United nations environment programme



Yüklə 1.68 Mb.
səhifə22/39
tarix14.08.2018
ölçüsü1.68 Mb.
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   39

Section 7: Project Financing and Budget

  1. Project budgets and co-financing


  1. Project co-financing sources are presented in Table , below, with details for 13 proposed sources of co-financing to the project, of which the greater portion is expected from the Asian Development Bank Biodiversity Conservation Corridors project. Followed by the international conservation organization Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Project implementation budgets per component item are presented in Table 21, below, providing details on budget across all project activities, outputs, and outcomes. Further, the overall project budget with additional detail is presented in Appendix 1 (Budget by project components and UNEP budget lines) and Appendix 2 (Co-financing by source and UNEP budget lines).


Table 20. CAMPAS Co-financing sources


Organization

Initial estimate in PIF 

Total co-finance secured

Amount in Cash

Amount in Kind

ADB-MoE

5,900,000

7,500,000

3,750,00 0

3,750,000

WCS

935,000

2,200,000

1,500,000

700,000

WWF

1,630,000

1,900,000

1,500,000

400,000

SFB/USAID

410,546

1,010,000

500,000

510,000

UNEP

 1,257,000

1,156,590

 

1,156,590

BirdLife

662,000

550,000

500,000

50,000

L&L

500,000

150,000

50,000

100,000

ERECON

 

54,000

 

54,000

MoE / MAFF (direct)

1,750,000

  (largely via partners)

 

 50,000

UN-REDD

1,110,000

 (program ended)

 

 

TOTAL

14,154,546

14,570,590

7,800,000

6,770,590



  1. Project cost-effectiveness


  1. The total GEF grant financing to these components is USD 4,718,182 over 60 months. The annual breakdown of this budget is provided in Appendix 1. The GEF’s support will be matched by substantial co-finance commitments to achieve CAMPAS’ outputs in realizing this project’s intended outcomes, as summarized in Appendix 2.




  1. Project cost information was determined from an in-depth understanding of the operating environment by the relevant local partner who will deliver the project. Existing cost information was used to create realistic and cost-effective budget estimates, harmonizing with existing and planned work. The project team is using a number of detailed working budgets, which show the breakdown of costs in more detail than can be presented here in the Project Document.




  1. The project has a strong co-finance commitment from a wide range of partners, amounting to over 65% of the total project sum. This demonstrates cost-effectiveness of the GEF investment to leverage and coordinate with up to 10 partner organizations providing over USD 14,570,590 of co-financing. Such a strong cost-sharing commitment enhances effectiveness through various partners working on complementary parts of the project, and ensures that GEF investments into CAMPAS are targeted at the key gaps and strategic areas of need to ensure the outcomes are met.




  1. The design of financial flows will expedite delivery on the ground. In particular, large proportion of the field costs for the landscapes will be managed and overseen by relevant partners in the landscape. This ensures that international-standard financial reporting is upheld, despite the challenging field conditions in the relevant Protected Areas. This both ensures incremental capacity building for government agency financial management teams, and an increased confidence with accountability and ensures cost-effectiveness due to a functioning governance and fund-management framework. Several of the NGO Alliance partners have strong experience implementing similar scale of projects in partnership with MoE and other key partners, and have well-functioning units to channel and manage funds, resources, equipment, and to monitor their use to ensure cost-effectiveness.




  1. The project will ensure a cost-effective approach by building upon the previous and ongoing initiatives of international and national non-government organizations in working in the project demonstration area and more specifically, by building upon the technical and institutional capacities developed because of such work.

Table 21. Project implementation budgets per outcomes, outputs, and summarized activities



1

Strengthened national vision and support for landscape-based protected areas and forest management

2,980,730

1.1

Delivery of national biodiversity and protected area strategic goals

747,470

1.1.1

Support Project Biodiversity Steering Committee, and protected area leadership dialogues for effective inter-sectoral coordination

210,745

1.1.2

Assess and review the effectiveness of the national protected areas system through landscape pilot activities

121,150

1.1.3

Define national biodiversity vision and strategic management of protected areas

126,381

1.1.4

Provide institutional support and enhance human capacities of, MoE, FA, FiA, and local governments

289,194

1.2

Improved national compliance with protected areas management goals

1,575,010

1.2.1

Establish and operate a transparent and unified national protected area, wildlife, and forest law enforcement monitoring system

1,353,770

1.2.2

Support trans-boundary forest, species, and landscape management programs

221,240

1.3

Improved national support and monitoring of biodiversity conservation, PASs and forested landscape connectivity

658,250

1.3.1

Design and monitor a biodiversity communications campaign to support ecosystem services, and protected areas

152,760

1.3.2

Institutional support for environmental education and communication

316,060

1.3.3

Produce strategic information and publications to inform policy and planning

189,430

2

Integrating landscape management to safeguard forests, biodiversity, and carbon stocks in the Eastern Plains Landscape

1,501,542

2.1

Enhanced biodiversity security and forest connectivity

508,706

2.1.1

Support Eastern Plains Landacape stakeholder consultation and conflict management

118,470

2.1.2

Mondulkiri Landscape Plan designed and operationalized

390,236

2.2

Enhanced and institutionalized forest carbon stock monitoring capacity

165,930

2.2.1

Assess Eastern Plains Landscape reference emission levels (REL/RL)

84,280

2.2.2

Forest carbon monitoring in the Eastern Plains Landscape

81,650

2.3

More effective resource mobilization for integrating protected areas management

352,840

2.3.1

Protected area management plans and regional economic development (plans) harmonized

168,560

2.3.2

Pilot protected area sustainable financing by responsible authorities

184,280

2.4

Enhanced forest cover and carbon sequestration with increased community resource management and livelihood security

474,066

2.4.1

Establish community-based forest management and rehabilitation

263,380

2.4.2

Strengthen landscape protected area connectivity

210,686

 

SUBTOTAL

4,482,272

 

Project Management Costs (5%)

235,910

 

TOTAL USD

4,718,182




Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   39


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2017
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə