ANE CA outline

Document Sample
ANE CA outline Powered By Docstoc
					  GOVERNING ECOSYSTEMS IN ASIA


                    PROPOSAL TO



THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
           BUREAU FOR ASIA AND THE NEAR EAST


                        FROM


            THE WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE




                      JULY 2001
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1

2. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGY ......................................................... 2

3. EXPECTED RESULTS ..................................................................................... 3

4. ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 4

    Ecosystems ....................................................................................................... 4
        Forest Ecosystems .................................................................................... 4
        Freshwater Systems .................................................................................. 6
        Coastal and Marine Ecosystems ............................................................... 7
        Integrated Ecosystem Management .......................................................... 8

    Information......................................................................................................... 10

    Governance ....................................................................................................... 11

5. WRI’S PREDOMINANT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 13

6. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 15

7. ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET ................................................................................. 17


Annexes

A. WRI Organizational Capabilities ........................................................................ 20

B. Forest Watch Indonesia ..................................................................................... 31

C. Access Initiative/India ........................................................................................ 42


D. SF424A for Forest Watch Indonesia and Access Initiative/India ....................... 47




                                                            1
                       GOVERNING ECOSYSTEMS IN ASIA



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current rate of decline in the long-term productive capacity of ecosystems in
Asia could have devastating implications for human development and the welfare of
all species in the region. In every respect, human development and human security
in Asia are closely linked to the productivity of the region‟s ecosystems.

The goal of the “Governing Ecosystems in Asia” program is to maintain the viability
of the ecosystems on which human well being depends by strengthening the
capacity of Asian institutions to govern the use and conservation of ecosystem
goods and services. Towards this end, the program will pursue three
interdependent objectives: (i) promote the integrated management of ecosystem
goods and services in forest, freshwater, and coastal/marine ecosystems; (ii)
empower civil society and governments with information about the current condition
and use of ecosystem goods and services so that all people can be informed
participants in management decisions that affect their livelihoods and well being; and
(iii) establish the governance systems and institutional capacity needed to maintain
the viability of ecosystems. WRI will continue to develop our capacity and credibility
with five operating strategies to achieve the program objectives: partnerships;
analysis; communication; practical solutions; and innovative application of
information technology.

WRI brings a unique combination of skills to a collaborative effort with USAID/ANE:
staff capabilities; institutional reputation and credibility; program experience and
established institutional partnerships in Asia and globally; unique approach to
constructive policy engagement; long-standing contributions to promoting the policy
and regulatory conditions necessary to support sustainable development in Asia;
and a long history of collaboration with USAID in Asia and worldwide. USAID has
already recognized WRI‟s predominant capabilities in natural resource policy
analysis and policy change by awarding two Cooperative Agreements to WRI on a
sole-source basis.

To implement this program, WRI respectfully requests $3,000,000 from USAID/ANE
over a 4-year period. WRI will ensure efficient management of the program through
periodic consultations with ANE on program implementation; briefings to ANE on
program activities; annual progress reports; and semi-annual financial reports.




                                          1
2. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGY

Goal and Objectives

The goal of the “Governing Ecosystems in Asia” program is to maintain the viability
of the ecosystems on which human well being depends by strengthening the
capacity of Asian institutions to govern the use and conservation of ecosystem
goods and services. To achieve this goal, WRI will pursue three interconnected
objectives:

   Ecosystems: Promote the integrated management of ecosystem goods and
    services in forest, freshwater, and coastal/marine ecosystems.

   Information: Empower civil society and governments with information about the
    current condition and use of ecosystem goods and services so that all people
    can be informed participants in management decisions that affect their
    livelihoods and well being.

   Governance: Establish the governance systems and institutional capacity
    needed to maintain the viability of ecosystems.

Strategy

WRI‟s interests in Asia mirror those of the Institute as a whole: our mission is to
move society to live in ways that protect Earth‟s environment and its capacity to
provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations. To achieve
our goals, we will continue to develop our capacity and credibility with five operating
strategies: partnerships; analysis; communication; practical solutions; and innovative
application of information technology.

Partnerships with Asian institutions. WRI collaborates with civil society
organizations (principally environmental and human rights non-governmental
organizations), governments, private enterprises, and intergovernmental bodies at
the local, national, regional and international levels. Indeed, WRI conducts very
little, if any, policy analysis or policy implementation in isolation or in the absence of
partner institutions. WRI‟s partners often undertake most of the data collection,
analysis and outreach; WRI‟s role is principally to enable and facilitate local policy
analysis, promote a regional approach and regional integration when needed, bring
an international perspective, and provide some early quality control to the policy
work. In particular, given the complex political economy of environmental policy-
making in Asia, local organizations are best placed to develop and implement an
effective advocacy strategy to ensure that the work influences policymakers and
impacts policy decisions.

Analysis. Despite the explosion of scientific data about the natural environment and
socioeconomic conditions, humanity has a long way to go to get the right information



                                             2
in the right form to the right people at the right time. WRI structures its analyses to
bridge the gap between science and decision making. We provide timely, accurate,
policy-relevant information and science-based analyses for leaders in government,
civil society, and the private sector.

Communication. Creating information that decision makers can use is just the first
step. We also mush ensure that they can get the information when they need it.
Responding to the needs of our partners and other users of our information, WRI
disseminates information in a wide range of forms. Our new on-line environmental
portal, EarthTrends, and our high-quality publications are relied on by decision
makers around the world.

Practical solutions. While changing perceptions and policies is a vital step towards
reducing poverty and maintaining the viability of our ecosystems, we must also find
ways to put these ideas into action. For example, WRI and our partners in the Indo-
Pacific region are systematically testing ways that community-managed Marine
Protected Areas can be used to protect threatened coastal ecosystems and
replenish depleted fish stocks that feed coastal people. Their findings are already
helping to protect the livelihoods of thousands locally.

Innovative application of technology. Although the global era has created previously
unknown problems for our planet‟s health, it has also generated powerful
technologies that we can use to solve these problems. For example, WRI is linking
satellite data and information from partners in countries throughout the world to
provide on-line information about who is doing what in the world‟s forests. NGOs
and donors in Southeast Asia and elsewhere are using that information to hold
governments accountable for sustainably managing their endangered forests for
broad public benefits.


3. EXPECTED RESULTS

With respect to each of the program objectives outlined above, WRI expects to
achieve the following results

Ecosystems

   Forest Ecosystems: Expanded transparency and accountability in the
    governance and management of forest resources in selected countries in the
    Asia region

   Freshwater Systems: Economic incentives established to discourage waste of
    scarce water resources; stronger watershed governance institutions that reduce
    the potential for water-related conflict




                                           3
   Coastal and Marine Ecosystems: Increased productivity of fisheries resources;
    improved food security of coastal people dependent upon fish;

Information

   Expanded use of credible environmental data and indicators in environmental
    decision making

   New organizations in Asia empowered with information for decision making

Governance

   Enhanced institutional capacity and political legitimacy of public interest groups in
    Asia that are working to promote improved access to information, participation
    and justice in environmental decision making (i.e. the “access principles”)

   Partner institutions equipped to influence decentralization and transboundary
    environmental management policies at home.

   More Asian institutions with the capacity to participate on an equal footing with
    industrialized countries in targeted global decision making processes and
    institutions


4. ILLUSTRATIVE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Ecosystems

Forest Ecosystems

Forest Watch/Indonesia. Indonesia contains the last major blocks of tropical
rainforest in Southeast Asia, areas that are extremely rich in biodiversity and provide
livelihoods for millions of indigenous and local people. Since the resignation of
President Suharto in May 1998, the potential for reforming forest policies that have
caused rapid forest degradation, enriched the elite, and dispossessed millions of
forest-dwellers is greater than it has been in three decades. There is, however,
powerful resistance to forest policy reform from vested interested in industry and
government. Public access to information about what is happening to forests and
forest-dependent people is crucial if reform is to occur, but many are resisting these
calls for transparency.

Global Forest Watch, a WRI initiative, works with local partners around the world to
document where remaining intact forests can still be found, where forest
development activities (such as mining, logging, and road building) is occurring, who
is behind these activities, and how these operations are performing using national
laws as a yardstick.




                                            4
Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) is the Indonesia partner of Global Forest Watch. FWI
works to (a) widen access to forest data and information held by government
agencies and donor organizations and (b) collect and analyze original data,
combining satellite imagery analysis and field investigations carried out by local
NGOs and community members. FWI, together with Global Forest Watch is
currently compiling a State of the Forest Report to be published in 2001,
documenting activities and actors in Indonesia‟s forests, and establishing a baseline
of forest issues. Following the publication of the reports, the FWI network will
require an additional thrust of financial and human resources to become firmly
entrenched into the environmental NGO community. In Indonesia, WRI will support
this entrenchment with staff training in geographic information systems (GIS) and
data management as well as field monitoring of social conflicts. As a result, FWI will
be established as a semiautonomous organization, largely responsible for its own
fundraising. Once FWI attains this semiautonomous status, Global Forest Watch will
be able to expand its forest monitoring network to other countries in the region.
(Forest Watch/Indonesia is described in more detail in Annex B.)

Mining and Forest Ecosystems. Mining has a significant impact on critical
ecosystems that often extend well beyond the mine site. Mining, oil development
and infrastructure development pose the second largest threat to the world‟s frontier
forests. Mining projects also threaten many protected areas in tropical countries.

Over the last three decades, the Pacific region has experienced a surge in mineral
extraction, often resulting in negative environmental and social impacts. One of the
worst cases of conflict between mining and communities occurred in Bougainville,
Papua New Guinea, where the Panguna mine dumped 600 million tonnes of waste
into the Jaba River, killing most of the river‟s aquatic life. In 1989, local landowners
revolted, forcing the mine to close and spurring a violent confrontation between
landowners and the military. Many of the largest mines in the Asia/Pacific region
(i.e. Porgera, Misima, Ok Tedi, Grasberg) dump their waste in rivers or submarine
zones. The Ok Tedi Mine‟s practice of dumping tailings into the Ok Tedi River in
Papua New Guinea has resulted in habitat degradation along over 400 kilometers of
the river, by the company‟s own admission. Not enough information is known yet
about the impact of submarine tailings disposal techniques on the marine
environment, although the Philippines government has repeatedly rejected this
option for the Marcopper mine on the basis of community opposition.

Unfortunately, there are no international standards for how mining companies should
operate, especially in developing countries. The goal of the Mining and Critical
Ecosystems project is to contribute to the development of comprehensive
international standards for environmentally and socially responsible mining by
providing a framework for examining potential risk to ecosystems from mining. The
project will consist of a global map-based assessment of the overlap between critical
ecosystems and minerals, supplemented by detailed case studies identifying the
location of concessions, overlap with indigenous territories and/or protected areas,
and the impacts of mining at a national level. The project will provide a tool for



                                           5
NGOs, governments, and multilateral development banks seeking to assess where
mining is acceptable and under which conditions. In addition, the Asia/Pacific case
studies will help national NGOs pressure their governments for stronger legislation,
monitoring and oversight of mining. We anticipate that companies and multilateral
development banks will use the information developed by the project to identify
criteria for evaluating where mining is not appropriate.

