washington: USAID  U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. USAID Sample Evaluation Report Template. Washington: USAID  Walker, S. M., Pearson, T. R. H., Casarim, F., Harris, N., Petrova, S., Grais, A., Swails, E., Goslee, K., and Brown, S. 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Terrestrial Carbon Measurement. Arlington: Winrock International; SNV  Walker, S. M., Swails, E., Petrova, S., Goslee, K., Grais, A., Casarim, F., and Brown, S. 2013. Technical Guidance on Development of a REDD+ Reference Level. May 2013 Version. Arlington: Winrock International; SNV  Winrock International and American Carbon Registry. 2012. American Carbon Registry Nested REDD+ Standard. Requirement for Registration of REDD+ Projects Nested within a Jurisdictional Accounting Framework.  Winrock International. 2012. Winrock International's Destructive Harvest Data Entry Tool - Version 2012. Arlington: Winrock International  Winrock International. 2012. Winrock International's Tool for Estimating Carbon Emissions Factors from Selective Logging - Version 2012. Arlington: Winrock; SNV  Winrock International. 2013. Winrock International's Manual Stock Calculation Tool - Version 2013. Arlington: Winrock International PERIODIC REPORTS 1. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) and U.S. Agency for International Development. 2013. LEAF Field Activities. Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. Bangkok: LEAF 2. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. First Quarterly Report. January to March 30, 2011. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 3. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2011. Second Quarterly Report. April 1 to June 30, 2011. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 4. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Fifth Quarterly Report. January - March 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 5. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Fourth Quarterly Report. October 1 to December 31, 2011. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 6. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. Sixth Quarterly Report. April - June 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 7. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Quarterly Report. Eighth Quarter - October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 8. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Quarterly Report. Ninth Quarter - January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2013. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 9. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Quarterly Report. Tenth Quarter - April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 10. Winrock International. 2011. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Workplan, FY 2011. January 2011 to September 2011. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 11. Winrock International. 2011. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Report Fiscal Year 2011. January 2011 - September 30, 20112. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 12. Winrock International. 2012. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Workplan, FY 2012. October 2011 to September 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 13. Winrock International. 2012. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012. October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA 14. Winrock International. 2013. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). Annual Workplan, FY 2013. October 2012 to September 2013. Bangkok: USAID-RDMA LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 107 TRIP REPORTS  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Asia Regional Sustainable Landscapes Program (ARSLP): Hanoi, Vietnam and Vientiane, Lao PDR. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Siem Reap and Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2011. Trip Report. Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT) and Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Beijing, China. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2012. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Chiang Mai and Lampang, Thailand. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2012. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2012. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Kota  Flaming, B. 2012. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Vientiane, Lao PDR. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2012. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Vientiane, Lao PDR. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Port Moresby, PNG. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Vientiane, Lao PDR. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Hanoi, Vietnam. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Flaming, B. 2013. USAID/RDMA Trip Report. Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF): Hanoi, Vietnam. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Kinabalu, Malaysia. Bangkok: USAID-Asia  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2012. PES Study Tour to Lam Dong, Vietnam. Trip Report Data: 6-10 February 2012. Bangkok: LEAF  Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF). 2013. Awareness Raising On Climate Change And Forest. 1 – 6 June 2013. Khoumban Sompoy and Nonghin. Vientiane: LEAF  Phommalath, A. 2013. LEAF Trip Report: Sanamxay District, Attapeu Province. Vientiane: LEAF 108 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report B. ALL INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender CAMBODIA Mr. Kimhy Lun Programme Coordinator Cambodia United Nations (UN) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) National Programme Male Mr. Bunra Seng Country Director Conservation International Male Mr. Limchhun Hour Country Coordinator Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. Kurt MacLeod Vice-President, Asia Eurasia PACT Male Ms. Sarah Sitts Country Manager, Cambodia PACT Female Mr. Edwyn V. Payuan Country Program Coordinator Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) Male Ms. Kalyan Ly Deputy head of Center for Agricultural and Environmental Studies Royal University of Agriculture (RUA), Cambodia Female Mr. Kim Soben Head of Centre for Agricultural and Environmental Studies and Lecturer Graduate School Royal University of Agriculture (RUA), Cambodia Male Mr. Sokha Kheam Biology Lecturer Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) Male Mr. Bunleng Se Lecturer, Dept. of Geography and Land Management, Faculty of Social Science & Humanities Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) Male Mr. Pheng Sokline Lecturer, Dept. of Environment, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) Male Mr. Brad Arsenault Environment Officer USAID/Cambodia Male Mr. Menglim Kim Project Management Specialist, Office of Food Security & Environment (FSE) USAID/Cambodia Male Ms. Megan O'Rourke Scientific Advisor USAID/Cambodia Female Mr. Tom Clements Director Wildlife Conservation Society Male Mr. Dennis J. Cengel Chief of Party Winrock International Male Ms. Michelle Owen Acting Country Director World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Female LAO PDR Mr. Thongbai Villager Ban Tangao Male Mr. Bounpanh Head of Village Ban Tangao Male LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 109 