FOLUR IMPACT

PROGRAMME
INDONESIA COUNTRY PROJECT

25 APRIL 2022
 • Efficient and effective
food crop value
chains for multiple
benefits

• Removing
deforestation from
supply chains
FOOD SYSTEMS, LAND USE AND RESTORATION
ACHIEVING TRANSFORMATIONAL SHIFT –
“SUSTAINABILITY” • Expand restoration of
degraded lands
DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES
• Addressing sustainability issues in
relation to the production of oil palm
coffee, cocoa and rice
• Reduce deforestation risks
• Loss of natural habitats
• Erosion of genetic diversity
• Overexploitation of land and water
resources
• Overuse of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides
• Decreased greenhouse gas emissions
PROBLEM TREE ANALYSIS
 1. Generate benefits for the economy
at local and national levels.
2. Minimize impacts on global
environmental values (biodiversity,
carbon stocks and the productive
potential of natural and anthropic
ecosystems).
LONG TERM 3. Sustainable in productive and social

VISION
terms.
4. Integrated with the livelihood
support and food production
systems of local populations, and do
not undermine the resilience of their
livelihoods or their access to safe
and nutritious food.
Barriers towards achieving the long-term vision
1. Compartmentalized visions in policy, planning
and landscape management frameworks.
2. Inadequate capacities and incentives for
sustainable production and restoration.
3. Limitations in the flow of knowledge and
information.

Jurisdictional approach recognizes the realities

of the institutional frameworks within which
planning is carried out and decisions are made

ILM recognizes the landscape-wide

nature of ecosystem flows and social
and productive dynamics
Proposed Theory of Change
LINKAGES WITH NATIONAL
& UNDP PROGRAMME
PRIORITIES

• Medium-Term Development Plan

(RPJMN) 2020-2024 → “protecting
the environment and
strengthening resilience against
natural disasters and climate
change.”
• UNSDCF Indonesia 2021-2025,
Outcome 3, Output 3.2
• UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021:
Signature Solution 4, Output 1.4.1 SDG 1, 2, 5, 12, 13,
15, & 17
PROJECT INFO
• Implementing Partner (GEF Executing Entity):
Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs
• Other Partners: BAPPENAS, MoA, MoEF
• Execution Modality: NIM
• UNDP Gender Marker: GEN2
• UNDP SES Category: High
• Planned start date: 01 Jan 2022
• Financing Plan: USD 16,213,762 (GEF TF)
• UNDP: USD 12,154,129
• FAO: USD 4,059,633

• Co-financing: USD 132,510,462

• Project Duration: 6 years ( 72 months)
CO-FINANCING
Co-financing partner Value US$
Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (CMEA) 517,241
Ministry of National Development Planning (BAPPENAS) 3,000,000
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) 27,590,000
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) 14,950,000
Indonesia’s Palm Oil Fund Management Agency 50,000,000
UNDP 5,000,000
FAO 3,353,221
Unilever 6,000,000
Mondelez 10,000,000
Olam* 1,100,000
GIZ 11,000,000
Total: 132,510,462
PROJECT MAP
West
Kalimantan South Sulawesi
Aceh
West Papua

North
Sumatera

11
 Outcomes-outputs level responsibility matrix
Component 1: Component 2: Component 3: Component 4:
Enabling environment Sustainable production Conservation - restoration M&E and KM
Key Gov’t partner: CMEA Key Gov’t partner: MoA Key Gov’t partner: MoEF Key Gov’t partner: CMEA
Outcome 1: Strengthened CMEA Outcome 3: PPP, finance leveraged CMEA Outcome 6: Participatory MoEF Outcome 7: Integrated KM CMEA
policies models of conservation and and coordination
Output 3.1: Finance UNDP CMEA restoration
Output 1.1: Policy UNDP CMEA Output 7.1: M&E UNDP CMEA
analyses and mechanisms for farmers Output 6.1: FAO District
proposals Conservation - BAPPEDA
Output 7.2: UNDP CMEA
Output 3.2: PPP for UNDP CMEA restoration detailed
Output 1.2: Multi- UNDP CMEA Safeguard plans
sustainable value chains plans
stakeholder dialogue implemented
Output 6.2: Plans FAO District
Output 1.3: UNDP CMEA Output 7.3: UNDP CMEA
Output 3.3: Open UNDP CMEA implemented BAPPEDA
Sustainable action Causal impacts
innovation challenge evaluated
plans Output 6.3: FAO District
Outcome 4: Smallholders receiving MoA Collaborative BAPPEDA
Output 1.4: Decision UNDP BAPPENAS Output 7.4: UNDP CMEA
increased value for their products governance
support tools Knowledge
strengthened
management
Outcome 2: Integrated BAPPENAS Output 4.1: Traceability UNDP MoA
landscape management Output 7.5: UNDP CMEA
systems
mainstreamed Regional-global
Output 4.2: Grading UNDP MoA engagement
Output 2.1: Dialogue UNDP BAPPENAS guidance
mechanisms for ILM
Outcome 5: Smallholder farmers MoA
Output 2.2: Maps and UNDP MoEF and support systems strengthened
inventories HCV/HCS
Output 2.3: Provincial UNDP BAPPEDA Output 5.1: District plans FAO District Agri,
ILM plans on smallholder farmers Plantation
Output 2.4: Carrying UNDP BAPPENAS Output 5.2: Extension FAO District Agri,
capacity, TSA’s / services strengthened Plantation
BAPPEDA
Output 5.3: Smallholder FAO District Agri,
Output 2.5: District ILM
considerations
UNDP BAPPEDA farmer capacity building Plantation Annex 3. Multi years work plan
Output 5.4: Land tenure FAO District BPN
FOLUR Indonesia PIMS 6393 support
RENCANA PENGGUNAAN DANA HIBAH GEF

