Technical Application

Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI)

Notice of Funding Opportunity number: 72038621RFA00001

Submitted to:
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
American Embassy Chanakyapuri New Delhi 110 021
Tel: 91-11-24198000 Fax: 91-11-24198612

Submitted by:
World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Asia Program (ARP),
1st Floor, NASC Complex, DPS Marg,
Pusa, New Delhi, Pin 110012
Telephone no. +91 99997 55192
Email: j.rizvi@cgiar.org

Revised Submission: 06 September, 2021

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 2

1. Problem Statement and Major Issues ............................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Context..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Challenge to be addressed ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 TOFI as “opportunity unlocker” to catalyze TOF expansion .................................................................... 3
1.4 TOFI Results Framework, Top 3 Tiers....................................................................................................... 5
2. Interventions and Expected Results ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Geographic focus ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Program Delivery Model .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Objective-specific Results and Activities ................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Result Framework Indicators and Targets ............................................................................................. 17
2.5 Activity Timeline (Work Plan)................................................................................................................. 21
3. Target Beneficiaries...................................................................................................................................... 25
4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan ................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Monitoring Sub-plan .............................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Evaluation Sub-plan ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Learning Sub-plan .................................................................................................................................. 32
5. Gender and Social Inclusion Considerations ................................................................................................ 33
6. Sustainability Strategy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Scale ............................................................ 35
7. Project Team and Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 38

B. BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKING PLAN ........................................................................................... 41

OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
1. BRANDING STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................. 42
1.1 Project Positioning .......................................................................................................................... 43
1.2 Communications and Publicity ....................................................................................................... 43
1.3 Communication Tools to be used ................................................................................................... 43
1.4 Information Technology Tools and Data Security ........................................................................... 43
1.5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 45
1.6 Monitoring of Sub-recipient Branding and Marking Compliance ................................................... 45
2. MARKING PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 45
2.1 Marking Cost Implications .............................................................................................................. 47
2.2 Waivers and Presumptive Exceptions ............................................................................................. 47

C. OTHER REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 48

1. SFS 424 FORMS ............................................................................................................................................ 48
2. DUNS and Bradstreet number and SAM Registration .................................................................................. 48
3. Critical Points Discussed during Co-creation Workshop .............................................................................. 48

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR KEY STAFF........................................................................................ 49

ANNEX 2: ENDNOTES................................................................................................................................. 52
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scaling up Trees Outside Forests (TOF) in the right ways in India holds significant potential for bringing
about multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits, thereby supporting the Government of
India (GoI) to fulfil several goals and international commitments simultaneously. These include increasing
forest and tree cover from 25% to 33%, sequestering 2.5 to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) gases, and restoring 26 million hectares of degraded land. Yet, there are various policy,
economic, capacity, and information related barriers preventing this potential from being fully realized.
The USAID supported Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI) Activity is designed to address these barriers,
particularly those locking in promising opportunities for TOF expansion in seven participating states,
namely Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.
Complemented by policy-related engagement at the national level, work will be undertaken within these
states to unlock these opportunities, drawing on the vast experience, practical expertise, and strategic
relationships of a carefully conceived Consortium of partner organizations: World Agroforestry (ICRAF),
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti (GRAVIS), the
Central Agroforestry Research Institute (CAFRI), the National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy
Research (NIAP), the Network for Certification and Conservation of Forests (NCCF), the Energy and Resources
Institute (TERI), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), and the Forest College and Research Institute
(FCRI). In so doing, multiple environmental and socioeconomic benefits will be sustainably experienced
among both women and men from diverse social and economic backgrounds at scale.

Specifically, TOF Innovation Platforms (IPs) will be convened in each participating state. These will be
supported to both a) identify promising TOF expansion opportunities that can generate significant private
and public benefits and b) pull the right levers in the right ways to bring these opportunities to life. Pulling
these levers will involve carrying out dedicated work under three complementary objectives.

Work under Objective 1—Enabling environment strengthened for TOF expansion—will focus on expanding the
resource base and political commitment for scaling up TOF; accelerating the certification and improved
regulation of locally produced and certified TOF products to boost their demand; mainstreaming Quality
Planting Material (QPM) standards; and ensuring better alignment of TOF-related state-level policies.

Objective 2—TOF expansion economically incentivized and risks reduced—complements Objective 1 by

focusing on scaling up and strengthening Tree-based Enterprises (TBEs) and tree-related out-grower schemes;
improving access to QPM through the setting up of high-tech and large scale nurseries; and incentivizing the
establishment and maintenance of less economically oriented trees species in farming systems and the wider
landscape by harmonizing, strengthening, and scaling up direct payment schemes.

Finally, Objective 3—Improved access to quality and actionable TOF information—supports the achievement
of the first two objectives by enhancing the delivery of TOF extension services; promoting widespread access
to TOF technical and market-related information through setting up a Virtual Call Centre (VCC) and TOF Online
Dashboard and promoting the widespread use of an innovative TOF App to inform technical decisions on the
integration of trees into farming systems and landscapes; and, finally, carrying out solution-oriented research
on topics affecting TOF expansion and/or its generation of inclusive impact in the targeted states.

The above is expected to culminate in TOFI’s overall goal: Area under TOF significantly expanded enhancing
both livelihoods and ecosystem services, especially carbon sequestration. Indeed, TOFI is expected to directly
and indirectly contribute to expanding the area under TOF cover by an equivalent of 700,000 and 1,400,000
hectares, respectively, resulting in a 60% increase in such cover in the participating states and a projected
sequestration of 210 million metric tons of CO2e gases. Direct and indirect livelihood co-benefits for 1.5 million
and 8.7 million people, respectively, are further expected to follow suit, with these figures being 800,000 and
5.36 million for those experiencing enhanced TOF-related economic opportunities.

