g1 annexa project workbook drpc2010-1280411 - revised cpmt copy

7/31/2019 G1 AnnexA Project Workbook DRPC2010-1280411 - Revised CPMT Copy

1/58

Project Workbook

Table of Contents

1 Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Tab Name: PNX Title Page

2 Project Partners and Contact Information

Tab Name: PNX Contacts

3 Outcomes Logic Model

Tab Name: PNX OLM

For more information, visit:

4 Outcome Target Indicators PlanTab Name: PNX OTIP


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.

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

This page contains main project information and the contracting and inception reviewers' comments.

Please list all your project participants with their contact details. This information will be fed into the CPWFcontact database. Please ensure that you inform the CPWF about any changes in your team.

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.

CPWF M&E Guide- Outcome Indicators Plan

CPWF M&E Guide- OLMs

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.

CPWF M&E Guide- Milestone Plan

CPWF Project Workbook Table of Contents Page 1 of 58
https://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/indicator-and-milestone-planhttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/outcome-pathways-and-outcome-logic-modelhttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/indicator-and-milestone-planhttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/indicator-and-milestone-planhttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/outcome-pathways-and-outcome-logic-modelhttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/indicator-and-milestone-plan


2/58

6 Gantt Chart

Tab Name: PNX Gantt Chart


7 Schedule of Reports and Payments = filled by CPWF Finance Officer for contracting

Tab Name: PNX $ Schedule

8 Budget Summary

Tab Name: PNX $ Summary

9 Budget Comments

Tab Name: PNX $ Comments

10 Staff Time Allocation and Breakdown of Personnel Costs

Tab Name: PNX $ Time Allocation

11 Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Outputs

Tab Name: PNX $ By Outputs

12 Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Institution

Tab Name: PNX $ By Institution

This table shows the distribution of budget by output then by institution. The overhead costs are not included in

the distribution.

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.

This spreadsheet shows the breakdown of the project budget per line item and per year.

The comments worksheet is where budget explanations and details are explained.

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.

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.

CPWF M&E Guide- Gantt Chart

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.

CPWF Project Workbook Table of Contents Page 2 of 58
https://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/gantt-charthttps://sites.google.com/a/cpwf.info/m-e-guide/gantt-chart


3/58

Title Page with Reviewers' Comments

Project Leader

Project Number

Project Short Title

Reporting Period

Starting Date

Completion Date

Review Questions (RQ) Reviewer Remarks on status (include

date)

Changes required to proceed

to contracting

Response from the Project

Leader (include date)

Status of chang

after resubmis

filled in by the

RQ1: Are documents in order,

provide information required,

and is there consistency

between them?

Cells highlighted in yellow must be

dealt with for contracting

Documents according to Standard

Clauses and Procedures 3.02 and

3.03 (see list below)

Cells highlighted in orange must be

dealt with by time of inception

report

Revised proposal First submission 2011.03.03

Contact sheet 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 First submission 2011.03.03

Milestone plan First submission 2011.03.03 Suggested some changes in the

Milestone Plan (e.g., specify

the names of the partners,

rather than TBD; dates

consistent with Gantt Chart)

Apr 18 2011 - Added PDF1 and

PDF2 to the responsible staff

list

OLM First submission 2011.03.03

OTIP First submission 2011.03.03

KM Point

Person

Andrew Nelson

Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land-use patterns

G1

April 30, 2011

April 30, 2014

CPWF Project Workbook Title Page with Reviewers' Comments


4/58


date)


to contracting



Status of chang

after resubmiss

filled in by the

Budget First submission 2011.03.03 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)

Please indicate

the Daily Charg

understood tha

succeeding yea

budget include

annual increme

Plan for baselining of outcome

targets

Signed MOUs corresponding to

milestone plan

Third party intellectual audit



5/58


date)


to contracting



Status of

after resu

filled in b

RQ2: Have there been changes

in budget share going topartners, and if so, are they

consistent with the changes in

responsibilities?

Program

Manager

RQ3: Does the budget appear

consistent with the promised

outputs?

Program

Manager

RQ4: Looking at the people

responsible for producing the

outputs, do these teams

contain people with the

requisite skill and is team size

appropriate?

MT Point

Person

RQ5: Is there a clear

assignment of responsibility

for producing outputs and

milestones to both individuals

and organizations?

MT Point

Person

RQ6: Have reviewers'

comments been addressed?

