G1 AnnexA Project Workbook DRPC2010-1280411 - Revised CPMT

Project Workbook
This file contains spreadsheets of information submitted to the CPWF by the project team, and spreadsheets that we have developed to aid our review process. Please change the 'PNX' to identify your project, e.g. Ganges Project 3 would be G3
Table of Contents
1 Title Page with Reviewers' Comments
Tab Name: PNX Title Page This page contains main project information and the contracting and inception reviewers' comments.
Project Partners and Contact Information

Tab Name: PNX Contacts Please list all your project participants with their contact details. This information will be fed into the CPWF contact database. Please ensure that you inform the CPWF about any changes in your team.
Outcomes Logic Model

Tab Name: PNX OLM The OLM is a table that describes the project's theory of change (ToC), or how the project is expected to work. It is a description of the projects activities, outputs, outcomes and impact and their inter-relationships. Each line describes an Outcome Pathway, with a short narrative description. The last row in the model is a narrative description of how the project predicts that the outcomes it achieves are likely to reinforce each other and eventually contribute to longer-term impact. For more information, visit:
CPWF M&E Guide- OLMs 4 Outcome Target Indicators Plan

Tab Name: PNX OTIP The Outcome Target Indicators Plan (OTIP) contains specific description(s), for each Outcome Pathway (from OLM), of who/ how many exactly the project expects to change (Practice and/or KAS) and by how much, by the end of the Project. Indicators and tools to measure them are included for each outcome target. For more information, visit:
CPWF M&E Guide- Outcome Indicators Plan 5 Milestone Plan

Tab Name: PNX Milestone Plan The milestone plan focuses on the end-dates by which your activities need to be completed and outputs need to be delivered. It contains the project start and end date, and other important milestones. Progress reporting is directly made on the original milestones as defined in the milestone plan. For more information, visit:
CPWF M&E Guide- Milestone Plan
CPWF Project Workbook
Table of Contents
Page 1 of 58
Gantt Chart
Tab Name: PNX Gantt Chart The Gantt Chart focuses on the activities to be carried out to complete the project. This chart contains the project schedule, work breakdown structure, i.e. activities with their milestones as the terminal elements, their start and finish dates, responsible project team member and their affiliations. For more information, visit:
CPWF M&E Guide- Gantt Chart 7 Schedule of Reports and Payments

Tab Name: PNX $ Schedule This spreadsheet will be filled out by CPWF finance officer for contracting according to the budget details the project has submitted. It shows the schedule of budget release, which depends on the satisfactory submission and approval of the required progress reports.
= filled by CPWF Finance Officer for contracting
Budget Summary
Tab Name: PNX $ Summary This spreadsheet shows the breakdown of the project budget per line item and per year.
Budget Comments
Tab Name: PNX $ Comments The comments worksheet is where budget explanations and details are explained.
10
Staff Time Allocation and Breakdown of Personnel Costs

Tab Name: PNX $ Time Allocation In this worksheet the project team compositon is listed with their names, institution, expertise and contribution to the project (e.g., Output 1, Communication, Policy, etc.), the number of days per year, and the daily rate per staff.
11
Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Outputs

Tab Name: PNX $ By Outputs This table shows the distribution of budget by output then by institution. The overhead costs are not included in the distribution.
12
Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Institution

Tab Name: PNX $ By Institution This table shows a summary of the budget allocated to the project partner institutions (left part). The right part of the table could be of support to work out each project partners budget share by line item.
Table of Contents
Page 2 of 58
Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Project Leader Project Number Project Short Title Reporting Period Starting Date Completion Date Review Questions (RQ) Andrew Nelson G1 Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land-use patterns April 30, 2011 April 30, 2014 Reviewer Remarks on status (include date) Changes required to proceed to contracting
Cells highlighted in yellow must be dealt with for contracting
Response from the Project Leader (include date)
Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]
PL response (include date), round 2
RQ1: Are documents in order, provide information required, and is there consistency between them?
Documents according to Standard Clauses and Procedures 3.02 and 3.03 (see list below)
Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers], round 2
Cells highlighted in orange must be dealt with by time of inception report
Revised proposal Contact sheet
KM Point Person
First submission 2011.03.03 First submission 2011.03.03
please identify who's responsible for Communications, M&E, and Knowledge Sharing from the project's end. We've added another column in 'G1 Contacts' please submit CVs of the other partners please add the names of the partners who are still to be hired as well as the consultants
Apr 18 2011 - Changed location of IRRI staff (except PL) to Bangladesh. CV.s DONE Comms and M&E. DONE Sorry. No. I can't add names for people who have not been hired and positions that have not been created yet. I've used PDF1 and PDF2 to distinguish between the two PDF positions
Gantt chart Milestone plan
Suggested some changes in the Apr 18 2011 - Added PDF1 and Milestone Plan (e.g., specify PDF2 to the responsible staff the names of the partners, list rather than TBD; dates consistent with Gantt Chart)
OLM OTIP
Page 3 of 58
Review Questions (RQ)
Reviewer
Remarks on status (include date) First submission 2011.03.03
Changes required to proceed to contracting Please indicate the baseline for the Daily Charge Out $ (it is understood that the succeeding year's personnel budget includes the 3% and 5% annual increment)
Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers] Please indicate the baseline for the Daily Charge Out $ (it is understood that the succeeding year's personnel budget includes the 3% and 5% annual increment)
Budget
Plan for baselining of outcome targets Signed MOUs corresponding to milestone plan Third party intellectual audit
Page 4 of 58
Reviewer
Remarks on status (include date)
Changes required to proceed to contracting
RQ2: Have there been changes Program in budget share going to Manager partners, and if so, are they consistent with the changes in responsibilities? RQ3: Does the budget appear consistent with the promised outputs? RQ4: Looking at the people responsible for producing the outputs, do these teams contain people with the requisite skill and is team size appropriate? RQ5: Is there a clear assignment of responsibility for producing outputs and milestones to both individuals and organizations? RQ6: Have reviewers' comments been addressed?
Provide a more inclusive discussion of the models to be used, including a critical appraisal of their potential weaknesses and risks
Program Manager MT Point Person
MT Point Person
MT Point Person
This point has been fully addressed. The proposal now provides a much more detailed description of maximum entropy and random forest spatial analysis models, in the context of a broader range of models, and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. The proposal notes that the main risk in using these models . . . is that they are data dependent and cannot compensate in areas where there are missing or unknown factors that affect the likelihood of a technology being suitable or not.
Page 5 of 58
Reviewer

