Assessment of Proposals for the Regional Implementation Team for the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot

Transcription

1 Assessment of Proposals for the Regional Implementation Team for the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot Summary of the Application and Review Process In October 2012, immediately following final approval of the updated Ecosystem Profile for the Indo- Burma Biodiversity Hotspot by the CEPF Donor Council, the CEPF Secretariat launched a public call for proposals to fill the role of regional implementation team (RIT). Following the terms of reference approved by the Donor Council, CEPF will separate the role of the RIT into two distinct contracted functions, both for five years: the RIT-Administration, with a maximum contracted amount of $885,000, and the RIT-Programs, with a maximum contracted amount of $515,000. As such, the Secretariat released two separate requests for proposals (RfPs), RfP 1 for Administration and RfP 2 for Programs (Annex 1 and Annex 2), inviting individual organizations and consortia of organizations to apply for either one or both roles. The calendar of events to date has been as follows. 25 October 2012 Opening date for RfP 1 (RIT-Administration) and RfP 2 (RIT-Programs) 29 November 2012 International conference call / bidders conference 14 January 2013 Closing date for receipt of proposals for both RfPs Upon release of the RfPs, 18 organizations contacted CEPF expressing interest. Representatives of 18 organizations accessed the conference call. During the call, CEPF Secretariat staff gave an overview of expectations for the two RIT roles, reiterated points in the bidding documents, and answered questions. A recording of this conference call is available on the CEPF website ( As of 14 January, the Secretariat received the following: A paired set of proposals for RIT-Administration and RIT-Programs from the Asian Institute of Technology, based in Bangkok, Thailand. A paired set of proposals for RIT-Administration and RIT-Programs from a consortium led by BirdLife International of the United Kingdom, working from offices in Cambodia and Vietnam. A proposal for RIT-Programs from Conservation International, working from offices in Cambodia and China. A proposal for RIT-Programs from Chetthor, based in Cambodia. A paired set of proposals for RIT-Administration and RIT-Programs from a consortium led by the IUCN-Asia Regional Office based in Bangkok, Thailand. A preliminary review of the submissions from the five proponents revealed that the proposal submitted by Chetthor did not respond to the RfP and instead was a proposal entitled Bio-diversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood in Prey Veng province (BCCD). This proposal was omitted from further review. The CEPF Secretariat conducted a comprehensive review of the remaining proposals, the results of which are summarized in this document. This process relied on scoring each proposal against eight detailed evaluation criteria included in the two Requests for Proposals. Note that the criteria titles for the evaluation of the Administration and Programs bids are the same; however, the detailed understanding of those titles are different, as described in the Requests for Proposals, as are the weightings. Thus, the scoring does allow for the possibility that one organization could be ranked higher for Administration and Page 1 of 11

2 another organization could be ranked higher for Programs. The summary results of the evaluations are shown in the tables below and a qualitative discussion of the merits of the proposals follows. Table 1. Summary Evaluation of Proposals Submitted for RIT-Administration No. Criteria Possible Points AIT BirdLife CI IUCN 1 Organizational Experience: Technical Organizational Experience: Management Personnel Understanding of the Ecosystem Profile Proposed Technical Approach Proposed Management Approach Budget Synergy with RIT-Programs Total Table 2. Summary Evaluation of Proposals Submitted for RIT-Programs No. Criteria Possible Points AIT BirdLife CI IUCN 1 Organizational Experience: Technical Organizational Experience: Management Personnel Understanding of the Ecosystem Profile Proposed Technical Approach Proposed Management Approach Budget Synergy with RIT-Programs Total Geographic focus of the proposals AIT proposes to cover five of the six countries in the hotspot: Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. AIT states that if requested they would be able to establish a structure to work in China. BirdLife proposes to cover the entire hotspot. CI proposes to work in China and Cambodia, and to assist RIT-Administration to coordinate partners in Northern Laos, Southern Laos and Vietnam. IUCN proposes to cover the entire hotspot. Results This analysis reveals that of the five submissions, three exhibit sufficient quality such that each has the ability to successfully perform the duties of the RIT in the Indo-Burma hotspot. IUCN has submitted the strongest proposal, having demonstrated their wealth of experience, knowledge of the ecosystem profile, solid approach and full coverage of the hotspot countries. The main concern with the IUCN submission is the lack of full time staff dedicated to the RIT. The second strongest submission is from BirdLife, the organization currently performing the role of the RIT. BirdLife exhibits obvious ability to continue this role, yet has not been clear on the identity of a RIT Manager, which is a factor that this critical to gauging the potential of the RIT to achieve its objectives. The third strongest submission, from the Asian Institute Page 2 of 11