1
A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. Problem Statement and Major Issues

1.1 Context
Having witnessed an increase in over 38,000 square kilometers since 2005, 1 nearly one-fourth (24.56%) of
5F

India’s land area is under forest and tree cover, and the country’s ambition—as enshrined in its National Forest
Policy (NFP) 2—is to boost this to one-third (33%). Doing so is key for the Government of India (GoI) to
6F

successfully fulfil its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN)
commitments: the sequestration of an addition of 2.5-3.0 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) gases
and the restoration of 26 million hectares of degraded land, respectively. However, despite recent national
level gains, there has been a marked decrease in forest cover in India’s northeast region, where over 3,000
square kilometers of forest area has been lost since 2009. 3 The recent positive trend is therefore not
7F

geographically universal, nor automatic. Having increased by 3,300 square kilometers since 2005, 4 scaling up 8F

TOF is a key part of the strategy to reach India’s forest and tree cover, NDC, and LDN targets. 5 9F

Trees, both within and outside forests, are important for a large percentage of India’s population and provide
multiple ecosystem services. 6 The livelihoods of an estimated 300 million people are dependent on forests,
10F

and strengthening community property rights, institutions, and collective action are critical to ensure
sustainable and equitable access and use. 7 Agroforestry is further practiced on more than 25 million hectares
1F

of land, 8 meeting about 60%, 70%, and 80% of India’s plywood, timber, and paper needs, respectively. 9 Thus,
12F 13F

there are significant socio-economic and environmental benefits to be gained by scaling up TOF, and, when
combined with the appropriate governance of forests at the local level, it can both reduce deforestation and
contribute to forest restoration. 10 Indeed, the potential of TOF is clearly outlined in India’s National
14F

Agroforestry Policy (NAP). 11 Enacted in 2014, ICRAF played a key role in its development 12 and is currently the
15F 16F

only non-governmental member of the Inter-Ministerial Committee overlooking its implementation.

Figure 1: % of India's Geographical Area with Forest & Tree Cover over Time
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
2005 2007 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Very Dense forest Moderately dense Open TOF cover

Source: India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2005 to 2019. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate
Change. *2009 missing, given that ISFR 2009 presents updated figures for 2007 only.

1.2 Challenge to be addressed

A key development challenge facing India is how to catalyze the sustainable scaling up of TOF, so that its
potential for a) bringing about the benefits cited above and b) contributing to the country’s NDC and LDN
commitments is more fully realized. As indicated in Figure 1, while the contribution of TOF to India’s overall
forest and tree cover is significant and with some modest improvements overtime, there is clearly room for
improvement. The TOFI Activity (herein program) is focused on addressing this development challenge,
bringing to bear the vast experience, practical expertise, and strategic relationships of a carefully conceived
consortium of research and development partners to unlock opportunities for appropriate, inclusive,
sustainable, and impactful TOF expansion.

2
However, why is there a need for a program such as TOFI? As stated above, there is significant political will
and interest to see the area under TOF expanded. Indeed, India was the first country in the world to develop
and approve a dedicated agroforestry policy, and it set up the Sub-Mission on Agroforestry to oversee its
implementation. Moreover, TOF expansion supports the realization of many other national and state level
objectives as well, including those of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Relevant
technical and institutional capacities further prevail in the public, private, and NGO sectors, e.g., within the
MoEFCC at the national level and Forestry and Agricultural departments at the state level. Furthermore, while
not infinite, potential exists in India to mobilize significantly more public, private, and philanthropic resources
in support of TOF expansion. And, finally, there is significant potential for companies, entrepreneurs, farmers,
and other value chain actors to earn money, e.g., through either starting or scaling up Tree-based Enterprises
(TBEs) or tapping into the carbon credit market and other Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes.
Clearly, there are many supporting factors in place in India that are favorable for TOF expansion.

1.3 TOFI as “opportunity unlocker” to catalyze TOF expansion

Despite the presence of many supporting factors, such as those described above, there are, nevertheless,
barriers that discourage the manifestation and pursuit of many promising TOF expansion opportunities (Figure
2). A key role of TOFI, then, is to work with relevant stakeholders at the national and state levels to overcome
these barriers, thereby unlocking these expansion opportunities and, in turn, their generation of multiple
socioeconomic and environmental benefits. Some barriers will be more relevant for some opportunities than
others, and often a combination of barriers will need to be overcome in order to effectively unlock a particular
TOF expansion opportunity.

Figure 2: TOFI as “Opportunity Unlocker” to Catalyze TOF Expansion

The barriers, in particular, can be grouped as those relating to a) the enabling environment; b) economic
incentives and risks; and c) information. For the former, for example, standards and processes for certifying
TOF products, such as timber produced on farm, have yet to be approved and mainstreamed in India. This,
coupled with the poor regulation of imported (often cheaper and unsustainably sourced) timber, means that
there is limited demand for certified wood products in the domestic construction and value-added wood
product sectors, thereby deterring domestic investment in its sustainable production. The absence of TOF
certification also affects exports of value-added wood products (e.g., furniture), given that many international
buyers require such certification. Hence, the combination of both fast tracking the approval and state-level

3
implementation of TOF certification standards and regulations for imported timber is an important policy lever
to stimulate the domestic production of sustainable TOF products, particularly timber.