Proponents point out that extrapolation domains for institutional innovations can be developed by the spatial analysis models to be used in the project. The major issue, as usual, will be data availability at a suitable level of resolution. With regard to the outcome of institutional innovations and its role in improving water availability, the project notes that, We will develop matrices that link the change in water resources to land use change options and in combination with the economic and demographic changes we will work with the project partners to identify the most plausible land use patterns. This concern has been fully addressed. This point has been fully addressed. With regard to specific suggestions that they use certain data sources such as the BCA, proponents note that often such data are at too coarse a resolution to be as useful as would be desirable. Proponents also discuss the use of data from PDO-ICZMP, the BARC natural resource database, and data available from Phase 1 projects, among them: PN07 - Improving productivity in salt-affected areas; PN10 - Coastal resource management for improving livelihoods (CRESMIL); PN16 - Aerobic rice system; PN23 Resource management for sustainable livelihoods; PN34 Improved fisheries in tropical reservoirs; PN35 - Communitybased fish culture; PN42 Groundwater governance in IGB and YRB; and PN48 - Strategic analysis of river linking.
Map the extrapolation domains of institutional innovations such as those that G3 will look at, in additional to technical ones, to the extent that it makes sense and is possible
Present a more systematic overview of the data already available in the region and their sources, as well as gaps in knowledge identified through this analysis.
Page 6 of 58
Reviewer

Data collection and data management protocols are more fully described in an expanded Activity 1. This concern has been fully met. For further analysis and should be submitted at the time of the Inception Report.
Include information about data collection (indicators for profiling human resources, baseline information, etc.) and data processing protocol Revise the OLM by the time of the Inception Report with a detailed and realistic analysis of what forces tend to affect decisionmaking in the main target actors, and how project strategy takes these forces into account
Page 7 of 58
Reviewer
From Standard Clauses and Procedures

3.02 The documents required for contract signature are: Revised project proposal that has addressed reviewers comments in particular negotiation points and incorporates changes from workshops and other consultation processes. Revised budget reflecting changes in project proposal Gantt Chart Milestone plan developed for at least the first year of operations Draft Outcome Logic Model Any other documentation agreed to between the Project Leader and the CPWF 3.03 The following documents are to be provided in electronic form to CPWF Basin Leader with the Inception Report: Outcome Logic Model agreed with partners Milestone plan developed for the duration of the project Outcome target indicators plan Plan for base lining of outcome targets Signed MOUs corresponding to milestone plan Third Party Intellectual Asset Audit Any other documentation agreed to between the Project Leader and the CPWF.
Page 8 of 58
Project Partners and Contact Details

Please remember to provide a CV for each person listed below as Annex B to your proposal. Indicate in particular who has responsibility for communications, M&E, knowledge sharing and gender analysis.
Given Name
Nelson
Family Name
Andrew
Institution
International Rice Research Institute International Rice Research Institute
Role in the project Professional discipline

Project Leader Geographer
Email
a.nelson@cgiar.org
Alternate Email
a.nelson@irri.org
Work Phone
63 2 580 5600
Mobile Phone
Fax
63 5 580 5699
Postal Address
Country
Expertise
GIS
Responsible for Leading the project GIS/Spatial Analysis/Modellin g
IRRI, DAPO Box PHILIPPINES 7777, Metro Manila IRRI, House# 9, BANGLADESH Road# 2/2, Chairman Bari Banani, Dhaka-1212 IRRI, House# 9, BANGLADESH Road# 2/2, Chairman Bari Banani, Dhaka-1212
PDF1 to be determined
Principal Investigator (Int'l)
GIS/Spatial Analysis/Modellin g Water resource or land use management or agronomy

