south sumatra forest fire management project … mid... · copar community participation ... •...

Delegation of the European Commission Ministry of Forestry, Government of Indonesia EC Framework Contract AMS/451 Lot No. 1 Letter of Contract No: 2005/99343 South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (SSFFMP) Mid Term Review September 2005 Mission Report

South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (SSFFMP) Mid-term Review Mission Report

NR International - Successfully Managing Development

Preface

The present report is the result of the Mid-term Review Mission of the South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (SSFFMP) supported by the European Commission in cooperation with the Ministry of Forestry (MoFr) of the Government of Indonesia (GoI). The mission visited Indonesia for the period of 1rst to 22nd of August 2005. The mission team is grateful for the support received during their stay in Indonesia. This refers in particular to officials and staff of the EC Delegation in Jakarta and the expatriate and Indonesian co-directors, experts and staff of SSFFMP, their Indonesian Government counterparts at central government, provincial and district levels, and to a multitude of project stakeholders in other central, provincial and local government institutions, partners and stakeholders of the private sector and of civil society, including beneficiary communities and Non-Governmental Organizations. Together with the main findings of the mission in the main report, and in accordance with the mission's Terms of Reference (ToR), appendixes provide technical information, like the mission's ToR, its itinerary, the institutions visited and people met during the assignment, and the list of documents collected and consulted.

September 2005


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page i

List of Contents Preface List of Contents i List of Appendixes ii Glossary iii Executive Summary v

a) Introduction vi b) Notable Project Achievements vi c) Project Relevance vi d) Project Design vii e) Efficiency vii f) Effectiveness viii g) Impact viii h) Potential Sustainability viii i) Lessons Learned and Conclusions ix j) Recommendations xi

1. Background 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 The Project 1

2. The Approach of the Mission 2 2.1 Beneficiaries 2 2.2 Mission Objectives 3

2.2.1 Global Objectives 3 2.2.2 Specific Objectives 3

3. Project Implementation Set-up 3 4. The Mid-Term Evaluation Approach 4 5. Notable Achievements to date 5 6. Assessments of Project Components and Sub-components 6

6.1 Fire Management – technical and institutional support 6 6.1.1 Village-based Fire Management and Fire Fighting Teams 6 6.1.2 Horizontal Links: intra- and inter-village 10 6.1.3 Vertical Links: to sub-district, district and province 11

6.2 Fire Information System 13 6.3 Public Fire Awareness 14 6.4 Rural/Community Development 15 6.5 Gender 17 6.6 Land Use Planning (LUP) 18 6.7 Policy Advocacy 19 6.8 NGO Support 19 6.9 Project Organisation and Partnerships 20

7. Overall Findings 22 A Project Relevance 22 B Project Design 23 C Efficiency 23 D Effectiveness 24 E Impact 24 F Potential Sustainability 24

8. Lessons Learned and Conclusions 25 8.1 In Sum 28 9. Recommendations 29 9.1 Guiding Project Principle 29 9.2 Re-allocation of Resources for Spatially Relevant Fire Management 29 9.3 Results Driven Project Approach at Village Level 30 9.4 Vertical and Horizontal Linkages 31 9.5 Learning from Project Impacts to Achieve Sustainability 31


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page ii

List of Appendixes 1 Mid-term Evaluation Framework from the Mid-term Review's ToR 2 Itinerary of the Mission 3 People met and institutions visited 4 List of Publications and Documents collected/consulted 5 General and Specific Guiding Questions 6 Questions raised by the MTR team at the twice-monthly meeting of project staff

and counterparts, 12 August 2005 7 Maps 8 Photographs 9 ToR of the Mid-term Review Mission SSFFMP 10 Definition of Terms 11 Abbreviations and Acronyms


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page iii

Glossary adat traditional values and norms AIDCO short for EuropeAid Co-operation Office of EC APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah

- Provincial Budget AWP Annual Workplan (of a project) Badan Board or Agency Bahasa Indonesia the Indonesian Language BAKORNAS Badan Koordinasi Nasional

- National Coordination Board Bapedalda Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan Daerah

- Provincial Environmental Impact Control Agency BAPLAN Badan Planologi

- Programming Agency (of the Ministry of Forestry) Bappeda Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah

Regional Development Planning Agency (at provincial and district levels)

Bappenas Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional - National Development Planning Agency

BPD Badan Pemerintahan Desa - Village Government Board

Bupati Head of District or Regent CbFM Community based Fire Management CoDev Community Development CoPar Community Participation CSP Country Strategy Paper (of the EC) DAOP Daerah Operasional

- Operational Area Desa village Dinas Service DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah

- Regional Parliament (provincial and district levels) ECIFP EC-Indonesia Forestry Programme EU European Union FDR Fire Danger Rating FFPCP Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project (former EC project,

predecessor of SSFFMP) FIS Fire Information System FLB Forest Liaison Bureau (former EC funded project) FTA Fire Threat Analysis GIS Geographic Information System GoI Government of Indonesia Gubernur Governor of a Province IFFMP Integrated Forest Fire Management Project (former GTZ project in

East Kalimantan) ILRC Illegal Logging Response Centre (EC Project) IPA Initial Plan of Action (of a project) JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency Kab see Kabupaten Kabupaten District Kec see Kecamatan


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page iv

Kecamatan Sub-district Kehutanan Forestry Kesbanglinmas Kesatuan Bangsa dan Perlindungan Masyarakat

- Citizen Unity and Community Protection Agency KHN Kawasan Hutan Negara

- State Forest Areas (SFA) KLH Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup

- State Minister for the Environment LAPAN Lembaga Penerbangan dan Antariksa Nasional

- National Aeronautics and Space Agency LDP Leuser Development Programme (former EC project) LKMD Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa

- Village Community Resilience Committee, village government executive board

LMD Lembaga Musyawarah Desa - Village Council, the village parliament, now BPD

Logframe Logical Framework Approach, also short for Logical Framework Matrix LSM Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat

- Non-government Organization LUP Landuse Planning M&E Monitoring and valuation Manggala Agni Special central government funded fire management programme for

2005 Memberdayakan to empower MoA Ministry of Agriculture

- Departement Pertanian (DepTan) MoFr Ministry of Forestry

- Departemen Kehutanan (DepHut) MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

- Departement Dalam Negeri (DepDagri) MSF Multi-stakeholder Forum MTR Mid-term Review Muba Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin

- Musi Banyuasin District n. d. no date NGO Non-government Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US) OKI Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir

- Ogan Komering Ilir District OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicators (in a Logframe Matrix) OWP Overall Workplan OWP Overall Workplan (of a project) P3LD Perancanaan Partisipatip Penatagunaan Lahan Desa

- Participatory Village Landuse Planning PCC Project Coordinating Committee PCC Project Coordination Committee PCC Project Coordinating Committee PCM Project Cycle Management Perdes Peraturan Desa Perkebunan Estate Crops Pertanian Agriculture


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page v

PHKA (Direktorat Jenderal) Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam - (Directorate General of) Forest Protection and Natural Resources Conservation

PKK Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga - Family Welfare Movement, women organization and program supervised by the Ministry of Home Affairs

PMU Project Management Unit Pokja Kelompok Kerja

- Working Group

PosKo Pos Komando - Command Post

Posko Pos Komando - Sub-district (Fire) Command Centres

PPKHL Pusat Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan - Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (see also PUSDALKARHUTLA)

PSC Project Steering Committee PUSDALKARHUTLA Pusat Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan

- Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (see also PPKHL)

Rp. Rupiah (the Indonesian currency) SATKORLAK Satuan Koordinasi Pelaksanaan (Penganggulangan Bencana dan

Penanganan Pengungsi) - Coordination Unit for Implementation (Handling Disasters and Refugees)

SATLAK Satuan Pelaksanaan (Penganggulangan Bencana dan Penanganan Pengungsi) - Implementation Unit (for Handling Disasters and Refugees)

SCKPFP South and Central Kalimantan Production Forest Project Sekda Sekretaris Daerah

- Executive Secretary of Local Government SFA State Forest Areas

- Kawasan Hutan Negara (KHN) SFM Sustainable Forest Management SNRM Sustainable Natural Resources Management SNRMC SS Sustainable Natural Resources Management Consortium of South

Sumatra (NGO consortium) Sonor rice cultivation system in peat-swamp areas where fire hazards are

particularly severe SOP Standard Operation Procedures SSFFMP South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (the EC project under

review) SSFFMP South Sumatra Forest Fire Project (EC funded) Suaka Alam Nature Reserve Sumsel Sumatra Selatan

- South Sumatra ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainers UPJA Unit Pelaksana Kerja

- village level implementation groups


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page vi

Executive Summary a) Introduction SSFFMP operates in the forestry and natural resources management sector which is going through a very difficult time in Indonesia. Despite these circumstances, at its mid-point the project already has some notable achievements to its credit. It nonetheless faces some major challenges to achieving the kinds of impacts and outcomes that will ensure sustainability. The present mid-term evaluation identifies these challenges and makes suggestions for appropriate project responses. b) Notable Project Achievements

• Project management at provincial and district levels fully operational. • Institutional coordination for fire management at province level supported. • Village-level fire fighting initiated. • Fire information system initiated and overall public awareness raised. • Rural development incorporating gender issues initiated. • Land management strategies to foster more effective fire management approaches

initiated. • Human resources development under way. • Policy advocacy successful.

c) Project Relevance

• The project has incorporated the general conditions of the FA in the Overall Work Plan. The FA allowed for sufficiently flexible interpretation. But there has been a tendency for the project to take on too many activities and set overly-ambitious targets. Unfortunately, the FA did not emphasise monitoring of project impacts and therefore project achievement have been largely measured in terms of output delivery rather than outcomes towards achieving the projects purpose.

• In some respects, the project has failed in practice to bring about convincing beneficial impacts described in the FA. For instance, there has been poor adoption of trained fire fighting capacity at the village level because of an overly technical approach without sufficient follow-up.

• In light of the progress of the project to date and of changing circumstances since project design, such as democratisation and decentralization of governance and government administrations, some project changes are warranted to meet FA requirements. Decentralisation developments following on from Law 22 since 2001 have been both supportive and threats.

• Project goals are consistent with EC policy for supporting Sustainable Natural Resources Management, specifically reducing deforestation and protecting community livelihoods dependent on forest and land resources.

• The project is in line with major national priorities. d) Project Design

• The project was designed taking into account the decentralization law of 1999. It

has not been unduly constrained by decentralization developments since law 22 of 1999.

• At national level, there was apparently satisfactory collaboration between GoI and EC during the design and preparation stages of the project. There are some


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page vii

indications, however, that provincial and district counterparts and other stakeholders were insufficiently involved at this stage.

• In general the project's FA was well designed and internally consistent. However, this design was limited to the intervention logic. The FA did not develop a full logical framework. Overall and Annual workplans are comprehensive well-developed in participation with counterparts.

• The overall workplan of the project established a logical framework matrix, subsequently further developed in the Annual workplans. However, since their Objectively Verifiable Indicators are comparatively weak, that is not easily measurable, monitoring and evaluation, especially of project impacts and outcomes, is rather difficult.

• The logical framework approach of the project did not develop indicators for measuring outcomes and impacts that are important for developing more relevant and appropriate future activities to address the purpose of the project.

• Overall and annual workplans are comprehensive and well-developed with participation of the project's counterparts. However, the logical framework approach did not sufficiently elaborate indicators for measuring outcomes and impacts that are important for developing more relevant and appropriate future activities to address the purpose of the project.

• The project has taken into account counterpart institutional roles and capacities as partners in implementation. However, the project design did not include counterparts in the agricultural sector which is responsible for most of the fires.

• The present institutional and legislative framework for the forestry sector is suitable to enable the achievement of project objectives, within one notable exception - zero burning.

e) Efficiency

• The project approach to achieving Overall Objectives has (a) over-emphasised fire fighting rather than fire management and, as a result, has had minimal impact on actual fire incidence, has had (b) poor association between Community Development/Gender action and fire use at the village level, and has (c) failed to group villages in a way which would ensure effective inter-village communication to fight fires during high fire risk periods.

• EC administrative procedures (e.g. plans, progress reports, consultancy approvals, tenders and release of funds) have been overly demanding, resulting in significant delays in project implementation. However, the situation has improved over the past year.

• Communication between the project, government institutions, the EC Delegation and EC Brussels is effective in co-ordinating the project and the overall project strategy.

• Project target groups: (a) initially the Ministry of Agriculture and its agencies were not major counterparts, even though most fires occur in agricultural land; (b) at the village level, risks of elite-capture are not being sufficiently identified and mitigated; (c) failure to target for project interventions agricultural and rural small-scale business enterprises that use fire.

• Monitoring and evaluation systems have been used to guide project implementation as far as project inputs and outputs are concerned. The M&E system lacks measurement of outcomes and impacts of the delivery of project outputs.

• The continuing process of devolution of responsibilities between central and local governments affected project’s efficiency, but has been neutral in terms of likely medium and long term effects as far as project implementation is concerned.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page viii

f) Effectiveness

• Close contacts between the project with counterpart institutions and other stakeholders at all levels have been established and strengthening the feeling of ownership is in progress, sustainability aspects notwithstanding.

• Institutional capacity has been significantly improved. However, this is a continuing process and will have to be finally assessed at the end of the project. The project's management structure is an effective means of achieving the planned objectives, provided there is better integration among its component activities. The technical expertise is not as effective as it might be, because of lack of understanding and integration between project components.

• The project counterparts and other stakeholders are relatively well-integrated into project implementation through the Multi-stakeholder Fora (MSF) and their working groups. There is a good spirit of co-operation between the project and the Ministry of Forestry at the central level, and other GoI institutions at the provincial and district levels which translates into efficient delivery of outputs.

• Monitoring and evaluation of project progress have largely been restricted to measuring inputs and outputs but have not included measurements of impacts and outcomes. Therefore, the project is so far hardly assessing the degree to which it achieves its purpose.

g) Impact

• Although there has been some institutional impact at the provincial and district levels, there is little indication of a reduction of fire events at the village level. On the other hand, the fire information system and fire awareness campaigns have certainly reached beyond the circle of immediate beneficiaries of the project.

• The project has influenced policies and programmes, e.g. it has been instrumental in the establishment of the Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (PUSDALKARHUTLA) and the MSF, and in allocating budgets to the MSF.

h) Potential Sustainability

• Assuming that the five results of the project have been achieved to a significant degree, the following conclusions can be drawn: o Without post-completion budget, support project results are unlikely to outlast

the project; o Stakeholders will continue to apply effective fire management if it provides

direct benefits to them; o Increased capacities in land and natural resources management will only

continue as long as this provides direct benefits to the communities; o It is not clear whether fire monitoring agencies will have an interest to focus on

impacts and outcomes of their programmes after the project's end; o Neither is it certain that civil society and government agencies will continue to

promote policy reform related to fire management after the project ends. • The above sustainability issues will remain a concern, as long as the project does

not consider and initiate appropriate exit strategies. • Under its present fire fighting approach, an extension of one to two years, will not

change the fundamental shortcomings of the limited impact at the field level. On the other hand, should the project adopt a broader, more comprehensive fire management approach, an extension could be considered.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page ix

i) Lessons Learned and Conclusions COMPONENT 1: Fire Management

Lessons to Date

Despite being a major project purpose, fire management at the village level has been reduced to fire fighting. The MSF was initiated with the intention of being a (necessary) forum for policy dialog and guidance but has become more of a (successful) project management and implementation support unit at the district level, leaving unmet the requirements for a genuine multi-stakeholder forum.

Conclusions The project cannot achieve its purpose when continuing under the current approaches to fire management. Fire fighting training alone cannot satisfactorily address the project purpose of improved fire management. Underlying issues of traditional fire use have to be integrated with fire fighting to achieve proper fire management. A genuine multi-stakeholder “forum” is still needed to complement PUSDALKARHUTLA development, (a) providing it with inputs, (b) receiving input from it and (c) increasing the agency’s accountability

COMPONENT 2: Fire Information System & GIS

Lessons to Date

The Fire Information System (FIS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have proven to be very useful tools at national and provincial level. There is however no assurance of information flow down the established structure and mechanisms to the lower administrative levels. Lesson from FFPCP (or "Phase 1" of SSFFMP) - it is better to outsource information management than to try to build, maintain and rely upon project-procured sophisticated equipment which would be required for remote imagery.

Conclusions The Fire Information System is one of the project’s success stories but its sustainability is not yet assured. The FIS is however not optimal in as much as it is not yet influencing field level outputs.

COMPONENT 3: Rural/Community Development

Lessons to Date

Not all activities that reduce time in land preparation will necessarily reduce the incidence of fire. The project assumes that fire hazards is a major threat and therefore takes on priority importance in the community.

Conclusions Community Development interventions are poorly integrated with respect to the overarching theme of proper fire management. Current income generating rural/community development activities and provision of inputs can not assure a reduction of fire use.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page x

Whether these activities are regarded as alternative or additional to current practice is uncertain.

COMPONENT 4: Gender

Lessons to Date

“Gender awareness” fails if the programme is based only on a 'women in development' approach. Current activities focus mainly on income generation, not on empowerment.

Conclusion Income generating activities are poorly integrated with respect to proper fire management.

COMPONENT 5: Land Use Planning

Lessons to Date

Land use Planning (LUP) has only a small impact when not fully integrated into fire management and rural/community development activities. LUP does however provide benefits that the project had not anticipated.

Conclusion LUP must be better integrated with fire management and community development action to influence fire use.

COMPONENT 6: Public Fire Awareness

Lessons to Date

There appears to be positive effects and influence on fire awareness at all levels particularly at the provincial and district levels, but this is difficult to measure qualitatively.

Conclusion

Public fire awareness campaigns work well now but depend on continuing engagement at all levels of project intervention.

COMPONENT 7: Policy Advice

Lessons to Date Persistent and appropriate lobbying at relevant administrative levels is successful.

Conclusions The project succeeded in achieving substantial policy impact. Post-project effectiveness and sustainability of presently supported institutions remain uncertain. Continuing and appropriate lobbying at relevant administrative levels pays off.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page xi

COMPONENT 8: NGO Support Lessons to Date

NGO trained and employed but without being a significant partner in actual project implementation, especially at the village level. NGOs perceive that they are regarded as project staffs rather than partners.

Conclusion

Sub-optimal engagement of NGO.

COMPONENT 9: Project organisation and partnerships Lessons to Date

Integration of project components requires much more effort than just planning for it.

Conclusion

Better integration is essential if the project is to achieve its objectives. j) Recommendations

1. Guiding project principle o Explicitly adopt the guiding principle of “Better Burning” instead of “Zero

Burning”.

2. Re-allocation of resources for spatially-relevant fire management o Realign project from fire-fighting emphasis to integrated fire management; o Cluster fire management villages for more effective impact.

3. Results-driven project approach at village level

o To achieve any impact and sustainability of the fire management programme, address both the traditional use of fire and fire fighting jointly.

o Initiate strategic longer-term engagement with village communities for bringing about systematic and institutionalized fire management.

o Incorporate fire management into fire fighting team approaches. o Intensify engagement with selected priority villages and better target

interventions on poor households as main beneficiaries. o New economic activities under the community development and gender

components to be approved only when contingent on critical assessment of their appropriate linkages to fire use behaviour.

o Phase out community development and gender component activities that do not meet at least one of these conditions.

4. Vertical and horizontal linkages

o Support the establishment of practicable feedback information flows among villages, the Command Posts (PosKo) and the project's FIS.

o Maintain project emphasis on the PUSDALKARHUTLA’s roles and responsibilities for collaborating institutions.

5. Learning from project impacts to achieve sustainability

o Establish measurable objectively verifiable indicators to measure project impact and outputs.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page xii

o Conduct impact and outcome assessments of project interventions. o Establish lessons learned based on the implications of the above impact and

outcome assessments. o Design and initiate exit strategies incorporated into strategic decision-making

and planning. o Consider Impact Assessments, Lessons Learned and Exit Strategies within

the annual AWP and six-monthly progress report processes.