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Georg Buchholz Program Director, Sustainable Climate Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GmbH (German: German Society for International Cooperation, Ltd.) (GIZ) Male Mr. Khamia Phanvilay Director Faculty of Forestry, National University of Laos, Research Center for Natural Resource and Climate Change Male Dr. Sithong Thongmanivong Associate Professor Faculty of Forestry. National University of Laos. Research Center for Natural Resource and Climate Change Male Ms. Unna Chokkalingam Founder and Executive Director Forest Carbon Asia Female Mr. Veth Southivong Forestry and Biodiversity Specialist GITEC Male Mr. Bounhkong Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Cheng Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Ms. Damdee Villager Hat Vudomxay Female Ms. Douangma Villager Hat Vudomxay Female Ms. Kutsa Villager Hat Vudomxay Female Mr. Pan Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Phena Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Shose Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Thamom Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Vai Villager Hat Vudomxay Male Mr. Takayuki Namura Advisor, Forest Sector Capacity Development Project Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Male Mr. Hideaki Takai Chief Adviser, Forest Sector Capacity Development Project Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Male Ms. Samati Pagna Viliphon Representative Lao Women Union in Attapeu Female Mr. Sommeuk Keokhanbai Deputy Director General, District Agriculture and Forestry Offices (DAFO) Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Male Mr. Sinsamouth Phutavong Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Male Mr. Air Sacksy Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Male Mr. Phonvima Sayyaboud District Agriculture and Forestry Offices (DAFO) Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Male Mr. Sisomephon Nonthivong DONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Forest Resources Management Male Mr. Bouaphanh Deputy Director General Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Male 110 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Phanthavong Forest Resources Management Mr. Hatsadong Phommavong DONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Department of Forest Resources Management Male Mr. Saly Singsananh Deputy of Planning and Cooperation Division Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Department of Forest Resources Management Male Mr. Christof Hahn Senior Advisor REDD and Project Manager Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Mr. SengKham Inthiratvongsy Forest and Climate Change Advisor LEAF Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Mr. Athsaphanthong Munelith Senior Advisor & Program Manager LEAF Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Mr. Xaydara Viengxay SNV LEAF Coordinator Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Ms. Kinalone Phommesack Technical Officer & Deputy Head of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Office Planning Division, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Female Mr. Vongxay Manivong Deputy Head Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO), Laos Male Mr. Saiyalad Sumphonphakde Head of PONRE Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment (PONRE) Male Mr. Kahnia Villager Sompoy Male Ms. Katsa Villager Sompoy Female Mr. Thongsay Villager Sompoy Male Mr. Tom D'Agnes USAID US Embassy Male Mr. Mathew H. Kustel Political-Economic Officer US Embassy Male Mr. Colin Moore Regional Advisor on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) and Climate Change Wildlife Conservation Society Male Mr. Philavong Viangxay Head of Forest Checkpoint Team Xebien Male MALAYSIA Mr. Gary William Theseira Head of Timbalan Setiausaha Bahagian Bahagian Pengurusan Alam Sekitar & Perubahan Iklim, Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar (NRE) Male Mr. Paridah MD Tahir Director Department of Forest Production Faculty of Forestry University Male LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 111 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Putra Malaysia (UPM) Ms. Christine Fletcher Research Officer, Natural Forest Programme, Forestry & Environment Division Forest and Environment Division, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) Female Mr. Samsudin Musa Head, Climate Change Programme Forest and Environment Division, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) Male Mr. Ismail Hj. Parlan Senior Research Officer Natural Forest Programme Forestry & Environment Division Forest and Environment Division, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) Male Mr. Faizal Parish Director Global Environment Centre Male Mr. Fuad bin Shariff Coordinator Forest and Peatland Programme Global Environment Centre Male Ms. Elizabeth Philip Head of REDD+ and Unit Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) Female Ms. Engku Nor Azura Aini Engku Mustaffa Assistant Secretary, REDD+ and Unit Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), Environmental Management and Climate Change Division Female Mr. Abdul Rahim Bin Nik Deputy Secretary General II Office of Deputy Secretary General II, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Male Ms. Chan Hoy Yen Research Fellow Solar Energy Research Institute (University Kebangsaan Malaysia) Female Mr. Ahmad Makmom Hj Abdullah Deputy Dean (Academic and Student Affairs) University Putra Malaysia (UPM) Male Mr. Ahmad Ainuddin Nuruddin Deputy Director University Putra Malaysia (UPM) Male Mr. Mohd Rusli Yacab Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies University Putra Malaysia (UPM) Male Mr. Mohd Zaki Hamzah Deputy Dean (Student Affairs and Development), Faculty of Forestry University Putra Malaysia (UPM) Male Mr. Ahmad Ainuddin Nuruddin Lecturer, Faculty of Forestry University Putra Malaysia (UPM) Male Mr. Brock D. Fox Economic Officer Environment, Science, Technology & Health US Embassy Male Ms. Mawaddah Azizan LEAF Country Manager Winrock Female Ms. Ivy Wong Heart of Borneo National Coordinator World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Female PAPUA NEW GUINEA Mr. Moses Oram Former Local Level Government (LLG) President Almami Local Level Government (LLG), Bogia District, Madang Male Mr. George Clan Leader Almami Local Level Government (LLG), Bogta District, Madang Male Mr. Andrew Mapio Technical committee member and NGO sector representative to the provincial assembly Civil Society Forum Male 112 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Peter Moika Chairman Civil Society Forum Male Ms. Elizabeth Avaisa Project Officer Consultative Implementation & Monitoring Council (CIMC) Female Mr. Yati A. Bun Executive Director Foundation for People and Community Development Male Mr. Stephen Gewe Chairman Gatik Community Based Organization (CBO) Male Mr. Paul Barker Executive Director Institute of National Affairs Male Ms. Rufina Peter Senior Research Officer Institute of National Affairs Male Mr. Michael Avosa Country Manager Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. Roy Banka REDD and Coordinator Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. Jack Masu Provincial Forestry Officer Madang Provincial Government Male Mr. Gae Gowae Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) Mangrove Rehabilitation for Sustainability-Managed Healthy Forests (MARSH) Male