Contoh Proposal untuk donor hibah grant 2022 pdf

Basic Household Livelihood and Income Study – Impact Analysis
Background
For the last four years GEG has been implementing different field activities and
interventions related to different commodity value chains with the assumption that this will
contribute to an impact on livelihoods at the household level which in turn contributes to
the overall contribution from growth of a green economy to the overall Papuan economy1.
This is captured in the impact indicator “Number of forest dependent people whose
livelihoods have improved as a result of ICF2 supported GEG activities”. Initially this indicator
language was adopted from ICF and being reported to ICF with a prescribed methodology
but for two years this is no longer the case as ICF also dropped this indicator due to
challenges in measurement3. It is important to note that this indicator is not specifically
referring to improvements in income per se but is acknowledging that there may have been
changes in overall livelihoods (see list of assets in footnote). Financial assets are only one
part of livelihoods.
Currently the GEG method for measuring and reporting this indicator is based around the
total number of households that GEG registered as a site baseline in the initial baseline
study for target sites4. This is then multiplied by a factor of 7 to calculate the total number
of beneficiaries in a household with an assumption that if the household is participating in
the program, then all the household members (average 7) will be benefiting, and their
livelihoods improved.
During the review of the results framework in July 2020 the team acknowledged that there
are some critical assumptions being made within the values assigned to this indicator for
which we do not yet have tangible evidence. Additional data and evidence are required to
assess the degree of confidence in this data. Additionally, a deeper dive into specific sites
and value chains may reveal relevant lessons for designing future interventions and
targeting households.
The program has maintained this indicator acknowledging that further data collection and
evidence will be required at a case study level to identify under what conditions livelihoods
have been improved and any relevant lessons. It is anticipated that household surveys will
need to be collected on a sampling basis across both GEG intervention villages and control
villages across a selection of value chains. Currently it is anticipated that this could be done
for Cacao, Coconut and Seaweed (see list of baseline villages).
1
https://en.ekonomihijaupapua.org
2
ICF International Climate Fund - Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the UK to support developing
countries to respond to climate change.
3
It is worth noting that a target value of 22000 households was assigned in the GEG business case too.
4
It was basically assumed that all GEG targeted HH were to a large extent forest dependent due to their
locations and proximity to forest resources.

The program did carry out a baseline data exercise in the first two years of the program and
there may be relevant data that can be extrapolated and used meaningfully based on a clear
set of assumptions for measuring change.
Key questions for the study:
• How far have GEG interventions changed livelihoods5 and income patterns in selected
sites (negative and positive impacts)?
• How far have GEG interventions influenced distribution and use of income within
households and between genders where relevant?
• What lessons can be distilled about how households’ livelihood strategies change due to
external factors related to value chains?
• What lessons can be learned about how individuals and households manage and use
additional income generated by improved commodity management or value chain
addition activities?
Objectives of the Livelihoods and income impact analysis
• To generate evidence (positive or negative) around the assumption that GEG program
interventions have improved livelihoods across different value chains and sites
• To assess the relevance of the assumption that improving livelihoods and/or income
status of individuals translates into improvements for the whole household or a majority
of its members.
• To distill relevant lessons for future programs and interventions when targeting Papuan
households and improving livelihoods
• To collect relevant human-interest stories that provide qualitative evidence of field
impacts of GEG
Tasks
• To develop a clear survey methodology and sampling plan based on the guidance in
these terms of reference and in liaison with GEG MERL and GEG management team to
ensure the objectives of the study will be achieved.
• To review relevant baseline data and integrate this into the methodology as one
reference for comparison if appropriate
• To recruit and deploy reliable enumerators to collect and upload data in a reliable and
tested way (including relevant permissions to interview and share data from
communities)
• To manage and analyze data across sites and write a short report per commodity
focusing on key conclusions and lessons related to impact on livelihoods and household
5
This would entail looking at changes in assets –
1. Natural Capital: land, water, biological resources (biodiversity)
2. Financial Capital: stocks of money or assets in liquid form.
3. Social Capital: rights or claims derived from group membership.
4. Physical Capital: infrastructure; resources created through economic production.

income management. This should also include a summary across all value chains
distilling any relevant lessons for GEG and other programs in the future.
• To prepare and present the key results to the GEG team for feedback
Deliverables
• Clear methodology concept and sampling plan (including detailed survey format, data
collection protocols and permissions) (end August 2022)
• Three short value chain focused reports including conclusions, lessons and
recommendations (5-6 pages) and one summary report distilling any patterns across
value chains and lessons on HH income management (5-6 pages) (15th October 2022)6
• PowerPoint presentation summarizing key findings (across all value chains and sites)
(31st October 2022)
6
If possible these should includes quotes from individuals interviewed and photos where possible and
permitted.