MT Point

Person

Provide a more inclusive

discussion of the models to be

used, including a critical appraisal

of their potential weaknesses and

risks

This point

addressed

provides a

descriptio

and rando

models, in

broader raassesses t

weaknesse

that the m

models . .

dependen

compensa

are missin

that affect

technolog



6/58


date)


to contracting



St

af

fi

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

Pr

ex

in

de

m

Th

da

of

ou

in

im

pr

de

ch

us

coan

w

id

us

be

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.

Th

ad

su

da

pr

da

to

de

thth

da

Ph

PN

sa

re

im

PN

Re

su

Im

re

ba

Gr

an

an



7/58


date)


to contracting



Statu

after

filled

Include information about data

collection (indicators for profilinghuman resources, baseline

information, etc.) and data

Data c

manafully d

Activit

Revise the OLM by the time of the

Inception Report with a detailed

and realistic analysis of what

forces tend to affect decision-

making in the main target actors,

and how project strategy takes

these forces into account

For fu

subm

Incept



8/58


date)


to contracting

Response from the Projec


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 incorpora

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 Repo

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.



9/58

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, know

Given Name Family Name Institution Role in the project Professional

discipline

Email Alternate Email Work Phone

Nelson Andrew International Rice

Research Institute

Project Leader Geographer [email protected] [email protected] 63 2 580 5600

PDF1 to be

determined

International Rice

Research Institute

Principal

Investigator (Int'l)

GIS/Spatial

Analysis/Modellin

g

PDF2 to be

determined

International Rice

Research Institute

Principal

Investigator (Int'l)

Water resource or

land use

management or

agronomy

Hossain Moqbul Soil Resource

Development

Institute

Principal

Investigator (Nat'l)

GIS specialist [email protected]

om

Zahir-ul Khan Institute of Water

Modelling

Principal


Water resource

Engineer

[email protected] 88 02 882790

Munir Siddiquee Local Government

Engineering

Department

Principal


Engineer and GIS

specialist

munir.siddiquee@g

mail.com

munir.siddiquee@ya

hoo.com

88 02 811212

Md Salim Bhuiyan Bangladesh Water

Development Board

Principal


Engineer bhuiyan_salim@yah

oo.com

88 02 812149

Tuong To Phuc International Rice

Research Institute

Consultant [email protected] 63 2 580 5600

NRS International Rice

Research Institute

Support Staff
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/58

Outcomes Logic Model

Project Name

Date

Actor(s) Desired change in actor(s)

practice

Required change in actor

KAS for change to happen

Project strategies and

prototypes for bringing

about changes

Project outputs

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

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

Narrative 1 The actors will become aware of the potential use of technology domain maps to determine "what works where and why" and use t

better informed decisions about strategies to scale up the adoption of new technologies.

Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use patterns

March 03, 2011

WF Project Workbook Outcomes Logic Model Page 10 of


11/58

Project Name

Date


practice





about changes

Project outputs


March 03, 2011

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.

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

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

to land and water management policies



12/58

Project Name

Date


practice





about changes

Project outputs


March 03, 2011

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

be reliable and accurate, which would require further site tests and early adoption by some actors to validate. The successful application of the domai

targetting will increase the chances of appropriate technology adoption. The future land use plans need to be based on a set of coherent and convincin

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 sustaina

use policies being adopted.

Impact Narrative



13/58

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

ese maps to make



14/58

Risks and

Assumptions

Cooperation with G1

partners to obtain

data for

extrapolation

Timely information

on scenarios

available (G4)

considering changes



15/58

Risks and

Assumptions

if they are proven to

maps for effective

g drivers of land use

ble land and water



16/58

Outcome Targets Indicator Plan

Project Name

Date

No.ACTOR and how they willCHANGE Outcome target(s) Indicator(s) of progress towardsOutcome Target(s) Tools to measure progresstowards Outcome Target(s)

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

This is best answered by G5 since

the maps will be used in policy

briefs and will not be directly

targetted at the actors

The maps and briefs will only be

developed towards the end of the

project and it is unlikely that we

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 particulartechnology

Feedback on policy briefs and

evidence of their adoption in

decision making


March 03, 2011

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.

WF Project Workbook Outcome Targets Indicator Plan Page 16 of


17/58

Project Name

Date

No. ACTOR and how they will

CHANGE

Outcome target(s) Indicator(s) of progress towards

Outcome Target(s)

Tools to measure progress

towards Outcome Target(s)


March 03, 2011

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.

This is best answered by G5 since

the maps will be used in policy

briefs and will not be directly

targetted at the actors

The maps and briefs will only be

developed towards the end of the

project and it is unlikely that we

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.