Mr. Omega Nelson Policy Analyst , Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) and National Communication Office of Climate Change Development (OCCD) Male Ms. Rensie Panda Policy Analyst , Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Office of Climate Change Development (OCCD) Female Mr. Joe Pokana Senior Policy Analyst , Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Office of Climate Change Development (OCCD) Male Ms. Gwen Sissiou Director Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) and Mitigation Office of Climate Change Development (OCCD) Female Mr. Goodwill Amos Manager, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Papua New Guinea Forest Authority Male Mr. Constin Otto Bigol Manager Inventory and Mapping Papua New Guinea Forest Authority Male Mr. Dambis Kaip Manager - Policy & Aid Coordination Branch Papua New Guinea Forest Authority Male Mr. Simon Saulei Director Papua New Guinea Forest Authority Male Ms. Evangelyn Kove Staff Partners with Melanesia Female Ms. Patrick Vuet Staff Partners with Melanesia Female Mr. Andrew Ingles Chief Technical Advisor, Asia Pacific Forest Program The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Male Mr. Francis Hurahura Director, PNG Forest Program The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Male Mr. Clement Kipa Field Coordinator The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Male Ms. Hazel Duduwega Advocacy & Communication Officer Transparency International, PNG Female LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 113 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Amanda Malagui Program Manager Forest Anti-Corruption Transparency International, PNG Female Ms. Lois Nakmai Program Manager Transparency International, PNG Female Dr. Chalapan Kaluwin Professor, Environmental Science & Geography, School of Natural & Physical Science University of Papua New Guinea Male Mr. Lawong Balun Senior Lecturer University of Technology Male Mr. Lee Calkins Consular Chief US Embassy Male Mr. Jeff Capel Regional Security Officer US Embassy Male Mr. Walter North Ambassador US Embassy Male Ms. Julie Hulama Development Assistant Specialist USAID Pacific Islands Female Mr. Dennis Wendel Regional Director USAID Pacific Islands Male THAILAND Mr. Sumit Pokhrel Senior Climate Change Specialist Asian Development Bank Male Mr. Sanath Ranawana Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist Asian Development Bank Male Mr. Surasak Inthornsri Ban Mae Mhae Village Headman Ban Mae Mhae Male Mr. Thae Tippinthong Village Leader Ban Pha Nok Kok Male Mr. Attachai Jintrawet Multiple Cropping Centre, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University Thailand Chiang Mai University Male Mr. Chalermpol Samranpong Lecturer & Researcher, Center for Agricultural Resource System Research (CARSR), Faculty of Agriculture Chiang Mai University Male Dr. Prasit Wangpakapattanawong Professor Chiang Mai University, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science Male Mr. Chaowit Chomketkaew Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chief of Restoration and Development of Protected Area Department of National Parks (DNP), Chiang Mai Male Mr. Prasert Sornsathapornkul Director of the International Cooperation Division Department of National Parks (DNP), Wildlife and Plant Conservation Male Mr. Panya Suksomkij International Cooperation Division Department of National Parks (DNP), Wildlife and Plant Conservation Male Ms. Sutthiluck Sutthiwas Sub-district Administration Officer (SAO) Don Kaew Local Government Female 114 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Stephen Elliott Senior Ecologist Forest Restoration Research Unit, Chiang Mai University Male Mr. Chutchai Rungaroon Monitoring & Evaluation Officer Holistic Approach of Public Partnership for Environment (HAPPEN), Chiang Mai Male Mr. Niyom Sattanako Assistant Manager Holistic Approach of Public Partnership for Environment (HAPPEN), Chiang Mai Male Mr. Jirapat Tathinjan Project Manager Holistic Approach of Public Partnership for Environment (HAPPEN), Chiang Mai Male Ms. Tiplada Tongtapao Forestry Technical Officer, Practitioner Level, Planning and Information Office International Cooperation Division, Department of National Parks (DNP) Female Mr. Sapit Diloksumpun Asst. Prof., Faculty of Forestry Kasetsart University (KU) Male Mr. Vipak Jintana Faculty of Forestry Kasetsart University (KU) Male Mr. Surin Onprom Lecturer, Social Forestry, Faculty of Forestry Kasetsart University (KU) Male Mr. Brian Bean Deputy Chief of Party Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. Jeremy Broadhead Senior Forestry and Land Use Policy Advisor Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. David Ganz Chief of Party Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Ms. Kalpana Giri Gender and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Expert Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Female Ms. Chutamas Phanyapornsuk Logistics and Operations Specialist Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Female Mr. Luke Pritchard Forestry and Land Use Policy Advisor Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) Male Ms. Nicole Kravec Communication Specialist Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Female Ms. Phuong Chi Pham Adult Learning and Capacity Building Specialist Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Female Mr. Peter Stephen Forest Management and Climate Change Advisor Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests (LEAF) Male Mr. Steen Christensen Coordinator Mangroves for the Future Male Ms. Janalezza Esteban Thuaud Regional Knowledge Management Officer Mangroves for the Future Female Mr. Prajuk Phusiripattananon Deputy Chief of Pon Yaeng Sub-district Administration Office (SAO) Pon Yaeng Local Government Male Mr. Niwet Leamphan Chief of Huay Palao Watershed Management Unit Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chiang Mai Male Ms. Wimolmart Nuipakdee Chief of Mae Sa Watershed Management Unit Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chiang Mai Female Mr. Aumpom Panmankhol Chief of Doi-Suthep Pui National Park Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chiang Mai Male LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 115 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Issaret Sithirojanakul Chief of the Fire Protection and Control Station Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chiang Mai Male Mr. Natdhachai Hongsonrak Technical Forestry Officer Protected Area Regional Office (PARO) 16, Chiang Mai Male Mr. Sawat Juntaboon Ban Mae Mhae villager and Queen Sirikit Botanical Garden Senior Field Officer Queen Sirikit Botanical Garden Male Mr. Chandra Shekhar Silori Project Coordinator Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) Male Ms. Somying Soontornwong Manager, Thailand Collaborative Country Support Program Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) Female Ms. Komchai Thaiying LEAF RECOFTC Coordinator Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) Female Mr. Rawee 'Max'Thaworn Thailand Country Program Officer Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) Male Ms. Marija Spirovska Kono Coordinator, Southeast Asia Program Silva Carbon Female Mr. Taksin Artchawakom Director, Sakaerat Environmental Research Station Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research Male Mr. Ben Vickers Regional Programme