Summary of XYZ approach
XYZ will apply participatory approach in collecting data and information from households.
FGDs and interviews will be conducted in 2 villages (1 intervention area and 1 control area)
each for 2 days, at 1 district/city for each commodity. The tools to be used will be adapted
from XYZ’s farmers survey, Gender Action Learning System (GALS), and Sustainable
Livelihood Framework. The data collected will be analyzed and compared to existing data
that GEG will share.
METHODOLOGY
Key questions for the studies
a) How far have GEG interventions influenced distribution and use of income within
households and between genders where relevant?
b) What lessons can be learned about how individuals and households manage and use
additional income generated by improved commodity management or value chain
addition activities?
1. Approaches
1.1. Gender Action Learning System Approach (GALS): Diamond Dreams7
The Diamond is used to engage the participants to open up freely on the inherent
gender inequalities based on lived personal experiences. The analysis of the mother
diamond reveals the deeply held gender beliefs rooted in religion and culture
through socialization. Thus, heated debates usually ensue highlighting the gender
gaps. Through role plays and role reversals and discussions the issues of property
ownership, division of labour/workload, poverty, domestic violence, polygamy and
promiscuity and alcoholism usually emerge.
1.2. GALS: Challenge Action/Happy Family Tree1,8
The gender issues emerging from the Diamond are collated and further analysed
using the Challenge Action Tree. As a demonstration a tree is drawn clearly
indicating the roots, trunk, branches and fruits. Participants were then appraised
of the significance of the tree in analyzing challenges where the roots represent
causes of the problem, the trunk the challenge/problem being analyzed, the
branches the solutions to the problem and the fruits the actions/commitments for
change undertaken by the partners/spouses in the household responsible for the
challenge. The purpose of the challenge action tree is to move discussions of issues
identified into possible solutions. This is also the beginning of developing analytical
skills which the farmers would later use when analysing challenges along the value
chain. Issues that came out loudly and repeatedly in all engagements with farmers
on diamond dreams for which specific actions and/or commitments were made for
seeking solutions and hence behaviour change were men’s authority depicted by
the stick of authority giving men unfettered powers of decision making, ownership
7
https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/Redactie/Downloads/English/publications/150115_Practical%20guide%20GALS%20summary%20Phase%201-
2%20lr.pdf
8
https://gamechangenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FALS2__HappyFamilyTree_presentation2.pdf

and control of assets, mobility and leisure (alcoholism, promiscuity, polygamy,
domestic violence on women etc) and uneven workload.
1.3. Most Significant Change (MSC) – Light Version
MSC approach is employed to collect relevant human-interest stories that provide
qualitative evidence of field impacts of GEG.
Step 1: Deciding Domains of Change
Proposed domain of changes at the smallholder level: (i) improved knowledge on
fostering growth in Papua, (ii) improved social and economic well-being of Papuan
Communities, and (iii) increased employment opportunities in low carbon green
commodity business
Step 2: Collecting Change Stories
The stories are gathered based on 3 commodities i.e., cocoa, coconut and
seaweed; and areas.
Questions about significant changes in individuals:
1) From your point of view, describe the most significant change in your
knowledge or awareness that has resulted from the project interventions.
Please be as specific as possible and give examples.
2) From your point of view, describe the most significant change in your attitude
and behavior that has resulted from the project interventions. Please be as
specific as possible and give examples.
3) From your point of view, describe the most significant change in your personal
development that has resulted from the project interventions. Please be as
specific as possible and give examples.
4) From your point of view, describe the most significant change in your
participation in activities that aim to bring about social or political change that
has resulted from the project interventions. Please be as specific as possible
and give examples.
5) Why are these changes significant for you?
6) How have the project interventions contributed to these changes?
7) From your point of view, describe the most important negative impact of
project interventions, if any, that you have experienced.
8) How could the project interventions be improved to better meet community
needs?
Step 3: Selecting Most Significant Stories
• Gather all the MSC stories that had been collected.
• Eliminate stories with insufficient detail or which did not clearly focus on
change associated with the project.
• Categorise the remaining stories into similar broad types of impact or change.
• Review relevant M&E reports to identify any other key themes about project
impacts.