There are also other issues associated with the enabling environment that deserve mention. First, while there
has been some progress with respect to allowing the production and sale of particular tree species outside of
forests (deregulation), this is heterogeneous across states. For example, Haryana and Assam have deregulated
48 and zero tree species, respectively. The inappropriate regulation of specific tree species disincentivizes their
establishment outside of forests, thereby stifling both TOF expansion and species diversification. Relatedly,
states are at different levels in the extent to which they have implemented India’s National Agroforestry Policy
(NAP). Consequently, policies, regulations, and incentive mechanisms in many states are not ideally aligned
for supporting and promoting appropriate TOF expansion. This includes putting in place and regulating
standards for Quality Planting Material (QPM). There is a clear need for well implemented QPM accreditation
systems at the state-level, so that tree growers can be confident they are procuring planting material in line
with their production and business requirements.

Addressing the above issues pertaining to the enabling environment will aid in overcoming some of the
barriers associated with the economic incentives and risk category. For example, putting in place a TOF
certification scheme and promoting the use of locally produced and certified TOF products is expected to
stimulate demand for them, both incentivizing production and reducing market related risks by ensuring viable
future markets. New opportunities may open in the export sector as well, e.g., for furniture manufacturers.
Additional economic opportunities may further emerge from the deregulation of demanded tree species.
Moreover, putting in place QPM accreditation systems will reduce production risks, e.g., by ensuring better
tree survival and growth rates, and having more harmonized state-level policies in favor of TOF expansion will
indirectly create incentives and reduce risks as well.

However, there are specific barriers associated with the economic incentives and risk category that require
more direct attention. The first is a general lack of financial products and services amenable for the nature of
TBE investment cycles. These investment cycles are generally longer than that of, for example, annual crops.
Loan repayment periods, therefore, need to follow suit. Moreover, capital investment associated with TBEs,
e.g., involving the leasing of land and the procurement of QPM, will often be higher, thereby potentially
increasing required loan sizes and accessing appropriate insurance products to mitigate risk all that more
important.

Having access to QPM, more reliable markets, and tailored insurance products will act to reduce risk on the
sides of the would-be tree growers and TBE operators, as well as any involved TBE investors and/or Financial
Service Providers (FSPs). However, all parties will likely have additional concerns pertaining to risk, either
actual or perceived. The general absence of quality and TOF relevant incubation and extension support
services for TBE operators and tree growers is likely one factor that contributes to this, as is also the case with
limited access to reliable and actionable TOF market-related and technical information (associated with the
information barrier category). It is reasonable to assume that FSPs, investors, and even TBE operators and tree
growers themselves would be more reassured if the latter were backed up by a strong and appropriate
mentoring and technical support system and had ready access to reliable market and technical information.
Consequently, appropriately addressing state-level shortfalls in the provision of TOF-related incubation,
extension, and information services is not only intrinsically valuable in unlocking many TOF expansion
opportunities but also will address both actual and perceived risk for various value chain actors.

The final barrier presented in Figure 2 pertains to Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. Such
schemes are becoming increasingly popular, particularly for incentivizing the maintenance and establishment
of trees when doing so may otherwise not result in direct private benefits. While present in some states, these
incentive schemes are generally piecemeal and not well harmonized. There is also considerable interest and
attention in incentivizing tree establishment and maintenance through selling of carbon credits. However,

4
identifying a suitable market, setting up a viable project, and successfully completing the certification process
is costly and complex. Thus, while holding significant potential for incentivizing TOF expansion, finding viable
ways for overcoming the associated costs and complexity are required.

1.4 TOFI Results Framework, Top 3 Tiers

Following the above analysis of the development challenge at hand, we propose a Results Framework, the top
three tiers of which are presented in Figure 3. TOFI’s overall goal is to significantly expand the area under
TOF in the targeted states, while ensuring this is done in way that will both a) inclusively improve
livelihoods and economic opportunities for the rural population and other value chain actors and b)
enhance ecosystem services, especially carbon sequestration but also nutrient cycling, water infiltration,
erosion prevention, and pollination. This goal is to be achieved by enhancing the enabling environment for
TOF expansion (Objective 1); economically incentivizing and reducing risks (actual and perceived) associated
with such expansion (Objective 2); and improving access to reliable, relevant, and actionable TOF information
(Objective 3).

Figure 3: Proposed TOFI Results Framework, Top 3 Tiers

Key outcomes targeted for strengthening the enabling environment (Objective 1) include a) Public, private,
and philanthropic resources and action in support of TOF significantly bolstered (to ensure that TOF expansion
opportunities that are not directly economically profitable get implemented, e.g., large scale restoration and
watershed rehabilitation projects); b) Locally produced and certified TOF products effectively promoted in the
construction and other sectors (to boost demand and thereby “pull” them into expanded production; c) QPM
standards and accreditation systems adopted and enforced (to ensure tree growers experience better tree
growing outcomes and profits); and d) State-level policies better harmonized to promote TOF expansion (to
support an overall better enabling environment at state level for inclusive and impactful TOF expansion).