Freshwater Systems

The Resources Policy Support Initiative (REPSI) aims to strengthen the basis for
decision-making about natural resource management and rural development in the
uplands of Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Yunnan, China. REPSI
produces practical options for improving the governance of watershed ecosystems,
so that communities and groups of natural resource users have fair and informed
access to management decisions and resources are managed for long term
environmental sustainability. In 2002-3 activities include producing
recommendations for river basin authorities and national governments about the
most effective institutional and policy interventions to support integrated watershed
management.

Applying economic tools for watershed management . An ecosystem approach to
water management seeks to achieve water management objectives by conserving
forest and wetland habitats, creating buffer zones along rivers and streams, shifting
away from farming and road-building on steep slopes, and avoiding agricultural
chemical use in sensitive areas. WRI launched the Critical Flows Project to explore
how economic incentives and cooperative institutional arrangements can be used to
implement an ecosystem approach to water management. The goal of the project is
to provide water managers, policy makers, and conservation groups with practical
information and tools they can use to design and implement ecosystem approaches
to water management. In Vietnam, WRI staff are collaborating with the Universities
of Agriculture and Forestry in Thu Duc and Hue and authorities in Thua Thien Hue
province to assess the feasibility of using economic incentives to implement an
ecosystem approach to watershed management in the Huong (Perfume) River
Basin. The research will be based on extensive assessment of stakeholder groups
and the sustainability of watershed uses in the basin. Based upon this assessment
and local development objectives, researchers will apply tools for modeling least-
cost investments in watershed protection developed by the Critical Flows project in
Panama.




                                          6
Coastal and Marine Ecosystems

Establishing locally-managed marine reserves/protected areas

There is a worldwide call to immediately increase the amount of coastal waters
under protection. As a result, there is growing interest by decision-makers and
marine resource managers to explore the use of marine protection as a coastal
management tool to help ensure long-term fisheries sustainability, ecological
integrity, and biodiversity conservation. However, the permanent closure by national
governments of large areas of ecologically productive waters from all human activity
may be a difficult - if not impossible - undertaking to achieve in all places where
marine protection is warranted given human dependency on marine resources for
food and income, management decentralization trends, and lack of human and
financial resources to protect such areas effectively.

WRI is investigating the use of networked 'locally-managed' (i.e., local government,
non-government, and community groups working in collaborative partnership)
marine protected areas (MPAs) as a compliment and/or alternative marine protection
model to large, centrally-managed no-take areas. WRI is capturing and
synthesizing the science, shared experiences, and lessons from the use of locally-
managed MPAs in order to determine the conditions under which such areas work -
and not work - for biodiversity conservation and sustainable fisheries. In order to
elucidate this learning, WRI is undertaking several activities. We initiated and now
work with a collaborative learning network of dozens of locally-managed MPAs in the
Indo-Pacific that are together actively and systematically testing assumptions in the
use of such areas. We will objectively evaluate and analyze the success of such
efforts to date. We will convene the world's experts on the use of such areas to
identify shared lessons. And we will work with national governments to design and
enact systems of such areas within the coastal zone. With this action and learning,
WRI will be able to provide the policy guidance that global decision makers and
resource managers need to appropriately and effectively use the right 'mix' and
configuration of marine protection options and increase the likelihood of successful
conservation of the world's coastal waters and biodiversity.

Building strategic planning capacity. As part of the Destructive Fishing Reform
Initiative, WRI‟s marine team has been working with its primary partner, the
International Marinelife Alliance to help it strategically plan its mandate. In close
consultation with WRI, IMA undertook a strategic planning process, similar in
methodology to WRI‟s own coastal and marine program strategic planning process.
The resulting plan is currently being finalized for publication. This plan expands
IMA‟s mandate from working just on destructive fishing, to also include excess
capacity and coastal management. With this plan, IMA is not only one of the most
effective on-the-ground NGOs, but it is also expanding its capabilities in policy
research. WRI has invested significantly in IMA‟s institutional development with the
mixture of tools that WRI believes is needed to have a significant impact. IMA is a




                                          7
vital organization because there is no other international NGO in the Asia-Pacific
region fully devoting itself to coastal and marine issues.

Coastal adaptation to global climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has identified coastal and marine ecosystems as some of
the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and
increased intensity of extreme weather events, particularly in developing coastal
nations throughout Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific. For this reason, WRI has
begun a Partnership for Adaptation to Climate Change with academic and non-
governmental institutions in both Indonesia and the Philippines, in order to bring
marine and climate experts together to provide the communities within these island
states with greater access to the science and information necessary to assess their
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and implement measures to adapt to
them. Because the long-term health of the coastal and marine ecosystems that
these communities depend on will be jeopardized by climate change, it is crucial for
both the governments and the communities in Indonesia and the Philippines to plan
now for adaptation.

This Partnership for Adaptation to Climate Change represents a network of some of
the world‟s leading climate institutions, all of whom possess independent technical
capacity, established credibility and influence with their respective governments, and
access to grassroots groups and local communities. Through this network, WRI is
working with partners in both the Philippines and Indonesia to conduct technical
assessments of the islands‟ vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Based on
these assessments, the Partnership will work to develop national strategies for
adaptation responses to reduce coastal ecosystems and communities‟ vulnerability
to the impacts of climate change. The result in both Indonesia and the Philippines
will be community-driven coastal adaptation strategies with concrete policy and
adaptation measures for implementation.

The Partnership is also collaborating with the South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP), a United Nations regional organization, to ensure that lessons
learned and best practices for coastal adaptation will be replicated throughout
Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In that sense, the activities of the Partnership in
Indonesia and the Philippines represent pilots for the rest of the region towards
providing communities with adaptation options to improve the resiliency of their
adjacent coastal ecosystems to the impacts of climate change.

Integrated Ecosystem Management

Asia Regional Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem health tends to be an
afterthought in development planning. Yet the region‟s ecosystems – the farmlands,
forests, grasslands, rivers, and oceans – are each Asian nation‟s largest water
supply utility, most nations‟ largest food production enterprise, the primary source of
energy for many people, and the ultimate “safety net” for many of the regions‟
poorest people. If mismanaged the results are an increase disease, floods, and



                                           8
landslides. The condition of Asian nations‟ ecosystems is no less important to their
development than the condition of their educational, transportation, or financial
systems.

WRI is part of a larger effort, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which is
designed to improve the management of the world‟s natural and managed
ecosystems by helping to meet the needs of decision-makers and the public for
policy-relevant scientific information on the condition of ecosystems, consequences
of ecosystem change, and options for response.

In Asia WRI will play a catalytic role with partners to support local, national, and
regional integrated ecosystem assessments. Together we will convene workshops
and briefings, develop case studies, conduct policy analysis, and disseminate
findings through publications and the Internet. Specifically, we will help to develop
the assessment design and methodology, develop ecosystem indicators, facilitate
sub-global assessment components in Southeast Asia and other parts of Asia as
needed. We will also work with partners on how to measure the results of these
activities and develop lessons learned that can be used throughout the region.
Through this work we expect to see expanded use of integrated assessments by
Asian developing country leaders and regional and local institutions as they seek to
reform policies that bear directly on development and environment issues.

Biotechnology and Food Security. A central good of all ecosystems is genetic
resources. Biotechnology, the technology to modify these resources, has become a
lightening rod in the debate about how nations feed themselves, and it‟s role,
potential risks and benefits are some of the most visible and controversial elements
of alternative approaches to agricultural development. Augmenting this controversy
in the developing world is the limited technical and financial capacity to implement
strategies for food security and sustainable agricultural development, and a limited
range of information and analysis about the food system.

To address the challenge of biotechnology and sustainability, the community of
nations negotiated the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the international agreement
aimed at regulating the safe transboundary movement of genetically modified
organisms. Leveraging this attention on biosafety to shine a light on long-term food
security offers the potential for broader food system capacity in poor nations.
Towards this end, WRI, in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation and the
Swedish International Development Agency, is working towards two results:

   Biosafety mechanisms will be implemented in selected countries that are more
    broadly and deeply applied to sustainable agriculture, and that address the
    social, health and environmental challenges that various technologies pose for
    particular users and groups. Illustrative activities include the preparation of a
    guide to achieving biosafety, and in partnership with the Southeast Asia Regional
    Institution of Community Education (SEARICE), base in the Philippines, a
    regional workshop to define country and regional mechanisms for biosafety.



                                          9
   Lessons learned will available for other countries to apply to their particular
    conditions and priorities.


Information

Asia Reefs at Risk

   Philippines Reefs in Peril: Building upon information collected in the Regional
    Reefs at Risk Southeast Asia project, this activity will work with the OneOcean
    Foundation and USAID-funded Coastal Resources Management Program to
    develop a focused report on the coral resources of the Philippines. The report,
    tentatively titled „Philippine Reefs in Peril‟, will include an examination of the
    threats to coral reefs, as well as values for these resources, their current
    condition and potential loss in value if current threats continue unabated. This
    report will portray the co-management options that can improve the condition of
    the coral reefs in the Philippines, and will be summarized in an attractive,
    educational report and poster, which will be widely distributed through local
    networks, especially the League of Municipalities of the Philippines.

   East Malaysia Reefs at Risk: The activity will be undertaken with the Department
    of Town and Regional Planning in Sabah, the Borneo Marine Research Unit at
    the University Malaysia Sabah, and an interagency working group involving
    eleven agencies in Sabah to conduct a focused spatial analysis of the risks to
    coral reefs from coastal development, land-based sources of pollution, and
    destructive fishing. The data developed under the activity, along with the study
    results and findings will serve as the basis for the integrated coastal
    management Statutory Plan for Sabah. This will insure that management and
    protection of coral reefs are given full consideration within the development of the
    integrated coastal management plan. This task will include data collection and
    information gathering on the coastal ecosystems of Sabah, mapping of the
    coastal ecosystem and its uses, implementation of a model for risk assessment
    to coral reefs from coastal development and other land-based sources of
    pollution. The activity will include development of summary materials on Reefs at
    Risk in Sabah.

Poverty Mapping: Poverty is still a worldwide problem even though poverty
alleviation is the stated goal of every country and every major international
organization. There are many reasons why poverty exists, one of them may be the
way we think about and analyze poverty. Poverty analysis is often based on
national level indicators that are compared over time or across countries. For many
policy applications and programs, however, the information that is needed is
measures of spatial distribution of inequality within a country, what are called
“poverty maps”. Poverty maps allow the visualization of the incidence and
magnitude of poverty across space, and frequently link poverty to natural resource
endowments and environmental degradation.



                                            10
Working with country partners, WRI will help develop case studies of successful
applications of poverty mapping at national and sub-national levels in Asia. With
poverty maps countries and local leaders will be able to identify where the poor live
within a country, watershed, or ecosystem: they will be better able to understand the
geographic and resource factors that influence poverty or help point to its alleviation;
and they will be able to improve the communication and advocacy for a change in
policies and programs to address the needs of the poor.

WRI staff and collaborators will work on country and sub-national case studies,
advise on the development of poverty maps, and undertake joint research on the
linkages between poverty and natural resource endowments and degradation.

Water Resources and Wetlands e-Atlas: Information on wetlands and water
resources at the basin level is crucial to improve the management of this valuable
resource. In collaboration with IUCN, WRI will develop an electronic atlas of water
resources. The e-Atlas is a decision-support tool that will link, integrate, and
communicate relevant information to promote and support integrated water
resources management. It will focus on three main areas: water resources
management, agriculture vs. nature, and the impacts of climate change on water
resources and wetlands. The vision is that the e-Atlas will become the key website
for water related information at the basin level by providing data and information on
water resources, land cover, land use, population, etc., as well as interactive maps
for stakeholders to look at different scenarios for basin management. With this
information populations within the basins covered will be able to participate in the
decision making process. A primary focus will be the major basins in Asia, including
the Mekong, Amur, Yellow, and Yangtze basins, plus other small coastal basins of
regional importance.