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Page 1

1. Background 1.1 General EC's South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (SSFFMP) forms part of the EC Indonesia Forestry Programme (ECIFP) which, under the current Country Strategy Paper (CSP 2002 - 2006) included six major projects/programmes, aimed at the development of forest and natural resources management in Indonesia. These are, (i) the Leuser Development Programme (LDP), (ii) the South and Central Kalimantan Production Forest Programme (SCKPFP), (iv) the Forest Liaison Bureau (FLB), (v) the Illegal Logging Response Centre and (vi) the South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (SSFFMP). The first three of these projects/programmes were completed by the end of 2004. SSFFMP is based in the province of South Sumatra as a successor to the earlier Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project (FFPCP) which was implemented in the same province from 1995 into 2001. A bridging phase covered the years 2000 until 2002. The new SSFFMP commenced implementation in January 2003. The main reasons for selecting South Sumatra province for forest fire management interventions were its large fire prone areas, its contribution to the occurrence of haze due to smoke from peat fires, the proximity of neighbouring countries that are first affected by smoke haze (Malaysia and Singapore), and the rapid conversion of natural forests to plantation and smallholder agriculture. Other forest fire management projects have been or are currently implemented at national level and in Kalimantan. 1.2 The Project SSFFMP operates in a forestry and natural resources management sector which is going through a very difficult time in Indonesia. Deforestation, forest conversion into plantations, illegal logging, forest fires, community conflicts with regard to land allocation, poor governance, unclear and sometimes contradictory general policy development, including an unclear and sometimes contradictory legal and regulatory system and poor enforcement, are major threats to the sustainability of natural resources (see also the ECIFP Review Mission Report). As part of ECIFP, SSFFMP addresses central issues to reduce the disastrous effects forest fires have had in the past, and will have in Indonesia and neighbouring countries in the future. Among the effects of land and forest fires are the destruction of large forest and land areas, haze and smoke affecting not only Indonesia but also neighbouring countries, and the accelerated large scale depletion of natural resources and biodiversity. The project's approach applies fire prevention and fire fighting through community-based fire management at local level, and assists in the establishment of effective and efficient fire prevention and fire fighting command structures at provincial, district and village levels. The Financing Agreement for SSFFMP between the European Community and the Government of Indonesia was signed on 20 December 2001. The total cost of the project is estimated to be 8,957,000 EURO with the EC commitment of 8,500,000 EURO. The project started in January 2003 for the duration of 5 years.



The project consists of five components. These are: (i) Rural Institutional Development; (ii) Fire Management; (iii) Participatory Planning for Sustainable Natural Resources Management; (iv) Fire Monitoring; and (v) Policy Advocacy.

The PMU is jointly headed by a full time Indonesian Co-director and a European Co-director. Both Co-directors have joint and equal authority for the management of the Project. The overall objective of SSFFMP is to establish a system for the rational and sustainable management of the country’s land and forest resources based on a decentralised mechanism involving all concerned stakeholders. The project purpose is to aid and facilitate the establishment of a co-ordinated system of fire management at provincial, district, sub-district, and village levels throughout South Sumatra in which the local communities, private sector companies and government agencies work together to reduce the negative impact of fire on the natural and social environment. Expected results of the project are:

• institutional conditions created to allow the implementation of effective fire management;

• stakeholders enabled to organise and apply effective fire management mechanisms in their area;

• capacities created and initiatives supported to bring land and natural resources under sustainable management;

• government and non-government organisations supported to establish systems to monitor the impact of improved fire management on the environment and people; and

• government agencies and civil society supported to shape policies and organisational structures in such a way as to promote sustainable natural resource management that includes effective fire management.

2. The Approach of the Mission In accordance with the project's Financing Agreement and since SSFFMP is in the middle of its implementation period, an evaluation of its achievements was scheduled to start in the middle of 2005. 2.1 Beneficiaries The Terms of Reference of the Mid-Term-Review identify the following beneficiaries of the mission: (a) project stakeholders, including local communities, the private sector and involved local government agencies; (b) the Ministry of Forestry as Executing Authority; (c) the Governor’s Office of South Sumatra and its Provincial Forestry Services (Dinas Kehutanan) in Palembang, South Sumatra as implementing agencies; and as others (d) the Project Steering Committee, the Project Coordination Committee and other relevant government institutions in Palembang and the Districts in South Sumatra.



2.2 Mission Objectives 2.2.1 Global Objectives The mid-term review of the project was to assess project implementation, its achievements and its overall situation, and to recommend improvements for the remaining course of the project. As a result of the review, the mid-term review also recommends action to be taken by the Executing Agency, the Implementing Agency or by the EC. 2.2.2 Specific Objectives The mission was to provide a critical assessment of the project using the following aspects:

• relevance and quality of design of the project; • efficiency of implementation to date; • effectiveness to date; • impact to date; • potential sustainability; and • lessons learnt and recommendations for the future.

For a more detailed description of these different aspects of the analysis, please refer again to the respective part of the ToR of the mission in Appendix 1. 3. Project Implementation Set-up The team's approach has a double focus. On the one hand this is an assessment of the relevance, adequacy and quality of project preparation and of the original project design and the other aspects mentioned above. On the other hand, the mission assesses the project's achievements and weaknesses and obstacles faced during project implementation. Both lead to recommendations for necessary adaptations and improvements in terms of project steering for the remaining implementation period and beyond, with particular reference to the outcomes, impact and sustainability of project interventions. The intervention logic of the project was established in the Financing Agreement and elaborated in the logical framework of the Overall workplan (OWP) and the subsequent, so far three, annual workplans (AWP). Objective or Goal of the Project: Establish a system for the rational and sustainable management of the country’s land and forest resources. Project purpose is defined as: Aid and facilitate the establishment of a coordinated system of fire management at province, district, sub-district and village level throughout South Sumatra in which local communities, private sector companies and government agencies work together to reduce the negative impact of fires on the natural and social environment. The Project's Results or Outputs are grouped into five result areas: Result 1: Institutional conditions created to allow the implementation of effective fire

management. In short: "Institutions for Fire Management" Result 2: Stakeholders enabled to organize and apply effective fire management

mechanisms in their area. In short: "Stakeholders enabled for Fire Management".



Result 3: Capacities created and initiatives supported to bring land and natural resources under sustainable management. In short: "Land Management Competence and Capacities".

Result 4: Government and non-government organizations supported to establish systems to monitor the impact of improved fire management on the environment and people (gender-issues, livelihood, income, etc.), and the results of the work placed in the public domain. In short: "NGOs for Monitoring Fire Impact on People and Environment".

Result 5: Government agencies (at the national, provincial and district levels) and civil society supported to shape policies and organizational structures in such a way as to promote sustainable natural resources management that includes effective fire management. In short: "Government and Non-Government Organisations for SNRM, Including Fire Management".

According to the FA, these five results are to be achieved through the implementation of five project components, namely:

Component 1: Rural Institutional Development (links to results 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Component 2: Fire Management (links to results 1 and 2). Component 3: Participatory Planning for Sustainable Natural Resources Management

(results 3 and 5). Component 4: Fire Monitoring (links to results 2 and 4). Component 5: Policy Advocacy (links to results 1 and 2).

These five components can be further grouped into three distinct strategic aims:

(i) Training and community development to encourage effective fire management at the village level (components 1, 2 and 4).

(ii) Improving land management in support of better forest fire management at the village level (components 3 and 5).

(iii) Widely disseminated information about fire risk and incidence to all stakeholders, including village communities, plantation companies, local government and civil society organisations (component 4).

4. The Mid-Term Evaluation Approach For the purpose of the project assessment the mid-term review mission structured the above intervention logic and the implementation components under nine aspects:

(i) Fire Management (government institutions down to village level): o fire management at all administrative levels, province, district and sub-

district; o vertical linkages; o fire fighting teams; and o horizontal links, intra- and inter-village.

(ii) Fire Information Systems & GIS: o province-wide; and o project village use.

(iii) Rural/Community Development: o identification and assessment of conditions and potentials; o linking needs and benefits to fire use behaviour; and o identification and implementation of activities.

(iv) Gender Issues (at all levels): o gender awareness, gender sensitive interventions, advocacy and

mainstreaming; and



o identification and implementation of activities. (v) Land Use Planning:

o fire management links; o spatial planning; and o other uses.

(vi) Public Fire Awareness: o project partners; and o province wide, general public.

(vii) Policy Advocacy: o national level; and o provincial, district and village levels.

(viii) NGO Support: o NGO collaboration and support; and o NGOs and project implementation.

(ix) Overall Project Structure and Organisation. 5. Notable Achievements to date Before going into the details of the mission's assessment of the above nine aspects, the more important achievements of the project to date are highlighted below:

• Project management at provincial and district levels operational: o Multi-Stakeholder Fora at district level and related Working Groups in the

three participating Districts operational; o participative planning processes for preparation of annual work plans

initiated; and o collegial and productive relations with counterparts established.

• Institutional coordination for fire management at province level supported: o fire monitoring and awareness at all levels increased; o fire fighting capability from provincial down to at the village levels initiated;

and o institutional structures, e.g. development of a cross-sectoral Centre for

Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (PUSDALKARHUTLA), Multi-stakeholder Fora (MSF) and associated working groups established, and mechanisms for fire co-ordination, communication and information, both in vertical and horizontal terms of governance supported.

• Village-level fire fighting initiated: o practical training of fire fighting teams in over 200 villages executed and

equipment provided; o 11 villages reached for priority development attention related to fire fighting;

and o village-wide awareness raising of the fire hazards.

• Fire information system initiated and overall public awareness raised: o up-to-date information on fire risk and actual hotspots disseminated widely;

and o mass media and upper levels of District and Provincial government reached.

• Rural development incorporating gender issues initiated: o gender awareness and women’s opportunities increased; o rural development and alternative income generating activities (gender

based) at the village level initiated; o income generating activities popular with village participants; and o Land Use Planning processes at the village level initiated.



• Land management strategies to foster more effective fire management approaches initiated:

o Land Use Planning turned into a window (berkaca) on land conflict and fire problems; and

o cross-district initiative for integrated peat management for strategic cross-sectoral approach to fire management supported.

• Human resources development under way: o human resources development in local government, NGOs and village

communities supported, through a wide range of training opportunities related to development of the above initiatives.

• Policy advocacy successful: o despite the complex and contradictory array of political, economic, social and

technical issues surrounding forest and land fires it is recognized, and counterparts quietly acknowledge that “better burning” (though still illegal) is a more realistic development goal in the short and medium term than “zero burning”; and

o successful policy advice for national, provincial and district policy decision making, e.g. in terms of national budget provisions for villages that fund fire fighting, PUSDALKARHUTLA and MSF established.

6. Assessments of Project Components and Sub-components 6.1 Fire Management – technical and institutional support Summary of progress to date: Project-driven fire management in the field depends upon the training and equipping of a fire fighting team in each of 350 villages across the three project districts. The development of District Command Centres or Pos Komando (PosKo) is intended to integrate the fire fighting teams with the fire information system (see next section) and other institutions such as the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) at the district level as well as the provincial Centre for Controlling Forest and Land Fires (PUSDALKARHUTLA) and its planned district extension. To date across the three project districts, about 200 fire fighting teams and 2,000 individuals have been trained. Seven PosKo’s will have been established by the end of the year. The MSF with constituent Working Groups (Pokja), has been established and is funded by District budgets with project support. PUSDALKARHUTLA has been established by Governor’s decree. 6.1.1 Village-based Fire Management and Fire Fighting Teams EFFICIENCY

Fire fighting and associated training has been regarded as being central in developing a community fire fighting capability that will reduce the negative effect of fires on the natural and social environment. • The project design and implementation has been efficient in addressing this

component primarily through two day practical training programmes in selected villages located throughout the province of South Sumatra.

• The course content is technically appropriate, ranging from fire fighting techniques to first aid, and well organised in its overall implementation. In terms of fighting land fires experienced in South Sumatra, the project has selected the most appropriate techniques and methodologies for training local communities.

• Application of an across-the-board fire fighting methodology has enabled the project to efficiently complete its OWP and AWP outputs.



• Fire fighting tools manufactured in South Sumatra Province have been donated to every village that has been trained (ten persons to every village team).

Awareness raising, in terms of the projects fire fighting training programme, fire awareness campaigns and newspaper exposure, has been high within the stakeholders and beneficiaries at all administrative levels. This has ensured that the project’s activities have been accepted and implemented as intended.

The project has been successful in finalising an agreement with the Ministry of Forestry to establish three national fire brigade (Manggala Agni) stations in the project's priority districts.

EFFECTIVENESS

The effectiveness of the current approach is difficult to evaluate when alternative approaches to fire management have not been considered. • The main focus of the project has been centred around fire fighting as the means

to reduce the negative impact of fire on the natural and social environment. It has not considered improvement of traditional use of fire by the rural communities as a key issue to fire management.

• The project’s approach has therefore addressed the result, rather than the cause of fire. Without linking cause and result, the overall effectiveness of the project achieving its purpose is significantly reduced.

• Improved fire management and control of fire practice, although not having the same short term impact and awareness generating effect as fire fighting, will in the long term, have a greater chance of success in reducing the potential threat of fires.

Local community fire teams, including women, have been trained in fire fighting techniques. Fire fighting equipment and tools are now made locally, a pre-requisite to standardising and improving effectiveness and efficiency of the fire fighting capacity within the province.

While the training programme has been regarded by the project as being the best entry point and start up for the project, it is too short in duration for participants to fully understand the important aspects and techniques of fire fighting including first aid. • Refresher or follow up training once a year is far too long an interval for fire teams

to maintain a satisfactory level of ability and competency to deal with fire fighting. The short duration of the training course and lack of engagement with the beneficiaries on a regular basis significantly lowers the effectiveness to achieving project purpose.

• The notion that fire teams cannot be trained outside real land fires is not justified and likened to training of soldiers only when there is a war.

• Similarly, maintaining a high level of awareness, on the negative effect of land fires at the community level in those villages that have had training, will require more regular and well timed interventions from the project.

Despite the trained teams socialising their own experiences in the villages where they reside, there is no observed use of the fire fighting tools for additional training or in the high risk fire season when padi fields are established initially using fire to clear vegetation.



• Community based fire management has, in the opinion of the review team, been considered by the project as fire fighting activities only.

This perception is further endorsed by the observation that in “priority villages”, where a more integrated approach to community development has been undertaken, fire fighting tools have also not been used during establishment of padi fields where fire risk is at its highest. • The association between fire fighting and better practice has not been realised by

the community, leading to the point that the training to date has been more of a symbolic act rather than a practical aid to reducing the potential and therefore negative impact of fire. This might have, nevertheless, contributed to some kind of "awareness creation".

The association between traditional fire use and fire fighting is extremely important. This has been further endorsed by the conversion of the forest into large open grass lands that are very vulnerable in the dry season. • In this situation, fires can rapidly get out of control and travel across the

grasslands without being arrested.

The lack of use of project-donated tools during traditional fire use is also indicative for the fact that fire fighting does not appear to be such a high priority in the communities, as the project anticipated, and goes a long way to explaining the low overall effectiveness in actively addressing this project purpose. • Clearly behavioural matters have to be addressed before change can occur within

the community. This has to be done through a process of continual engagement of the project with the community to improve the efficiency of achieving the project purpose.

The project has not reached all the possible stakeholders and beneficiaries in developing its fire programme. • Representation of other fire risk rural livelihoods such as brick kilns and charcoal

production has not been included in the programme and reduces the effectiveness of the outputs and achievement of project purpose.

This weakness also begs the question of how fallow land, that has no real value to the communities, will be covered by fire fighting teams in case of fires. • Currently, fire fighting relies on voluntary support. However, attending to fires

outside community owned land will require some form of incentive to compensate individuals that would otherwise be carrying out their usual work. Some kind of insurance might also have to be considered in case of possible fire fighting casualties.

• The Manggala Agni programme will provide some measure of fire fighting support for areas where there is access by road and or boat. This programme does have staff to man their posts but will rely heavily on the community teams for support.

Project support to the Provincial Forestry Department has, without doubt, raised the awareness of the need for, and interest in, fire fighting among all the stakeholders and beneficiaries they are working with. • There is a definite perception by the review team that fire awareness has been

increased.



Sanctions against the inappropriate use of fire have been promoted by the project and applied as a deterrent among community members. • The amount and type of sanction has been determined by the community itself.

IMPACT

The project has made good progress into raising awareness of fire and its negative impact on the natural and social environment among the stakeholders and beneficiaries it works with. • However, without engaging all possible stakeholders and beneficiaries (e.g. small

enterprises using fire, like brick- and charcoal-makers) in the project's activities, the overall long term impact will be limited.

• While the project has succeeded in raising awareness and interest in fire fighting in the short term, continuous engagement with the communities on the substance of fire and related issues is required if long term impact is desired. Impact is very much dependent on longer term engagement.

The project has not yet linked this activity to the underlying issues that cause fire, in particular traditional use of fire to prepare padi fields and focuses at the cure rather than combining it with preventative approaches. • Without looking at both issues in relation to community behaviour and priorities,

long term impact on fire suppression is limited. It is essential that traditional fire use be improved to be able to accommodate the new situation in which communities find themselves. Without addressing this issue, impact will remain very low.

Without the project making some planned approach to provide remuneration to community fire teams that are called up to fight fire both within and, more importantly, outside their community domain, impact maybe restricted to perhaps the immediate areas around the village.

SUSTAINABILITY

Project goals are overly ambitious and unrealistic to be achieved in the remaining project time. • In terms of fire fighting, almost all 2,600 villages will have to train and maintain

fire fighting teams if the community is to be an effective force in reducing the negative impact of fire on the natural and social environment in the Province of South Sumatra. Sustainability cannot be considered without the project linking fire fighting to traditional fire use. This has to be done through “behavioural change” with respect to the communities and how they perceive fire and its use within their social conditions, a pre-requisite to developing the frame work conditions in which sustainability is possible.

Underpinning the notion of sustainability is the need for some form of compensation/remuneration for fire teams to attend fires within and more importantly, outside their own domain. • Community members are far less likely to participate in the long term, if the

reward for doing so is less than what is being earned from traditional livelihoods. The project needs to become involved in discussions with the responsible institutions, to initiate some form of remuneration (incentives/insurance) for fire teams that is sufficiently attractive to encourage (and safeguard) those team members who wish to participate in fire fighting.



6.1.2 Horizontal Links: intra- and inter-village EFFICIENCY

The establishment of fire fighting teams has been relatively efficient but institutionally isolated.

The fire fighting training and equipment, however, has proceeded without sufficient emphasis on linking the teams to village governance institutions and to everyday traditional fire management.

Even less effort appears to have been expended on linking all neighbouring fire fighting team villages and all non-project villages into an overall area-wide fire management system.

EFFECTIVENESS

Lacking systematic training and capacity-building for intra- and inter-village institutional integration, the effectiveness of the fire fighting teams is seriously constrained.

Trained and equipped fire fighting teams are generally perceived by villagers as separate project institutions requiring additional and external support to function. • Widespread lack of use of equipment and any follow-up team practice indicate a

failure to integrate the teams into existent village governance (LKMD, LMD, BPD) or adat institutions.

• Nonetheless, the fact that equipment is not misused but carefully (if ineffectively) stored, might indicate respect for the project.

• A limited sense of “ownership” at grass-roots village level in fire-fighting is indicated by the reluctance of teams to take action without payment. Opportunity cost and risks are obviously seen as high.