Feedback on policy briefs and

evidence of their adoption in

decision making

WF Project Workbook Outcome Targets Indicator Plan Page 17 of 5


18/58

Milestone Plan

roject Name

Date

No. Milestones = your progress markers Deadline Responsible

Partner Institution

Responsible Staff

Project Member

Outputs required

by other projects

Means of verific

.a Sites selected and partners for research and planning

engagement identified and engaged

2011/09/01 IRRI AN Yes, G2, G3, G4,

G5

Site selection rep

partners

.b Project progress reports 2011/09/01 IRRI AN No Progress reports






.a Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 IWM ZK No Data inventory

.b. Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 SRDI HM No Data inventory

.c Inventory of required data completed 2012/03/01 LGED MS No Data inventory

.d. Spatial data formatted and documented to standards 2012/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3, G4 Metadatabase

.a Sites visited, georeferenced, and mapped 2011/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3 Maps of site loca

technologies bei

.b G2 and G3 provide key site information on environmental and

social requirements for the technologies

2011/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3 Report on the re

required for each

successful

.c Study site characteristics collected 2012/03/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3 Updated report

profiles

.d Inventory of the relevant spatial data for characterizing the

sites prepared and site resource profiles shared with project

partners

2012/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3 Report on spatia

relationship to th

characteristicsMapping extrapolation domains for each technology

Characterization of the test sites and study areas from projects G2 and G3.


March 03, 2011

o be filled by PLs and Project Teams

Project Implementation

Compilation of a geodatabase covering all thematic spatial information related to the project

PWF Project Workbook Milestone Plan


19/58

roject Name

Date


Partner Institution

Responsible Staff

Project Member

Outputs required

by other projects

Means of verific


March 03, 2011

o be filled by PLs and Project Teams

.a Extrapolation model chosen and tested 2012/09/01 IRRI PDF1 No Short review of

reasons for final

.b First extrapolation domains generated and documented for

internal discussions

2012/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3 Domain maps pr

.c Final extrapolation maps documented and shared with

partners for evaluation

2013/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3, G4,

G5

Updated domain

CPWF

.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis 2013/09/01 IRRI PDF2 Yes, G2, G3, G4,

G5

Maps used in po

by G5

.a Scenarios and drivers agreed upon in consultation with

partners

2013/03/01 IWM ZK Yes, G4 Report on the fu

drivers of chang

.b Preliminary future land-use plans developed and documented

for internal discussion

2013/09/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G4 Land use plans p

.c Final land-use plans documented and shared with partners for

evaluation

2014/03/01 IRRI PDF1 Yes, G2, G3, G4,

G5

Updated land us

CPWF

.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis 2014/03/01 IRRI PDF2 Yes, G2, G3, G4,

G5

Maps used in po

by G5

Development of future land use plans based on historical land use trends, assumed changes, constraints and interventions from future scenarios.



20/58

Project Name

Date


Partner Institution

Responsible Staff

Project Member

Outputs required

by other projects

Means of verif


March 03, 2011

To be filled by PLs and Project Teams



21/58

Project Name

Date


Partner Institution

Responsible Staff

Project Member

Outputs required

by other projects

Means of verif


March 03, 2011

To be filled by PLs and Project Teams



22/58


23/58

To be reported by PLs and Project

Team

For review by BL For review by CPWF

tatus report on delivery of

milestones

Review of evidence of delivery of

milestone and of research quality

and relevance


milestone and quality check of BLs

review



24/58


Team



milestones



and relevance



review



25/58


Team



milestones



and relevance



review



26/58



27/58



28/58



29/58



30/58



31/58



32/58



33/58



34/58



35/58



36/58



37/58



38/58

Gantt Chart

Project Name

Date

No. Activity/ Milestone

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

0 Project Implementation

Activities 0.1 Sites selected, partners engaged

0.2 Project progress reports

Milestones 0.a Sites selected and partners for research and planning

engagement identified and engaged

0.a

0.b Project progress reports 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b 0.b

