ACTIVITY MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN (AMEP)

ACTIVITY MONITORING AND

EVALUATION PLAN (AMEP)

SECOND EDITION, NOVEMBER 30, 2017

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared

by Tetra Tech ARD.

This publication was prepared for review by the United States Agency for International

Development under Contract # AID-497-TO-15-00005. It was produced by Tetra Tech ARD.

The period of this contract is from July 2015 to July 2020.

Implemented by:

Tetra Tech ARD

P.O. Box 1397

Burlington, VT 05402

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 1

ACTIVITY MONITORING

AND EVALUATION PLAN

(AMEP)

SECOND EDITION, NOVEMBER 30, 2017

DISCLAIMER

This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United

States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are

the sole responsibility of Tetra Tech ARD and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID

or the United States Government.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 3

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................... 8

1.2. AMEP Development ............................................................................................... 10

2. LESTARI M&E Frameworks ......................................................................... 12

2.1 Situation Model ....................................................................................................... 12

2.2. LESTARI Results Framework and Theories of Change .......................................... 16

2.3 Logical Framework and Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT) .................... 28

3. Plan for Activity Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................. 47

3.1 LESTARI Learning Loop: Data Collection, Storage, Quality Assurance, Analysis, and

Utilization ............................................................................................................... 47

3.2 Internal Evaluations Plan ......................................................................................... 54

3.3 Schedule for Performance Monitoring Tasks ........................................................... 58

3.4. Monitoring and evaluation structures, functions, and capabilities ........................... 59

Annex I: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) ........................... 62

Annex II: Results Chains ............................................................................... 125

Annex III: Data Quality Assessment Checklists .......................................... 133

Annex IV: LANDSCAPE SITUATION MODELS ............................................. 138

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 3

ACRONYMS

ADS Automated Directives System

AMEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Local Budget Revenues and

Expenditures)

APL Area Penggunaan Lain (Other Uses Zones)

BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Development

Planning Agency)

BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development

Planning Agency)

BAU Business as Usual

BIG Badan Informasi Geospasial (Geospatial Information Agency)

BMPs Best Management Practices

C4J Changes for Justice

CAs Conservation Areas

CCAs Community Conservation Agreements

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CMMPs Conservation Management and Monitoring Plans

CMP Conservation Measures Partnership

Carbon Dioxide

e CO

equivalent

COP Chief of Party

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DAK Dana Alokasi Khusus (Special Allocation Fund)

DCOP Deputy Chief of Party

DNPI Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim (National Council on Climate Change)

DQ Data Quality

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 4

DQAs Data Quality Assessments

FACTS Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking Systems

FMU Forest Management Unit (or KPH)

FREL Forest Reference Emission Level

FY Fiscal Year

GAP Good Agricultural Practice

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GOI Government of Indonesia

GPS Global Positioning System

Ha Hectare

HCS High Carbon Stock

HCV High Conservation Value

HO Home Office

HPH Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (Forest Concession)

ICCTF Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund

ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry/World Agroforestry

Center

IFACS Indonesian Forest and Climate Support

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IR Intermediate Result

IUCN International Union for Conservation Nature

KPH-L Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung (Protected Forest Management

Unit)

KPH-P Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi (Production Forest Management

Unit)

KPA Kawasan Pelestarian Alam (Nature Conservation Area)

KR Key Result

KRP Kebijakan Rencana Program (Policy Planning Program)

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 5

KSA Kawasan Suaka Alam (Nature Reserve Area)

LBA Landscape Baseline Analysis

LCPs Landscape Conservation Plans

LEDS Low Emissions Development Strategy

LOP Life of Project

LSM Landscape Situation Model

LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

ME & L Monitoring Evaluation & Learning

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

MIS Management Information System

MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MRV Measuring Reporting Verification

MSF Multi Stakeholder Forum

MSI Multi Stakeholder Initiative

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NRM Natural Resource Management

PA Protected Areas

PEA Political Economy Analysis

PES Payment for Environmental Services

PHPL Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Lestari (Sustainable Production Forest

Management)

PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets

PITT Performance Indicator Tracking Table

PPPs Public-Private Partnerships

QCA Qualitative Comparative Analysis

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 6

RAN GRK Rencana Aksi Nasional Gas Rumah Kaca (National Action Plan for

Greenhouse Gas Emission)

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

(including conservation, sustainable management of forests, and

enhancement of forest carbon stocks)

RF Results Framework

REL Reference Emission Level

RIL-C Reduced Impact Logging-Carbon

RKPD Rencana Kerja Program Daerah (Annual Local Government Development

Plan)

RPJM Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Mid-Term Development

Plan)

RPHJP Long Term Term Forest Management Planning

RPJPd Annual Forest Management Planning

RTRWK Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kabupaten (District Spatial Plan)

RTRWN Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional (National Spatial Plan)

RTRWP Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi (Provincial Spatial Plan)

SEAs Strategic Environmental Assessments

SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure

SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SOW Scope of Work

STI Sustainable Travel International

TFA Tropical Forest Alliance

ToC Theory of Change

UN-REDD United Nations-Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United State Government

WCPA World Commission of Protected Area

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 7

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WWF World Wildlife Fund

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 8

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

USAID LESTARI supports the Government of Indonesia to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions and conserve biodiversity in carbon rich and biologically significant forest and

mangrove ecosystems. Built on the strong foundation of USAID’s IFACS project, LESTARI

applies a landscape approach to reduce GHG emissions, integrating forest and peatland

conservation with low emissions development (LEDS) on other, already degraded land. This

is achieved through improved land use governance, enhanced protected areas management

and protection of key species, sustainable private sector and industry practices, and

expanded constituencies for conservation among various stakeholders. LESTARI is

implemented under the leadership of Tetra Tech ARD and a consortium of partners including

WWF-Indonesia, Winrock International, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Blue Forests,

Yayasan Sahabat Cipta, PT Hydro South Pole Carbon, Sustainable Travel International

(STI), Michigan State University, and the FIELD Foundation. LESTARI runs from July 2015

through July 2020.

LESTARI activities are targeted in six strategic landscapes on three of Indonesia’s largest

islands, where primary forest cover remains most intact and carbon stocks are greatest. In

northern Sumatra, the Leuser Landscape comprises significant portions of Aceh Selatan,

Gayo Lues, Aceh Tenggara, and Aceh Barat Daya districts, and includes the Aceh portion of

Leuser National Park and Singkil Wildlife Sanctuary. In Central Kalimantan, LESTARI works

in the Katingan-Kahayan Landscape, comprising Pulang Pisau, Katingan, and Gunung Mas

districts; Palangkaraya municipality; and Sebangau and Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National

Parks. LESTARI also works in four landscapes in Papua. Sarmi and Cyclops Landscapes

are located along the northern coast and comprise Sarmi district as well as Jayapura district

and municipality. The Lorentz Lowlands Landscape, comprising Mimika and Asmat districts

plus a large portion of Lorentz National Park, and the Mappi-Bouven Digoel Landscape are

located along Papua’s southern coast. LESTARI is managed from its headquarters in

Jakarta, with offices in each landscape as well as the provincial capitals of Aceh, Central

Kalimantan, and Papua.

Overall Results of LESTARI are:

Goals:

 Key Result 1: At least 41% of total CO

-equivalent emissions reduced from land use, land

use change and deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope;

 Key Result 2: At least 8.42 Million hectares of primary or secondary forest (and peatland),

including orangutan habitat, under improved management;

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 9

IR 1: Improved Forest Management:

 Key Result 3: Management of at least six Conservation Areas (CAs) improved, resulting in

the conservation of valuable orangutan and other key species habitat, and the reduction in

poaching of threatened and endemic species;

 Key Result 4: At least ten Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) promoting low-emissions

conservation oriented development established;

 Key Result 5: Funding leveraged from public and private sources, representing co-

investment in project outcomes;

IR 2: Improved Land Use Governance:

 Key Result 6: Increased commitment of key private sector, government, and community

stakeholders regarding the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use of forests

and the species they encompass;

 Key Result 7: Policies, laws, regulations, and procedures in support of low emission

development and forest conservation and management increased, promulgated, and

enforced at all levels; and

 Key Result 8: Model(s) for successful integration of district, provincial, and national low

emissions development and forest conservation strategies developed and shared at all levels

of government and with other key stakeholders.

To achieve these results, LESTARI will implement 8 Strategic Approaches in three

complementary technical thematic areas:

1. Forest & Land Use Governance & Advocacy;

2. Conservation Co-Management; and

3. Private Sector Engagement

Following a Landscape Approach

to implementation, each strategic approach will be

nuanced to address the biophysical, social, political, and cultural context of each landscape.

LESTARI will be implemented primarily with congressionally mandated Biodiversity

Conservation funds. All Biodiversity Earmark-funded activities must align with U.S. Agency

for International Development’s (USAID) Biodiversity Policy and Biodiversity Code. The

Code requires that funded activities must a) have an explicit biodiversity objective; b) be

identified based on an analysis of drivers and threats to biodiversity and a corresponding

theory of change; c) must have the intent to positively impact biodiversity in biologically

significant areas; and d) must monitor indicators associated with each stated theory of

change for biodiversity conservation results. To support learning, adaptive management, and

to comply with the Biodiversity Code and ADS 203, Tetra Tech ARD has developed the

LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) to provide standards and

guidelines for monitoring, evaluating, and communicating our progress toward achievement

of the biodiversity and emissions targets, project results, and higher level USAID and GOI

goals.

Further information about Landscape Approach, please refer to LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) document.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 10

1.2. AMEP Development

The LESTARI AMEP is a living document, designed to ensure accountability and learning

which will be used to facilitate and promote evidence-based decision making. The document

outlines Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) systems, protocols, and data collection

methodologies. Throughout implementation, this framework will ensure continuous learning

while improving coordination and collaboration to track, evaluate, and articulate results and

impacts. The LESTARI M&E approach also ensures the adaptive management of project

activities through the use of sound, reliable, and timely data. Furthermore, the approach to

performance management integrates the five Open Standards for the Practice of

Conservation steps (hereafter, Open Standards). This enables the LESTARI AMEP to be

used as not only a monitoring tool but also a management tool that will be referenced by

staff, and used for training and capacity building to ensure comprehension and compliance

with sound performance management.

The design of LESTARI AMEP is further founded upon lessons learned from the IFACS

M&E system, and key recommendations from the IFACS Final Assessment. A key

recommendation was the need to incorporate a Theory of Change (ToC) approach in M&E

design. The assessment found that key critical assumptions about the causal linkages

between activities and higher level results had not been considered due to limited use of

program theory.

Following this recommendation, the LESTARI AMEP incorporates a theory of change

approach to define all building blocks required to bring about positive change whereby multi-

stakeholders’ interests and actions are better aligned with sustainable outcomes. LESTARI’s

theories of change not only illustrate the causal linkages between project interventions, but

also how these interventions address drivers to deforestation to reduce high level threats to

ecosystems, species, and human well-being targets. In addition, performance indicators and

key impact evaluation questions have been selected to monitor progress toward

achievement of outcomes and impacts along each Results Chain. Theories of Change will

also serve as a project management tool to review critical assumptions driving LESTARI

strategic approaches, facilitate early identification of technical challenges, manage

stakeholder expectations, and serve as a framework for gathering evidence.

This document outlines the detailed blueprint designed to monitor and evaluate the project’s

performance. First, the LESTARI Situation Model, Results Framework, Strategic

Approaches, and Theories of Change are described. This is followed by outlines project

indicators and targets which further detailed in Performance Indicator Reference Sheets

(PIRS) formatted to USAID standards. PIRS will provide identification of staff responsible for

different tasks, as well as timelines. The document then describes the LESTARI Learning

Loop which explains how the LESTARI M&E system be integrated into project management

and how project impact will be routinely monitored and assessed. Finally, the

operationalization of M&E system through the establishment of M&E Team and the

development of Management Information System (MIS). The structure and content of this

AMEP is congruent with ADS 203 and includes both USAID Foreign Assistance

Coordination Tracking Systems (FACTS) and custom indicators for monitor performance and

evaluating the theories of change.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 11

This second edition of the LESTARI AMEP provides adjustments to indicators and targets in

a manner that better guides the LESTARI team and partners toward contract deliverables

and outcomes. The need for these changes first emerged at the end of Year 1, during the

annual reporting cycle. The LESTARI team focused on understanding and adjusting these

targets and indicators during the internal mid-term assessment conducted in February and

March 2017, and provided this revised AMEP to USAID/Indonesia on September 30, 2017.

Significant changes to the AMEP include the addition of landscape situation models that

more effectively reflect integrated landscape activities implementation, revised technical

theme strategic approaches, and revised wording, milestones and targets for indicators 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 11 and 15. These changes more accurately reflect LESTARI’s progress towards

contract deliverables and outcomes, and in no way reduce any of these contractual

commitments. Finally, Targets are reported as Actuals through Year 2, and then as Targets

for Years 3, 4 and 5.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 12

2. LESTARI M&E

FRAMEWORKS

2.1 Situation Model

The LESTARI AMEP was developed following the Conservation Measures Partnership

(CMP) Open Standards for Adaptive Management. Design began with identification of the

project scope (geographic focus), conservation targets (key species and ecosystems, as well

as human well-being targets linked to these species and ecosystems), direct and indirect

threats, and drivers to be included in the LESTARI Situation Model. Upon completion of the

Situation Model, theories of change were developed by analyzing how LESTARI

interventions will address factors within each results chain to reduce key threats and lead to

the conservation of priority targets and emissions reductions. In September 2015, a

participatory M&E Workshop was held with LESTARI Staff, USAID representatives, and

representatives from USAID’s Measuring Impact project to review and further nuance the

Theories of Change for inclusion in the AMEP. This process resulted in the identification of

eight Strategic Approaches which will be implemented within three Technical Themes:

Forest & Land Use Governance & Advocacy, Conservation Co-Management, and Private

Sector Engagement. Throughout the course of the project, LESTARI will lead participatory

reviews of theories of change with partners, staff across all landscapes, and USAID to

assess the validity of initial assumptions and casual linkages, to refine project planning as

necessary, to address gaps and maximize results, and to update the AMEP to support

ongoing learning and adaptive management. Reviews will address key evaluation questions,

including:

 To what extent have LESTARI interventions been effective in reducing biodiversity

threats and carbon emissions in targeted areas?

 To what extent have LESTARI intervention been effective in improved land-use

governance?

 To what extent has the project addressed barriers of political will and buy-in at the

national and regional levels?

 To what extent has improved collaboration between government, private sector and

community contributed to improved forest management?

During the second year of the project (February-March 2017), those evaluation questions

had been learned and tested through internal mid-term assessment and political economy

analysis (PEA) process. The most important finding was in order to reduce threats, different

interventions might be applied to different landscapes. Hence, the need to understand

context and political economic situation in each LESTARI landscape became crucial. Draw

on those assessments, LESTARI developed more focused landscape-level situation models

as guidance for staff to select the most strategic approach to reduce threats applicable to

their landscape. These are presented in Annex IV of the AMEP.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 13

Figure 1. LESTARI Situation Model

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 14

Table 1 LESTARI Situation Analysis

Problem

Statement

As one of the richest biological countries in the world, Indonesia is considered

“mega diverse” country, contributing, along with six other Asian countries, up

to 70 percent of the globe’s biological diversity. Indonesia has held Asia’s

largest and continuous track of tropical rain forests and 10% of the world’s

forests. Important terrestrial ecosystems include mangroves, lowland forests,

montane forests, and peat/swamp forests, the protection of which is

considered critical for conserving biodiversity and preventing or reducing land

based carbon emissions. Healthy intact forest ecosystems are also an

important safety net for local communities living nearby, presenting economic

opportunities through forest dependent livelihoods that prevent their slide into

extreme poverty and improving their resilience to climate and other external

shocks.

While at least 30 million people depend directly on Indonesia’s forests and on

the ecosystem services they provide, these ecosystems have been and

continue to be under extreme threats. Indonesia’s deforestation rate is well

known to be among the highest in the world. It was reported 15.79 million Ha

of forest cover loss for period 2000-2012 (Margono, 2014). Deforestation is

especially critical in carbon rich peat and swamp forests of Sumatra,

Kalimantan, and Papua. These forests are also the primary habitat for key

species of global importance, particularly those listed on CITES Appendix I

(especially rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans) and endemics found in

Papua. These key species are threatened by large-scale destruction of

tropical forests, habitat loss, unsustainable harvesting, and trafficking.

Deforestation, peatland degradation, and forest fire have put Indonesia among

the top three largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. The emissions

resulting from forest fires and degradation are five times greater than those

ensuing from non-forestry emissions. A 2010 report suggests that 85% of

Indonesia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stem from land use activities

with 37% due to deforestation and 27% due to peat fires (National Council on

Climate Change, 2010). The most recent research on forest fire and emission

it has resulted demonstrates that since the beginning of September 2015,

Indonesia’s fires have been emitting carbon at a rate of 15-20 million tons per

day, or more than the 14 million tons emitted on a daily basis by the whole

American economy.

Forest fires also destroy large areas that serve as habitat for biodiversity.

Plants and animals are eliminated directly by the fires and those survive will

diminish gradually. For example, the fires in 1997-1998 caused the population

of orangutans to decline by 33 percent on the island of Borneo (Rijksen et

al.,2006).

Threats, Drivers,

and

Opportunities

Over the last 20 years deforestation has been driven predominantly by

agricultural expansion, especially of oil palm plantation. A history of weak

governance combined with opportunistic private sector actors has created

unsustainable economics based on natural resource exploitation. Land

clearing for oil palm plantations is one of the key drivers of deforestation. Palm

oil is also an important element of Indonesia’s national development strategy,

as it is the world’s largest producer and exporter of crude palm oil. Oil palm

plantation area has doubled in Indondesia in the past decade, and pressures

for expansion continues as GOI has instituted targets for doubling CPO

production to 40 million tons by 2020.

Other commodity-driven pressures on land include unsustainable industrial

scale logging and conversion for pulp, rubber, and coffee/cacao plantations.

An inequitable system of land use decision-making is threatening forests, as

smallholders that cannot compete for access with large private sector actors

are forced to encroach onto forested areas.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 15

In regards with key species, expansion of oil palm and pulpwood plantations in

Sumatra was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the destruction of tiger

habitat from 2009 to 2011. When rainforests are cleared, it becomes

increasingly easier for poachers to track and kill tigers, which are considered

prized trophies for any hunters. Used in traditional Chinese medicine and as

ornaments, each Sumatran tiger can sell for up to $5,000, offering poachers a

greater income than they would earn working in paddy fields or on rubber tree

plantations.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates that orangutan populations have

significantly declined from 230,000 nearly a century ago to 7,500 in Sumatra

and 55,000 in Borneo. A significant factor in the decline of orangutan numbers

is the fragmentation of their habitat, which makes them vulnerable to wildlife

traffickers.

The LESTARI Situation Model and Analysis illustrate how deforestation and

forest degradation in Indonesia is a result of a complex dynamic of political,

economic and institutional drivers. Decision-making on land use involves a

large array of laws and actors and the process is rarely transparent or

consistent. Land use decisions are driven by economic incentives that

prioritize extractive industries and agriculture over low emissions and

conservation-oriented business models. However, enabling conditions for a

shift to more equitable and sustainable forest and land use management are

emerging after years of contradictory talk about forest clearing moratoriums

while oil palm and industrial forest plantations rapidly expanded. The new

President administration is taking clear, firm, and ambitious steps to improve

forest and land use governance in a sustainable and equitable manner. Three

new ministries have been formed to elevate and reinforce the goals of better

governance of natural resources and the rural poor who depend upon them for

most livelihoods: Environment and Forestry; Agrarian and Spatial Planning;

and Villages, Development of Backward Regions, and Transmigration.