The three outcomes targeted for economically incentivizing and reducing risks associated with TOF expansion
(Objective 2) include a) TBEs and outgrower schemes inclusively scaled-up and strengthened (with a strong
emphasis on the meaningful and beneficial
participation of women and other socially
differentiated groups); b) Increased access to TOFI’s Overarching Theory of Change
demand driven QPM (particularly for targeted “IF the impediments to successful TOF expansion in India
TBEs but also the more public leaning restoration are reduced or removed AND IF technical knowhow and
and related initiatives); and c) Producers high-quality planting material are available AND IF
incentivized for establishing and maintaining trees financing, insurance, and market opportunities are
via direct payments (with an emphasis on tree available, THEN the area of trees outside of forests will
species that may not be directly economically increase, thereby improving inclusive economic
opportunities, and enhancing ecosystem services
profitable).
including carbon sequestration.”

Finally, we have defined three outcomes to USAID. 2021. Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Number:
improve access to quality and actionable TOF 72038621RFA00001 for Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI) Activity.

information. These include a) Enhanced delivery

5
of TOF extension services in the targeted states (tailored to the specific TOF expansion opportunities being
pursued; b) TOF information tools widely accessed and used (as a complement to more conventional extension
services and for enhancing information reach); and c) Priority knowledge gaps affecting TOF scale and/or
impact addressed (for identifying viable solutions for overcoming seemingly intractable issues). In short, the
above outcomes are key changes we believe are required to achieve their associated objectives. And, as per
TOFI’s original design (and Theory of Change), the three objectives work together to realize the goal. We have
further defined several Intermediary Outcomes (IOs) for each of these outcomes, as well as outputs and
activities to bring these about. These are presented in Section 2.

2. Interventions and Expected Results

2.1 Geographic focus

While some of TOFI’s policy engagement work (e.g., on TOF certification) is targeted at the national level,
much of its implementation will take place in seven states. We used a three phased approach to select these
states. First, India’s 28 states were evaluated using the following 12 specific criteria (Table 1).

Table 1: Criteria for first phase state screening

1. Agro-ecological representation 2. Historical loss of forest cover
3. Investment by State Government (as indicator for leverage 4. Significant degraded land with low soil organic content and high
potential and political commitment) erosion prevalence
5. Absence of significant external aided funding for TOF (especially 6. Vulnerability to climate change
JICA funding)
7. Presence of wood based and other TOF-related industries 8. High prevalence of mined areas with potential for restoration
9. Mass plantations (as an opportunity to improve the quality of 10. Existing investment and potential for future expanded investment
how tree planting campaigns are being carried out)
11. Potential for restoration of river systems 12. Possibility of adopting a cluster approach to generate inter-state
level impact

Figure 4: Second phase state criteria-based scoring

From this we identified 13 potential states. Given that the above criteria are many, we consolidated several
of them and came up with the following aggregated set of four criteria:
1. Potential for large-scale tree-based restoration (e.g., through revitalizing major river systems) and
climate change adaptation (e.g., through reducing ambient temperature), both within and across state
boundaries

6
 2. Presence and potential for scaling up of TOF-based industries (to ensure sustainable local supply of
wood and Non-Timber TOF Products [NTTPs] inputs)
3. Potential for leveraging resources either not already committed for TOF-related investments or where
there is potential to add significant value to such
investments (to ensure that scale can be achieved
and sustainability promoted)
4. Regional (including agroecological) representativity
(to ensure the generation of widely applicable
lessons and support scaling out)

We then scored the 13 potential states based on these

criteria, with a maximum of five points allocated to each
state based on how successfully they fulfilled each criterion.
The highest possible score is therefore 20. Figure 4 presents
the resulting ranking.

These results were presented and discussed with USAID and

representatives from MoEFCC during the TOFI’s Co-creation
Workshop. This resulted in an agreed list of participating
states: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Odisha,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh—was then
agreed, the location of which are presented in Figure 5
together with their respective agro-climatic zone numbers. Figure 5: Agreed Participating States

2.2 Program Delivery Model

TOFI’s Results Framework, presented in more detail in the next subsection, depicts the hierarchical
relationships between the program’s goal, objectives, outcomes, intermediary outcomes, and outputs.
However, it is important to document how TOFI’s core interventions and engagement processes are expected
to interact together to deliver this Results Framework. This will enable the extent to which this “planned
synergy” actually comes to fruition to be monitored, thereby enabling corrective measures to be undertaken
if something is amiss. To this end, we developed a Program Delivery Model (PDM) for TOFI (Figure 6). Its key
features are described below, with the number of each mapping back to the numbers presented in Figure 6.

1. State-level TOF Innovation Platforms (IPs). Strong multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral engagement is
critical to TOFI’s success, scale, and sustainability. As such, we propose to set-up and initially (co)convene
TOF IPs within each state. These will include representatives from Forestry, Agriculture, state universities,
relevant wood-based industries, FSPs, NGOs/CSOs,
and representatives from key state programs, such
“An innovation platform is a space for learning and
as Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural change. It is a group of individuals (who often represent
Farming (APCNF). However, as per the IP concept, organizations) with different backgrounds and
both membership and focus are expected to be interests: farmers, traders, food processors,
dynamic. As such, we expect some of the IPs to start researchers, government officials etc. The members
out with smaller stakeholder representation in the come together to diagnose problems, identify
opportunities and find ways to achieve their goals. They
initial stages, with expansion and reconstitution over
may design and implement activities as a platform, or
time. Our consortium may need to convene the IPs coordinate activities by individual members.”
in the initial stages, but we will identify a co-
Homann-Kee Tui, Sabine et al. 2013. Innovation Platform Practice
convener as soon as possible, and gradually hand Brief 1. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.
over this role entirely, so that the IPs are state, rather
than program, driven.

