MONITORING AND REPORTING - Climate Investment Funds...management planning includes provisions for high-conservation value forests, stream buffer zones, protection of steep slopes,

1

FOREST INVESTMENT PROGRAM

National Report 2015 LAO PDR FOREST INVESTMENT PLAN

(Lao FIP)

MONITORING AND REPORTING

Investment Plan Endorsement Date 01/25/2012

Lead MDB IBRD

Other MDBs ADB, IFC

Reporting date (mm/dd/yy) 6/19/2015

Title

Implemen-ting MDB

FIP Funding approval

date

MDB approval

date

Scaling-Up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management (SUPSFM) Project*

IBRD 4/3/2013 5/31/2013

Smallholder Forestry Project** IFC 6/24/2013 6/25/2013

Protecting Forests for

Sustainable Ecosystem

Services*** ADB

June 2016

* SUPSFM is otherwise known as the Sustainable Forestry for Rural Development Scaling-Up (SUFORD-SU) Project.

** Project working with private sector: separate reporting requirements.

*** Additional financing for REDD+-related activities for the ongoing Biodiversity Corridor Conservation (BCC) Initiative. FIP

supported activities may be launched in early 2016.

Lao FIP National Report (2015) Date of Report: July 2016

2

Scaling Up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management (SUFORD-SU)

Data and Scoring for Themes 1 and 2


3

THEME 1.1 : GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS OR AVOIDANCE / ENHANCEMENT OF CARBON STOCKS– FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT

LAO-PDR Lead MDB: IBRD

Project Level: SUFORD-SU (SUPSFM) Project

Endorsed FIP funding (million USD): 13.31

Co-financing (million USD): 40.00

Reporting period From 01/25/12 : To: 12/31/14

Table 1.1

Unit

Reference emissions

level/baseline

Target 1 (Expected results after the financial

closure of the SUFORD-SU project)

Target 2 (Lifetime projection of expected results

of SUFORD-SU project under the investment plan)

Report year 2015 Report year

2016 Total actual to date

(if applicable) Cumulative since endorsement of IP

Actual annual*

GHG emission reductions/avoidance/ enhancement of carbon stock (Total)

Million tons of CO2 equivalent

Project REL will depend

on interventions to be chosen by villagers

0.135 m.

Not measured during 2012-15, as interventions (forest restoration, alternative livelihoods), not yet underway and making impacts

GHG emissions from reduced/avoided deforestation and forest degradation

Million tons of CO2 equivalent

0.121 m.

GHG sequestered through e.g. natural regeneration, re- and afforestation, and other related activities

Million tons of CO2 equivalent 0.014 m.

Type of forest(s) Production forest areas (PFAs),

forest landscapes, village forests

Area covered ha 2.3 m.

Project lifetime (2013-18) years 5

Please specify methodology (ies) used for GHG accounting (e.g. by project/program), including the start year and period for the Reference Emissions Level

Under development; targets from SUFORD-SU Project Appraisal Document (PAD), may be modified following (later in 2016). National RELs under preparation, may be ready by end of 2017; project RELs to be compatible with national RELs

Please provide a brief description of the interventions (context and objective) Objective is PSFM of production forests, forest landscapes, and village forests - forest protection and management, work with local communities, alternative livelihoods to reduce pressure on forests, improved forest and wildlife law enforcement (through DOFI)

1. What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding GHG emission reductions / avoidance / enhancement of carbon stock in your country context during this reporting year? Working with Department of Forest Inspection (DOFI) on consistent approach to forest law enforcement in all 18 provinces and rolling out PSFM and livelihood improvements in 25 new PFAs, pilot landscapes, village forests, and 368 new villages

2. What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? Capacity building will need to continue; sustainable financing needs to be secured; challenges with competing land uses, especially agricultural concessions


4

NOTES: * Annual estimations of emissions reductions will not be feasible. A baseline will be established once interventions producing such emissions reductions is underway, and another assessment undertaken at the end of the project.


5

LAO PDR Implementing MDB: IBRD Level: project/program

Executing agency:

Project/program title: Scaling-Up Participatory Sustainable forest

Amount of FIP funding (million USD): 13.31

Management (SUPSFM, otherwise known as SUFORD-SU).

Co-financing (million USD): 40.00

Reporting period From : 01/25/15 To 12/31/15

Table 1.2B (Please provide individual project data)

Baseline

Target at the time of

MDB approval

Report year 2015 Report year 2016

Total actual to

date Cumulative since project approved by

IBRD (2012-14) Actual annual

2015

Please use livelihood co-benefits indicators identified in your project/program. Use only the number of beneficiaries or households as your metric. If households are used, please indicate the average number of people per household and the source for that information.

1. Indicator 1 : People in forest and adjacent community with increased monetary/non-monetary benefits from the forest (PAD Project Development Indicators 3 and 3a)

Total 0 0.424 m ≈ 0.281m. ≈ 0.281m. ≈ 0.281m.

Men 0 0.212 m ≈ 0.140m. ≈ 0.140m. ≈ 0.140m.

Women O 0.212 m ≈ 0.140 m. ≈ 0.140 m. ≈ 0.140 m.

2. Indicator 2 : People in forest and adjacent community with increased monetary/non-monetary benefits from the forest - ethnic minority peoples (PDO Indicator 3b)

Total

0 0.237 m. ≈ 0. 159 m. ≈ 0. 159 m. ≈ 0. 159 m.

What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding livelihoods co-benefits in your country context during this reporting year? SUFORD-SU has been working with 678 villages, to prepare community action plans and village livelihood development grants. Financial benefits from alternative, forest-related income-generating activities will only begin once the villages receive their grants and commence these activities. Currently there is a timber logging ban, so villages are not receiving a share of the timber sales revenues. Work with all 1090 villages on forest restoration plans will begin in 2016.

What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? The challenge has been getting the implementation process underway, and the preparation required before monetary benefits from the forest can be received. The situation should change in 2016-7, when the timber ban may be lifted, and the village livelihood development grants issued. In May 2016, the Government issued PM No. 15, to prohibit all export of unfinished timber, and to reduce illegal logging.

THEME1.2: LIVELIHOODS CO-BENEFITS - FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT


6

THEME 2.1: BIODIVERSITY AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT

Scorecard 2.1 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP interventions have contributed to reduced or avoided loss, or enhancement of biodiversity and other environmental ecosystem services. Please score the criteria below using scores from 0 to 10. This scorecard should be completed by a small scoring team. It should be validated during a wider annual multi-stakeholder national-level steering committee/stock-taking meeting on progress with the implementation of the FIP investment plan (see page 17 of the toolkit).