The private sector is also demonstrating substantial leadership toward

reducing large-scale deforestation. The US Ambassador recently facilitated

the Palm Oil Pledge, signed by CEOs of Asian Agri, Cargill, Golden Agri

Resources, Wilmar, and Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN).

Reaching all the way to their third-party suppliers, the pledge aims to make

palm oil supply chains more sustainable. Further, Sinar Mas’ Asia Pulp &

Paper has committed to halt deforestation in their concessions and to

conserve 1,000,000 hectares of High Conservation Value (HCV) and High

Carbon Stock (HCS) landscapes in and around their operations across

Sumatra and Kalimantan; it has undergone an independent audit of these

areas by Rainforest Alliance. Increasingly, companies are demonstrating that

good business integrates sustainable landscape and conservation

management into their operations.

Civil society, particularly forest-dependent communities, are increasingly

advocating for more responsible land and forest governance. This is

demonstrated in Central Kalimantan, where communities have become

disenchanted with the empty promises of economic benefits from oil palm

expansion while suffering from the omnipresent haze of land clearing

and peatland fires. Forest-dependent communities across Indonesia are

initiating actions to counter this situation—mapping customary (adat) forests,

integrating these maps into the OneMap initiative, and negotiating boundaries

with concession holders and spatial planners.

LESTARI aims to catalyze such positive change, and is strategically designed

to do so. LESTARI targets a 41% GHG emissions reduction in its landscapes

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/deforestation-poaching-and-the-wildlife-trade-in-indonesia/

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 16

by 2020. The Government of Indonesia has also committed to reducing GHG

emissions by 29% below the business as usual condition (baseline) by 2030

(previously 26% by 2020) unilaterally, and up to 41% below the baseline with

bi-lateral or international assistance. LESTARI will work within the same time

frame as the GoI commitments and has adopted the same targets of working

towards 41% reduction of Baseline emissions by 2020. As such the project

can effectively harmonize efforts with the GoI within the LESTARI landscapes.

A thorough understanding of where LESTARI will contribute to the GoI targets

is presented in the Landscape Baseline Analysis Plan (LBA). Historical

deforestation and degradation in protected areas, production forest and

development (non-forest estate zones), as well as on peat and non-peat areas

was analysed to indicate where forest loss and degradation is likely to occur in

the future, thus targeting LESTARI’s efforts. LESTARI targets of GHG

emission reductions are based on the LBA.

Indonesia is also a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and as

such, has made commitments to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by

2020. Indonesia has set specific targets for protection of key endangered

species such as tigers, rhinos, and orangutan. This clear alignment in goals

and interests is expected to give LESTARI strong buy-in and support from all

stakeholders and contribute to the project’s successes in protecting

Indonesia’s forests.

LESTARI

Landscape

Approach

LESTARI applies a landscape approach – an integrated land use

management framework that seeks to integrate policies and actions across

sectors in order to harmonize development and conservation objectives. In

other words, the landscape approach aims to ensure that all the uses of land

and all the users of that land are being addressed in an integrated way.

LESTARI activities are targeted in six strategic landscapes on three of

Indonesia’s largest islands, where primary forest cover remains most intact

and carbon stocks are greatest. The LESTARI landscapes are largely defined

by national parks and forests supporting mega diversity and key species. To

achieve both sustainable landscapes and conservation objectives, LESTARI

has targeted area with HCV and HCS. To address key threats, key activities to

be implemented under LESTARI will focus on improving spatial planning for

better land management, improved collaborative management, alternative

funding for forest conservation or payment for environmental services,

preventing encroachment, reduce poaching, community conservation

agreements, forest education initiatives as well as strengthening local

partners’ landscape vision and commitment for low emissions development.

2.2. LESTARI Results Framework and Theories of

Change

An overarching Results Framework (RF) has been developed (Figure 2a and 2b) to explain

how LESTARI Strategic Approaches will address the drivers of deforestation and forest

degradation, and reduce emissions and threats to biodiversity presented in the Situation

Model. The RF demonstrates causality and the logical linkages between shorter-term,

intermediate, and longer-term results. The Results Framework is founded upon the

overarching theory that if there is increased awareness and advocacy of local

stakeholders (government officials, communities, CSOs and private sector) for

conservation and natural resource management in ways which contribute to their

long term interests; if Conservation Co-Management is actually enhanced to the

benefit of key stakeholders, and if the private sector is engaged, there will be

improved governance and natural resource management in biologically significant

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 17

and critical areas

, leading to a 41% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. Our Results

Framework is then translated into a matrix showing how LESTARI plans to integrate

LESTARI’s Technical Components into 8 strategic approaches that can be nuanced

according to the context of each targeted landscape. This matrix also demonstrates our

theory of change for each Strategic Approach, in accordance with the Results Chains

provided in

Critical areas: areas identified for conservation because of their high conservation value or their high carbon value

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 18

Annex II: Results Chains. These Results Chains were updated at the end of Year 1, during

the Annual Report and Year 2 Work Plan preparation process, and are included in this

second edition of AMEP.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 19

Figure 2a. LESTARI Results Framework with Key Results

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 20

Figure 2b. LESTARI diagrammatic Results Framework

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 21

Table 2 Theory of Change Matrix

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Technical Theme I: Forest and Land Use Governance and Advocacy

Awareness

and Advocacy

C1.1. Increasing government level awareness, appreciation,

and advocacy to ensure that government decision-makers

embrace a conservation and sustainable use vision for land

use planning.

Improved local level awareness, appreciation, and advocacy to promote

citizen action is one of enabling conditions for other LESTARI strategic

approaches to run effectively. Through the implementation of this

strategy, we expect that local stakeholders will adopt and continue

desired behavior thus results in the formation of constituent for

conservation. We assume that if the citizens demand for healthy

ecosystems and have the capacities for advocacy and lobbying, the

government will respond by embracing a conservation and sustainable

development vision to better address demand from its citizens.

As outlined in the Result Chains for this strategy (Annex IV), it is critical

for LESTARI to first identify target audience, message, desired

behavior, and appropriate media to deliver the message. LESTARI

needs to ensure that target audiences receive the messages through a

series of awareness and advocacy activities, retain the desire

knowledge which will lead to improvement on attitudes and values.

Draw on IFACS experience, it is critical to confirm that knowledge and

attitude be translated into effective desired behavior. Therefore, during

the implementation LESTARI will assess factors that impede change to

occur and address them immediately.

C4.1. Improve local level awareness, appreciation, and

advocacy. Improve key stakeholders’ awareness, appreciation

and advocacy for healthy ecosystems, leveraging increased

availability of mobile and internet based technology.

C4.2. Empower media coverage of environmental issues.

Strengthen the ability of media and citizen journalists to

monitor, document, and publicize the positive and negative

consequences of land use decisions, including those made by

private sector actors in the landscapes.

Operationalize

SEAs & LCPs

to Improve

Land Use

Governance

C1.2. Operationalizing Strategic Environmental Assessments

(SEAs) and Landscape Conservation Plans (LCPs) developed

by USAID IFACS within land use plans

Improved land use governance is a cornerstone of achieving improved

forest management and biodiversity conservation. Good governance is

characterized by the respect for legal certainty, transparency and free

flow of information, significant public participation (expression of voice

and choice), equality, high accountability, effective and coordinated

management of public resources.

LESTARI assumes that SEAs and LCPs initiated under IFACS are

effective entry points to improve land use governance and forest

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 22

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

management, including support for FMU development. The

incorporation of SEA/LCP recommendations into government planning

(notably spatial planning, RTRW, RPJMD/P, Forestry Renstra and other

KRP) will involve significant public participation. As such, a

comprehensive, up to date and accurate SEA is crucial to developing a

spatial plan that incorporates LEDS. In conjunction, LCPs is a tool to

give local communities quality information about critical conservation

values of their landscape and ensure that government plans consider

local conservation needs. Such data can also serve as valuable

evidence for communities in their advocacy and lobbying work, which

may be an important element in holding decision makers accountable.

LESTARI will operationalize both SEA-LEDS and LCPs

recommendations for improved forest and land use management

through the following:

 Work through local government, multi-stakeholder initiatives to

integrate SEA-LEDS recommendations into local government

policy, planning and program (KRP) especially those

concerning for improving forest management, biodiversity

conservation and other land conservation management

 Work with Sub-national governments to facilitate incorporation

of SEA/LCP recommendations in to KRP and sectoral budgets

to safeguard forest areas from infrastructure development and

other sectoral threats

 Improve the understanding and awareness of local

stakeholders about SEA, priority environmental issues and

sustainable landscape governance opportunities.

 Incorporate SEA recommendations in to advocacy initiatives to

strengethen impact

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 23

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Sustainable

Landscape

Governance

C1.3. Improving licensing and permitting processes so they

are public and accessible, subject to public oversight,

compliant with laws and regulations, and violations are

enforced

Land use planning and licensing of natural resource use is the single

largest contributor to GHG emissions in the LESTARI landscapes.

Sustainable landscape governance is LESTARI Strategic Approach that

contributes to improved planning, permitting, and enforcement of

natural resource use within landscapes. It is an interlinked approach

that combines introducing citizen-based mechanisms for input on land

use, as well as increasing the sub-national government willingness to

adopt such input, with improved mechanisms for licensing, monitoring,

and enforcing the use of natural resources. Multi Stakeholder Initiatives

(MSI) will serve as a bridge to facilitate communication between

government and citizen. LESTARI will also facilitate other

multistakeholder initiatives or civil society advocacy initiatives to ensure

participatory and transparent land use decision making. The strategic

approach also links to operationalizing SEA and LCP

recommendations.

Numerous governance challenges exist including the limited availability

of data which several stakeholder groups deem credible represents one

of the most serious. Robust and accurate data is needed to inform well-

measured action plans, especially in terms of reforming legal and policy

frameworks and improving the capacities of government, civil society,

indigenous communities and private sector stakeholders. Therefore,

LESTARI will continue to build upon IFACS progress on developing

Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) units, such as SIMTARU linked to

OneMap, to improve the accuracy, consistency, and availability of land

use information especially public transparency and accessibility of

natural resource use processes and licenses through relevant sub-

national institutions, e.g., One Stop Shops for Licensing.

C1.4. Monitoring and enforcing land use, including increasing

district and/or provincial government prosecution and

adjudication capacity, building on USAID C4J activities, and

capacity to use remote sensing and other geospatial tools,

building on the spatial data infrastructure units established

previously by USAID IFACS

C4.3. Strengthen citizen based mechanisms for public input on

land use. Support citizen-based mechanisms for public input

and monitoring of land use decisions by key groups, especially

local communities, indigenous groups, and women. This task

is closely aligned with the Component 1 task to encourage

sub-national government to solicit and adopt input from citizen

based mechanisms

C1.6. Increasing district and/or provincial governments’

willingness to adopt input from citizen-based mechanisms.

This is connected to the work with multistakeholder forums

under Component 4.

Technical Theme II: Conservation Co-Management

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 24

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Improve

Forest

Management

Through Co-

Management

and FMU

Strengthening

C2.3 Improve co-management adjacent to Conservation Areas

by building staff knowledge and implementation of improved

collaborative management strategies with adjacent districts

and local communities. This task is closely linked to

Component 4’s collaborative management task.

Key to project success is building capacity and commitment for co-

management among relevant actors in areas adjacent to PAs and

critical areas. This is essential for pressure reduction on the PA through

more transparent, negotiated roles and responsibilities. Relevant actors

will include Ministry of Environment and Forestry Park staff, provincial

and district governments, Forest Management Unit (FMU), relevant

CSOs, and villages living adjacent to and dependent on PA and critical

areas resources and services.

LESTARI will facilitate dialogue between key stakeholders and

communities, develop the capacity of villages to be able to negotiate

with district, provincial and national agreements, comply with, and

benefit from co-management agreements to protect their local natural

resources.

The strategic approach supported by awareness and advocacy so as to

increase the willingness of key stakeholders to develop co-

management agreements with communities. It also links to strategic

approach green enterprise and innovative financing mechanism

whereas the co-management agreements provide incentives for

communities to participate in forest protection.

LESTARI will work with leaders that represent both men and women

and other disadvantaged groups to ensure differing gender

considerations and viewpoints are addressed through co-management.

In addition, LESTARI also supports the development and operation of

FMU as the spearhead of forest management at the grassroot level.

With stakeholder involvement in each stage of FMU development and

communication at various levels, LESTARI wants to ensure that the

FMUs in adjacent landscapes have implement a multi-benefit and multi-

stakeholder forest management concept.

C3.2. Pilot innovative financing for critical areas. Mobilize

financing opportunities, including payments for ecosystem

services, to incentivize sustainable enterprises that meet

required criteria for environment and social soundness

C4.4. Improve co-management adjacent to critical areas.

Provide technical assistance to establish co-management

arrangements between communities living in and near critical

areas and the appropriate government entities. Includes

defining acquiring clear tenure. Closely linked to Strategic

Approach 2. SEAs. See IUCN definition of "co-management".

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 25

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Protected

Area

Management

C2.1. Improve Conservation Area management by

determining priority needs and actions for addressing threats

specific to each CAs and the species they harbor in

consultation with key stakeholders. Once these have been

identified, support the implementation of priority actions to

address threats and strengthen the protection and/or

management of CA and the species they harbor. These may

include management planning; improving data, monitoring and

information systems; increasing the use of technology to

monitor and enforce wildlife encroachment and poaching;

enhancing patrols; improving public relations with sub-national

government and communities inside or adjacent to CAs; and

other capacity building

Key to success in improving conservation areas management capacity

is building political leadership; implementing improved management

approaches including protection of core areas to combat poaching and

deforestation; and adopting M&E systems to assess the effectiveness

of management interventions and adapt approaches as needed.

LESTARI will focus on the socialization and application of the METT

tool to assess management effectiveness in protected areas embedded

in its landscapes. Baseline METT will be conducted in a participatory

way so as to enable CA managers taking ownership of METT score and

committed to improving their management weaknesses. Awareness

and advocacy will be emphasized to increase public pressures on CA

authority to improve their management weaknesses.

A training program –with a focus on technical skills and modern tools

that managers and PA staff require for effective day-to-day duties –will

be delivered based on the outcome of the METT assessments.

LESTARI will also equip CAs with the capacity to undertake SMART

(Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) as a tool to monitor and enforce

wildlife encroachment and poaching.

This strategic approach links to improve co-management adjacent to

CAs, especially because threats are coming from area adjacent to CAs.

Further assumption is CAs could improve and implement key aspects of

management plan if they are adequate financing. Therefore, LESTARI

will identify and develop effective innovative financing plans for CAs.

Furthermore, the success of LESTARI in implementing a landscape

approach requires effective policy engagement at multiple levels across

multiple stakeholders. LESTARI will coordinate with the national level

government and provincial level to ensure local impact sustainability,

particularly since Law 23 of 2014 recentralizes a significant amount of

natural resource decision-making to the province.

C2.2. Pilot innovative financing for Conservation Area by

identifying and trailing CA sustainable financing and revenue-

generating strategies

C1.7. Enhance national level policy coordination Component 2

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 26

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Technical Theme III. Private Sector Engagement

Green

Enterprises

C3.1. Develop public private partnerships for green

enterprises. This includes reviewing existing or conducting

new market and feasibility studies to explore the potential for

ecotourism and other environment-friendly sustainable

enterprises that will directly benefit conservation and local

communities living within and adjacent to high conservation

area forests. Equality important is cultivating relationships with

key private sector actors in the project’s landscapes to identify

sources of co-investment in the above conservation efforts.

Finally, the Contractor should develop and pilot sustainable

business models that can have broad impacts, including

outside the specified landscapes, and disseminate the results

of pilots

As with all other Technical Themes, Private Sector Engagement takes

an integrated approach to the development of livelihoods,

responsibilities of environmental governance, and shared roles in co-

management of natural resources by reducing spatial uncertainty

especially for local communities. The capacity of indigenous

communities is naturally impacted by the actions of the business sector:

when a business company follows good governance practices, this will

have a positive impact on indigenous communities, and vice versa.

Therefore, LESTARI will facilitate both parties to seek opportunities for

cooperation and mutual reinforcement. Through establishing public-

private partnerships for green enterprises, and coupled with

commitments to safeguards for forest resources (such as through co-

management) and improve environmental governance, LESTARI will

support alternative livelihoods while reducing pressure on forest

resources.

C4.5. Improved sustainable livelihoods and alternative

livelihoods for communities adjacent to critical areas. Provide

technical assistance to communities living in or near critical

areas to improve sustainable natural resources management

practices, including those that might lead to eventual third

party certification, that enhance productivity and income or

adopt locally appropriate alternative livelihoods or green

enterprises in order to reduce encroachment. Communities

receiving livelihood support must acknowledge and agree to

reduce encroachment through formal agreements such as the

Community Conservation Agreements (CCAs) developed

under the USAID IFACS project

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 27

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

Private Sector

BMP

C3.3. Industry certification, best management practices

(BMPs) and Conservation Management and Mitigation Plans

(CMMPs). Support private sector-led efforts to make explicit

commitments towards zero deforestation and conservation of

HCV and other critical areas including support for third party

certification, implementation of BMPs and CMMPs

The private sector provides significant opportunities for conservation of

biodiversity and reduction of deforestation and degradation within

LESTARI landscapes. Subsequently, LESTARI will expand on its work

under IFACS to promote BMPs (that include Reduced Impact Logging

that reduces GHG emissions - RIL-C) in natural forest timber

concessions and the promotion of HCV forest set-asides in fiber and oil

palm plantations, both important aspect in third-party certification

schemes.

Through co-management agreements, LESTARI will facilitate the

establishment of LEDS-based community partnerships with villages

adjacent to concessions area aimed at improving value chains critical to

improved livelihoods. Our assumption is that if companies apply BMPs,

companies enhance co-management with villages, and both parties

gain benefits from BMPs and co-management implementation, then

unsustainable use of natural resource will be reduced and discontinued

thus emissions will be reduced and biodiversity conserved. Public

discourse will be encouraged towards the removal of policy constraints

to increasing the value of natural resources to the private sector in ways

that are both economically and environmentally sustainable.

Innovative

Financing for

Sustainable

Land and

Forest

Management

C1.5.Enhance district and/or provincial readiness to access

financing (DAK, REDD+, etc) by building necessary capacity,

supporting MRV systems, and informing policies, rules, and

systems for the equitable distribution of funds generated from

payments for carbon or other ecosystem services

With the creation of REDD+ funding mechanisms such as the Indonesia

Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), Global Environment Fund, and

the Green Climate Fund, there is potentially increased opportunity for

districts and/or province to access funds based on performance of

reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation.LESTARI will

provide technical assistance to local government to prepare project

design documents and safeguards to access REDD+ funding.

However, an important and more omnipresent source of funding is the

government budget. LESTARI will work with national and subnational

government agencies and advocate for LEDS, forest conservation, and

sustainable landscapes programs to be funded in the annual budget to

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 28

Strategic

Approaches

Technical Components and Tasks:

(SOW Technical Components: 1. Land Use Governance;

2. CAs & Key Species; 3. Private Sector; 4.

Constituencies)

Theory of Change

meet reduced emission commitments, such as through the Payment for

Environmental Services (PES) and societal valuing of such services in

general. LESTARI will also identify and engage related ministries to

gain more access and support additional financing sources and to

explore potential collaboration with similar programs from the

government in optimizing the benefits to the communities and

environment. If funding can be secured, then impact on emissions

reduction could be magnified.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 29

2.3 Logical Framework and Performance Indicator

Tracking Table (PITT)

Our Logical Framework presents an overview of LESTARI Goals, Strategic Objectives,

indicators, means of verification, critical assumptions, and annual and life of project (LOP)

targets for monitoring progress toward achievement of results and evaluating the validity of

LESTARI’s Theories of Change. Output, outcome, and impact level indicators that provide a

sound benchmark for performance management and reporting on project results have been

selected, including required standard indicators for biodiversity and sustainable landscapes.