Governance

Access to environmental information, decision-making and justice in Asia. While
countries in Asia are involved in economic globalization, their citizens often do not
enjoy access to information, participation and justice in decision-making that affects
their environment and natural resources. As a result, major decisions are not
sustainable or fair. WRI‟s Access Initiative is a global coalition of public interest
groups seeking to promote public access to information, participation and justice in
environmental decision-making. Partners in the Initiative are pilot testing access
indicators, identifying progress and gaps and engaging in dialogue to promote
transparency and accountability of environmental decision-making. In addition to
building systems for transparent, participatory, and fair decision-making, countries
will meet the commitments they made at the Rio Summit in 1992.

In Asia, the Access Initiative collaborates with national NGOs in India (PRIA),
Indonesia (Indonesian Center for Environmental Law), and Thailand (Thailand



                                           11
Environment Institute). With WRI support, these partners will pilot-test the access
indicators, set up multi-stakeholder national review panels, and promote their use as
a tool to monitor “access” in their respective countries. Through their engagement in
the Access Initiative, PRIA, ICEL and TEI will contribute to the development of the
indicator framework and will build their own programs to consistently promote
“access” over time. At global level, partners are engaged in a learning discussion
through a list serve, and will bring their lessons to the global community at the
Johannesburg Summit. (The pilot test of access indicators in India is described in
more detail in Annex C.)

Capacity-building in Cambodia and Vietnam for decentralization of natural resources
management. In Cambodia and Vietnam, WRI staff and local partners are
assessing recent policies to decentralize natural resources management , and the
effects of these new institutional arrangements on upland ecosystems and
livelihoods. Closely tied to our REPSI project activities (described under “freshwater
systems” above), this cooperative research is strengthening local partners‟ capacity
to analyze environmental governance and it is increasing their reputation for
providing high quality, independent policy research. In 2002-3, our project activities
will include more in-depth assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of
decentralization in different rural contexts – exploring how natural, social, political
and economic assets influence the success of decentralization in protecting natural
resources and enhancing livelihoods.

Mainland Southeast Asia Regional Environmental Forum. WRI will organize an
annual survey and forum of environmental experts for mainland Southeast Asia, to
raise the profile of environmental governance issues in the media and general
public. The survey will seek to gauge regional progress in managing natural
resource issues of common and transboundary concern, as well as progress in
public access to environmental information and participation in environmental
decision-making.

Energy Sector Reform. Over the next decade, power sector reforms will shape fuel
and electricity choices in developing countries in Asia with important implications for
local air pollution and contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. In particular,
development outcomes will depend on the goals reforms are designed to serve,
whether reforms fully account for the current conditions in the energy sector, the
institutional capacity available to regulate the sector, and the governance conditions
introduced in the process of reform. WRI intends to work with partner organizations
in Asia to ensure that the three challenges of appropriate objectives, appropriate
design, and mechanisms for accountability are met in the process of power sector
reform in Asia. WRI will identify partners in South Asia and Southeast Asia that
have an interest in building capacity to intervene at national and international levels
in shaping the future of the power sector in the region. We will facilitate stakeholder
consultations and workshops, disseminate information, develop a set of training
modules, and foster discussion on the appropriate trajectory for different countries.
The activities will focus on: defining goals for reform; examining means of ensuring
access to electricity services in the context of reform; ensuring that reform promotes


                                          12
environmentally sound energy paths; promoting attention to sequencing of reforms
in the context of privatization; and ensuring adequate institutional capability to
manage a post-reform sector.


5. WRI’S PREDOMINANT CAPABILITIES

WRI possesses a combination of predominant characteristics and experience that
make it eminently qualified to achieve the results outlined in this proposal. These
capabilities complement those of USAID/ANE and our other partner institutions,
further enhancing the forces we collectively bring to finding solutions to the
development challenges in Asia.

Size and scope of WRI‟s staff and program. The interrelation of the environmental
management challenges in Asia require cross-sectoral solutions. WRI‟s work is
carried out by a 130-member interdisciplinary staff, strong in the social and natural
sciences and augmented by a network of advisors, collaborators, international
fellows, and partner institutions in more than 50 countries.

WRI staff bring to the Asia region a broad application of research tools and concepts
in environmental governance. For example, research institutes and development
officials of the Mekong region are concerned with the implications of trends in
decentralizing natural resources management for environment and livelihood
outcomes in the uplands. WRI staff working in the region have been able to draw on
the established expertise of other WRI staff in researching decentralization in East
and West Africa and South Asia in formulating a well-received project component for
researching decentralization in Southeast Asia. Likewise, data and analysis from
WRI‟s work on international financial flows and the environment, and World
Commission on Dams assessment have proved to be of direct interest and
relevance to WRI‟s Asian partners. WRI staff members hail from around the world;
their relevant language expertise includes Vietnamese, Lao, Thai, Chinese,
Burmese, Bahasa, and Malay.

In addition, WRI brings strong GIS expertise to Asian partners and will continue to
do so in the future. WRI has substantial GIS capacity to apply to landscape level
analyses of the environment, as illustrated in the recent WRI publications
Watersheds of the World (1998) and The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and
Economies on the Edge (1997).

Our work is enriched by an international Board of Directors whose diverse
membership represents a broad range of perspectives and expertise. They
strengthen WRI‟s access to influential government, non-government, and corporate
policymaking fora and contribute critical insights to inform WRI‟s analytical work.

Geographic coverage. Experience from around the globe offers valuable insights to
Asians as they seek new and sustainable ways to enhance human wellbeing in their



                                          13
own countries. WRI‟s collective staff expertise and program portfolio spans all major
geographic regions of the world -- in developing, transition, and industrialized
countries. We retain in-house language capability of many of the worlds
predominant languages, and translate many of our publications into these languages
to strengthen worldwide communication of ideas. Furthermore, WRI currently has
institutional partnerships outside Asia in countries and regions with the greatest
potential as leadership models with respect to issues directly relevant to Asia,
including Brazil, Central America, Mexico, Central and Eastern Europe, Pakistan,
Russia and others.

Respected partner. Through our long history of active engagement in Asia, WRI has
built a reputation as a trusted partner to Asian and other developing country
institutions: governments and NGOs; multi-lateral institutions; U.S., Canadian and
European bi-lateral aid agencies; and the private sector. This reputation uniquely
positions WRI for convening policy making fora that create the conditions for change
in Asia.

Unique approach to policy change: integrating information, ideas, analyses, and
policy engagement. In the fifteen years since our founding, WRI has earned a solid
reputation in the study of global environment and development trends by using a
uniquely action-oriented approach to policy research and analysis. Our mission is to
translate these findings into policy change. WRI uses information and analysis to
define issues, ideas to create solutions, and communication and engagement to
persuade people to act. We have become a credible source of practical strategies
for sustainable development, built on a foundation of over 500 publications and
institutional partnerships around the world. We undertake studies, disseminate
information, and engage in policy processes to achieve specific objectives that will
help to move Asia closer to sustainable development.

Access to global policy debates. Sustainable environmental management and
economic development in Asia are, in large part, dependent upon rapidly changing
global trends. The global community is addressing many of these trends – the mass
extinction of species, climate change, and desertification – through negotiations
under the major environment conventions. Because of limited financial resources
and human capacity, Asian countries are often underrepresented or ineffectively
represented in these debates.

Our continued access to global policymaking bodies provides a unique opportunity
to support Asian delegations in these debates. Not only is WRI‟s input invited at
each round of negotiations convened to implement the major global environment
conventions, we bring our Asian and other developing country partners to the table
as active participants as well. Moreover, WRI assists these country representatives
to build their own network, since these partnerships are critical for meaningful and
lasting engagement in the global policy arenas.




                                         14
Independence. WRI is supported by a diverse cross-section of donors, including:
bilateral governmental development assistance agencies; multilateral organizations
such as the UN Agencies, including the World Bank; multi-national corporations
such as Dupont Chemical and British Petroleum; US and overseas foundations; and
individual contributors. This funding, along with our endowment, allows WRI to
maintain its independence and respected position as an objective source of rigorous
and balanced analyses and an honest broker for policy makers.

Substantive expertise. Worldwide, WRI is at the forefront of analysis of ecosystem
approaches to natural resources management, as demonstrated in our recent
publication, World Resources Report 2000 Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life,
and WRI‟s completion of the related Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems. WRI
has several multi-year initiatives under way that are developing and testing
economic instruments to capture benefits from watershed resources; formulating
institutional guidelines for the equitable distribution of these benefits in ways that
foster stewardship of ecosystem services; conducting the first assessment of the
condition of global ecosystems; and formulating and promoting methods to protect,
restore and use biodiversity through bioregional planning.

The range of valuable ecosystem goods and services in Asia, including those
provided by fresh water, biodiversity and forest resources, and the vulnerability of
these resources to rapid degradation, make the region a prime candidate for the
ecosystem approaches WRI is developing. The receptivity of policy audiences in the
region to management options that incorporate upstream-downstream linkages also
suggests that the region will benefit from the WRI‟s global-level expertise.


6. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The World Resources Institute will manage and staff activities under the WRI-ANE
Cooperative Agreement through its Director for International Cooperation. This
section describes WRI‟s organizational structure and outlines our overall approach
to project oversight, administration, coordination, and reporting.

WRI Organization

WRI is organized around its major policy-setting, administrative, and program
functions. The Institute has seven established programs: Biological Resources;
Climate, Energy, and Pollution; Economics and Population; Information; Institutions
and Governance; Management Institute for Environment and Business; and World
Resources Report. Moreover, creative synergies among the programs and staff
have evolved over time, creating increased efficiency and impact of our work. This
diversity uniquely equips WRI to integrate sectors, translate disciplines, and build
policy agreements that create the conditions for change.




                                          15
Supporting the programs, WRI's resource group ensures that appropriate delivery
mechanisms for all project activities are designed to reach strategically selected
audiences. Through written products, seminars, briefings, the Internet, and ongoing
dialogue and exchange, the results of policy research and analysis and lessons
learned from work in developing countries reaches stakeholders in the policy-making
process. Similarly, feedback from these processes helps to set priorities for future
WRI work. The administrative program includes a grants specialist who is
responsible for managing grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

Planning and Reporting

Annual Implementation Plan

The annual planning process will be the primary means for WRI and AFR/SD to
identify, develop, and review their cooperative activities. The Annual Plan will set
the framework for identifying opportunities for cooperative activities. It also will
provide a general basis for reviewing the overall rationale and effectiveness of
project activities. As a fully integrated element of WRI‟s own annual planning
process, WRI will develop the draft annual plan and budget in consultation with ANE.
As appropriate, a series of discussions will be held with individuals within ANE to
review the substantive content of the proposal and to highlight opportunities for
collaboration. The plan will be finalized taking into account the comments received.

Periodic Project Consultations

To provide an opportunity for WRI and ANE to review the status of collaborative
activities, discuss critical issues, and explore new opportunities, it is proposed that
WRI and ANE convene ad hoc meetings of key WRI and ANE staff involved in the
projects. Such meetings would underscore the cooperative nature of the project,
enable us to identify possible areas of synergy of activities within other areas of the
ANE program, and serve as a vehicle for regular planning.