The potential for increasing “ownership” through improvement and integration of existing traditional institutions for fire management by the villagers themselves is ignored by the project. • Dryland rice and tree-crop replanting fires have traditionally been managed in a

way to prevent fire escape to neighbouring plots, e.g., burning several farm plots at the same time by a group of farmers who make fire breaks and burn against the wind. Nonetheless, as witnessed by the review team, inefficiencies of this system can result in destructive escape fires, e.g., when individual farmers working alone do not create a wide-enough fire break. Village fire management norms could be strengthened, e.g., farmers reporting their burn plans, accepting more responsibility for escape fires, fire teams at the ready, a fire fighting/management fund from villager contributions (topped up initially by the project), etc.

• “Sonor” rice practices are more problematic but also amenable to better burning approaches, e.g., village agreements to prevent inter-village spread.

There is no active fire fighting links among neighbouring villages, even among villages with trained fire fighting teams, let alone the project's "priority villages". • Given the intra-village institutional weaknesses, it is not surprising that inter-

village collaboration is lacking. • Inter-village collaboration is particularly important in peat areas where the “sonor”

rice cultivation fires generally cross village boundaries.



IMPACT In the absence of institutional integration of fire fighting teams inside villages and practicable efforts to link neighbouring project and non-project villages in a fire management systems, wider impacts beyond project boundaries are unlikely.

SUSTAINABILITY

Given the limited extent of current intra- and inter-village integration and institutionalization of the current fire fighting training approach into a wider fire management cum community development approach, and the absence of exit strategies, the continuation of project-promoted appropriate fire use at the village level, after the end of the project, is unlikely.

6.1.3 Vertical Links: to sub-district, district and province EFFICIENCY

Command Centres (PosKo) that link villages where fire fighting training has been implemented are an important project-supported activity that perhaps does receive sufficient project resources. • Although in their early stages and difficult to assess in their actual reach, PosKo

development will require intensive project attention if they are to succeed. The same project component in charge of fire fighting training refresher training will also be in charge of linking up to the PosKo. This may result in over-extension.

Multi-Stakeholder Fora (MSF) do not yet function as fora for policy coordination and advocacy, civil society participation and policy development. • As effective and institutionalized as they are at the district level, the MSF are

essentially a project management instrument and an efficient means of delivering project outputs.

• Strongly identified with the project by local government and other partners, they are not, however, much-needed fora per se, i.e., a place or institution where issues of public concern can be discussed or decided, designed to invite discourse among a wide range of stakeholders, some of whom might be in conflict with each other (see as reference, for instance, Longman's Modern English Dictionary).

Various institutional alternatives have been considered by the project for essential inter-institutional collaboration. • The project has strived to find the right institutional arrangement for effective

coordination. None of the sectoral services are able to coordinate other service agencies because of their widely differing and sometimes contradictory mandates and overlapping spatial domains, e.g. the Agriculture and Forestry Service.

• Bapedalda as a cross-sectoral environmental agency would appear a logical choice as a coordinating agency but typically is not sufficiently equipped, manned and respected by sectoral service agencies.

• The Disaster Coordination Agency (BAKORNAS) at national and its Citizen Unity and Community Protection Units (Kesbanglinmas) at provincial level, which are in charge of disaster management and mitigation, appear logical host institutions but have not placed fire as a central disaster issue. The Coordination Unit for Implementation of Handling Disasters and Refugees (SATKORLAK) and the districts' SATLAKs for focusing on specific disaster problems, have not proven to be effective fire management institutions.



• Given experience in East Kalimantan, Riau and Jambi, the project settled on the provincial Centre for Control of Forest and Land Fires (PUSDALKARHUTLA) as the most promising institution for fore management coordination.

PUSDALKARHUTLA is currently the best alternative as a much-needed cross-sectoral agency to coordinate fire management efforts, especially fire suppression during very dry years. • It is too early to gauge PUSDALKARHUTLA’s efficiency and effectiveness. The

project is supporting efforts to structure the organization in a way that will promote efficiency by avoiding sectoral domination, e.g., placement of a cross-sectoral agency such as Bapedalda in the key secretariat role, unlike the present Centre for Control of Forest and Land Fires, (PUSDALKARHUTLA) structure. (Hence, the review team agrees with Option 1 for the structure of the PUSDALKARHUTLA as the better alternative, see Hoffman, Part 3 2005).

EFFECTIVENESS

Command Centres (PosKo) at the sub-district level are unlikely to be effective unless practical and institutional fire management problems raised above are resolved. • Although in the early stages, the prospects for PosKo development are not

promising as long as the problem of poor post-training adoption of fire fighting techniques remains unresolved.

• There appear to be weak linkages between the PosKo and the present Fire Information System.

High expectations for the contribution of Manggala Agni to fire control may not be realised. • National budget allocation to South Sumatra amounting to Rp 30 billion for 2005

will allow the establishment of two operational areas (DAOP) in each of four districts, each DAOP consisting of four fully-equipped 15-man fire fighting teams with road travel capability.

• The fire-fighting approach will be modelled after that of the SSFFMP, yet another indication of project success at influencing counterpart institutions. Also, three of the four Districts selected are project districts.

• But bearing in mind actual project impacts on fire behaviour and the scale of fire problems, especially in El Niño years, the capacity of this well-intended initiative to have an impact on fire in the selected Districts is not assured.

• A further problem is that Manggala Agni provides funding for year 2005 only and continuing funding from local government budgets is not yet ascertained. Therefore, long-term sustainability is questionable.

IMPACT

PUSDALKARHUTLA, the best if imperfect inter-institutional fire management agency. • Effective fire management in South Sumatra (and the rest of Indonesia) is unlikely

if reliant upon project approaches, except in the early stages. Recognising this, the project has rightly put a great deal of effort in finding long-term institutional arrangements to sustain fire management efforts.

• The project has thoroughly explored the institutional options concluding that each is problematic. The Forestry, Estate Crops and Agriculture Services (Dinas Kehutanan, Dinas Perkebunan, Dinas Pertanian) and the local governments Development Planning Agency (Bapedalda) are either too sectoral or too weak at present. SATKORLAK/SATLAK and Kesbanglinmas have long existed on paper but are also comparatively weak. Furthermore, fire is not high on their agenda.



• After due analysis and consideration the project has promoted PUSDALKARHUTLA at the provincial level as currently the most credible cross-sectoral Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control. The best current choice is far from ideal but neither is there the option of striving and waiting for the establishment of an ideal institution - the fires will not wait.

• PUSDALKARHUTLA has been established in other provinces such as Riau with different set-ups as far as the roles of collaborating institutions is concerned, e.g., either Bapedalda or (as in South Sumatra) Dinas Kehutanan in the influential secretariat position. It would be important to track experiences and exchange information in a lessons-learned approach.1

• An interesting indication of PUSDALKARHUTLA’s potential effectiveness is the effort of sectoral interests to control it.

SUSTAINABILITY

The District-level Multi-Stakeholder Fora for forest and land fires (MSF) with their working groups is unlikely to be an institution that outlasts the project. • The MSF through the Working Groups (Pokja) reaches the project villages.

However, MSF is essentially a misnamed project management unit, useful to project implementation certainly, but not a policy dialog forum per se. As such, it is unlikely to survive the end of the project.

• The Fora's great success at obtaining district government funding through the local budget (APBD) is nonetheless a credit to the project which sets it apart from many other projects in the forestry sector.

• One option may be to remove the MSF's project approval role and to extend its membership and keep it as a forum for dialogue to improve understanding and trust among stakeholders.

6.2 Fire Information System Summary of progress to date: The project’s Fire Information System (FIS) widely disseminates up-to-date information on fire risk and actual hotspots. The FIS currently reaches mass media and upper levels of District and Provincial government. EFFICIENCY

Timely dissemination of daily fire hotspot information to a wide range of stakeholders directly or through the website has been established. Useful fire risk maps have been produced.

EFFECTIVENESS

Up to date fire information is efficiently and widely-disseminated. • Hotspot information processed and provided by the project is made readily

available to counterparts who also inform the Governor if needed. At the time of the Mid-term Review, government counterpart staff, were able to respond to the Governor’s requests for more detailed information about hotspot development in Riau.

• Fire information is posted on the project website and made available to mass media and other public communication systems.

• Imagery is clear and informative.

1 As PUSDALKARHUTLA is also developed at the District level (where it may be more effective), it is hoped that the unwieldy

acronym PUSDALKARHUTLADAH will be avoided.



• Records of which companies are breaking no-burning rules are made available, awaiting the time when the rule of law can run its course. Hotspot transparency undoubtedly constrains some fire setting by large companies.

There is no active link yet between the FIS and village-level decision-making about fire fighting. • No active link yet between the project’s FIS output and the PosKo’s through to the

trained villages. IMPACT

Given the accessibility of information and the political importance of fires, the FIS has unquestionably provided benefits beyond the immediate orbit of project partners.

SUSTAINABILITY

No clear strategy is in place for how the present FIS will be maintained after the end of the project. • There is the sobering reminder of the NOAA installation set up by the earlier

Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project (FFPCP, 1995 into 2002) which fell into disrepair after the end of the project. To their credit, project counterparts decided to rely upon alternative satellite information sources for daily hotspot information that are less prone to post-project breakdown, e.g., Indonesia’s Space Agency (LAPAN), Singapore’s Meteorological Services (MSS), and the Ministry of Forestry's (JICA-supported) NOAA set-up.

6.3 Public Fire Awareness Summary of progress to date: Awareness creation and advocacy for the prevention of land and forest fires has been efficient, resulting in policy review and development, and institutional strengthening and new structures have been set up, or are in the process of being created, especially concerned with forest and land fire prevention and control. This all is a dynamic ongoing process supported by a continuing dialog. EFFICIENCY

The project is pragmatic in promoting fire awareness through its fire fighting training, communication with government institutions and the general public. It has developed an wide array of campaign posters and brochures on the subject of fire.

EFFECTIVENESS

At the provincial and national levels the project has provided significant inputs into awareness raising and information distribution that has certainly promoted purpose of the project. At district level long term awareness will depend on consistent interventions by the project.

IMPACT

Public awareness has reached beyond the immediate beneficiaries of the project. SUSTAINABILITY

The FIS system will not outlast the end of the project unless there is continuing funding for which there is no explicit provision yet. Similarly, at the village level, awareness is very much dependent on regular interventions by the project and its counterparts.



6.4 Rural/Community Development Summary of progress to date: The project's community development interventions at the grass-roots level focus on fifteen "priority" villages selected in the three participating districts. The project has currently community action in eleven of the fifteen targeted villages. The projects income generating skills training, production input and implements provision and marketing support are very popular with the participating villages. EFFICIENCY

SSFFMP is essentially a fire management and fire fighting, not a rural or community development project. The Rural/Community Development Component, like the Gender and Landuse Planning Components were designed to support Community Based Fire Management (CbFM). How to integrate the different community oriented components under the overall scheme of fire management is a major challenge of the project. Initially the priority villages were identified and selected after a general socio-economic survey in fire prone areas in the three participating districts. On this basis, rapid appraisals of the economic, social, cultural and socio-economic conditions in ten villages per district were carried out. These villages were again identified in cooperation with local government. Based on the results of the rapid appraisals and in accordance with established criteria and corresponding rankings, the number of participating villages was reduced to five villages per district. A grouping or "clustering" of these villages, originally suggested by the project, would have been an advantage, not least in terms of logistics and because fire hazards do not stop at a single village's border, but the district governments decided to widely spread the benefits of project interventions. Project interventions in the priority villages are rather compartmentalised: • Fire fighting and control teams and LUP groups were set up and trained in these

villages at an early stage, quite in advance of the commencement of community development and gender action.

• This was seen as a separate effort and not as closely integrated in the overall community development effort. The groups and their training was, thus, not part of an overall community development approach.

• Community based fire management (CbFM) just reflects the fact that fire fighting and prevention is a local affair and that the local population should be involved in its implementation. It was, as such, quite obviously not seen as an integral part of a wider community development approach.

• Gender awareness creation and support to female community members are seen as distinct project interventions and appear not to be an integral part of an overall community approach.

EFFECTIVENESS

Improved forest and land fire management at the village level is not perceived as an umbrella and overall objective for project interventions at the village level. A sound understanding of traditional fire use in the villages and its integration into an overall community mobilization approach does not seem to feature strongly. Since the linkage with improved forest and land fire management is weak, one might wonder whether the villagers might see this central issue of the project, and the benefits the project provides in terms of support to income generation, as a quit pro



quo (you give me support in our socio-economic development and we will, in return, follow your fire management schemes). The project targets village communities as such for its community development programme. There seems to be little acknowledgement of the internal social and socio-economic structure of the village communities. • Thus, the project is weak in targeting the poor, especially poor women and youth

in the villages (most probably assuming that everybody in a rural village is poor). • Project interventions at the village community level are prone to elite capture. A

comprehensive livelihoods approach should put much more emphasis on a longer-term engagement with the villagers in general and would target much more closely poor house-holds, and especially their women and youth, aiming at what is nowadays called empowerment.

• Without adequate targeting of the ultimate beneficiaries for project interventions in the villages, elite capture can not be prevented (examples for this are e.g. the - profit generating - agricultural machinery cooperatives and the fish farms).

The project claims that improved livelihoods through income generation will reduce the use of fire in the villages. • This assumption is, however, not proven. It might well be that the benefits drawn

from income generation might be seen as additional means of livelihood, not alternative ones.

The link between proper fire use and income generating activities for women and women groups is even weaker. • A more intensive and long-term engagement at the village level, e.g. on the basis

of a (two-way) Learning and Action approach (as extended and continuing PRA is called nowadays), targeting mobilizing and empowering poor households in the villages, and especially their women and youth, so as to enable them to take their households decision making into their own hands and to stand up and speak out in village affairs. After all, it is poor households who will resort to the use of fire for instance in land preparation due to limited resources in terms of labour and other assets.

• This comprehensive approach could well integrate an assessment and development of fire use, fire fighting, landuse planning and income generation.

• For this longer-term engagement and the mobilization of disadvantaged groups in the villages, NGOs could be used more intensively. NGO members are interested to collaborate with the project in such a way.

IMPACT

The community development component of the project is, due to its income generating interventions (e.g. through vocational training and input supply), quite popular in the priority villages. The link between improved forest and land fire management (including fire fighting), gender awareness and action, and general income generation is weak. The project's interventions are, by and far, compartmentalized into "sub-projects".

SUSTAINABILITY

There will be no lasting impact of the project without better integration of the project's components under the forest and land fire management umbrella, intensified



engagement at the village level and, better targeting and mobilization of the poor as main beneficiaries.

6.5 Gender Summary of progress to date: Awareness creation of gender issues and gender mainstreaming in terms of policy development and advocacy in general, and in civil society, is a major component of the project at provincial and district levels (including the MSF). Gender based income generation is, in addition, a main component of project interventions at the village level. EFFICIENCY

It is not quite clear, and difficult to measure without adequate monitoring (based especially on qualitative indicators), in how far general gender awareness creation and gender mainstreaming focuses specifically on gender issues in forest and land fire management, or whether it remains in the general political sphere. Community interventions of the gender component of the project emphasize "awareness creation" of both men and women in the villages and one might wonder in how far this newly acquired awareness of gender issues will actually translate into a change in behaviour, again with both men and women.

EFFECTIVENESS

Without a comprehensive approach in mobilizing (and "empowering" - memberdayakan) the beneficiaries, especially poor households in the villages (and their women and youth), project support at the village level will be limited. Increased effectiveness can only be achieved through a long-term and continuing engagement with both men and women at the village level. • In general it appears that the approach of the project towards gender issues at

the village level is rather conventional and follows "women in development lines" (providing support in income generation for women), rather than being based on the more comprehensive socio-economic (and political) empowerment of women in all aspects of village life. On the other hand, with its income generation action in the villages, the project has become quite popular in the priority villages, both with male and female villagers.

• The project relies very much on the engagement of, and cooperation with, civil society elites at provincial and district levels (for instance the ladies leading the Family Planning Programme (PKK). The same holds true, it appears, also for village level interventions where women from the village elites seem to be instrumental for achieving the project's objectives. Elite capture of the benefits of project action can not be ruled out under such conditions.

IMPACT

If increased awareness of gender issues at the level of policy decision making and in everyday social live, e.g. at the village level, does not translate into measurable changes in actual policy in the public sphere and in changes in actual behaviour, no positive impact of the gender component of the project can be expected. There appears to be little concern for monitoring and assessing the actual results and outcomes of project interventions in the field of gender awareness and mainstreaming.



SUSTAINABILITY Efforts in awareness creation for gender issues and in gender mainstreaming are very much dependent on the project itself and on the collaboration of project counterparts and stakeholders in local government, the MSF and the NGOs. • Whether these efforts can be sustained beyond the end of the project is, thus,

very much dependent on a lasting commitment of the future political and administrative environment, setting policy priorities, especially in terms of a continuing commitment to these issues and on adequate funding of activities. In cooperation with the project's government counterparts and civil society stakeholders, the project will have to establish exit strategies to support longer term sustainability of project interventions after the project ends.

6.6 Land Use Planning (LUP) Summary of progress to date: LUP component implementation is in its early development stages and under way in five villages only. It is however proceeding by a methodical and participative approach with links to district government spatial planning activities. EFFICIENCY

As the project recognizes, ideally initial LUP processes should have preceded the community development and gender work. • Even so, now they should proceed in close integration with relevant Community

Development and Gender activities as well as fire fighting team development. • But it is not yet clear how LUP feeds into fire management and related Community

Development and gender.

Spatial planning has a much wider development agenda than fire management, raising the question of priorities. • Is the primary goal sustainable land resource management or is that a means

towards a fire management end? This question must be clearly answered and understood by project component managers and counterparts.

The value of spatial planning might be questionable. • Villages with fire fighting training and land use planning action are so few in

number as to have little meaning for a spatially more comprehensive planning process. If they are intended as examples of village-based natural resource planning to illustrate the value of this approach, complementing top-down technical approaches, arguably one village per district would suffice.

EFFECTIVENESS

The risk of raising community expectations is too high. • The process of village land use map approval and incorporation into district spatial

planning processes is unclear. This brings the risk of raising village expectations about the legitimacy of their land use claims in contrast to those of, say, a plantation company, e.g., the problem of overlapping land claims of PT. SBA and villagers practicing “sonor” rice cultivation.

Village boundary setting is the most valued part locally. • The village boundary setting component of the LUP process may be more highly-

valued than the land use aspects.



• As such it could offer a highly effective entry point (without the land use development aspect) for villages in “sonor” area clusters as a well as a means of establishing inter-village responsibility.

• Clearly, the more villages are involved in boundary setting, the lower the inter-village transaction costs per village.

IMPACT

The impact of LUP will depend on which of the many possible directions it will take. A more demand-driven approach is preferable, e.g. • focusing on village interest in village boundary demarcation and Bappeda interest

in land problem solving. • In either case, linkage to fire management needs to be prominent.

SUSTAINABILITY

There is no clear exit strategy for LUP. 6.7 Policy Advocacy Summary of progress to date: The project was successful in influencing national, provincial and district policy-making, e.g. in terms of national budget provisions for villages that fund fire fighting, establishment of PUSDALKARHUTLA and MSF. EFFICIENCY

Pragmatic better burning rather than zero burning should be advocated and applied. • Despite the complex and contradictory array of political, economic, social and

technical issues surrounding forest and land fires, it is recognized, and counterparts quietly acknowledge, that “better burning” (though still illegal) is a more realistic development goal in the short and medium term than “zero burning”.

EFFECTIVENESS

The project has been successful in influencing provincial and district policy-making, as documented in the establishment by decree of PUSDALKARHUTLA and the MSF.

IMPACT

The project has been successful in influencing national policy-making, e.g. it was close to efforts in successfully lobbying for national budget provisions for villages that fund fire fighting. • The greater challenge of land re-classification is probably beyond the project’s

reach but may nonetheless be worth pursuing in future, as may the challenge of obtaining policy recognition for a role for better burning as a step on the way to revoking or modifying zero burning principles.

SUSTAINABILITY

The continuation of action in terms of the objectives of the project will dependent, in part, upon the sustainability of PUSDALKARHUTLA and the MSF after the end of the project.

