Table 9. M&E Activities, Responsibilities, Indicative Budget and Time Frame Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ (excluding project team staff time) Time frame Inception Workshop (IW) SLT-PMU UNDP CO UNDP/GEF RTA 15,000 Within first two months of project start up Inception Report SLT-PMU UNDP CO Included in the workshop budget Immediately following IW Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Outcome Indicators SLT-PMU will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members. None Start, mid and end of project Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis) Oversight by UNDP CO/GEF Regional Technical Advisor Measurements by GSLEP Sec and national implementing agencies None Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans ($2,000 / year) APR and PIR SLT-PMU UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF RTA None Annually CDRs SLT-PMU None Quarterly Project Board meetings SLT-PMU UNDP CO 12,000 Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year Project Technical Committee Meetings SLT-PMU UNDP CO 12,000 At least once a year during project duration Periodic status reports SLT-PMU 3,000 To be determined by the PMU and UNDP CO Technical reports SLT-PMU Hired consultants as needed Tbd To be determined by the SLT-PMU and UNDP-CO Mid-Term Review (Internal exercise only) SLT-PMU UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor 2,000 18 months after project implementation (project mid-point). Terminal Evaluation SLT-PMU UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor External Evaluators (i.e. international/ national consultants) 30,000 At the end of project implementation Terminal Report SLT-PMU UNDP-CO None Prior to the Terminal Evaluation
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK (SRF) AND GEF INCREMENT PART I: Strategic Results Framework, SRF (formerly GEF Logical Framework) Analysis Project Title: Transboundary Cooperation for Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Conservation Project’s Development Goal: The long term survival of the global snow leopard populations and their critical mountain ecosystems is secured. Objective/ Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information Risks and assumptions Objective: To strengthen transboundary conservation of snow leopard ecosystems and landscapes that ensure stability of global snow leopard population by addressing drivers of existing and emerging threats with special focus in Central Asia. Snow leopard populations in the 4 project countries Kazakhstan: Kyrgyz Republic: 300-350 Tajikistan: Uzbekistan: 30-45 No decline from baseline Monitoring reports Risks: Range countries unwilling to establish transboundary cooperation agreements Lack of consensus among key stakeholders on best practice methods and tools Assumptions: The governments remain committed to conservation of snow leopards & their critical ecosystems There is no upsurge in the key Central Asian states in activity by international criminal syndicates trading in snow leopard furs and other parts Transboundary Snow leopard landscapes with active conservation/cooperation programme 0 1 Signed MOUs Project progress reports Level of key threats in pilot transboundary landscape (poaching, retaliatory killing, habitat destruction) Poaching: Snow Leopard (2014) – 1 individual Retaliatory killing: 0 (Zero), although snow leopard predation on livestock was Reduction in poaching and maintain zero cases of retaliatory killing of snow leopards Habitat loss reduced and quality snow leopard habitat maintained PA guard and customs reports Community interviews Rapid habitat suitability assessment results or results of assessment of transboundary landscapes (methodology developed under GSLEP process)
Outcome 2. Global monitoring framework developed for snow leopard ecosystems, demonstrated and adopted by range countries Outputs: Output 2.1: Common monitoring indicators and methods for snow leopard landscapes and populations developed, tested and disseminated Output 2.2: Spatial database for monitoring and management of one transboundary landscape is developed Output 2.3: Sustainable landscape management measures are identified and presented to stakeholders for implementation # Countries using approved/adopted common monitoring indicators/framework None At least 2 Common monitoring framework Approval document Risks: Monitoring framework is not used because it is not aligned with existing national monitoring frameworks Assumptions: Stakeholder institutions are willing to share information with other countries # transboundary snow leopard landscapes with sustainable management measures agreed to reduce key threats 0 1 Geospatial assessment Agreed management priorities with M&E system Project reports # women in the pilot landscape directly benefiting from new sustainable management measures: 0 Kyrgyz part 0 Kazakhstan part 20% 2% Project reports Outcome 3. Effective and sustainable transboundary conservation mechanism for snow leopard ecosystems Output 3.1: Global coordination mechanism for technical support, resource development and knowledge-sharing is strengthened Output 3.2: Global and national tools for financing snow leopard ecosystem conservation developed, piloted and shared Output 3.3: Private sector dialogue platforms established Capacity of, and satisfaction with, GSLEP coordination To be determined during inception phase 20% increase on the baseline score Capacity/Satisfaction surveys of GSLEP coordination from focal points and international partners Risks: Long-term core funding for the GSLEP Secretariat does not materialise Further economic downturn hinders private sector commitment to environmental sustainability Assumptions: Government of Kyrgyz Republic maintains its support for GSLEP after the Level of financing for GSLEP Secretariat and at least 2 national programmes (NSLEPs) GSLEP Secretariat: $ 93,300 p.a. Kazakhstan: $123,857 p.a. Kyrgyzstan: $252,857 p.a. 25-30% increase on the baseline (at least 5% of which from private sector) Financing records Agreements with private sector