GIS specialist moqbul_h@yahoo.c om 88 017 0287841
GIS expert
PDF2 to be determined
International Rice Research Institute
Principal Investigator (Int'l)
Project management Communications and coordination M&E Knowledge Sharing
Hossain
Moqbul
Soil Resource Development Institute Institute of Water Modelling
Principal Investigator (Nat'l)
SRDI, Krishi Khamar BANGLADESH Sarak, Dhaka 1215
Soil and salinity profiling and land use planning
SRDI's data provision and soil/salinity profiling
Zahir-ul
Khan
Water resource Engineer
zhk@iwmbd.org
88 02 8827902
88 018 9432538
88 02 8827901
IWM, House #496, Road #32, New DOHS, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1206
BANGLADESH
Munir
Siddiquee
Local Government Engineering Department
Engineer and GIS specialist
munir.siddiquee@g munir.siddiquee@ya 88 02 8112126 mail.com hoo.com
88 02 8116390
LGED, GIS Unit, Level- BANGLADESH 4, Bhaban, Agargaon, Dhaka 1207
Md Salim
Bhuiyan
Bangladesh Water Principal Development Board Investigator (Nat'l)
Engineer
bhuiyan_salim@yah oo.com
88 02 8121491
88 017 24661616
88 02 8121491
Tuong
To Phuc
Consultant
t.tuong@cgiar.org
63 2 580 5600
63 2 580 5699
BWDB, Processing BANGLADESH and Flood forecasting Circle, 72, Green Road, Dhaka 1215 IRRI, DAPO Box PHILIPPINES 7777, Metro Manila
Water modelling and IWM's data computational provision and hydraulics hydrological profiling and characterisation GIS, Social and LGED's data physical provision and infrastructure socioeconomic and mapping, Local infrastructure government profiling managed projects Water resource BWDB's data management and provision and water monitoring resource management expertise oversee most of the oversee most of the activities on activities on cropping pattern cropping pattern and water and water management issues management issues as well as in as well as in communications communications assist the PL and PI in GIS, project monitoring and field visit assist the PL and PI in GIS, project monitoring and field visit
NRS
Support Staff
IRRI, House# 9, BANGLADESH Road# 2/2, Chairman Bari Banani, Dhaka-1212
Project Partners and Contact Details
Page 9 of 58
Outcomes Logic Model Project Name Date Actor(s) Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Desired change in actor(s) practice Required change in actor KAS for change to happen Project strategies and Project outputs prototypes for bringing about changes Interaction with the actors from the project inception (via G5) to ensure awareness of the project, its goals and the potential application of domain maps for technology targetting Maps and associated documentation of extrapolation domains for each technology
Outcome Pathway 1
Local Government agencies responsible for technological innovation in agriculture Extension services with a similar mandate
Actors will use the maps to more effectively scale up the adoption of new technologies -> Higher likelihood of success of adoption
Local Government Officers learn about new technologies and where its chances of adoption is greatest. Use of domain maps as a decision support tool
Narrative 1
The actors will become aware of the potential use of technology domain maps to determine "what works where and why" and use these maps to ma better informed decisions about strategies to scale up the adoption of new technologies.
Page 10 of 58
Project Name Date Actor(s)
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Desired change in actor(s) practice Required change in actor KAS for change to happen Project strategies and Project outputs prototypes for bringing about changes Interaction with the actors from the project inception (via G5) to ensure awareness of the project, its goals and the potential application of Land Use maps for DSS Future land use plans for different plausible water resource scenarios with associated narratives explaining the drivers of land use change
Outcome Pathway 2
Local government agencies responsible for water resource management and land management and land use zoning.
Actors will use the maps as decision support tools when planning future interventions.
Local Government officers will understand the implications of different land use plans under different future scenarios.
Narrative 2
The actors will become aware of the use of future land use scenarios to better understand the trade offs that need to be made when considering cha to land and water management policies
Page 11 of 58
Project Name Date Actor(s)
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Desired change in actor(s) practice Required change in actor KAS for change to happen Project strategies and Project outputs prototypes for bringing about changes
Impact Narrative The maps from G1 need to incorporated into policy briefs and presented as part of a decision support process. The domain maps will only be adopted if they are prov be reliable and accurate, which would require further site tests and early adoption by some actors to validate. The successful application of the domain maps for effec targetting will increase the chances of appropriate technology adoption. The future land use plans need to be based on a set of coherent and convincing drivers of land change that include likely policy shifts to maximize the chances of adoption by the actors. The use of these plans will increase the likelihood of sustainable land and wa use policies being adopted.
Page 12 of 58
domains and land use patterns
Risks and Assumptions
Quality of input data is sufficient Timely information on test sites available (G2,G3) Cooperation with G1 partners to obtain data for extrapolation
nology domain maps to determine "what works where and why" and use these maps to make adoption of new technologies.
Page 13 of 58
Cooperation with G1 partners to obtain data for extrapolation Timely information on scenarios available (G4)
e scenarios to better understand the trade offs that need to be made when Quality of input data considering changes
Page 14 of 58
part of a decision support process. The domain maps will only be adopted if they are proven to option by some actors to validate. The successful application of the domain maps for effective e future land use plans need to be based on a set of coherent and convincing drivers of land use by the actors. The use of these plans will increase the likelihood of sustainable land and water
Page 15 of 58
Outcome Targets Indicator Plan