6.8 NGO Support Summary of progress to date: The project has successfully strengthened the involvement of civil society, especially local NGOs active in the sustainable natural resources



management sector, to the point where it supported the formation of a province-wide consortium of smaller local NGO committed to this purpose. Collaboration and communication is very close. The project even provides facilities in its premises to accommodate the secretariat of this consortium. EFFICIENCY

The continuous dialog with, and support to, local NGOs has substantially strengthened civil society participation in natural resources management in general, and fire management in particular, especially in the three participating districts. • NGOs are used as an important instrument for public awareness creation and civil

society advocacy. • Emphasis, however, is rather on advocacy and policy development than on

developing capacities in terms of community based action. • Occasional visits to the priority villages are mainly concentrating on the monitoring

of project interventions and on (short-term) awareness creation and training inputs and advice.

EFFECTIVENESS

NGOs have a limited role in the MSF, especially in terms of policy decision making. They participate, however, in the working groups under the MSF, coordinating and supervising project implementation at the village level. • Little consideration has been given so far to the employment of NGO members in

a longer term engagement at the village level with the aim of improving the livelihoods especially of poor village households, and for the mobilization and empowerment of these households (and especially their women and youth).

• The involvement of NGO members in the delivery of village level project interventions is so far limited to assist in the delivery of awareness creation and training (landuse planning, community development in general and gender issues in particular).

The partnership with NGOs is limited in as much as their potentials as community based development motivators and facilitators at the grass-roots level are not used. Their role in community empowerment efforts is therefore not yet fully utilized.

IMPACT

The project was instrumental in strengthening the NGO sector in South Sumatra, especially in the field of sustainable natural resources and fire management. • NGO members feel that they are treated as staffs of the project rather than

partners in project implementation. SUSTAINABILITY

The current engagement of NGOs in natural resources and fire management might not be sustainable beyond the end of the project. Sustainability of their active involvement in these fields, and especially in field level action, working with the local communities, and their role in the MSF, will very much depend on future funding, either from local government budgets or from other sources.

6.9 Project Organisation and Partnerships Summary of progress to date: The project has succeeded in achieving set outputs and results as defined in the FA. Working in close cooperation with Central Government institutions (especially with the Ministry of Forestry, the National Planning Agency and the



office of the State Ministers for the Environment), and in South Sumatra Province with Local Government at provincial level (especially with the Governors Office, Provincial Forestry Service, the Provincial Environmental Impact Control Agency), and at district level (especially with the District Head's Office, the District Forestry Service and the District Environmental Impact Control Agency) in the three districts identified for project implementation, the project has established workable structures and communication to deliver on its objectives. EFFICIENCY

SSFFMP has benefited from being the fact that it has been identified and developed after the process of decentralisation had been initiated. • This has enabled the project organisation and management to be much more in

line, and therefore better equipped, to assimilate and integrate into current government bureaucracy and administration. As a result, co-ordination and links between and within institutions responsible for fire has been well established. Multi-stakeholder Fora (MSF) in the three participating districts have also been established to address policy and advocacy issues related to the project purpose (the above critical assessment notwithstanding).

The Financing Agreement (FA) between the EC and GOI has not elaborated a full logical framework for the project, just an intervention logic. Thus, the FA should have allowed the development of detailed action in the OWP and AWPs to be a little more flexible in terms of activities, results and outputs. • The lack of indicators in a proper logframe matrix in the FA should have led to

better and more realistic planning of project activities and, in the end, to a system of properly measurable and objectively verifiable indicators.

The OWP and AWPs have been developed with the responsible stakeholders through a series of workshops form district level upwards. Results and their respective achievement indicators have been established and changed three times in an attempt to make them more realistic with respect to impacts and outputs. • The project's achievement indicators, adapted and revised several times, are, as it

stands now, not always properly measurable and objectively verifiable, or, in short, they are not always quite SMART2.

The project has a well established project management and administration system to implement project activities.

EFFECTIVENESS

The projects effectiveness in dealing and cooperating with its counterparts and stakeholders is good and appreciated by all parties involved. • Project management and administration is effective in implementing project

activities, but appear to be centred more on individual TA experiences than needs and requirements as allocated in the AWPs. Its effectiveness toward meeting an integrated approach to achieving the project purposes tends to be sub-optimal since the sub-project components remain compartmentalised, particularly in areas where component activities overlap, especially at the village level.

The project has effectively monitored its outputs against inputs. • Impact and outcome based assessments are envisaged to be established this year.

Adequate achievement indicators would be a precondition for such an effort. 2 that is Specific (and Simple), Measurable, Achievable (and Attainable, Accurate), Relevant (and Reasonable, Replicable)

and time-bound (timed).



The relationships between counterparts and stakeholders has been good and very much valued by all, particularly those at the provincial and national levels.

The MSF, although established as policy and advocacy fora, act more as co-ordinating and implementing extensions of the project. The NGO members of these fora are perceived more as project staffs than partners. • This is also due to insufficient empowerment to enable NGOs to participate in

decision making. Efficiency will be increased when appropriate training courses are initiated this year.

The MSF is exclusive of already established institutional structures and mechanisms. • It is not quite clear as to whether the MSF will be integrated into existing

institution or closed down when the project ends. The MSF are efficient as fora for coordinating and supporting project activities. However, in terms of what it has been designed and established to do, the MSFs efficiency is not satisfactory and certainly limited to the duration of the project.

Community representation at fora and meetings is through the NGOs. • There is, however, also a mechanism for members of participating village

community representatives to meet with each other. This is regarded as being very effective in terms of exchanging experiences and ideas at the horizontal inter-village level.

7. Overall Findings A Project Relevance

• The project has incorporated the general conditions of the FA in the Overall Work Plan. The FA allowed for sufficiently flexible interpretation. But there has been a tendency for the project to take on too many activities and set overly-ambitious targets. Unfortunately, the FA did not emphasise monitoring of project impacts and therefore project achievement has been largely measured in terms of output delivery rather than purpose outcomes.

• But the project has failed in practice to bring about some beneficial impacts described in the FA. Thus, there has been poor adoption of trained fire fighting capacity at the village level because of an overly-technical approach without sufficient follow-up.

• In light of the progress of the project to date and changing circumstances since project design, such as democratic governance and decentralisation developments, some project changes are warranted to meet FA requirements. Decentralisation developments following on from Law 22 since 2001 are both supportive and threats. o While the Ministry of Forestry's (MoFr) involvement has become less

important to local decision-making about forestry land management, the district executive and parliament (DPRD) has become more influential for policy advocacy. Thus, the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) was established at the province level.

o Recent increasing emphasis on the imperatives of foreign investment may undermine efforts to empower communities for fire management, shifting emphasis to large-scale development. Community empowerment may become more important but also more difficult.



• Project goals are consistent with EC policy for supporting Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). Specifically reducing deforestation and protecting community livelihoods dependent on forest and land resources.

• The project is in line with major national priorities, in particular: o decentralization of natural resources management; o fire control is a major national concern not least due to international pressure;

and o support of efforts to minimise forest and land fires.

B Project Design

• The project was designed taking into account the decentralization law of 1999. The project has not been unduly constrained by decentralization developments since law 22 of 1999.

• At national level there was apparently satisfactory collaboration between GoI and EC during the design and preparation stages of the project. There are some indications, however, that provincial and district counterparts and other stakeholders were insufficiently involved at this stage.

• In general the project's FA was well designed and internally consistent. However, this logical framework design was limited to the intervention logic. The FA did not develop a full logical framework. Overall and Annual Workplans are comprehensive and well-developed in participation with counterparts.

• The overall workplan of the project established a logical framework matrix, subsequently further developed in the Annual Workplans. However, since their Objectively Verifiable Indicators are comparatively weak, that is not easily measurable, monitoring and evaluation, especially of project impacts and outcomes, is rather difficult.

• The logical framework approach of the project did not develop indicators for measuring outcomes and impacts that are important for developing more relevant and appropriate future activities to address the purpose of the project.

• The project has taken into account counterpart institutional roles and capacities as partners in implementation. However, the project design did not include counterparts in the agricultural sector which is responsible for most of the fires.

• The present institutional and legislative framework for the forestry sector is suitable to enable the achievement of project objectives, within one notable exception - zero burning.

C Efficiency

• The project approach to achieving Overall Objectives has: o Over-emphasised fire fighting rather than fire management and, as a result,

has had minimal impact on actual fire incidence; o There appears to be poor association between Community

Development/Gender action and fire use at the village level; o The project did not succeed to group villages in a way which would ensure

effective inter-village communication to fight fires during high fire risk periods. • EC administrative procedures (e.g. plans, progress reports, consultancy approvals,

tenders and release of funds) have been overly demanding, resulting in significant delays in project implementation. However, the situation has improved over the last year.

• Communication between the project, government institutions, the EC Delegation and EC Brussels is effective in co-ordinating project and overall project strategy;

• Project target groups:



o Initially the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and its agencies were not major counterparts, even though most fires occur in agricultural land;

o At the village level, risks of elite-capture are not being identified and mitigated;

o The project did not target for project interventions agricultural and rural small-scale business enterprises that use fire.

• Monitoring and evaluation systems have been used to guide project implementation as far as project inputs and outputs are concerned. The M&E system lacks measurement of outcomes and impacts of delivery of project outputs.

• The continuing process of devolution of responsibilities between central and local governments affected project’s efficiency and what are the likely medium and long term effects has essentially been neutral as far as project implementation is concerned.

D Effectiveness

• Close contacts between the project with counterpart institutions and other stakeholders at all levels have been established and strengthening the feeling of ownership is in progress, sustainability aspects notwithstanding.

• Institutional capacity has been significantly improved. However, this is a continuing process and will have to be finally assessed at the end of the project. The project's management structure is an effective means of achieving the planned objectives, provided there is better integration among its component activities. The technical expertise is not as effective as it might be, because of lack of understanding and integration between project components.

• The project counterparts and other stakeholders are relatively well-integrated into project implementation through the MSF and its working groups. There is a good spirit of co-operation between the project and the Ministry of Forestry at the central level, and other GoI institutions at the provincial and district levels which translates relatively efficient delivery of outputs.

• Achievements have largely been restricted to measuring inputs and outputs but have not included measurements of impacts and outcomes. Therefore, the project is not monitoring the degree to which it achieves its purpose.

E Impact

• Although there has been some institutional impact at the provincial and district levels, there is little indication of a reduction of fire events at the village level. On the other hand, the fire information system and fire awareness campaigns have certainly reached beyond the circle of immediate beneficiaries of the project.

• The project has influenced policies and programmes, e.g. it has been instrumental in the establishment of the Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (PUSDALKARHUTLA) and the MSF, and in allocating budgets to the MSF.

F Potential Sustainability

• As it is now there is complimentary with GOI policies and project objectives, results and activities. However, a strict adherence to the zero-burning policy undermines project sustainability as well as impacts.

• The project is not thoroughly embedded in institutional structures at different levels of government, but does have a significant role in developing appropriate institutional structures and mechanisms for better implementation of a fire management programme.



• In view of the wide-spread non-use of the fire fighting technology, sustainability is highly questionable. There are no indications that the fire information system will survive after the end of the project, unless budgets will be provided from the local government side.

• There is an extensive involvement of local communities, NGOs and local government agencies. However, this could be further improved with representation by the communities in planning and monitoring the project activities.

• The activities that were planned to continue after project completion will be financially sustainable, provided the government maintains appropriate fire policies and budgeting for implementation.

• The following resources will be a potential benefit to the communities after the closure of the project: o Knowledge of fire fighting; o Fire fighting equipment; o Any financially profitable community development/gender activities are likely

to continue; o Some villages will have less conflicts with neighbouring villages and

plantations where there has been successful participative boundary setting (under the Landuse Planning component).

• Effective replication of the project by the counterpart institutions is very much dependent on close collaboration amongst the responsible institutions. The greatest limiting factor is the will and the capacity of very different institutions with different mandates to work together (e.g. forestry and agriculture services). Continuity in the policy framework with respect to fire management if a further prerequisite.

• Assuming that the five results of the project have been achieved to a significant degree, the following conclusions can be drawn: o Without post-completion budget support project results are unlikely to outlast

the project; o Stakeholders will continue to apply effective fire management if it provides

direct benefits to them; o Increased capacities in land and natural resources management will only

continue as long as this provides direct benefits to the communities; o It is not clear whether fire monitoring agencies will have an interest to focus

on impacts and outcomes of their programmes after the project's end; o Neither is it certain that civil society and government agencies will continue to

promote policy reform related to fire management after the project ends. • The above sustainability issues will remain a concern, as long as the project does

not initiate consideration of appropriate exit strategies. • Under its present fire fighting approach, an extension of one to two years, will not

change the fundamental shortcomings of lack of impact at the field level. On the other hand, should the project adopt a broader, more comprehensive fire management approach, an extension could be considered.

8. Lessons Learned and Conclusions COMPONENT 1: Fire Management

Lessons to Date • Despite being a major project purpose, fire management at the village level has

been reduced to fire fighting.



• The MSF was initiated with the intention of being a (necessary) forum for policy dialog and guidance but has become more of a (successful) project management and implementation support unit at the district level, leaving unmet the requirements for a genuine multi-stakeholder forum.

Conclusions • The project cannot achieve its purpose when continuing under the current

approaches to fire management. • Fire fighting training alone cannot satisfactorily address the project purpose of

improved fire management. Underlying issues of traditional fire use have to be integrated with fire fighting to achieve proper fire management.

• A genuine multi-stakeholder “forum” is still needed to complement PUSDALKARHUTLA development, (a) providing it with inputs, (b) receiving input from it and (c) increasing the agency’s accountability.

COMPONENT 2: Fire Information System & GIS

Lessons to Date • The Fire Information System (FIS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

have proven to be very useful tools at national and provincial level. There is however no assurance of information flow down the established structure and mechanisms to the lower administrative levels.

• Lesson from FFPCP (or "Phase 1" of SSFFMP) - it is better to outsource information management than to try to build, maintain and rely upon project-procured sophisticated equipment which would be required for remote imagery.

Conclusions • The Fire Information System is one of the project’s success stories but its

sustainability is not yet assured. The FIS is however not optimal in as much as it is not yet influencing field level outputs.

COMPONENT 3: Rural/Community Development

Lessons to Date • Not all activities that reduce time in land preparation will necessarily reduce the

incidence of fire. • The project assumes that fire hazards is a major threat and therefore takes on

priority importance in the community.

Conclusions • Community Development interventions are poorly integrated with respect to the

overarching theme of proper fire management. • Current income generating rural/community development activities and provision

of inputs can not assure a reduction of fire use. • Whether these activities are regarded as alternative or additional to current

practice is uncertain.

COMPONENT 4: Gender Lessons to Date • “Gender awareness” fails if the programme is based only on a women in

development approach.



• Current activities focus mainly on income generation, not on empowerment.

Conclusion • Income generating activities are poorly integrated with respect to proper fire

management.

COMPONENT 5: Land Use Planning Lessons to Date • Landuse Planning (LUP) has only a small impact when not fully integrated into fire

management and rural/community development activities. • LUP does however provide benefits that the project had not anticipated.

Conclusion • LUP must be better integrated with fire management and community development

action to influence fire use.

COMPONENT 6: Public Fire Awareness Lessons to Date • There appears to be positive effects and influence on fire awareness at all levels

particularly at the provincial and district levels, but this is difficult to measure qualitatively.

Conclusion • Public fire awareness campaigns work well now but depend on continuing

engagement at all levels of project intervention.

COMPONENT 7: Policy Advice Lessons to Date • Persistent and appropriate lobbying at relevant administrative levels is successful.

Conclusions • The project succeeded in achieving substantial policy impact. Post-project

effectiveness and sustainability of presently supported institutions remain uncertain.

• Continuing and appropriate lobbying at relevant administrative levels pays off.

COMPONENT 8: NGO Support Lessons to Date • NGO trained and employed but without being a significant partner in actual project

implementation, especially at the village level. • NGOs perceive that they are regarded as project staffs rather than partners. Conclusion • Sub-optimal engagement of NGO.



COMPONENT 9: Project organization and partnerships Lessons to Date • Integration of project components requires much more effort than just planning

for it. Conclusion • Better integration is essential if the project is to achieve its objectives.

8.1 In Sum: In many ways the project is already aware of the above lessons and conclusions but has yet to act on them comprehensively and with appropriate determination. This is indicated by the following quotes, taken from the second project report on institutional development for integrated fire management in South Sumatra (Hoffmann 2005, page 7; emphasis added):

The focus must be given not only to eliminate fire but rather to introduce and educate the controlled and sustainable use of fire for agricultural purposes. Fire management is a matter that has to be dealt with not only during the dry (fire) season. While fire suppression activities are needed, they are only effective if embedded in an integrated program with the right institutional set-up and involvement of all stakeholders through educational and fire prevention/fire-use programs.



9. Recommendations The following recommendations may initially be considered by the project as disruptive. Now entering into planning for the fourth year, the project has developed a modus operandi and modus vivendi that is familiar to staff and counterpart agencies. There will be understandable reluctance to adopt some of the recommended changes, particularly those that depart from the target/realisasi culture that is a feature both of government departments and the project consortium itself which has been commendably adaptive while attempting to remain consistent with the FA. Whether or not these recommendations are adopted will depend upon the “political project will” of staff and counterparts alike to become more impact and outcome oriented. The essence of the present recommendations is to ensure closer conformity with the FA’s purpose by re-orientating project implementation towards:

a) emphasising the importance of achieving beneficial project impacts and outcomes that survive the end of the project;

b) ensuring that delivery of planned outputs actually achieves the five project results of the FA; and

c) monitoring and responding to progress towards a) and b). 9.1 Guiding Project Principle

• Explicitly adopt the guiding principle of “Better Burning” instead of “Zero Burning”. o Zero Burning remains a long term goal, respected as regulations and law

require, and as demanded by Indonesia’s international obligations to ASEAN. o Better Burning however, is the pragmatic means towards integrated fire

management, recognizing local government attitudes and typical fire use by village communities, thereby,

o Open the way to work with villagers to improve their traditional fire use systems on the understanding of the long term goal, thereby,

o Gaining their trust that the project is sensitive to their needs and not simply trying to enforce a widely-unpopular (and unenforceable) anti-fire regulation.

o Laying the foundation for active collaboration to achieve more effective control all fires.

9.2 Re-allocation of Resources for Spatially Relevant Fire Management

• Project realignment to achieve fire management o Realign the project to allow more consolidation and integration of components

at the field level to achieve a critical mass of connectivity among fire fighting teams, existing governance institutions in FFT villages3, neighbouring FFT and non-project villages in well-defined areas (see also the clustering recommendation below), and to establish lasting linkages of these with the PosKo at sub-district level.

o Reduce the target for new FFT villages. Allocate saved resources towards such institutional connectivity and PosKo development.

3 FFT villages are villages where Fire Fighting Teams have been trained.



o Likewise for FFT+ villages4, ensure appropriate and explicit fire management integration with community and gender development activities (no new activities unless so linked, see below), and FFT+LUP villages 5 where land use planning can illustrate fire management issues.

o Reduce the 15 village target for FFT+ villages to the present 11 villages. Allocate saved resources to turning the FFT+ into “hub” villages for inter-village coordination as well as examples of integrated approaches to fire management, thereby assisting the goals of the PosKos. (Greatest reduction of new FFT villages should be in Banyuasin because it has comparatively lover fire risk than the other two districts).

o Adjust the AWPs accordingly through appropriate consultation with stakeholders. Focus all parties on project purpose and results, expressing concern that the present extensive approach may be insufficient to ensure sustainability and that a new consolidation, intensification and integration phase is warranted.