3 of Technology, demonstrates expertise in education and outreach, training and capacity building, and an increasing interest in grant-making for natural resource management in the region. Key concerns with this organization are that it does not cover China, and it has miscalculated its budget rather substantially. Two submissions were found to be inadequate. These are Chetthor, which applied for an implementation grant rather than to be the RIT, and CI, whose proposal covers only two of the hotspot countries, and even so, exceeds the allowable budget. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 1 - Organizational Experience: Technical AIT is an institute of higher learning based in Bangkok that aims to promote technological change and sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region through education, research and outreach. Established in 1959, AIT has 32 academic programs in three schools: School of Management, School of Engineering and Technology and School of Environment, Resources and Development. AIT employs 120 faculty members and 100 researchers and has satellite centers in Vietnam and Indonesia. AIT has an extension program that provides professional education, short-course training and provision of consultancy services. AIT also conducts research and consulting projects across the region. Key projects AIT is currently involved in include the Aqua Outreach Program, which entails local-level capacity building for conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Mekong region (since 1990), and the Wetlands Alliance Program, which aims to improve sustainability of wetlands, livelihoods and food security for the poor in the Mekong region and to strengthen the capacity of local change agents to support sustainable wetland management for the benefit of the poor. This program is a partnership of six regional partners including Coastal Resources Institute Asia Foundation, the World Fish Center, WWF, United Nations University, Hand in Hand India and AIT. In operation since 2005 and covering eight sites in Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, this program has an annual budget of about $1.7 million, which includes a small grants program. AIT performs secretariat functions for the alliance. Education and training, and research undertaken by students, faculty and associates appear to be the main focus of AIT, with implementation of projects being a minor part of their work. BirdLife s mission is to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people toward sustainability in the use of natural resources. BirdLife has been present in Indo-Burma since 1996 when the Vietnam program was established, and a program office was set up in Cambodia in These two program offices comprise the secretariat. There are three members of the BirdLife Partnership in the region: the Bird Conservation Society of Thailand, the Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association in Myanmar, and the Hong Kong Birdwatching Society. BirdLife s experience in the region centers around the Important Bird Areas program, as well as their role as the RIT for CEPF s phase 1 investment in the hotspot. CI s mission is to empower societies to responsibly and sustainably care for nature for the well-being of humanity. Founded in 1987, CI has more than 900 dedicated staff, and more than 1,000 partners in the 30+ countries they work in. CI has a decade of experience in Indo-Burma and has offices in China and Cambodia. CI s work has included projects targeting globally threatened species, addressing wildlife trade, developing payment for ecosystem services schemes, and leading spatial planning and species assessments workshops and target-setting exercises to align conservation and development objectives. CI has a strong focus on developing partnerships and building capacity. CI s experience in the region is centered on Cambodia and China, with minimal experience in the other countries in the region. IUCN proposes to undertake the RIT-Program and RIT-Administration roles as a consortium with two partners: Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) in Hong Kong, and Myanmar Environment Page 3 of 11