Detailed information for each indicator is provided in Annex I: Performance Indicator

Reference Sheets (PIRS).

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 30

Table 3 Logical Framework and Targets

Note: Please refer to Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) in Annex I for indicator disaggregation

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

LESTARI Goals

Reduced GHG

emissions from

land-use sector

1. Percentage reduction in

GHG emissions as a result

of USG assistance

measured using actual

emissions compared to

REL (OUTCOME/IMPACT)

Note: for the purpose of

FACTS reporting, quantity of

GHG emissions will be

reported in metric tons of

equivalent

Comparison of

actual emissions to

REL following GoI

methodology for

Land-Based GHG

Emission and

Sequestration

Baseline

Calculations. The

GOI FREL is used

to calculate land

cover changes and

related emissions.

Reductions in

deforestation and

degradation will lead

to reductions in GHG

emissions.

reduc

tion

Not

measure

Not

measu

30%

reducti

40%

reducti

41%

reducti

41%

reducti

Not

measure

Not

measu

45 M

tCO

60 M

tCO

75 M

tCO

75 M

tCO

Key species

protected

See #3

See

See #3

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 31

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

Carbon rich

forest,

peatland,

mangrove

ecosystems

and the habitat

of key species

conserved

2. Number of hectares of

biological significance

and/or natural resources

under improved natural

resource management as a

result of USG assistance

(FACTS 4.8.1-26)

(OUTCOME/IMPACT)

Sub-national: Co-

management plan

in place and under

implementation as

evidenced by

incorporation into

government

program and

budget.

FMUs assisted by

LESTARI

operational.

Certain area set-

aside for

conservation as

result of SEA-LEDS

and/or LCP

recommendations

into local

development plans.

CA: Increased

METT score

Concessions:

CMMP, RIL-C or

other conservation

plan in place and

under

implementation as

evidenced by

incorporation into

SOP and company

budget.

Improved

management will lead

to the conservation of

key species habitats

as well as contribute to

reduction in GHG

emissions.

2.4 M

1.7 M

3.3 M

1.3

8.7 M

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 32

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

Reduced rate of

deforestation

and

degradation

See #1

See

See #1

Reduced threat

on key species

3. Percentage reduction in

poaching in focus area

(OUTCOME)

Analysis of Spatial

Monitoring and

Reporting Tool

(SMART) data.

Comparison of

baseline and

endline. LESTARI

will undertake

baseline in Q2 Year

1 to determine

number of current

poaching incident

in focus area.

Reduction in poaching

will lead to

conservation of key

species in focus area

TBD

Not

measure

10%

reducti

20%

reducti

30%

reducti

40%

reducti

40%

reducti

Improved Land Use Governance

Forest & Land

Use

Governance &

Advocacy

4. Number of public policies

introduced, adopted,

repealed, changed or

implemented consistent

with citizen input (FACTS

2.4.1-12/OUTCOME)

Review the process

of policies

development,

minutes of public

consultation

meetings,

comparison of

policies introduced,

adopted, repealed,

changed or

implemented with

citizen input.

When stakeholder’s

voices continue to be

heard by their

government, it will

ensure sustainability of

MSF and lead to

improved land use

regulatory framework

as prerequisite of

improved land use

governance

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 33

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

5. Number of sub-national

government with improved

licensing and permitting

mechanism (OUTCOME)

The term

“improved” is taken

to subsume the five

core principles of

good governance

(transparency,

participation,

accountability,

responsiveness,

and timeliness).

Standard

Operational

Procedures (SOP)

will be developed to

ensure that all

licenses and

permits follow the

government

regulation and

procedures.

Verification will be

made through

reviewing the

implementation of

SOP, licensing

process, interview

licensing officers,

business

enterprises and

community to

ensure good

governance

principles are

adhered.

When licensing and

permitting mechanism

adopt five core

principles of good

governance, the

sustainable use of

natural resource can

be secured.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 34

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

6. Number of SEAs/LCPs

recommendations related

with land use, spatial plan,

forest management, and

biodiversity conservation

incorporated into sub-

national government policy,

planning and program

(OUTCOME)

Comparison of

SEA-LEDS & LCPs

recommendation to

government policy,

planning and

program.

Explicit reference to

adopting

SEA/LEDS

recommendation of

improved-case

scenario (not BAU)

in policy, planning

and program.

Incorporation of SEA-

LEDS & LCPs

recommendations into

government policy,

planning and program

will ensure budget and

implementation and

lead to improved land

use governance,

specifically on forest

management and

biodiversity

conservation.

7. Number of Multi

Stakeholder Initiatives

(MSIs) or civil society

advocacy initiatives which

formulate and deliver

policy-relevant inputs on

sustainable forest and land

management to decision

makers (OUTCOME)

Review of multi

stakeholder

initiatives report

and produced

policy paper or any

form of policy input,

and review policy

development

processes.

The success of multi

stakeholder initiatives

as mechanism to

bridge communication

between local

government and wider

public in land use will

lead to more

transparent,

participatory and

accountable land use

decisions. Those

principles are

prerequisite of good

governance.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 35

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

8. Number of champions

engaged in advocacy

interventions (OUTPUT)

Review advocacy

plans or strategies,

recording of press

conference, copy of

testimony or press

release, advocacy

campaign

materials, record of

public

consultations.

Advocacy should be

understood as a

means for individuals

and constituencies to

shape public agendas,

change public policies,

and influence other

processes that impact

their lives. Advocacy

interventions are

essential aspects of

democratic policy

making, citizen

participation, and

oversight of

government.

230

150

500

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 36

9. Number of people reached

by LESTARI

communication programs to

improve awareness and

understanding of LEDS and

biodiversity conservation

(OUTPUT)

Sign-in sheet from

communication

trainings and

meetings. Review

communication

products and

outreach.

Monitoring social

media.

Qualitative

assessments (e.g.,

case study) of

increase

awareness and

understanding.

Increase awareness

and understanding,

supported by

continuous advocacy

will lead to increased

commitment of key

stakeholders regarding

the positive benefits of

conservation and

sustainable use of

forests and the

species they

encompass, which in

turn lead to improved

land use decision

making, thus

contributes to

improved land use

governance.

120,551

219,374

55,500

57,000

47,575

500,000

Improved Forest Management

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 37

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

Conservation

Co-

Management

10. Number of Conservation

Areas (CAs) with at least 70

point in METT scores

across LESTARI

landscapes as result of

USG assistance

(OUTCOME)

METT baseline and

endline

assessment;

enriched by

qualitative analysis

To maximize the

potential of protected

areas, it is important to

understand the

strengths and

weaknesses of their

management and the

threats that they face.

Addressing the

weaknesses and

reducing threats will

lead to increase

effectiveness of CAs

management.

See

PIRS

11. Number of Forest

Management Unit (FMU)

strengthened as a result of

USG assistance

Review the process

of FMU

development,

minutes of

meetings,

comparison of FMU

operationalization

standards improved

with baseline

condition.

When FMU

operationalization

standard are met and

strengthen, it will

ensure the optimum

operationalization of

FMU and lead to

improved the multi-use

of forest management

See

PIRS

12. Number of people receiving

USG supported training in

natural resources

management and/or

biodiversity conservation

(FACTS 4.8.1-27/OUTPUT)

Sign-in sheets,

training reports.

Assessments of the

effectiveness of

trainings and the

application of

knowledge and

skills gained.

Increased capacity to

manage natural

resources and/or

biodiversity

conservation will lead

to improved land use

governance and forest

management

981

2,946

3,663

1,910

500

10,000

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 38

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

Private Sector

Engagement

13. Amount of investment

mobilized (in USD) for

climate change and

biodiversity conservation as

supported by USG

assistance (OUTPUT)

Finance documents

(e.g., APBD,

finance reports,

etc). Interviews the

financers. Assess

the use of funds

and the issues

being addressed

with the funds.

LESTARI programs

should attract

additional funds that

are necessary to

increase capacities for

addressing land use

and forest

conservation. Such

funds represent

knowledge and

commitment of local

stakeholders to, and

institutionalizati on of,

the issues being

addressed with the

funds.

3 M

1 M

6 M

4 M

20 M

14. Number of people receiving

livelihood co-benefits

(monetary or non monetary)

(OUTCOME)

Random survey

and on-site

observations

Economic and non-

economic benefits

derived from

sustainable use of

forest resource will

provide incentives for

people to be

committed to LEDS

and forest

conservation.

579

11,721

9,500

8,200

30,000

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 39

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

INDICATOR

MEANS OF

VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

TARGETS

LOP

15. Number of private sector

firms that have improved

management practices as a

result of USG assistance

(FACTS 4.6.2-

9/OUTCOME)

Review the RIL-C

and/or

CMMP/conservatio

n plan document,

incorporation into

SOP and budget

line item allocated

by concessionaires

to implement the

plan. Spot-check to

observe field

implementation

Implementation of RIL-

C and/or

CMMPs/conservation

plan will ensure that

HCV areas in

concessions are

managed in

sustainable manner.

16. Number of new USG-

supported public-private

partnerships (PPPs) formed

(FACTS PPP 5) (OUTPUT)

PPP document

signed by both

public and private

entities

PPP will provide

incentives both for

governments, private

sectors and

communities to

embrace LEDS and

conservation oriented

practices.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 40

Table 4 LESTARI Targets per Landscape

Note: This is illustrative table. The target per landscape will be updated in LESTARI Annual Work Plans based on annual achievement.

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Percentage reduction in GHG

emissions as a result of USG

assistance measured using actual

emissions compared to REL

(OUTCOME/IMPACT)

Note: for the purpose of FACTS

reporting, quantity of GHG

emissions will be reported in

metric tons of CO

equivalent

41% reduction

Leuser

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

Not

measure

Not

measure

2,709,302

3,616,449

4,525,619

M tCO

-eq

Katingan-

Kahayan

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

Not

measure

Not

measure

23,535,99

31,390,59

39,249,820

M tCO

-eq

Lorentz

Lowlands

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

Not

measure

Not

measure

7,063,326

9,476,706

11,919,556

M tCO

-eq

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

Not

measure

Not

measure

10,153,95

13,563,64

16,985,845

M tCO

-eq

Sarmi

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 41

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Not

measure

Not

measure

1,526,926

2,040,547

2,556,490

M tCO

-eq

Cyclops

Not

measure

Not

measure

30%

40%

41%

Not

measure

Not

measure

30,093

40,124

50,155

M tCO

-eq

Number of hectares of biological

significance and/or natural

resources under improved natural

resource management as a result

of USG assistance (FACTS 4.8.1-

26) (OUTCOME/IMPACT)

8.7 Million

Leuser

708,000

143,279

423,943

1,275,222

Katingan-

Kahayan

598,016

419,608

714,820

356,000

2,088,444

Lorentz

Lowlands

1,019,000

375,805

1,156,529

490,000

3,041,334

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

503,000

746,904

500,000

1,749,904

Sarmi

298,710

209,885

508,595

Cyclops

31,480

5,500

36,980

Percentage reduction in poaching in

focus area (OUTCOME)

40% reduction

Leuser

TBD

Not

measure

10%

20%

30%

40%

Katingan-

Kahayan

TBD

Not

measure

10%

20%

30%

40%

Lorentz

Lowlands

TBD

Not

measure

10%

20%

30%

40%

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 42

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

n/a

Sarmi

n/a

Cyclops

TBD

Not

measure

10%

20%

30%

40%

Number of public policies

introduced, adopted, repealed,

changed or implemented consistent

with citizen input (FACTS 2.4.1-

12/OUTCOME)

28 policies

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

Number of sub-national government

with improved licensing and

permitting mechanism (OUTCOME)

8 sub-national

governments

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 43

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Cyclops

Number of SEAs/LCPs

recommendations related with land

use, spatial plan, forest

management, and biodiversity

conservation incorporated into sub-

national government policy,

planning and program

(OUTCOME)

6 sub-national

governments

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

Number of Multi Stakeholder

Initiatives (MSIs) or civil society

advocacy initiatives which formulate

and deliver policy-relevant inputs on

sustainable forest and land

management to decision makers

(OUTCOME)

20 MSIs

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

Leuser

168

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 44

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Number of champions engaged in

advocacy interventions (OUTPUT)

500 landscape

champions

Katingan-

Kahayan

135

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

Number of people reached by

LESTARI communication programs

to improve awareness and

understanding of LEDS and

biodiversity conservation

(OUTPUT)

500,000 people

Leuser

2,562

7,477

15,000

55,039

Katingan-

Kahayan

7,143

10,254

20,000

15,000

67,397

Lorentz

Lowlands

109,222

2,460

3,000

8,500

5,000

128,182

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

726

14,276

2,000

8,500

5,075

30,577

Sarmi

Cyclops

898

184,907

15,500

10,000

7,500

218,805

10.

Number of Conservation Areas

(CAs) with at least 70 point in

METT scores across LESTARI

landscapes as result of USG

assistance (OUTCOME)

6 CAs

Leuser

See

PIRS

Not

measure

Katingan-

Kahayan

See

PIRS

Not

measure

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 45

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Lorentz

Lowlands

See

PIRS

Not

measure

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

n/a

Sarmi

n/a

Cyclops

See

PIRS

Not

measure

11.

Number of Forest Management Unit

(FMU) strengthened as a result of

USG assistance

7 FMUs

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

12.

Number of people receiving USG

supported training in natural

resources management and/or

biodiversity conservation (FACTS

4.8.1-27/OUTPUT)

10,000 people

Leuser

453

2,086

1,361

650

250

4,800

Katingan-

Kahayan

311

574

1,915

800

200

3,800

Lorentz

Lowlands

127

263

360

860

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 46

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

250

Sarmi

Cyclops

102

290

13.

Amount of investment mobilized (in

USD) for climate change and

biodiversity conservation as

supported by USG assistance

(OUTPUT)

USD 20 Million

Leuser

18,664

29,912

4,151,424

2,500,000

1,250,000

7,950,000

Katingan-

Kahayan

3,382,50

33,575

383,922

2,000,000

1,250,000

7,050,000

Lorentz

Lowlands

76,754

104,671

1,318,575

1,200,000

1,000,000

3,700,000

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

71,162

378,838

300,000

200,000

950,000

Sarmi

Cyclops

50,000

250,000

50,000

350,000

14.

Number of people receiving

livelihood co-benefits (monetary or

non monetary) (OUTCOME)

30,000 people

Leuser

101

4,349

4,200

3,500

12,150

Katingan-

Kahayan

478

5,672

4,100

3,500

13,750

Lorentz

Lowlands

1,500

700

2,900

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

100

300

700

Sarmi

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 47

INDICATOR

TARGET OVER

THE LIFE OF

PROJECT

LANDSCAPE

ANNUAL TARGETS

TOTAL

Cyclops

100

200

500

15.

Number of private sector firms that

have improved management

practices as a result of USG

assistance (FACTS 4.6.2-

9/OUTCOME)

10 private sector

firms

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

n/a

16.

Number of new USG-supported

public-private partnerships (PPPs)

formed (FACTS PPP 5) (OUTPUT)

20 PPPs

Leuser

Katingan-

Kahayan

Lorentz

Lowlands

Mappi-Bouven

Digoel

Sarmi

Cyclops

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 48

3. PLAN FOR ACTIVITY

MONITORING AND

EVALUATION

3.1 LESTARI Learning Loop: Data Collection, Storage,

Quality Assurance, Analysis, and Utilization

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and reporting are essential parts of the LESTARI project.

The ability to rapidly collect, review, analyze, and communicate monitoring and evaluation

information is essential for maximizing LESTARI results. To facilitate this process, LESTARI

will develop a tailored Management Information System (MIS). The MIS will serve as an

accessible and transparent reporting tool to guide future activities and learning. It will also

connect the development of activity scopes of work to the LESTARI approval process and

link the outcomes of these activities to results as outlined in this AMEP as well as annual

work plans. To increase the efficiency, the MIS will also include features that allow

coordination of technical activities with necessary administrative and operations support.

Variable levels of MIS access will be provided to USAID and LESTARI partners for reporting,

operations support, and invoicing purposes. Progress captured in the MIS will be used to

facilitate LESTARI Adaptive Management approach.

DESIGN: The first step of the

project’s Learning Loop is design,

which includes building

consensus amongst project staff,

USAID, and partners on the

project’s theory of change, expected results, and

indicators. As described in Section 3.1, this

AMEP is founded upon the results of a

Measuring Impact Workshop, where LESTARI

staff and USAID collaborated in the

development of theories of change and

indicators for each LESTARI Strategic

Approach. The outcomes of this workshop were

presented to regional staff and partners in

breakout sessions during the first Annual Work

Planning Meeting, so that theories of change

could be further refined and used to develop

Landscape Level Work Plans.

Figure 3 LESTARI Adaptive

Management Data Cycle

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 49

Step 1: DESIGN

USAID/Indonesia

 Construct Situation Model to understand project context

 Develop Theories of Change for each Strategic Approach

 Develop a Results Framework to show linkages between

Strategic Approaches and higher-level results

 Identify performance indicators and targets.

 Identify key evaluation questions.

Measuring Impact

LESTARI Team

Home Office M&E Specialist

Local Partners

COLLECT : Most M&E data will be collected using electronic data

collection form. During project startup, LESTARI Monitoring, Evaluation &

Learning (ME&L) Coordinator, with support from Tetra Tech ARD’s Home

Office M&E Specialist, will use mobile data collection tools to create

customized electronic data collection forms (based on the Year 1 Work

Plan and AMEP) whereas data collected will be put into LESTARI MIS.

These electronic forms will include required fields, skips, and ranges to

improve standardization and data quality, as well as open-ended fields to

capture qualitative data.

It is important to note that changes in the methodology for collecting data may compromise

LESTARI’s ability to compare results over time. However, as the project continues to learn

how to improve data quality, changes to data collection tools or methods may become

necessary. In these cases, the ME&L Coordinator will be able to use the web-based

interface to update data collection forms. However, the ME&L Coordinator must document

these changes over time in revisions to the AMEP. Additional details on our specific data

collections methods for LESTARI indicators are outlined in Annex I: Performance Indicator

Reference Sheets (PIRS).

Step 2: COLLECT

LESTARI Staff

(include Landscape

M&E Specialists)

 Collects data and data documentation for all project activities using

approved data collection forms and following the requirements outlined

in the PIRS

 Submits data to ME&L Coordinator as data available

ME&L Coordinator

 Develops data collection forms

 Collects additional qualitative data as necessary

 Trains Technical Staff on data collection methods, standards, and

requirements

 Trains Technical Staff on how to collect data using data collection

forms

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 50

Step 2: COLLECT

 Documents changes to data collection tools/methods resulting from

ongoing learning

COP

 Provides support to the ME&L Coordinator in ensuring that data are

collected and submitted in a timely manner.

HO M&E Specialist

 Provides initial support and training in data collection form and

development of data collection tools.