SCORECARD 2.1

(Choose criteria that are relevant to SUFORD-SU)

Not applica

-ble

No/ not at

all

Partially

Yes comple

- tely

Evidences/Sources/Comments

Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A To what extent has FIP contributed to reducing the loss of habitats and other environmental services?

X

SUFORD-SU Project Appraisal Document (PAD) Project

Development Indicators 1 & 2; progress reports

B To what extent has FIP contributed to protect or increase the number of keystone species in habitats/ ecosystems/biome?

X

Not directly monitoring keystone species, although

contributing to habitat protection

C To what extent has FIP improved environmental services associated with forests and forest landscapes? X

Major focus is covered by 1.a (above)

D To what extent has FIP supported/contributed to country’s capacities to conserve biodiversity and other ecosystem services?

X

See Scorecard 2.4 on capacity building

E Any other criteria (to be added by country, if applicable) X

Q1 Scoring: How have you defined the scores in your country context? See separate document on SUFORD-SU scoring criteria

Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP interventions regarding biodiversity and other environmental services in your country context during this reporting year? Work on forest management planning includes provisions for high-conservation value forests, stream buffer zones, protection of steep slopes, etc. Existence of PFA designation and law enforcement may help to protect biodiversity within PFAs. Work beginning on forest landscape management, and ideas of corridors to link forests. More public awareness-raising and community education on responsibilities under law to protect biodiversity, including community education related to forestry, wildlife, and aquatic laws..

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? Key challenge is the degraded state of many forests: over the long-term, however, the quality of such forests may be improved through improved management, forest restoration, and improved protection and forest and wildlife law enforcement.


7

THEME 2.2: GOVERNANCE– FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT

Scorecard 2.2 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP has contributed to improved legal and regulatory frameworks and their application; institutional arrangements and processes; conflict resolution mechanisms; etc. Please score the criteria below using scores from 0 to 10. It should be critically reviewed and validated during a wider annual multi-stakeholder national-level steering committee/stock-taking meeting on the implementation of the FIP investment plan (see page 22 of the toolkit). Countries should score only the criteria and sub-criteria which are most relevant to their project.

SCORECARD 2.2


Not applica

-ble

No/ Not at

all

Partially

Yes, comple-

tely


Score N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Consistency of broader development and land use policies in the context of REDD+

1.a To what extent has FIP contributed to the development of legal and regulatory frameworks on forests?

X

SUFORD-SU PAD Intermediate Results 3.1 & 3.2

1.b To what extent is the FIP helping to make forest policies consistent with national policies on climate change mitigation and adaptation or equivalents (e.g. REDD+ strategies)?

X

Work on national REDD+ strategy not started yet

1.c To what extent is the FIP helping to make forest policies consistent and supportive of other related policies for land management, planning and use? X

Not directly working on this

1.d To what extent is inter-sectoral dialogue between agencies responsible for forests and those responsible for sectors affecting but outside of forests facilitated and encouraged by the FIP?

X

See indicator on cooperation in Scorecard 2.4

1.e To what extent has FIP contributed to the existence and adequacy of safeguards against social and environmental harm form forest related policies and activities? X

Compliance with safeguards

2 Financing incentives, economic instrument and benefits sharing

2.a To what extent has FIP supported equitable sharing of forest revenue (sharing benefits or income from public forest with the local communities), equity in the distribution of access to forest resources, rights and rents? X

SUFORD-SU PAD IR 3.2

2.b To what extent has FIP contributed to create economic incentives and policies to sustainable utilization of timbers and non-timber forest products, including value addition? X

Work beginning on value-chain analysis and

addition


8

N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


3 Stakeholder Participation:

3a To what extent has FIP contributed to ensure that stakeholder processes allow the participation of marginalized or vulnerable groups (including women) such as indigenous/traditional groups in forest-related decision-making processes?

X

Project Community Engagement Framework

3b To what extent has FIP contributed to the existence and effectiveness of conflict resolution and grievance redress mechanisms? X

Project Community Engagement Framework

4 Transparency and accountability

4.a To what extent has FIP contributed to the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness and accessibility of forest-related information available to stakeholders, including public notice of and dialogue on pending actions?

X

Village meetings and information dissemination,

training 5 Stakeholder capacity and action:

5.a To what extent has FIP encouraged corporate entities and businesses operating in the forest sector or forest-relevant sectors to comply with national codes of conducts, standards and safeguards?

X

See Scorecard 2.4

6 Quality of decision making:

6.a To which extent has FIP contributed to ensure that forest management planning is adaptive? X

Operational planning and

updates 7 Administration and management of forest resources

7.a To what extent has FIP contributed to strengthen staff capacity and effectiveness of forest administration agencies? X See Scorecard 2.4

8 Cooperation and coordination 8.a To what extent has FIP contributed to strengthen the coordination and cooperation

mechanisms among government agencies concerning forests? X See Scorecard 2.4

9 Forest Law Enforcement To what extent has FIP contributed to strengthening forest and wildlife law enforcement?

X Department of Forest Inspection (DOFI) statistics


Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding forest governance in your country context during this reporting year? Forest governance is being improved through greater participation of stakeholders, especially villagers, in participatory sustainable forest management; also support to forest and wildlife law enforcement

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? The big challenge is transforming Lao PDR into a “rule of law” – or “culture of compliance” - society. Opportunities exist through continued stakeholder participation, information, training, improving transparency, and law enforcement. In 2015, work was done on compiling a legal compendium of relevant legislation for DOFI enforcement. Strengthening of forest law enforcement has been emphasized by the new Government in 2016.


9

THEME 2.3: TENURE, RIGHTS AND ACCESS – FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT

Scorecard 2.3 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP has contributed to improving the tenure, resources rights, and access and benefit sharing. Please score the criteria below using scores from 0 to 10. It should also be critically reviewed and validated during an annual multi-stakeholder national-level steering committee/stock-taking meeting on the implementation of the FIP investment plan (see page 27 of the toolkit).

SCORECARD 2.3


Not Appli- cable

No/ Not at all

Partially Yes

comple tely

Evidences/Sources /Comments

Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a To what extent has FIP contributed to the improvement of legal frameworks to protect forest-related property rights and access for all forest stakeholders (including women and indigenous peoples)?