4 Rehabilitation-conservation Network (MERN). IUCN has 20 years of experience in Indo-Burma, managing many large multi-year, multi-country projects, and implementing a wide range of species conservation and protected area management projects throughout the region. With a regional office in Bangkok and additional offices in China, Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam, IUCN is well positioned to reach out in the hotspot. They also plan to locate a staff person in Myanmar in February Furthermore, IUCN has approximately 450 commission members based in the hotspot. IUCN has a long history of working to conserve the natural resources of the region, of building capacity, of providing technical assistance and of building partnerships and alliances. IUCN understands the challenges of working in Indo-Burma and has a solid record of achievement with projects, big and small, that are fully in line with the work that CEPF will implement with its upcoming investment. In particular, IUCN has implemented the $14 million project Mangroves for the Future, which includes large- and small-grant facilities. The Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity in Hong Kong and South China, allied with sustainable agriculture and creative nature tourism. In 1998 KFBG created the South China Biodiversity Programme, which was renamed in 2003 to Kadoorie Conservation China (KCC). KCC has worked in South China assessing the conservation status of ecosystems and species. Since then they have conducted more research on endangered species, partnered with numerous research institutes and universities to conducts surveys and conservation projects, and since 2003 they have had a focus in Hainan. The KFBG Studentships Scheme has supported students to conduct research related to conservation, via small grants. KFBG has the largest conservation program of any civil society organization within the parts of China covered by the Indo-Burma Hotspot, making this organization a sound partner for the RIT to cover CEPF s investment in south China. MERN is a new organization, established in It is the leading environmental NGO network in Myanmar with 16 NGO members and five applications pending. For the past two years it has managed a small-grants fund financed by DfID/SIDA. Although a young organization, MERN has already earned a solid reputation for networking, program implementation and administration. All applicants have, to varying degrees, technical experience that would be sufficient to fulfill the role of RIT-Administration and RIT-Programs. The IUCN consortium ranks higher based largely on its demonstrated duration and record of support by donors to undertake a range of conservation-related work. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 2 - Organizational Experience: Management AIT is a large and long-standing institution with a regional remit. The proposal provides information on recent experience in managing numerous large and complex programs, such as the Wetlands Alliance Program, which is the initiative that seems to be most pertinent to CEPF. Started in 2005, this project has a total contract value of over $12 million. AIT hosts the secretariat and manages the small-grants program, which is included in the annual budget of approximately $1.7 million. This program is active in all hotspot countries except China, noting that it is tied to specific sites. Four of five staff proposed for the RIT are expatriates, providing minimal clarity about how the long-term management experience of the organization will benefit CEPF in the region. BirdLife fulfilled the role of the RIT during CEPF s first phase of investment and therefore does have demonstrated experience in managing a program of similar size and scope. They do not, however, make reference to any other projects that might be comparable. CI has much experience managing a program of similar size and scope, as this organization has performed CEPF s coordinating role before in numerous countries, including China. CI has proven Page 4 of 11

5 financial and administrative ability, as staff receives training from CI s headquarters, and program implementation is linked to headquarters. However, the proposed RIT team has not managed a large regional project similar in size and scope to CEPF s Indo-Burma portfolio. IUCN has extensive management experience, and the regional office at present manages 44 projects with a total value of over $44 million. Donors include bilateral and multilateral donors, governments, foundations, the private sector and others, indicating that they have solid experience in managing projects and finances. In terms of grants programs, their project Mangroves for the Future, which includes awarding large and small grants, has allowed IUCN to put in place the systems and processes necessary for efficient and effective grant-making, and also to refine their ability to do strategic grant-making, communicate effectively with grantees and other stakeholders, and leverage funds as well as outcomes. Both MERN and KCC also have experience managing grants programs, albeit on a smaller scale. All four applicants have been able to demonstrate that they have managed projects of similar size and scope. However, the IUCN consortium inspires the most confidence, given that they have managed multiple large projects, covering many countries, and have managed a grants program of similar size. There is no doubt that IUCN is fully capable of performing the tasks of the RIT. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 3 - Personnel AIT proposes a Bangkok-based central management team consisting of five key people. These include (with the overall level of effort RIT-Programs and RIT-Administration in parentheses): a RIT manager (30%), a communications specialist (50%), a senior program specialist (50%), a program associate (50%) and an admin manager (30%). They propose locally hired national coordinators for Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar and Lao PDR who would operate at 100%. China is excluded from the proposal. Proposed personnel have a range of areas of qualification and expertise, including management of aquatic resources, microfinance, information technology and program development and implementation. Personnel note experience in environmental education, capacity building and biodiversity conservation. BirdLife proposes a team led by a RIT manager (100%) and supported by a finance officer (100%), a communications officer (100%), a civil society development officer (100%), and four full-time project officers. Most RIT staff will be based in the Cambodia office, and up to three staff will be based in Hanoi. Project officers in China and Myanmar will be hosted by the Yunnan Green Environment Development Foundation and the Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association, respectively. There is mention of a team leader, but this position is not in the budget, nor is fully described in the proposal. CI proposes to implement RIT-Programs via two program staff: a technical director from CI s China office and another technical director from CI s Cambodia office. These two staff will be supported by local operations staff and finance managers. Both are well-qualified with experience in biodiversity conservation and natural resources management, wetlands and a range of other biodiversity-related topics. Language skills of the two technical directors are English and Mandarin. IUCN proposes a large team with separate individuals leading RIT-Programs (60%) and RIT- Administration (39%), both based in Bangkok. These two will be supported by a communications officer (22%) and a finance officer (33%), and country coordinators based in each country. Levels of effort for lead staff as well as for country coordinators appear low, and most staff is part-time. Some country coordinators will come in at only 5% (Thailand) and 9% (Lao PDR), which is likely to be insufficient. IUCN s proposed staff has a range of relevant experience and qualifications, and will be supported by IUCN s SSC network as well as two experts who will assist with proposal review and technical input (and these two are included in the budget). Page 5 of 11

6 Table 3. Comparison of proposed personnel and level of effort, combined for both proposals Position AIT BirdLife IUCN RIT-Program Manager/Lead 10% 50% 60% RIT-Administration Manager/Lead 20% 50% 39% Senior Program Specialist 50% Communications Officer 50% 100% 22% Finance/Admin Officer 30% 100% 33% Program Associate Program 50% Program Officer Admin 100% Civil Society Development Officer 100% Project Officer Thailand 100% 33% 5% Project Officer Cambodia 100% 100% 19% Project Officer Vietnam 100% 33% 30% Project Officer Myanmar 100% 100% 33% Project Officer China 100% 66% Project Officer Lao PDR 100% 33% China Manager (in kind) 25% Total FTE While both AIT and BirdLife have similar scores, BirdLife ranks higher because it has chosen to employ full-time staff rather than numerous part-time staff. CEPF has found that this is a more productive strategy for implementing the program, as part-time staff get pulled in different directions and cannot devote themselves fully to the task at hand. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 4 - Understanding of the Ecosystem Profile AIT understands the goals of the strategic direction pertaining to the RIT, and understands that capacity building, collaboration, partnerships and interaction with stakeholders are key to implementing CEPF s strategy. They have a regional remit, and understand the need to have regional representation and engagement. They do not, however, make reference to the other strategic directions, the varying levels of capacity in each country, or the type of grants that they might make. AIT has thought about process, but falls short of discussing the content of the ecosystem profile, raising doubt about whether they have fully considered its complexities and challenges. CI demonstrates generic understanding of the ecosystem profile and presents arguments for how CI s skills and interests complement the objectives of the ecosystem profile. CI understands the threats in the region, and the varying capacity levels in the region, and they have thought about the types of projects that could be implemented with CEPF investment. However, CI does not refer to the individual strategic directions. BirdLife demonstrates a clear understanding of the differences between the first Indo-Burma profile and the second, and points out areas of divergence, noting that increased emphasis on strengthening civil society is critical for achieving the goals of the ecosystem profile. BirdLife recaps their experience in reaching varying levels of civil society during their tenure as RIT, noting challenges in Lao PDR and Vietnam due to the small operating space afforded by government. They describe the success they have had supporting consortia and indicate that they would continue to promote this approach. IUCN demonstrates an excellent understanding of the ecosystem profile and its investment strategy. They detail each strategic direction, explain its value, and then provide detail on how they would implement it as the RIT. They describe some of their approaches, and mention a number of potential grantees. It is clear that they have thought about each strategic direction and the associated challenges and opportunities. Page 6 of 11