1 Compilation of a geodatabase covering all thematic spatial information related to the project

Activities 1.1 Data set identification

1.2 Data and metadata format agreement

1.3 Data collection

1.4 Data standardization

Milestones 1.a Inventory of required data completed 1.a

1.b Inventory of required data completed 1.b

1.c Inventory of required data completed 1.c

1.d Spatial data formatted and documented to standards 1.d

2 Characterization of the test sites and study areas from projects G2 and G3.

Activities 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

Milestones 2.a Sites visited, georeferenced, and mapped 2.a

2.b G2 and G3 provide key site information on environmental and

social requirements for the technologies

2.b

2.c Study site characteristics collected 2.c2.d Inventory of the relevant spatial data for characterizing the

sites prepared and site resource profiles shared with project

partners

2.d

3 Mapping extrapolation domains for each technology

Resource profiles, extrapolation domains, and land-use patterns

March 03, 2011

2011 2012 2013

PWF Project Workbook Gantt Chart


39/58

Project Name

Date

No. Activity/ Milestone

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Resource profiles, extrapolation domains, and land-use patterns

March 03, 2011

2011 2012 2013

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

Milestones 3.a Extrapolation model chosen and tested 3.a

3.b First extrapolation domains generated and documented for

internal discussions

3.b

3.c Final extrapolation maps documented and shared with

partners for evaluation

3.c

3.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis 3.d

4 Development of future land-use plans based on historical land-use trends, assumed changes, constraints, and interventions from future scena

Activities 4.1 Preparation of historical and current land-use plans

4.2 Identification of future scenarios and drivers of change

4.3 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

Milestones 4.a Scenarios and drivers agreed upon in consultation with

partners

4.a

4.b Preliminary future land-use plans developed and documented

for internal discussion

4.b

4.c Final land-use plans documented and shared with partners for

evaluation

4.d Maps shared with G5 for synthesis

PWF Project Workbook Gantt Chart


40/58

Schedule of Reports and Payments

Project Name

Date

No. Amount (US$) Comment Due Date

1

Paid on return of the signed Award Letter. These funds are to

cover the first six months activities of the Project

2Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the first 6

months of project implementation.

3Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the first

12 months of project implementation.

4Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of the 18


5

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.

6Paid following satisfactory assessment of progress of 30


7

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.

8Paid on acceptance of the Project Completion Report and an

external audit report.


This worksheet will be filled by CPWF Finance Officer for contracting

March 03, 2011

CPWF Project Workbook Schedule of Reports and Payments Page 40


41/58

Budget Summary(Before working on the Personnel budget cells, complete the other spreadsheet named PNXX $ Time Allocation)

Project Name

Date

2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL

1 PERSONNEL REMUNERATION, TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION

1.1 PERSONNEL

1.1.1 Project Leader 6,741 9,190 9,466 2,384 27,781

1.1.2 Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) 59,217 80,731 83,155 20,941 244,044

1.1.3 Principal Investigators (National) -

1.1.4 Consultants 4,649 10,848 12,398 3,100 30,995

1.1.5 Support Staff 9,588 13,263 13,926 3,524 40,301

1.1.6 Other Project Participants -

1.2 TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION

1.2.1 Project Leader 5,414 7,380 6,717 1,620 21,131

1.2.2 Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) 5,414 7,380 6,715 1,619 21,128

1.2.3 Principal Investigators (National) -

1.2.4 Consultants -

1.2.5 Support Staff -

1.2.6 Other Project Participants -

2 RESEARCH OPERATION

2.1 EQUIPMENT

2.1.1 Office equipment 2,400 2,400

2.1.2 Laboratory equipment -

2.1.3 Field equipment -

2.2 CONSUMABLES

2.2.1 General communication expenses -

2.2.2 Office supplies -

2.2.3 Laboratory supplies 927 1,192 1,223 258 3,6002.2.4 Field research supplies -

2.2.5 Other support services (IT services,

public areas, facilities) 24,413 28,894 24,935 6,005 84,247

2.3 COMMUNICATIONS

2.3.1 Communications products -

2.3.2 Team meetings 4,427 1,475 5,902

2.3.3 Stakeholders workshops -

2.3.4 Participation in Reflection Workshops - 4,335 5,912 1,489 11,736

2.3.5 Participation in IFWF3 and IFWF4 4,427 5,022 6,065 1,628 17,142

3 LUMP SUM CONTRACT AGREEMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES

3.1 SRDI, Bangladesh 41,250 36,250 22,500 5,000 105,0003.2 IWM, Bangladesh 45,000 37,500 22,500 5,000 110,000

3.3 LGED, Bangladesh 15,000 20,000 12,500 2,500 50,000

3.4 BWDB,Bangladesh 15,000 20,000 12,500 2,500 50,000

3.5 -

4 MISCELLANEOUS

4.1 CONTINGENCY (% OF BUDGET) -

4.2 OVERHEADS 19,964 24,916 23,261 5,708 73,849

Administrative Cost (12%) 15,314 20,366 20,461 5,108 61,249

Management fee (4%) 4,650 4,550 2,800 600 12,600

[INSTITUTION (% ] -

[INSTITUTION (% ] -

[INSTITUTION (% ] -

TOTAL REQUESTED FROM CPWF 263,831 308,376 263,773 63,276 899,256


March 03, 2011


42/58

Budget CommentsPlease provide as much information as possible to enable a good understanding of the key expenditures required.