• Clustering of fire management villages for more effective impact

o Reduce the number of new FFT villages. o Reduce the number FFT villages receiving follow-up training except those in the

cluster areas where follow-up training is intensified. o Concentrate on focus cluster areas where all villages can be actively linked to

PosKos. o Cluster such FFT and non-project village areas at a relevant scale. The selection

of a geographically rational area may of necessity include some non-project village engagement. These could receive support from project-trained fire-fighting trainers.

o De-emphasise Banyuasin, hand over to project-trained trainers, no new FFT or FFT+ villages. Track impacts in hand-over areas to gain insights into exit strategies.

9.3 Results-Driven Project Approach at Village Level

• A fire management programme has to address both the traditional use of fire and fire fighting jointly if there is to be any impact and sustainability achieved. Zero burning and fire fighting is not the answer to developing fire fighting capacity in South Sumatra Province. Attention to fire management and its use in rural communities has to become an integral activity that complements the current fire fighting component of the project. Incentives also play an important role in developing sustainable fire management systems. There has to be some form of remuneration and/or insurance to compensate those who participate in fire fighting.

• Incorporate fire management into fire fighting team approaches. o Extend the better burning principle to fire fighting teams by including training

on how to support positive traditional fire use techniques. • Establish strategic engagement with village communities for bringing

about systematic and institutionalized fire management. o From the outset and during engagement, assure that all project interventions

are integrated under the overarching theme of fire management . 4 FFT+ villages are the project priority villages where Fire Fighting Teams have been trained and where the project's

community development programme is under way (or planned). 5 FFT+LUP villages are villages where Fire Fighting Teams have and Land Use Planning Teams have been trained and where

the project's community development programme is under way (or planned).



o Ensure that project components work together consistent with the needs of integration.

o Properly identify main partners and beneficiaries at the village community level.

• Support new economic activities under the community development and gender programme only if they are linked to changes in fire use behaviour. o Such activities should, (a) alter fire use either directly by changing land use

(e.g., conversion of grassland slash-and-burn to rubber smallholdings), (b) be alternatives to extensive land use (e.g., small enterprise development) or (c) be part of village-wide negotiated agreements (e.g., in return for project benefits, limiting “sonor” rice area, fire control in adjacent protected areas such as suaka alam).

o Suggested activities should be closely examined so as to ensure that they are not subject to elite capture discouraging wide collaboration with the project.

o Incorporating the above principles into support of new activities would add a much-needed objective tool to reduce the tendency for the project to propose more activities than can be managed effectively.

• Phase out existing economic activities under Community Development and Gender that do not meet at least one of these conditions. o Activities should be discontinued in a way that does not cause unacceptable

dissatisfaction among villagers. 9.4 Vertical and Horizontal Linkages

• Support the establishment of practicable feedback information flow among villages, PosKo and project FIS.

• Maintain project emphasis on PUSDALKARHUTLA’s role and measurable responsibilities for collaborating institutions. o Ensure links down to village level and o Between villages or village groupings or clusters.

9.5 Learning from Project Impacts to Achieve Sustainability

• As a precondition, further develop and revise the logical framework matrix of the project so as to establish objectively verifiable achievement indicators focussing on project impact and outcomes.

• Conduct a project impact evaluation of project interventions, assessing: o stakeholder attitudes and awareness about fire management and institutions,

especially the MSF and PUSDALKARHUTLA; o indications of MSF and PUSDALKARHUTLA decisions that directly impact fire

use in the field (apart from project-funded activities); o use of fire fighting practices in villages where training took place (taking into

account whether or not there has been any fire use since training), comparing also priority and non-priority villages, e.g. whether equipment used since the training, for what (parades, practice, actual fire fighting/management);

o whether there have been any changes in traditional fire use practices, including comparisons with neighbouring villages where there has been no training.

o explore use of Hotspot data as means of measuring a relationship with SSFFMP and Manggala Agni activities;



o document any institutionalisation of the fire fighting teams within village governance;

o actual connection between community development and gender activities and fire use either as alternatives to fire use, as part of the project, village agreements to reduce fire use etc.

• Establish exit strategies which are incorporated into strategic decision-making and planning.

• Impact and Outcome Assessments, Lessons Learned and Exit Strategies to be considered within the annual AWP and six-monthly progress report processes. o Although none of the above can be fully-functioning in time for the

forthcoming participatory planning for AWP IV (2006), time should be allocated at the planning meetings to discuss them and plan for their inclusion in future implementation, planning and progress reporting.

APPENDIXES


NR International - Successfully Managing Development Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

MID-TERM EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FROM THE MID-TERM REVIEW'S TOR



Appendix 1: Mid-term Evaluation Framework from the Mid-term Review's ToR

a. Relevance and quality of design of the programme

Relevance of SSFFMP is the extent to which the project correctly addresses the identified problems, specifically: • Assess whether the conditions of the FA have been met as these have been

interpreted and approved in the Overall Work Plan. • Assess the reasons for and the impact of any conditions that have not been met

in practice. • In light of the progress of the project to date, identify any problems that are

likely to arise during the lifetime of the project due to FA conditions being superseded by events, and make recommendations for such amendments and modifications that are necessary to bring the FA into line with the practical conditions under which the project is being implemented

• The Team will also review the policies and objectives of the EC as they relate to forestry sector and how this in turn relates to achieving the wider development policy objectives of the EC. This will enable the team to assess the relevance and impact of the project in achieving these goals;

• The mission should examine the shortcomings, as well as the strengths, of the identification, appraisal and implementation phases. The results of this will provide input to improve future project planning and implementation;

• Is the project relevant to the priorities of Indonesia and at provincial level; • Can the programme help solve the problems identified; • Complementarity and coherence with related activities undertaken by

government and other donors; • Impact of governance changes, particularly decentralisation, on resource

management; • The flexibility/adaptability of the overall SSFFMP and its constituent components

in responding to changed priorities and circumstances in the forestry sector and within GOI/Ministry of Forestry policy if any;

• Assess how the changes in decentralisation have been taken into account during project implementation.

Project design: Examine adequacy of programme preparation and to what extent the design has been undertaken as a collaborative effort between GOI and the EC, including: • Compatibility of national sector priorities with the project’s objectives. • To what extent this is reflected in the programming of Ministry of Forestry,

Bappenas and other major ministries or agencies involved. • Is the programme, and its components, realistic and internally consistent? • To what extent have different stakeholders been involved in the design of the

programme and its components? • To what extent have the implementation capacities of partner institutions been

taken into account? • Critically analyze and review the Overall Work Plan and Annual Work Plans

produced by the PMU and make recommendations for improvement in the future.

• Evaluate the suitability of the institutional and organisational setting as well as the main legislative framework for the forestry sector to achieve stated project’s objectives.



• Give an indication if the EU project guidelines and modes of delivery present best practices in development cooperation and allow an efficient and effective implementation.

• Check consistency of EU policies on PMU set ups in Indonesia and the handling of National Co-Directors issues.

b. Efficiency

Assess project’s achievement of overall objectives, purpose and results established in the Financing Agreement and the Overall and Annual Work Plans and assess whether all phases of the project have reached their targets. Progress shall be reported, as far as possible, following the structure of the OWP logical framework and reasons for any over – or under-achievement analysed. • Is the project’s approach to achieving the objectives adequate? • How suitable are the procedures of the EU in achieving project’s objectives in

Indonesia? • Is communication between the project, government institutions, the EC

Delegation and EC Brussels effective in co-ordinating project and overall project strategy?

• Is administration by the EC Delegation and EC Brussels supporting an efficient and effective implementation?

• Have the correct target groups/counterparts been identified through which to deliver project interventions?

• Have the monitoring and evaluation systems been used to guide project implementation and can this be improved?

• How has the continuing process of devolution of responsibilities between central and local governments affected project’s efficiency and what are the likely medium and long term effects?

• Make appropriate recommendations and identify any potential follow-up to improve the project outcomes.

c. Effectiveness

The efficiency of the project in terms of the overall monetary resources used and the results and outcomes generated. • How far the results of the project to date have been achieved and used by the

intended beneficiaries? • To what extent ownership of the project has been achieved at the different levels

of government and by other stakeholders? • To what extent has the project developed institutional capacity at local and

provincial level? • Assess and make recommendations as to the appropriateness of the project’s

management structure as a means to achieve the planned objectives. • Review the effectiveness of the technical expertise in the international and

national TA team and make recommendations for improvement, if necessary. • Assess the effectiveness of co-operation between the project and Ministry of

Forestry at the central level, and other GoI institutions at the provincial and district levels.

• How have the achievements of the project been measured and how has this information been used?

• How effective has the financial investment through the project been? • Are EU guidelines appropriate and cost effective for implementation of project

activities?



d. Impact The impact of SSFFMP in achieving the planned overall objectives contained in the log frames should be assessed. The wider project impact on enhancement of institutional capabilities must be considered and the impact on policy at different levels of government analysed including: • To what extent the planned, overall objectives have been achieved. • Has the programme had an impact on the wider number of potential

beneficiaries than just those targeted directly? • To what extent has the project influenced the policies and programmes of the

GOI and other donor agencies. • Whether the desired impact could have been better achieved in other ways? • An outline assessment of economic and social benefits generated by the project.

e. Potential Sustainability

It is very important to gauge to what extent the positive outcomes of the project are likely to continue after the project ends. The aspects that need to be taken into account are: • Complementarity of GOI policies and project objectives, results and activities. • The extent to which the objectives of the SSFFMP are embedded in institutional

structures at different levels of government. • Is the technology proposed by the project considered sustainable? • Review the level of involvement of local communities/NGOs and the local

administrations in planning, implementing and monitoring the project activities, and evaluate the extent to which the project is generating a sense of local ownership.

• To what extent will the positive outcomes of both projects (the first project hardly left any major impact to build on for the second project) continue after external funding stops?

• Are the activities that were planned to continue after project completion financially sustainable?

• What resources will be available to the community to continue after the project closure?

• Identify any problems that are likely to arise in term of replication/expansion of the project by the host institution, and highlight any potential limiting factors.

• Institutional sustainability including the degree of commitment of all parties involved, the extent to which the objectives of the project have been adopted by the different levels of government and whether institutions will be able to continue the work of the project after the project ends.

• Assess and make recommendations as to the potential sustainability of the results generated by the project.

• Give an indication if a project phase of five years is adequate to achieve the results and to guarantee sustainability or if an extension is needed to safeguard accomplishments.

f. Lessons learnt and recommendations for future

To the extent possible in a mid-term review, identify any lessons learnt for Brussels, the EC Delegation, the implementing Consortium and for major stakeholders that can be used in the design and implementation of any similar projects in the future.



APPENDIX 2

ITINERARY OF THE MISSION



Appendix 2: Itinerary of the Mission Mission Members: Dr. Joerg Hartmann, Community Development Specialist/Team Leader Chris Bennett, Institutional Development Specialist Tim Nolan, Forestry/Forest Fires Specialist The team leader of the mission held a briefing by phone with AIDCO Brussels on Wednesday, 27.08. The mission commenced with the arrival in Indonesia of the team leader Saturday night (30.08.2005). The first team meeting was held on Monday, 01.08. The team's briefing at the Delegation of the EC in Jakarta was held on Wednesday, 03.08. The SSFFMP European Co-Director was met in Jakarta on Thursday, 04.08. The team left for Palembang in South Sumatra Friday, 05.08. together with the Co-Director. First meetings with the TA team of SSFFMP and the Indonesian Co-Director were held on Saturday, 06.08. A field visit to the following villages in a tidal irrigation area were held on Monday, 08, and Tuesday 09.08.: Talang Lubuk Village, Muara Telang Sub-district, Banyuasin District (priority village); Terusan Tengah, Muara Telang Sub-District, Banyuasin District (fire fighting training village); Muara Telang Village, Muara Telang Sub-district, Banyuasin District (priority village Upang Jaya, Upang Sub-district, Banyuasin District (fire fighting training village); Meetings were held with cooperating researchers of the Lowland-Wetland and Coastal Area Data and Information Center), Sriwijaya University, cooperating with the project, and with the Head of Monitoring and Rehabilitation, Provincial Environmental Impact Control Agency on Wednesday, 10.08. Field visit to location of fire fighting training at Teluk Kecapi Village, Pemulitan Sub-district, Ogan Ilir District, also Wednesday, 10.08. Field visit to Ulak Kemang Village, Pampangan Sub-district, Ogan Komering Ilir District, a village in a peat-swamp ("sonor"-rice cultivation) area, and visit to local government institutions at Kayuagung, Ogan Komering Ilir District. Meetings with the District Head and the heads of several district level services on Thursday, 11.08.. Concurrently (the team split) field visit to Mangsang Village, Bayung Lincir Sub-district, Musi Banyuasin District, a hilly dry land farming area also on Thursday, 11.08. Participation in TA, counterparts and supervisors meeting at SSFFMP office in Palembang on Friday, 12.08. and again meetings with individual members of the TA team and with other stakeholder on Friday, 12.08. Final meeting and de-briefing of the mission with the TA team on Saturday, 13.08. Meeting at the Directorate for Forest Fire Control, Directorate General of Forest Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Forestry and with the Deputy for the Control of Forest and Land Damages, State Ministry for the Environment on Monday 15.08. Final meeting and de-briefing with the Head of Development Co-operation, EC Delegation and de-briefing at the EC Delegation on 19.08. Submission of draft mission report to the EC Delegation in Jakarta and end of the missions work in Indonesia, Monday, 22.08.



APPENDIX 3

PEOPLE MET AND INSTITUTIONS VISITED



Appendix 3. People met and institutions visited, MTR SSFFMP: Mission Members: Dr. Joerg Hartmann, Community Development Specialist/Team Leader Chris Bennett, Institutional Development Specialist Tim Nolan, Forestry/Forest Fires Specialist

Date Name, Function, Institution 03.08.05 Destriani Nugroho (Ms.) , EC Delegation Jakarta (Briefing) 04.08.05 Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP 05.08.05 Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP

Ir. Paul Kimman, Deputy-Co-Director, Land Use Planning & GIS, SSFFMP Djoko Setiono, Community Development Specialist, SSFFMP Dendi Satria Buana, Participatory Landuse Planning Specialist, SSFFMP Dr. M. Nicolas, DESS, Fire Management Specialist, SSFFMP Dr. Jan Wind, Environmental Management Consultant, SSFFMP Hairul Pansah, S.Hut., Fire Management Specialist, SSFFMP T. Marsoni, Fire Management Assistant, SFFMP

06.08.05 Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP Dodi Supriadi, Head of Provincial Forestry Service, South Sumatra Ir. H. Syamuil Chatib, MM., Head of Provincial Estate Crops Service, South Sumatra Achmad Taufik, Provincial Forestry Service (SSFFMP counterpart) Anung Ryanto, Estate Crops Protection, Provincial Estate Crops Service, South Sumatra

08.08.05 Meeting at Talang Lubuk Village, Muara Telang Sub-district, Banyuasin District (priority village), accompanied by Yandriani (Ms. ): Suni Nungcik, Village Head Kgs. Adul Kodir, Provincial Agency for the Assessment of Agriculture Technology (BPTP), contracted field trainer and supervisor of the Project Fauzi Matnur, Head of the village council Sumarni (Ms.), midwife and village motivator Yusuf, businessman Basri Nung, businessman Moch. Ilyas, businessman and head of the Landuse Planning Team (P3LP) and six (male) farmers

09.08.05 Meeting at Terusan Tengah, Muara Telang Sub-District, Banyuasin District: Mashama, Village Head

09.08.05 Meeting at Muara Telang Village, Muara Telang Sub-district, Banyuasin District (priority village): Amad Sahil, Village Secretary Wardah (Ms.), member of the working group IV of Banyuasin District MSF Condro, member of the working group IV of Banyuasin District MSF Anisah (Ms.), member of the Implementing Team of the Family Planning and Welfare Programme (TP PKK) Mayana (Ms.), member of the agricultural machinery cooperative group Romani (Ms.), member of the agricultural machinery cooperative group Bahusin, Fire Fighting Team Member Sidin, Fire Fighting Team Member

09.08.05 Meeting at Upang Jaya, Upang Sub-district, Banyuasin District: Kana, Fire Fighting Team Member Nurdin, Fire Fighting Team Member



Dahri, Fire Fighting Team Member 10.08.05 Ir. Paul Kimman, Deputy-Co-Director, Land Use Planning & GIS, SSFFMP

Dr. Robiyanto H. Susanto, Researcher, Pusat Data dan Informasi Daerah Rawa dan Pesisir (Lowland-Wetland and Coastal Area dta and Information Center), Sriwijaya University Ir. Bakri, M.S., Researcher, Pusat Data dan Informasi Daerah Rawa dan Pesisir (Lowland-Wetland and Coastal Area Data and Information Center), Sriwijaya University Ir. Gaib Bakri, Researcher, Pusat Data dan Informasi Daerah Rawa dan Pesisir (Lowland-Wetland and Coastal Area dta and Information Center), Sriwijaya University M. Zain Hasanal, SH, Head of Monitoring and Rehabilitation, Provincial Environmental Impact Control Agency visit to location of fire fighting training at Teluk Kecapi Village, Pemulitan Sub-district, Ogan Ilir District: Amir Hamzan Ilias, Head of Teluk Kecapi Village Amir Hanzah Husun, Head of Pelabuhan Dalam Village Junaidi Adam, Head of Ibul Besar Village

11.08.05 visit to Ulak Kemang Village, Pampangan Sub-district, Ogan Komering Ilir District (accompanied by Paul Kimman): Sudin, Village Secretary Rusla (Ms.), project motivator and leader of the "Tunas Harapan" Women's Group and around thirty farmers (including two women) meeting at Kayuagung, Ogan Komering Ilir District: Ir. Ishak Mekki, MM, Head of Ogan Komering Ilir District Ir. H. Fathony Shariff, MM, First Assistant Governance and Public Welfare, District Administration Ogan Komering Ilir and Chairman of Multi-stakeholder Forum Yohannes Hasiholan Toruan, Chairman Regional Planning Board, Ogan Komering Ilir District Ruslan Bhari, Head of Public Works Service, Ogan Komering Ilir District Ir. Rusidi, Head of Forestry Service, Ogan Komering Ilir District visit to Mangsang Village, Bayung Lincir Sub-district, Musi Banyuasin District (accompanied by Djoko Setiono): Matalim, Cattle Farmer Group member and community motivator Maryono, Fire Fighting Team member Dian Sari (Ms.), NGO OWA Indonesia, MSF Musi Banyuasin District

12.08.05 participation in TA, counterparts and supervisor meeting at SSFFMP office: Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP Vernon Copeland, Programme Manager Natural Resources, EC Delegation, Jakarta Ir. Paul Kimman, Deputy-Co-Director, Land Use Planning & GIS, SSFFMP Dr. M. Nicolas, DESS, Fire Management Specialist, SSFFMP Djoko Setiono, Community Development Specialist, SSFFMP Yandriani (Ms.), Gender Specialist, SSFFMP R.Z. Ramon. NGO Specialist, SSFFMP Solichin, Remote Sensing/GIS Specialist, SSFFMP Dendi Satria Buana, Participatory Landuse Planning Specialist, SSFFMP



Ade Andriani, Landuse Planning Assistant, SSFFMP Dr. Jan Wind, Environmental Management Consultant, SSFFMP Ali Husin, Provincial Environmental Impact Control Agency Dikman Subari, Provincial Food Crops Agriculture and Horticulture Service Elva (Ms.), Provincial Forestry Service Anung Riyanto, Provincial Estate Crop Service Dedi Ahmadi, District Development Planning Agency, Musi Banyuasin District Yuwono Aries, Multi-stakeholder Forum, Musi Banyuasin District Junaidi, District Forestry Service, Ogan Komering Ilir District Julie Becu (Ms.), French student working with the Gender component of SSFFMP Individual meetings with TA staff: Djoko Setiono, Community Development Specialist, SSFFMP Yandriani (Ms.), Gender Specialist, SSFFMP R.Z. Ramon. NGO Specialist, SSFFMP Solichin, Remote Sensing/GIS Specialist, SSFFMP Meeting with NGO representatives: Dian Sari (Ms.), NGO "Perserikatan OWA Indonesia" and Secretary of Working Group 3 (Landuse Planning) of Multi-stakeholder Forum, Ogan Komering Ilir District Anita Hesty (Ms.), Finance Administration, Sustainable Natural Resources Management Consortium of South Sumatra (NGO consortium) Rebeka (Ms.), NGO "Perserikatan OWA Indonesia" and member of Working Group 3 (Landuse Planning) of Multi-stakeholder Foru, Banyuasin District Aris Munandar, Head of Landuse Planning and Environment Sub-directorate, Provincial Development Planning Agency, Sumatra Selatan Tony Greer, PhD, Hydrologist, PT Sebangun Bumi Andalas Wood Industries (Sinar Mas Group, Forestry Division), Palembang

13.08.2005 meeting with Technical Assistance Team, SSFFMP: Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP Vernon Copeland, Programme Manager Natural Resources, EC Delegation, Jakarta Ir. Paul Kimman, Deputy-Co-Director, Land Use Planning & GIS, SSFFMP Dr. M. Nicolas, DESS, Fire Management Specialist, SSFFMP Djoko Setiono, Community Development Specialist, SSFFMP R.Z. Ramon. NGO Specialist, SSFFMP Dendi Satria Buana, Participatory Landuse Planning Specialist, SSFFMP Solichin, Remote Sensing/GIS Specialist, SSFFMP

15.08.05 meeting at the Directorate for Forest Fire Control, Directorate General of Forest Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Forestry: Ir. Harry Santoso, MM, Head of Sub-directorate of Manpower, Facilities and Infrastructure Sub-Directorate, Deputy Director of Forest Fire Control Ir. Zulkifli Ibnu, Head of Facilities and Infrastructure Section, Fire Sub-directorate Ir. R. Bintoro, MM, Head of Fire Sub-directorate



Ir. Hermono Sigit, (Acting) Assistant to the Deputy for the Control of Forest and Land Damages, State Ministry for the Environment.