Briefings for ANE

WRI will host periodic briefings for ANE on the findings of WRI policy analyses,
outcomes of policy dialogues, and new opportunities for contributing to policy
debate.

Reporting

WRI will prepare and deliver to ANE annual reports covering activities and results
achieved during the reporting period. The reports will be structured according to the
strategic objectives as outlined in this proposal and draw upon both quantitative
indicators and narrative. WRI will include in these reports a detailed listing of
publications, databases, and other products from AFR/SD-supported activities. We
will also document outreach activities completed during the period and discuss



                                           16
briefings and meetings with AFR/SD and other USAID staff. Copies of all
publications and documents which make use of ANE funds will be made available to
PPC/CDIE.

WRI will also prepare semi-annual financial reports. WRI follows USAID mandates
in requiring subgrantees to compile quarterly financial reports. From these reports
and discussions with our collaborators, WRI will draw the information needed for the
financial reports to ANE.


7. ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET

WRI respectfully requests $3,000,000 over a period of four years to support the
“Governing Ecosystems in Asia” program. An illustrative program budget is provided
on the following page.




                                         17
REPLACE THIS PAGE WITH WRI’S FOUR-YEAR ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET

   Filename: WRI Governing Ecosystems in Asia 4 Year Budget.xls




                                18
                                     Annexes


A. WRI Organizational Capabilities

B. Forest Watch Indonesia

C. Access Initiative/India




                                        19
                                              ANNEX A

                                 WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
                                 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES




OVERVIEW

The World Resources Institute is an international center for research on sustainable development. As
an action-oriented think tank, WRI‟s work goes beyond research to create immediate, practical ways
for protecting the environment in ways that support economic development.

The information provided here is intended to augment the “Organizational Capability” statement
contained in the main body of the proposal. In the main body, we highlighted the specific content and
Southeast Asia expertise that we bring to the tasks at hand. In this Annex, we highlight WRI‟s overall
organizational capability that provides a powerful backstop to our project- and region-specific
expertise. Specifically, this annex outlines WRI‟s four institutional goals; provides examples of our
activities that work towards these goals; highlights WRI‟s unique strategy for achieving results; an
overview of our funding base; and highlights of WRI‟s long-standing collaboration with US
government agencies, such as USAID, NOAA, EPA, USGS, USDA, and the State Department.


WRI’S GOALS

In pursuit of our mission to protect the Earth‟s environment promoting sustainable development, WRI
works towards four goals. We recognize that we cannot achieve these goals only by our own actions.
Nevertheless, these four goals guide our decisions about the work we choose to do. For each broad
goal, the URL addresses of pages on WRI‟s Website are provided which give a flavor of WRI‟s
current activities. We invite the reader to browse these Web pages and follow the links to other
pages of individual interest.

   Reverse the rapid degradation of ecosystems, assuring their capacity to provide the
    goods and services on which human well being depends.

WRI‟s program seeks to improve the
management of many of the earth‟s
ecosystems, including forests, coastal,
grasslands, freshwater, and agroecosystems.
Our focus is always on the interface between
people, development, and the environment.               http://www.wri.org/biodiv/
The first URL to the right provides an overview
of our ecosystems work; the others guide the            http://www.wri.org/forests/index.html
reader to information on two ecosystems most            http://www.wri.org/oceans/index.html
directly relevant to EAPEI’s objectives: forests
and oceans.




                                                   20
   Halt the changes to the Earth's climate caused by human activity.

Climate change is a global problem that, if
unaddressed, could undermine progress on
every aspect of human development and
ecosystem protection, including built
infrastructure, food production, biodiversity,
human health, and the natural systems that
support growing economies. Effective policies
to prevent climate change, however, will set
the world on a new course, one characterized
by cleaner energy sources, healthier
ecosystems and societies, technological                  http://www.wri.org/climate/
innovation, and economic opportunity. WRI's
core climate efforts are clustered around three
strategies: developing country partnerships;
engaging the private sector; and rules of the
game.




   Guarantee people's access to information and decisions regarding natural resources and
    the environment.

WRI pursues this goal in two key ways. First,
we actively promote and support stakeholder
participation in environmental decisionmaking;           http://www.wri.org/governance/agreement.html
for example, at the meetings of the three Rio
Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate, and
Desertification, respectively.




Second, WRI widely disseminates our
research in printed publications and on our              http://www.wri.org/wripubs.html
Website.                                                 http://www.wri.org/wri/powerpoints/index.html
                                                         http://www.wri.org/wri/enved/




   Catalyze the adoption of policies and practices that expand prosperity while reducing the
    use of materials and generation of wastes.

WRI is working to develop new thinking, new
metrics, and new management tools, which will
help bring about the transition to more efficient        http://www.wri.org/materials/
and less environmentally-harmful patterns of
material use in modern societies.




                                                    21
WRI’S STRATEGY

Our strategy makes us unique. It guides the design and management of our program, the allocation
of our resources, and the nature and content of our communications. WRI‟s strategy is focused on
achieving outcomes that advance our goals through the following actions: creating practical solutions
to environment and development problems; ensuring analytical excellence; fostering an international
orientation to our work; engaging and convening stakeholders; and empowering our collaborators and
staff with connectivity and information technologies. Each of these strategic elements is defined
further below.

   To move critical actors to change, we create practical solutions to problems of
    environment and development and design mechanisms that promote accountability.

Our strategy is to marry the power of scientific
analysis with development needs. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is one
example. Using data on five critical
ecosystems – agroecosystems, forests,
coastal, freshwater, and grasslands -- we have
demonstrated how such an assessment would
have an enormous impact, supporting better              http://www.wri.org/jlash/2000_01_ecosys.html
decisions by governments, communities, and
businesses, accelerating the implementation
of international environmental treaties, and
increasing public understanding of human
dependence on ecosystems. The assessment
has won endorsements from national
governments, regional institutions, the private
sector, and United Nations Secretary General,
Kofi Annan.




   We insist on analytical excellence, factual accuracy and independence in our work.

This is a cornerstone of WRI‟s credibility
worldwide. While our ultimate objective is to           http://www.wri.org/wr2000/
provide decisionmakers with information they            http://www.wri.org/wripubs.html
can use, all information must be rooted in
sound scientific data and analyses. The
analyses underpinning the 2000-2001 edition
of our flagship publication, “World Resources”,
provide an illustrative example.




   We foster an international orientation in our work and our understanding, reflected in our
    staff, or Board, and our partnerships.



                                                   22
Geographic coverage. WRI‟s collective staff expertise and program portfolio spans all major
geographic regions of the world -- in developing, transition, and industrialized countries. We retain in-
house language capability of many of the world‟s predominant languages, including Chinese, French,
German, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, and Spanish, and translate many of our publications into
these languages to strengthen worldwide communication of ideas.

Experienced Staff. WRI‟s work is carried out
by an interdisciplinary staff of over 120 people,
strong in the social and natural sciences and          http://www.wri.org/staff/#prog
augmented by a network of advisors,
collaborators, and international fellows
throughout the world.



Extensive Partners Network. We believe strongly that we must build on our existing network of
collaborators, because in an era of rapidly changing governance, partnerships are critical for
meaningful and lasting change. WRI is working with over 150 partners in 43 developing countries
and economies in transition; 16 OECD countries; and a broad spectrum of international organizations.
By working with global institutions and regional partners, WRI‟s efforts are strengthened by
international coordination and the synergy derived from related efforts and strategies. Local
partnerships are developed to enhance local capacity and ensure a firm grounding of WRI‟s global
work in local realities. See the attachment of this Annex for a listing of some of WRI‟s recent
partners.

Influential Board of Directors. Our work is
enriched by an international Board of Directors
whose diverse membership represents a
broad range of perspectives and expertise.             http://www.wri.org/wriboard.html
They strengthen WRI‟s access to influential
government, non-government, and corporate
policy making fora and contribute critical
insights to inform WRI‟s analytical work.




   We build on our commitment and ability to engage and convene stakeholders across
    sectors and regions.

Through our active engagement in diverse
settings, WRI has built a respected reputation
as a trusted partner to multi-lateral institutions,
developing country governments and NGOs,
and the private sector. Because of our proven
track record in diverse local, national, regional,
and global fora, WRI receives more requests                http://www.wri.org/marine/role.html
to serve as neutral brokers than we can
handle. WRI‟s global marine strategy is the
product of a year-long process of consultation,
consensus-building, and stakeholder
engagement.




                                                      23
Among many other events around the globe,
in Brazil we recently convened an “investor
forum” to bring together entrepreneurs of
emerging small- and medium-size firms,                  http://www.ecofinance.net/investor_forumeng.html
mentors with extensive business experience,
and venture capital to jump-start new
environmentally sound business in Latin
America.



    We empower our staff and collaborators to use connectivity and information technologies
     to catalyze change and influence the use of those technologies by others.

WRI is a recognized leader in using
information technologies to foster sustainable
development – both internationally and                  http://www.wri.org/press/dd_transform.html
domestically in the US. On the international            http://www.wri.org/busiweek/bwfinal.html#description
front, we recently convened leaders in the
digital industry to discuss ways to transform
the digital divide into “digital dividends”. The
findings were published in a special edition of
Business Week Magazine.


One US-based example is NutrientNet, an on-
line information bank that allows farmers to            http://www.wri.org/jlash/
explore their options for controlling nutrient
runoff.



Through these and many other activities, WRI is bringing the power of information technologies to
bear on complex problems at the nexus of environment and development.


OTHER RELEVANT CAPABILITIES

Broad-based funding. WRI is supported by a
diverse cross-section of donors, including:
bilateral governmental aid agencies; multi-
lateral organizations such as the UN
Agencies, including the World Bank; US and
overseas foundations; multi-national
corporations; and individual contributors. This
funding, along with our endowment, allows
WRI to maintain its independence and
respected position as an objective source of
rigorous and balanced analyses and an
honest broker for policy makers.


    http://www.wri.org/funders.html


                                                   24
Established relationship with USAID. The USAID-WRI collaboration has been a long and fruitful one, beginning in
the early 1980's when IIED North America (merged with WRI in 1987) was granted the first USAID Cooperative
Agreement on the environment. Through the Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Environmental and Natural
Resources Planning and Management (EPM II) Cooperative Agreement, projects have been carried out by WRI
with USAID bureaus and country missions in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the
Caribbean. Together, we have helped to strengthen the capacity of public and private institutions in developing
strategies to make rational policy choices and implement programs that contribute to effective environmental
management.

The State Department‟s OES has regularly drawn on WRI‟s expertise for natural resource policy, forest and
climate issues, and on the use of information technology and remote sensing for environmental policy and
diplomacy.

In addition, WRI maintains ongoing collaboration with many US Government agencies, including NOAA, EPA,
USGS, and USDA.