The Outcome Target Indicators Plan (OTIP) contains specific description(s), for each Outcome Pathway (from OLM), of who/ how many exactly the project expects to change (Practice and/or KAS) and by how much, by the end of the Project. project is committing to measure. The expected output in this OTIP is a list of indicators ONLY for the Outcome Targets that the Indicators and tools to measure them are included for each outcome target.
Project Name Date No.
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Outcome target(s) Indicator(s) of progress towards Outcome Target(s) This is best answered by G5 since The maps and briefs will only be the maps will be used in policy developed towards the end of the briefs and will not be directly project and it is unlikely that we targetted at the actors will observe much adoption of the domain maps within that time frame. Instead we would monitor the interest of the actors (since they will be aware of the project and its goals from the inception) in the use of the maps and respond to any requests for more detailed information regarding the domain for any particular technology Tools to measure progress towards Outcome Target(s) Feedback on policy briefs and evidence of their adoption in decision making
ACTOR and how they will CHANGE 1 Local Government agencies responsible for technological innovation in agriculture Extension services with a similar mandate Actors will use the maps to more effectively scale up the adoption of new technologies -> Higher likelihood of success of adoption
Page 16 of 58
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Outcome target(s) Indicator(s) of progress towards Outcome Target(s) This is best answered by G5 since The maps and briefs will only be the maps will be used in policy developed towards the end of the briefs and will not be directly project and it is unlikely that we targetted at the actors will observe much adoption of the land use plans within that time frame. Instead we would monitor the interest of the actors (since they will be aware of the project and its goals from the inception) in the use of the plans. Tools to measure progress towards Outcome Target(s) Feedback on policy briefs and evidence of their adoption in decision making
ACTOR and how they will CHANGE 2 Local government agencies responsible for water resource management and land management and land use zoning. Actors will use the maps as decision support tools when planning future interventions.
Page 17 of 58
Milestone Plan
Project Name Date To be filled by PLs and Project Teams No. Milestones = your progress markers Deadline Responsible Responsible Staff Outputs required Means of verification Partner Institution Project Member by other projects Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011
Project Implementation 0.a 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 1.a 1.b. 1.c 1.d. 2.a 2.b Sites selected and partners for research and planning 2011/09/01 IRRI engagement identified and engaged Project progress reports 2011/09/01 IRRI Project progress reports 2012/03/01 IRRI Project progress reports 2012/09/01 IRRI Project progress reports 2013/03/01 IRRI Project progress reports 2013/09/01 IRRI Project progress reports 2014/03/01 IRRI Compilation of a geodatabase covering all thematic spatial information related to the project Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 IWM Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 SRDI Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 LGED Spatial data formatted and documented to standards 2012/09/01 IRRI Characterization of the test sites and study areas from projects G2 and G3. Sites visited, georeferenced, and mapped 2011/09/01 IRRI G2 and G3 provide key site information on environmental and 2011/09/01 social requirements for the technologies Study site characteristics collected Inventory of the relevant spatial data for characterizing the sites prepared and site resource profiles shared with project partners Mapping extrapolation domains for each technology 2012/03/01 2012/09/01 IRRI AN AN AN AN AN AN AN ZK HM MS PDF1 PDF1 PDF1 Yes, G2, G3, G4, G5 No No No No No No No No No Yes, G2, G3, G4 Yes, G2, G3 Yes, G2, G3 Site selection report, MoU's with partners Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Data inventory Data inventory Data inventory Metadatabase Maps of site locations and technologies being tested Report on the resource profiles required for each technology to be successful Updated report on the resource profiles Report on spatial datasets and their relationship to the key site characteristics
2.c 2.d
IRRI IRRI
PDF1 PDF1
Yes, G2, G3 Yes, G2, G3
Milestone Plan
Page 18 of 58
Project Name Date To be filled by PLs and Project Teams No. Milestones = your progress markers
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011
Deadline
Responsible Responsible Staff Outputs required Means of verification Partner Institution Project Member by other projects IRRI IRRI IRRI PDF1 PDF1 PDF1 No Yes, G2, G3 Short review of available models and reasons for final selection Domain maps provided to CPWF
3.a 3.b 3.c 3.d
Extrapolation model chosen and tested First extrapolation domains generated and documented for internal discussions Final extrapolation maps documented and shared with partners for evaluation Maps shared with G5 for synthesis
2012/09/01 2012/09/01 2013/09/01
4.a 4.b 4.c 4.d
Yes, G2, G3, G4, Updated domain maps provided to G5 CPWF 2013/09/01 IRRI PDF2 Yes, G2, G3, G4, Maps used in policy briefs developed G5 by G5 Development of future land use plans based on historical land use trends, assumed changes, constraints and interventions from future scenarios. Scenarios and drivers agreed upon in consultation with 2013/03/01 IWM ZK Yes, G4 Report on the future scenarios and partners drivers of change from G4 Preliminary future land-use plans developed and documented 2013/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G4 Land use plans provided to CPWF for internal discussion Final land-use plans documented and shared with partners for 2014/03/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3, G4, Updated land use plans provided to evaluation G5 CPWF Maps shared with G5 for synthesis 2014/03/01 IRRI PDF2 Yes, G2, G3, G4, Maps used in policy briefs developed G5 by G5
Milestone Plan
Page 19 of 58
Deadline
Responsible Responsible Staff Outputs required Means of verification Partner Institution Project Member by other projects
Milestone Plan
Page 20 of 58
Deadline
Responsible Responsible Staff Outputs required Means of verification Partner Institution Project Member by other projects
Milestone Plan
Page 21 of 58
For Reporting
To be reported by PLs and Project Team Status report on delivery of milestones
For review by BL Review of evidence of delivery of milestone and of research quality and relevance
For review by CPWF Review of evidence of delivery of milestone and quality check of BLs review
Milestone Plan
Page 22 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 23 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 24 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 25 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 26 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 27 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 28 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 29 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 30 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 31 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 32 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 33 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 34 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 35 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 36 of 58
Milestone Plan
Page 37 of 58
Gantt Chart
Project Name Date No. Resource profiles, extrapolation domains, and land-use patterns March 03, 2011 Activity/ Milestone Q1 Project Implementation Sites selected, partners engaged Project progress reports Sites selected and partners for research and planning engagement identified and engaged 0.b Project progress reports 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.a 1.b 1.c 1.d 0 0.1 0.2 0.a 2011 Q2 Q3 2012 Q2 Q3 2013 Q2 Q3 2014 Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q4
Activities Milestones
0.a 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b
Activities
Milestones
Compilation of a geodatabase covering all thematic spatial information related to the project Data set identification Data and metadata format agreement Data collection Data standardization Inventory of required data completed 1.a Inventory of required data completed 1.b Inventory of required data completed 1.c Spatial data formatted and documented to standards
1.d
Activities
2 Characterization of the test sites and study areas from projects G2 and G3. 2.1 Georeferencing of test sites 2.2 Identification of the key site characteristics from G2 and G3 2.3 Collection of key site characteristics 2.4 Identification of the relationships between the site characteristics and spatial data layers, i.e., direct correspondence or proxy variables 2.a Sites visited, georeferenced, and mapped 2.b G2 and G3 provide key site information on environmental and social requirements for the technologies 2.c Study site characteristics collected 2.d Inventory of the relevant spatial data for characterizing the sites prepared and site resource profiles shared with project partners 3 Mapping extrapolation domains for each technology
Milestones
2.a 2.b 2.c 2.d
Gantt Chart
Page 38 of 58
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains, and land-use patterns March 03, 2011 Activity/ Milestone Q1 2011 Q2 Q3 2012 Q2 Q3 2013 Q2 Q3 2014 Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q4
Activities
3.1 Identification of the appropriate model for extrapolation 3.2 Preliminary extrapolation domains 3.3 Roundtable discussion with partners on preliminary results 3.4 Final domain maps generated 3.5 Evaluation and synthesis of domain maps 3.a Extrapolation model chosen and tested 3.b First extrapolation domains generated and documented for internal discussions 3.c Final extrapolation maps documented and shared with partners for evaluation 3.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis 4 4.1 4.2 4.3
Milestones
3.a 3.b 3.c 3.d
Activities
Development of future land-use plans based on historical land-use trends, assumed changes, constraints, and interventions from future scenarios Preparation of historical and current land-use plans Identification of future scenarios and drivers of change Identification of a suitable competitive land-use model
4.4 Future land-use modeling 4.5 Roundtable discussion with partners on preliminary results 4.6 Final land-use models 4.7 Evaluation and synthesis of land-use maps 4.a Scenarios and drivers agreed upon in consultation with partners 4.b Preliminary future land-use plans developed and documented for internal discussion 4.c Final land-use plans documented and shared with partners for evaluation 4.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis
Milestones
4.a 4.b 4.c 4.d
Gantt Chart
Page 39 of 58
Schedule of Reports and Payments