Total Project Budget:

USD 16,213,762
RENCANA PENGGUNAAN DANA HIBAH GEF

Total Project Budget:

USD 4,059,633
RENCANA PENGGUNAAN DANA HIBAH GEF

Total Project Budget:

USD 12,154,129
Budget Plan
According
Account Code
Project
Organigram
17
 PROJECT-SPECIFIC GENDER
CONSIDERATIONS
Results related to gender equality will be assessed according
to:
◦ Closing gender gaps in access to and control over resources
◦ Improving women’s participation and decision-making
◦ Social and economic benefits or services for women

Project will adopt the following operational gender principles:

◦ Assess direct/indirect costs & benefits for both women and
men
◦ Incorporate sex-disaggregated data collection & gender-
sensitive indicators
◦ Consideration of both formal and informal land tenure,
forest use & access to resources when defining beneficiaries
& direct & indirect benefits
Gender Mainstreaming Framework
Activity Actions
1. Facilitating Ensure appropriate representation of Representation of women on project decision-
women women in the project’s decision-
empowerment making bodies.
2. Enhancing Ensure equitable proportion of
gender equality benefits accessed by and delivered
to women from the project,
including opportunities for training, (b) Farmers trained,
access to financing, resources and
capital for improved farming
practices and market development
and partnership development.
3. Ensuring Ensure that all relevant gender
gender considerations are integrated into
integration appropriate policies, strategies,
plans, regulations and sectoral
programmes.
Indicator Target
Equitable
making bodies, including the following: proportion
(a) Project steering committee,
(b) Landscape committees and working groups
Representation of women as direct 50%
beneficiaries, including the following:
(a) Institutional level stakeholders trained,
(c) Agricultural associations and cooperatives,
receiving financing, resources, and capital,
(d) Membership to agricultural associations and
cooperatives.
Number of gender-responsive measures 100%
included in proposed policies, strategies, plans,
regulations and sectoral programmes
Gender Mainstreaming Framework…Cont’d
Activity Actions Indicator Target
4. Promoting gender • Promote gender awareness throughout all phases of The percentage of project 100%
awareness project implementation. management team members,
• The PMUteam members, consultants and other consultants and other service
service provider(s) staff involved in the project provider(s) staff and partners
activities will be trained receiving gender awareness training.
• Training will also be including guidance on how to
detect, intercept, respond to, and prevent gender-
based violence, sexual harassment, and other
problems that may emerge during project
implementation.
5. Promoting equal • Promote equal opportunities for employment Percentage of women employed as Equitable
opportunity positions. project management staff, proportion
employment • Ensure equal pay will be provided to both women consultancies, and service providers.
and men for work of equal type in accordance with
national laws and international norms.
• Ensure a safe working conditions for both women
and men workers will be provided.
6. Women’s Facilitate women’s empowerment in agriculture, Improvement in the Women’s 30%
empowerment in according to the categories outlined in the scorecard in Empowerment in Agriculture improvement in
agriculture Table 5. scorecard (see Table 5) from project scorecard
inception to the end of the project. assessment
SUMMARY OF THE SESP
ASSESSMENT
Total No. 22 risks identified
◦ Low = 2
◦ Moderate = 11
◦ High = 9
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (HIGH)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 1: Improved enforcement of landscape protections
and new approaches to land management could result in I=4 High
changes to current access to resources, potentially leading
to economic displacement. P=3

Principle 1, q3; Standard 5, q2.