                                                      25
                               World Resources Institute
                                          Recent Partners
Argentina                                           CPAWS Edmonton
Ambientales                                         Federation of Alberta Naturalists
Fundacion Argentina de Recursos Naturales           Grand Council of the Crees
    (FARN)                                          Great Lakes United
Fundacion Educambiente                              International Development Research Centre
Universidad de Ciencias Empresariales y                 (IDRC)
    Sociales-Instituto de Estudios                  International Institute for Sustainable
    Investigaciones                                     Development
                                                    Manitoba‟s Future Forest Alliance
Australia                                           Ocean Voice International
Center for Innovation and Research in               Quebec Environmental Network
   Environmental Education, Griffin                 Saskatchewan Environmental Society
   University                                       Sierra Legal Defence Fund
                                                    Wildland's League - CPAWS
Austria                                             WWF Endangered Spaces Campaign, Alberta
University of Vienna                                WWF Endangered Spaces Campaign,
                                                        Saskatchewan
Brazil                                              Yukon Conservation Society
Centro de Estudios de Cultura Contemporania
ETHOS                                               Central African Republic
Faculties of Medicine and Environmental             Project d'Amènagement des Resources
    Sciences at the University of Saõ Paulo             Naturelles
FUNBIO
Fundaco Getulio Vargas
Pronatura                                           Chile
Santa Úrsula University                             Centro de Investigación y Planificación del
Secretariat of Environment for the State of              Medio Ambiente (CIPMA)
    Saõ Paulo                                       Comité Nacional Pro Defense de la Fauna y
State of Saõ Paulo Pollution Control Agency              Flora (CODEFF)
Sustainable Development, Inc.                       Concepcion Universidad
University of Campinas                              Corporaciòn Nacional Forestral (CONAF)
University of Saõ Paulo                             FAO Latin America Network on Protected
                                                         Areas
Burkina Faso                                        Instituto Forestal
IUCN-West Africa                                    Universidad Adolfo Ibanez
                                                    Universidad Austral
Cambodia
Cambodian Researchers for Development               China
Mekong River Commission                             Be Con Energy Research Institute (ERI)
                                                    Beijing Energy Research Institute
Cameroon                                            Centre for Biodiversity and Indigenous
Cameroon Environmental Watch                             Knowledge
Center for International Forestry Research          Chinese Academy of Sciences
   (CIFOR)                                          Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Central Africa Regional Program for the             Committee on Environment, Geography
   Environment                                           Institute for Environmental Sciences,
Centre de Télédétection et de Cartographie               Beijing Normal University
   Forestière (CETELCAF)                            Environmental Education Research Institute,
Centre International d'Etudes Forestieres et             Guangzhou Teacher's College
   Environnementales (CIEFE)                        Environment Protection Agency
Centre pour l'Environnement et le                   Institute of Environmental Economics at
   Development                                           Renmin University
World Wildlife Fund                                 Research Center of Ecological and
                                                         Environmental Economics, Chinese
                                                         Academy of Social Sciences
Canada                                              State Environmental Protection Agency
BC Wild in Canada                                        (SEPA)
                                               26
Colombia                                              Cuba
Asociacion Nacional De Industiales (ANDI)             Universidad de la Habana
CIAT
Colombian Council for Sustainable                     Denmark
     Development                                      NORDECO
Consejo Empresarial Colombiano para el
     Desarrollo Sostenenible (CECODES)                Ecuador
Conservacion International-Columbia                   EcoDecision
Corona Foundation                                     Universidad Catolica del Ecuador
Corporacion Innovar
ECOFUNDO in Colombia                                  El Salvador
Federacion Nacional de Cafetaleros de                 Central American Commission on
     Colombia                                             Environment & Development (CCAD)
Fundación FES in Colombia
Fundacion Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta            France
Fundesarrollo                                         OECD
Fundescol                                             United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Universidad ICESI                                         Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Instituto Alexander von Humboldt                      Universitaire de Formation des Maitres
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente
Ministry of the Environment                           Gabon
National Industry Association                         Amis de la Nature-Culture et l'Environnement
Promocion De La Pequeña y Mediana                     Amis du Pangolin
     Empresa Ecoeficiente Latinoamericana             Aventure Sans Frontieres
     (PROPEL)                                         CADDE
Universidad de Los Andes                              Central African Regional for the Environment
                                                      Comite Inter-association Jeunesse et
Congo, Democratic Republic of                             Environnement
Service Permanent d‟Inventaire et                     Forêt et Development
    d‟Aménagement Forestier (SPIAF)                   Images Gabon Nature
                                                      World Wildlife Fund – Carpo
Costa Rica
Biomass USERS Network                                 The Gambia
Center for Tropical Agriculture Research and          National Environment Agency
     Education
Centro Cientifico Tropical                            Germany
Cooperativa Montes de Oro                             University of Kassel
Escuela de Agricultura para la Region Tropical        Wuppertal Institute
     Humeda
Eco-Logica                                            Greece
Empresas ECOS, S.A.                                   University of Thessaly
Empresas Ambientales de Centroamérica
Fondo EcoEmpresas                                     Guatemala
Fundecooperacion                                      FUNRURAL
FUNDES                                                Fundacion Defensores de la Naturaleza
IICA
INCAE                                                 Guyana
Instituto Centroamericano de Administracion           Guyana Forestry Commission
     de Empresas (INCAE)                              National University of Guyana
IUCN-Central America
Ministry of the Environment & Energy (MINAE)          Hungary
Rainforest Alliance                                   Regional Environmental Center for Central
Solar Trade Corporation                                  and Eastern Europe (REC)
Stratego
UPA Nacional



                                                 27
India                                               Mali
Centre for Environment Education                    Institut du Sahel (INSAH)
Development Alternatives
Tata Energy Research Institute                      Mexico
                                                    Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Indonesia                                           Grupo de Estudios Ambientales and the
Center for International Forestry Research               University of Guadalajara
    (CIFOR)                                         Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey
Forest Watch Indonesia                              North American Center for Environment and
Indonesian Center for Environmental Law                  Communication (CICEANA)
JKPP                                                Universidad Autonoma de Mexico
Konphalindo                                         University of Guadalajara
KP-SHK
Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia                          The Netherlands
Ministry of Environment                             Greenpeace
OLASMA                                              Netherlands Committee for IUCN
Pusat Pendidikan Linkugan Hiudp                     RIVM
    Environmental Center                            University of Leiden
Telapak                                             World Wildlife Fund-International
WWF Sahul Region
Yascita                                             Nicaragua
YLBHI                                               CONADES
YLL
                                                    Norway
Israel                                              GRID-Arendal
School for Educational Leadership                   ForUM
                                                    Ministry of Environment
Italy
International Fund for Agricultural                 Palau
     Development (IFAD)                             Palau Conservation Society
United Nations Food and Agriculture
     Organization (FAO)                             Panama
                                                    Panama Canal Authority
Japan                                               Panamanian Center for Research and Social
National Institute for Environmental Studies           Action (CEASPA)
                                                    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Kenya
African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)        Papua New Guinea
Centre for Environmental Policy and Law in          National Research Institute
     Africa
International Centre for Research in                Peru
     Agroforestry (ICRAF)                           Center for Information, Education and
United Nations Environment Programme                     Development (CIED)
IUCN-East Africa Regional Office                    Consortium on Agroecology
                                                    Escuela de Administracion de Negocios Para
Laos                                                     Graduados (ESAN)
National University of Laos (NUOL)                  Instituto Cuanto
Science, Technology, and Environment                International Potato Center (CIP)
Agency                                              Peruvian National Research Institute (INIA)
                                                    Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental
Malawi                                                   (SPDA)
Ministry of Environment                             Universidad del Pacifico

Malaysia
National University
ICLARM (World Fish Centre)



                                               28
Philippines                                           Tanzania
City of Puerta Princessa                              Journalists Environmental Association
Department of Environment and Natural                 Lawyers Environmental Action Team
    Resources                                         Wildlife Conservation Society
Haribon Foundation
International Marinelife Alliance                     Thailand
Ministry of Environment                               Chiang Mai University
Tambuyog Development Center                           International Centre for Research in
                                                          Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Russia                                                Thailand Environment Institute
All-Russian Scientific Research and                   Sustainable Agricultural Management in
Information Centre for Forest Resources                   Tropical Ecosystems Consortium
(ARICFR) (Research-GOV)                                   (SAMUTE)
ASEKO
Biodiversity Conservation Centre                      Uganda
Federal Forest Service of Russia                      National Environment Management Authority
Forest Resources (ARICFR)                             Uganda Wildlife Society
Friends of the Siberian Forests
Greenpeace Russia                                     United Kingdom
International Forest Institute                        BirdLife International
IUCN CIS Office                                       Foundation for International Environmental
R+D Center ScanEx (Corporation)                           Law and Development (FIELD)
Scan Ex                                               International Center for Conservation
Socio-Ecological Union                                    Education
State Committee for Environmental Protection          International Institute for Environment and
                                                          Development (IIED)
South Africa                                          World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research            (WCMC)
EIS-Africa
Ministry of Water Affairs and Forestry                United States
KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service             Baltimore Department of Parks and
South African Center for Land Tenure                      Recreation
University of Stellenbosch                            Battelle Northwest
                                                      Business for Social Responsibility
Spain                                                 Carbon Dioxide Information & Analysis Center,
University Autonoma de Madrid                             Oak Ridge National Lab (CDIAC)
                                                      CARE International
Suriname                                              Center for International Environment (CIEL)
National University                                   Center for Sustainable Development in the
NGO Forum                                                 Americas (CSDA)
Organization of Indigenous People of                  Certified Forest Products Council
    Suriname                                          Community Alliance of Family Farmers
                                                          (CAFF)
Sweden                                                Conservation International
Göteborg University                                   Duke University Coastal Resource Center
Landscape Ecology Group, Umea University              Ecotourism Society
SIDA                                                  EcoTrust
Stockholm Environment Institute                       Environmental Enterprises Assistance Fund
                                                          (EEAF)
Switzerland                                           Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA)
UNITAR                                                Environmental Defense Fund
World Conservation Union (IUCN)                       EROS Data Center
World Health Organization                             FOLADE
                                                      Forest Management Trust
Taiwan                                                Forest Trends
National Taiwan University



                                                 29
Harvard Institute for International                  University of Agriculture and Forestry
     Development (HID)                               Vietnam Environment and Sustainable
Global Environment Facility (GEF)                        Development Center
Green Business Letter
International Cooperative for Environmental          Zimbabwe
     Leadership                                      IUCN-Regional Office for Southern Africa
Initiative for Social Innovation through             IMERSCA
     Business (Aspen Institute)
Interamerica Development Bank
International Food Policy Research Institute         Corporations
     (IFPRI)
International Resources Group                        Apertura
Konphalindo                                          Aracruz Celulose
Mesoamerican Development Institute                   B.Bosch S.A.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality         Banco de Credito
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency                   Banco Nacional
MRJ Technologies                                     BP-Amoco
NASA                                                 British Petroleum Company PLC
Natural Resources Defense Council                    Collins & Aikman Floor Coverings, Inc.
Nature Conservancy                                   Comercio Alternativo S.A.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory                        Corporacion Financiera Ambiental
Organization of American States (OAS)                Corporacion Andino de Fomento
Rocky Mountain Institute                             E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Revitalizing Baltimore                               General Motors Corporation
Union of Concerned Scientists                        Macadamia Miravalles S.A.
United Nations Development Programme                 MacMillian Bloedel Ltd.
United Nations Statistical Office                    Monsanto
University of Florida                                Perez Companc S.A.
University of Maryland                               Placer Dome, Inc.
University of New Hampshire                          Price Waterhouse Coopers
University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources        Sambus, Ltd.
     Center                                          Terra Capital Investors Limited
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric
     Administration
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
World Bank
World Wildlife Fund