• Prepare a list of the major types of impact identified for each program, with
concrete examples from the data.
Step 4: Verification of Stories
• Ask community-based researchers/experts to provide responses to the
following questions: what changes has the project helped to bring to its
targeted groups and communities?
• Correspond with the researchers’ assessments of the project impacts.
• Make further revisions to the stories of the changes based on this data.
c) How far have GEG interventions changed livelihoods9 and income patterns in selected
sites (negative and positive impacts)?
d) What lessons can be distilled about how households’ livelihood strategies change due
to external factors related to value chains?
2. Approaches
The term ‘livelihood’ and livelihood thinking was first brought into discussion by
Robert Chambers in the mid-1980s and received a lot of interest over the last few
years, not at last due to the work of the British Department for International
Development (DFID), which defined sustainable livelihoods as a core objective of its
development assistance. Nevertheless, it remains challenging up to date to define
what is meant by a ‘livelihood’. While for some people a livelihood involves income
generating activities only, a much broader definition is suggested as a basis for this
study: “... a livelihood comprises any means that influences the way a household tries
to achieve and sustain its own well-being. This includes assets accessible to a
household, external influences to which a household is exposed, and a set of
institutions and organizations that deliver the scope for its activities” (modified
according to MASTER and TOWNSLEY, 2003). A highly suitable tool, which will be used
to understand, illustrate and analyse livelihoods for the impact assessment, is the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and its framework, as developed by DFID (see Figure
1).
9
This would entail looking at changes in assets –
5. Natural Capital: land, water, biological resources (biodiversity)
6. Financial Capital: stocks of money or assets in liquid form.
7. Social Capital: rights or claims derived from group membership.
8. Physical Capital: infrastructure; resources created through economic production.

3. Data Collection Method
➢ Forum Group Discussion (GALS) & Interview techniques (Sustainable livelihood)
• Samples: total 30 households – 10 cocoa farmers, 10 coconut farmers, and 10
seaweeds (representatives of Kepala Kampung, Senior Farmers, Young Farmers,
and Women Group).
• Location: Jayapura (cocoa), Sarmi (coconut), and Sorong (seaweed)
➢ Key Informant Interviews (MSC)
4. Data Analysis
5. Report Writing
i. Literature study on related gender/inclusion issues
ii. Methodology
iii. Analysis of the images and note taking results during the FGD
iv. Case study – commodity based
v. Conclusion and recommendation
Time Frame
The timeframe of the project would be between August 1st and October 31st, 2022.
NO ACTIVITIES DURATION DELIVERABLES TIMEFRAME
1 Methodology development & desk
study
1 week Methodology
concept
W1-2 August
2 Field visit (intervention and control
areas)
• 3 value chain
reports
• 1 summary
report
W3 August -
W2 September
• Cocoa (Jayapura) 1 week
• Coconut (Sarmi) 1 week
• Seaweed (Sorong) 1 week

NO ACTIVITIES DURATION DELIVERABLES TIMEFRAME
3 Data analysis 2 weeks • PowerPoint
presentation
W3-4 September
4 Report writing 2 weeks W1-2 October
5 Presentation 1 weeks W3 October
6 Finalising report 1 weeks W4 October
Experience and Qualifications
1. XYZ’s experience
The tables below are summary of XYZ Indonesia’s experience related to need/impact
assessment.
Project title XYZ PPG services on sustainable land management through integrated community
and agriculture development
Location Timor Leste
Duration 10 months (16 July 2021 - 16 May 2022)
Donor/ Sub-
grantor
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Team ......
Description The main objective is to assist on the PPG detailed project design on land
management and livelihood in Timor-Leste.
Project title Standards im Lebensmittelhandel Südostasiens
Location Indonesia (West Java and West Kalimantan)
Duration 24 days (March – May 2017)
Donor/ Sub-
grantor
GIZ
Team ......
Description Piloting two Farmers Business School (FBS).
Tasks/
Deliverables
• Conduct coordination project meetings
• Conduct need assessment of GIZ and private sector partners
• Analysis of the farms’ status quo
• Development of FBS modules
• Deliver 2 Training of Trainers (TOTs)
• Deliver lessons learnt /feedback workshop
• Development of trainers’ module handbook
Project title Assessment of the farmer organization (KGG) and recommendations to
professionalize their structure
Location Indonesia (East Kolaka, Sulawesi)
Duration 7 days (December 2016)
Donor/ Sub-
grantor
PT Cargill Trading Indonesia
Team ......
Tasks/
Deliverables
• Conduct an assessment of farmer organization KGG using Scope Insight tool
• Deliver recommendations to professionalize the structure