REVIEW: Mobile data collection tool will improve data quality through

facilitating real-time reviews by the ME&L Coordinator. The ME&L

Coordinator will receive a notification each time new data are added to MIS

and will then review the quality of data against ADS 203 data quality criteria

(validity, reliability, timeliness, precision and integrity), and reassign the

form to the field-based data collector if corrections are required. If ongoing data quality

issues persist, the ME&L Coordinator will work with the CoP, Tetra Tech ARD’s home office

M&E Specialist as well as USAID/Indonesia to develop new data collection strategies to

strengthen data quality. In addition to this continuous review of data quality, at least two

internal data quality assessments (DQAs) will be conducted by the Home Office M&E

Specialist during the project following the format outlined in Annex III: Data Quality

Assessment Checklists. The internal DQA described here is an internal quality control

mechanism and does not substitute for any formalized, USAID-initiated DQA of project data.

Step 3: REVIEW

Technical Staff &

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 Makes necessary changes to incorrect/incomplete data reviewed by

ME&L Coordinator.

ME&L Coordinator

 Reviews all data against ADS 203 data quality standards

COP

 Ensures that at least two (2) internal Data Quality Assessments

(DQAs) are conducted during the project.

TT ARD Home Office

M&E Specialist

 Conducts two (2) internal DQAs during the project.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 51

MANAGE: Following the quality review, the Jakarta M&E Specialist will assist

ME&L Coordinator to enter disaggregated data into the LESTARI Management

Information System (MIS). For each data point entered, supporting

documentation (e.g., sign in sheets, photographs, meeting agendas, etc.) must

be provided.

Step 4: MANAGE

Jakarta M&E Specialist

 Inputs data into MIS

 Ensures each data point is supported by documentation

 Files hard and electronic data documentation

 Maintain MIS in day to day basis

ANALYZE: On a quarterly basis, LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will

review disaggregated data to assess progress toward targets and identify

implementation challenges. When analyzing LESTARI data, the ME&L

Coordinator will consider both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL factors that

may be influencing results. Internal factors include challenges or

opportunities related directly to project implementation (for example, staff

turnover) while external factors refer to those outside of the control of

LESTARI staff and USAID (for example, negative factors might include political instability or

natural disasters; positive factors might include new opportunities for collaboration). An

important part of the analysis step is not only providing data to explain the “what,” but also to

provide context to explain the “why.” This context is extremely important in informing how

LESTARI may need to adjust activities. It will also be beneficial to future USAID projects, as

they determine what worked in the past, and why.

Step 5: ANALYZE

Technical Staff &

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 Work with the ME&L Coordinator to contextualize the results: What

other INTERNAL and EXTERNAL factors (risks and challenges, or

enabling events or opportunities) may be influencing our results?

ME&L Coordinator

 Assesses progress toward targets

 Analyzes quantitative and qualitative data to tell the story of project

successes, challenges, and lessons learned.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 52

REPORT AND COMMUNICATE RESULTS: Once data have been analyzed,

they will be ready for reporting to USAID/Indonesia. The M&E Sections of reports

will include:

 Any M&E-related activities (e.g., trainings, data collection activities,

internal data quality assessments and findings) conducted that quarter;

 An indicator table(s) showing quantitative results achieved that quarter (targets

vs. actuals);

 A narrative describing overall analysis of project achievements, lessons learned,

and implications for implementation;

 Project Success Stories, including photographs and quotes from beneficiaries

(starting in year two);

 Discussion of any data limitations, reporting challenges, and proposed changes

to the AMEP.

 The findings of any special studies/analyses performed to inform project learning.

While the minimum requirement is an indicator table showing disaggregated actuals against

targets for each indicator, it is sometimes difficult for a reader to easily assess what is/isn’t

working in this format. The goal of the report is to provide a clear picture of what the project

has achieved, how much the project has achieved, and why the project has or has not met

its goals. Whenever possible, the project will use visual representations of data (such as pie

charts, bar graphs, or line graphs) to report project results.

In addition to reporting results to USAID, the ME&L Coordinator will support the development

and dissemination of Success Stories and Lessons Learned with LESTARI partners and

stakeholders at the national and regional levels during annual meetings.

Step 6: REPORT

Technical Staff &

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 Provides any additional clarification/information requested by ME&L

Coordinator for inclusion in M&E Sections of Quarterly/Annual Reports

ME&L Coordinator

 Drafts M&E sections of Quarterly/Annual reports

 Assists with development of Success Stories (beginning in Year 2)

COP

 Reviews M&E Sections of Quarterly/Annual reports for quality prior to

reporting to USAID.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 53

LEARN: A critical step in the adaptive management process is learning.

While the process described above will promote learning throughout all

phases of the project, the ME&L Coordinator will facilitate a formal learning

process at Annual Strategic Reviews. Following annual internal evaluations

conducted by the ME&L Coordinator, Strategic Reviews will seek the

participation of project staff, partners, and USAID to review evaluation data and findings to

address the following questions:

 Which activities were successful, and why?

 Which activities fell short of their anticipated results? Why?

 How could any activity be redesigned to increase efficiencies, effectiveness, scope,

and satisfaction?

 How have activities had a positive effect on women and other

vulnerable/disadvantaged groups?

Team members will also review key aspects of the AMEP (theories of change, indicators and

targets) and consider whether these remain aligned with project activities. If the process

reveals misalignment between activities, indicators and expected results; changes in initial

assumptions (or causal logic) supporting the theory of change, unanticipated factors

influencing achievement of results, or changes in scope, elements of the AMEP may need to

be refined or redesigned.

Table 5 Annual Strategic Reviews

Question

Response

Decisions

Made/

Actions

Required

Items Not

Resolved from

period- why?

Which activities during previous quarter were

successful, and why?

What activities were planned but didn’t occur?

If they did not occur, why?

For activities planned but did not occur, when will

they be re-programmed?

Are we achieving our performance indicators

targets for key performance indicators?

If we are not, why?

What activities can be planned for the following

year to meet our performance indicator targets?

Are our target assumptions still valid? If not, why?

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 54

Question

Response

Decisions

Made/

Actions

Required

Items Not

Resolved from

period- why?

Which activities are falling short of their anticipated

results and why?

Is the causal logic of the theories of change still

valid? If not, why?

Are our assumptions related to our ability to

implement Strategic Approaches and meet our

performance indicators targets still valid?

If not, what has changed?

What effects do these changed assumption(s) have

on the project?

What is our strategy to address any changed

assumption(s)?

Are there any “red-flags” if so; are there any

corrective actions that need to be taken?

Step 7: LEARN

Technical Staff &

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 Participate in Annual Strategic Reviews

 Contribute useful contextual information that contributes to the

learning process

ME&L Coordinator

 Facilitate learning sessions at Annual Strategic Review

 Document and disseminate the findings to project staff

 Include the findings in the next Quarterly/Annual Report

COP

 Ensure that findings from learning forums are included in annual work

plans and are considered in the development of activities.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 55

REFINE: If the learning process results in recommended changes to the

AMEP, the ME&L Coordinator (under the guidance of the COP), will

document any major changes in the Executive Summary of the revised

AMEP along with the rationale for these adjustments. Major revisions could

include changes to frameworks, indicators, or the PIRS. If minor AMEP

elements change, the AMEP will be updated to reflect these changes. While

required changes to the AMEP may become apparent at any point in the project cycle, the

project must continue to follow the standards and methods outlined in the current AMEP until

the revised document is officially approved by USAID. Once approved, the project may then

follow the new AMEP standards and protocols throughout the adaptive management

process.

Step 8: REFINE

Technical Staff &

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 Review AMEP elements

 Recommend changes to AMEP based on project learning

 Recommend changes to Work Plan and/or activity implementation

based on project learning

ME&L Coordinator

 Review AMEP elements

 Recommend changes to AMEP based on project learning

 Recommend changes to Work Plan and/or activity implementation

based on project learning

 Make necessary changes to the AMEP

COP

 Review and approve recommended changes to AMEP prior to

submission to USAID

 Submit revised AMEP/Work Plan to USAID.

3.2 Internal Evaluations Plan

Evaluation is an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence that

culminates in conclusions about the state of affairs, value, merit, worth, significance, or

quality of a program, product, person, policy, proposal, or plan. Conclusions made in

evaluations encompass both an empirical aspect (that something is the case) and a

normative aspect (judgement about the value of something). It is the value feature that

distinguishes evaluation from other types of inquiry, such as basic science research, clinical

epidemiology, investigative journalism, or public polling (Fournier, 2005, p.140)

In accordance with the 2011 USAID Evaluation Policy, LESTARI will use evaluation

methodologies with the dual purposes of accountability to USAID, government partners and

other stakeholders; and learning about key results to improve effectiveness. In the simplest

terms, evaluations planned for LESTARI will answer three questions: What? So what? Now

what? The answers of these questions will not only aim to understand project effectiveness

but also to generate new knowledge for the wider biodiversity and sustainable landscapes

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 56

community. It is worth noting that evaluation for LESTARI is not an end in itself. The purpose

is to inform thought and action. Moving from what, to so what, to now what means moving

from data to interpretation to action.

Regular monitoring of LESTARI performance indicators will provide the project with the

answers of what questions as well as demonstrate accountability. However, several key

impact questions will need to be assessed to answer the so what question and track

changes over time so as to LESTARI can determine its effectiveness. An example for this

case could be: a national park has increased its METT score to 70 point (what), but does this

score reflect on improved biodiversity condition? (so what). If yes, what can we learn to

replicate the success (now what). If not, how can we modify our approach? (now what).

Internal evaluations for LESTARI will be designed in a way that meet the principles of USAID

evaluation policy (i.e., unbiased, relevant, based on the best methods, transparent, high

utility) and address the most important questions about project impact, how LESTARI is

impacting the direct threats and the key species of interest. Tools, methods and design

for evaluating LESTARI performance indicators will be developed and agreed upon in a

consultation with LESTARI COR on a timeframe that allows for LESTARI interventions to

demonstrate impact. These evaluations will be performed during mid and end of project life,

and timed in order to ensure that they are completed before and thus can contribute to

external mid-term and final evaluations. The SOW for the mid-term internal evaluation will be

developed with the USAID COR by the end of the second quarter of Year 2, and the

evaluation will be completed and written-up by the end of Year 2. The SOW for the final

internal evaluation will be developed with the USAID COR by the end of the first quarter of

Year 5, and the evaluation will be completed and written-up by the end of the third quarter of

Year 5. In both cases, adjustments could be made to ensure these internal evaluation

documents are available in time for external evaluations.

Table 6 presents the illustrative evaluation tools, suggested methods and designs relate to

the evaluation questions posed. The proposed key evaluation questions (KEQs) are selected

to assess the validity of assumptions illustrated in LESTARI Results Chains (Annex IV).

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 57

Table 6 Illustrative summary of tools, methods and design implications for proposed evaluation questions

Key Evaluation Question

Suggested tools, methods, and designs

Timing of Data Collection

To what extent have LESTARI interventions

been effective in reducing biodiversity threats

(e.g., poaching, fragmentation of key habitat)

and positively impacted populations of key

identified species?

Collecting data from population survey done by WCS,

WWF, or other organization (e.g. BOSF). When data

on population is not available, LESTARI may want to

consider funding population surveys for targeted key

and indicator species (e.g., tiger and orangutan).

Mid-term (2017) and End of Project (2020)

Note:

Population survey is available every three years

depend on the key species assessed (e.g. a

WCS population survey for tiger will be

conducted in 2016).

Impact evaluation – detailed land use and land use

change (LULUC) assessments to determine the

impact of LESTARI interventions on key habitat.

To what extent has improved collaboration

between government, private sector and

community contributed to improved forest

management?

 Are economic benefits sustained by

LESTARI beneficiaries –government,

private sector and community?

 Are economic benefits sufficiently

incentivizing those beneficiaries to

minimize their encroachment of forests?

Cost-benefit analysis

Mid-term (2017) and End of Project (2020)

To what extent have LESTARI intervention

been effective in improved land-use

governance?

To what extent has the project addressed

barriers of political will and buy-in at the

national and regional levels?

A combination of tools such as:

 Assessing land cover and policy changes

 Stories of change – a case study method to

determine pathways of success

 Bellwether method – an interview method to

determine an issue’s position on the policy

agenda

 Stakeholder analysis – method to determine

which stakeholders are invested in the

intervention

Stories of change, bellwether method, and

stakeholder analysis will be used in regular

basis (rolling as data available) to monitor the

process of policy influence.

The data collected from the tools will feed into

QCA and Contribution Analysis which will be

used in mid-term and end of project evaluation.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 58

Key Evaluation Question

Suggested tools, methods, and designs

Timing of Data Collection

What changes have been made to land use

policy as result of advocacy interventions and

strengthening citizen based mechanism input?

Have beliefs, opinions, and behaviours of

stakeholders changed as result of advocacy

and campaign activities?

Have improved land use governance impacted

on reduction in large scale and small scale

deforestation and degradation?

 Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)

and

other theory-based evaluation design, e.g.

contribution analysis

will be used to gain a

better understanding of project attribution.

QCA is a middle way that combines certain

features of the qualitative approach (case

orientation, interest in complexity) with those

of quantitative research (interest in

generalization). An example of QCA utilization

can be seen further in CIFOR research that

aims to compare national REDD+ policy

processes in 12 countries

(http://www.cifor.org/library/4278/qualitative-

comparative-analysis-qca-an-application-to-

compare-national-redd-policy-processes/).

Knowledge generation: enhance general

understandings and identify generic principles

about effectiveness

Meta-analyses

Lessons learned

Case studies

Mid-term and end of project year

QCA is an alternative approach to examining contributory causes that uses a comparative framework perspective. QCA provides a credible causal claim that the intervention is a contributory

cause. QCA can answer the question ‘Did it make a difference?’, but not the question ‘Why has the result occured?’

Contribution analysis is one of theory-based approaches to evaluation. Contribution analysis confirms: a) that the expected result occured; b) that the causal package is sufficient; c) that the

intervention is a necessary part of the causal package.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 59

3.3 Schedule for Performance Monitoring Tasks

Table 7 Key Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tasks and Timeline

Tasks

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Responsible

Quarter:

Submit

Draft/Final

AMEP

●

M&E

Develop MIS

and train staff

●

M&E/HO M&E

Draft M&E

Section of

Quarterly Report

●

M&E

Support

development of

Success Stories

●

M&E

Draft M&E

Section of

Annual Report

●

M&E

Conduct Internal

Evaluation

●

M&E

Facilitate M&E

Session of

Strategic Annual

Review

●

M&E

Revise AMEP

●

M&E

Draft M&E

Session of Final

Project Report

●

M&E

Assess Data

Quality

●

M&E

Conduct internal

DQA

●

M&E/HO M&E

Review Internal

Performance

●

M&E

Hold Adaptive

Management

Meeting

●

M&E

LESTARI

Collects Data

●

ALL

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 60

3.4. Monitoring and evaluation structures, functions, and

capabilities

Monitoring, evaluation, and learning are core priorities across LESTARI’s technical and

administrative positions. While the ME&L Coordinator (under the direction of the COP) will

hold primary responsibility for developing and implementing the M&E system, all LESTARI

staff must participate in monitoring and evaluation in order for the system to be successful.

This section provides a general description of the M&E roles and responsibilities for

LESTARI staff. Specific M&E roles and responsibilities for each indicator can be found in the

PIRS in Annex I.

Table 8 M&E Roles and Responsibilities

M&E Contributor

Roles and Responsibilities

ME&L Coordinator

 Provide professional guidance and hands-on assistance to all

LESTARI staff on the LESTARI AMEP; MIS; USAID ADS 203

guidelines; and data collection techniques, standards, and best

practices.

 Provide training and technical assistance to local partners in

performance monitoring and information sharing.

 With assistance from the HO M&E Specialist, develop and maintain the

LESTARI MIS, including standardized data collection forms, cloud-

based M&E database, and a Performance Monitoring Dashboard.

 Assess the quality of collected data and provide feedback to parties

responsible for data collection.

 Draft and submit M&E sections of quarterly and final reports to the

COP for submission to USAID.

 Conduct special studies and analyses as necessary to inform project

learning.

 Lead Quarterly Results Reviews.

 Support development of Success Stories and other communications

and outreach materials.

 Work with the DCOP and regional and technical staff to ensure that

M&E data are informing LESTARI management and decision making.

 Conduct regular data verification activities.

 Conduct annual internal evaluations.

 Share internal evaluation findings and facilitate review and feedback

sessions with stakeholders at Annual Strategic Reviews.

 Facilitate internal impact evaluations, and dissemination of findings.

Jakarta M&E

Specialist

 Provide inputs to ME&L Coordinator in the development of LESTARI

AMEP; standardized data collection forms; and MIS.

 Maintain MIS operation in daily basis and train staff on its use.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 61

M&E Contributor

Roles and Responsibilities

 Supports Jakarta technical staff to perform their monitoring tasks and

responsibilities.

 Maintain up-to-date hard and electronic files of all data and

documentation.

 Work with Landscape M&E Specialists to ensure timely reporting on

LESTARI activities.

Landscape M&E

Specialists

 In the activity design level, provide hands-on assistance to regional

team to develop activity logic align with project level ToC.

 Train LESTARI regional team, grantees, and sub-contractors to

accurately and reliability collect data, ensure that data collection forms

and templates are used correctly.

 Verify and validate all data including reports from grantee and

subcontractors for submission to ME&L Coordinator.

 Provide inputs to ME&L Coordinator for quarterly and final reports.

 Under guidance of ME&L Coordinator, conduct special studies and

analyses as necessary to inform project learning.

 Provide inputs to ME&L Coordinator for the development of Success

Stories and other communications and outreach materials.

 Work with the regional team to ensure timely reporting on LESTARI

activities.

 Under guidance of ME&L Coordinator, conduct regular data verification

activities.

 Facilitate review and feedback sessions with regional team at quarterly

strategic reviews.

Regional

Coordinators/

Technical Staff

 Work with the M&E team to gain consensus on how LESTARI activities

will contribute to indicators and objectives.

 Collect data and data documentation (photos, GPS coordinates,

agendas, sign in sheets, etc.) using data collection form.

 Provide recommendations to the M&E Team on any needed changes

to the AMEP or M&E process, such as revisions to data collection

forms, methods, indicators, or targets.

 Participate in forums (Quarterly Results Reviews; Annual Strategic

Reviews) intended to facilitate learning from project data.

 Incorporate findings from learning forums into future activities and work

plans.

DCOP

The DCOP will be responsible for ensuring that project activities contribute

to indicator targets and expected results, are gender-responsive, and that

M&E data and findings are used to inform planning and decision making.

Tetra Tech Home

Office M&E

In Year 1, Tetra Tech ARD’s home office M&E Specialist, Ms. Robynne

Locke, will be responsible for assisting with development of the AMEP and

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 62

M&E Contributor

Roles and Responsibilities

Specialist (Robynne

Locke)

providing training to the M&E team on data collection form development and

AMEP operationalization. Thereafter, she will provide training and technical

assistance to the M&E team as needed. In addition, she will be responsible

for conducting at least one internal DQA within the first two years of the

project.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 63

ANNEX I: PERFORMANCE

INDICATOR REFERENCE

SHEETS (PIRS)

INDICATOR 1

GOAL

Reduced GHG emissions from land-use sector

RESULT

KR 1. At least 41% of total CO

-equivalent emissions reduced from land use, land use

change and deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope

INDICATOR TITLE

Percentage reduction in GHG emissions as a result of USG assistance measured

using actual emissions compared to REL

(For the purpose of FACTS reporting, quantitiy of GHG emissions will be reported in metric

tons of CO

equivalent)

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator – contributes to FACTS 4.8-7

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator reports the percentage of GHG emissions reduced, sequestered, and/or

avoided, as a result of USG activities, as compared to a baseline level of GHG emissions.