Officer United Nations (UN) - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Male Mr. Thomas Enters Regional Coordinator United Nations (UN) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Male Ms. Celina (Kin Yii) Yong Stakeholder Engagement Specialist United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Female Mr. Akihito Kono Regional Technical Advisor United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), and Ecosystems & Natural Resources Male Mr. Geoffrey Blate Asia Regional Forest Advisor United States Forest Service (USFS) International Programs Male Mr. Orestes R. Anastasia Senior Regional Climate Change Advisor USAID RDMA Male Ms. Patty Alleman Gender Advisor USAID RDMA Female Mr. Barry Flaming Regional Biodiversity Conservation Advisor USAID RDMA Male Ms. Josephine Francesco Program/Project Development Officer USAID RDMA Female Mr. Alfred Nakatsuma Director, Regional Environment Office USAID RDMA Male Mr. Bradford Philips Regional CC Adaptation Advisor USAID RDMA Male Ms. Suphasuk Pradubsuk Program Development Specialist USAID RDMA Female Ms. Nitasmai Ranseave Development Assistance Specialist USAID RDMA Female Ms. Supattira Strategic Information Specialist USAID RDMA Female 116 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Rodboontham Mr. Michael Yates Mission Director USAID RDMA Male Mr. Kittithai Staff Water & Life Quality Foundation Male Mr. Saengsilp Staff Water & Life Quality Foundation Male Mr. Chanin "Tom" Chiumkanokchai M&E Specialist Winrock Male Ms. Niramon Passananont Office Manager Winrock Female Ms. Saruta Pattanakantong LEAF/DNP Liaison Winrock Female Ms. Rattiya "Elle" Songkhramwongsakul Training Coordinator Winrock Female Mr. Somsak Soonthornnawaphat Thailand Project Manager Winrock Male Ms. Prasnee 'Paan' Tipraqsa Thailand Project Manager Winrock Female Mr. Chawapich "Did" Vaidhayakarn Project Officer, Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Winrock Male Mr. Rachaneewan "Yui" Vechpanich Senior Accountant Winrock Male Ms. Jeanette Gurung Executive Director Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture & Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) Female Ms. Haddy Sey Senior Social Development Specialist World Bank Female Mr. Peter Cutter Manager, Greater Mekong Landscapes Conservation Program World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Regional Male UNITED STATES Ms. Sarah Tisch Senior Gender Advisor Social Impact Female Mr. Kent Elliott Project Officer United States Forest Service (USFS) Male Mr. Michael Furniss Owner MJ Furniss & Associates and Lecturer, Climate Change and Land Use: Humboldt State University United States Forest Service (USFS) Male Ms. Sarah Hines Resource Specialist United States Forest Service (USFS) Female Ms. Beth Lebow Asia-Pacific Program Advisor United States Forest Service (USFS), International Programs Office Female Ms. Darcy Nelson Advisor United States Forest Service (USFS), International Programs Office Female LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 117 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Dr. David Saah Assistant Professor University of San Francisco (USF) Male Dr. Deborah Lawrence Professor University of Virginia Female Mr. Evan Notman Director, E3 Bureau, Office of Global Climate Change USAID Washington Male Ms. Mary Melnyk Director, Asia and Middle East Bureaus, Office of Technical Support, Senior Forest Advisor USAID Washington Female Mr. John Wilson Director, Asia and Middle East Bureaus, Office of Technical Support USAID Washington Male Mr. Evan Notman Director USAID Washington, E3 Bureau, Office of Global Climate Change Male Mr. Matthew Ogonowski Global Climate Change Specialist USAID Washington, E3 Bureau, Office of Global Climate Change Male Ms. Kathryn Stratos Director USAID Washington, E3 Bureau, Office of Global Climate Change Female Ms. Linda Heath Advisor USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Female Dr. Claudia Radel Associate Professor, Dept. of Ecology Center, Environment & Society Utah State University Female Ms. Sandra Brown Director Ecosystem Services Unit Winrock Female Mr. Alex Grais Climate Change Mitigation Specialist Winrock Male Mr. Chris Kopp Director, Forestry & Natural Resource Management Winrock Male Ms. Sarah Walker Technical Officer II – Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Issues (AFOLU)/Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Climate Change Specialist Winrock, Ecosystem Services Unit Female VIETNAM Mr. Tran Quang Hung Director An Agriculture and Forestry Consultancy Company Male Mr. Lam Ngoc Tuan Lecturer, Department of Environmental Science Dalat University Male Mr. Cao Thuy-Anh Lecturer Dalat University Male Ms. Akiko Inoguchi Forestry Officer REDD Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Female Mr. Pham Duc Cuong Head of Remote sensing and GIS section at Forest Resources and Environment Center (FREC) Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) Male Mr. Vu Tien Dien Director of Forest Resources and Environment Center (FREC) Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) Male 118 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Hoang Cong Hoai Nam Head of Forestry management and protection. Gender focal point Forest Protection and Development Department Female Mr. Eiji Egashira Senior Project Formulation Advisor Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Male Mr. Tran Van Ki Officer of Forest Protection and Development Fund Lam Dong Forest Protection and Development Fund Male Mr. Vo Minh Tham Vice-Director of Forest Protection and Development Fund Lam Dong Forest Protection and Development Fund Male Mr. Vo Dinh Tho Director of Forest Protection and Development Fund Lam Dong Forest Protection and Development Fund Male Mr. Ly Thi Minh Hai Country Manager Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF), Vietnam Male Mr. Pham Manh Cuong Director of Vietnam Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Office Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Pham Hong Luong Deputy Director of Fund, Department on Planning and Finance, Vietnam Forest Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Ngai Huong Assistant to Deputy Director General Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam Administration of Forestry Male Mr. Nguyen Ba Ngai Deputy Director General Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam Administration of Forestry Male Mr. Than Van Chau Advisor LEAF Programme Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Ms. Ly Thi Minh Hai LEAF Project Manager Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Female Mr. Pham Thanh Nam Dalat Advisor, REDD Program Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Ms. Vu Thi Kien Phuc Gender Advisor Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Female Mr. Nguyen Vinh Quang Senior Advisor, Project Coordinator REDD Program Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Mr. Steven Swan Senior Advisor REDD Program Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Male Mr. Ngyuen Dinh Hung Data Analysis Expert Project on Support to National Assessment of Forest Resources in Vietnam (NFA) Male Mr. Bui Van Hung Director of DARD Provincial department of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Le Quang Nghiep Director of Sub-Department of Forestry Provincial department of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Le Van Trung Technical Official