2. XYZ’s team
XYZ will conduct the project with a team of personnel consists of:
a. ABC, Southeast Asia (SEA) Food Smart City Director of XYZ as well as Head of
Programme at XYZ in Indonesia. She has worked extensively on issues related
to rural livelihoods, agricultural practices and markets, food systems, gender
equality, applied business-like efficiency to social and environmental
development contexts. She will lead the project.
b. DEF, Southeast Asia (SEA) Cocoa and Coffee Director of XYZ as well as Cocoa
Programme Manager at XYZ in Indonesia. With more than 15 years of
experiences on agriculture, he has extensive knowledge in sustainable
agriculture, sustainable livelihood analysis, stakeholder dialogue, value chain
analysis, living income for farmers, youth in agriculture, and inclusive
business. He will coordinate the implementation of the impact assessment.
c. GHI, Global Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) at XYZ International. She
specializes in program planning, data management, and program learning.
She will in charge of the impact assessment framework and data analysis.
d. JKL, Food Smart City Program Coordinator at XYZ in Indonesia. He has
experiences in project management, rural empowerment, and research
related to food and rural development issues. He will be one of the
enumerators and analyst.
e. MNO, Cocoa Programme Officer at XYZ in Indonesia. She specializes in
sustainable cocoa value chain system, M&E, and sustainable agriculture. She
will be one of the enumerators.
f. PQR, Coffee Programme Officer at XYZ in Indonesia. She specializes in
sustainable coffee value chain system, farmers capacity building, green
agribusiness, and business development. She will be one of the enumerators.

Budget proposed
NO DESCRIPTION # UNIT # UNIT # UNIT # UNIT TOTAL (IDR)
1 Methodology and sampling plan development 1 days 1 persons 300 USD/day 14,700 USD to IDR 4,410,000
2 Data analysis 3 days 2 persons 300 USD/day 14,700 USD to IDR 26,460,000
3 Report writing 4 days 2 persons 300 USD/day 14,700 USD to IDR 35,280,000
1 FGD (2 days @intervention, 2 days @control)
Participants' transportation 10 HHs 2 persons/HH 4 days 50,000 /HH/day 4,000,000
Meals & snacks 10 HHs 2 persons/HH 4 days 50,000 /person/day 4,000,000
Miscellaneous 4 days 100,000 /day 400,000
2 TRAVEL
Denpasar-Jayapura (roundtrip) 2 persons 13,000,000 /person 26,000,000
Car rental 5 days 1,500,000 /day 7,500,000
Gasoline 5 days 300,000 gas/day 1,500,000
Teams fee 5 days 2 persons 300 USD/day 14,700 USD to IDR 44,100,000
Accomodation 4 nights 2 persons 800,000 /day 6,400,000
2 TRAVEL
Car rental (include Jayapura-Sarmi round trip) 5 days 1,500,000 /day 7,500,000
Gasoline 5 days 300,000 gas/day 1,500,000
2 TRAVEL
Denpasar-Sorong (roundtrip) 2 persons 12,000,000 /person 24,000,000
Car rental 4 days 900,000 /day all-in 3,600,000
Overhead Cost - 5% 5 % 1 lumpsum 15,201,500
319,231,500
IDR
17,934.35
GBP
TOTAL
FIELD ACTIVITIES - COCOA
DESK ACTIVITIES
FIELD ACTIVITIES - SEAWEED
FIELD ACTIVITIES - COCONUT

Contoh Proposal untuk donor hibah grant 2022 pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Contoh Proposal untuk donor hibah grant 2022 pdf

More from Indriany ,

Recently uploaded

Contoh Proposal untuk donor hibah grant 2022 pdf