7
 Figure 6: Proposed Program Delivery Model (PDM) for TOFI (State-level)

2. TOF Expansion Opportunity Mapping. A key role of the IPs will be to identify potential TOF expansion
opportunities and devise cost-effective means of pursuing these. This will be aided through TOF
Expansion Opportunity Mapping exercises, informed by stakeholder consultation, literature review,
market trend assessment, and analysis of existing data collected using ICRAF’s Land Degradation
Framework (LDSF) combined with geoinformatics/remote sensing. For the latter, a multidimensional
biophysical index will be developed taking into consideration key soil and land health dimensions,
including land degradation status and tree cover, thereby supporting the identification of potential TOF
expansion domains. Following validation by the IPs and other key stakeholders, a balanced portfolio of
two types of TOF expansion opportunities will be prioritized—those that are “public good leaning” and
“enterprise leaning”. If left unguided, there may be a strong bias in favor of the latter, potentially resulting
in suboptimal environmental outcomes, e.g., low prevalence and diversity of indigenous tree species in
the landscape or missed opportunities to restore the ecological functionality of degraded river systems.

3. “Public Good Leaning” TOF Expansion Initiatives. The public good leaning expansion opportunities will
be prioritized and developed into “bankable” public good oriented TOF expansion projects. Examples
include spearheading tree planting and natural regeneration campaigns in degraded mining and common
land areas and hillsides; riparian restoration; tree establishment along linear infrastructure, such as
canals, highways, and railways; plantations in and around industrial sites and land belonging to
government and other public institutions; and revitalizing “sacred groves” (land belonging to religious
temples). Watershed restoration projects may also be identified that will involve tree establishment on a
mix of private, common, and government owned land. Given that these opportunities are not directly
profit oriented, the IPs will be supported to design “bankable” public good leaning TOF expansion
projects. These will be supported by Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to demonstrate their social and

8
 environmental return on investment. Both the design and results of the CBA will form the basis of much
of the engagement work described below, thereby mobilizing resources to enable their implementation,
using seed money from TOFI only when necessary.

4. Policy work to unlock resources for “public good leaning” opportunities. The above will be aided through
policy work to expand the current provision of agroforestry promotion as one of the permissible
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities to TOF more broadly. In 2020, USD $140 million was
earmarked for mandatory CSR expenditure, so there are certainly opportunities to mobilize resources
from this source. Engagement with the Financial Commission and relevant national and state institutions
will further be pursued to increase state allocations for TOF-related financing, so more state level
resources are available to implement such projects. There is currently some unclarity on whether
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA Funds) can be used to
support TOF expansion, and engagement work will be undertaken to make this clear and favorable. Much
of the tree establishment work will involve local communities, and linkages to Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) will be pursued to finance labor costs.

5. Harmonizing and scaling up Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. As explained above, there
are also various PES schemes at the state level, and efforts will be undertaken to ensure these are scaled
up and better harmonized to promote the establishment or maintenance of desirable indigenous tree
and shrub species. Drawing on over 10 years of experience, TERI will further devise and pilot means of
linking TOF growers to suitable voluntary carbon credit markets, complemented with guidance from
ICRAF’s own expert on this same topic.

6. TOF certification and import regulation to catalyze “enterprise leaning” TOF Expansion. Nurturing and
strengthening the development of TOF-based enterprises is one of TOFI’s central strategies to incentivize
investment in TOF expansion. Multiple interventions will support their flourishing. These include those
that are policy in nature. One of our consortium members, NCCF, has made considerable headway in
developing and seeking approval for TOF certification standards. These standards have already been
approved by NCCF’s governing body, and work is being undertaken to have them internationally certified
by the Program on Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). As this process is underway, we will
undertake efforts to raise awareness about these standards in the targeted states and support the
development of strategies to promote them. This will include supporting the amendment of state building
codes and revising public procurement plans and practices accordingly. Efforts will further be undertaken
to follow-up on recommendations made by ICRAF and partners to the Office of the Prime Minister to
amend India’s EXIM Policy regulation of Open General License (OGL) for the improved regulation of
imported timber. Once approved, complementary work will be undertaken with state-level stakeholders
to ensure this amendment is well implemented. Both TOF certification and the improved regulation of
imported timber are intended to significantly increase demand for domestically produced certified timber
and other wood products, thereby stimulating increased investment in its production and associated
economic opportunities.

7. Private sector partnerships to pursue promising outgrower schemes and large TBEs. We expect that the
TOF expansion opportunity mapping exercises will identify both larger and smaller scale TOF-based
Enterprise (TBE) development and scaling-up opportunities. These, as outlined below, will be subjected
to further investigation, e.g., supply and demand trend analysis and economic feasibility assessments.
Investment cases will be developed for large potential out-grower schemes and TBEs to attract (or to
support already existing) private sector engagement. Once engaged, support will be provided to the
private sector partner (PSP) in question to develop responsible and inclusive business plans, informed by
social and environmental risk assessment and gender and inclusion analysis. Engaged producers will
further be provided with relevant capacity development support, including measures to put in place and

9
 monitor equitable contractual arrangements between engaged TOF producers, other value chain actors,
and the PSPs.

