United nations environment programme

Section 7: Project Financing and Budget

1. Project budgets and co-financing

129. 
     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

2. Project cost-effectiveness

129. 
     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.
     

129. 
     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.
     

129. 
     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.
     

129. 
     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.
     

129. 
     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