X

See Scorecard 2.2, Indicator 1.a

b To what extent has FIP contributed to strengthen processes and mechanisms for resolving disputes and conflicts over forest tenure and rights, including access and benefit sharing?

X

See Scorecard 2.2, Indicator 3.b

c To what extent has FIP contributed to establishing measures and mechanisms which ensure the tenure security of forest owners and rights-holders?

X Work on communal land titling; PAD IR 1.3, 1.3a,

1.3b, 1.3c d To what extent has FIP contributed to recognizing customary and

traditional rights of forest dependent communities, including local communities and traditional forest users?

X

Part of PSFM process; See Scorecard 2.2, Indicator

3.a

e To what extent has FIP contributed to the comprehensiveness and accuracy of documentation and accessibility of information related to forest tenure and rights?

X


f To what extent does FIP encourage the full and active participation of local stakeholders and forest users in the management of and decision-making process for forest use?

X


g Any other criteria (to be added by country, if applicable)


Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding forest tenure, rights and access in your country context during this reporting year? Work begun on clarifying communal tenure rights, such that villages could obtain communal title to village forests

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? A major challenge is that work on tenure, rights, and access is a lengthy process, and linked with larger issues, i.e., revision of the land policy and land law. Piloting of new approaches provides a way forward. Land policy and land law expected to go to National Assembly in October 2016.


10

THEME 2.4: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT – FOR SUFORD-SU PROJECT

Scorecard 2.4 provides a qualitative assessment of the extent to which FIP helps to build capacity of relevant REDD+ stakeholders to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Please score the criteria below using scores from 0 to 10. It should be critically reviewed during an annual multi-stakeholder national-level steering committee/stock-taking meeting on the implementation of the FIP investment plan (see page 31 of the toolkit).

SCORECARD 2.4


Not Appli- cable

No/ Not at

all Partially

Yes comple-

Tely


Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a To what extent has FIP enhanced institutional capabilities to develop and implement forest and forest-relevant policies at the national, regional and local level?

X PAD IR 1.1 & 1.2;

counterpart assessments

b To what extent has FIP contributed to improve the human resources capacities in the forest and related sectors to detect and manage drivers of deforestation and forest degradation? X

Contributing through capacity development on

PSFM and law enforcement

c To what extent has FIP improved technical capacities of stakeholders in forest and land use planning and management? X

Already covered above under 2.4.a

d To what extent has FIP improved cross-sectoral coordination, networking and cooperation??

X

Joint forest & wildlife law enforcement (Lao-WEN, LETAG); working groups (FSSWG, NRWG, land )

e To what extent has FIP increased the capacities of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to participate in forest and landscape management?

X

PAD IR 1.1 & 1.2; project monitoring


Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding capacity development in your country context during this reporting year? Capacity building of government staff and villagers regarding participatory sustainable forest management, extension approaches, knowledge of issues such as free, prior, and informed consent, gender and ethnic issues; also capacity building of university and college forestry students on forest inventory techniques. Some staff have benefited from training on law enforcement issues, English language, and other skills.

Q3 What have been your key challenges and which opportunities for improvement do you see? The biggest challenge is the scale of the SUFORD-SU program. But this challenge is being addressed through the training-of-trainers approach, and a progressive, step-by-step training program.


11

Smallholder Plantation Project

Data and Scoring for Themes 1 and 2


12

THEME 1.1 : GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS OR AVOIDANCE / ENHANCEMENT OF CARBON STOCKS

LAO PDR Lead MDB: IFC

Other Implementing MDBs:

Level: Smallholder Forestry Program

Endorsed FIP funding (million USD): 1,228,781

Co-financing (million USD): 461,442

Reporting period From 01/01/15

: To:

12/31/15

Table 1.1

Unit

Reference emissions

level/baseline

Target 1

(Expected results after the financial closure of the last project/program

under the investment plan )

Target 2

(Lifetime projection of expected results of

projects/programs under the investment

plan)

Previous Report

year

Current Report

year Total actual to date

(if applicable) Actual results

(annual)

Actual results

(annual)

GHG emission reductions/avoidance/ enhancement of carbon stock (Total)1

Million tons of CO2 equivalent 0 1,809,436 5,483,140 0 0 0

GHG emissions from reduced/avoided deforestation and forest degradation

Million tons of CO2 equivalent 0 788,680 2,389,940 0 0 0

GHG sequestered through natural regeneration, re- and afforestation, and other related activities

Million tons of CO2 equivalent 0 1,020756 3,093,200 0 0 0

Type of forest(s) Tropical rain forest Zone 1 (AEZ)

Area covered ha 15,000

IP lifetime years 10 (4 + 6) 3

Please specify methodology (ies) used for GHG accounting (e.g. by project/program), including the start year and period for the Reference Emissions Level

EX-ACT, 2015 (Standard Edition)

Please provide a brief description of the interventions (context and objective) Project includes 3 changes: 1. (EX-ACT 2.1) Deforestation: Project will reduce deforestation (avoid 4,000

1 Where possible, countries are encouraged to disaggregate total GHG savings into GHG emissions from reduced deforestation and forest degradation and GHG emissions sequestered (enhancement of carbon stocks, reforestation, afforestation etc).


13

ha of new set aside land) as farmers will access agroforestry in plantations.

2. (EX-ACT 2.2) Firm’s new reforestation of old set aside land (8,000 ha net with project) Assumes project will achieve yield of 15 t/ha/yr for 10,000 ha (or 2,000 ha without project).

3. (EX-ACT 3.2.2) Farmer OGS crop production change from dryland rice to timber: Assumes project will improve yield from 1 to 15 t/ha/yr for 1,000 ha.

3. What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding GHG emission reductions / avoidance / enhancement of carbon stock in your country context during this reporting year? - More transparent acquisition of land for firm’s plantations and equitable partnerships with local communities, leading to more sustainable carbon stock

enhancement.

4. What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? - Discrepancy between GHG calculation methods used in IP (non-standard Excel calculations) and current report (EX-ACT) - Identifying and securing engagement with private sector client has taken longer than anticipated. Project now on track.