Venezuela
ACOANA
Centro de Documentaciòn y Procesamiento
de Imagenes-CPDI
Corpomedina, Proyecto Paria
FUDENA
Instituto de Estudios Superiores de
     Administraciòn (IESA)
Universidad Experimental de Guyana - UNEG

Vietnam
Center for Rural Progress
Hanoi Agricultural University (HAU)
Hue University
Tay Nguyen University



                                                30
                ANNEX B




   GLOBAL FOREST WATCH IN INDONESIA:
   AN INDEPENDENT FOREST MONITORING
NETWORK IN INDONESIA’S NEW POLITICAL ERA




                   31
Table of Contents


I.      Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… 33
II.     The Problem            …………………………………………………………… 34
III.    The Development of Forest Watch Indonesia………………………………… 34
IV.     Activity Description ……………………………………………………………. 35
        - Objectives and Implementation Plan……………………………………… 35
V.       Sustainability and Exit Strategy ……………………………………………… 38
VI.     Customers              ……………………………………………………………. 38
VII.    Organizational Capabilities……………………………………………………… 38
VIII.   Global Forest Watch vis-à-vis EAPEI’s Objectives…………………………… 39
IX.     Performance Measurement Plan………………………………………………….40
X.      Budget Narrative…………………………………………………………………….41




                                       32
I. Executive Summary

Indonesia contains the last major blocks of tropical rainforest in Southeast Asia, areas that are extremely
rich in biodiversity and provide livelihoods for millions of indigenous and local people. A 1998-99
mapping effort carried out by the government with support from the World Bank revealed that
deforestation since the mid-1980s has progressed at a rate of some 1.5 million hectares annually—a rate
50 percent greater than what was accepted previously.

Since the resignation of President Suharto in May 1998, the potential for reforming forest policies that
have caused rapid forest degradation, enriched the elite, and dispossessed millions of forest-dwellers is
greater than it has been in three decades. Indonesia is undergoing a dramatic political transition where
there are opportunities for civil society to take a stronger role in forest resource decision-making and
management. There is, however, powerful resistance to forest policy reform from vested interested in
industry and government. Public access to information about what is happening to forests and forest-
dependent people is crucial if reform is to occur, but many are resisting these calls for transparency.

Global Forest Watch, an initiative of the World Resources Institute (WRI), works with local partners
around the world to document where remaining intact forests can still be found, where forest development
activities (such as mining, logging, and road building) is occurring, who is behind these activities, and
how these operations are performing using national laws as a yardstick. Global Forest Watch information
is available in hardcopy reports and online at www.globalforestwatch.org.

Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) is the Indonesia partner of Global Forest Watch. FWI works to (a) widen
access to forest data and information held by government agencies and donor organizations and (b)
collect and analyze original data, combining satellite imagery analysis and field investigations carried out
by local NGOs and community members. FWI, together with Global Forest Watch is currently compiling
a State of the Forest Report to be published in 2001, documenting activities and actors in Indonesia’s
forests. Global Forest Watch State of the Forest Reports establish a baseline of forest issues in a given
country. Compiling information necessary for these reports helps Global Forest Watch incountry
networks to determine where they will focus their future activities.

Global Forest Watch has found that these State of the Forest Reports create a critical window of
opportunity for entrenching the national Global Forest Watch networks within a country’s environmental
NGO community. Following the publication of these reports, GFW incountry networks require an
additional financial and human resources thrust to firmly entrench the GFW incountry network into the
environmental NGO community. In Indonesia, specific activities for this entrenchment will include
training staff in geographic information systems (GIS) and data management as well as field monitoring
of social conflicts. Global Forest Watch is seeking funds from USAID EAPEI to optimize this narrow
window of opportunity. Specific activities will include fortifying the Forest Watch Indonesia network,
establishing it as a semiautonomous organization, largely responsible for its own fundraising. Once FWI
attains this semiautonomous status, Global Forest Watch will be able to expand its forest monitoring
network to other countries in the region.

Global Forest Watch’s forest condition mapping and coordination work in Indonesia is currently funded
through a donation from IKEA, the world’s largest furniture company. Forest Watch Indonesia’s
activities are primarily funded by USAID NRM in Jakarta, with additional grants from the UK
Department for International Development and the Netherlands Committee for IUCN. Two thirds of the
funds requested in this proposal will go to Forest Watch Indonesia. Remaining monies will allow Global



                                                     33
Forest Watch to provide the oversight and training needed for FWI to become the recognized source of
quality forest monitoring information in Indonesia.

II. The Problem

Indonesia contains one of the world’s largest remaining blocks of temperate forests. However, recent
studies conducted by the World Bank and the Indonesia Forest Ministry indicate that these forests are
being exploited faster than had been estimated. Initial work conducted by Forest Watch Indonesia show
that only a small percentage of Indonesia’s original forest reserves remain as intact forest today.

While we know that intact forests provide habitat for wildlife and endangered species, and are home and a
source of livelihood for indigenous and rural cultures, we are only beginning to learn the crucial role that
these forests play in regulating climate. Given
the rapid rate of forest destruction in
Indonesia, it is crucial that an independent
monitoring body exist to document forest
development and the players behind these
activities. As more US and European wood
purchasers join industry leaders such as IKEA
and Home Depot and commit to “old-growth
free” purchases, the information that an
independent forest monitoring network can
supply becomes even more essential.

While FAO 2000 figures document a slowing
of deforestation worldwide, those in the
environmental community doubt these figures. The fact that these figures must be sanctioned by
governments coupled with FAO’s very loose definition of what constitutes forest (e.g. any land with more
than 10% crown cover) brings their merit into question. Indonesia needs a national, independent, forest
monitoring network that can document and disseminate peer reviewed forest development information
that is not subject to government oversight.


III.    The Development of Forest Watch Indonesia

In mid 1997, following the release of the WRI publication, The Last Frontier Forests, Ecosystems and
Economies on the Edge (http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/about/Publications/index.htm), WRI
opted to dedicate startup funds to the Global Forest Watch idea. In November 1997, with forest fires
raging in Indonesia, WRI held a meeting in Jakarta with some 20 Indonesian NGOs. At this meeting
participants strongly endorsed the Forest Watch Indonesia concept as useful and important, and pledged
to assist in its implementation. These participants felt that FWI could fill a void by gathering and
disseminating national information on forests and forest development issues. While there are many
NGOs, donor organizations and academics working on forest-related issues in Indonesia, none fulfilling a
monitoring role.

Since 1997, Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) has been coordinated by Telapak Indonesia
(http://members.tripod.com/~telapak/forest.htm) an environmental NGO. In October 2000, with the
hiring of a director, Togu Manurung, FWI began functioning as an independent NGO made up of 13




                                                    34
partner organizations throughout Indonesia. (For a complete list of these partners and a partial description
of their activities, please see Annex A and http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/indonesia/gfw.htm).

As the Indonesia partner of Global Forest Watch, FWI works to improve access to forest data and
information held by government agencies and donor organizations and to collect and analyze original
data, combining satellite imagery analysis with field investigations carried out by local NGOs and
community members. FWI’s primary activity to date has been working with Global Forest Watch to
compile a State of the Forest Report. This report, to be published in 2001, will document where activities
are occurring inside Indonesia’s forests, who is behind these activities, and how these players are
performing using Indonesia’s laws as a yardstick. It will also include a review of forest policy reform that
has been implemented in the post Suharto era.

As a part of the data gathering process for the State of the Forest Report, Global Forest Watch is focusing
its monitoring efforts and its capacity building in Indonesia on three geographic regions, Sumatra (Aceh
and North Sumatra Provinces), South Kalimantan, and West Papua (Irian Jaya). A local NGO partner
serves as the FWI “subnode” in each region.


IV. Activity Description

This proposal is designed to fund activities beginning in the second half of 2001, immediately following
the publication of the Indonesia State of the Forest Report. Global Forest Watch has found that this post
publication period is a critical one for its incountry networks, providing opportunities that must be acted
on quickly to ensure the sustainability of the network.

A considerable portion of Global Forest Watch funds for Indonesia and Forest Watch Indonesia’s funds
and human resources are being invested in the State of the Forest Report. Additional financial resources
are needed to further document key forest issues that have been highlighted through research for this
report and to thereby firmly entrench FWI as a recognized and credible forest monitoring NGO within
Indnonesia’s environmental NGO community.

Over the next two years, Global Forest Watch’s role in Forest Watch Indonesia will decrease as FWI
establishes recognition within Indonesia, monitoring and mapping skills are honed, and as FWI moves
towards financial independence. Though Global Forest Watch and Forest Watch Indonesia are on-going
projects, activities outlined here are those that will be accomplished during a two year period, beginning
in the later half of 2001. These activities will establish FWI as a semiautonomous partner within the
Global Forest Watch network allowing Global Forest Watch to focus its efforts on establishing other
networks in the region.

Over the next two years, Forest Watch Indonesia will expand its forest monitoring to Yogjakarta on Java,
though the primary focus will be on strengthening the monitoring and geographic information systems
(GIS) skills of the existing network. Further expansion will occur once capacity has been built within the
existing network.

Objectives and Implementation Plan
The overall objective of Global Forest Watch’s work in Indonesia is to improve the management of
Indonesia’s forests by moving towards greater sustainability and equity for local and indigenous peoples.
This objective will be accomplished by providing and empowering civil society with accurate data and
information necessary for successful advocacy on forest policy reform.



                                                     35
Result 1:
Through assistance from Global Forest Watch, Forest Watch Indonesia be recognized as the premier civil
society repository and provider of quality forest data and information.

Activities:
 Global Forest Watch will highlight FWI’s work at international forestry forums. (Years 1and 2)
 Global Forest Watch staff will provide feedback and ideas for FWI’s development and expansion,
    based on experiences gathered from other Global Forest Watch country networks. (Years 1 and 2)
 FWI Steering Committee meetings will be held with FWI partners every other year to maintain
    support and define future initiatives of the FWI network. (Year 2)
 FWI will ratify the Global Forest Watch Charter. (Year 1)
 A review process will be defined by FWI and will be approved by Global Forest Watch. (Year 1)
 FWI will develop an internal monitoring plan. (Year 1)
 Global Forest Watch GIS staff will train FWI staff in advanced GIS applications. (Year 2)

Performance Indicators:
 FWI’s work highlighted at international forestry meetings by Global Forest Watch. This will
    help garner international attention for the network, and attract potential donors to the network.
 Feedback and counsel to FWI will be provided by Global Forest Watch staff as FWI moves towards
    solidifying the network following the publication of the State of the Forest Report. Communication
    will include regular E-mails with FWI staff and annual travel to Indonesia by Global Forest Watch
    Staff.
 FWI Steering Committee meetings held. This meeting will be held every two years and include all
    FWI partners. The purpose of the meeting will be to determine future directions for the network.
 The Global Forest Watch Charter will be ratified by FWI and its partners. Partners will develop
    country specific objectives that will be incorporated into this document. (See
    http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/about/charter/index.htm for a copy of the Global Forest Watch
    Charter).
 A review mechanism documented and functioning. All published Forest Watch Indonesia (in hard
    copy and web formats) will undergo a review process before being released. The review process will
    be approved by Global Forest Watch and will be documented. Information sources will be cited.
 An internal monitoring plan will be developed by FWI to monitor its progress towards its
    programmatic goals. This monitoring plan will be based on a Telapak’s internal monitoring and will
    be vetted by FWI partners.
 FWI staff in Bogor trained in advanced GIS applications.FWI has access to GIS software through
    inkind software donations to Global Forest Watch from Environmental Systems Research
    Incorporated (ESRI). Global Forest Watch staff will train FWI technical staff in advanced GIS
    applications such as interactive mapping.