8. Integrated support for TOF-based Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Many of the TBE
opportunities identified and assessed as having strong economic feasibility are expected to be amenable
for local MSME sector investment. And, given the varied developmental needs of those MSMEs that are
likely to be engaged, we will put in place tailored services and support structures. Ensuring inclusive
access to appropriate financial products and services to facilitate investment is one key component.
Amenable Financial Service Providers (FSPs) and others will be engaged (including through the IPs) to
ensure access to customized financial and insurance products. This will be complemented through the
provision of TBE incubation support by setting up a network of TOF enterprise incubation centers (TOF
Hubs) in the participating states. Building on the successful model of one of our consortium partners,
TNAU, this is where MSMEs will be able to access business planning guidance, market-related
information, referrals, general mentoring support, and, as is explained below, market-driven planting
material, e.g., scions for grafting. Strong linkages will be forged between the TOF Hubs, FSPs, and IPs
operating at the state level to form an integrated and hierarchically structured network of support.
Relevant TOF extension information will also be available through the TOF Hubs, and they will form a
central location for practical demonstrations, e.g., nursery establishment and locally suitable agroforestry
plantation models.

9. TOF Virtual Call Centre. It would be challenging and costly to ensure that potential users in all
municipalities and villages in the participating states are able to access the TOF Hubs. As a complement
and to enhance reach, a TOF Virtual Call Centre (VCC) will be developed. Installed on a cloud-based server,
this Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system will comprise numerous pre-recorded TOF technical, market,
and other relevant messages, ranging from nursery establishment and species site matching through to
tree planting methods, pest and disease control/management, and TOF product supply and demand
projections. When users dial in, the main language of the state will be automatically recognized. A menu
of options will first be presented, including a confirmation that the main language spoken in the state is
indeed the users’ preferred language, ultimately guiding them to relevant prerecorded TOF information
messages. The user will also be able to choose to have their call routed through to an appropriate
technical specialist, or at least to a referrer that can identify one. A network of such technical specialists
will be agreed at the state-level, including requirements that VCC users be called back if they are
unavailable to take the call.

10.TOF Market Information System (MKIS). As explained above, trends in supply and demand, coupled with
economic feasibility analysis, for promising TOF-based value chains will inform the TBE strengthening and
scaling up work that will take place under TOFI. The data informing this work will be regularly gathered
and analyzed, with results being shared in communicable means to key TBE actors through the TOF Hubs
and the other methods mentioned below. Ultimately, the information will be systematized into a
periodically updated Market Information System (MKIS). At least in the initial stages, each MKIS at state
level will focus on the key TBEs that are being targeted. In its developmental stages, strong engagement
with a diverse number of potential users will take place to ensure its relevance and inclusive utility. The
system will be piloted, followed by focus group discussions with diverse user groups, to identify ways it
can be improved.

11.TOF Dashboard and TOF App. Other means of enhancing widespread access to TOF technical and market
information will be through the setting up of a dedicated TOF Dashboard and expanding the TOF App
ICRAF has already pilot tested in Odisha for use in the other states. The TOF Dashboard will be a “one-
stop-shop” for TOF related information and data, not only for the seven participating states but also the
country. Its content and layout will be co-developed with stakeholders, including potential institutions
that will be targeted to take it over in the long-term, e.g., MOEFCC. However, it is likely to have interactive

10
 maps depicting areas with and in need of TOF establishment, as well as tree
species and densities suitable for these areas, coupled with information on
where to get the associated QPM. All the above market and FSP related
information and data and extension material will further be accessible on
the dashboard. The TOF App will be directly complementary, targeting
similar information but which is more amenable for smartphone display.

12.Quality Planting Material (QPM). Significant efforts will take place under
TOFI to ensure adequate supply of QPM to support both “public good
leaning” and “enterprise leaning” TOF expansion opportunities. Initial
efforts will focus on the main opportunities being directly targeted under
TOFI. However, QPM policy-related work will enable and strengthen other
opportunities as well. This policy work will include a) orienting relevant state
departments on the already nationally approved QPM guidelines developed
by ICRAF and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and b) co-
developing and rolling out a QPM accreditation (star) system for public and
private nurseries.

13.Harmonizing TOF-related policies and strategies. As discussed above, the

participating states are at different levels with respect to implementing
Figure 7: Screen shot of ICRAF’s
India’s NAP and the deregulation of particular species that would be Agroforestry App already in
appropriate and beneficial to grow outside of forests. It is also important pilot testing phase
that any unneeded or inappropriate state-level policy bottlenecks impeding
TOF expansion be identified and work undertaken with the relevant departments to ensure these are
removed. Hence, we propose to undertake overarching policy work with each state to review where they
are with respect to NAP implementation and tree species deregulation and the existence of any
bottlenecks. This will culminate in either each state having an implementation plan for NAP or their own
state specific and complementary agroforestry (or TOF) policy.

14.Problem driven research and ensuring inclusive and sustainable impact at scale. The three final
components of TOFI’s PDM include Gender and Inclusion Responsiveness; Capacity Development and
Institutional Strengthening; and Problem Driven Research (PDR). Like the TOF Dashboard and TOF App,
all three support the overall delivery model, and the former two are described in detail in Section 5 and
Section 6, respectively. As described above, TOFI will focus on addressing key barriers impeding
appropriate and inclusive TOF expansion. Some of these barriers will be easier to address than others,
and it is expected that effectively and sustainably addressing some will require solution-oriented
research. Given that planned engagement with state-level stakeholders has yet to take place, it is difficult
to describe what these research efforts will be. Examples in the TOFI Notification of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) include research supporting a) agroforestry productivity improvements; b) the identification of
suitable models and trees for restoration and reclamation; and c) evidencing the role of trees and forests
in reducing pollution. We plan to engage with the IPs and other state-level stakeholders to prioritize at
least one modestly funded research effort in each state, which may focus on a problem or issue affecting
several states. If there is demand for additional research, this may be entertained, depending on the
availability of resources and/or the success of complementary resource mobilization efforts.

