Lessons Learned

• July 2020: For the next round of direct State Financing, a checklist would be useful, especially to get at Safeguards. This can be included with the template or used by the EPU - but made available as an example of how grantors evaluate applications. EPU will compare to SGP process.

• July 2020: Where States are getting caught up in Action Planning: 1) Budget - sometimes the budget doesn't add up to or goes over the total allowed. Also, EPU was not very clear about what the Action Plans were budgeting for - just the on the ground work or the Planning and planning meetings too? Because we weren't clear, State Action Plans vary. 2) Cash Flow - EPU needs to be clearer that the AWP will affect cash flow, which means that actions and expenses in the Action Plans need to be aligned with the expected payments. Some States plan to spend more in an earlier Quarter then they will have available. 3) Indicators - EPU needs to provide specific examples of indicators and work with States to identify indicators they will actually measure. 4) Gender and Social mainstreaming - even though this is in the template (marginally) States have tended to skip over it. EPU needs to ask specific questions to both encourage and measure gender mainstreaming. 5) Selection of sites to fit the budget - States tend to over-plan, thinking they can do much more with the money than is possible. For some, it also means that the problems to solve are overwhelming, which delays selection of a site. EPU needs to work closely with States to select reasonable sites. 6) EPU needs to suggest specific Best Practices or there will not be uptake of Best Practices.

• May 2020: Best Practices on setting up the JCB:

We were originally going to have 1 JCB for Babeldaob and the Southern Lagoon, but realized that would not be a good use of Koror and Peleliu's time, since their development issues are so very different from those on Babeldoab. So we split up the JCBs to form two separate JCBs. The model of 1 representative from each State works on the Babeldaob JCB (10 States = 10 Members) but will not work for the 2 States of Koror and Peleliu (2 States = 2 Members). After some thought, we decided that 5 Members per State from specific sectors of society and government would provide enough input and perspective while also keeping the Body to a manageable size. Note that 1 MNRET Member was retained on each JCB.

During the State meetings (with Governors) it became clear that the only acceptable Members of a decision-making team would be States and MNRET. Technical Partners and other Ministries were not acceptable to States since they do not own the resources and do not have regulatory authority over land in the same way as MNRET. Keeping membership to States and MNRET was acceptable. We moved all Partners to a Technical Group (that will be flexible depending on the topic).

Few Governors had the time to read Bylaws and SOPs in detail. Thus, the face-to-face meetings to set up the JCB and review the Bylaws were essential (though time-consuming and stressful because of the political nature) PLUS the two-page infographic summary was essential.

As we manage the JCB now, keeping a personal touch is essential. For instance, group emails rarely work. Members are far more likely to respond to individualized emails. Some Members require a phone call.

The link to GEF6 direct State financing was absolutely necessary to catalyze participation. Now States now see the benefits of overall planning once we added the mapping and spatial element to the plan/template.

• April 2020: The Action Plan template was updated three times in one week! It now includes two tables to guide thinking (whereas before Milestones were a question) and includes an example of actions and indicators. Also, the Background/Community Profile section was moved to the end.

• June 2020: Keep in mind the perspectives and personalities of the Board and understand where they are coming from. Then, find a compromise that will meet their needs while also still fitting in with the project.

• June 2020: Remember the project objective! With these national projects it's easy to feel the weight of the world on your shoulders. But if the project is about biodiversity - then you can limit the project to just biodiversity. It's OK! For instance, in trying to figure out how to do a Legislative Review and how to "clean up" the national enforcement system, it's easy to get carried away with problems and thus overwhelmed. Picking one strand - e.g. biodiversity protections within aquaculture - is one way to do that.

• (Partner addition) Be knowledgeable about the differences between UNDP, UNDP Fiji, UNDP NY, and GEF. UNDP Fiji does not always have final say - e.g. in terms of budget shifts. Don't delete anything until you're sure a change has been approved at all levels.

• Google Docs is really easy to use.