This worksheet will be filled by CPWF Finance Officer for contracting
Project Name Date No. 1 2 3 4 Amount (US$)
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Comment Paid on return of the signed Award Letter. These funds are to cover the first six months activities of the Project Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the first 6 months of project implementation. Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the first 12 months of project implementation. Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the 18 months of project implementation. Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the 24 months of project implementation. The milestone plan for the following two years of project activities must also be approved. Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of 30 months of project implementation. Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of 36 months of project implementation. A review may also be undertaken at this point at the discretion of the CPWF. Paid on acceptance of the Project Completion Report and an external audit report. Due Date
Schedule of Reports and Payments
Page 40 of 58
Budget Summary
(Before working on the Personnel budget cells, complete the other spreadsheet named PNXX $ Time Allocation)
Project Name Date
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL
1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5
PERSONNEL REMUNERATION, TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION PERSONNEL Project Leader Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) Principal Investigators (National) Consultants Support Staff Other Project Participants TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION Project Leader Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) Principal Investigators (National) Consultants Support Staff Other Project Participants RESEARCH OPERATION EQUIPMENT Office equipment Laboratory equipment Field equipment CONSUMABLES General communication expenses Office supplies Laboratory supplies Field research supplies Other support services (IT services, public areas, facilities) COMMUNICATIONS Communications products Team meetings Stakeholders workshops Participation in Reflection Workshops Participation in IFWF3 and IFWF4
6,741 59,217
9,190 80,731
9,466 83,155
2,384 20,941
27,781 244,044 30,995 40,301 -
4,649 9,588
10,848 13,263
12,398 13,926
3,100 3,524
5,414 5,414
7,380 7,380
6,717 6,715
1,620 1,619
21,131 21,128 -
2,400
2,400 -
927
1,192
1,223
258
3,600 84,247
24,413
28,894
24,935
6,005
2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 4.1 4.2
4,427 4,427
1,475 4,335 5,022 5,912 6,065 1,489 1,628
5,902 11,736 17,142
LUMP SUM CONTRACT AGREEMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES SRDI, Bangladesh IWM, Bangladesh LGED, Bangladesh BWDB,Bangladesh 41,250 45,000 15,000 15,000 36,250 37,500 20,000 20,000 22,500 22,500 12,500 12,500 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 105,000 110,000 50,000 50,000 -
MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY (% OF BUDGET) OVERHEADS Administrative Cost (12%) Management fee (4%) [INSTITUTION (% ] [INSTITUTION (% ] [INSTITUTION (% ] 73,849 61,249 12,600 -
19,964 15,314 4,650
24,916 20,366 4,550
23,261 20,461 2,800
5,708 5,108 600
TOTAL REQUESTED FROM CPWF
263,831
308,376
263,773
63,276
899,256
Budget Summary
Page 41 of 58
Budget Comments
Please provide as much information as possible to enable a good understanding of the key expenditures required.
Project Name Date
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 COMMENTS
MATCHING FUND (if any) PERSONNEL REMUNERATION, TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION PERSONNEL Project Leader Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l)
None
1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2
Dr. Nelson is the project Leader, requests fund to cover 7% of time annually for three years. Funds are requested to support two post doctoral fellow (PDF) .One PDF (100% FTE),based in Bangladesh and another PDF (40% FTE), based in Bangladesh to monitor the project will be charged to this project.Personnel costs are based on actual annual salaries and benefits for on-board employees and on IRRIs standard personnel costs for new staff. The subsequent years include estimated escalations for merits adjustments which is 3% per year for the IRS and PDF.
1.1.3 1.1.4
Principal Investigators (National) Consultants
1.1.5
Support Staff
Dr. Tuong (after his retirement with IRRI) will provide 5% of his time in year one and 10% for years two to three as a consultant for this project. Funds are also requested to support one nationally recruited staff (NRS) that will assist the project leader and principal investigator in monitoring the project. This NRS will be based in Bangladesh and allot 100% of his time in the project. Personnel costs are based on actual annual salaries and benefits for on-board employees and on IRRIs standard personnel costs for new staff. The subsequent years include estimated escalations for merits adjustments which is 5% per year for the NRS.
1.1.6 1.2 1.2.1
Other Project Participants TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION Project Leader
This includes cost for the PL once a year visit to Bangladesh to monitor the project and attend annual meeting. This consists of all costs related to the once a year visit of one PI to Bangladesh to monitor the project including their accommodation and per diem.
1.2.2
Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l)
1.2.3 1.2.4
Principal Investigators (National) Consultants
Budget Comments
Page 42 of 58
1.2.5 1.2.6 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2
Support Staff Other Project Participants RESEARCH OPERATION EQUIPMENT Office equipment Laboratory equipment Field equipment CONSUMABLES General communication expenses Office supplies Laboratory supplies
This fund will cover cost of one computer.
A total of $3,600 for 3 years is requested for consumables, storage, remote sensing imagery and other GIS related needs
2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5
Field research supplies Other support services (IT services, public areas, facilities)
This fund will cover network connection, server and the laptop/computer to be used by the personnel involved in the project and other operational and research support services.The operational support services are expenses for safety, security, energy cost, depreciation , rent, insurance and building maintenance. The research support services include the library, risk management and quality assurance, communication and publications,intellectual property management, country office coordination,support from office of the Deputy Director General for Research, External Relations, Seed Health and Project Coordination office. The above items are not part of the overhead under 4.2
2.3 2.3.1
COMMUNICATIONS Communications products Team meetings
This fund will cover meetings between the project leader and project partners at various times throughout the project
2.3.2 2.3.3
Stakeholders workshops Participation in Reflection Workshops
This fund will cover the travel and logistic costs of attending the CPWF reflection meetings for the Ganges Basin This fund will cover the travel and logistic costs of attending the CPWF Forums
2.3.4 Participation in IFWF3 and IFWF4 2.3.5 LUMP SUM CONTRACT AGREEMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES SRDI, Bangladesh Funds are provided for SRDI in their role to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and resulting domain maps and land-use plans.
3 3.1
Budget Comments
Page 43 of 58
3.2
IWM, Bangladesh
3.3
LGED, Bangladesh
3.4
BWDB,Bangladesh
Funds are provided for IWM in their role to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and the resulting land-use plans. Funds are provided for LGED in their role to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and resulting domain maps and land-use plans. Funds are provided for BWBD in their role to provide information and expert advice on water resource management in the coastal polders relative to the proposed extrapolation domain maps and land-use plans.
3.5 4 4.1 4.2 MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY (% OF BUDGET) OVERHEADS Administration Cost
The indirect cost includes administrative costs which cannot be specifically identified as direct costs of the project such as support from Director General Office, Finance, Procurement, Legal services, Human Resource services, etc. Indirect cost of 12% is charged to all direct cost except budget for partners. Budget for partners will be charged 4% management fee . This fund will be used for the fund management and financial services.
[INSTITUTION (% ] [INSTITUTION (% ] [INSTITUTION (% ] [INSTITUTION (% ]
Budget Comments
Page 44 of 58