2.3 Objective-specific Results and Activities

In this section, we present the results—outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and outputs—separately for each
of TOFI’s objectives, as well as how these interrelate in the form of objective specific sub-Theories of Change
(sub-TOC) complementing the overarching one presented above. We do not explain each result narratively,
as this would repeat information already presented in Subsection 2.2. However, we do list the specific
activities that will be undertaken to achieve each objective’s output portfolio.

11
Objective 1: Enabling environment strengthened for TOF expansion
Figure 8 presents the detailed Results Framework for Objective 1. Its sub-TOC is as follows: IF significant
additional public, private, and philanthropic resources and strong multi-sectoral leadership are in place in
support of TOF expansion, coupled with conducive state-level policies and more harmonized inter-sectoral
strategies; AND IF locally produced and certified TOF products are effectively regulated and promoted in the
construction and other sectors; AND IF QPM standards and accreditation systems are mainstreamed,
supported, and enforced in the participating states, THEN major resource constraints limiting TOF expansion
will be addressed (particularly for opportunities that are “public good leaning”) and key policy levers will be
triggered unlocking multiple “enterprise leaning” TOF expansion opportunities.

Figure 8: Objective 1—Results Framework

The activities that will be undertaken to obtain the outputs in Objective 1’s results framework are as follows:

Table 2: Objective 1 Activities

Outputs Activities
Output 1.1.1 TOF 1.1.1.1 Hold initial consultations with key state-level stakeholders (e.g. Dept. Forestry; Dept. Ag.; State Ag. University) to explain
Innovation TOFI and desire for strong stakeholder engagement & ownership via Innovation Platform concept
Platforms 1.1.1.2 Convene initial IP meetings (including relevant representatives from industry, financial service providers, NGOs, line
established and departments, input suppliers, producers, R&D institutions), which will include refining and validating the maps generated under
functioning in Output 1.1.2
targeted states 1.1.1.3 Support IPs to decide on initial TOF scaling opportunities to be pursued, balancing those that are enterprise and public
good leaning
1.1.1.4 Encourage IPs to bring in additional stakeholders and develop their capacity based on TOF expansion opportunities to be
pursued, gradually handing over the IP convening role an active member or set up rotational system
1.1.1.5 Co-convene regular IP meetings and engagement activities in pursuit of prioritized TOF expansion opportunities,
supporting institutional capacity strengthening as needed
1.1.1.6 Ensure institutional and financing arrangements are in pace for post-program IP operations