Risk 3: Changes to land tenure arrangements may result in
loss of informal or customary land tenure rights, exposing I=4 High
people without registered legal entitlement to the land
they farm to economic displacement, or exclude them from P=3
project benefits.
Principle 1, q4. Standard 5 q4.
Risk 6: The project may have adverse impacts on the
rights, lands, resources and territories of Indigenous I=4 High
Peoples (known as “customary people”) Customary People
might not be fully involved in project design and therefore P=3
not engaged in, supportive of, or benefit fully from project
activities. There may be a heightened risk of vulnerability of
indigenous communities due to a prolonged or recurrent
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic or similar crisis.
Principle 1 q 1-6; 2 q 1,2,4.
Standard 6 q 1-6.
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (HIGH)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 7: Local governments (sub-national level) and
community associations might not have the capacity I=4 High
to implement project activities successfully.
P=4
Principle 1, q5
Risk 8: Field- and policy-level activities related to the
value chains of key commodities could inadvertently I=5 High
support child labour, forced labour, and other
P=3
violations of international labour standards.
Principle 1, q1; Standard 3, q.8
Risk 11: A failure of the project to benefit
vulnerable groups, due to “Elite Capture” of project I=4 High
benefits.
P=3
The Project could have inequitable or discriminatory
adverse impacts on affected populations,
particularly people living in poverty or marginalized
or excluded individuals or groups.
Principle 1, q4.
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (HIGH)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 12: Informal farmers, or those without
registered legal entitlement to the land they farm, I=4 High
may be excluded from project benefits.
P=4

Principle 1, q2.
Risk 17: Project activities and outcomes will be
vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate I=4 High
change. A potential economic downturn as a result
P=5
of a prolonged or recurrent COVID-19 pandemic (or
similar) may increase the vulnerability and coping
capacities of local communities.
Standard 2, q2; Standard 3, q5
Risk 20: Risk imposed by COVID-19 pandemic or
similar disease outbreak, having implications at I=4 High
international, national and sub-national levels.
P=5
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (MODERATE)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 2: Improved enforcement of landscape protections
and new approaches to land management could result in I=4 Moderate
changes to current access to resources, potentially leading
to temporary or permanent and partial or full physical P=2
displacement.
Principle 1, q1; Standard 5, q1.
Risk 4: Low participation rates among smallholders who
may be unwilling or unable to engage. I=3 Moderate
Principle 1, q4. P=3
Risk 5: Vulnerable or marginalized groups, or other
stakeholders might not be fully involved in project design I=3 Moderate
and therefore not engaged in, supportive of, or benefit
from project activities. P =3

Principle 1, q2, q4, q6

Risk 9: Project activities and approaches might not fully
incorporate or reflect views of women and girls and ensure I=3 Moderate
equitable opportunities for their involvement and benefit.
There is a risk that a prolonged or recurrent COVID-19 P=3
pandemic could exacerbate gender inequality and possibly
also increase gender-based violence.
Principle 2: q2, q4
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (MODERATE)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 10: Existing conflicts related to land use and/or
ownership could be exacerbated or reignited by project. I=3 Moderate
Principle 1: q8 P=2
Risk 14: Potential release of pollutants to the environment I=3
due to routine or non-routine circumstances with the P=2 Moderate
potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary
impacts.
Excessive use of fertilizers as part of oil palm, cocoa, coffee,
and rice development could lead to contamination of rivers
and water sources for drinking and impact on soil
degradation and the overall degradation of the natural
habitat in that specific area.
Standard 7, q1-4
Risk 15: Poorly designed or executed project activities
could damage critical or sensitive habitats, including I=3 Moderate
through the introduction of invasive alien species during
forest restoration-rehabilitation activities. P=2

Principle 1: q5; Standard 1: q1, 2, 3, 5, 6

Risk 16: Activities funded under low value grants, may be I=3 Moderate
carried out without full adherence to UDNP SES. P=3
Principles and Standards: All
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (MODERATE)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 18: Workers in commodity supply chains (including
smallholder producers) might be exposed to hazards in I=3 Moderate
their use of chemical inputs (pesticides, fertilizers etc.)
without adequate PPE, training and safeguards, or which P=4
might be subject to international bans.
Standard 3: q.7; Standard 7: 7.3, 7.4
Risk 19: A failure to establish the correct balance between
improving per hectare commodity production with I=4 Moderate
improved enforcement of land use regulations might in
certain locations produce a counter-productive result. P=2

Standard 1, q11.
Risk 22: Local community members involved in project I=3
activities may be at a heightened risk of virus exposure, P=3 Moderate
e.g., stakeholder meetings, workshops, community field
work, etc.
Principle 3, Standard 3, Q3.6.
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS (LOW)
Significance
Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5)
(Low, Moderate, High)
Risk 21: Documenting and/or recording and
disseminating traditional conservation knowledge I=1 Low
might damage communities’ sense of custodianship
P=1
of such activities.
Standard 4, q.1, Standard 6, q9

Risk 13: Lack of access to information.