7 The IUCN consortium ranks higher overall based on its understanding of the implications of the ecosystem profile s strategic directions in relation to grant making across multiple countries. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 5 - Proposed Technical Approach AIT s proposed technical approach and logical framework for both administration and programs adhere to the requirements of the respective RfPs. The logframe, however, provides minimal detail on the proposed activities that would be necessary to achieve the deliverables. The proposal focuses on communication at all stages of program implementation, and elaborates this through a proposed information dissemination strategy. The RIT will rely heavily on a website, twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook to publicize CEPF and the calls for proposals, as well as publicizing lessons learned. AIT does recognize the benefits of engagement and they propose annual grantee meetings that rotate throughout the region. They recognize that capacity building will be part and parcel of proposal development and propose several approaches, including training workshops. The proposal is fairly general and it is unclear how they will implement the CEPF strategy in each country, and how they will address the variations in capacity and enabling environment in each country. Further, they do not provide detail on how they would engage with donors in general, although they do propose to engage on a monthly basis with CEPF s own donors. They do not refer to the CEPF profile in terms of the other strategic directions, and therefore their proposed strategy does not provide any detail on the specifics of program implementation. BirdLife proposes to duplicate the process that they are currently implementing, and will augment it by adding three new staff: a civil society development officer, a China project officer, and Myanmar project officer. The remit of the civil society development officer will be to regularly visit all countries and, with the dedicated project officer for those countries, reach out to local civil society and assist with capacity building. CI proposes to fulfill the RIT-Program role in Cambodia and China, and plans to coordinate with RIT- Administration to cover the remaining countries in the hotspot. They propose four work packages to implement the program: partner network, program delivery, information sharing and capacity building. CI makes frequent mention of the need to coordinate with RIT-Administration to design and manage parts of the program. They present a logframe, and a work plan that indicate the party responsible (CEPF Secretariat, RIT-Programs or RIT-Administration). The work plan lists both RIT-Programs and RIT- Administration as sharing responsibility for almost all tasks, indicating that CI will not be taking sole responsibility for any part of the RIT, but this is to be expected because CI only proposes to cover two of the countries in the hotspot. IUCN provides a solid analysis to support their technical approach. Not only have they evaluated the strategic directions and thought about how they will address them, they have also provided thorough descriptions of how they will address each of the investment priorities of the RIT. Their plans for communication within the team as well as with external stakeholders are robust. They have already identified opportunities to collaborate with a range of donors. They have a solid outreach plan that includes communication with governments, partners and local CSOs, and they have outlined their internal communication plans to ensure regular communication between country coordinators and Bangkok-based staff. Notable is their intent to build relations with non-traditional partners such as the National Assembly in Vietnam. Their plans to build the capacity of applicants and grantees entail a series of workshops (including outsourced strategic planning and financial management workshops), and annual meetings in each country to stimulate peer-to-peer learning. IUCN states that much of the capacity building will take place in years one and two, with country coordinators providing support on an ongoing basis. IUCN proposes a thorough set of processes for proposal solicitation and review for large and small grants, monitoring and evaluation, and managing the finances of the program. Page 7 of 11

8 The IUCN consortium ranks higher because its proposal has provided thorough detail on how they plan to approach all five investment priorities. They have addressed all the tasks required of the RIT in a satisfactory manner and inspire confidence that CEPF will be able to achieve its objectives in all six countries in the hotspot. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 6 - Proposed Management Approach AIT proposes to have a central management team headquartered in Thailand, with supporting national coordinators located in each country (except China). Program implementation will be managed by the RIT manager, and guided by a proposed Program Steering Committee to be comprised of a representative from each of CEFP s donors, who would communicate on a monthly basis. Other RIT staff will largely operate from Thailand, although a senior program specialist will monitor grants via site visits to each project. The proposal presents a solid approach to its large- and small-grants programs that includes a well thought out process for grant solicitation, review, ranking and decision-making through to contract award. The proposed monitoring and reporting process, however, is less detailed, and appears to rely heavily on Internet access for grantees, and where this is not possible, they propose use of GPS technology to assist with communicating project progress. This proposal suggests that AIT may not understand the number, scope and variety of projects that might be funded under CEPF. The AIT team based in Thailand will have English and Thai language capability. National coordinators will be hired to operate in each country and will have local language skills. BirdLife proposes to coordinate the program from their Cambodia and Vietnam offices. The RIT manager and several staff will be based in Phnom Penh, and project officers will be based in Hanoi and out-posted in China and Myanmar. The proposed management approach replicates what is currently being practiced. CI proposes to manage the program from two offices (in Cambodia and China), noting that they also propose to operate in these two countries only. CI has solid operations and financial management, based on backstopping from their headquarters office in Washington, D.C. CI suggests that they will coordinate with RIT-Administration to oversee the program in the other countries in the hotspot, but do not offer detail nor have they made any suggestions about who they might prefer to fulfill this role. IUCN proposes to coordinate the program from their regional office in Bangkok, with the leads from RIT-Programs and RIT-Administration based there along with a communications officer and a finance officer. The team will also have part-time coordinators in each country, with the staff in China and Myanmar being employees of KFBG and MERN respectively. Review of proposals will be supported by several experts, whose time is included in the budget, as well as IUCN/SSC members who participate on a voluntary basis. Management of the portfolio will be undertaken by the lead for RIT-Administration with country coordinators using their MLE framework, which includes an assessment of progress, outreach and compliance. The RIT proposes to visit each grantee at least every six months, and may also engage external experts to assist. This is not a realistic proposition, based on CEPF s experience. Overall, financial management will be guided by IUCN s system of internal controls as specified in their Finance Policies and Procedures Manual. Finally, IUCN has a due diligence procedure that is implemented on all sub-recipients and partners to help safeguard against financial mismanagement. Financial reporting of sub-recipients is monitored on a monthly basis. The IUCN consortium ranks higher because its proposal has provided thorough detail on how they plan to manage the CEPF portfolio at the regional and national levels. They have addressed all the Page 8 of 11

9 tasks required of the RIT in a satisfactory manner and inspire confidence that CEPF will be able to achieve its objectives in all six countries in the hotspot. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 7 - Budget The AIT budgets are complete and within the allocated amount. However, there are errors in the calculations that lead to an underrepresentation of the real cost of the RIT. For example, RIT- Administration salary costs are listed as $295,922, but exclude the salaries for the RIT manager and Admin manager. Thus the actual cost of RIT-Administration salaries is $444,577. Similarly, in the RIT- Programs budget, salary costs are listed as $184,430, but the actual total should be $322,467. This means that the combined salary costs are $286,692 higher than what is stated in the budgets. Furthermore, unit costs are not elaborated and therefore it is not possible to critically evaluate the budget. For example, travel costs are proposed, but no detail provided as to how many trips, who will travel, and where the traveler will travel to. Indirect costs are 10%, but not explained. Some elements of the proposal are not evident in the budget, such as in-country costs for national coordinators. The lack of detail could mean that the AIT has not determined the actual costs associated with this project. BirdLife s budgets are complete and within the allocated amount. Costs are correct, but a proposed 6% for annual salary increases seems excessive. BirdLife has not provided an explanation for what is covered by IDC. CI proposes a budget of $519,343, which surpasses the amount allocated for RIT-Programs. Furthermore, CI s budget covers only two of the hotspot s six countries, thereby rendering this proposed budget too high to be considered. IUCN s budgets are complete and within the allocated amount. Costs are correct, but unit costs are not provided in sufficient detail for some budget lines; for example, travel contains lump sums without explanation. Further, combined figures for IDC are $161,062, plus $101,250 for rent. IUCN had not provided an explanation for what is covered by IDC. Both BirdLife and IUCN receive