14

2 Please enter additional information for this results/targets in the narrative section.

LAO PDR Lead MDB:

IFC

Level: Smallholder Forestry Program

Implementing MDBs:

Endorsed FIP funding (million USD)):

Co-financing (million USD):

Reporting period

From 01/01/15

To:

mm/dd/yy

Table 1.2A

(Please aggregate projects/programs level data into this table)

Baseline

Target indicated at

the time of IP endorsement

Previous reporting

year

Current reporting

year

Total actual to date

Additional information

Actual results (annual)

Actual results

(annual)

Please use livelihood co-benefits indicators identified in your investment plan (IP). Use only the number of beneficiaries or households as your metric. If households are used, please indicate the average number of people per household and the source for that information. Please also disaggregate the number of beneficiaries by gender. Please fill out the category/categories that is/are applicable to your project2:

Indicator 1 : Increased direct management of forest resources by local communities (people)

Total 15,000 30 100

Men 24 50

THEME 1.2: LIVELIHOODS CO-BENEFITS


15

Women 6 50

1. Income

Total

Men

Women

2. Employment

Total

Men

Women

3. Entrepreneurship

Total

Men

Women

4. Access to finance

Total

Men

Women

5. Education Total

Men

Women

6. Health Indicator: Food self-sufficiency from new agroforestry (people)

Total 100

Men 50

Women 50

7. Other relevant benefits

What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding livelihoods co-benefits in your country context during this reporting year? IFC engaged in 2015 with a private sector firm operating a pilot agroforestry project in Lao PDR. Firm intends to grow fiber on an economically sustainable basis and with a strong sense of social and environmental responsibility, particularly with local communities. IFC is working with the firm to implement its sustainability action plan to expand plantations and operations in Lao PDR. IFC is collaborating with the firm to: i) strengthen firm’s stakeholder identification and engagement planning, including informed consultation and participation (ICP) and/or free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) operating procedures; and ii) address the Government of Laos’ (GoL) requirements for land acquisition and concession licensing process, as they apply to the firm’s plantation expansion plans. The communities that have participated in the agroforestry pilot with the firm have achieved substantially greater food self-sufficiency. Their support for agroforestry strengthens the long-term viability and permanence of the planted


16

forests and hence carbon stocks.

What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? The GoL has a moratorium in place on plantation development due to a record of poor environmental and social practices in the sector. The FIP project is introducing best plantation and agroforestry practices into Lao through the partner firm, which is helping GoL to review and strengthen policies on plantation establishment and performance. The remote location requires the firm to engage with local communities first to address food security and subsistence challenges through agroforestry schemes, prior to advancing to outgrower schemes involving more independent and commercial relations with communities.

THEME 2.1: BIODIVERSITY AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Scorecard 2.1 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP interventions have contributed to reduced or avoided loss, or enhancement of biodiversity and other environmental ecosystem services. Please score the criteria below using scores from 0 to 10

SCORECARD 2.1

(Choose criteria that are relevant to the IP)

Not applica

-ble

No/ not at

all

Partially

Yes comple

- tely


Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a To what extent has FIP contributed to reducing the loss of habitats and other environmental services?

x

Client’s agroforestry project diverts food production away from swiddens and associated


17

habitat loss

b To what extent has FIP contributed to protect or increase the number of keystone species in habitats/ ecosystems/biome?

x

Client’s agroforestry project helps to discourage illegal

rosewood harvesting and sales in adjacent National Protected

Areas c To what extent has FIP improved environmental services

associated with forests and forest landscapes? x

Client’s agroforestry project reducing use of fire to clear land for swiddens in adjacent areas

d To what extent has FIP supported/contributed to country’s capacities to conserve biodiversity and other ecosystem services?

x

Client’s agroforestry project diverts food production away

from swiddens in adjacent National Protected Areas

e Any other criteria (to be added by country, if applicable)

x

NA

Q1 Scoring: How have you defined the scores in your country context? Subjective observations until sufficient data available for analysis. Scoring is relative only to project period. Low scores generally reflect early project period.

Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP interventions regarding biodiversity and other environmental services in your country context during this reporting year? IFC FIP has introduced need for biodiversity set aside conservation in firm’s agroforestry project, as required under IFC E&S Performance Standards. Currently no national requirement for plantations to set aside and manage areas for biodiversity conservation.

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see? A key challenge is to compile credible evidence to show that agroforestry, community engagement and livelihood development in plantations can reduce deforestation and forest degradation pressures on adjacent conservation areas.


18

THEME 2.2: GOVERNANCE

Scorecard 2.2 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP has contributed to improved legal and regulatory frameworks and their application; institutional arrangements and processes; conflict resolution mechanisms; etc.

SCORECARD 2.2


Not applica

-ble

No/ Not at

all

Partially

Yes, comple-

tely


Score N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Consistency of broader development and land use policies in the context of REDD+

1.a To what extent has FIP contributed to the development of legal and regulatory frameworks on forests?

x

Review of forest plantation

regulations by government

1.b To what extent is the FIP helping to make forest policies consistent with national policies for land management, climate change mitigation and adaptation or equivalents (e.g. REDD+ strategies)?

x

Review of forest plantation

regulations by government

1.c To what extent is inter-sectoral dialogue between agencies responsible for forests and those responsible for sectors affecting but outside of forests facilitated and encouraged by the FIP?

x

FIP project promotes

intersectoral dialogue between

Ministry of Forestry and other

Ministries responsible for

concession licensing and

investment (MPI) 1.d To what extent has FIP contributed to the existence and adequacy of safeguards

against social and environmental harm from forest related policies and activities?

x

Firm has fully committed to

application of IFC environmental and social performance

standards in FIP project

2 Financing incentives, economic instrument and benefits sharing

2.a To what extent has FIP supported equitable sharing of forest revenue (sharing benefits or income from public forest with the local communities), equity in the distribution of access to forest resources, rights and rents?

x

Project is supporting more

refined and equitable land use

agreements between

communities and plantation firm


19

2.b To what extent has FIP supported equitable sharing of forest revenue (sharing

benefits or income from public forest with the local communities); equity in the

distribution of access to forest resources, rights and rents for women?

x

Project is supporting

Women’s union role in village

decision making on land allocation

and use 2.c To what extent has FIP contributed to create economic incentives and policies to

sustainable utilization of timbers and non-timber forest products, including value

addition for women and men?? x


20

N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Evidences/Sources/

Comments

3 Stakeholder Participation:

3a To what extent has FIP contributed to ensure that stakeholder processes allow the participation of marginalized or vulnerable groups (including women) such as indigenous/traditional groups in forest-related decision-making processes?