Project Name

Resource profiles, extrapolation domains and land use

patterns

Date March 03, 2011

COMMENTS

MATCHING FUND (if any) None

1

PERSONNEL REMUNERATION, TRAVEL

AND ACCOMMODATION

1.1 PERSONNEL

1.1.1 Project Leader Dr. Nelson is the project Leader, requests fund to cover 7% of

time annually for three years.

1.1.2 Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) 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 Principal Investigators (National)

1.1.4 Consultants 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.

1.1.5 Support Staff Funds are also requested to support one nationally recruitedstaff (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 Other Project Participants

1.2 TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION1.2.1 Project Leader This includes cost for the PL once a year visit to Bangladesh to

monitor the project and attend annual meeting.

1.2.2 Principal Investigators (Int'L & Reg'l) 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.

1.2.3 Principal Investigators (National)

1.2.4 Consultants

CPWF Project Workbook Budget Comments Page 42 of 58


43/58

1.2.5 Support Staff

1.2.6 Other Project Participants

2 RESEARCH OPERATION

2.1 EQUIPMENT

2.1.1 Office equipment This fund will cover cost of one computer.

2.1.2 Laboratory equipment2.1.3 Field equipment

2.2 CONSUMABLES

2.2.1 General communication expenses

2.2.2 Office supplies

2.2.3

Laboratory supplies A total of $3,600 for 3 years is requested for consumables,

storage, remote sensing imagery and other GIS related needs

2.2.4 Field research supplies

2.2.5 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 COMMUNICATIONS

2.3.1 Communications products

2.3.2

Team meetings This fund will cover meetings between the project leader and

project partners at various times throughout the project

2.3.3 Stakeholders workshops

2.3.4

Participation in Reflection Workshops This fund will cover the travel and logistic costs of attending

the CPWF reflection meetings for the Ganges Basin

2.3.5

Participation in IFWF3 and IFWF4 This fund will cover the travel and logistic costs of attending

the CPWF Forums

3

LUMP SUM CONTRACT AGREEMENTS FOR

SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES

3.1 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.



44/58

3.2 IWM, Bangladesh Funds are provided for IWM in their role to provide spatial


generation of the geodatabase and the resulting land-use

plans.

3.3 LGED, Bangladesh Funds are provided for LGED in their role to provide spatial


generation of the geodatabase and resulting domain maps

and land-use plans.3.4 BWDB,Bangladesh 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 MISCELLANEOUS

4.1 CONTINGENCY (% OF BUDGET)

4.2 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 (% ]



45/58

Staff Time Allocation and Breakdown of Personnel Costs

Project Name

Date

2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL

1.1.1 PL Andrew Nelson IRRI CGIAR Project lead 11 15 15 4 45

1.1.2 PI (Int'l) PDF to be determined IRRI CGIAR GIS expert 163 217 217 54 651

PDF to be determined IRRI CGIAR Project management and

coordination

65 87 87 22 261

add rows 0

1.1.2 PI (Reg'l) 0

0

add rows 0

No. Personnel Name Institution


May 30, 2012

Brief Description of Contribution

to Project, as described in G1

Contacts (Project Workbook)

Days per YearType of

Institution

CPWF Project Workbook Staff Time Allocation and Breakdown of Personnel Costs


46/58

2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL

No. Personnel Name Institution Brief Description of Contributionto Project, as described in G1



Institution

1.1.3 PI (Nat'l) Moqbul Hossain Soil

Resource

Developme

nt Institute

GO 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.

0

Zahir-ul Kahn Institute of

Water

Modelling

NARES IWM's role is to provide spatial




and the resulting land-use

plans.

0

Munir Siddiquee Local

Governmen

t

EngineeringDepartment

GO LGED's role is to provide

spatial information, expert

advice, and technical support

for the generation of thegeodatabase and resulting

domain maps and land-use

plans.

0

Md Salim Bhuiyan Bangladesh

Water

Developme

nt Board

GO BWBD's role is to provide

information and expert advice

on water resource

management in the coastal

polders relative to the

proposed extrapolation


plans.