19.08.05 meeting at the EC Delegation Nadim Karkutli, Second Secretary, Head of Development Co-operation, EC Delegation Vernon Copeland, Programme Manager Natural Resources, EC Delegation, Jakarta De-briefing at the EC Delegation: Raffaele Quarto, First Secretary, Head of Trade Section, EC Delegation Jakarta Dr. Karl Heinz Steinmann, Co-Director SSFFMP Vernon Copeland, Programme Manager Natural Resources, EC Delegation, Jakarta Destriani Nugroho (Ms.) , EC Delegation Jakarta

22.08.05 Submission of draft report at EC Delegation Vernon Copeland, Programme Manager Natural Resources, EC Delegation, Jakarta



APPENDIX 4

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS COLLECTED/CONSULTED



Appendix 4: List of Publications and Documents collected/consulted General/EC No. Author Title of Publication/Document Issuer/Publisher Publication Date

1. EC Financing Agreement Between the European Community and the Republic of Indonesia - South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project EC n. d.

2. EC Monitoring Report SSFFMP EC October 2004 3. EC Monitoring Report SSFFMP EC October 2003

4. EC Delegation Communication: TOR & List of Projects for Monitoring Mission 2004: Monitoring System of the Implementation of Projects and Programmes of External Assistance financed by the European Community

EC Delegation 09.09.2004

5. Landell Mills Limited in association with PPA Consultants

European Commission - Indonesia Forest Programme (ECIFP), Final Review Mission Report EC January 2005

SSFFMP No. Author Title of Publication/Document Issuer/Publisher Publication Date 6. SSFFMP Project Introduction (Leaflet) SSFFMP 2004

7. SSFFMP Project Introduction (Leaflet) SSFFMP n. d. (early 2003)

8. SSFFMP Survey Sosial Ekonomi Desa, 24 September - 7 Oktober 2003 (Leaflet) SSFFMP Sept 2003

9. SSFFMP Hasil Lokakarya Perencanaan South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project, Palembang 19-20 Maret 2003 SSFFMP Mei 2003

10. SSFFMP Pedoman Multi-Stakeholder Forum Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin. Materi Pembahasan pada Rapat MSF-MUBA yang pertama, Tanggal 16-17 Maret 2004 di Sekayu. SSFFMP Maret 2004

11. Jean Marie Bompart and Philippe Guizol

Land Management in the Province of South Sumatra, Indonesia. Fanning the Flames: The Institutional Causes of Vegetation Fires.

FFPCP/Kanwil Kehutanan dan Perkebunan, Palembang

n. d.

12. Marc V.J. Nicolas and M. Roderick Bowen

A Field-Level Approach to Coastal peat and Coal-Seam Fires in South Sumatra Province - Indonesia

FFPCP/EC/Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops

April 1999

13. SSFFMP Overall Workplan - Technical and Financial Report, January 2003 to January 2008 SSFFMP n. d.



14. SSFFMP Annual Workplan I for the period April 15th 2003 to April 14th 2004 (final) SSFFMP n. d.

15. SSFFMP Annual Workplan II, January 2004 - January 2005 (Draft - 1) SSFFMP Dec. 15th, 2003

16. SSFFMP Annual Workplan III, January 2005 - December 2005 (Final) SSFFMP Oct. 25th, 2003

17. SSFFMP Third Six-Monthly Progress Report 15th January 2004 – 14th July 2004 Draft I

SSFFMP July 30th 2004

18. SSFFMP GIS Maps SSFFMP n. d.

19. Donald Bason Environmental Education SSFFMP July 2005

20. SSFFMP Internal Project Management Guide SSFFMP current

21. Pemerintah Propinsi Sumatera Selatan, Dinas Kehutanan

Notulen Hasil Rapat RCC SSFFMP Tahum 2005 Pemerintah Propinsi Sumatera Selatan, Dinas Kehutanan

29 Maret 2005

22. Koes Saparjadi, Director General comments on PSC meeting results of 15 December 2004 Dephut, Dirjen PHKA 18 Febr. 2005

23. SSFFMP List of Reports SSFFMP current

24. SSFFMP kerja sama dengan Bapedalda, Sumsel

Jajaran Bapedalda Se-Sumatera Selatan tentang Pencegahan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan, Laporan Lokakarya, 14 Oktober 2004 die Bapedalda, Palembang

SSFFMP/Bapedalda Sumsel Oktober 2004

25. SSFFMP Panduan Pengumpulan Informasi Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan melalui Internet SSFFMP Sept. 2004

26. Anja A. Hoffmann Institutional Development for Integrated Fire Management in South Sumatra, Final Report SSFFMP January 2004

27. Anja A. Hoffmann Institutional Development for Integrated Fire Management in South Sumatra, Part II, Final Report SSFFMP January 2005

28. Anja A. Hoffmann A Fire Information System for South Sumatra: Stakeholder Analysis and Draft Concepts SSFFMP Dec. 2004

29. Anja A. Hoffmann and Rosdiana

Institutional Development for Integrated Fire Management in South Sumatra, Part III: Draft of an Interagency Fire Management Master Plan. SSFFMP May 2005

30. SSFFMP Fire History in South Sumatra Province (on SSFFMP CD-ROM) GIS & Remote Sensing Component n. d.

31. MSF SSFFMP Kab. OKI Evlauasi Kegiatan AWP-2, September 2004 MSF SSFFMP Kab. OKI Sept. 2004

32. SSFFMP SSFFMP Training and Seminar Statistic up to August 2005, Project Planning, Gender, Environmental Education, NGOs, Policy Workshops (Draft) SSFFMP August 2005

33. SSFFMP SSFFMP Training and Seminar Statistic up to August 2005, Fire Management, Fire Information System, Community Development, Landuse Planning(Draft) SSFFMP August 2005

34. SSFFMP Disaster Management Strategy (PowerPoint presentation) SSFFMP August 2005



35. SSFFMP Progress AWP-3 (NGO Development), Status: July 2005 - budget SSFFMP NGO Specialist August 2005

36. SSFFMP Progress AWP-3 (NGO Development), Status: July 2005 - activities SSFFMP NGO Specialist August 2005

37. SSFFMP Modul Pelatihan P3LD, Pelatihan Perencanaan Tata Guna Lahan Desa Bagi Komite Pengarah P3LD Desa Prioritas

SSFFMP Landuse Planning 2005

38. SNRMC SS Sustainable Natural Resources Management Consortium of South Sumatra (Leaflet) SNRMC SS n. d.

39. Matahari Matahari - Edisi Hutan supported by SSFFMP Januari 2004

40.

FFFPCP-Uni Europa Bekerjasama dengan Dinas Kehutanan dan Dinas Pendidikan Nasional Propinsi Sumatera Selatan

Catatan Untuk Guru. Desa Ilalang. Buku Pendidikan Lingkungan Pencegahan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Untuk Sekolah Dasar Kelas 5

FFFPCP-EC, Dinas Kehutanan dan Dinas Pendidikan Nasional, SUMSEL

n. d.

41.

FFFPCP-Uni Europa Bekerjasama dengan Dinas Kehutanan dan Dinas Pendidikan Nasional Propinsi Sumatera Selatan

Desa Ilalang. Buku Pendidikan Lingkungan Pencegahan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Untuk Sekolah Dasar Kelas 5

FFFPCP-EC, Dinas Kehutanan dan Dinas Pendidikan Nasional, SUMSEL

n. d.

42. Gubernur Sumatera Selatan

Keputusan Gubernur tentang Pusat Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan (PPKHL) Provinsi Sumatera Selatan.

Gubernur Sumatera Selatan 13 Mei 2005

43. SSFFMP Studi Sosial Ekonomi, Kabupaten MUBA, Bab I, Pendahuluan SSFFMP 2004

44.

Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF), Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI)

cover letter for recent SKs of the Bupati on the establishment of a task list on Forest and Land fire Information System in OKI

Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF), Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI)

2 Aug. 2005

45. LSM LPH - PEM Laporan Survey Sosial Ekonomi di 10 Desa di Kabupaten Banyuasin LSM LPH -PEM Kerjasama dengan SSFFMP

Oktober 2004

46. SSFFMP Stakeholders and SSFFMP. Counterpart and staff meeting for 12th August 2005, 9.00 am (Agenda, Laporan Pelaksanaan Training NGO, Minutes of meeting of 22 July 2005)

SSFFMP 12 Aug. 2005

47. SSFFMP Peningkatan Pendapatan Masyarakat sebagai bagian dari Pencegahan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan,

SSFFMP, Program Pemberdayaan Masyarakat yang Berwawasan Gender

Juli 2005

48. M. Nicolas dll. Materi Pelatihan Pemadam Kebakaran Hutan dan P3K Tingkat Masyarakat Desa Tahun 2005 SSFFMP Maret 2005



49. Ahmad Zaenal Fanani dll. Field Report - Survey Singkat Sosial Ekonomi pada 10 Desa di Kabupaten OKI

Kerjasama antara SSFFMP dengan LSM Yayasan Damar dan KPB Sos

Maret 2004

50. Ahmad Zaenal Fanani dll. Laporan Studi Banding Kemandirian NGO, SC Satunama - Bina Swadaya - YPPSE - Rimbawan Muda Indonesia (RMI) SSFFMP 2005

51. Zukri Saad Strengthening of Conflict Management Capacity at District Government and Village Community Institutions (ST Expert Report 30) SSFFMP Januari 2005

52. Zukri Saad Strengthening of Participatory Planning Capacity at NGOs, Village Institutions, Community Groups (ST Expert Report 29) SSFFMP November 2004

53. Sulaiman N. Sembiring Analisis Hukum dan Kelembagaan Penataan Ruang Desa Secara Partisipatoris (ST Expert Report 32) SSFFMP Nop. 2004

54. Taco de Fries Roadmap to Participative Planning at Kabupaten Level (ST Expert Report 28) SSFFMP Febr. 2005

55. SSFFMP Rencana Kegiatan: Persiapan Sosial/Kampanye Informasi & Rapid Village Appraisal untuk dilaksanakan di Kabupaten-kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir, Musi Banyuasin dan Banyuasin

SSFFMP Sept. 2003

56. SSFFMP Activity Plan: Social Preparation/Information Campaign & Rapid Village Appraisal. For implementation in the Districts Ogan Komering Ilir, Musi Banyuasin dan Banyuasin SSFFMP Sept. 2003

57. SSFFMP Laporan Lokakarya Penyusunan Peraturan Desa secara participatif tentang Pengelolaan Lahan dan Kebakaran Pada 5 Desa Prioritas Bayung Lencir, Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin, 19-21 Juli 2004

SSFFMP Juli 2004

58. SSFFMP Ringkasan Temuan Hasil Survey 10 Desa Pada 3 Kecamatan di Kabupaten Banyuasin, Tanggal 25 September - 7 Oktober 2003 SSFFMP Oktober 2003

59. SSFFMP Laporan Lokakarya: Tantangan Penggunaan dan Pengelolaan Tanah: Upaya peningkatan pendapatan dan pelestarian sumber daya alam die 5 desa prioritas, kabupaten Musi Banyuasin di Bayung Lencir, tanggal 08-09 Juni 2004

SSFFMP Juni 2004

60. SSFFMP Kriteria Pemilihan Desa Prioritas SSFFMP n. d.

61.

Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin

Buku Panduan: Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MFS) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin: "Persiapan & Perencanaan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 8-9 Juni 2004

MSF Kab. Musi Banyuasin Juni 2004

62. Leti Sundawati Studi Sosial Ekonomi Untuk Mengidentifickasi dan Mengembangkan Peranan dan Pertisipasi Masyarakat Pedesaan Dalam Pengelolaan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan di Sumatra Selatan (ST Expert Report)

SSFFMP August 2004

63. Jan Wind The Role of the Environmental Agency in Forest & Land Fires - South Sumatra, Indonesia (ST Expert Report 27) SSFFMP Dec. 2004



64. King Boen Tan Evaluation of the economic assessment that are part of present government planning regarding land and natural resource use in South Sumatra Province, with a focus on SSFFMP's three priority districts (ST Expert Report 19)

SSFFMP Dec. 2004

65. SSFFMP Materi Pertemuan Pertama: Multi-Stakeholder Forum Kabupaten Banyasin, Tanggal 2-3 Maret 2004 SSFFMP Maret 2004

66. SSFFMP Gender Component Gender Road Map - 2005 (two page) SSFFMP current

67. SSFFMP CD Component CD Module Process (one page) SSFFMP 8 Aug. 2005

Others: No. Author Title of Publication/Document Issuer/Publisher Publication Date

68. Bappeda Propinsi Sumatera Selatan

Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah, Propinsi Sumatera Selatan, Tahun 2004 -2019 - Laporan Antara Tahun Anggaran 2004

Bappeda Sumsel n. d.

69. Bappeda Propinsi Sumatera Selatan

Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Daerah Propinsi Sumatera Selatan, Tahun 2003 -2008

Bappeda Sumsel n. d.

70. Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir, Propinsi Sumatera Selatan

Data Pokok Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir Tahun 2004

Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir

n. d.

71. Sustainable Natural Resources Management Consortium of South Sumatra

presentation leaflet SNCMC SS n. d.

72. Luca Tacconi Kebakaran Hutan di Indonesia: Penyebab, Biaya dan Implikasi Kebijakan - CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 38(i)

CIFOR Februari 2003

73. L. Tacconi, P.F. Moore, D. Kaimowitz

Fires in Tropical Forests – What is really the problem? Lessons from Indonesia CIFOR n. d. (recent)

74. Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Selatan

Informasi Pembangunan Kehutanan dan Gerakan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (Gerhan) Propinsi Sumatera Selatan Tahun 2004-2009 (Forestry Statistics)

Pemda SULSEL Januari 2005

75. LPH PEM, KMSPH dan FKD Sumsel

Laporan Seminar Nasional Pembangunan HTI "SUMSEL: Menjelang HTI 1 Juta Hektar"

LPH PEM, KMSPH dan FKD Sumsel

29 Juli 2005

76. Pemerintah Propinsi kerja sama dengan SSFFMP dan Sektor Swasta

Tabloid Desa, Amanat Perjuangan Rakyat. Mengurai Benang Kusut Sengketa Pertahanan

Pemerintah Propinsi kerja sama dengan

15 Aug. 2005



SSFFMP dan Sektor Swasta

77. Bupati Ogan Komering Ilir several SK on Fire Management Penda OKI 2003 and 2005

78. Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir

Panduan: Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MFS) Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir: "Persiapan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 18-19 Mei 2004

MSF Kab. OKI Mei 2004


Bahan Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MFS) Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir: "Persiapan & Perencanaan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 18-19 Mei 2004

MSF Kab. OKI Mei 2004


Laporan Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (FSF), Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir, 18-19 February 2004

MSF OKI Febr. 2004

81. Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin

Buku Panduan: Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MFS) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin: "Persiapan & Perencanaan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 8-9 Juni 2004

MSF Kab. Musi Banyuasin Juni 2004

82. Sekretariat Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin

Bahan Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MFS) Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin: "Persiapan & Perencanaan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 8-9 Juni 2004

MSF Kab. Musi Banyuasin Mei 2004

83.

Pelaksana Pencegahan dan Penanggulangan Kebakaran dan Hutan dan Lahan (MSF), Kabupaten Banyuasin

Laporan Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Banyuasin, "Persiapan Multi Stakeholder Forum MSF", 2-3 Maret 2004

MSF Kab. Banyuasin Maret 2004

84.

Pelaksana Pencegahan dan Penanggulangan Kebakaran dan Hutan dan Lahan (MSF), Kabupaten Banyuasin

Bahan Lokakarya Multi Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Kabupaten Banyuasin, "Persiapan & Perencanaan Kelompok Kerja (POKJA) MSF", 14-15 Juni 2004

MSF Kab. Banyuasin Juni 2004



APPENDIX 5

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC GUIDING QUESTIONS



Appendix 5 General and Specific Guiding Questions GENERAL GUIDING QUESTIONS for PARTNERS

What do you (your institution) do with the Project? What has been achieved so far? What has yet to be achieved before the Project ends? What else is important but not in the project? Do you have any concerns about possible negative effects of the project? What will continue after the project ends?

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

DESA 1. APPROACH (including gender inclusion)

a. How did project engage with the Desa? b. How decide who to work with? c. What were the process steps? d. How are women involved and how does the community react to this?

2. UNASSISTED FIRE MANAGEMENT. a. Is fire management taking place when there are no project staff initiating it? When and why

and how? 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – FIRE MANAGEMENT LINKS

a. Are community development benefits influencing decisions about fire management? How? 4. FIRE MANAGEMENT and DESA INSTITUTION LINKS

a. Is fire management linked to village institutions? How? 5. DESA FIRE MANAGEMENT and KABUPATEN (Kec.) LINKS

a. Are there any linkages with higher levels of administration such as Kecamatan or Kabupaten? Feedback responses or one way? How do they work?

6. PUBLIC AWARENESS a. Is there higher public awareness amongst the village community about the need to manage

fire? How was it increased? Has it resulted in any behavioural changes? 7. LAND USE PLANNING and FIRE MANAGEMENT LINKS

a. Do the village community find village boundary setting land use planning useful? Does it matter to fire management?

8. AFTER THE PROJECT ENDS a. Will any of the project-driven changes last after the project ends?

KABUPATEN 9. MSF EFFECTIVENESS

a. Representativeness? b. Decisions taken and implemented? c. Pokja – MSF link? d. Monitoring project success/failure?

10. MSF LINKS to other INSTITUTIONS

a. Bupati & Sekda b. Satlak c. DPRD

PROVINCE 11. BADAN PENGENDALI KEBAKARAN EFFECTIVENESS

a. Relationship to SATKORLAK b. Links to other institutions

NATIONAL 12. INTER-AGENCY LINKS

a. MoFr b. KLH c. MoHA.