The baseline is the “business-as-usual” reference for GHG emissions that would have

occured during the reporting period if there had been no USG intervention. At least 41% of

total CO

-equivalent emissions will be reduced from land use, land use change and

deforestation averaged across all landscapes within the project scope, based on the use of

the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, and

taking into consideration appropriate relevant national or subnational methods.

Reduced emission will be achieved through LESTARI direct assistance, originating from

reducing forest encroachment and improving peat land management with communities and

protected area authorities, developing effective communities conservation agreements and

better agricultural practices, engaging the private sector to implement best management

practices in their concessions, and governance advocacy in changing licensing and

embracing sustainable development visions that will stop deforestation.

It is noted that for the purpose of FACTS reporting, quantity of GHG emissions will

be reported in metric tons of CO

equivalent.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Percentage (and metric tons of CO

equivalent)

DISAGGREGATIONS

Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION

FOR INDICATOR

Indicator used to track progress on reducing emissions from land use sector. The indicator

is in line with GoI target to reduce emissions nationally as outlined in National Action Plan

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (RAN-GRK).

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 64

INDICATOR 1

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Decreasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME

OR IMPACT

Reductions in deforestation and degradation will lead to reduction in GHG emissions.

Reducing, sequestering, or avoiding GHG emissions will slow the rate of climate change

and reduce the impacts.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

The data collection methodology for calculating reduced emissions is described in the

Landscape Baseline Analysis (LBA) report update version (2017). In this revised LBA, the

LESTARI project has chosen to use a different methodology based on the National Forest

Reference Emissions Level (FREL) based on an evaluation of current methodologies and

approaches used in Indonesia. The FREL methodology was chosen as it is the most

acknowledged and recognized by international, national and local institutions in the forestry

sector; and because FREL has been showing steady progress on proportioning targets to

the provincial level. Additionally, the methodology used in FREL is consistent with its

associated development of Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) System

developed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF). The FREL was not

published in 2015 when the initial LBA was developed.

The methodology applied to LESTARI that works in the forestry and land-use sector is

based on:

1. Living biomass (above ground) GHG emissions from gross deforestation, and

2. Below ground GHG emissions from the decomposition of organic soils (peat)

For the calculation of GHG emissions from Above Ground Biomass (AGB) carbon pools

the National Forest Inventory Database developed by IPSDH is used. To calculate GHG

emissions from peat decomposition similar LULUC maps from IPSDH and National Peat

Land Map from BBSDLP. Peat decomposition is counted from all land cover types from the

peat land area that was forested in 1990.

Emission from fires have not been calculated in the FREL.

The current methodology uses land cover data from Ministry of Environment and Forestry

from the years 1990 through to 2012. Measurement of reduced emissions will use the

same sourced data.

Methodology applied for measuring the forest degradation will be referring to the LBA.

DATA SOURCE

Land Cover Data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Annual

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Publicly available data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Spatial Planning and GIS Specialist; Deputy Chief of Party

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 65

INDICATOR 1

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and therefore will

audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS. For each data point

reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be identified and reviewed using the

process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template. USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will

ensure that each data point is supported with documentation and that data are assessed

against data integrity standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

 The baseline data used in the analysis of deforestation and degradation and

associated GHG emissions uses Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) wall-

to-wall land cover (penutupan lahan) data that has a reasonable accuracy in some

parts of LESTARI landscapes – especially Papua. GIS operators have frequently

misclassified land use types and this is the most problematic but since this data will be

used on a landscape scale such inaccuracies should not alter the overall accuracy of

the emission reduction calculations.

 A potential source of inaccuracy is in peatland data (sourced from Soil Research

Centre, Ministry of Agriculture) and land cover (MOEF). For instance, the incidence of

dry land forest types occurring on peat in questionable. It is hard to state which data

set is more accurate. At the scale of LESTARI landscape, this is not a major issue for

the project, but administrations wishing to report on their site level emissions

reductions should seek accurate data. Where unlikely combinations of land cover

types and soils do not align, estimation of emissions should be treated with caution.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

 To calculate emissions from fire, compromises must be made and average emissions

from areas using available monitoring data have been applied to develop the

LESTARI baseline. This is in line with provincial government approaches. Forest and

land fire is a significant issue in Central Kalimantan and LESTARI has applied

methodology adopted by the Central Kalimantan Province.

 Ground check and verification with stakeholders (especially established Spatial Data

Infrastructure groups and networks that have been established through USAID

IFACS) will be undertaken to ensure accuracy of land cover data.

 LESTARI will use percentage of reduction as project target, but will provide

information in metric tons of CO

-equivalent to serve USAID global reporting purpose

 The time frame may not be much improved over the current 5-6 month data publishing

time frame.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis will be done by Spatial Planning and GIS Specialist

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular by landscape

Landscape

Target

Achievement

% Completion

xx %

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 66

INDICATOR 1

xx tCO

-eq

xx tCO

-eq

REVIEW OF DATA

Annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis report. Baseline calculated following GoI

methodology for Land-Based GHG Emission and Sequestration Baseline Calculations.

BASELINE NOTES

The methodology used to calculate the baseline for LESTARI is based on the national

approach. It is expected that this national level methodology will be improved in the future.

For the LESTARI project, methodology used must evolve for the simple reason of

delivering achievement at the end of the project. The data used for this methodology (land

cover based on Landsat Imagery and developed by the MoEF) is normally available to the

public at least 5-6 month after it was captured.

BASELINE VALUE

LESTARI applied the base years of 1990 – 2012. The table below presents a summary of

emissions targets from deforestation, degradation and peat decomposition.

Landscape

Reduced

Deforestation

AGB

Emissions

Target (-41%)

(CO

Total

reduced

Emission

Target over

life of

Project

Reduced

Degradation

AGB

Emissions

Target (-

41%) (CO

Total

reduced

Emission

Target

over life of

Project

Range in

Reduced

Peat

Decomp

Emissions

Target (-

41%)

(CO

Total

reduced

Emission

Target over

life of

Project

Leuser

604,775

3,023,875

57,155

285,773

239,147 -

247,240

1,215,968

Katingan –

Kahayan

4,889,915

24,449,575

122,839

614,193

2,827,946-

2,846,474

14,186,050

Lorentz

Lowlands

589,937

2,949,684

718,938

3,594,689

1,016,098 -

1,133,975

5,375,181

Mappi –

Bouven

Digoel

2,168,701

10,843,506

650,251

3,251,253

553,184 -

603,250

2,891,085

Sarmi

87,658

438,292

368,829

1,844,144

50,166 -

59,456

274,054

Cyclops

9,243

46,213

788

3,941

BASELINE YEAR

1990 – 2012

TARGETS NOTES

The target set for LESTARI averaged across the landscapes is a 41% reduction from the

baseline emissions by 2020. LESTARI proposes a progressive approach—increasing the

reductions of to reach this target by 2020. Annual emissions will be reduced progressively

by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 41% each year of the project. But emissions reductions will

only start to be reported in the third year of the project.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 67

INDICATOR 1

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

Not measured

FY 2017

Not measured

FY 2018

30% reduction

45 M tCO

-eq

% reduction

M tCO

-eq

FY 2019

40% reduction

60 M tCO

-eq

% reduction

M tCO

-eq

FY 2020

41% reduction

75 M tCO

-eq

% reduction

M tCO

-eq

Targets LOP

41% reduction

75 M tCO

-eq

% reduction

M tCO

-eq

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

IMPORTANT: New LBA has been updated with new methodology and baseline year. Please refer to the document

for detailed methodology and target calculations based on the update methodology.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 68

INDICATOR 2

GOAL

Carbon rich forest, peatland, mangrove ecosystems and the habitat of key species

maintained

RESULT

KR 2. At least 8.42 million hectares of primary or secondary forest, including

orangutan habitat, under improved management

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of hectares of biological significance and/or natural resources under

improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

FACTS 4.8.1-26

PRECISE DEFINITION

“Improved natural resource management” includes activities that promote

enhanced management of natural resources for one or more objectives, such as

conserving biodiversity, sustaining soil or water resources, mitigating climate

change, and/or promoting sustainable agriculture. Management should be guided

by a stakeholder-endorsed process following principles of sustainable NRM and

conservation, improved human and institutional capacity for sustainable NRM and

conservation, access to better information for decision-making, and/or adoption of

sustainable NRM and conservation practices.

For LESTARI, an area is considered under "improved management” when any one

of the following occurs:

1. Forest Management Units (KPH-L and KPH-P) areas that include HPH,

social forestry, and the other partnership formats;

 FMUs strengthened defined by RPHJP, RPHJPd, institutional capacity

improved, co-management agreements implemented and effective

protected forest management.

 Conservation Management and Monitoring Plan (CMMP), RIL-C or

other conservation plan within private sector natural resources

concessions (HPH) are in place and under implementation as

evidenced by incorporation in business SOP, company budget and

monitoring reports (or through sustained certification audits

implemented by a third party)

 Co-management agreements and management arrangements among

key stakeholders (area manager, community and/or provincial/district

government – other than FMUs) are in place and under

implementation.

2. Conservation areas such as KSA/KPA areas, national park, TAHURA,

hunting game reserve, nature preserve, wildlife sanctuary;

 An increased in the Management Effectiveness and Tracking Tool

(METT) score for Protected Areas (PAs)

3. All other areas outside state forest including essential ecosystem in APL,

buffer zone area (adjacent)

 Adaptive management is demonstrated; or on-the-ground

management impacts are demonstrated (e.g., conservation and

cultural set-asides created in Oil Palm, illegal roads closed, snares

removed, no-fishing zones demarcated, etc)

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 69

INDICATOR 2

 Forestry sector development is prioritized in local development plans

as result of SEA-LEDS and/or LCP recommendations, which affect

program, budget and/or improved zonation (e.g., certain area set-

aside for conservation, etc) especially in forested areas that are not

yet covered by FMUs in Papua

Reported as total number of hectares improved during the fiscal year in question,

which can include maintained improvement in previously reported hectares and/or

new, additional hectares. Improved management should be reported for activities

where the LESTARI supported program was plausibly linked to the improvements

observed.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Hectares

DISAGGREGATIONS

Areas under improved management will be disaggregated by landscape following

further disaggregation of management category and landscape values (primary

and secondary forest types, and peatland) as define in the LBA.

Areas of Biologically significant areas (areas identified as important for

biodiversity through national, regional, or global priority-setting processes such as

Orangutan habitats, HCV in concession) will be noted for reporting against the

biodiversity earmark. These areas will be a sub-set of the above areas under

improved management and will not be counted in addition to them to avoid double

counting.

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Measures of this indicator demonstrate progress towards sustainable natural

resources governance and institutions, and can inform adaptive management of

programs. This indicator is a reliable annual measure that demonstrates the

magnitude of USG investments in biodiversity conservation and other natural

resource sectors.

DESIRED DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

A spatial indicator is an appropriate measure of the scale of impact of biodiversity

conservation and/or NRM interventions. Good management of natural resources is

a prerequisite for achieving improved biophysical condition of natural resources

and contributes to reduction in deforestation and degradation.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Field staff will compile for review implementation of co-management agreement,

review sub-national government spatial plans, development plans and land use

policy process (to identify changes in legal status), review implementation of

CMMPs, review implementation of FMUs management plan, review of METT

report and site-observation to check demonstrated adaptive management (for

example as results of SMART Patrol in CAs). The GIS team will conduct geospatial

analysis of remotely sensed imagery and GIS layers.

DATA SOURCE

GIS, co-management agreement, social forestry management plans, METT report,

CMMP document, PHPL report, FMUs management plan, conservation

management plans, managements plans, SMART report, site-visit reports, land

cover maps from Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), spatial plans,

procurement of remotely sensed imagery (when feasible).

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Annual

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 70

INDICATOR 2

ESTIMATED COST OF

DATA ACQUISITION

Partial cost of remotely sensed imagery allocated to this activity, ground check,

staff time for data analysis and interpretation, and cost of photocopies for

conservation management plans and spatial plans.

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Spatial Planning and GIS Specialist; Component Team Leaders

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR FUTURE

DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be identified

and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template. USAID

LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is supported with

documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity standards as

outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Precision is low: “improved management” is a relative term, and narrative is

required to explain the quality of this management improved. Equal weight is given

to unequal improvements along a continuum: eg. creating, adopting and

implementing management plans may each be an improvement over a baseline.

Likewise, a small management improvement across a large area may be as

important as a large improvement across a small area. Conservation management

plans may not be well described spatially.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS LIMITATIONS

Conservation management plans will be interpreted by trained LESTARI staff.

Locations of all activity areas carried out by partners will be located by LESTARI

field staff using GPS and recorded into electronic data form. Benchmark that are

being used within the project to gauge success will be articulated clearly and a

short narrative to describe the benchmarks that have been reached in the past

year will be provided.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Field staff will compile for review conservation management plans, maps and sub-

national government spatial plans and other relevant documents mentioned in

Data Source. The GIS team will conduct geospatial analysis of remotely sensed

imagery and GIS layers. Landscape hectare totals will be aggregated into a tabular

format, with accompanying narrative. The link to USG assistance will be

established through periodic assessments conducted by LESTARI staff.

For those areas already improved under IFACS, LESTARI will report these areas

as project achievement should there is new level of improvement made under

LESTARI. Narratives will be provided to describe new level of improvement. Data

presentation will be disaggregated between improved areas under IFACS (e.g.,

concession area, area under Community Conservation and Livelihood

Agreements, etc) and new areas under LESTARI.

Analysis will also be made to present data on orangutan habitats. Orangutan

habitats will be reported as a sub-set of the areas as they may occur inside

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 71

INDICATOR 2

conservation areas or FMU areas etc. these areas will not be accrued to the areas

already counted under improved management so avoiding double counting.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular

LANDSCAPE

Conservati

on Area

(ha)

FMU (KPHL /

KPHP) (ha)

Other

Areas

(APL)

completion

Primary Forest

Secondary Forest

Primary Swamp Forest

Secondary Swamp

Forest

Secondary Mangrove

Forest

Non-forested Peat Land

Non-Forested / Non-

Peat

# Hectares of Orang

Utan Habitat

# Hectare of HCV

REVIEW OF DATA

Annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

LESTARI Landscape Baseline Analysis report, METT baseline report, SMART

baseline report, existing spatial planning and project activity progress report to

determine the level of current management.

BASELINE NOTES

Project activities to improve current management will be started in FY 1, therefore

baseline for this indicator is assumed as zero because no improved management

yet observed. Analysis of existing condition will include business-as-usual scenario

in order to be able to attribute to USG assistance.

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

2015

TARGETS NOTES

Hectares under improved management will only start to be reported in the second

year of the project with the assumption that sufficient time is allowed for impact to

occur.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

Not measure

FY 2017

2.4 M

FY 2018

1.7 M

FY 2019

3.3 M

FY 2020

1.3 M

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 72

INDICATOR 2

Targets LOP

8.7 M

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

Learning through 2 years project implementation, LESTARI has developed Roadmap to Hectares that

described the realistic target that can be achieved on annual basis. The target area of under improved

management were consolidated into from six into three categories; The disaggregation of hacters reported is

now based on the values within landscapes as defined by the revised Landscape Baseline Analisis (LBA).

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 73

INDICATOR 3

GOAL

Reduced threats on key species

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

INDICATOR TITLE

Percentage reduction in poaching in focus area

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Poaching is the illegal hunting, killing or capturing of animals, a practice that

occurs in a variety of ways. Poaching can refer to the failure to comply with

regulations for legal harvest, resulting in the illegal taking of wildlife that would

otherwise be allowable. Examples include: hunting, killing or collecting wildlife

that is listed as endangered by IUCN and protected by law such as CITES, taking

without a license or permit, use of a prohibited weapon or trap, taking outside of

the designated time of day or year, and taking of a prohibited sex or life stage.

Poaching can also refer to the taking of animals from a gazzetted wildlife

sanctuary, such as a national park, game reserve, or zoo. Wildlife biologists and

conservationists consider poaching to have a detrimental effect on biodiversity

both within and outside protected areas as wildlife populations decline, species

are depleted locally, and the functionality of ecosystem is disturbed.

Focus area are defined as the area within protected areas targeted for regular

patrols due to the high level of threats (e.g., accessibility). Patrols are targeted

and not all areas need to be patrolled. To monitor a reduction in poaching,

LESTARI will use SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool). SMART is

designed to improve anti-poaching efforts and overall law enforcement

effectiveness in established conservation area management zones. SMART

enables the collection, storage, communication, and evaluation of data on: patrol

effort (e.g. the time spent on patrols, effective area patrol and the distance of

patroling), patrol results (e.g. number of snares removed, arrests made), and

threat levels (e.g. the number of paths into the protected areas, areas deforested

or number of tress felled illegally).

A keystone species are defined a species that has a disproportionately large

effect on its environment relative to its abundance or thread by large scale

poaching for business reason. Such species are described as playing a critical

role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many

other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and

numbers of various other species in the community. List of keystone animal

species in LESTARI Landscape as follows:

1. Leuser National Park: Sumatran Tiger, Sumatran Elephant, Sumatran

Rhino, Sumatran Orang Utan

2. Rawa Singkil Wildlife Santuary: Sumatran Orang Utan

3. Sebangau National Park: Borneo Orang Utan

4. Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park: Borneo Orang Utan

5. Cyclop Natural Reserve: Cendrawasih, Dingiso Tree Kangoro

6. Lorentz National Park: Pig-nosed Turtle

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 74

INDICATOR 3

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of Poaching Incidents per Km

DISAGGREGATIONS

Conservation Area

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Indicator used to track increased commitment of key stakeholders regarding the

protection of key species and conservation of their habitat.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Decreasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

When effectively monitored and enforced, reduce in poaching can help to

substantially improve protection of wildlife and their habitats.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review regular patrol reports and patrol maps (monthly or quarterly); undertake

in-depth data analysis with an evaluation of various trends in patrol perfromance

and threat-levels, as well as an evaluation of the entire patrol management

system (annually).

DATA SOURCE

Patrol reports; direct observation; annual evaluation

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling as data available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; monitoring and evaluation cost

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Biodiversity Conservation Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 75

INDICATOR 3

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Using the SMART software and establishing a patrol database will not, on its

own, improved protection of a conservation area. In addition to the SMART

software and database, basic enforcement capacity and infrastructure must be in

place.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

LESTARI will combine the utilization of SMART with introduction of adaptive

patrol management practices through promotion of feedback mechanisms

between managers and rangers to discuss patrol efforts and results and set new

patrol targets. This intervention is closely linked with METT intervention as to

support overall improvement of conservation area management capacity.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

SMART allows the calculation of poaching incidence, per unit of effort – such as

the number of snares removed per kilometer patrolled in high risk areas, and

therefore can be used to show a change in paoching incidence even if the

number of patrols varies over time. During the first 6 months, SMART patrols and

observation in the field will identify areas of high risk, and develop a baseline of

the average number of incidents per kilometer traveled on foot patrols. The base

unit will be no. incidents / km measured semi-annually.

Application of effort-related base units is due to the fact that the number of

poaching incidents is correlated with patrol effort. The ore one patrols, the more

incidents are found. With sustained patrol, however, the assumption is that the

incidents will start to decrease as the law is enforced. A semi-annual evaluation

to determine trends in poaching levels will be made, as well as semi-annual

evaluations of the threat levels within conservation areas to maintain targeting of

patrol effort in high risk areas.