x

Key aspect of project is to help firm incorporate FPIC in decision

making 3b To what extent has FIP contributed to the existence and effectiveness of conflict

resolution and grievance redress mechanisms, including women’s access to and use of such mechanisms?

x

Key aspect of project is to help firm incorporate

Grievance mechanisms in

decision making 4 Transparency and accountability

4.a To what extent has FIP contributed to the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness and accessibility of forest-related information available to stakeholders, including public notice of and dialogue on pending actions?

x

Key aspect of project is to help firm incorporate

Stakeholder Engagement Planning and

Communications in decision making

5 Stakeholder action:

5.a To what extent has FIP resulted in corporate entities and businesses operating in the

forest sector or forest-relevant sectors actually complying with recommended

international codes of conducts, standards and safeguard?

x

Core part of FIP project

6 Quality of decision making:

6.a To which extent has FIP contributed to ensure that forest management planning is

adaptive

x

FIP project involves helping client

progress from pilot activity to

operational scale, using lessons

learned 7 Any other criteria (to be added by country, if applicable)

x

Q1 Scoring: How have you defined the scores in your country context?


21

Scoring is relative only to project period. Low scores generally reflect early project period.

Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding forest governance in your country context during this reporting year? FIP project has enabled IFC to engage with both private sector firms and with the public regulators whose policies affect the enabling conditions.

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see?


22

THEME 2.3: TENURE, RIGHTS AND ACCESS

Scorecard 2. 3 provides a qualitative assessment of how FIP has contributed to improving the tenure, resources rights, and access and benefit sharing.

SCORECARD 2.3


Not Appli- cable

No/ Not

at all Partially

Yes comple

tely


Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a To what extent has FIP contributed to the improvement of legal frameworks to protect forest-related property rights and access for all forest stakeholders (including women and indigenous peoples)?

x

b To what extent has FIP

contributed to

establishing measures

and mechanisms

which ensure the

tenure security of

female forest owners

and rights-holders?

x

Stronger roles of village committees

c To what extent has FIP contributed to recognizing customary and traditional rights of forest dependent communities, women, including local communities and traditional forest users?

x

A strong focus of FIP project with firms to support improved land access with local communities

d To what extent has FIP contributed to the

x

A strong focus of FIP project with firms to support improved

land access with local communities using free prior and


23

comprehensiveness and accuracy of documentation and accessibility of information related to forest tenure and rights?

informed consent (FPIC), including validation procedures

e Any other criteria (to be added by country, if applicable)

x

Q1 Scoring: How have you defined the scores in your country context? Scoring is relative only to project period and design. Low scores generally reflect early project period.

Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding forest tenure, rights and access in your country context during this reporting year? The firm involved in the FIP project is being approached by new communities for partnership engagements.

Q3 What have been your key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see?

THEME 2.4: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Scorecard 2.4 provides a qualitative assessment of the extent to which FIP helps to build capacity of relevant REDD+ stakeholders to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.

SCORECARD 2.4


Not Appli- cable

No/ Not

at all Partially

Yes comple-

tely


Scores N/A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a To what extent has FIP enhanced institutional capabilities to develop and implement forest and forest-relevant policies at the national, regional and local level?

x

Policy support to Forestry Department on

plantation forest investment and management


24

b To what extent has FIP contributed to improve human resources capacities of women and men in the forest and related sectors to detect and manage drivers of deforestation and forest degradation? x

c To what extent has FIP improved capacities of stakeholders in forest and land use planning and management?

x



d To what extent has FIP increased the capacities of Indigenous Peoples, and local communities to participate in forest and landscape management?

x

A strong focus of FIP project with firms to

support improved land access with local

communities using free prior and informed

consent (FPIC), including validation procedures

e To what extent has FIP increased the capacities of women to participate in forest and landscape management?

x

Highlighting role of Women’s Union in

community decision making regarding

forestry

f To what extent has FIP contributed to strengthen staff capacity and effectiveness of forest administration agencies?

x



Q1 Scoring: How have you defined the scores in your country context? Scoring is relative only to project period and design. Low scores generally reflect early project period.

Q2 What have been key contributions (successes) of FIP regarding capacity development in your country context during this reporting year? With FIP project support, the key GoL counterpart hosted the first national workshop on plantation forestry policy and management

Q3 What have been your key challenges and which opportunities for improvement do you see?


25


26

Please briefly describe how the FIP contributed to transformational changes in addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in your country as presented in the endorsed FIP investment plan? What is the value added of FIP? The major focus – and added value - of the Lao PDR Forest Investment Plan (Lao FIP) is to promote participatory sustainable forest management (PSFM) or all types of forests, with a major emphasis on promoting the capacities of villagers and other grassroots managers.

The first Lao FIP project under implementation, SUFORD-SU, is scaling up a PSFM approach for Production Forest Areas (PFAs). This project is more commonly known as SUFORD-Scaling Up (SUFORD-SU), as it follows three previous projects – the pilot Forest Management and Conservation (FOMACOP, 1995-1999) program, the Sustainable Forestry for Rural Development (SUFORD, 2004-2008), and SUFORD-Additional Financing (SUFORD-AF, 2009-2012). The previous projects piloted and then progressively expanded the system of participatory sustainable forest management (PSFM) of national Production Forest Areas (PAFs). This approach to PSFM of PFAs is now being applied in 13 of 17 rural provinces, working in 41 out of 51 national PFAs. The current project is also piloting forest landscape management and village forestry. The FIP support has enabled expansion to cover 25 more PFAs, and 3 additional provinces, and more than 350 additional villages. The project is also working on policy issues, and strengthening forest law enforcement and monitoring. For the smallholder plantation project, it is too early in the project to address. Please describe what has happened since your investment plan was endorsed? The SUFORD-SU Project was agreed between the Government of Lao PDR and the World Bank in August 2013. The technical support, primarily funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Finland became effective in December 2013. This project is implemented by the Department of Forestry (DOF). Field activities got underway in March 2014. The project supports enforcement of the Forestry Law and the Wildlife and Aquatic Law by the Department of Forest Inspection (DOFI). Consistent monitoring and reporting on this law enforcement has been expanded to all 18 provinces. The Smallholder Plantation project involves work with private sector. It liaises with the Department of Forestry. According to instructions sent by FIP on 1 June 2015, this private sector initiative will be reported to FIP separately by the Government of Lao PDR and IFC. Work began with one private sector partner in 2015, and efforts are underway to expand the number of partners. The Protecting Forests for Ecosystem Services project, which constitutes additional financing for the ongoing Biodiversity Corridor Conservation (BCC) initiative, has been designed with the Government of Lao PDR. It was awaiting final approval by the Asian Development Project (ADB) Board of Directors in 2015. Approval was received in June 2016, so these additional activities will be launched in mid 2016. In late 2014 and early 2015, work was done to build a new team to monitor and report on the Lao FIP, and prepare this report. This team building has continued in 2016.