Sub-Department of Forestry Provincial department of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Pham Van An Consultant Retired Director of DARD Male Mr. Randolph B. Flay Program Development Office Director USAID/Vietnam Male Mr. Tran Chinh Khuong Program Management Specialist, Climate Change USAID/Vietnam Male LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 119 LEAF Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Veronica Lee General Development Office USAID/Vietnam Female Mr. Alex Zvinakis Program Development Officer USAID/Vietnam Male Mr. Kyung Choe Director USAID/Vietnam, General Development Office Male Mr. Nguyen The Dzung Lecturer, Department of Forest Inventory and Planning Vietnam Forest ant Delta (VFU) Male Mr. Pham Minh Toai Deputy Chief of Training Division and Lecturer in Forest Ecology and Silviculture Vietnam Forest ant Delta (VFU) Male Mr. Pham Van Chuong Vice Rector Vietnam Forestry University Male Mr. Bui The Doi Director of Sciences, Technology and International Cooperation Office Vietnam Forestry University Male Mr. Hoang Van Sam Director of Biodiversity Centre Vietnam Forestry University Male Mr. Thinh Vu Forest and Ecology Institute Vietnam Forestry University Male Mr. Chris Dickinson Team Leader, Sustainable Landscapes Vietnam Forests and Deltas Program Male Mr. Nguyen Ai Vinh Lecturer, Faculty of Biology Vinh University Male Mr. Hoang Vinh Phu Lecturer, Faculty of Biology Vinh University Male Mr. Mark Fenn Country Representative Winrock International Male 120 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE DATE BOTH TEAMS (SUB-TEAM A & SUB-TEAM B) 15 July (Monday)  Kick off meetings with REO:  Supattira Rodboontham  Suphasuk Pradubsuk  Nitasmai Ransaeva  Orestes R. Anastasia  Informal meeting with:  LEAF  David Ganz  Brian Bean 16 July (Tuesday)  Key informant interview with:  Barry Flaming, REO Regional Biodiversity, Conservation Advisor  Meetings with LEAF Core team and staff at LEAF Office:  Patty, USAID Gender  David Ganz  Chanin Chiumkanokchai  Suphasuk Pradubsuk /Bird  Phuong Chi Pham  Luke Pritchard  Brian Bean  Kalpana Giri 17 July (Wednesday)  LEAF MTE team internal discussion for interception report  Meeting with:  Josephine Francisco, Program Development Officer  Nitasmai Ransaeva  Salma  Meeting with Michael Yates, Mission Director RDMA 18 July (Thursday)  Inception report writing  Preparation for In-Brief Presentation  In-brief presentation to RDMA:  Barry Flaming LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 121  Patty Alleman  Nitasmai Ransaeva  Salma  Suphasuk Pradubsuk  Supattira Rodboontham 19 July (Friday)  Focus group discussion with UN Agencies:  Celina (Kin Yii) Yong, UN-REDD  Thomas Enters, UNEP  Ben Vickers, FAO  Akihito Kono, UNDP  Submission of Inception Report to RDMA 20 July (Saturday)  LEAF MTE meeting for reflection  Review questionnaires DATE SUB-TEAM A SUB-TEAM B 21 July (Sunday)  Team A departs for Phnom Penh, Cambodia  Team B remains in Bangkok, Thailand 22 July (Monday)  Key informant interview with:  Brad Arsenault, USAID  Megan O’Rourke, USAID  Menglin Kim, USAID SFB  Limchhun Hour, LEAF  Key informant interview with:  Bunleng Se, Lecturer, Royal University of Phnom Penh  Key informant interview with:  Tom Clements, Director Wildlife Conservation Society  Key informant interview with:  Alfred Nakatsuma, Director REO  Key informant interview with:  Barry Flaming, RDMA  Suphasuk Pradubsuk, REO 23 July (Tuesday)  Key informant interview with:  Edwin Payuan, Country Program Coordinator, The Center for People and Forests RECOFTC  Key informant interview with:  Kimhy Lun, UNDP, UN-REDD for Cambodia  Key informant interview with PACT:  Kurt Macleod, Vice-President, Asia Eurasia  Sarah Sitts, Country manager, Cambodia  Key informant interview with:  Dennis Cengel, Chief of Party, Supporting Forests and Biodiversity Project, Winrock International  Key informant interview with:  Phuong Chi Pham, LEAF  Key informant interview with:  Luke Pritchard, LEAF 122 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 24 July (Wednesday)  Key informant interview with:  Bunra Seng, Country Director, Conservation International Cambodia  Key informant interview with:  Michelle Owen, Acting Country Director, World Wildlife Fund  Key informant interview with:  Kalyan Ly, Project Assistant, Royal University of Agriculture  Focus group discussions with:  Somying Soontornwong  Rawee Max Thaworn  Chandra Shekhar Silori, RECOFTC 25 July (Thursday)  Team A departs for Lao PDR  Focus group discussion with:  Sanath D. B. Ranawana, ADB  Sumit Pokhrel, ADB RETA 7987  Naeeda Crishna-Morgado, ADB RETA 7987  Key informant interview with:  Haddy Jatou Sey, World Bank 26 July (Friday)  Key informant interview with:  Athsaphangthong Munelith, Senior Advisor, Program Manager  REDD/LEAF - Lao PDR  Christof Hahn, Senior Advisor REDD-Project Manager ENRICH Lao PDR/Vietnam  SengKham Inthiratvongsy  Forest and Climate Change Advisor – LEAF  Entry briefing with:  Tom D’Agnes, USAID (RDMA) Representative in a non￾presence USAID country mission, US Embassy  Mathew H. Kustel, Political-Economic Officer, Embassy of the United States of America  Key informant interview:  Colin Moore, Regional Advisor on REDD+ and CC WCS Laos  Key informant interview with:  Peter Cutter, WWF Thailand  Key informant interview with:  Dr. Surin Onprom, Kasetsart University 27 July (Saturday)  Sub Team B departs for Chiang Mai  Dr. Linda Heath, USFS, joins Sub Team B 28 July (Sunday)  Participated in FORRU Workshop (Planting Tree Day) at Mon Cham, Thailand  Key informant interview with:  Somsak Soonthornnawaphat, LEAF country coordinator  Chawapich "Did" Vaidhayakarn, LEAF  Komchai Thaiying, RECOFTC/LEAF  Brief Meetings with:  Villagers LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 123  Dr. Stephen Elliot, FORRU 29 July (Monday)  Key informant interview with:  Hideaki Takai, JICA Chief Adviser, Forest Sector Capacity Development Project  Takayuki Namura, JICA Advisor, Forest Sector Capacity Development Project  Georg Buchholz, GIZ Program Director, Sustainable Climate  Unna Chokkalingam, Forest Carbon Asia  Key informant interview with:  Ms. Kinnalone Phommasack, DOF-FIPD REDD+ -- LEAF country coordinator/UNFCCC negotiator/CCTWG member  Key informant interview with:  Khamia Phanvilay, Vice-rector and Director, Faculty of Forestry, National University of Laos, Research Center for Natural Resource and Climate Change  Sithong Thongmanivong, Associate professor, Faculty of Forestry, National University of Laos, Research Center for Natural Resource and Climate Change  Key informant interview with:  Bouaphanh Phantavong, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, DDG Department of Forest Resources Management  Saly Singsananh, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Deputy of Planning and Cooperation Division  Focus Group Discussion with:  LEAF Thailand staff at Protected Regional Office 16 (PARO 16) Chiang Mai, DNP  Khun Chaowit Chomketkaew  Aumpom Panmankhol  Niwet Leamphan  Wimolmart Nuipakdee  Issaret Sithirojanakul  Natdhachai Hongsonrak  Key Informant Interview with  Khun Chaowit, DNP-Technical working Group, PARO 16  Key Informant Interview with:  Dr. Attachai Jintrawet at Chiang Mai University (LEAF University Partner for Curriculum Development)  Focus Group Discussion with:  HAPPEN and CBFCM staffs, LEAF Thailand’s Implementing partners at Regional Environmental Office 1, Chiang Mai, Thailand  