Result 2:
Increased capacity in five FWI “subnodes”— Medan in northern Sumatra, Banjarmasin in South
Kalimantan, Kendari in Southeast Sulawesi, Yogjakarta in Java, and Jayapura in West Papua (Irian
Jaya)—such that these partners can fully participate in local and national forest policy reform processes.

Activities:




                                                    36
   FWI staff will train subnode technical staff in GIS mapping and analysis of forest-relevant
    information. (Year 1)
   the subnodes will be equipped with GIS mapping software. (Year 1)
   FWI will train other subnode staff in forest and social monitoring techniques. (Year 2)
   a FWI subnode will be established in Yogjakarta. (Year 2)

Performance Indicators:
 FWI subnodes recognized as local partners and representatives of FWI, with dedicated staff.
    These subnodes are based in existing local NGOs: The Leuser Conservation Foundation (Yayasan
    Leuser Lestari ) in Northern Sumatra; Lembaga Peningkatan Masyarakat Adat Borneo (LPMA)
    (http://www.kehati.or.id/indonesia/hot_berita01.html) in South Kalimantan; Yayasan Cinta Alam
    (YASCITA) in Southeast Sulawesi; and The lrian Jaya Environment Foundation (Yayasan
    Lingkungan Hidup Irian Jaya - YALI) in West Papua (Irian Jaya).
 FWI and partner field staff trained in ground forest monitoring. FWI staff will receive further
    training for identifying and extrapolating information into data that can be used to monitor forest
    development (e.g., counting logging trucks to estimate logging volumes from a region.) Many of the
    techniques used here are outlined in Global Forest Watch’s most recent publication, Monitoring for
    Impact, Lessons on Natural Resources Monitoring from 13 NGOs.
    (http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/about/Publications/volume%202.pdf)
 Trained FWI staff working in each of these subnodes. Staff in the subnodes will be trained GIS
    mapping using ESRI software provided through the in-kind donation to Global Forest Watch. The
    subnode offices will have computer capacity and GIS software onsite.
 A FWI subnode established inYogjakarta. To document forest development in Java, FWI will
    begin establishing a subdnode in Yogjakarta within the environmental NGO ARUPA. Staff will
    participate in forest monitoring and GIS training.

Result 3:
Information on Indonesia’s forests and development activities produced and disseminated to all involved
in the forest reform process.

Activities:
 FWI will work with subnode staff to compile regional State of the Forest Reports, (Years 1and 2)
 FWI will establish a Forest Policy Working Group to discuss forest policy issues in Indonesia’s
    changing political climate, (Year 1)
 A subset of materials will be provided to Global Forest Watch for posting on its website. (Year 1)
 FWI will establish and maintain a website for peer reviewed forest information. (Year 2)

Performance Indicators:
 Publication of Regional State of the Forest Reports. Over the next two years, FWI will work
    closely with its partners in Northern Sumatra, South Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Java, and West Papua
    (Irian Jaya) to help analyze and document data for the publication of at least one regional State of the
    Forest Report. While some of the information generated for these regional reports will be included in
    the National State of the Forest Report, the information in the Regional Reports will provide more
    specific detail on forest developments on these islands and the actors behind these activities. As
    Indonesia reforms its current forest policy, these subnodes will also be measuring the effectiveness of
    these reforms on curtailing illegal logging.
 Forest Policy Reform Monitoring and Dialogue. As forest policy in Indonesia is in a state of
    considerable transition. FWI therefore make a special effort to monitor planned policy changes and
    make that Information available to the public, in order to allow for informed public debate and input



                                                     37
    into the forestry policy reform process.
   Availability of Indonesia datasets on the Global Forest Watch website. Users will be able to
    download Indonesia datasets through the Global Forest Watch Data Warehouse feature and produce
    their own maps with them. Users will also be able to make their own customized maps using the
    interactive map feature on the Global Forest Watch website.

   An established and maintained Forest Watch Indonesia website and contribution of English
    language materials to the Global Forest Watch website. The FWI website will provide access to
    all peer-reviewed information collected and processed by FWI. The website will be primarily in
    Bahasa Indonesia. A subset of this information will be posted on the Global Forest Watch website
    and available in both Bahasa Indonesia and English. As FWI staff receive training in ArcIMS,
    interactive mapping software, this function will also be a feature of the website.


V. Sustainability Plan and Exit Strategy

As mentioned above, Global Forest Watch has found that the period following the publication of a State
of the Forest Report is a crucial time for its partners, and is one where the sustainability of the network is
determined. USAID EAPEI funds will be used to help firmly establish FWI as the resource for forestry
information within Indonesia. During this two year period and with this funding, Forest Watch Indonesia
will become a semiautonomous member of the Global Forest Watch network, becoming technically
sound, and responsible for their own funding. This will allow Global Forest Watch to focus its activities
on starting up forest monitoring work in other countries in the region.


VI. Customers

Users of the data and information generated by Global Forest Watch and FWI include NGOs conducting
advocacy for forest policy reform at national and local levels, government policymakers, the media, and
international donor agencies.

The information generated by FWI will also be useful to consumers and corporations in Northern
countries who are looking to track the source of their wood products to stop further destruction of
Indonesia’s rainforests or prejudice the rights and livelihoods of local and indigenous communities.



VII. Organizational Capability

The World Resources Institute - www.wri.org
WRI has wholeheartedly endorsed Global Forest Watch from the onset. With its commitment promoting
stewardship in and around the world's last major frontier forests, Global Forest Watch is a central part of
WRI’s overall forest program.

Since 1998, WRI has housed Global Forest Watch and its staff. Currently, some 12 WRI employees
work with Global Forest Watch in either a full or part time capacity. WRI has also provide GIS lab space
administrative, and funding for the project.




                                                      38
WRI’s interdisciplinary environmental focus provides an excellent work place setting for Global Forest
Watch as staff are able to link up with other WRI projects and partners operating in any geographic
region. This allows Global Forest Watch to begin working quickly in any given country, working with
partners who already have a proven track record with WRI.

For more information on WRI’s capability, please see Annex A.

Global Forest Watch – www.globalforestwatch.org
Global Forest Watch is an initiative of WRI, and was officially launched in February 2000 with the
release of its first three publications, An Overview of Logging in Cameroon, A First Look at Logging in
Gabon, and Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year 2000. Global Forest Watch is
currently working with 75 partners in 12 countries. Our goal is to be up and running in 21 countries over
the next 3 years, documenting development activities inside 65% of the world’s remaining forests. Over
time, Global Forest Watch will spinoff from WRI, and become a separate organization.

Funding for Global Forest Watch comes from a variety of sources including bilateral agencies,
corporations, foundations, and individuals. Global Forest Watch receives funding from USAID’s Central
Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) for its activities in Cameroon and Gabon, and
from the USAID mission in Kinshasa for activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Forest Watch Indonesia www.globalforestwatch.org/english/indonesia/index.htm
In its early stages, FWI was coordinated by Telapak Indonesia, an environmental NGO with considerable
forest monitoring experience. FWI is now an independent NGO led by Togu Manurung, the Director.
The FWI Steering Committee includes representatives from 13 Indonesian environmental NGOs,
academicians from the Bogor Agricultural Institute, and WRI. FWI currently has monitoring nodes
operating in three key forest regions, northern Sumatra, Sulawesi, South Kalimantan, and West Papua
(Irian Jaya). To date, Forest Watch Indonesia activities have been primarily supported by USAID NRM
in Jakarta, though supplementary support has been provided by the UK’s Department for International
Development and the Netherlands Committee for IUCN.

Telapak Indonesia- http://members.tripod.com/~telapak/forest.htm
Since mid-1996, Telapak Indonesia, a Bogor based NGO has worked with WRI and other groups in
Indonesia to develop Forest Watch Indonesia. Together with local partner NGOs, Telapak initiated the
"Pro-BELA" program to empower local NGOs and communities with technical and investigative skills to
monitor local forest development activities.

More recently, Telapak has worked closely with the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) to
publish two reports and videos documenting illegal logging in Kalimantan’s Tanjung Puting National
Park.


VIII. Global Forest Watch Vis-à-Vis EAPEI’s Objectives

The following section addresses how Global Forest Watch (and its partner organizations including Forest
Watch Indonesia, support EAPEI’s overall objectives.

1. Promoting the rational use of renewable natural resources in East Asia and the Pacific.

Global Forest Watch builds on this objective by providing accurate and up to date on forest development
activities to a global audience. By compiling data on forest development activities from a variety of


                                                   39
reputable sources and making these publicly available, Global Forest Watch provides an overall picture of
activities that threaten forests. As Global Forest Watch information is largely map based, this information
is easily comprehensible. Funding from EAPEI will allow Forest Watch Indonesia to become firmly
entrenched as the recognized forest monitoring entity within the Indonesia, and allow Global Forest
Watch to focus on expanding its network into other countries in the region.


2. Increasing capacity of national and regional institutions, both governmental and non-governmental,
   to manage the natural resource base for the next two years and beyond.

Capacity building is an essential element of the Global Forest Watch network. By building on existing
forest monitoring capacity in the countries where we work, GFW strengthens groups by reinforcing
analytical skills, and providing access to additional forest monitoring tools such as satellite imagery, GIS
mapping tools and software, and Internet technologies for disseminating information.

3. Sharing knowledge for improved management of natural resources among East Asian and Pacific
   Island Nations.

Eventually, Global Forest Watch will expand its forest monitoring network and thereby its methodology
in southeast Asia. Both Papua New Guinea and Cambodia still have significant intact forests that are
under immanent threat to development.

Global Forest Watch information is available through hardcopy reports and through its website,
www.globalforestwatch.org which enables a worldwide audience to learn about forest development
activities around the world, and Global Forest Watch methodology.


IX. Performance Measurement Plan

This proposal covers activities to be implemented over a two year period (24 months), from time grant is
received. However, both Global Forest Watch and Forest Watch Indonesia are ongoing projects, both of
which are already underway and will extend beyond the life of the requested grant. Activities outlined in
this proposal are designed to take FWI to a semiautonomous operational level that will allow the network
to continue to operate with little input (in either technical or financial terms) from Global Forest Watch.
Global Forest Watch will monitor the overall progress on this grant and will report this progress
periodically to USAID EAPEI.

As mentioned, FWI is a coalition of 13 NGOs working throughout Indonesia. Production of the State of
the Forest Report is being conducted by the FWI national node in Bogor. While the FWI organization
and framework exist, there is considerable work to be done over the next two years to solidify the
network and ensure that effective communication occurs among the subnodes. Many of these activities
are outlined in the Global Forest Watch Charter. As one of its activities over the coming year, FWI will
be ratifying this Charter and developing the internal elements that are describe in this document. (See
http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/about/charter/index.htm for a copy of the Global Forest Watch
Charter).