Please assess how well the theory of change and underlying assumptions described in the endorsed investment plan are playing out in practice, what can be learned and whether corrective measures need to be taken. The theory of change assumes that capacitation of grassroots managers will lead to improved PSFM. While it is an important factor, it does not address some of the larger national and regional development factors. For example, neighboring countries have a huge demand for forest products from Lao PDR, so incentives for illegal logging and wildlife poaching remain strong. DOFI’s law enforcement and awareness raising, however, is

NARRATIVE 3.1: THEORY OF CHANGE AND ASSUMPTIONS


27

working to address this issue, to promote a culture of institutional and community compliance, and to promote this message nationwide. Another major challenge is the land pressure, with high demand for land for agricultural concessions that places pressure on forest lands. To date, efforts to address this issue, among others, by promoting integrated spatial planning at the provincial level, have not yet progressed very far. For the smallholder plantation project, it is too early in the project to address. The project results framework, however, is sufficiently flexible to enable IFC to engage with a diverse range of private sector firms.


28

NARRATIVE 3. 2: CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL REDD+ AND

OTHER NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND UPTAKE OF FIP

APPROACHES

Please describe how the FIP enhanced and/ or advanced the national REDD+ process (including REDD+ readiness and performance-based mechanisms) and relevant development strategies? In 2013-14, through the SUFORD-SU project, the Lao FIP has been supporting work to expand participatory sustainable management of national production forests, and pilot approaches to forest landscape management, including support to village forestry. It has also provided some support to enhancing forest and wildlife law enforcement. These activities have contributed to implementation of the Lao national Forest Strategy 2020 (FS2020). Work on forest landscape management will contribute to improved provincial-level land use planning, which will address some of the competing uses of forest land that are drivers of deforestation and degradation (infrastructure development, such as roads and hydropower, and agricultural concessions). The FCPF Readiness Grant was signed in August 2014. A technical assistance team was contracted and began work on 1 July. Work has not yet begun on the REDD+ Strategy. This work is expected to get underway, however, very soon. With FIP support, the SUFORD-SU project in the future will be contributing to work on:

National forest cover assessment

National forest inventory

National forest information systems

Development of the reference level and MRV systems

Benefit-sharing mechanisms and REDD+ safeguard information systems

National REDD+ Strategy With FIP support, government and development partners are now working to develop a programmatic approach to management of, and reporting on, the Lao FIP, which will be an integral part of the national REDD+ program. This work is promoting cooperation among the relevant forestry agencies – the Department of Forestry (DOF) and Department of Forest Inspection (DOFI) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Department of Forest Resource Management (DFRM) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE). The newly-elected Government decided on 25 May 2016 to reorganize ministerial mandates. In the future, responsibility for the forest sector will be reconsolidated under one ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In May, the Prime Minister issued Decree No. 13, which prohibits export of unfinished timber and raw logs, and strengthens law enforcement efforts against illegal logging. The Lao FIP is providing investment support in activities to reduce or sequester carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, thereby preparing the way for future payment-for performance (for emissions reductions). Lao PDR was accepted into the project pipeline for the Carbon Fund in October 2015, when the Carbon Fund meeting in Brussels accepted its Emissions Reduction-Project Identification Note (ER-PIN). The ongoing work of SUFORD-SU is scaling up participatory sustainable forest management, which will be the basis for any possible future REDD+ performance-based mechanisms.


29

The Government of Lao PDR submitted a concept note for additional financing to the Forest Investment Program in March 2015. The proposed additional financing would permit expansion of the PSFM approach to the remaining four rural provinces in Lao PDR, to cover the remaining 10 PFAs, additional forest landscapes and village forests, and work with over 400 additional villages, primarily of ethnic minorities. Such an expansion would complete the national program. This proposal was rated the most highly of the seven proposals received, but due to insufficient funding was not one of the two proposals funded. For the smallholder plantation project, it is too early in the project to address.


30

NARRATIVE 3.3: SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTNERS

INCLUDING THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

Selected different types of support for REDD+ activities in Lao PDR is summarized in the table on the following page.

Please describe how bi- and multilateral development partners supported the interaction of FIP and other REDD+ activities. A range of bilateral development partners are supporting the interaction of the Lao FIP and other REDD+ activities. The SUFORD-SU project receives direct support from FIP, the World Bank and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Finland. Other bilateral support for REDD+ comes from Japanese (JICA) and German assistance (both GIZ and KfW). In its forest landscape work, SUFORD-SU is collaborating with the KFW-supported Integrated Conservation of Forests and Biodiversity (ICFB) project in two northern provinces.The World Bank is also supporting the implementation of a FCPF Readiness Grant. Under the umbrella of the Forest Sub-Sector Working Group (FSSWG), these development partners are collaborating with the Government of Lao PDR on supporting REDD+ activities. Work has also begun on preparation of an Emissions Reduction-Program Document (ER-PD) for the Carbon Fund. The proposed program will include six northern provinces, four of which are currently supported by FIP (SUFORD-SU). Key Lao-based collaborators in the smallholder plantation project to date include: the World Bank-FIP SUFORD-SU project, UNDP, FAO, and GIZ. Please describe how the (formal and informal) private sector actors have taken up good practices demonstrated through FIP? Please describe challenges encountered in involving the private sector in FIP. In 2015, the International Finance Corporation agreed to work with a private sector partner on the Smallholder Plantation Project. Earlier the IFC had tried to work with a different private sector partner, but then that company changed its investment strategy and decided no longer promote smallholder plantations. Firms are attached to IFC’s E&S Performance Standards and are generally motivated to collaborate with IFC to gain understanding and compliance with the standards. SUFORD-SU will work with private timber and wood-processing companies once the PFA logging ban is lifted. It had been hoped to have the logging ban lifted in 2016, but now it looks like the earliest date will be 2017.