Project Name Date No. Personnel Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns May 30, 2012 Name Institution Type of Institution
Brief Description of Contribution to Project, as described in G1 Contacts (Project Workbook)
Days per Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL
1.1.1 PL 1.1.2 PI (Int'l)
Andrew Nelson PDF to be determined PDF to be determined
IRRI IRRI IRRI
CGIAR CGIAR CGIAR
Project lead GIS expert Project management and coordination
11 163 65
15 217 87
15 217 87
4 54 22
45 651 261 0
add rows
1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)
add rows
0 0 0
Page 45 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Days per Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL 0
1.1.3 PI (Nat'l)
Moqbul Hossain
Soil GO Resource Developme nt Institute
SRDI's role is to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and resulting domain maps and land-use plans. IWM's role is to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and the resulting land-use plans. LGED's role is to provide spatial information, expert advice, and technical support for the generation of the geodatabase and resulting domain maps and land-use plans. BWBD's role is to provide information and expert advice on water resource management in the coastal polders relative to the proposed extrapolation domain maps and land-use plans.
Zahir-ul Kahn
Institute of NARES Water Modelling
Munir Siddiquee
Local GO Governmen t Engineering Department
Md Salim Bhuiyan
Bangladesh GO Water Developme nt Board
add rows
Page 46 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Days per Year 2011 8 2012 19 2013 22 2014 5 TOTAL 54
1.1.4 Consultants T.P Tuong
(IRRI)
CGIAR
oversee most of the activities on cropping pattern and water management issues as well as in communications
add rows
0 0
1.1.5 Support Staff
National support staff 1
IRRI
CGIAR
assist the PL and PI in project monitoring and filed visit
163
217
217
54
651
add rows
0 0
1.1.6 Other Project Participants
add rows
0 0
Page 47 of 58

