I. First progress report ( July 25, 2011):
Undertaken Activities:
1. Perusing, compiling, synthesizing and analyzing data & information of 53 projects of GEF-4 ( project documents, project reports and other products)
2. Conducting monitoring visit to 42 projects to witness project results , analyze and summarize knowledge and lessons learnt

Results and indicators:
1.Obtained preliminary data & information and topics for consolidation of knowledge and experience of each project
2.Obtained in-depth data & information such as
?Accomplishment /failure against objectives, including sustained activities and impacts
?Factors supporting / hindering the accomplishment
?Direct and indirect impact to the issue of community food security
?Governance on environment management
?Experience and lessons learnt
?Good practices in several aspects
3.Additional opportunities for grantees and their targeted population to reflect and share experience
4.Additional opportunities for a few grantees of SGP of both the same and different grant cycles to meet and discuss to initiate natural network of environment

Project communication:
The project had not carried out any communication, as the period was spent to focus on data & information collection .

Experience , lessons Learnt, problem and issue:
The project summarized experience and lessons learnt as follows:
1.Project personals conducting monitoring visits received adequate supports from CBOs and their communities. However, there were two projects which were not visited , due to limited communication channels.
2.Knowledge consolidation process was conducted through ? Story Telling? with additional questions and answers, hearing more from other SGP projects nearby & other stakeholders and witnessing demonstrating activities.
3.Overall, every visited project exhibited intention and persistence to carry out activities as proposed but at different degrees, depending on institutional & technical capacities of project leaders/targeted communities, and pre-existing facilities/resources.
4.Some projects under OP4 year 1 and 2 , which had seen their completions ,got additional supports from other donors.
5.Majority of visited projects opined that GEF SGP is a friendly mechanism with less bureaucratic and complex process thus supportive to community changing context and generating optimal benefits to communities.

Problems and Issues:

1.Leaders of some project changed telephone numbers making difficult to make direct contact ? communication in this case was done through third parties.
2.Travel to project site , at some location, was difficult , especially when it was raining.
3.Five projects in the southern regions and four projects in northern had not been visited due to flood and land slide in the areas.


Project expense:
Project Expense: The project reported the expense of THB: 430,350 out of the first disbursement of THB: 460,447.66.

II. Second progress report ( December 31, 2012):
Undertaken Activities:
1. Keeping on conducting monitoring visit to projects to witness project results , analyze and summarize knowledge and lessons learnt (total of 48 projects visited as of December 2011)
2. Summarizing essences of projects and drafting process for presentation through various media
3. Compiling photos and making additional shots as required for producing media after comments or advice from the NSC
4. Preparing stories, presentation of project essences for NSC perusal

Results and indicators:
1.Obtained additional in-depth data & information such as
? Accomplishment /failure against objectives, including sustained activities and impacts
? factors supporting / hindering the accomplishment
? Direct and indirect impact to the issue of community food security
? Governance on environment management
? Experience and lessons learnt
? Good practices in several aspects
2. Obtained framework for presentation of outstanding knowledge from all projects through video regarding 5 areas:
? Climate Change/Global Warming
? Biodiversity
? International Water
? Land Degradation
? Community KM
3. Obtained drafted of booklet on lessons learnt on
? Knowledge of process such as green way, green market, community entrepreneur, impacts of increased capacity , food security from coastal resources management, environmental governance, and community waste management
? Knowledge of technicality such as high-efficiency stoves, biogas pits , filter pits, ionic plasma, manual water pumping (bicycle), water hammer, check dams, traditional doctor appliances, bee raising
? Resources inventories on landraces and their quality
4. Acquired photos displaying outstanding activities & results of each project for photo story making process

Project communication:
As the project was in the process of consolidating knowledge and lessons learnt, there was no specific communication. However, during project site visits, information about the project was informed to community leaders, CBOs/NGO and local government units.

Experience , lessons Learnt, problem and issue:
1. Appointment and access to projects went on smoothly
2. Grantees were eager to discuss , share and show activities and results
3. By-and-large, each project seemed serious to launch activities as proposed to their completions. But existing capacity , management skill and networking capacity varied from project to project
4. Majority of stakeholders at each project proposed that SGP should promote and encourage cross sharing among SGP grantees continuously. For example, grantees in the same grant cycle should meet to share at least once a year to ensure RUM. This would be done through cost-sharing: Grantees covering the travel cost, SGP covering lodging and meal. In addition, directory of grantees with contact addresses, e-mail, telephone, etc.


Project expense::
The project reported the accumulated expense of THB: 579,504 out of the sum of first & second disbursement of THB:904,925.18.