Please describe how civil society organizations and other stakeholders have been involved in FIP implementation? With FIP support, SUFORD-SU has been working with mass organizations, such as the Lao Front for National Construction (LFNC) and the Lao Women’s Union (LWU), on ethnic and gender issues respectively. They have also collaborated with some international non-governmental organizations, such as the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the Netherlands Development organization, SNV, the Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC, formerly known as the Regional Community Training Center), and Village Focus International (VFI). The smallholder project has collaborated with RECOFTC, VFI, and WWF.


31

Table 1. Selected REDD+ Activities in Lao PDR.

Project Donor Focus Scope Type of Activities

CliPAD BMZ Sub-National Piloting Houaphan Province Sub-national

Piloting F-REDD JICA Sub-National Piloting Luang Prabang Province

SUFORD-SU WB/FIP

Finland

Sustainable Forest Management in Production

Forests, Forest Landscapes, Village Forestry,

monitoring, support to forest law

enforcement (all 18 provinces)

13 of 17 rural Provinces

Forest Landscape work in 4

provinces [Additional FIP funds for 4

remaining rural provinces proposed]

Mitigation

and

Enhancement

Lao Forest Investment

Plan (Lao FIP)

FIP/WB/ADB/IFC 3 projects: SUFORD-SU (WB); smallholder

plantations (IFC); biodiversity corridors /

forest ecosystem services (ADB)

Multiple provinces

FLEGT European Union/BMZ Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and

Trade

Multiple Provinces

ENRICH BMUB Carbon Stock Enhancements Faculty of Forestry

F-REDD JICA Forestry Policies and Capacities National Level

REDD+ Technical Systems

and Policy Work

JICA 2nd National Forest Inventory Country-wide

JICA National Forest Cover Assessment Country-wide

CliPAD BMZ National REDD+ Program Country-wide

UN-REDD Norway, Germany,

Japan, etc.

Provincial forest monitoring

Forest governance and land and resource

tenure

National level

Project Level Activities RECOFTC, WWF, WCS Various activities, NGO and private. Multiple Locations


32

NARRATIVE 3. 4: LINK OF DEDICATED GRANT MECHANISM FOR

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES (DGM) TO

INVESTMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT’S POINT OF VIEW.

Please provide comments on the complementarity of the DGM and its contribution to the investment plan. Especially,

a) How effective is the DGM in supporting the government-led FIP process? The Dedicated Grant Mechanism has not yet been operating in Lao PDR.

b) How does the government take action on identified needs which cannot be addressed by DGM?

The Government of Lao PDR addresses the needs of ethnic minority peoples through a wide range of activities and projects. For many years, the mass organization, the Lao Front for National Construction (LFNC) has had major responsibility for working with and supporting ethnic minorities. Recently the Ministry for Home Affairs (MOHA) has created a new Department of Ethnic and Religious Affairs (DOERA), which is assuming some of the responsibilities of LNFC. Lao PDR is a country with 49 recognized ethnic groups. The Lao FIP projects are designed to meet the needs of all ethnic groups. In the SUFORD-SU project, for example, many of the new villages are comprised of ethnic minorities, so the community engagement process has been designed to ensure that they can participate in, and benefit from, the project. Villages receive monetary and non-monetary benefits from the Participatory Sustainable Forest Management, such as a share of the timber logging revenues, employment in forestry work, and environmental services and forest products for local use and for sale. They also receive Village Livelihood Development (VLD) grants and Forest Restoration (FR) grants. The project works with LFNC and DOERA, as well as the Lao Women’s Union (LWU) and National Committee for the Advancement of Women (NCAW). Field staff with fluency in various ethnic languages work with the project. The SUFORD-SU project areas include people from 26 different ethnic groups. Overall, SUFORD-SU is currently working in over 1000 villages, of which an estimated 45% have ethnic minority populations. Overall, the Lao PDR Government places priority on development of the poorest villages and districts in the country.


33

NARRATIVE 3. 5: IF APPLICABLE: HIGHLIGHTS

Please provide example of key successes that you want to mention. With FIP support, the SUFORD-SU project has already making considerable progress in scaling up the participatory sustainable forest management approach for production forests and related activities with 1090 villages overlapping, or adjacent to, these production forests. Three previous projects had piloted and developed this system. The initial project, FOMACOP, had worked in two provinces with 100,000 ha. in two production forest areas (PFAs), 60 villages, and an estimated 30,000 beneficiaries. The second project, SUFORD, had worked in eight PFAs in four provinces, with 412 villages and an estimated 200,000 beneficiaries. The third project, SUFORD-AF, worked in nine (now 10) provinces with 16 PFAs covering 1.28 mil. ha, and a total of 741 villages, approximately 380,000 beneficiaries. The current project, commonly known as SUFORD-Scaling Up (SUFORD-SU), is now working in 13 provinces with 41 PFAs, an estimated 1090 villages. While in previous projects, much of the work was organized and led by the international and national technical assistance teams, currently most of the field work is really being carried out by the provincial and district government staff in collaboration with the villagers. The approach, thus, is truly being mainstreamed and institutionalized as national operating procedures. Despite the delays in procuring project field equipment, such as vehicles, motorbikes, and computers, impressive progress has been made. By the end of 2015, almost half a million hectares of forest had been inventoried for the 25 new PFAs for which forest management plans are being prepared. SUFORD-SU and the Department of Forestry’s Forest Inventory and Planning Division (FIPD) worked closely with five national universities and colleges, to train forestry students to undertake these field inventories. Forest management plans for the 25 new PFAs were drafted by the end of 2015. Due to a change in policy, the plans needed further revision, prior to approval. Once approved, the total area of PFAs under PSFM will increase from 1.3 to 2.0 million hectares. Villagers are involved in participatory land use planning for their village areas of the PFAs. Villages have rights to certain areas as village utilization forests. The forest management planning also takes into consideration customary and traditional uses of the forests, such as protection of sacred or spirit forests and trees, and protection of cemeteries and other culturally important sites within the forests. Villagers are consulted on the fallow (pa lao) lands within the PFAs, in terms of their preferences as to whether such areas should be managed for forest restoration, rotational agriculture, or agroforestry systems. Work on village forestry is ongoing in 33 villages within two landscape provinces, as well as with other villages managing rattan (the latter work is in collaboration with WWF). Social and environmental safeguards have been mainstreamed into the community engagement, village development, and forest management operating procedures, guidelines, and all training for staff and villagers. Strong efforts are made to ensure that ethnic minorities, women, the poor, and other vulnerable people, such as the disabled, can participate in, and benefit from, project decision-making, activities, and both monetary and non-monetary benefits. Work is underway to pilot forest landscape management, to improve provincial-level land use planning, with the aim to reduce deforestation and degradation, and to increase forest cover. The aim is to ensure that forests are better managed, i.e., not further fragmented by competing land uses, and where suitable, corridors established to connect forest areas. The siting of infrastructure projects (hydropower and roads), mining, and agricultural and forestry concessions should minimize impact on natural forests whenever possible. The Department for Forest Inspection (DOFI) has now institutionalized its Strategic Threats and