In addition to the reporting that Global Forest Watch will provide to USAID EAPEI which will include
reports on FWI’s activities, FWI will provide periodic reports to USAID NRM in Jakarta under terms of
their grant agreement. Specifically, FWI will monitor the effect that its activities have on forest



                                                     40
development in Indonesia, particularly in the three regions where the initial subnodes are located.
Internally, FWI will measure the quality and effectiveness of communication between the FWI secretariat
and the three subnodes, and the quality of services provided by the FWI secretariat as the primary support
system for the network. FWI partners will develop a plan to monitor communication through a
workshop.

Internal monitoring and evaluation will also focus on management and financial matters. A public audit of
FWI’s activities will be conducted periodically, in a package with other projects hosted or managed by
Telapak Indonesia which has met USAID’s auditing and funds management criteria for several years.

Externally, monitoring and evaluation will focus on: the quality and quantity of information generated
and distributed by FWI; the extent of which information is used by other institutions in changing forestry
policies and practices; and the scope of which FWI activities are covered by the press both domestic and
foreign.


X. Budget Narrative

Global Forest Watch respectfully requests US$250,000 to support its work in Indonesia over a two year
period with US$ 166,667 of these funds to be allocated to Forest Watch Indonesia. These funds will
provide basic financial and the technical inputs necessary to bring Forest Watch Indonesia up to full
capacity.

Monies for Global Forest Watch will go towards the following:
 Limited salary and benefits for Global Forest Watch staff at WRI. These staff provide both
   organizational and analytical guidance to FWI as well GIS incountry training for FWI staff. Salary
   will also cover GFW staff time for the for the preparation of maps and other data from Indonesia to be
   posted on the Global Forest Watch website. US$31,135.
   Specific staff time to be covered include:
   - Emily Matthews, Global Forest Watch Indonesia Project Manager, Senior Associate, 48 days
       over 2 years
   - Ralph Ridder, Global Forest Watch Technical Coordinator, 24 days over 2 years.
   - Tyson Walker, Global Forest Watch GIS Research Associate, 48 days over 2 years.
 Travel and perdiem to the region: US$9,280
   - 2 trips Washington, DC/Jakarta at US$2,000 each over two years. (This will cover one visit by E.
       Matthews and one visit by a GIS staff person to conduct training).
   - A total of 60 days of perdiem at US$88 per day.
 Other Costs: US$8,117
   These costs cover long distance telephone, postage, reproduction, and publication costs.
 Contractual US$166,667
  Subgrant monies for Forest Watch Indonesia will go towards the following:
   - Salary and benefits for full time FWI staff in both the FWI Secretariat and the subnodes.
   - Financial resources to hire consultants for specific FWI tasks (designing the FWI website).
   - Office operating expenses (rent, utility bills. Etc.) for the FWI Secretariat and subnodes.
   -      Travel expenses for FWI staff, both between the FWI Secretariat and the sub-nodes, and for
       trainings and field investigations in forest areas.
   - Expenses for the annual Forest Watch Indonesia Steering Committee meetings.
 Fringe/Indirect/ G&A US$34,550.
   These costs are based on the approved NICRA with USAID.



                                                    41
                                    ANNEX C

                            THE ACCESS INITIATIVE

         Promoting Access to Information, Participation and Justice
                    in Environmental Decision-Making
                                  in India




I.   PROBLEM

Over the last decade, the economic and political context for environmental
decision-making has changed dramatically around the world. In the economic
sphere, globalization has narrowed the distance between decisions made on
Wall Street and Main Street and their impacts on communities and ecosystems
everywhere. For example, bonds offered in New York finance a major dam in
India, while wood products purchased in Europe cause a rain forest in Central
Africa to be destroyed. People and places affected by investment choices are
often far removed from the investors and consumers who make those choices.

At the same time, global trade and investment rules are being negotiated that
penalize countries for protecting domestic providers of goods and services at the
expense of their international competitors. However, those same rules can have
the effect of penalizing countries seeking to protect the environment by regulating
how those goods and services are produced. Ultimately, without mechanisms for
public access to information, participation and justice, choices made by
consumers and investors, coupled with global trade and investment rules, can
degrade the environment and natural resources and thus negatively affect the
livelihoods of local communities. Most vulnerable are the poor of the world, who
are also most dependent on the quality of their environment.
India is affected by economic globalization trends and its government is at the
negotiating table where global trade and investment rules are being shaped.
Indian companies are segments in micro-economic corporate networks
characteristic of economic globalization. Indian environment and natural
resources will be affected by global trade and investment and so will be the large
segment of the poor, dependent on them.

India has a long tradition of participation and has often set an example for other
developing countries. However, the new paradigms of the global economy and
the rules by which it plays require a significantly more comprehensive and
consistent national system for access to information, participation and justice in
decision-making than the one currently in place in India. Only such a system will
guarantee that the poor of India can participate meaningfully in decisions that
affect them.



                                        42
III.               OBJECTIVES

The Access Initiative was formed by the World Resources Institute (WRI), the
Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA), Corporación Participa
and the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) with input and support from a broad
constituency comprised of NGOs, governments, and regional and global
intergovernmental organizations. An international meeting of this constituency,
held in November 2000, confirmed the two main goals of the Initiative. These two
main goals are to build NGO capacity and to raise awareness among
stakeholders regarding “access”. The Initiative‟s partner in India is PRIA, a
national level NGO with long-term interests in public participation and community
right to know. We will work with PRIA towards the following specific objectives:

          First, we aim to strengthen the capacity of PRIA and other public interest
           groups involved in the Access Initiative to both to assert access to
           information, participation and justice in environmental decision-making,
           and to identify gaps between stated commitments and actual performance
           on the part of public authorities.

          Second, we aim to raise awareness among government, civil society, and
           private business actors regarding existing commitments to principles of
           good environmental governance, and to forge consensus on what these
           principles mean in practice.

The Initiative will empower PRIA and other public interest groups in India with
international legitimacy and capacity to conduct credible, independent
assessments of current practices in access to information, participation and
justice in decision-making as formulated by Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
and Agenda 21.

III.       EXPECTED RESULTS IN INDIA

Activities undertaken between 2000 and 2002 under the Access Initiative will
produce both quantitative and qualitative results, including:
 A pilot test of a set of indicators and a national assessment of the practice of
   access in India;
 Experience and knowledge by PRIA staff in implementing the access
   indicators;
 National team, committed to continue to use the indicators on a regular basis
   over time;
 On-going mechanism for multi-stakeholder dialogue through a permanent
   review panel;
 Broader national constituency for public access to information, participation
   and justice in environmental decision-making;
 A contribution to the development of a globally-relevant indicator framework,
   incorporating perspectives from India;


                                           43
   Integration of PRIA and other NGOs from India in a regional and global
    network promoting access.

IV. STRATEGY

We are pursuing a two-track approach involving parallel strategies:

       A short-term strategy targeting the United Nations World Summit on
        Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa, in
        September 2002 as an opportunity to assess progress toward
        implementation of the Rio Declaration‟s Principle 10 on “access”. We will
        develop and pilot test an indicator methodology for taking stock and
        monitoring progress in implementation by India, other countries in Asia,
        and around the world; and,

       A long-term strategy designed to develop an inclusive, decentralized, and
        sustainable institutional framework to accelerate the implementation of
        Principle 10 in the years following the Summit.

Between November 2000 and September 2002, the Initiative's focus is on its
short-term strategy, which will lay the groundwork for the future institutional
framework. During this two-year period the Initiative‟s strategy with PRIA involves
activities at three levels:

       In India
        The Initiative will support PRIA and a team including staff from other
        NGOs in India to pilot test an indicator methodology assessing the extent
        to which the structures and practice of government agencies are
        consistent with commitments to access to information, participation and
        justice in environmental decision-making. We will build the legitimacy of
        this assessment and initiate its institutionalization;

       In Asia
        PRIA will be involved in regional events, planned also in collaboration with
        other partners in Asia (The Thailand Environment Institute and the
        Indonesian Center for Environmental Law). The objective of these events
        will be to disseminate in Asia the indicator methodology and the findings
        from national pilot tests in India, Thailand and Indonesia.

       At the global level
        PRIA will collaborate with other partners in the Initiative in designing a
        indicator methodology for tracking progress by countries in implementing
        Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. The methodology is designed to be
        used by NGOs at national level. The pilot test of the methodology in India
        will contribute to the global report to be published and disseminated by
        partners for at WSSD. PRIA will also participate in global events and


                                         44
       efforts seeking to establish the legitimacy of "public access" as an
       indispensable component of decision and policy-making and to promote
       an "access" agenda at WSSD.



V. ACTIVITIES WITH PRIA

The participation of PRIA in this collaborative effort will ensure that a more robust
assessment methodology is developed, one that is adaptable to a variety of
conditions along the parameters of literacy, technology, income levels, and other
variables. At the same time, we anticipate that this collaborative effort will
strengthen the capacity of PRIA to promote implementation of access to
information, participation and justice in environmental decision-making in their
national policy arenas – both at federal and state levels.

WRI and PRIA will collaborate the following activities in India:

a) Launching the pilot test: WRI is conducting launch workshops with PRIA
   and other public interest groups in India. The objectives of the workshop are:
   to discuss the methodology and achieve common understanding; to engage
   PRIA in the global Access coalition; to generate feedback from a broader
   constituency, and to produce a work plan for conducting the pilot test of the
   indicator methodology. The launch workshop will be followed by a press
   conference and a broader public meeting to promote a dialogue around the
   issues of Access and the indicator methodology.

b) Set up and manage a small research team. PRIA will set up and manage a
   small research team, which will include other national and local NGOs. The
   pilot test will be carried at a federal and in the state of Maharashtra at state
   level.

c) Set up a national review panel of government, experts and other
   stakeholders to provide feedback to the assessment. The multi-
   stakeholder review panel engages stakeholders in a dialogue, assists pilot
   test partners in outreach, and ensures the credibility of the final national
   assessment. The review panel members will provide written comments on the
   assessment. In India the review panel includes other NGOs (e.g.
   Development Alternatives), government agencies and private sector groups
   such as Ministry of Environment and Forests, a representative of a
   autonomous health/environmental institute under the Government of India, a
   representative of the Confederation of Indian Industry and a representative of
   the Central Pollution Control Board.




                                         45
d) Implement an outreach strategy. In India the outreach strategy includes
   press conferences, public meetings and publication of the national
   assessment.

e) Collaborate with the Access Initiative core team. WRI maintains a list
   serve for support and discussion among pilot test partners. PRIA will
   participate in a workshop in November 2001 to share results with pilot test
   partners round the world and help shape the framework. They will also
   collaborate with the EMLA, Participa, TEI and WRI to refine, finalize, and
   launch globally at the WSSD the indicator framework to assess access to
   information, participation and justice in environmental decision-making by
   public authorities.


VI.   NARRATIVE BUDGET DESCRIPTION

WRI requests $30,000 from USAID for activities in India for 2002. The attached
project budget includes the costs of salaries and benefits for the WRI staff
(Norbert Henninger and Elena Petkova), working with the PRIA, and travel to
India by WRI staff.

Subgrant expenses represent costs that will be incurred by PRIA for pilot testing
the indicators, conducting outreach in South Africa and traveling to a meeting of
pilot test partners in November 2001.




                                        46
                    ANNEX D


               Combined SF424A
Forest Watch Indonesia and Access Initiative/India




                        47
         INSERT SF424A HERE

FILENAME: SF424A ASIA BUREAU 2001.XLS




                 48