The reduction in poaching will only be reported for areas where patroling is

programed and implemented on a regular basis. The individual Poaching

reduction will be reported individually for each conservation areas and for the

project as a whole. If different protected areas are including in the anti-poaching

effort facilitated by the project, overall effort in patroling, a weighted average will

be applied to report the LESTARI project-wide poaching redcution effort.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Conservation

Area

Target

Achievement

% of Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Semi-annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

SMART patrol result in Year 1

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 76

INDICATOR 3

BASELINE NOTES

LESTARI will undertake baseline in Year 1 to determine number of current

poaching incident in targeted conservation areas.

BASELINE VALUE

TBD

BASELINE YEAR

2015

TARGETS NOTES

Numbers of poaching will be reduced progressively by 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%

each year of the project compared to baseline. But achievement will only start to

be reported in the second year of the project.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

Not measure

FY 2017

10%

FY 2018

20%

FY 2019

30%

FY 2020

40%

Targets LOP

40%

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 77

INDICATOR 4

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 2. Improved land use governance

KR 6. Increased commitment of key private sector, government, and community

stakeholders regarding the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use

of forests and the species they encompass

KR 7. Policies, laws, regulations, and procedures in support of low emission

development and forest conservation and management increased, promulgated,

and enforced at all levels

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of public policies introduced,adopted, repealed, changed or

implemented consistent with citizen input

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

FACTS 2.4.1-12

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Public policies include any law, regulation, policy or similar directive that is

formally adopted by either the legislative branch or a unit of the executive branch

at any level.

Citizen inputs means that the public, citizens and/or civil society organizations

have proposed language used in, provided comments incorporated into, or

monitored the implementation of the policy.

Introduced refers to draft legislation formally being presented and accepted for

consideration by a legislative or executive institution.

Adopted refers to the process by which a public policy, whether a completely new

policy or one that has been changed, is formally adopted through decree,

passage of law or other formal process.

Repealed refers to existing or draft policies that are removed or prevented from

establishment.

Changed refers to an existing policy that has been substantively changed.

Implemented means that the policy has been operationalized.

Policies may cover LESTARI landscapes, e.g., acceleration of community forestry

licensing in support of the national goal of 12.7 million hectares. Policies may

explicitly target LESTARI landscapes, e.g., collaborative management of Cyclops.

For interpretation of this indicator, a qualitative description will be provided to

explain what the number represents, particularly:

 What is the title of the measure?

 At what stage is it? (e.g., officially introduced, adopted, repealed,

changed, or implemented?)

 How does the measure contribute to sustainable landscapes or

biodiversity conservation?

 What is/are the institution(s) that will be implementing and/or enforcing

the measure and at what scale (e.g., national, provincial, district)

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of public policies

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 78

INDICATOR 4

DISAGGREGATIONS

District; Provincial; and National

Sustainable landscapes policy and biodiversity policy

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

The indicator is used by LESTARI to ensure that there is willingness from local

government to adopt input from citizen-based mechanisms, or in other word, to

ensure that development policies are responsive to the public.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Democratic governance concerns are integral to improving policy reform and

implementation across a wide range of development sectors. More effective

policy change across development sectors requires government policy makers (in

both the executive and legislative branches) to consider and incorporate citizen

input into the policy development process. Also, an improved enabling

environment through legal and policy reform is essential for ensuring that efforts

and investments in sustainable landscapes and/or biodiversity conservation have

legal and strategic backing and institutional ownership.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review project reports, policy documents, tracking policy development process,

direct observation, analysis of secondary data and third party observation (i.e.

monitoring of public policy by local NGO).

DATA SOURCE

Activity reports, policy documentation, assessment reports, policy monitoring

reports

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling, as data are available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; policy monitoring cost; photocopies of documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Decentralized Governance Specialist; Stakeholder Engagement Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 79

INDICATOR 4

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

There are some limitations to validity since the quality of citizen input is very

subjective. Reliability is also of concern since policy reform is not always a linear

process. Because the intended result is an improved enabling environment, the

number of public policies provides only a partial measure of success, given that

effective implementation and enforcement are also critical. Public policies might

also not be well-designed or effective.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Narrative is critical for interpreting this indicator. Also if the policies may affect

climate or biodiversity indirectly, LESTARI will provide narrative to explain the

connection.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

A citation analysis method will be used to evaluate “uptake and use.” This method

involves looking at the extent to which citizen recommendations are visibly

“picked up” and used by local governments. Analysis will include triangulation of

secondary data and third party observation (when available). Case study will be

deployed to assess the progress made along the way in terms of convening

stakeholders, drafting, approving, and implementing/enforcing policies.

It should be noted that the policy introduced, changed or adopted may take

concern provincial and national regulations. In this case LESTARI will still count it

as a single policy.

Data analysis for this indicator will involve assessing a series of milestones. We

will count this indicator achieved once the policy is either introduced, adopted,

repealed, changed or However, the project will still monitor and report the number

of policies that are implemented or enforced. Key analytical questions include:

how many (percentage) of policies get adopted? Of those that get adopted, what

percentage are implemented? How many of the policies that were adopted and

implemented had substantial participatory events as part of the development

process?

Type

Policy

Introduced

Adopted

Repealed

Changed

Implemented

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

District,

Provincial,

National

Target

Achievement

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 80

INDICATOR 4

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

For this indicator, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

It is assumed that in each of the 6 landscapes and national level government at

least four policies (concerning sustainable landscapes and biodiversity) will be

influenced as a result of advocacy activities. However, it should be noted that the

intended result is an improved enabling environment. Therefore the numbers

provide only a partial measure of success. Effective implementation and

enforcement are much more critical which in turn could be reflected through

achievement of LESTARI key goals: reducing emissions and conserving

biodiversity.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 81

INDICATOR 5

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

 IR 2. Improved land use governance

 KR 7. Policies, laws, regulations, and procedures in support of low emission

development and forest conservation and management increased,

promulgated, and enforced at all levels

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of sub-national government with improved licensing and permitting

mechanism

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Sub-national government includes province and district/municipality.

The term “improved” is taken to subsume the five core principles of good

governance. First and foremost transparency, inclusivity/participation (e.g.,

village voice in license approval), accountability (clear focal point of

responsibility for legally-approved licenses and their consequences),

responsiveness (responding to public or sectoral complaints) and timeliness.

For new licenses, improved also means that all new requests for licenses and

permits for a new concession area for natural resources extraction activities (i.e.,

mining, oil palm plantation and logging/industrial timber plantation) follow

Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) that developed or updated based on the

government regulation and procedures for granting licenses and permits. These

also referring that new licenses should be more transparent and accessible by

public for monitoring.

Improved licensing and permitting mechanism are targeted (but not limited) to Izin

Prinsip, Izin Lokasi, AMDAL, and others according to the type of the private

sectors that are operating within LESTARI landscapes.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of sub-national government units

DISAGGREGATIONS

Province, District

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

The indicator is used by LESTARI to track the progress of strengthening

governance process in the respective sub-national government regarding the

issuance of forest licenses and permits. The indicator also illustrates the extent to

which spatial plans policy enforced.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Improved licensing and permitting process will ensure the certainty of land use

and transparency, reduce potential conflicts between private sectors and

communities, and address driver of deforestation and degradation.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review the maps indicates existing licenses, case study to assess adoption of

good governance principles into licensing and permitting mechanism, review the

licensing process and SOP, interview government licensing officers and business

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 82

enterprises, analysis of secondary data and third party observation (i.e.

monitoring of forest licensing by local NGO).

DATA SOURCE

Maps, SOP of licensing and permitting process, activity reports, monitoring/

assessment reports

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling, as data are available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; case study cost; photocopies of documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Sustainability Screening Specialist; Private Sector Engagement Coordinator,

Stakeholder Engagement Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Incomplete regulatory rules and the lack of synergy between different plans (the

National Spatial Land use Plan (RTRWN), the Provincial Spatial Land use Plans

(RTRWP) and the District Spatial Land use Plans (RTRWK), opens the door to

weak implementation of the regulations and corruption. As a result land may be

inappropriately zoned or zones may be changed in order to allow logging or other

extraction. Without adequate plans or consultation with local communities, the

current zoning of land does not provide a basis on which to make licensing

decisions, and therefore such decision-making processes are open to

manipulation and undue influence by loggers or extractors. Furthermore, there

are no official institutions tasked with monitoring the zoning of land and in the

absence of accurate data and maps on logging/extraction zones independent

monitoring is difficult.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

LESTARI will develop capacity of local CSOs to monitor the forestry license

activities through research and analysis supported by advocacy and Geographic

information System (GIS) analysis. Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) initiated

under IFACS will be strengthened to improve the accuracy, consistency, and

availaibility of land use information for public use.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Technical review will be carried out to determine transparency and accessibility of

licensing and permitting information. Also to review if new licenses have followed

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 83

the SOP/screening process. The analysis will be enriched by qualitative

assessment through interview processes toward government officers and

business enterprises. LESTARI will track intermediate milestones when counting

progress toward meeting these targets.

Sub-

national

level

Milestones

Review

and align

licenses

and

permits

with

spatial

plan

Screening

tool

developed -

Protocol and

procedures

for public

monitoring

developed

Communication

and

consultation

with local

government

and approval

received for

screening tool

and monitoring

protocol

Official public

socialization &

training for the

screening tool

The SST

incorporated

in SOP for

licensing

and

permitting

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Sub-national

level

Target

Achievement

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

For this indicator, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Achievement of target will only start to be reported in the second year of the

project because a considerable time is needed to develop SOP and enhance

local officers capacity to implement SOP.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

Not measure

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 84

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

The fifth milestone is revised based on the realistic condition on the SST development. The adoption of

SST into SOP of issuance permit and license by local government is considered realistic within project

period. The target also reduced from 14 districts into 8 districts.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 85

INDICATOR 6

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 2. Improved land use governance

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of SEAs/LCPs recommendations related with land use, spatial plan,

forest management, and biodiversity conservation incorporated into sub-

national government policy, planning and program

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

High quality SEA-LEDS and/or LCP recommendations that are relevant to

LESTARI are defined as:

The SEA-LEDS document produced or updated follow the government standard

(e.g., Permendagri 67/2012, PP 46/2016);

Relevant recommendations incorporated into Policy, Planning, and Program

(Kebijakan, Rencana, Program or KRP) especially those that are programmed and

budgeted by sub-national government which explicitly referred in the RPJMD or

Renstra (Dinas/SKPD), RTRW, executive decrees which directly improve forest

management and reduce external threats

SEA recommendations include but not be limited to:

- Aceh: RPJMD and Renstra SKPD focus on KPH forest program and budgeting,

co-management and livelihood, wildlife conservation, water resources, and

improved licensing of natural resources management;

- Central Kalimantan: RPJMD and Renstra SKPD focus on KPH forest program

and budgeting, co-management and livelihood, peatland hydrology and improved

licensing of natural resources management

- Papua: RTRW focus on mangrove conservation, co-management and livelihood,

wildlife conservation, water resources, and improved licensing of natural

resources management, land use rationalization, incorporation of LCP in SEA

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of SEA/LCP recommendations.

DISAGGREGATIONS

Sub-national governments

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

The indicator is used to measure progress of KRP for improved land use

governance. Due to long periods required for KRP implementation across the

various levels of government, it is crucial to keep monitoring the process and find

other potential entry points to maximize impact through incorporating SEA-LEDS &

LCPs into KRP which will secure financing for implementation. Increase adoption of

SEA recommendations improves forest management and safeguards forest areas

from external threats.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Integrating environmental consideration into strategic decision-making can improve

the quality of local planning, ensure sustainability, and change the land-use

practices thus contributing to emission reduction and biodiversity conservation.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 86

INDICATOR 6

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Technical review of SEA-LEDS and/or LCPs recommendations in KRP (RPJMD,

Renstra, RTRW, Executive decrees). Interviews will be conducted with relevant

government officers to evaluate recommendations for “uptake and use” in KRP and

obtaining sufficient budget allocation.

DATA SOURCE

SEA document, LCP document, Spatial Plan document, Mid-term development

Plan document, assessment report of SEA development/updates, Strategic plan

(Renstra), Executive decrees, annual local government plan (RKPD) and other

relevant policy document.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling, as data are available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; assessment cost; photocopies of documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Forest Governance Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be identified

and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template. USAID

LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is supported with

documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity standards as

outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

This indicator measures SEA-LEDS & LCP recommendations incorporated into

government policy, planning and program (KRP) for forest and land use

management,especially FMU development and conservation management, as well

as KRP from other sectors that potentially threaten forest areas.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Build sustainability within the process to ensure that the recommendations are

accepted and then implemented. Building sustainability is increased as a result of

specific and targeted public consultation by LESTARI to bring the community and

private sector and local government together to arrive at consensus and

commitment to implement the plan.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Citation analysis method will be used to evaluate “uptake and use.” This method

involves looking at explicit reference to adopting SEA recommendation of

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 87

INDICATOR 6

improved-case scenario in government policy, planning and program (KRP)

document. Because policy improvement involves a multi-step process, LESTARI

will track intermediate milestones when counting progress toward meeting these

targets.

Sub-

national

level

Milestones

Recommendation

of high quality

SEAs utilized for

improve forest

and land use

management

SEA

recommendations

actively conveyed

to sub-national

decision makers

SEAs operationalized by

being incorporated into

KRP impacting improved

forest and land use

management (directly and

indirectly through

safeguarding from external

threats) including but not

limited to spatial plan

revision, RPJMD, Renstra

SKPD and other agency

planning documents.

Highest priority given to

incorporating SEA

recommendation into

programing and budgeting

for forest and land use

management,especially

FMU development and

conservation management

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Sub-national

Target

Achievement

Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

SEA/LCP recommendations which initiated since IFACS and implemented during

LESTARI and/or new recommendation that being incorporate into KRP and being

implemented during LESTARI

BASELINE NOTES

For this indicator, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

N/A

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 88

INDICATOR 6

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

This indicator is revised to better demonstrate “operationalization” of SEA/LEDS and/or LCP

recommendations. Operationalization will occur when one or more recommendations are

incorporated into government policy, planning and program (KRP) relevant to forest management

and safeguarding from external threats to the forest. Incorporation into KRP will secure budget for

implementation, thus assuring operationalization. The target also reduced from 14 districts into 6

recommendations within LESTARI landscapes

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 89

INDICATOR 7

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 2. Improved land use governance

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of Multi Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) or civil society advocacy

initiatives which formulate and deliver policy-relevant inputs on sustainable

forest and land management to decision makers

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Civil society advocacy initiatives are events or processes through which more

than one civil society organisation (CSOs) or citizen group formulate policy-

relevant recommendations (based on studies, investigation, or their own needs),

and deliver them to the government, or publicize them through local media

(print/radio/etc.). Recommendations must be relevant to policies on land and

forest management. An initiative must be more than a single discussion or public

statement; for instance, a series of at least two discussions with several

stakeholders (who can be from the same ‘type’ of stakeholder such as CSOs).

A multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) is a series of interactions (discussions, etc.)

through which a set of relevant stakeholders (for example including local

government officials, CSOs, citizens, private sector representatives)

debate/discuss/analyze an issue of land and forest management or biodiversity

conservation and then formulate recommendations relevant to policy design,

revision, implementation or enforcement. Recommendations must be delivered to

relevant decision making policy makers (if not already participating in the MSI).

MSIs may occur in the form of Multi-Stakeholder Fora, with a stable institutional

structure and regular discussion, or they may be more temporary processes

created around a particular issue and relevant set of stakeholders. The key is that

the MSI leads to substantive interaction between stakeholders, clear

recommendations which can be implemented, and the delivery of these

recommendations to the relevant policy makers.

In some contexts, it may not be feasible to create a full MSI, and thus civil society

advocacy (as above) may be the appropriate route for amplifying citizen voice on

this issue. Where there is strong government engagement on the issue, an MSI

should be established to make further progress towards solutions which consider

the needs and interests of multiple stakeholder groups.

MSIs thus serve as a bridge between citizens and local government and foster

trust-based relationships built upon mutual respect. They could be focused on

monitoring policy implementation, implementing policy in effective ways, or

devising/revising suitable policies.

The MSIs and civil society initiatives will focus on particular topics of relevance to

LESTARI objectives, but also be aligned with the interests of local stakeholders

and the political context of the province or district. An indicative list of such topics

would include but not be limited to:

- Aceh: Forest program and budgeting, co-management and livelihood, wildlife

conservation, water resources, and SST;

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 90

INDICATOR 7

- Central Kalimantan: Co-management and livelihood, wildlife conservation, peat

restoration, forest concessions;

- Papua: SST, FMU and mangrove management, land rationalization in Boven

Digoel

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number initiatives

DISAGGREGATIONS

District or province

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

This indicator is used to measure the extent to which citizen-based mechanisms

for public input are successfully strengthened as a result of USG assistance.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

The success of civil society advocacy and MSIs to bridge communication

between local government and wider public in land use will lead to more

transparent, participatory and accountable land use decisions and policies, which

weigh the needs of various stakeholders. Those principles are prerequisite of

good governance.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review reports from regional technical team on MSIs and civil society advocacy;

review the process and products of MSF activities, stakeholders involved,

recommendations, delivery of recommendations, and reception by decision

makers; qualitative assessment to determine if the definition above is satisfied.

DATA SOURCE

Activity reports, SEA/LCPs process, assessment reports

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling, as data are available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; assessment cost; photocopies of documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Stakeholder Engagement Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 91

INDICATOR 7

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Activity reports may not always be complete

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Will require supporting documentation and observation to verify results

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

The advocacy process can be delivered through two ways; Civil society advocacy

initiatives or A multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSI). These process involves multiple

steps as follows:

1. Involving at least two institutions/organisation or citizen group which can

be from the same or different type of stakeholder.

2. Discuss the different topics or issues through debate/discuss/analyze an

issue that relate to land and forest management.

3. The process involved more than a single discussion or public statement.

4. Formulate policy-relevant recommendations (design, revision,

implementation or enforcement) which must be relevant to land and

forest management.

5. Recommendations must be delivered to relevant decision making policy

makers (if not already participating in the MSI).

We will count this indicator achieved once the recommendation is delivered to the

government; however, the project will still monitor and report the implementation

of MSI.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

MSI Target

Achievement

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

While IFACS established some MSFs but many then became dormant.These are

not included as a baseline; instead achievements under LESTARI will be

calculated from a baseline of zero.

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 92

INDICATOR 7

TARGETS NOTES

Because the process and content of the initiative is the focus rather than the

institutionalization of a forum, the target was set assuming that there may be

more than one initiative in a district or province. Thus the target has been raised

higher than it was under the old indicator (which focused on fora).

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

Building on project learning so far, the indicator was changed from ‘multi-stakeholder fora’ to ‘multi-

stakeholder initiatives’, in order to ensure that the indicator captures project efforts to facilitate citizen-

based input into policy processes. Fora are one such multi-stakeholder initiatives’, but an indicator aimed

at fora only risks unnecessarily restricting and formalizing the format of these initiatives, which may hold

back achievements. There is precedent for this kind of indicator in USAID Democracy and Governance

guidance, even though there will be some subjectivity in applying the definition of ‘initiatives’;

see http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnacc390.pdf). The target number is increased from 14 MSF into 20

MSI

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 93

INDICATOR 8

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 2. Improved land use governance

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of champions engaged in advocacy interventions

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Output

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Champions include individuals who influence others (by persuasion or by

example) to adopt more sustainable behaviours or policies in the landscape (i.e.

behaviours or policies in line with LESTARI objectives) or individual who

committed to forest conservation as demonstrated through significant actions.