34

Enforcement Patrol Program (STEPP) for law enforcement in all 18 provinces of Lao PDR. Consistent monitoring and reporting systems are now in place and being implemented. DOFI is focusing attention on building systems, and developing staff capacity, particular for younger staff (i.e., future leaders) and women staff to build their expertise in actual law enforcement operations, including community outreach. Community education events are being held in villages, schools, and markets. In May 2016, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 15 prohibited all exports of logs and unfinished wood products, aiming to increase wood for local industries, reduce illegal logging, and increase government tax revenues from wood products. With support from top leadership, increased emphasis is being placed on curbing illegal logging. Under instructions from the National Assembly and the Government, a review is also ongoing of all the three types of national forests – production, protection, and conservation forests – with the aim of rationalizing the boundaries and excluding any areas clearly not forest, to improve management. In May 2016, the Government decided to reconsolidate the forest sector under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry of Natural Resources will thus hand over responsibility for the conservation and protection forests, as well as REDD+, to MAF. The two separate REDD+ offices, under MONRE and MAF, will be merged into one.


35

Summary of the scoring workshop

(only for scorecards)

Scoring of the SUFORD-SU Project For undertaking scoring of the FIP program in Lao PDR, it was agreed that the scoring should be done on the basis of the implementation of the SUFORD-SU project for the period 2015, and comparing it with that done in 2012-14. Scoring was done in an iterative process, over a series of different meetings with different stakeholders. Overall, the average scores increased from 3.7 for the 2012-14 period to 5.4 for 2015.

Who were the different stakeholder groups invited to the scoring workshop (composition and number)? Please attach the list of participants. On 3 June 2016, the FIP team (national focal point, World Bank, IFC, and SUFORD-SU and BCC staff) met to discuss how best to undertake the scoring. It was agreed that scoring should be done on a project basis, and once more than one Lao FIP project comes under active implementation, the project scores could be consolidated into national scores. [Subsequently, when the IFC scores were received in July 2016, it was decided to report the scores separately.]

Scoring criteria – and SUFORD-SU scores - were drafted by SUFORD-SU technical assistance (TA), and then reviewed by the larger FIP team in the Lao PDR National FIP Report workshop (including the scoring workshop) held on 3 June 2016.

How did you empower stakeholders during the workshop? Stakeholders were empowered through a highly participatory environment, with open and respectful dialogue. Having knowledgeable stakeholders (a small group of experts) made this workshop successful.

What were the key issues raised during the workshop? The difficulty of doing participatory scoring, given the breadth of the project activities, and the limited knowledge of stakeholders of the full range of activities. Participants agreed that in Lao PDR, it is most


36

productive to convene stakeholder meetings when an initial draft has been prepared and is available for review and comment. Working with a small, knowledgeable expert group is more productive that undertaking an assessment via a broader stakeholder group that is less knowledgeable. As this meeting also constituted the annual country FIP meeting, the participants discussed how to improve the FIP coordination. The Lao National Focal Point discussed his need to have an assistant. Others mentioned the important of using the Department of Forestry REDD+ Office as a focal point. As the national REDD+ program and strategy become clear over the coming year, then it will be timely to see how FIP can best fit into the national REDD+ program. It was agreed that the smallholder plantation project would prepare its own report, and the two would be combined. It was also agreed by the group that the scores would be reported separately for each project, not combined. This approach is important as the projects are working at different scales, and with different starting and ending points. The IFC project is using EX-ACT in calculating its emissions reductions. The REDD+ Adviser for SUFORD-SU is basing his calculations on project interventions. The meeting discussed how perhaps the World Bank could find someone who could also prepare emissions reduction calculations for SUFORD-SU using EX-ACT, for comparison purposes and FIP reporting. NOTE: The smallholder planation project did not hold a scoring workshop, but IFC prepared a separate project report. IFC provided the scores included in this report.


37

National Lao FIP Report Workshop Participants

World Bank, Vientiane, 3 June 2016

National FIP Report Review Workshop (including Scoring Workshop): 1. Mr. Inthavy Akkarath, Deputy Director General of Department of Forest Resource Management,

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and National FIP Focal Point 2. Mr. Khamsene Ounekham, Deputy Director of Department of Forestry REDD+ Office, and National

Focal Point (Project Coordinator) for FCPF Readiness Grant 3. Mr. Bounpone Sengthong, National Project Coordinator for SUFORD-SU and Head of DOF Division of

Production Forestry and Timber Harvesting 4. Mr. Khamphet Keosouvanh, SUFORD-SU focal point within Department of Forest Inspection (DOFI)

and Deputy Head of Cooperation Section 5. Mr. Robert Davis, Forestry Specialist, World Bank Country Office in Lao PDR, and Task Manager for

SUFORD-SU and FCPF Readiness Grant 6. Ms. Souladath Silaphet, Climate Change Specialist, World Bank Country Office in Lao PDR 7. Mr. Michael Brady, Regional Forestry Specialist, International Finance Corporation (by conference call

from Jakarta, Indonesia) 8. Mr. Esa Puustajarvi, Chief Technical Adviser, SUFORD-SU 9. Ms. Paula J. Williams, Monitoring and Evaluation Adviser, SUFORD-SU 10. Mr. Jussi Viding, Junior Professional Officer (working on monitoring and evaluation), SUFORD-SU 11. Mr. Aidan Flaming, Forest Law Enforcement Adviser to DOFI, SUFORD-SU 12. Mr. Bounphanh Phanthavong, MONRE, working with the Ecosystem Services Project 13. Mr. Outhai Vongsa, MONRE, working with the Ecosystem Services Project 14. Mr. Venevongphet Phet, MONRE, working with the Ecosystem Services Project

Documents

MONITORING AND REPORTING - Climate Investment Funds...management planning includes provisions for high-conservation value forests, stream buffer zones, protection of steep slopes,