Brief Description of Contribution Daily to Project, as described in G1 Charge Out Contacts (Project Workbook) (US$)
Personnel Costs 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total (US$)
1.1.1 PL 1.1.2 PI (Int'l)
IRRI IRRI IRRI
CGIAR CGIAR CGIAR
6,741 41,012 18,205 59,217 -
9,190 55,913 24,818 80,731 -
9,466 57,591 25,564 83,155 -
2,384 14,503 6,438 20,941 -
27,781 169,019 75,025 244,044 -
add rows
1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)
add rows
Page 48 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Personnel Costs 2011 2012 2013 2014 -
Total (US$)
1.1.3 PI (Nat'l)
Moqbul Hossain
Zahir-ul Kahn
Munir Siddiquee
Md Salim Bhuiyan
add rows
Page 49 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Personnel Costs 2011 4,649 2012 10,848 2013 12,398 2014 3,100
Total (US$)
(IRRI)
CGIAR
30,995
add rows
4,649 National support staff 1 IRRI CGIAR assist the PL and PI in project monitoring and filed visit 9,588
10,848 13,263
12,398 13,926
3,100 3,524
30,995 40,301
1.1.5 Support Staff
add rows
9,588 -
13,263 -
13,926 -
3,524 -
40,301 -
add rows
114,032
118,945
29,949
343,121
TOTAL
80,195
Page 50 of 58