Table 10. Incremental Cost Matrix Cost/Benefit Baseline (B) Alternative (A) Increment (A-B) BENEFITS Global benefits There is no effective framework to operationalise transboundary cooperation for the conservation of snow leopards and their high mountain ecosystems beyond the current baseline levels of GSLEP (forums and planning) There are no transboundary snow leopard landscapes with active conservation/cooperation programmes in place There is inadequate institutional capacity and awareness to implement transboundary cooperation for snow leopard conservation. Lack of a common (global) monitoring framework for monitoring snow leopards, their prey and their habitats Financial planning and resources for GSLEP coordination will not advance beyond current baseline levels, limiting the capacity to support NSLEP implementation An effective framework to operationalise transboundary cooperation for the conservation of snow leopards and their high mountain ecosystems is operationalised in the four target countries and made available globally Operationalisation of model transboundary cooperation for snow leopard conservation in one pilot landscape addresses critical threats and results in improved conservation outcomes Strategic capacity building conducted for target groups including public and private sector Common monitoring framework, including suite of indicators and a spatial database is developed. Enhanced financial planning and innovative financing mechanisms for GSLEP are developed and implemented, improving global coordination Snow leopard populations in the 4 project countries do not decline from baseline levels Contributions towards the maintenance of globally significant biodiversity and ecosystem services The Sarychat / Northern Tien Shan pilot landscape (39,500km2), shared between Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz republic is a model for transboundary cooperation for snow leopards There is a reduction in poaching and retaliatory hunting, and no net loss of quality habitat in the Sarychat / Northern Tien Shan pilot landscape Improving the overall institutional and individual capacity to implement transboundary cooperation for snow leopard populations and ecosystems from a baseline of 24%, to a final value of 31% as measured by the adapted Capacity Assessment Scorecard. Common monitoring framework is approved by all 12 range countries and adopted by at least two countries Level of financing for GSLEP Secretariat increases by 15% on the baseline (at least 5% of which from private sector) Capacity of, and satisfaction with, GSLEP coordination increases by 20% National and local benefits Lack of knowledge, tools and mechanisms to effectively operationalise transboundary Transboundary cooperation tools methods and mechanisms are developed and disseminated Global Knowledge Toolkit developed and made available through on-line platform
demonstrated and adopted by range states 72100 Contractual Services - Company 35,000 45,000 30,000 110,000 11 75700 Training/Workshop 25,000 30,000 34,000 89,000 12 74200 Audio-visual and printing production costs 5,000 9,000 9,400 23,400 13 74500 Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 14 Total 89,000 111,000 100,000 300,000 OUTCOME 3: Effective and sustainable transboundary conservation mechanism for snow leopard ecosystems UNDP 62000 GEF 71200 International Consultants 16,000 20,000 16,000 52,000 15 71300 Local Consultants 10,000 10,000 12,800 32,800 16 71600 Travel 6,000 6,000 7,600 19,600 17 72100 Contractual Services - Company - - - - 18 75700 Training/Workshop 20,000 15,000 50,000 85,000 19 74200 Audio-visual and printing production costs 5,000 5,600 7,000 17,600 20 74500 Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 21 Total 58,000 57,600 94,400 210,000 Project Management 71200 International Consultants 7,133 7,133 7,133 21,399 22 71300 Local Consultants 10,080 10,080 10,080 30,240 23 74100 Audit 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 24 74500 Direct Project Costs 3,000 2,000 2,000 7,000 25 74500 Miscellaneous 13,871 2,000 1,399 17,270 26 Total 39,084 26,213 25,612 90,909 TOTAL PROJECT 310,084 336,813 353,103 1,000,000
28. Individuals working with transboundary cooperation for snow leopard ecosystems work effectively together as a team 0 Historically there were some examples of such collaboration but they have not been sustained. Individuals interact in limited way and sometimes in teams but this is rarely effective and functional; 1 Individuals interact regularly and form teams, but this is not always fully effective or functional; 2 Individuals interact effectively and form functional teams 3 5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn about transboundary snow leopard ecosystems; 29. Policy is continually reviewed and updated There is no policy or it is old and not reviewed regularly; 0 1 GSLEP policy has been developed but no reviews have yet taken place. Policy is only reviewed at irregular intervals; 1 Policy is reviewed regularly but not annually; 2 National offsets policy is reviewed annually 3 30. Society monitors the state of transboundary snow leopard ecosystems There is no dialogue at all; 0 0 Society will only be involved in implementation process on the national and local levels There is some dialogue going on, but not in the wider public and restricted to specialized circles; 1 There is a reasonably open public dialogue going on but certain issues remain taboo; 2 There is an open and transparent public dialogue about the state of the Transboundary snow leopard ecosystems 3 31. Transboundary cooperation for snow leopard ecosystems institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change Institutions resist change; 0 1 Institutions are responding slowly to changes in policy at national level. Institutions do change but only very slowly; 1 Institutions tend to adapt in response to change but not always very effectively or with some delay; 2 Institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change 3 32. Transboundary cooperation for snow leopard ecosystems institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning There are no mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting or learning; 0 0 Transboundary mechanisms do not yet exist, so there is no M&E. There are some mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning but they are limited and weak; 1 Reasonable mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning are in place but are not as strong or comprehensive as they could be; 2 Institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning 3