Principle 1, q4. I=3 Low
P=1
 SUMMARY OF THE RISK
REGISTER
All 22 SESP risks categorized as Social &
Environmental + Matching Impact/Probability
levels
◦ Low = 2
◦ Moderate = 11
◦ High = 9

Additional risks in the Register

◦ Low = 1
◦ Moderate = 7
◦ Substantial - 2
◦ High = 2
RISKS REGISTER (“GENERAL RISKS”)
# Description Risk Category Impact & Probability
1 Local farmers are resistant to changing Operational The primary beneficiaries of the project are farmer households
their agricultural approaches and in the target jurisdictions. Lack of genuine participation could
practices, not seeing the value in impact the effectiveness and sustainability of the project.
engaging with approaches promoted by L=3
the project. I=4
SUBSTANTIAL

2 Conflicting policy directions of national
and sub-national governments.
Political Commodity/crop production patterns are dependent upon
several factors, including governmental policy directives. If
governmental policies are inconsistent with the sustainable
and resilient production promoted on the project, then the
sustainability of the project could be impacted.
L=3
I= 3
MODERATE

3 Legislative approval flows do not match Political If proposed policy reforms are not instituted within the project
the project implementation timeframe. lifespan, some of the momentum gained could be lost when
GEF funding ceases.
L=3
I=3
MODERATE
RISKS REGISTER (“GENERAL RISKS”)
# Description
4 Uneven achievement of project objectives in
the five jurisdictions due to disparate political
and socioeconomic conditions in which the
project will operate
5 Inadequate participation and buy-in at local
levels.
Risk Category Impact & Probability
Strategic The objective of the project is to transform land use planning in five
different jurisdictions in Indonesia to maintain high-value forest for
environment and development benefits. Decentralisation of certain
authorities to sub-national governments has led to adoption of different
strategic approaches and procedures across the provinces of Indonesia.
L=3
I=3
MODERATE
Organizational, Operational An important part of the project strategy is development of integrated
landscape management (ILM) plans, which are envisaged to
institutionalized and operationalized by local governments. If local
governments are not adequately engaged, then it could be difficult to
achieve the objectives that stem from approved ILM plans.
L=3
I=4
SUBSTANTIAL

6 Private sector involvement does not Financial Lack of private sector involvement would undermine the effectiveness
materialize as planned. and durability of the project’s strategy based on using market-based
instruments as leverage for environmental benefits.
L=2
I=3
MODERATE
RISKS REGISTER (“GENERAL RISKS”)
# Description Risk Category Impact & Probability
7 Impacts of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic Operational The project preparation phase coincided with the outbreak of
or similar public health crisis on the the COVID-19 pandemic. Project implementation activities
continuity and delivery of the project. could be suspended or delayed in case of recurrence of the
COVID-19 pandemic or similar.
L=5
I=4
HIGH
8 Impacts of exchange rate fluctuations Financial Project delivery may be impacted by macroeconomic
and/or a possible global economic externalities such as exchange rate fluctuations and a possible
recession on project delivery. economic recession.
L=5
I=4
HIGH
RISKS IDENTIFIED THROUGH PRIVATE SECTOR DUE DILIGENCE
# Description Risk Category Impact & Probability
1 New environmental, social and governance (ESG) Social and environmental, - Potential adverse social and/or environmental impacts could undermine the gains
related issues arise with one or more of the partner Political achieved on the project.
companies, due to a failure to meet UNDP’s Social and - Poor publicity for UNDP or FAO, potentially impacting the long-term viability of the
Environmental Standards in project implementation. In partnership with the private sector, and potentially with the government and donors.
particular issues related economic displacement,
conflict in land tenure and/or ownership, conflict with L=3
indigenous peoples, exposure to hazardous chemicals I=3
from commodity production, and child labour or other MODERATE
violation of ILO Core Labour Standards.
2 One of more of the partner companies violates Regulatory, Political - Poor publicity for UNDP or FAO, potentially impacting the relationship with the
national law or disputes arise with local government government as well as the company itself.
agencies or project-affected communities. L=1
I=5
MODERATE

3 One or more of the partner companies does not fulfil Operational - Some project results are not achieved.
partnership commitments, which are mainly parallel - As the company will be required to support project activities, there is a risk that it
co-financing. will not fulfill its commitments
- Poor publicity for UNDP or FAO, potentially impacting the partnership with private
sector.
L=3
I=3
MODERATE
4 Risk associated with termination of a private sector Operational, Political - Project results are not achieved.
partnership by the government, either at the national, - Poor publicity for UNDP or FAO, potentially impacting the long-term viability of the
state or local level. partnership with the government, companies and donors.
L=1
I=4
LOW
Questions, Inputs, Suggestions ?

Terima Kasih