similar scores for this criterion. Both present a solid base from which to work should they be selected to finalize their proposal for submission to the Donor Council. Assessment of Evaluation Criterion 8 - Synergy between RIT-Administration and RIT-Programs The requests for proposals did not require that an organization apply for both roles. However, the Secretariat instructed proponents that if they only applied for one role, they were required to specifically address how they would work with the other RIT team. AIT, BirdLife and IUCN applied for both roles and implicitly addressed this issue. CI, however, only submitted a proposal for CI-Programs. CI proposes to work with the RIT-Administration by initially defining a detailed Terms of Reference to separate clearly the tasks undertaken by RIT-Programs and RIT-Administration, and to set up a specific communication and coordination plan to ensure overall implementation. CI does not suggest an organization to fulfill the role of RIT-Administration. Recommended Negotiation Points Leading to Engagement of the RIT Three applicants, IUCN, BirdLife, and AIT, have submitted proposals that indicate they would be able to successfully perform the role of the RIT for the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot. Of these three, IUCN s proposal is the strongest, followed by BirdLife and then AIT. Based on this analysis, recommended negotiation points to engage IUCN as the RIT are listed below. In the event that CEPF is not able to reach Page 9 of 11

10 agreement with IUCN to perform the duties of the RIT, both BirdLife and AIT have scored sufficiently to merit negotiation for the role. Points pertaining to engagement with IUCN to perform the role of the RIT are: 1. There is concern no one on the team will work on the RIT full time (even when the RIT- Administration grant is taken into account). For the RIT-Programs grant, 60% time of the RIT- Programs lead is satisfactory (especially as this begins full time in the first year and then tapers off). But, at the level of the national coordinators, who play a pivotal role in engaging government partners, applicants and grantees, this is particularly problematic. The fact that the national coordinators for Myanmar and Vietnam will work only around 30% of their time on the project (including the RIT-Administration grant) is barely satisfactory, but the fact that this is as little as 9% for the Lao coordinator and 5% for the Thai coordinator calls into question the contributions of these persons to the project, as they are likely to have many other demands on their time that will prevent them from making CEPF work a priority or promptly responding to requests from civil society organizations. The finance officer is only budgeted at 33%, which may be insufficient given the demands of managing a small-grants mechanism and ensuring compliance with CEPF s policies. Revisions to the staffing plan needed to ensure that staff has sufficient level of effort dedicated to the project. 2. Clarity is needed on how the lead team of Perkin and Tallant will ensure contact with senior government officials, as James Tallant is relatively junior, only speaks English, and has no experience as a manager or builder of organizational capacity. Scott Perkin has no time allocated to RIT- Programs. Clarity is needed on where James Tallant will be based. 3. Clarity is needed on how IUCN will deal with the varying legal requirements of working in each country, especially the challenges of channeling small grants to local organizations in China and Myanmar. 4. There is no chart showing the reporting line from the RIT to the remainder of IUCN, yet this is referred to particularly for internal controls and multiple required signatures. Clarity is needed. 5. Budget. The level of effort decreases in later years. How will IUCN ensure adequate implementation? Also, IUCN is expecting $100,000 in rental costs in addition to a fixed rate IDC (which is not justified). If rental costs were redirected to salaries/benefits, this would go a long way toward addressing under-budgeting for staff costs. 6. How will IUCN prevent undue influence by government agencies on decisions that affect civil society? 7. Would the diversity of civil society groups that can be supported by IUCN be limited due to IUCN s need to maintain positive relationships with certain government agencies? 8. More clarity is needed on the proposed grant review process for small- and large-grant proposals. To its credit, the proposal draws on the technical strength of IUCN and its commissions, but it is important that the review process also engages representatives of local civil society organizations in the region. Additionally, the peer review process currently extends to all large- and small-grant applications, not only large grants above $250,000; it is important that IUCN maintains at least an equivalent level of rigor and transparency. 9. IUCN proposes to involve the CEPF Secretariat in the large-grants process during the Part II review stage; however, decision-making for large grants is a joint effort between the Secretariat and the RIT, Page 10 of 11

11 and therefore the review process will need to be altered to reflect the partnership nature of the proposal review process. Page 11 of 11