HAPPEN staff:  Jirapat Tathinjan  Niyom Sattanako  Water & Life Quality Foundation  Mr. Kittithai and Mr. Saengsilp 30 July (Tuesday)  Travel to Attapeu  Key informant interview with:  Vongxay Manivong, Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, Deputy Head of PAFO  Key informant interview with:  Saiyalad Sumphonphakde, Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment (PONRE), Head of PONRE  Veth Southivong, Forestry and biodiversity specialist, GITEC  Traveling to Mae Sa-Kog Ma Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB)  Focus Group Discussion with:  Head of Ban Mae Mhae village (LEAF Thailand implementation site for participatory catchment management)  Key Informant Interview with:  Khun Prajak Phusiripattananon and Ms. Sutthiluck Sutthiwas, Pong Yeang Sub-District Administration, LEAF Institutional capacity building partner for MAB management  Key Informant Interviews with:  Ban Mae Mhae  Surasak Inthornsri  Sawat Juntaboon 124 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Ban Pha Nok Kok (LEAF Thailand implementation site)  Thae Tippinthong 31 July (Wednesday)  Key informant interview with:  Sommeuk Keokhanbai, District Agriculture and Forestry Office, Deputy Director of DAFO  Mr. Phonvima Sayyaboud – DAFO  Mr. Hatsadong Phommavong – DONRE  Mr. Sisomephon Nonthivong – DONRE  Mr. Sommeuk Keokhanbai – DDG DAFO  Mr. Viengsay Xaydara – SNV LEAF Attapeu  Mr. Sinsamouth Phutavong – PAFO  Mr. A Sacksy – PAFO  Mr. Veth Southivong – ADB-BCC, MONRE-DFRM  Mr. Sengkam Inthiratvongsy – SNV LEAF  Group meeting in Ban Tangao village with:  Main informant:  Bounpanh (Mr), Head of village  Other participants:  Thongbai (Mr)  Cheung (Mr)  Villagers  Key informant interview with:  Dr. Prasit Wangpakapattanawong at Chiang Mai University (LEAF University partner for Curriculum Development)  Sub-team B departs for Kuala Lumpur 1 August (Thursday)  Group meeting in Hat Vudomxay village with:  Cheng  Bounhkong  Pan  Kutsa  Phena  Shose  Damdee  Douangma  Thamom  Vai  Villagers  Group meeting in Sompoy village:  Mr. Simeung, Village Headman  Mr. Thongtsay  Mrs. Katsa  Key informant interview with:  Phialong Viangsay, Head of the forest checkpoint team  Focus Group Discussion with:  Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment  Dr. Elizabeth Phillip  Dr. Gary William Theresia  Nor Azura Aini  Datuk Dr Abdul Rahim Nik, Chairman  Key informant interview via Skype with:  Ivy Wong, WWF Malaysia  Key informant interview with  GEC, Faisal Parish and Fuad bin Shariff LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 125 2 August (Friday)  PAFO debrief with:  Vongxay Manivong, Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, Deputy Head of PAFO  Key informant interview with:  Ms Samati Pagna Viliphon, Representative, Lao Women Union in Attapeu  Travel back to Vientiane, Laos  Key informant interview at FRIM office with:  FRIM-REDDES Project  Dr. Christine Fletcher  Dr. Ismail Parlan  Dr. Samsudin Musa  US Embassy in Malaysia  Brock Fox  Key informant interview with:  Mawaddah Azizan (LEAF Country Coordinator)  Focus group discussion at UPM with:  Prof Ahmad Ainuddin (UPM)  Chan Hoy Yen (UKM)  Prof. Paridah Tahir (UPM) 3 August (Saturday)  Sub Team A departs for Hanoi, Vietnam  Sub Team B departs for Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 4 August (Sunday)  Linda Heath departs for Vietnam to join Team A  Sub Team B arrives in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 5 August (Monday)  Entry briefing with:  Ly Thi Minh Hai, LEAF project manager Vietnam – REDD+ Program  Tran Van Chau, Advisor, LEAF Programme  Key informant interview with:  Pham Manh Cuong, Director of Vietnam REDD+ Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development  Group meeting with:  Pham Van Chuong, Vice Rector, Vietnam Forestry University  Bui The Doi, Director of Sciences, Technology and International Cooperation Office, Vietnam Forestry University  Hoang Van Sam, Director of Biodiversity Centre, Vietnam Forestry University  Thinh Vu, Forest and Ecology Institute. Vietnam Forestry University  Mid-point check in with USAID RDMA  Sub Team B joined by Supattira Rodboontham, LEAF Evaluation COR  Key informant interview with:  LEAF Country Director, Michael Avosa (Winrock)  Key informant interview with:  Julie Hulama, USAID Pacific Islands  Key informant interview with:  Lee Calkins, USAID Pacific Islands  Security Briefing with Jeff Capel, US Embassy  Mid-Point Check in with RDMA 6 August (Tuesday)  Key informant interview with:  Vu Tien Dien, Director, Forest Resources and Environment Center (FREC), Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI)  Pham Duc Cuong, Head of Remote sensing and GIS section, Forest Resources and Environment Center (FREC), Forest  Nitasmai Ransaeva joins Sub-team B  Focus group discussions with:  OCCD  Joe Pokana  Gwen Sissiou  Omega Nelson 126 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI)  Key informant interview:  Chris Dickinson, Team Leader, Sustainable Landscapes, Vietnam Forest and Delta, SNV  Key informant interview with:  Nguyen Dinh Hung, Technician, Data Analysis Expert, Project on Support to National Assessment of Forest Resources in Vietnam (NFA)  Key informant interview with:  Eiji Egashira, Senior Project Formulation Advisor, Japanese International Cooperation Agency  Rensie Panda  Key informant interview with:  Francis Hurahura, TNC Country Director  Andrew Ingles, TNC Asia Pacific, CTA for RAFT II 7 August (Wednesday)  Key informant interview with:  Pham Hong Luong, Deputy Director of Fund, Department of Planning and Finance  VNForest, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development  Key informant interview with:  Paul Barker, Institute of National Affairs  Focus group discussions with:  Institute of National Affairs  Marjorie Andrew, Technical Assistant  Rufina Peter, Research Officer  Elizabeth Avaisa, Senior Project Officer  Key informant interview via telephone with:  Simon Saulei, PNG Research Institute  Focus group discussions with:  Transparency International PNG  Lois Nakmai  Hazel Duduwega  Amanda Malagui 08 August (Thursday)  Group meetings with:  USAID/Vietnam  Kyung Choe, Director, General Development Office  Tran Chinh Kuong, Program Management Specialist, Climate Change  Veronica Lee, Governance and Democracy,  Randy Flay, Supervisory Program Officer  Alex Zvinakis, Program Officer  Key informant interview with:  Steve Swan, Senior Advisor, REDD+ Programme  Key Informant Interview with:  Yati Bun, FPCD  Focus Group Discussions with:  PNG Forest Authority  Dr. Ruth Turia  Constin Otto  Dambis Kaip  Goodwill Amos 09 August (Friday)  Key informant interview with:  Akiko Inoguchi, FAO Forestry Officer UN-REDD  Key informant interview with:  Nguyen Vinh Quang, SNV Senior Advisor REDD+, Project Coordinator REDD+ Program  Supattira Rodboontham, LEAF Evaluation COR, departs for Bangkok  Key informant interview with:  Gae Gowae, MARSH DCOP  Key Informant Interview with: LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 127  Key informant interview with:  Nguyen Ba Ngai, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam Administration of Forestry  Ngai Huong, Assistant to Deputy Director General, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam Administration of Forestry  Key informant interview with:  Ly Thi Minh Hai, LEAF project manager, Vietnam – REDD+ Program  Vu Thi Kien Phuc, Gender advisor, SNV-Vietnam  