0

add rows 0



47/58

2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTA

No. Personnel Name Institution Brief Description of Contribution




Institution

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

8 19 22 5

add rows

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 6

add rows

1.1.6 Other

Project

Participants

add rows



48/58


Project Name

Date

1.1.1 PL Andrew Nelson IRRI CGIAR Project lead

1.1.2 PI (Int'l) PDF to be determined IRRI CGIAR GIS expert


coordination

add rows

1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)

add rows



May 30, 2012




Type of

Institution2011 2012 2013

6,741 9,190 9,46

41,012 55,913 57,59

18,205 24,818 25,56

- -

59,217 80,731 83,15

- -

- -

- - - - -

Daily

Charge Out(US$)

Personnel Costs



49/58




Type of

Institution


Resource

Development Institute



and technical support for thegeneration of the geodatabase


and land-use plans.


Water

Modelling






plans.


Governmen

t







plans.


Water

Developme

nt Board



on water resource





plans.

add rows

2011 2012 2013

Daily

Charge Out

(US$)

Personnel Costs

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -



50/58



Type of

Institution



management issues as well asin communications

add rows

1.1.5 Support

Staff



add rows

1.1.6 OtherProject

Participants

add rows

2011 2012 2013

Daily

Charge Out

(US$)

Personnel Costs

4,649 10,848 12,3

- -

- -

4,649 10,848 12,3

9,588 13,263 13,9

- -

- -

9,588 13,263 13,9

- -

- -

- -

- -

TOTAL 80,195 114,032 118,9



51/58


Project Name

Date




coordination

add rows

1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)

add rows



May 30, 2012




Type of

Institution



52/58




Type of

Institution


Resource

Developme

nt Institute






and land-use plans.


Water

Modelling






plans.


Governmen

t







plans.


Water

Developme

nt Board



on water resource





plans.add rows



53/58




Type of

Institution




in communications

add rows

1.1.5 Support

Staff



add rows

1.1.6 Other

Project

Participants

add rows



54/58


Project Name

Date




coordination

add rows

1.1.2 PI (Reg'l)

add rows



May 30, 2012


to Project, as described in G1Contacts (Project Workbook)

Type of

Institution1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

Outputs

Entries from Column S are added for reviewers'

comments and to note items for clarification. Ther

should be a clear assignment of outputs. Mark (wi

1) lead and contributed outputs in columns (S) to (X

To



55/58



Type of

Institution


Resource

Developme

nt Institute






and land-use plans.


Water

Modelling






plans.


Governmen

t







plans.


Water

Developme

nt Board



on water resource





plans.add rows

1 2 3 4 5 6

Outputs Tota

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1



56/58




Type of

Institution




in communications

add rows

1.1.5 Support

Staff



add rows

1.1.6 Other

Project

Participants

add rows

1 2 3 4 5 6

Outputs T

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

9 9 9 9 0 0



57/58

Indicative Breakdown of Budget by OutputBudget does not include overhead costs

Project Name

Date

Output Institution $ value of the budget % share of the budget

IRRI 135,000 15%

IWM 30,000 3%

SRDI 60,000 7%

LGED 20,000 2%

BWDB 20,000 2%

Total for Output 1 265,000 29%

IRRI 50,000 6%

IWM 10,000 1%

SRDI 25,000 3%

LGED 10,000 1%

BWDB 10,000 1%

Total for Output 2 105,000 12%IRRI 200,000 22%

IWM 20,000 2%

SRDI 10,000 1%

LGED 10,000 1%

BWDB 10,000 1%


IRRI 199,256 22%

IWM 50,000 6%

SRDI 10,000 1%

LGED 10,000 1%

BWDB 10,000 1%


TOTAL 899,256 100%

Output No. 3:Mapping extrapolation

domains for each technology

Output No. 4: Development of future

land-use plans based on historical

land-use trends, assumed changes,

constraints, and interventions from

future scenarios

March 03, 2011


Output No. 1: Compilation of a

geodatabase covering all thematic

spatial information related to the

project

Output No. 2: Characterization of the

test sites and study areas from

projects G2 and G3.

CPWF Project Workbook Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Output Page 57 of 58


58/58

Indicative Breakdown of Budget by Institution

Project Name

Date

Institution Total $ value Total % share Comments

IRRI 584,256 65% Project lead

IWM 110,000 12% Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc.

SRDI 105,000 12% Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc.

LGED 50,000 6% Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc.

BWDB 50,000 6% Provide data, support, analysis, feedback etc.

TOTAL 899,256 100%


March 03, 2011