They can be from communities, civil society, government or private sector. They

can be existing champions whose impact is strengthened by LESTARI, or new

champions who act because of LESTARI intervention. In order to count a

champion under this indicator, LESTARI must have strengthened their impact on

others’ behaviour or on forest and land use policy advocacy. Given that successful

advocacy efforts result in change, this indicator is highly connected with Indicator

#4 (public policies) and Indicator #5 (more transparent and accountable licensing

and permitting).

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of individuals

DISAGGREGATIONS

Sex (female/male); Province; District; Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

The indicator is used to track the progress of strengthening citizen-based

mechanisms for public input on land use. It is also used for measuring the extent

to which the project is able to build constituencies for conservation.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Advocacy interventions are essential aspects of democratic policy making, citizen

participation, and oversight of all branches of government. These interventions

play an important role in giving voice to citizens and historically marginalized

groups. Successful advocacy will improve land use decisions.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review advocacy plans or strategies, recording of press conference, copy of

testimony or press release, advocacy campaign materials, record of public

consultation. Case study will be conducted to track the process of advocacy and

policy change.

DATA SOURCE

Advocacy plans or strategies, press conference, press release, advocacy

campaign materials, minutes of public consultation, assessment reports.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling, as data are available

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 94

INDICATOR 8

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; assessment cost; photocopies of documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Communication and Advocacy Specialist, Stakeholder Enggagement Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be identified

and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template. USAID

LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is supported with

documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity standards as

outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Activity reports may not always be complete

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Will require supporting documentation and observation to verify results

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Counting number of individuals supported to have strengthened impact on others’

behaviour or on forest and land use policy advocacy, supported by documentation.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Province

District

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated

by Female/Male)

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 95

INDICATOR 8

BASELINE NOTES

For this indicator, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential CSOs in the landscape, population,

membership of MSF during IFACS project.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

230

FY 2019

150

FY 2020

Targets LOP

500

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

Criteria was revised to recognize that champions can be from all stakeholder groups (not just communities)

and to allow for strengthening of impact from existing champions. Previous definition also had superfluous

information on advocacy.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 96

INDICATOR 9

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 2. Improved land use governance

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of people reached by LESTARI communication programs to

improve awareness and understanding of LEDS and biodiversity

conservation

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Output

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

“Reached by LESTARI communication programs” is defined as individuals who

have been reached via LESTARI communication and outreach campaigns,

including printed sustainable landscapes and forest conservation materials, radio

campaigns, influential religious leader raising sustainable landscapes and forest

conservation issues to their congregations, social media, video, communication

trainings, and exhibitions. People could be reached through passive participation

(receive or consume information) or empowerment, where primary stakeholders

are capable and willing to become involved in the process and take part in

advocacy and decision-making.

This indicator is an early step to measure the scale and reach of communication

activities more focused on increased awareness. Increased awareness be

assessed when those people are measured as champions as indicated by

Indicator #8.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of individuals

DISAGGREGATIONS

Sex (female/male); Province; District; Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

These results will help to estimate the coverage of LESTARI communications

activities.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Increase awareness and understanding of LEDS and biodiversity, supported by

continous advocacy will lead to increase commitment of key stakeholders

regarding the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use of forests and

the species they encompass. This in turn leads to improved land use decision

making contributes to improved land use governance.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Data collection will vary widely based on the particular activity that reaches

people with LESTARI messages/information on sustainable landscapes and

biodiversity conservation issues. For communication training, sign-in sheets will

validate the result. For radio campaign, LESTARI will assess the number of

people that could potentially be “reached” to this message through population and

geographical data. Using the data, the project will estimate the % of people

(disaggregated by sex) within that geographical area that likely heard that

message. A similar methodology will be used for mass media such as information

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 97

INDICATOR 9

in newspapers and other forms of print media. The project will also review

communication products developed by stakeholders and deliver case study to

assess increase awareness and changes in behaviours.

For social media, the process of gathering data, as well as what data we gather,

differs for each channel. In Facebook, LESTARI focus on three main areas: likes,

comments and links on posts, and shares. If someone “likes” LESTARI page, we

will know that they’re listening to us. When followers add comments to our posts,

we’ve made the conversation two-way by engaging them. And when they share

our posts with their Facebook friends, we’ve expanded our audience. Gathering

this information will help us understand what people are doing on Facebook, and

how to tap into it. Twitter is similar—engagement is a more accurate measure of

our influence than follower count. Do followers retweet our posts, or share

information of relevance and interest to our organization and constituents?

Measure engagement against the time we spend on the site to get a sense of the

channel’s value. For LESTARI website, we will use Google Analytics to monitor

traffic and referral data.

DATA SOURCE

Sign-in sheet from trainings, secondary data (population and geographical),

communication products (e.g., articles, shermon sheets, etc) developed by

stakeholders, activity reports, assessment report, social media monitoring report.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling as data available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff and labor cost, assessment cost, photocopies of activities documentation.

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Communication & Advocacy Specialist

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Calculating direct beneficiaries as a result of communication training is rather

easy. However, when LESTARI issues a radio spot or puts information in a local

newspaper, measuring the precise number is extremely difficult and imprecise.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 98

INDICATOR 9

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

LESTARI will provide a rational justification for data counted against this indicator

that obtained through mass media such as radio and newspaper information

dissemination. LESTARI will access the reach of the message (e.g., the

newspaper’s geographic circulation or how far a radio signal can carry) and

determine the population within that area. LESTARI will then apply a percentage

of people that are likely reached to that message, using a rather conservative

percentage (e.g., 30% of total population within that range).

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Counting number of individuals reached in LESTARI communication programs.

LESTARI will assess the efficacy of outreach and other communication activities

using the case study as well as assess the achievement of other related

indicators that indicate changes in behaviors.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Province

District

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated

Female/Male)

Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

For this indicator, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential population reached per landscape and

IFACS lesson learned. LOP target is 500,000. Target for the fourth and fifth year

of the project decreased following the activity declines.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

120,551

FY 2017

219,374

FY 2018

55,500

FY 2019

57,000

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 99

INDICATOR 9

FY 2020

47,575

Targets LOP

500,000

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

Total target of this indicator is raised from 15.000 to 500.000 people. The revision was made considering

that the current number are too low while LESTARI work in the 17 sub-national government and province

with dense population as potential target.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 100

INDICATOR 10

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

KR 3. Management of at least six conservation areas improved, resulting in the

conservation of valuable orangutan and other key species habitat, and the

reduction in poaching of threatened and endemic species

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of Conservation Areas (CAs) with at least 70 point in METT scores

across LESTARI landscapes as result of USG assistance

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Conservation Areas include National Parks, Wildlife sanctuaries, natural

reserves, all areas of high biodiversity under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of

Forestry.

The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) is a tool developed by the

World Wildlife Foundation and The World Bank to track and monitor the

effectiveness of protected area management. It provides a rapid and replicable

assessment designed to reveal trends, standardize assessment and reporting,

and aid in adaptive management. METT consists of two primary sections –

datasheets and an assessment form. The datasheets contain contextual

information such as size and location, local designation, and budget, as well as a

ranking of threats. The assessment form consists of a 30-question scorecard that

quantifies performance based on a 4-point scale (0-3). Each question also

requires an explanation for qualitative judgments, such as detailing the level of

staff knowledge or results from external studies.

Overall METT encompasses 6 key elements (context, planning, inputs, process,

outputs, and outcomes) crucial to effective protected area management. METT

allows park managers to identify needs, constraints, and priority actions to

improve protected area management.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of CAs

DISAGGREGATIONS

CAs, Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

METT was selected, not only because it allows the LESTARI team to monitor a

portfolio of sites with a single, cost-effective tool, but also because it has been

adopted by GoI as a tool to assess the management effectiveness of protected

areas across Indonesia.

The ability to manage protected areas effectively relies on a combination of good

governance, sufficient capacity, well-trained staff and enough money to pay for

essential management activities and equipment. Therefore, METT will provide a

quick and simple picture of effectiveness in individual protected areas, through

repeated application in sites over time.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 101

INDICATOR 10

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Success in maintaining biodiversity is linked to a well-regulated and managed

protected area, where staff are assessing progress and making changes as

necessary. The strongest association is with law enforcement, control of access,

resource management, monitoring and evaluation, maintenance of equipment,

budget management and existence of annual work plans. Increase effectiveness

of CAs management will contribute to conservation goal and reduce GHG

emissions.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

METT baseline and endline survey; monitoring the implementation of CAs

management plan

DATA SOURCE

Survey report; CAs management plan; direct observation

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Annual

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; METT survey cost; photocopies of necessary documents

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Biodiversity Conservation Advisor

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

METT has been developed to provide a quick overview of progress in improving

the effectiveness of management in individual protected areas, to be filled in by

the protected area manager or other relevant site staff. As such it is clear that

there are limitations on what it can achieve: it should not for example be regarded

as an independent assessment, or as the sole basis for adaptive management.

The Tracking Tool is also too limited to allow a detailed evaluation of outcomes

and is really aimed at providing a quick overview of the management steps

identified in the WCPA (World Commission of Protected Area) Framework up to

and including outputs. Clearly, however good management is, if biodiversity

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 102

INDICATOR 10

continues to decline, the protected area objectives are not being met. Therefore

the questions on condition assessment have disproportionate importance in the

overall Tracking Tool.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Additional questions may need to be added to suit local circumstances rather

than modify the Tracking Tool. The Tracking Tool contains a set of questions that

have been designed to be easily answered by those managing the protected area

without any additional research. However, it is useful to review the results of

existing monitoring and to spend sufficient time discussing each aspect

of management being assessed to arrive at a considered judgement. A group

of protected area staff from the reserve, project staff or other agency staff should

be involved in answering the questions in the Tracking Tool; where possible

additional external experts, local community leaders or others with knowledge

and interest in the area and its management should also be involved.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis will be done through quantitative (scoring) and qualitative methods.

METT assessment is made by assigning a simple score ranging between 0 (poor)

to 3 (excellent). A series of four alternative answers are provided against each

question to help assessors to make judgements as to the level of score given.

The maximum score of the 30 questions and supplementary questions is 99. A

final total of the score from completing the assessment form will be calculated as

a percentage of 99 or of the total score from those questions that were relevant to

a particular protected area. Thus if a protected area scores 65 out of a maximum

score of 87 the percentage can be calculated by dividing 65 by 87 and multiplying

by 100 (i.e. 65 ÷ 87 x 100 = 75%). Qualitative judgements will be applied whereas

the information come from local staff knowledge (in many cases, staff knowledge

will be the most informed and reliable source of knowledge), a reference

document, monitoring results or external studies and assessments.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Conservation

Area

Target

Achievement

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

METT baseline survey undertaken by Ministry of Environment and Forestry

(MOEF) for six conservation areas

BASELINE NOTES

None

BASELINE VALUE

Conservation Areas

METT score

Gunung Leuser National Park

67 %

Sebangau National Park

62 %

Lorentz National Park

52 %

Cycloops Nature Reserve

43 %

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 103

INDICATOR 10

Rawa Singkil

55 %

Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park

64 %

BASELINE YEAR

2015

TARGETS NOTES

LESTARI will assist six conservation areas to improve their METT scores.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

Not measure

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 10, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 104

INDICATOR 11

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of Forest Management Unit (FMU) Strengthened as a result of USG

assistance

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Output

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the number of Forest Management Unit (FMU) receiving

USG assistance that improved their management practices. FMU defined as forest

management areas according to its function principal (protection or production) and

designation that can be managed on a regular basis in efficient and sustainable.

There are various level of FMU capacity within LESTARI landscapes. Some FMUs

are recently established, many do not have management plan, running with limited

budget and thus have limited impact on sustainable forest management practices on

the ground.

LESTARI will support strengthening of FMU in two aspects: enhance FMU

institutional capacity and advocate for multi-use and multi-stakeholder forest

management principles to be adopted by FMU. Government regulations and other

references (e.g., Forest Management Toolkit) will be used as guidance.

Improved FMU management practices encompasses three (3) key elements:

Absolute requirements, Basic requirements and Supporting conditions. Each key

element consist of several aspects that should be met by the FMU as the basis of

fulfilling operationalization criteria. Under this indicator, improved management is

defined when a FMU within LESTARI landscape at least have three of five of the

following components that are supported through LESTARI support with participatory

process.

1. Long-term management plan (RPHJP) including:

 Clear mission and purpose that described desired forest condition

including landscape, vegetation, wildlife, biophysical elements at

multiple scales

 Sustainability strategy based on management of forest resources

 A conservation strategy that will protect biodiversity, environmental

services and social and cultural values.

 Sustainable economic strategy that aims to create job and reduce

poverty.

 A clear strategy that recognizes and supports the rights (Co-

management) and interest forest-dependent communities

 A workforce management strategy that includes clear organizational

structure, required expertise, roles and responsibilities

2. Annual short term management plan (RPHJPd) that operationalizes the

above strategies mentioned in point (1).

3. Improved institutional capacity measured through adequate human resource

expertise and financial resources

4. Co-management of forest implemented with community and relevant

stakeholders. Co-management schemes define sharing of roles &

responsibilities and benefits as well as monitoring.

5. Effective protected forest management (hutan lindung) that include

collaborative forest patrol, inventory and data management

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 105

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of FMU

DISAGGREGATIONS

Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

The indicator is used to measure progress of FMU strengthening in LESTARI

landscape. Due to long periods required for FMU operationalization across the

various levels of requirements, it is crucial to keep monitoring the process and find

the way to filling the gap to optimizing the operationalization of the FMU institution as

the forest manager rather than forest administrator. Enhance quality of FMU

standards/toolkits will improve forest management in the area.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Improved FMU management practices will benefit community adjacent to FMU area

(through the adoption of multi-use and multi-stakeholder principles) and contribute to

reduction on deforestation and degradation.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Technical review of Forest Management Unit (FMU) plans and reports concerning

RPHJP, RPJPd, Institutional Capacity, Co-management and Protected Forest

Management. Interviews will be conducted with relevant FMU staff and stakeholders

to evaluate the quality of these standards and the application on the ground

DATA SOURCE

RPHJP, RPJPd, Monitoring reports, co-management scheme.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

To be compiled quarterly and annually

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs including field staff and transportation to FMU sites to observe and

verify the improved capacity and management practices.

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Assigned field staff will report to Landscape M&E Specialist with cc: ME&L

Coordinator

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and therefore

will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS. For each

data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be identified and

reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template. USAID LESTARI’s

ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is supported with documentation

and that data are assessed against data integrity standards as outlined in ADS

203.3.11.1.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 106

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Government regulation on FMU operationalization standard has not been in place in

order to evaluate FMU readiness across Indonesia. USAID Bijak and USFS are still

working to develop this standard at the national level.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

LESTARI used Perdirjen P.7/2016 to set the standard combined with Forest

Management Toolkits from USFS Manuals.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis for this indicator will involve assessing a series of milestones. Due to

various FMU capacity level, this indicator will be counted once FMU has achieved

four (4) criteria set up above.

Key analytical questions will refer to the four criteria set up in the precise definition

what has changed within FMU compared to baseline condition as a result of USG

assistance? Do they have RPHJP? How is the quality? Is it implemented? Do they

adopt workforce management? How is the adoption in practice? Do they have co-

management with community and relevant stakeholders? How is the level of

implementation and monitoring?

FMU

RPHJP

RPHJPd

Institutional

capacity

Co-

Management

of Protected

Area

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

FMU

Target

Achievement

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 107

BASELINE NOTES

Baseline for each landscape is different, considering the level of readiness for each

FMU as follow:

Landscape

FMU

RPHJP

RPHJPd

Institutional

Capacity

Co-

Management

of Protected

Area

Aceh

FMU III

√

FMU V

FMU VI

Central

Kalimantan

FMU XVI

√

FMU XVII

FMU XXXI

Papua

FMU VI

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on the level of FMU readiness in each landscape using

the assessments result which previously conducted

Landscape

FMU

RPHJP

RPHJPd

Institutional

Capacity

Co-

Management

of Protected

Area

Aceh

FMU III

√

FMU V

√

FMU VI

√

Central

Kalimantan

FMU XVI

√

FMU XVII

√

FMU XXXI

√

Papua

FMU VI

√

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 108

This indicator was changed from previously titled “ Number of Co-Management Agreements Signed that

Secure Community Rights and Benefit” into the new title” Number of Forest Management Unit (FMU) that

have Improved Management Practices as a Result of USG Assistance”. The changes was made to avoid the

possibilities of double count on the area or co-management with hectares under improves management

(Indicator#2) as well as to ensure the co-management agreement are well implemented after signed. The

works on FMU strengthening will contribute with a significant number or area under improves management.

However, due to long periods required for FMU operationalization across the various levels of requirements,

then it is needed to provide the intermediate indicator to show the progress of the FMU strengthening process

along the way.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 30, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 109

INDICATOR 12

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of people receiving USG supported training in natural resources

management and/or biodiversity conservation

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Output

INDICATOR TYPE

FACTS 4.8.1-27

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator will measure the number of individuals trained through learning

activities in natural resources management (NRM) and/or biodiversity

conservation. Training will primarily be traditional classroom training and

workshops (led by designated instructors or “lead persons,” with a learning

objective and defined curricula).

Training topics will include but are not limited to: Best Management Practices,

forest fire management, Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), etc.

This indicator reports against the Biodiversity Fund.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of people

DISAGGREGATIONS

Sex (male/female); District; Province; Landscape; and Affiliation (government,

non-governmental organizations, private sector, and community, as appropriate).

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Tracking training in NRM and biodiversity conservation provides information

about the reach and scale of training and capacity building efforts.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

Increased capacity to manage forest resources and adapt to climate change will

lead to improved land use management and strengthened mitigation and

adaptation strategies to overall ecosystem management.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review of training attendance records, with a proportion of the trainings attended

by LESTARI staff. Pre and post survey to seek information about changes in

knowledge resulting from the training. Monitor other indicators to justify changes

in application of knowledge and skill.

DATA SOURCE

Training records/reports, training grantee/subcontractor reports, monitoring

reports.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

At the end of each training, to be compiled quarterly and annually

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 110

INDICATOR 12

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs including field staff and transportation to training sites to observe

and verify the training.

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Assigned field staff will report to Landscape M&E Specialist with cc: ME&L

Coordinator

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Training record/report may not always be accurate.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Independent verification through attendance by LESTARI staff.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Counting number of people participating in LESTARI NRM and/or biodiversity

trainings

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

District

and/or

Province

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated by

sex and affiliation)

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 111

INDICATOR 12

BASELINE NOTES

For training, the baseline is zero

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential population and IFACS lesson learned

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

981

FY 2017

2,946

FY 2018

3,663

FY 2019

1,910

FY 2020

500

Targets LOP

10,000

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 112

INDICATOR 13

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

KR 5. Funding leveraged from public and private sources, representing co-

investment in project outcomes

INDICATOR TITLE

Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for climate change and

biodiversity conservation as supported by USG assistance

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Output

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator - contributes to FACTS 4.8.2-10

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator includes finance mobilized (or leveraged), enabled by USG

assistance, for actions, activities, projects or programs that avoid, reduce, or

sequester GHGs and conserve biodiversity. Finance may be mobilized from the

public sector (e.g., local government), communities (e.g., village fund) or private

sector (e.g., corporate investment) and should help to advance the objectives

established by LESTARI program.

Finance mobilized under this indicator also include those allocated for sustainable

forest management, spatial planning, and conservation activities in targeted

landscapes.