Key informant interview with:  Than Van Chau, Advisor, LEAF Program, SNV  Prof. Lawong Balun, Unitech  Sub Team B departs for Madang, China 10 August (Saturday)  Key informant interview with:  Mark Fenn, Country Representative, Winrock International  Key informant interview with:  Roy Banka, Winrock  Key informant interview with:  Clement Kipa, TNC  Stephen Gewe, Gatik CBO 11 August (Sunday)  Sub-team A travels from Hanoi, Vietnam to Dalat (Lam Dong), Vietnam  Key informant interview with:  Andrew Mapio, Vice President of Madang Civil Society Forum/MCSF 12 August (Monday)  Entry briefing/group meeting with:  Bui Van Hung, Director of DARD  Pham Van An, Consultant, Retired Director of DARD  Pham Van An, Consultant, Ex. Director of DARD  Sub Department of Forestry  Le Quang Nghiep, Director of Sub Department of Forestry  Le Van Trung, Technical official, Sub Department of Forestry  Do Van Vui, Technical official, Sub Department of Forestry  Hoang Cong Hoai Nam, Head of Forestry Management and Protection, Forest Protection and Development (FPD) Gender focal point  Vo Dinh Tho, Director of Fund for Forest Protection and Development (FPD)  Tran Quang Hung, Director of Agriculture and Forestry Consultancy Company  Key informant interview with:  Le Quang Nghiep, DARD, Director of Sub Department of Forestry  Courtesy call and group discussion with:  Provincial Government of Madang  Peter Pasum, Administrative Officer for the Governor  Michael Tataki, Technical Officer for the Governor  Thomas Warr, Research Officer for the Governor  Key informant interview with:  Jack Musa, Forestry Advisor, Madang Provincial Government  Key informant interview with:  Chairman of MCSF Madang, Peter Moika 128 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 13 August (Tuesday)  Key informant interview with:  Vo Dinh Tho, DARD, Director of Fund for Forest Protection and Development  Key informant interview with:  Le Van Trung, DARD, Technical Official, Sub Department of Forestry  Field Visit to Almami LLG, Bogia District  Key informant interview with:  Participants at the workshop of three Dimension Modeling Spatial Land Use Planning in Baraya Village, Almami LLG, including Partners with Melanesia (Evangelyn Kove and Patrick Vuet) 14 August (Wednesday)  Key informant interview with:  Hoang Cong Hoai Nam, Head of Forestry management and protection, FPD Gender focal point  Key informant interview with:  Tran Quang Hung, Director of Agriculture and Forestry, Consultancy Company  Key Informant Interview with:  Dennis Wendel, USAID/Papua New Guinea Mission Director  Out-brief Meeting with:  Walter North, US Ambassador for Papua New Guinea  Sub Team B departs for Bangkok, Thailand 15 August (Thursday)  Team Leader departs for Hanoi, Vietnam  Sub-team B participates in LEAF Curriculum Development Workshop 16 August (Friday)  Key informant interview with:  Pham Thanh Nam, Dalat Advisor, REDD+ Program  Team Leader debrief with:  Joakim Parker, USAID/Vietnam Mission Director, GDO Team  Focus Group Discussion with:  Eight Universities  USFS in Bangkok 17 August (Saturday)  Evaluation Specialist Member of Sub Team A departs for Bangkok, Thailand DATE BOTH TEAMS (SUB-TEAM A & SUB-TEAM B) 19 August (Monday)  Key informant interview with:  Chanin Chiumkanokchai and Jeremy Broadhead, LEAF  Key informant interview with:  Peter Stephen, LEAF 20 August (Tuesday)  Key informant interview (via phone) with:  Sarah Tisch (Gender Practice Leader, Social Impact)  Kalpana, LEAF  Key informant interview with:  Jeannette Gurung, WOCAN  Key informant interview with:  DNP’s Dr. Prasert Sornsathapornkul, DNP 21 August (Wednesday)  Team prepares for out-brief presentation with RDMA  Sub-team B has a key informant interview with: LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 129  Steen Christensen, MFF  Janalezza Esteban Thuaud, MFF 22 August (Thursday)  Team has an overview of findings with:  David Ganz  Brian Bean  Peter Stephen  Jeremy Broadhead  Sub Team A and B consolidate findings and conclusion for USAID RDMA out-brief presentation  Pre out-brief meeting with:  Barry Flaming  Supattira Rodboontham  Suphasuk Pradubsuk  Nitasmai Ransaeva  Alfred Nakatsuma, Director of REO 23 August (Friday)  Furnish out-brief presentation  Out-brief meeting (presentation) attended by 19 participants (including representatives from USFS, USAID/Vietnam, USAID/ Cambodia, and USAID/Philippines via telephone) 24 August (Saturday)  David Hess returns to California, USA  Stepi Hakim returns to Jakarta, Indonesia  Raymond Gervais returns to Montreal, Canada 06 September (Friday)  Submission of Draft Report to USAID for comment 13 September (Friday)  USAID sends first round of comments on Draft Report 20 September (Friday)  USAID sends second round of comments on Draft Report 27 September (Friday)  Submission of Final Report and Evaluation Tools (with Final Report) to USAID 130 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX V: DEMONSTRATION SITE ANALYSIS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Status of Analysis and Stakeholder Engagement at LEAF “Demonstration” Sites for Applied Innovation49 Country Site PLUP IFM RL Fire Mgt Other Themes, Aspects, and Factors Stakeholder50 Working Group or Committee Documentation/Analysis51 Est’d TOR WP Lao PDR Attapeu Province, Sanamxay District X X  (Community scale) No No No  Socio-economic baseline survey of selected households in one district  Forest cover change analysis  Forest threat assessment  Secondary background documents compiled 49 Source: LEAF. 2013. Quarterly Report No. 10, Annex C: LEAF Field Activities: Mid-Term Assessment of Progress, with additional inputs from LEAF staff. 50 Ibid. Also, in each “Section 1.2 Who are the key partners working with us?” for each site table in Annex C, there are rows to identify Government Agencies, Other REDD+ Development Partners, Other NGOs, Academic institutions, the Private Sector, and Other stakeholder partners. The row for “Private Sector” is blank for all sites except the site in Thailand and the two Vietnam sites, where companies that carried out studies for LEAF are listed. 51 In addition, LEAF has carried out policy assessments, country strategies, and other national-level reports, including a review of district and provincial land use planning in Vietnam, and reports on site selection, including Pilot site selection in Vietnam, Laos and Thailand (Annex C of 2011 Q4 report), commune identification and selection in Nghe An and Lam Dong Province Viet Nam (unpublished), and site selection in PNG (internal, unpublished). LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 131 Status of Analysis and Stakeholder Engagement at LEAF “Demonstration” Sites for Applied Innovation49 Country Site PLUP IFM RL Fire Mgt Other Themes, Aspects, and Factors Stakeholder50 Working Group or Committee Documentation/Analysis51 Lao PDR Huaphanh Province X X X  Provincial REDD+ Strategy No No No  Socio-economic baseline survey of selected households in two districts  Forest cover change analysis  Forest threat assessment  Forest degradation monitoring and capacity￾building needs assessment  Secondary background documents compiled Malaysia Selangor State X X  Peat swamp forest rehabilitation  Carbon accounting N/A GEC/ Gov’t MOU No  Secondary background documents compiled Malaysia Pahang State X  RIL  Forest degradation SC: Jun 2013 TWG: No No No  Secondary background documents compiled Papua New Guinea Madang Province, Almami