Intervention areas scoping:
? Who was involved in identifying and selecting the target landscape and geographical areas for UCP projects? 
The parties involved in identifying and determining locations in Wakatobi as baseline location are GEF secretariate, NSC, UNDP, related government agencies. The determination of villages that need to be visited is based on information from local facilitator and NGOs working in Wakatobi.
.
.
? What were the selection criteria and selection process?
Criteria being used in determining baseline location is the villages with management of marine and terrestrial resources. The selection process is carried out is through references from the previous assessment activities, through comparing them with related maps and information and by field visit in the assessment sites.
.
.

? How was the selected landscape validated with the community and local authorities, if applicable
There have been series of validation process including discussion with community and local government in determining the selected location. The current assessment implements the same thing especially for validation in villages and community level.
.
.

? Was a map of the landscape created or referenced before or during the baseline assessment and community consultation process? How? Were communities involved in drawing the map of their landscape?
Landscape map has been produced prior to the assessment implementation. The document of previous activity becomes the reference of this map. In the village level, consultation process includes sketching through PRA method. Community draw area of land and marine resources by themselves as discussion material in village level in this assessment.
The previous program has been carried out in Wakatobi. Communication with related multi stakeholders is already at place before the implementation of this current assessment, including with local governments and NGO. These two stakeholders become the mediator in facilitating meetings with community, including determining important locations as transect/observation material. The process of gathering community in this assessment is determined by contacting NGO in Wakatobi although during the implementation, it is always probable to have new emerging information or source of new data (beyond expectation yet felt needed to be consulted).
.
.

? How many communities were involved in the baseline assessment and consultation process? Please provide community name, reason for selection and brief description of the target communities
There are 7 villages in 4 islands of Wakatobi as assessment locations. They are Mola and Liya Villages (in Wangi-wangi), Mantigola and Horuo (Kaledupa), Kulati (Tomia), Jaya Makmur and Wali (Binongko). The selection of this village is adjusted with assessment target, village with community who manage land and marine. Around 70 participants of FGD; 13 people in Wangi-wangi, 34 people in Kaledupa, 15 people in Biongko, and 8 people in Tomia. The informants during interview were around 30 people comprising fisherfolks, farmers, village government, adat leader, traders, local government (district level) and local community organization.
.
.
? Were local stakeholders involved in the baseline assessment? If so, who? Please provide information of the stakeholders that participated in the baseline assessment, i.e. number of participations, involvement of the SGP National Steering Committee, community leaders, farmers, local authorities and/or involvement of other actors.
The local government who was involved was the previous program?s contact person (Askal-a civil servant in the Wakatobi Regional Government). His involvement as a resource person included as referring the location of assessment in Wangi-wangi. In addition to that, 2 local NGOs (plus 4 staff in Kaledupa) were involved in the assessment process in all locations. A list of names, ages, genders and occupations is included in the appendix.
.
.

? What tools did the workshop facilitators use to engage the participants, e.g. problem trees, drawings, maps, etc.?
Information gathering is only done through observation and interviews using a questionnaire. To clarify the discussion, a description of the village map and an explanation of the examples for the indicator were made, including carried out transect in locations related to the assessment topic.
.
.
? How many workshops were conducted? If applicable, what was the reason for conducting multiple workshops (i.e. size of the landscape, conflict between communities or stakeholders, length of the exercise, etc.)?
One FGD/workshop in every island, so there are 4 workshops. The workshop was intended to get adequate information related to the management of land and marine resources by the community.
.
.
? How long was the average workshop?
Workshop was carried out for 3-4 hours in every village, depending on the community?s understanding and their assessment. The process was oftentimes being carried out in local dialect which made the workshop last longer.
.
.
.
Activities :
.
.
1. Identification Local knowledge of the types of plants and types of local food in Horuo and Mantigola (kaledupa) villages Kulati (Tomia) Wali Village and Jaya Makmur (Binongko) Village Liya Mawi (Wangi-wangi).
.
.
2. The realization of the balance of land functions both as a forest, agricultural land and water catchment area
.
.
3. Increasing Readiness of Wakatobi people in Facing the Impact of Climate Change and Extreme Weather
.
.
4. Increased capacity of the Wakatobi community to process local materials into creative economic products.
.
.
5. Intensive Assistance for Local Facilitators in the community