Finance can be mobilized through a variety of instruments and vehicles, including

common funding instruments, parallel investments, or in-kind support as a result

of USG support. Examples of the types of U.S. assistance (under LESTARI) that

could mobilize finance include:

Finance interventions, such as:

 Grants (or in-kind support) for technical assistance

 Equity or investment shares through PPP scheme

Investments made possible by policy interventions and technical assistance

interventions, such as:

 Facilitate organizations/local governments to access financing from

ICCTF (Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund)

 Market value chains for cocoa that link farmers to wider market

 Regulatory policy support for transparent and fair permitting and

approvals

 Regulatory policy support for Payment for Environmental Services (PES)

 Co-management interventions

 Allocation of village funds for forest and environment sector

Examples of what mobilized funds may support include improving the enabling

environment for mitigation actions, funding the costs of climate change and

conservation activities advanced by the program, monitoring climate change

progress or outcomes, or sensitizing stakeholders to climate risks and land use

issues and opportunities addressed through the program.

USD amount will be determined on a quarterly basis for all Indonesian rupiah

values within that quarter using a currency converter

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 113

INDICATOR 13

(http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/). This will be printed and filed with the

indicator documentation.

UNIT OF MEASURE

US Dollars

DISAGGREGATIONS

Domain of interest: Sustainable Landscapes and Biodiversity

Source of funds (public, private) dissagregated further into domestic and

international sources of investment

Provincie; District; Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Indicator used to track amount of investment leveraged the project could reach

under initiatives fitting together public and private entities

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

LESTARI programs are intended to be catalytic and to have sustainable benefits.

The mobilization of additional financial resources can be an important indicator

for assessing the success of LESTARI in catalyzing resources needed for

transformational change. This indicator can also help to provide a baseline of

data needed to test hypotheses as to the most effective strategies, techniques, or

necessary capacities for mobilizing the funds required to address climate change

and biodiversity conservation, leading to lessons learning over time.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

LESTARI will gather data about the amount of finance mobilized from all types of

potential activities intervention (please see the examples under precise definition

section).

Documentation should include a rationale for how LESTARI support has

facilitated the mobilization of additional resources and include information such as

source of funds and use of funds.

DATA SOURCE

Financial records/statements verify amounts leveraged and documentation that

prices out labor and material per period of time that was mobilized to enhance

LESTARI objectives in climate change and biodiversity conservation.

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling as data available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; photocopies of documentation

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Landscape M&E Specialists

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 114

INDICATOR 13

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Proprietary information – some organizations providing funding may consider

some information on their funding support proprietary.

Precision – measuring funding leveraged does not necessarily indicate the

magnitude of impact or results achieved.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

Accept self-reporting (with narrative caveats) and validate with estimates of public

or private sector investments using documented similar investments for which

data are known.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Use standard audit methods on available data, calculate descriptive statistics -

Disaggregation by domain of interest - Comparison with targets. When LESTARI

intervention resulting on government allocating budget for certain program (e.g.,

fire prevention) in APBD, we will make a comparison between current APBD and

previous APBD to allow justification of achievement.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Province

District

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated by

domain of interest

and source of funds –

public, private –

domestic vs

international)

Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

The baseline is zero. The project is at a starting point and no activity has been

developed by this time.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 115

INDICATOR 13

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential investment that can be leveraged in each

landscape.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

3,477,921

FY 2017

239,320

FY 2018

6,282,759

FY 2019

6,250,000

FY 2020

3,750,000

Targets LOP

20,000,000

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 116

INDICATOR 14

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of people receiving livelihood co-benefits (monetary or non

monetary)

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

Custom Indicator – contributes to FACTS 4.8.2-36

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator identifies the number of people in LESTARI landscapes where

sustainable landscapes activities as well as conservation and sustainable use of

forest resources activities are implemented, who have received livelihood co-

benefits associated with these activities. People included in the metric should be

part of populations or households identified by a project with a documented

relationship to the project. Beneficiaries should be reasonably assumed to have

received a documented benefit or service enabled by USG assistance.

Beneficiaries may include, but are not limited to: members of a household with an

increased income or a newly secured land title, members of a cooperative who

have increased sales due to increased market access, or even children attending

a school renovated with payments for ecosystem services.

Examples of monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: increased

income due to government policies related to climate change mitigation,

payments for avoided emissions or carbon sequestration, monetary benefits from

ecosystem services, public-private partnership, etc, facilitated by LESTARI.

Examples of non-monetary benefits may include, but are not limited to: access to

services, access to markets, land titling or registration, increased access to

environmental services, protection of traditional livelihoods and customary rights,

or increased productivity from climate-smart agricultural practices, etc, facilitated

by LESTARI.

Number is specific to each year, not cumulative

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of people

DISAGGREGATIONS

Sex (male/female); Landscape; District

Type of activity: Sustainable landscape; Biodiversity

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Reducing emission from deforestation and degradation can stimulate a win-win

situation, by delivering carbon sinks and at the same time guaranteeing the

conservation of biodiversity and livelihoods for forest-dependent communities. It

is important to not only monitor emission reduced or avoided, but also to keep

track of biodiversity and the livelihoods of local people. This measure

demonstrates project reach.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

This indicator links sustainable natural resources management to economic

growth objective. When people receive tangible monetary or non-monetary

benefits from natural resource management or conservation, they are more likely

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 117

INDICATOR 14

to value and support these activities into the future, well after the project ends,

creating a sustainable impact.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Beneficiary interview, random survey and on-sight observations to approximate

impact across households or population

DATA SOURCE

Project and subcontractor/grantee records; survey reports

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Annually

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; survey costs

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Landscape M&E Specialist

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

This indicator is not intended to capture the quality of co-benefits received or the

degree to which livelihoods are improved.

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

During the quantitative survey, the survey team will also solicit qualitative

assessment to capture performance and other relevant assumptions into the

calculations.

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis will involve quantitative (statistical) such as random survey and

qualitative analysis through beneficiaries interview, on-sight observation, etc.

Qualitative will enrich explanation of project impact. Analysis includes gender and

location of those receiving benefits, which will more closely assess are those

benefits equitably distributed between men and women.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 118

INDICATOR 14

Individuals receiving benefits from more than one sustainable landscapes activity,

or receiving multiple benefits from a single activity, should be counted once per

fiscal year.

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

District

Type of

Activity

(Sustainable

Landscape;

Biodiversity)

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated

by sex)

Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

N/A

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target achievement for this indicator will only start to be reported in the second

year of the project to allow impact to realize.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

579

FY 2018

11,721

FY 2019

9,500

FY 2020

8,200

Targets LOP

30,000

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 119

INDICATOR 15

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of private sector firms that have improved management

practices as a result of USG assistance

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

FACTS 4.6.2-9

PRECISE

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the number of firms receiving USG assistance that

improved their management practices. There are numerous private sector

companies in LESTARI landscapes, ranging from large, multi-national,

publicly traded Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA) members to smaller

Indonesian privately held firms. Firms include forestry concenssions, oil

palm and fiber plantations, mining and agroforestry/commodity producers,

and their buyers. Companies, especially those involved in international

trade, are under growing pressure to establish and meet sustainability and

reduced emissions standards. Most companies lack the tools to assess

potential GHG impacts, costs, and efficacy of these emerging goals, nor do

they necessarily incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to meet

these goals.

The project will facilitate development (or update) of Conservation

Management and Monitoring Plans (CMMPs) and support their

implementation. These plans are used as a means to guide the

management and monitoring of HCV and HCS areas in concessions.

In the natural forest industry timber private sector, the project will assist

companies to institutionalize Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as

Reduce Impact Logging that measurably reduces GHG emission

compared to conventional/bussines as usual practices. Improved

management practices are achieved when companies incorporate

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for BMP/RIL-C, allocate sufficient

budgets for implementation, and implement some or all of the action plans.

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of firms

DISAGGREGATIONS

Landscape

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION

FOR INDICATOR

Indicator used to track private sectors commitment regarding the positive

benefits of conservation and sustainable use of forests.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME

OR IMPACT

Adoption and implementation of BMPs will ensure that HCV and HCS

areas in concessions are managed in perpetuity thus result on reduction in

GHG emissions.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 120

INDICATOR 15

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review the CMMP document, RIL-C document, SOP, and budget line item

allocated by concessionaires to implement the plan. Spot-check to observe

field implementation.

DATA SOURCE

RIL-C document, CMMP document, SOP, direct observation

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Rolling as data available

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; photocopies of documentation; field visit cost

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Private Sector Engagement Coordinator

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the

project’s MIS. For each data point reported to USAID, supporting

documentation will be identified and reviewed using the process outlined in

USAID’s DQA Template. USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure

that each data point is supported with documentation and that data are

assessed against data integrity standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

Concessionaires may refuse to release their financial reports

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

LESTARI field staff to spot-check concessionaires’ claims of

implementation through field visits and site observations

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Triangulation of findings will be made through compilation of CMMP, SOP,

budget documents review, direct observation, and interview

concessionaires managers and staff. When counting progress toward

meeting this target, LESTARI will track the intermediate milestones.

LESTARI will also report the number of hectares under improved

management practices. Achievement of this indicator will contribute to

Indicator #2.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 121

INDICATOR 15

Milestones

MoU

with

private

sector

BMP

package

agreed

upon

Training

for BMP

provided

company

staff

BMP

SOP

finalized

Budget for

BMP

activities

incorporated

into SOP

BMP

activities

adopted and

implemented

BMP

monitoring

and

evaluation

conducted

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Target

Achievement

(number of private

firms and hectare

under improved

management

practices)

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Quarterly by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Quarterly and Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

The baseline is zero. The Project is at a starting point and no activity has

been developed by this time.

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential private firms to collaborate in each

landscape.

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 122

INDICATOR 15

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

Milestones are slightly revised into more logical order according to actual processes happening on

the ground.

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: November 30, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 123

INDICATOR 16

GOAL

Reduced rate of deforestation and degradation

RESULT

IR 1. Improved forest management

KR 4. At least ten public-private partnerships (PPPs) promoting low-emissions

conservation oriented development established

INDICATOR TITLE

Number of new USG-supported public-private partnerships (PPPs) formed

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

INDICATOR LEVEL

Outcome

INDICATOR TYPE

FACTS PPP 5

PRECISE

DEFINITION

Number of public-private partnerships (PPPs) formed during the reporting year.

Partnerships can be long or short in duration (length is not a criteria for

measurement). A partnership with multiple partners should only be counted as a

single partnership. However, an institution may form more than one partnership

with the same entity and each partnership should be counted separately.

A partnership is considered “formed” when there is a clear agreement, written

and signed, to work together to achieve a common objective. Public-private

partnership will be understood as a formal agreement between public and private

entities with the purpose to provide and /or fulfill a public service in a schema

defined to allow to the private enterprise to reach return on investment. Private

partners could be for-profit enterprises, NGOs, private company, a community

group, or a state-owned enterprise which seeks to make a profit (even if

unsuccessfully).

Public-private partnership also include partnerships between LESTARI (on behalf

of USAID) and the private sector entities in its landscape.

LESTARI will work directly with businesses and business associations from the

onset in the creation of the PPPs to foster their support and to broaden impact to

increase economic benefits while reducing GHG emissions and deforestation.

PPP scheme will require some amount of leveraged funding from the private

sector that contributes to low emissions conservation oriented activities. The

ratio of funding between two parties will be determined during the process of

developing agreement. Though it is expected that there is one to one match of

funding.

Investment mobilized through PPP scheme will contribute to Indicator #13

(investment mobilized).

UNIT OF MEASURE

Number of new partnerships.

The indicator should only measure the new partnerships in the reporting year.

DISAGGREGATIONS

Landscape; Type of PPP

RATIONALE OR

JUSTIFICATION FOR

INDICATOR

Indicator used to track capacity of public and private entities to reinforce the legal

frameworks for facilitating PPP, establish partnerships and support

implementation of these kind of partnerships. The indicator is also used to

measure sustainability of efforts and reinforce initiative for resilience and local

benefits.

DESIRED

DIRECTION

Increasing

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 124

INDICATOR 16

LINKAGE TO LONG

TERM OUTCOME OR

IMPACT

PPP will provide incentives for governments, private sectors and communities to

embrace LEDS and conservation oriented practices.

DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD

Review of partnership signed, implementation documentation, activities reports

and proofs of disbursements

DATA SOURCE

PPP agreement, activities reports and proofs of disbursements

FREQUENCY AND

TIMING OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Annually

ESTIMATED COST

OF DATA

ACQUISITION

Staff labor costs; photocopies of documentation

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBLE

Private Sector Engagement Coordinator

DATA STORAGE

LOCATION

LESTARI MIS; with supporting files kept at the LESTARI Office in Jakarta

DATA QUALITY

INITIAL DQA

TBD

DATE OF FUTURE

DQA

Internally by the Tetra Tech ARD M&E team in October 2018

PROCESS FOR

FUTURE DQA

The project will employ a system of continuous adaptive management and

therefore will audit data on a systematic basis before input into the project’s MIS.

For each data point reported to USAID, supporting documentation will be

identified and reviewed using the process outlined in USAID’s DQA Template.

USAID LESTARI’s ME&L Coordinator will ensure that each data point is

supported with documentation and that data are assessed against data integrity

standards as outlined in ADS 203.3.11.1.

KNOWN DATA

LIMITATIONS

None

ACTION TAKEN TO

ADDRESS

LIMITATIONS

None

DATA ANALYSIS REPORTING AND REVIEW

DATA ANALYSIS

Compilation of data - Disaggregation by type of PPP - Comparison with targets -

Analyze on improvements and impacts on climate change and biodiversity

conservation aspects.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 125

INDICATOR 16

PRESENTATION OF

DATA

Tabular with supporting narrative, as appropriate

Landscape

Target

Achievement

(disaggregated

type of PPP)

% Completion

REVIEW OF DATA

Annually by ME&L Coordinator

REPORTING OF

DATA

Annual Report

BASELINE AND TARGETS

BASELINE DATA

SOURCE

N/A

BASELINE NOTES

N/A

BASELINE VALUE

BASELINE YEAR

N/A

TARGETS NOTES

Target is determined based on potential PPP in each landscape

YEAR

TARGETS

ACTUAL

OBSERVATIONS

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Targets LOP

NOTES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE INDICATOR

LAST SHEET UPDATED BY: Rachman Pasha ME&L Coordinator DATE: September 25, 2017

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 126

ANNEX II: RESULTS CHAINS

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 127

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 128

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 129

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 130

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 131

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 132

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 133

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 134

ANNEX III: DATA QUALITY

ASSESSMENT

CHECKLISTS

This Data Quality Assessment (DQA) Checklist is provided as a recommended tool that an

operating unit (OU) may use to complete its DQAs. If the OU prefers or has successfully

used a different tool for conducting and documenting its DQAs in the past, they are free to

continue the use of that tool instead. The checklist below is intended to assist in assessing

each of the five aspects of data quality and provide a convenient manner in which to

document the OU’s DQA findings.

USAID Mission or Operating Unit Name:

Title of Performance Indicator:

[Indicator should be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet]

Linkage to Foreign Assistance Standardized Project Structure, if applicable (i.e. Project Area,

Element, etc.):

Result This Indicator Measures [For USAID only] (i.e., Specify the Development Objective,

Intermediate Result, or Project Purpose, etc.):

Data Source(s):

[Information can be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet]

Partner or Contractor Who Provided the Data:

[It is recommended that this checklist is completed for each partner that contributes data to an

indicator– it should state in the contract or grant that it is the prime’s responsibility to ensure

the data quality of sub-contractors or sub grantees.]

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 135

Period for Which the Data Are Being Reported:

Is This Indicator a Standard or Custom

Indicator?

____ Standard Foreign Assistance

Indicator

____ Custom (created by the OU; not

standard)

Data Quality Assessment methodology:

[Describe here or attach to this checklist the methods and procedures for assessing the

quality of the indicator data. E.g. Reviewing data collection procedures and documentation,

interviewing those responsible for data analysis, checking a sample of the data for errors,

etc.]

Date(s) of Assessment:

Assessment Team Members:

USAID Mission/OU Verification of DQA

Team Leader Officer approval

X_______________________________________

YES

COMMENTS

VALIDITY – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result.

Does the information collected measure what it is supposed to

measure? (E.g. A valid measure of overall nutrition is healthy

variation in diet; Age is not a valid measure of overall health.)

Do results collected fall within a plausible range?

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 136

Is there reasonable assurance that the data collection

methods being used do not produce systematically biased

data (e.g. consistently over- or under-counting)?

Are sound research methods being used to collect the data?

RELIABILITY – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and

analysis methods over time.

When the same data collection method is used to

measure/observe the same thing multiple times, is the same

result produced each time? (E.g. A ruler used over and over

always indicates the same length for an inch.)

Are data collection and analysis methods documented in

writing and being used to ensure the same procedures are

followed each time?

TIMELINESS – Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and should

be timely enough to influence management decision making.

Are data available frequently enough to inform project

management decisions?

Are the data reported the most current practically available?

Are the data reported as soon as possible after collection?

PRECISION – Data have a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision making;

e.g. the margin of error is less than the anticipated change.

Is the margin of error less than the expected change being

measured? (E.g. If a change of only 2% is expected and the

margin of error in a survey used to collect the data is +/- 5%,

then the tool is not precise enough to detect the change.)

Has the margin of error been reported along with the data?

(Only applicable to results obtained through statistical

samples.)

Is the data collection method/tool being used to collect the

data fine-tuned or exact enough to register the expected

change? (E.g. A yardstick may not be a precise enough tool to

measure a change of a few millimeters.)

INTEGRITY – Data collected should have safeguards to minimize the risk of transcription

error or data manipulation.

Are procedures or safeguards in place to minimize data

transcription errors?

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 137

Is there independence in key data collection, management,

and assessment procedures?

Are mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized changes to

the data?

SUMMARY

Based on the assessment relative to the five standards, what is the overall conclusion

regarding the quality of the data?

Significance of limitations (if any):

Actions needed to address limitations prior to the next DQA (given level of USG control

over data):

IF NO DATA ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE INDICATOR

COMMENTS

If no recent relevant data are available for this indicator, why not?

What concrete actions are now being taken to collect and report these

data as soon as possible?

When will data be reported?

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDUCTING DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

1. Data Quality (DQ) assessor should make sure that they understand the precise definition

of the indicator by checking the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet. Please address

any issues of ambiguity before the DQA is conducted.

2. DQ assessor should have a copy of the methodology for data collection in hand before

assessing the indicator. For USAID Missions, this information should be in the AMEP’s

Performance Indicator Reference Sheets for each indicator. Each indicator should have

a written description of how the data being assessed are supposed to be collected.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 138

3. Each implementing partner should have a copy of the method of data collection in their

files and documented evidence that they are collecting the data according to the

methodology.

4. DQ assessor should record the names and titles of all individuals involved in the

assessment.

5. Does the implementing partner have documented evidence that they have verified the

data that has been reported? Partners should be able to provided USAID with

documents (process/person conducting the verification/field visit dates/persons

met/activities visited, etc.) which demonstrates that they have verified the data that was

reported. Note: Verification by the partners should be an ongoing process.

6. The DQ assessor should be able to review the implementing partner files/records against

the methodology for data collection laid out in the AMEP (for USAID Missions only). Any

data quality concerns should be documented.

7. The DQ should include a summary of significant limitations found. A plan of action,

including timelines and responsibilities, for addressing the limitations should be made.

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 139

ANNEX IV: LANDSCAPE SITUATION

MODELS

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 140

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 141

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 142

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 143

USAID LESTARI Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan P a g e | 144

LESTARI

Wisma GKBI, 12th Floor, #1210

Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 28, Jakarta 10210, Indonesia.

Phone: +62-21 574 0565

Fax: +62-21 574 0566

Email: info@lestari.or.id