LLG X X  (Clan, district, provincial scale)  (Provincial REDD+ Strategy TBD) No No No  REDD+ status analysis (national-level)  LEAF-TNC Collaborative Plan for Implementation of Madang work plan  Secondary background documents compiled Thailand Maesa￾Kogma MAB Reserve X X  (Landscape Scale)  PA planning  PES  Private sector engagement (Mae Sa Elephant Camp and tourism network inside MAB) Yes (Jan 2013) Yes Yes  Land Tenure and PES study  Community analysis (initial PRA) in 1 village  Land Tenure and PES study  Secondary background documents compiled  Field work for gender analysis carried out  Assessments of four local institutions begun Vietnam Lam Dong Province X X  Provincial REDD+ Action Plan Yes (2010) Yes Yes  Forest cover change analysis 132 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Status of Analysis and Stakeholder Engagement at LEAF “Demonstration” Sites for Applied Innovation49 Country Site PLUP IFM RL Fire Mgt Other Themes, Aspects, and Factors Stakeholder50 Working Group or Committee Documentation/Analysis51  Forest threat assessment  Socio-economic baseline study  RL development decisions  Land Use Planning and Climate Change Case Study  Secondary background documents compiled  Field work for gender analysis carried out  Assessments of local institutions begun Vietnam Nghe An Province, Con Cuong District X X  Forest and LUP by Forest Management Board; SFM by State Forest Company (district scale) Yes (Sep 2012) Yes Yes  Forest cover change analysis  Forest threat assessment  Forest degradation monitoring and capacity￾building needs assessment  Socio-Economic Base Line Study  Internal reports on Improved Cook Stoves and on options for design of community based forest management model  Secondary background documents compiled  Field work for gender analysis carried out  Assessments of local institutions begun Acronyms and Abbreviations: IFM Improved Forest Management LU Land Use NRM Natural resource management PA Protected Area PES Payment of environmental services PLUP Participatory Land Use Planning RIL Reduced Impact Logging RL Reference Level development SC Steering Committee SFM Sustainable Forest Management TBD To be defined or to be detailed TOR Terms of Reference TWG Technical Working Group (or similar stakeholder group) WP Work Plan LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 133 ANNEX VI: DEMONSTRATION SITE DRIVERS THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED Range of Drivers at “Objective 4” Sites that May be Addressed to Improve Sustainable Land Management52 Country Site Drivers of Land Use and Forest Change Links with Regional Issues and Themes CO2e Reduced (‘000 MT) Improved Manag’t (‘000 has) Trad’l Ag Comm’l Ag Fire Log￾ging Min￾ing Infra￾struc￾ture Settle -ment Tour￾ism Pol￾icy Affores￾tation Lao PDR Attapeu Province, Sanamxay District X X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules 116 43.6 Lao PDR Huaphanh Province X X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules 2,874 423.2 52 Addressing drivers in the context of specific sites and with specific stakeholders enables:  Demonstrating application of Objective 2 policy and market incentives and of “down-scaled” Objective 3 capacities and  Deriving principles, practices, and lessons for Objective 1 exchange across LEAF and other countries in Asia and worldwide 134 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Range of Drivers at “Objective 4” Sites that May be Addressed to Improve Sustainable Land Management52 Country Site Drivers of Land Use and Forest Change Links with Regional Issues and Themes CO2e Reduced (‘000 MT) Improved Manag’t (‘000 has) Trad’l Ag Comm’l Ag Fire Log￾ging Min￾ing Infra￾struc￾ture Settle -ment Tour￾ism Pol￾icy Affores￾tation Malaysia Selangor State X X X X ASEAN peat￾lands initiative, including fire and haze control Application and adaptation of tools 2,357 73.7 Malaysia Pahang State X X X X Application and adaptation of tools (e.g., forest inventory￾related MRV) ASW certification systems 777 TBD Papua New Guinea Madang Province, Almami LLG X X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules ASW certification systems 100 43.2 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 135 Range of Drivers at “Objective 4” Sites that May be Addressed to Improve Sustainable Land Management52 Country Site Drivers of Land Use and Forest Change Links with Regional Issues and Themes CO2e Reduced (‘000 MT) Improved Manag’t (‘000 has) Trad’l Ag Comm’l Ag Fire Log￾ging Min￾ing Infra￾struc￾ture Settle -ment Tour￾ism Pol￾icy Affores￾tation Thailand Maesa￾Kogma MAB Reserve X X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules Fire and haze control Migration 440 42.7 Vietnam Lam Dong Province X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules ASW certification systems 3,456 532.4 Vietnam Nghe An Province, Con Cuong District X X X X X X X Application and adaptation of tools and curriculum modules ASW certification systems 128 26.0 Burma Fire and haze control 136 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report Range of Drivers at “Objective 4” Sites that May be Addressed to Improve Sustainable Land Management52 Country Site Drivers of Land Use and Forest Change Links with Regional Issues and Themes CO2e Reduced (‘000 MT) Improved Manag’t (‘000 has) Trad’l Ag Comm’l Ag Fire Log￾ging Min￾ing Infra￾struc￾ture Settle -ment Tour￾ism Pol￾icy Affores￾tation India . Exchange of experience on tools (e.g., forest inventory￾related MRV) and REDD+- readiness in other countries (e.g., benefit distribution, institutional frameworks, and drivers) Indonesia ASEAN peat lands initiative ASW certification systems Total 10,249 1,184.8 Target 15,000 1,307.2 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 137 ANNEX VII: USAID REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE PROJECTS Other USAID Regional Sustainable Landscape Projects in LEAF and other Asian Countries Country USAID Sustainable Landscape Projects Cambodia LEAF, LEAD, GREEN Mekong, CIFOR, SFB Lao PDR LEAF, LEAD, GREEN Mekong, CIFOR Malaysia LEAF, LEAD Papua New Guinea LEAF, LEAD, MARSH Thailand LEAF, LEAD, GREEN Mekong, CIFOR Vietnam LEAF, LEAD, GREEN Mekong, CIFOR, VFD Bangladesh LEAD Burma LEAD Indonesia LEAD, CIFOR, IFACS, ICCC, SLP, GP, TFCA II India LEAD, Forest-PLUS Nepal LEAD, Hariyo Ban Philippines LEAD, B-WISER Solomon Islands MARSH Vanuatu MARSH Various USFS Project Name Acronyms: GREEN Mekong Grassroots Equality and Enhanced Networks in the Mekong (GREEN-Mekong) LEAD Low Emissions Asian Development (LEAD) Program CIFOR Economic Choices and Trade-offs of REDD+ in the Asia Region USFS U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) SFB Supporting Forests and Biodiversity VFD Vietnam Forests and Deltas Forest-PLUS Forest Partnership for Land Use Science IFACS Indonesian Forest and Climate Support ICCC Indonesia Climate Change Center SLP Sustainable Landscape Partnership GP MCC Green Prosperity TFCA II Tropical Forest Conservation Act II Debt Swap B-WISER Biodiversity and Watershed Improved for Stronger Economy and Ecosystem Resilience Project MARSH Mangrove Rehabilitation for Sustainably-Managed, Healthy Forests 138 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX VIII: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 139 140 LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report LEAF Mid-Term Evaluation Report 141 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523