13. INFLUENCE ON POLICY DEVELOPMENT



APPENDIX 6

QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MTR TEAM AT THE TWICE-MONTHLY MEETING OF PROJECT STAFF AND COUNTERPARTS,

12 AUGUST 2005



Appendix 6: Questions raised by the MTR team at the twice-monthly meeting of project staff and counterparts, 12 August 2005

1. ACTUAL FIRE USE BEHAVIOUR in Farm and Forest Lands

Why is there so little use of the fire-fighting teams and their equipment?

• No difference between trained and trained and priority villages

• Lack of interest if no fire fighting wages and insurance.

• No additional members added, additional tools made by people.

2. Community Development LINKS

No clear link between CoDev activities and actual fire use behaviour, including improved fire management.

• Is the project providing alternative or additional income-earning activities?

3. Community Development NEEDS

Is selection of CoDev activities more supply-driven or demand-driven?

4. INTER-DESA and Desa/Kec./Kab./Prov. LINKS

Are there or will there be working fire management LINKS between villages and between villages and higher levels of administration?

5. MONITORING IMPACTS

Why is there so little monitoring of actual outcomes (outputs-to-purpose)? (inputs and outputs well-monitored)

• Is actual behaviour changing?

• Are we reaching the right target groups and areas?

6. LESSONS LEARNED

Based upon measurement of impacts, what lessons are we or should we be learning about the successes and failures towards achieving project purposes?

7. POST-PROJECT

What will survive the end of the project?

• Counterpart concern expressed about PASCA-PROYEK

.



APPENDIX 7

MAPS



Appendix 7. Maps

01: Fire Hotspots in Sumatra during the 1997 El Nino event are heavily concentrated in South Sumatra.

02: Fire Hotspots in South Sumatra in 2004 are prominent in the peat swamp areas of Oki District.



03: State Forest Areas (SFA) in South Sumatra, Mostly SFA is actually deforested and under agricultural use.

04: Fire Hotspots, South Sumatra 1997, occurring inside and outside State Forest Areas.



05: The three priority Districts of the SSFFMP (left to right): Musi Banyuasin (Muba), Banyuasin and Ogan Komering Ilir (Oki).

06: Village boundaries and (in green) location of the 15 priority villages.



APPENDIX 8

PHOTOGRAPHS



Appendix 8: Photographs Desa Talang Lubuk, Kabupaten Banyuasin

01: The fire season begins for slash and burn agriculture.

02: Despite green vegetation, fires can spread rapidly if unchecked.

03: Traditionally, farmers clean-weed around the perimeter of the area to be burned to reduce the likelihood of spread to their farm other areas or neighbours’ farm land.

04: The fire break stops fire spreading to the upwind adjacent maize plot …

05: … but jumps the fire break downwind to the fallow farm plot of his neighbour …

06: … who then tries (and later succeeds) to douse the flames using a water-filled knapsack sprayer.



07: Multiple harm: (1) Felt by farmers where it occurs before the fallow period is over.

08: (2) externality effects of smoke and haze felt by surrounding regional and international communities … Muba District

09: (3) externality effect of cumulative escape-fire damage in protected forest areas adjacent to village border.



10: Intensification of cattle-rearing – An alternative or an addition to fire-using practices in the field. Desa Ulak Kemang, Oki District

11: Support for river fish cage technology - An alternative or an addition to fire-using practices in the field Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta

12: Fire Information System in operation (supported by JICA in a similar project to SSFFMP).



APPENDIX 9

TOR OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW MISSION SSFFMP



Appendix 9

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR)

SOUTH SUMATRA FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SSFFMP)

IDN/RELEX/1999/0103

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 GENERAL The project is based in the province of South Sumatra where from 1995 until 2001 the Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project was active. A bridging phase was implemented from 2000 until 2001, however the bridging phase was not long enough to lead into the new SSFFMP, which finally started in January 2003. Reasons to choose South Sumatra province are manifold, among them the large fire prone areas, the major contribution to the haze occurrence due to smoke from peat fires, the proximity of neighbouring countries that are first affected by the smoke haze, the rapid conversion from forest to plantation and smallholder agriculture, and the fact that other projects are already active in Kalimantan and on national level. The SSFFMP operates in the forest sector which is currently going through a very difficult time in Indonesia. Deforestation, forest conversion into plantations, illegal logging, forest fires, community conflicts with regard to land allocation and corruption are major threats to the sustainability of natural resources. As part of the larger EC Indonesia Forestry Programmes (ECIFP), the SSFFMP addresses very important issues to reduce the disastrous effects forest fires have had in the past and will have in Indonesia and neighbouring countries in the future. Among the effects of land and forest fires are destruction of large forest and land areas, haze and smoke affecting not only Indonesia but also neighbouring countries and accelerated depletion of natural resources and biodiversity on a lager scale. The approach the project is applying is prevention and fire fighting through community-based fire management at local level and in the establishment of effective and efficient prevention and fire fighting command structures on provincial, district and village level. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF SSFFMP The overall objective of SSFFMP is to establish a system for the rational and sustainable management of the country’s land and forest resources based on a decentralised mechanism involving all concerned stakeholders. The project purpose is to aid and facilitate the establishment of a co-ordinated system of fire management at province, district, sub-district, and village levels throughout South Sumatra in which the local communities, private sector companies and government agencies work together to reduce the negative impact of fire on the natural and social environment. Expected results are: 1. Institutional conditions created to allow the implementation of effective fire

management.



2. Stakeholders enabled to organise and apply effective fire management mechanisms in their area.

3. Capacities created and initiatives supported to bring land and natural resources under sustainable management.

4. Government and non-government organisations supported to establish systems to monitor the impact of improved fire management on the environment and people.

5. Government agencies and civil society supported to shape policies and organisational structures in such a way as to promote sustainable natural resource management that includes effective fire management.

The Financing agreement between the European Community and the Government of Indonesia was signed on 20 December 2001. The total cost of the project is estimated to be 8,957,000 EURO with the EC commitment of 8,500,000 EURO. The project started in January 2003 for the duration of 5 years. The PMU is jointly headed by a full time Indonesian Co-director and a European Co-director. Both Co-directors have joint and equal authority for the management of the Project. The project consists of five components: 1. Rural Institutional Development 2. Fire Management 3. Participatory Planning for Sustainable Natural Resources Management 4. Fire Monitoring 5. Policy Advocacy The contract for the European Technical Assistance was awarded to a consortium of consulting companies lead by GHZ International. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT 2.1. BENEFICIARIES 2.1.1. The beneficiaries of the evaluation mission will be: a) Project stakeholders including communities, private sector and local government

agencies;

b) Executing Authority, Ministry of Forestry;

c) Implementing Agency, Governor’s office of South Sumatra, Provincial Forestry Services, Palembang, South Sumatra:

d) Others: Project Steering Committee, Project Coordination Committee and other relevant GoI institutions in Palembang and Districts, South Sumatra.

2.2. GLOBAL OBJECTIVES The Financing Agreement of SSFFMP foresees that the EC will recruit independent consultants to review the project’s achievements. At the moment, the project is in the middle of its implementation period and the review is scheduled to start in the middle of 2005.



A selected team of consultants will conduct a mid-term review of the project to assess project implementation, its achievements, its overall situation and recommend improvements for the remaining course of the project. The Team will recommend actions to be taken by the Executing Agency, Implementing Agency or by the EC. 2.3. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES In particular, the mission should provide a critical assessment of the project using the following aspects: • Relevance and quality of design of the project • Efficiency of implementation to date • Effectiveness to date • Impact to date • Potential sustainability • Lessons learnt and recommendations for future a. Relevance and quality of design of the programme Relevance of SSFFMP is the extent to which the project correctly addresses the identified problems, specifically: • Assess whether the conditions of the FA have been met as these have been interpreted

and approved in the Overall Work Plan. • Assess the reasons for and the impact of any conditions that have not been met in

practice. • In light of the progress of the project to date, identify any problems that are likely to

arise during the lifetime of the project due to FA conditions being superseded by events, and make recommendations for such amendments and modifications that are necessary to bring the FA into line with the practical conditions under which the project is being implemented.

• The Team will also review the policies and objectives of the EC as they relate to forestry sector and how this in turn relates to achieving the wider development policy objectives of the EC. This will enable the team to assess the relevance and impact of the project in achieving these goals.

• The mission should examine the shortcomings, as well as the strengths, of the identification, appraisal and implementation phases. The results of this will provide input to improve future project planning and implementation.

• Is the project relevant to the priorities of Indonesia and at provincial level? • Can the programme help solve the problems identified? • Complementarity and coherence with related activities undertaken by government and

other donors. • Impact of governance changes, particularly decentralisation, on resource management. • The flexibility/adaptability of the overall SSFFMP and its constituent components in

responding to changed priorities and circumstances in the forestry sector and within GOI/Ministry of Forestry policy if any.

• Assess how the changes in decentralisation have been taken into account during project implementation.

Project design: Examine adequacy of programme preparation and to what extent the design has been undertaken as a collaborative effort between GOI and the EC, including: • Compatibility of national sector priorities with the project’s objectives.



• To what extent this is reflected in the programming of Ministry of Forestry, Bappenas and other major ministries or agencies involved.

• Is the programme, and its components, realistic and internally consistent? • To what extent have different stakeholders been involved in the design of the

programme and its components? • To what extent have the implementation capacities of partner institutions been taken

into account? • Critically analyze and review the Overall Work Plan and Annual Work Plans produced by

the PMU and make recommendations for improvement in the future. • Evaluate the suitability of the institutional and organisational setting as well as the main

legislative framework for the forestry sector to achieve stated project’s objectives. • Give an indication if the EU project guidelines and modes of delivery present best

practices in development cooperation and allow an efficient and effective implementation.

• Check consistency of EU policies on PMU set ups in Indonesia and the handling of National Co-Directors issues.

b. Efficiency Assess project’s achievement of overall objectives, purpose and results established in the Financing Agreement and the Overall and Annual Work Plans and assess whether all phases of the project have reached their targets. Progress shall be reported, as far as possible, following the structure of the OWP logical framework and reasons for any over – or under-achievement analysed: • Is the project’s approach to achieving the objectives adequate? • How suitable are the procedures of the EU in achieving project’s objectives in Indonesia? • Is communication between the project, government institutions, the EC Delegation and

EC Brussels effective in co-ordinating project and overall project strategy? • Is administration by the EC Delegation and EC Brussels supporting an efficient and

effective implementation? • Have the correct target groups/counterparts been identified through which to deliver

project interventions? • Have the monitoring and evaluation systems been used to guide project implementation

and can this be improved? • How has the continuing process of devolution of responsibilities between central and

local governments affected project’s efficiency and what are the likely medium and long term effects?

• Make appropriate recommendations and identify any potential follow-up to improve the project outcomes.

c. Effectiveness The efficiency of the project in terms of the overall monetary resources used and the results and outcomes generated: • How far the results of the project to date have been achieved and used by the intended

beneficiaries? • To what extent ownership of the project has been achieved at the different levels of

government and by other stakeholders? • To what extent has the project developed institutional capacity at local and provincial

level?



• Assess and make recommendations as to the appropriateness of the project’s management structure as a means to achieve the planned objectives.

• Review the effectiveness of the technical expertise in the international and national TA team and make recommendations for improvement, if necessary.

• Assess the effectiveness of co-operation between the project and Ministry of Forestry at the central level, and other GoI institutions at the provincial and district levels.

• How have the achievements of the project been measured? And how has this information been used?

• How effective has the financial investment through the project been? • Are EU guidelines appropriate and cost effective for implementation of project activities? d. Impact The impact of SSFFMP in achieving the planned overall objectives contained in the log frames should be assessed. The wider project impact on enhancement of institutional capabilities must be considered and the impact on policy at different levels of government analysed including: • To what extent the planned, overall objectives have been achieved; • Has the programme had an impact on the wider number of potential beneficiaries than

just those targeted directly; • To what extent has the project influenced the policies and programmes of the GOI and

other donor agencies; • Whether the desired impact could have been better achieved in other ways; • An outline assessment of economic and social benefits generated by the project. e. Potential Sustainability It is very important to gauge to what extent the positive outcomes of the project are likely to continue after the project ends. The aspects that need to be taken into account are: • Complementarity of GOI policies and project objectives, results and activities. • The extent to which the objectives of the SSFFMP are embedded in institutional

structures at different levels of government. • Is the technology proposed by the project considered sustainable? • Review the level of involvement of local communities/NGOs and the local administrations

in planning, implementing and monitoring the project activities, and evaluate the extent to which the project is generating a sense of local ownership.

• To what extent will the positive outcomes of both projects (the first project hardly left any major impact to build on for the second project) continue after external funding stops?

• Are the activities that were planned to continue after project completion financially sustainable?

• What resources will be available to the community to continue after the project closure? • Identify any problems that are likely to arise in term of replication/expansion of the

project by the host institution, and highlight any potential limiting factors. • Institutional sustainability including the degree of commitment of all parties involved, the

extent to which the objectives of the project have been adopted by the different levels of government and whether institutions will be able to continue the work of the project after the project ends.

• Assess and make recommendations as to the potential sustainability of the results generated by the project.

• Give an indication if a project phase of five years is adequate to achieve the results and to guarantee sustainability or if an extension is needed to safeguard accomplishments.



f. Lessons learnt and recommendations for future To the extent possible in a mid-term review, identify any lessons learnt for Brussels, the EC Delegation, the implementing Consortium and for major stakeholders that can be used in the design and implementation of any similar projects in the future. 2.4. REQUESTED SERVICES The selected consulting company shall provide a team of consultants to undertake a comprehensive mid-term review of SSFFMP project. The team will visit the project and hold discussions with project management, major beneficiaries and counterpart organisations to gauge the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and potential sustainability of the project. The Team will be expected to work closely with Ministry of Forestry, Provincial Forestry Services in Palembang South Sumatra, other GOI institutions as well as other stakeholders. 2.5. ACTIVITIES Preparatory phase The Mission leader will have a visit to DG AIDCO of EC in Brussels for a briefing. Mission in Indonesia At the start of the mission, the Mission Leader and all members of the mission will have a briefing with the EC Delegation. Within 5 days of the commencement of mission the Mission Leader will submit a work plan to the EC Delegation. This will include a schedule for field visits and meetings with other relevant parties. At the end of the mission, the Mission Leader and the members of the mission will conduct a debriefing with PMU as well as with the EC Delegation. In coordination with the PMU, the consultants will present its findings and lessons learnt in a project-closure workshop. Finalisation The Mission Leader will have a debriefing in DG AIDCO, Brussels and the team experts will have 3 days to finalise the report. 2.6. EXPECTED RESULTS A report reviewing SSFFMP progress containing lessons learnt and detailing recommendations for the improvement of its operations until the end of the project period. 3. EXPERTS PROFILE

1. RURAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST (CATEGORY I) Minimum Qualification This expert should have an appropriate advanced degree (minimum MSc in Agriculture, Forestry, Ecology, Environmental Sciences, Rural Development or equivalent) and at least 15 years of experience working with rural development related projects.



Minimum requirements: • Minimum 15 years of experience in the implementation of development projects. • Experience in the review of projects/programmes concerned with rural development in

developing countries. • Sound knowledge of decentralisation issues as they relate to resource management. • Experience working in South East Asia is essential. • Fluency in English. Additional requirements: • Experience in project evaluation and monitoring. • Experience working in the forest sector an advantage. • Experience working in Indonesia – good working knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia. • Experience in (co-operation with) other international institutions, notably World Bank,

Asian Development Bank, etc. • Sound knowledge of participatory development and gender integration. 2. FORESTRY/FOREST FIRE SPECIALIST (CATEGORY II) Minimum Qualification This expert should have an appropriate advanced degree (minimum MSc in Forestry, Ecology, Environmental Sciences or equivalent) and at least 10 years experience working with forestry related projects. Minimum requirements: • Minimum 10 years experience in the implementation of forestry projects. • 5 years experience of working in forest fire projects. • Good knowledge on community based fire management. • Experience in the review of projects/programmes concerned with governance in

developing countries. • Sound knowledge of decentralisation issues as they relate to resource management. • Experience working in South East Asia is essential. • Fluency in English. Additional requirements: • Experience in project evaluation and monitoring. • Experience working in Indonesia – knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia. • Experience in (co-operation with) other international institutions, notably World Bank,

Asian Development Bank, etc. • Sound knowledge of participatory development and gender integration. 3. INSTITUTION DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST (CATEGORY II) Minimum Qualification This expert should have a Master’s Degree in a relevant subject. A minimum of 10 years experience with work related to institution development/capacity building related projects (preferably related to natural resources) is required. Minimum requirements: • 10 years experience of working in the development sector. • 5 years experience of working in institutional development/capacity building related

projects.



• Detailed knowledge of the institutions involved in the forestry sector at national, provincial and district level in Indonesia.

• Knowledge of the major laws relating to the forest sector and decentralisation. • Experience working in South East Asia and particularly in Indonesia is essential. • Fluency in English. Additional requirements: • Experience in project evaluation and monitoring. • Experience working in Indonesia – knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia. • Experience in (co-operation with) other international institutions, notably World Bank,

Asian Development Bank, etc. • Sound knowledge of participatory development and gender integration. Please note that the proposed experts should not have worked previously with this project, SSFFMP, in any capacity The consulting company may decide who should be the Mission Leader among the three experts. The team will have excellent writing and editing skills. If the team proves unable to meet the level of quality required for drafting the report, the consulting firm will provide, at no additional cost to the Commission, an immediate technical support to the team to meet the required standards. Working languages The working languages for the assignment will be English and Indonesian. All reports will be in English. 4. METHODOLOGY Note: Taking into consideration the complexity of the review, the Commission requests a methodology (maximum 5-6 pages) as part of the offer. 5. LOCATION AND DURATION Starting date: Fourth week of July 2005. Finishing date: Third week of September 2005



The maximum number of days allowed for each consultant during the mission: Forestry

Specialist Forest Fire Specialist

Institution Dev. Specialist

EUROPE Briefing/debriefing in AIDCO 21 - - Final report writing 3 2 2 Total days in Europe 5 2 2 INDONESIA International Travel; Briefing/debriefing EC – Jkt; Meetings, local travel, field visits; Report writing on site; Preparation of interim report; One day workshop to present findings.

19

19

19

Total days in Indonesia 19 19 19 Reserve days2 5 5 5 TOTAL 29 26 26 The selected consulting company will supply the personnel for the team as specified on point 2.3 of these Terms of Reference for the full duration of the time that is presented above. The project will make a temporary office space available in their premises. The contractor must ensure that all the members of the team will have laptop computers for the collection and derivation of the necessary reports. It is not expected that this equipment will be a cost in this contract. At the end of the mission, the Mission Leader may be asked to extend his activity for further clarification and modification of the final report if necessary. The PMU staff will facilitate the task of the mission in providing explanations and necessary documentation, equipment and professional staff. Necessary vehicles with driver will be provided to the team in relation to their duties whenever necessary and in agreement with the Project Co-Directors. Location of assignment: Jakarta and Palembang, South Sumatra. The Mission Leader will conduct briefing and debriefing in Brussels. 6. REPORTING The Mission Leader will submit to the project and to the Delegation an advanced softcopy of the draft final report before his de-briefing at the Delegation in order for the Delegation to provide some preliminary comments during the de-briefing. The report should contain the team’s preliminary findings, draft conclusions and recommendations. The document will provide a clear description of the objective, strategy and implementation procedures of the programme proposed by the team. 1 It will be allocated to a designated Mission Leader, not necessarily the Forestry Specialist. 2 Subject to an ex-ante written approval by the EC Delegation Jakarta.