1.1.1 PL 1.1.2 PI (Int'l)
IRRI IRRI IRRI
CGIAR CGIAR CGIAR
add rows
1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)
add rows
Page 51 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
1.1.3 PI (Nat'l)
Moqbul Hossain
Zahir-ul Kahn
Munir Siddiquee
Md Salim Bhuiyan
add rows
Page 52 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
(IRRI)
CGIAR
add rows
1.1.5 Support Staff
IRRI
CGIAR
add rows
add rows
Page 53 of 58

Entries from Column S are added for reviewers' comments and to note items for clarification. There should be a clear assignment of outputs. Mark (with 1) lead and contributed outputs in columns (S) to (X)
Outputs 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
1.1.1 PL 1.1.2 PI (Int'l)
IRRI IRRI IRRI
CGIAR CGIAR CGIAR
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
4 4 4 0
add rows
1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)
add rows
0 0 0
Page 54 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Outputs 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 6
Total
1.1.3 PI (Nat'l)
Moqbul Hossain
Zahir-ul Kahn
Munir Siddiquee
Md Salim Bhuiyan
add rows
Page 55 of 58
No.
Personnel
Name
Institution
Type of Institution
Outputs 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 6
Total
(IRRI)
CGIAR
add rows
0 0
1.1.5 Support Staff
IRRI
CGIAR
add rows
0 0
add rows
0 0
36
Page 56 of 58
Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Output

Budget does not include overhead costs
Project Name Date Output Output No. 1: Compilation of a geodatabase covering all thematic spatial information related to the project
Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Institution $ value of the budget % share of the budget 135,000 30,000 60,000 20,000 20,000 265,000 50,000 10,000 25,000 10,000 10,000 105,000 200,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 250,000 199,256 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 279,256 15% 3% 7% 2% 2% 29% 6% 1% 3% 1% 1% 12% 22% 2% 1% 1% 1% 28% 22% 6% 1% 1% 1% 31%
IRRI IWM SRDI LGED BWDB Total for Output 1 Output No. 2: Characterization of the IRRI IWM test sites and study areas from SRDI projects G2 and G3. LGED BWDB Total for Output 2 Output No. 3:Mapping extrapolation IRRI IWM domains for each technology SRDI LGED BWDB Total for Output 3 Output No. 4: Development of future IRRI IWM land-use plans based on historical SRDI land-use trends, assumed changes, constraints, and interventions from LGED BWDB future scenarios Total for Output 4
TOTAL
899,256
100%
Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Output
Page 57 of 58

Project Name Date Institution IRRI IWM SRDI LGED BWDB TOTAL Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns March 03, 2011 Total $ value Total % share 584,256 65% 110,000 12% 105,000 12% 50,000 6% 50,000 6% 899,256 100% Comments Project lead Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc. Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc. Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc. Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc.
Page 58 of 58

G1 AnnexA Project Workbook DRPC2010-1280411 - Revised CPMT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G1 AnnexA Project Workbook DRPC2010-1280411 - Revised CPMT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Workbook

Project Partners and Contact Information

Outcomes Logic Model

CPWF M&E Guide- OLMs 4 Outcome Target Indicators Plan

CPWF M&E Guide- Outcome Indicators Plan 5 Milestone Plan

CPWF M&E Guide- Milestone Plan

CPWF Project Workbook

CPWF M&E Guide- Gantt Chart 7 Schedule of Reports and Payments

= filled by CPWF Finance Officer for contracting

Staff Time Allocation and Breakdown of Personnel Costs

Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Outputs

Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Institution

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]

PL response (include date), round 2

Cells highlighted in orange must be dealt with by time of inception report

Revised proposal Contact sheet

First submission 2011.03.03 First submission 2011.03.03

Gantt chart Milestone plan

First submission 2011.03.03 First submission 2011.03.03

First submission 2011.03.03 First submission 2011.03.03

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Review Questions (RQ)

Remarks on status (include date) First submission 2011.03.03

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

PL response (include date), round 2

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Review Questions (RQ)

Remarks on status (include date)

Changes required to proceed to contracting

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]

PL response (include date), round 2

Program Manager MT Point Person

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Review Questions (RQ)

Remarks on status (include date)

Changes required to proceed to contracting

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]

PL response (include date), round 2

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Review Questions (RQ)

Remarks on status (include date)

Changes required to proceed to contracting

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]

PL response (include date), round 2

CPWF Project Workbook

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Review Questions (RQ)

Remarks on status (include date)

Changes required to proceed to contracting

Response from the Project Leader (include date)

Status of changes required after resubmission [to be filled in by the reviewers]

PL response (include date), round 2