The Delegation and the project will provide comments to the draft final report within two weeks. Following the comments made by the EC, the consultant will submit final report within a maximum of one week after receipt of the EC comments on the draft report. The number of final report is: 2 hard copies to be sent directly by express courier to the EC delegation in Jakarta and 2 hard copies being simultaneously sent to the EC headquarters. A copy of the report, including all annexes etc, will be submitted on CD-ROM to the EC Delegation. The Final Report will be approved, following agreement between the Delegation and EC headquarters, no later than 30 days after receipt of the final report by the Delegation. An electronic copy of all files will be transmitted by e-mail, simultaneously with the submission of the draft and final documents to the EC delegation in Jakarta and EC headquarters. Under the overall guidance and responsibility of the Mission Leader, the team will produce a final report which will include but not be limited to the following information: • An executive summary (in English and Bahasa Indonesia). • Introduction. • A main report comprising of issues raised in section 2. • Conclusions. • Recommendations. • Annexes. • Mission’s itinerary, the persons and institutions met, and summaries of the various

meetings. • Other relevant information. Other relevant information: • All outputs shall be in English and contain the following reference: “This report was

prepared with the financial support of the European Commission. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the European Commission”.

• All document, reports, or other material acquired during the mission and relevant to the forestry sector in Indonesia, will be submitted to the Delegation at the end of the mission, and will remain available for further missions and/or project.

• Attention is drawn to the fact that the European Commission reserves the right to have the reports redrafted by the mission, as many times as necessary, and that financial penalties will be applied if deadlines indicated for the submission of reports (drafts and final, in hard and electronic copy) are not strictly adhered to.

7. IMPORTANT REMARKS During all contacts with the Indonesian Authorities, or any project or Organisation, the consultant will clearly identify him/herself as an independent consultant and not as official representative of the European Commission. All documents and papers produced by the consultant will clearly mention on its first page a disclaimer stating that these are the views of the consultant and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. Selected consultants must posses at least six month passport validity and obtain or possess a valid business visa from relevant Indonesian embassies/consulate offices prior to coming to Indonesia.



APPENDIX 10

DEFINITION OF TERMS



Appendix 10: Definition of Terms

Activities. The actions (and means) that have to be taken or provided to produce the results. [EC PCM].

Adat. Adat here is understood to refer to long-established local systems of land resource governance that typically change over time to adapt to changing local economic and ecological conditions. As such adat applies to most of Indonesia’s rural villages, home to over 50% of Indonesia’s poor, and covering much of the state forest area (kawasan hutan negara) that cover two thirds of the nation’s land base as well as much of the land outside the “kawasan”.

Appraisal. Analysis of a proposed project to determine its merit and acceptability in accordance with established criteria. This is the final step before a project is agreed for financing. It checks that the project is feasible against the situation on the ground that the objectives set remain appropriate and that the costs are reasonable. Term often synonymously used: Feasibility study/Ex-ante evaluation.

Assets (“capital”). Enhancing human well-being on a sustained basis requires society manage a portfolio of assets (capital), namely, (a) Human-made Assets -- created physical products, particularly those used in production, e.g., machinery, equipment, buildings, and physical networks as well as financial assets. (b) Natural Assets - both renewable and non-renewable, public and private. (c) Knowledge Assets - “codified knowledge”, easily transferable across space and time (unlike “tacit” knowledge of an individual’s experience and learned judgment). (d) Social Assets (relational assets) - interpersonal trust and networks giving rise to understanding and shared values that facilitate cooperation within and among groups. (e) Human Assets: the innate skills, talents, competencies and abilities of individuals as well as the effects of education and health. (World Development Report 2003).

Community Participation (CoPar). In general, CoPar refers to meaningful inclusion of village communities in (a) policy development for natural resource management, (b) resource allocation plans and licensing in their areas, (c) processes for development of major policies and (d) the development of social and environmental accountability mechanisms. In project context, meaningful inclusion of the entire village community (or their credible representatives) in implementation decision-making as well as direct participation of some villagers in actual activities.

Community-based Fire Management. Meaningful community participation in fire control following an improved village-level system for using fire.

Decentralization of Forest (and Natural) Resource Management. Partial devolution of resource management authority from the national to various regional and local levels of administration -- Province, District and village levels. Decentralisation for sustainable natural resource management also requires mechanisms for increases in accountability and the means to monitor and evaluate management outcomes and respond to them, in other words matching increased rights with increased responsibilities.

Design and Preparation. Consists of project conceptualization within the relevant programme and strategy, identification and preparation.

Effectiveness. An assessment of the contribution made by Results to achievement of the Project Purpose, and how Assumptions have affected project achievements.

Efficiency. The fact that the Results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how well inputs/means have been converted into Results, in terms of quality, quantity and time, and



the quality of the Results achieved. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

Financing Agreement/Memorandum. The document signed between the European Commission and the partner country or countries subsequent to a financing decision. It includes a description of the particular project or programme to be funded. It represents the formal commitment of the European Union and the partner country to finance the measures described. [EC PCM].

Forest. An area of land of not less than 1.0 hectare with tree crown (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent that have trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 meters at maturity in situ. [Source: World Bank, Operational Policy -- Forests: definitions, page 1].

Good governance. Defines an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal. Good governance can be understood as a set of 8 major characteristics, transparency, participation, equity and inclusiveness, consensus oriented, responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness, accountability and rule of law. These characteristics assure that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. [Wikipedia, 08 October 2004].

Governance. Describes the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Thus do public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources, and guarantee the realization of human rights. Good governance accomplishes this in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law. [Wikipedia, 08 October 2004].

Impact. The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider sectoral objectives summarised in the project’s Overall Objectives, and on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the EC. The long-term consequences of the outcomes. They measure the general objectives in terms of national development and poverty reduction. [EC PCM].

Impact Indicators. They measure the long-term consequences of the outcomes. They measure the general objectives in terms of national development and poverty reduction. E.g., literacy rates [EC PCM].

Inputs. The financial, administrative and regulatory resources provided by the Government and donors. It is necessary to establish a link between the re-sources used and the results achieved in order to assess the efficiency of the actions carried out. [EC PCM].

Input Indicators. They measure the financial, administrative and regulatory resources provided by the Government and donors. It is necessary to establish a link between the resources used and the results and the results achieved in order to assess the efficiency of the actions carried out, e.g., share of the budget devoted to education expenditure, abolition of compulsory school uniforms. [EC PCM].

Lessons Learned. Essentially, lessons learned is about “what we thought we knew but experience taught us otherwise”. It can refer to scientific methodologies but is of most use to institutions and systems for managing assets or capital (financial, physical, natural, human, social and knowledge) that are essential for sustainable development. Lessons-learned processes require three basic steps, namely, (1) Lessons Identified and understood, (2) Lessons Applied and therefore Learned, and (3) Lessons Remembered.

Local (Village) Community. The group of people living in or near a forest, who are considered to have some significant level of dependence upon or interaction with the forest” (Operational Policy -- Forests: definitions, page 1; see WB 2002c).”. Unless otherwise



specified, refers to communities of one or more villages or similar settlements, which may or may not be traditional or adat communities.

Logframe (Logical Framework). The matrix in which a project’s Intervention Logic, Assumptions, Objectively Verifiable Indicators and Sources of Verification are presented. [EC PCM] Actually, the logframe is the end point of a participative process involving major stakeholders in the project. A Dynamic matrix which can and should be revised as assumptions change and implementation throws up unforeseen issues.

Milestones. A type of Objectively Verifiable Indicator (OVI) providing indications for short and medium-term objectives (usually Activities), which facilitate measurement of achievements throughout a project rather than just at the end. They also indicate times when decisions should be made or action should be finished.

Monitoring. The systematic and continuous collecting, analysis and using of information for the purpose of management and decision-making. [EC PCM].

Natural Resources. Natural resources are natural capital converted to commodity inputs to infrastructural capital processes. They include soil, timber, oil, minerals, water and other goods taken more or less as they are from the Earth. [Wikipedia 08 October 2004].

Objectives. Description of the aim of a project or programme. In its generic sense it refers to Activities, Results, Project Purpose and Overall Objectives. [EC PCM].

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI). Measurable indicators that will show whether or not objectives have been achieved at the three highest levels of the logframe. OVIs provide the basis for designing an appropriate monitoring system. [EC PCM].

Outcomes. The short-term results at the level of beneficiaries. The term ‘results indicators’ is used as well. [EC PCM].

Outcome Indicators (Results Indicators). They measure the short-term results at the level of the beneficiaries. The term “results indicators” is used as well. E.g., School enrolment, percentage of girls among the children entering in first year of primary school. [EC PCM].

Outputs. The immediate and concrete consequences of the measures taken and resources used. [EC PCM].

Output Indicators. They measure the immediate and concrete consequences of the measures taken and resources used, e.g., number of schools built, numbers of teachers trained. [EC PCM].

Policies and Institutions. Institutions are rules, enforcement mechanisms, and organisations. Policies are the goals and desired outcomes, institutions are the rules, including behavioural norms, by which agents interact - and the organizations that implement rules and codes of conduct to achieve desired outcomes. Policies affect which institutions evolve -- but institutions too affect which policies are adopted. But behaviour may also change within existing institutional structures. Institution builders can be diverse -- such as policy-makers, business people, or community members. Institutions are essential for sustainable and equitable development. When they function well, they enable people to work with each other to plan a future for themselves, their families, and their larger communities … when weak or unjust, the result is mistrust and uncertainty. This encourages people to “take” rather than “make”, and it undermines joint potential. (definition sources: World Development Reports 2001 and 2002).

Pre-conditions. Conditions that have to be met before the project can commence, i.e. start with Activities. Pre-conditions (if any) are attached to the provision of aid. [EC PCM].



Project. The SSFFMP including project-funded staff and activities as well as counterpart government agencies and NGO and other partners.

Relevance. The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was sup-posed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated, and including an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design – i.e. the logic and completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design.

Results. The “products” of the Activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose of the project, namely a start of enjoyment of sustainable benefits for the target groups.

Results Indicators. See Outcome Indicators.

Shared Learning. An alternative to making direct policy recommendations, shared learning involves policy makers and institutions which influence them. Conducted at various horizontal and vertical levels (within and between government and non-government agencies, nationally and regionally). Lessons-learned and shared among stakeholders can increase the likelihood of a positive influence on the wider policy development (as well as enhancing project efficiency). Shared learning processes offer a unique opportunity to “bridge institutional divides”. Empirical and scientific observations are shared among major natural resource stakeholders, as well as policy-makers and their lower-level support systems. The outcome is a critical mass of support capable of exerting pressure for reform that cannot easily be ignored.

Spatial Planning. Planning to influence the distribution of people and activities in spaces of various scales. In Indonesia, as defined in UU24 of 1992, spatial planning produces as series of land use maps defining private and state areas, including state forest areas.

Stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis involves the identification of all stakeholder groups likely to be affected (either positively or negatively) by the proposed intervention, the identification and analysis of their interests, problems, potentials, etc. The conclusions of this analysis are then integrated into the project design.

Sustainability. An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue to flow after external funding has ended, and with particular reference to factors of ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, appropriate technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management capacity. [EC PCM].

Tenure, Land Tenure/Penguasaan Lahan. Historically, land tenure is the name given to the manner in which land was owned by an individual, who was said to "hold" the land. In most cases, the individual would hold the land "of" someone else, who was known as the lord, the owner of the land being called the tenant. References to tenure in the present report refer to the range of ways in which land can be held ranging from leases and licenses in state forest areas to complete freehold ownership in private land. [Wikipedia 08 October 2004].



APPENDIX 11

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS



Appendix 11: Abbreviations and Acronyms adat traditional values and norms AIDCO short for EuropeAid Co-operation Office of EC APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah

- Provincial Budget AWP Annual Work Plan Badan Board or Agency Bahasa Indonesia the Indonesian Language BAKORNAS Badan Korrdinasi Nasional

- National Coordination Board Balai Agency or Center Bapedalda Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan Daerah

- Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment Agency BAPLAN Badan Planologi

- Programming Agency (of the Ministry of Forestry) Bappeda Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah

- Regional Development Planning Agency (at provincial and district levels)

Bappenas Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional - National Development Planning Agency

BKSDA Balai Kelestarian Sumber Daya Alam - Natural Resources Conservation Center

BP DAS Badan Pengelolahan Daerah Aliran Sungai - Watershed Management Agency (Central Government Institution at provincial level), formerly BRLKT

BPD Badan Pemerintahan Desa - Village Government Board

BPK (Direktorat Jenderal) Bina Produksi Kehutanan - (Directorate General for) Forest Production Development

Bpk. polite address of a ranking male person BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional

- National Land Agency Bupati Head of District or Regent CbFM Community based Fire Management CoDev Community Development CoPar Community Participation CSP Country Strategy Paper (of the EC) DAOP Daerah Operasional

- Operational Area Depdagri Departemen Dalam Negeri

- Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA)

Dephut Departement Kehutanan - Ministry of Forestry (MoFr)

Deptan Departemen Pertanian - Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)



Desa village DG Directorate General

- Direktorat Jenderal (Dirjen) Dinas Kehutanan Forestry Service (provincial and district/regency levels) Dinas Perkebunan Estate Crops Service (provincial and district/regency levels) Dinas Pertanian Food and Horticulture Service (provincial and district/regency levels) Dinas Service DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah

- Regional Parliament (provincial and district levels) DR Dana Reboisasi

- Reforestation Tax (collected from logging companies) EC European Commission ECIFP EC-Indonesia Forestry Programme Era Reformasi Era of policy reform since the fall of Soeharto in mid-May 1998 EU European Union EUR or Euro European currency EuropeAid European Agency for Development Cooperation FA Financial Agreement FDR Fire Danger Rating FFPCP (South Sumatra) Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project ("Phase

1" of SSFFMP) FIS Fire Information System FLB Forest Liaison Bureau (former EC funded project) FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Project (new EC

Project) FTA Fire Threat Analysis FWI Forest Watch Indonesia (NGO) GIS Geographic Information System GNRHL Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan

- National Movement for the Rehabilitation of Forests and Land GoI Government of Indonesia GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit

- German Agency for Technical Co-operation Gubernur Governor of a Province HPH Hak Pengusahaan Hutan

- Forest Concession Right (or license for exploitation of natural production forests)

HTI Hutan Tanaman Industri - Industrial Timber Plantation

ICC Incident Control Centre ICEL Indonesian Centre for Environment Law (NGO) ICRAF International Centre for Agroforestry Research (World Agroforestry

Centre), Bogor ICS Incident Control System IFFMP Integrated Forest Fire Management Project (former GTZ project in

East Kalimantan) ILRC Illegal Logging Response Centre (EC Project)



IPA Initial Plan of Action (of a project) JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency JKPP Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif

- NGO Network for Participative Mapping (in South Sumatra) Kab see Kabupaten Kabupaten District Kadin Kepala Dinas

- Head of (Government) Service (Provincial and District/Municipality levels)

Kanwil Kantor Wilayah - Regional Office of Central Government Ministries (before decentralization)

Kec. see Kecamatan Kecamatan Sub-district Kehutanan Forestry Kesbanglinmas Kesatuan Bangsa dan Perlindungan Masyarakat

- Citizen Unity and Community Protection Agency KLH Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup

- State Minister for the Environment LAPAN Lembaga Penerbangan dan Antariksa Nasional

- National Aeronautics and Space Agency LDP Leuser Development Programme (former EC project) LKMD Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa

- Village Community Resilience Committee, village government executive board

LMD Lembaga Musyawarah Desa - Village Council, the village parliament, now BPD

Logframe Logical Framework Approach, also short for Logical Framework Matrix LSM Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat

- Non-government Organization LUP Landuse Planning M&E Monitoring and Evaluation M&O Management and Organisation Manggala Agni Special central government funded fire management programme for

2005 Memberdayakan to empower MoA Ministry of Agriculture

- Departemen Pertanian MoE State Minister for the Environment

- Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup MoFr Ministry of Forestry

- Departemen Kehutanan (DepHut) MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

- Departement Dalam Negeri (DepDagri) MSF Multi-stakeholder Forum MTR Mid-term Review Muba Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin

- Musi Banyuasin District



n. d. no date NGO Non Government Organisation NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US) NRM Natural Resources Management NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products OKI Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir

- Ogan Komering Ilir District Orde Baru National development policy of the Soeharto era, 1967-1998 OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicators (in a Logframe Matrix) OWP Overall Workplan (of a project) P3LD Perancanaan Partisipatip Penatagunaan Lahan Desa

- Participatory Village Landuse Planning PAD Pendapatan Asli Daerah

- Local Government Revenue PCC Project Coordination Committee PCM Project Cycle Management Peraturan Degree Perda Peraturan Daerah

- Local Government Degree Perdes Peraturan Desa

- Village Government Degree Perkebunan Plantation, Estate Pertanian Agriculture PHKA (Direktorat Jenderal) Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam

- (Directorate General of) Forest Protection and Natural Resources Conservation

PKK Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga - Family Welfare Movement, women organization and program supervised by the Ministry of Home Affairs

PMNRBB Participative Management of Natural Resources in Berau and Bulungan Programme, East Kalimantan (new EC Project)

PMU Project Management Unit Pokja Kelompok Kerja

- Working groups (e.g. under the MSF) PosKo Pos Komando

- Sub-district (Fire) Command Centres (two per sub-district) PP Peraturan Pemerintah

- (Central) Government Decree PPKHL Pusat Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan

- Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (see also PUSDALKARHUTLA)

PSC Project Steering Committee PT Perusahaan Terbatas

- company with limited liability PUSDALKARHUTLA Pusat Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan

- Centre for Integrated Forest and Land Fire Control (see also PPKHL)

Rencana Plan



Renstra Rencana Stratejik Lima Tahun - Five Years Strategic Plan

RKL Rencana Kerja Lima Tahun – five year operations plan

RKT Rencana Kerja Tahunan – annual operating plan

RLKT Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Konservasi Tanah - Land Rehabilitation and Soil Konservation

RLPS (Direktorat Jenderal) Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan Sosial - (Directorate General of) Land Rehabilitation and Social forestry

Rp. Rupiah (the Indonesian currency) SATKORLAK Satuan Koordinasi Pelaksanaan (Penganggulangan Bencana dan

Penanganan Pengungsi) - Coordination Unit for Implementation (Handling Disasters and Refugees)

SATLAK Satuan Pelaksanaan (Penganggulangan Bencana dan Penanganan Pengungsi) - Implementation Unit (for Handling Disasters and Refugees)

SCKPFP South and Central Kalimantan Production Forest Project Sekda Sekretaris Daerah

- Executive Secretary of Local Government Sekjen Sekretaris Jenderal

- Secretary General SF Social Forestry

- to indicate the new paradigm, this term is now used also in Bahasa Indonesia, replacing Kehutanan Masyarakat

SFA State Forest Area - Kawasan Hutan Negara (KHN)

SFDP GTZ's Social Forestry Development Project in West Kalimantan SFM Sustainable Forest Management SK Surat Keputusan

- Decree SMART Indicators: Specific (or simple), Measurable, Achievable (or

attainable, accurate), Relevant (or reasonable, replicable) Time bound (timed)

SME Small and Medium Scale Industries SNRM Sustainable Natural Resources Management SNRMC SS Sustainable Natural Resources Management Consortium of South

Sumatra (NGO consortium) Sonor rice cultivation system in peat-swamp areas where fire hazards are

particularly severe SOP Standard Operation Procedures SSFFMP South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project (the EC project under

review) Suaka Alam Nature Reserve Sumsel Sumatra Selatan

- South Sumatra SWOT Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (analysis)



TFBL Tropical Forest Budget Line (competitive awards scheme for forestry projects, earlier managed by AIDCO, now by the respective EC Delegations)

TGHK Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan - Consensus Forest Use Plan

TGIF Technical Group on Indonesian Forestry, proposed as successor to Donor Forum on Forestry

TNI Tentara Nasional Indonesia - Armed Forces of Indonesia

ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainers UPJA Unit Pelaksana Kerja

- village level implementation groups Walhi Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia/Friends of the Earth Indonesia

(NGO) WWF World Wildlife Fund (World Wide Fund for Nature)