12
 Outputs Activities
Output 1.1.2 State- 1.1.2.1 Ascertain state-specific priorities, e.g., vis-a-vis action plans for CC, LDN targets, and biodiversity, and identify ways scaling
level mapping of TOF can help meet these objectives (meetings combined with those of Output 1.1.1)
promising TOF 1.1.2.2 Develop state-level TOF expansion opportunity maps through a) literature review; b) secondary data; c) analysis of
expansion existing LDSF data combined with geoinformatics/remote sensing; and d) stakeholder consultation, including with IPs
opportunities 1.1.2.3 Validate maps with IPs and other key stakeholders, thereby supporting Activity 1.1.1.5 (meetings combined with those
under Output 1.1.1)
Output1.1.3 FC, 1.1.3.1 Consult with FC, involving NITI Aayog, and CAMPA through MOEFCC. This will include presenting examples of pre-designed
CAMPA & MoCI “public good leaning” TOF expansion that are ready for investment, complemented by the result of CBA.
engaged to include 1.1.3.2 Hold follow-up meetings with state governments to so port them undertaken necessary action to access or allocated
TOF as criterion for additional resources in support of TOF expansion
state allocation 1.1.3.3 Conduct follow-up engagements to ensure inclusion of TOF as criterion for funding
Output 1.1.4 1.1.4.1 Building on TOF opportunity mapping & IP prioritization, co-develop and develop capacity of IPs and other state-
Bankable 'public stakeholders to develop bankable TOF expansion projects targeting domestic (CSR, philanthropic institutions & credit institutions)
good' TOF scaling and international (GCF, World Bank, ADB, etc.) financers/investors
projects co- 1.1.4.2 Subject each targeted public good leaning TOF expansion project to social and environmental risk assessment and gender
designed & & inclusion analysis, with aim of mitigating potential negative impacts and maximizing the positive
marketed 1.1.4.3 Support IPs market ‘public leaning’ TOF scaling projects for either complete or substantive co-financing
1.1.4.4 Work with IPs to ensure technical backstopping and access to relevant QPMto support project implementation as required
Output1.1.5 CSR 1.1.5.1 Hold initial follow-up consultations with Dept. of Public Enterprises to broaden current provision for AF as permitted CSR
provision for AF activity to TOF
permitted activity 1.1.5.2 Carry out follow up engagement (as per need) to ensure CSR provisions for TOF/AF is acted on in support of prioritized
expanded to include TOF expansion opportunities
TOF
Output 1.2.1 1.2.1.1 Hold workshop with relevant Ministries, private sector, CSOs, etc. to review progress on TOF certification field testing in 3
Stakeholders states
engaged on TOF 1.2.1.2 Take action to fast track final approval with PEFC (involves international audit of proposed scheme for international
cert. & reg. of certification)
imported timber 1.2.1.3 Field test certification scheme for Non-timber TOF Products NTTPs & review of outcomes with stakeholders and facilitate
recommendations & PEFC approval process
1.2.1.4 Hold consultations & meetings with relevant Ministries, private sector, CSOs, etc. to build consensus on amending OGL
vis-a-vis imported timber
1.2.1.5 Follow-up on and support government process to ensure targeted modification to OGL
Output 1.2.2 Actions 1.2.2.1 Through IPs, consult and meet with relevant departments, development authorities, and other stakeholders to analyze
co-implemented to state situation
promote TOF cert. 1.2.2.2 Hold state level training workshops to review outcomes of consultations and devise action plan to promote TOF
standards & reg. of certification and regulation of imported timber
imp. timber 1.2.2.3 Spearhead awareness raising campaign among manufacturers, suppliers, development authorities, builders, architects,
financial inst., insurance providers, including through TOF IPs and TOF Hubs
1.2.2.4 Support action plan implementation, including piloting and scaling TOF streamlined certification mechanisms, e.g. for
farmers
1.2.2.5 Spearhead national & state-level campaigns to promote green building concept (e.g., Buy India, Buy Sustainable),
including use of celebrity ambassadors
Output 1.2.3 1.2.3.1 Hold national level meeting with CPWD and relevant line ministries to gain support for amending building codes and
Building codes co- procurement strategies
revised & 1.2.3.2 Integrate building code and procurement agenda into consultations associated with Activity 1.2.2.1
procurement 1.2.3.3 Review building codes and devise recommendations for revisions
strategies for 1.2.3.4 Hold state level trainings to review and endorse recommendations and devise procurement strategies
certified TOF co- 1.2.3.5 Co-develop regulatory and incentive mechanisms with states (e.g. through state building authorities) to promote use of
developed locally produced and certified TOF, e.g. tax rebates on property tax and improved insurance rates
1.2.3.6 Undertake initial piloting moving to full scale implementation
Output 1.3.1 States 1.3.1.1 Develop communications products associated with existing guidelines
oriented on QPM 1.3.1.2 Hold state level workshops to orient state level stakeholders (relevant gov. dept.) on guidelines (including benefits of
guidelines with QPM) and develop action plans to promote them
action plans to 1.3.1.3 Work with financial institutions to devise incentives for nursery operators by following QPM standards
support their
promotion
Output 1.3.2 QPM 1.3.2.1 Study accreditation system of NHM and adapt for TOF QPM
accreditation 1.3.2.2 Orient and develop the capacity of relevant state departments and key public and private nurseries on system and devise
systems co- state specific delivery mechanisms and associated institutional arrangements
developed with 1.3.2.3 Undertake initial rollout of star rating system by encouraging non-accredited nurseries to become accredited and support
states overcoming bottlenecks affecting long-term sustainability
Output 1.4.1 Extent 1.4.1.1 Map which states have deregulated what species
states have de- 1.4.1.2 Hold consultations to identify reasons why particular species have yet to be deregulated
regulated AF species
assessed & shared
Output 1.4.2 State- 1.4.2.1 Share results with key state-level stakeholders and co-develop optimal portfolios of deregulated species
specific engagement 1.4.2.2 Initiate dialogue with relevant organizations that campaign against deregulation of particular species to convince of the
undertaken to benefits of growing such species on farm
deregulate targeted
species
Output 1.4.3 State- 1.4.3.1 Undertake in-depth interviews and review documentation to assess the extent of AF policy implementation (e.g., NAP
specific AF policies implementation, NAFM implementation, or own policy) in each targeted state
&/or plans co- 1.4.3.2 Work with states to review findings from 1.4.3.1 to prioritize key gaps and develop agreed actions to address these gaps
developed with 1.4.3.3 Support states to provide explicit attention to the promotion of indigenous species
states 1.4.3.4 Hold annual progress review and re-planning meetings with key state actors and agree actions to accelerate progress

Objective 2: Enabling environment strengthened for TOF expansion

13
The Results Framework specific for Objective 2 is presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Objective 2—Results Framework

The logic of Objective 2’s associated sub-ToC is as follows: IF financially viable and socio-ecologically
responsible TBEs (conducive for diverse MSME engagement) and outgrower schemes (attractive for
substantive private sector investment) are both identified and effectively supported, with the former
specifically linked to FSPs offering relevant financial products and tailored business incubation services; AND
IF land-users are incentivized to establish ecologically desirable tree species at appropriate densities in strategic
locations through scaled-up and harmonized tree-oriented PES schemes; AND IF QPM of the right type is
inclusively available in the required quantities for both targeted TBEs/outgrower schemes and PES-oriented
tree promotion initiatives; AND IF both the actual and perceived risks among FSPs, PS investors, MSMEs, and
contracted tree growers are reduced through a) careful economic and socio-ecological feasibility assessments;
b) increasing access to TBE appropriate financial and insurance products; c) providing hierarchically structured
business planning and technical support, linking the TOF Hubs to the IPs and other relevant service providers;
and d) enhancing access to the required QPM, THEN existing and would be tree growers and land users more
generally will be economically incentivized and financially and materially able to significantly and appropriately
scale up the establishment of both commercially oriented and ecologically desirable tree species. The specific
activities associated in Objective 2’s results framework are as follows:

Table 3: Objective 2 Activities

Outputs Activities
Output 2.1.1 2.1.1.1 Building on Output 1.1.2, Identify supply/demand trends for 5-10 high potential TOF-based value chains and
Financially viable investment opportunities
and socio- 2.1.1.2 Determine critical success factors (volume, quality and pricing requirements) among buyers and processors of TOF-
ecologically based products, as well as available resources and capacity development needs among TOF producers accordingly
responsible TBE 2.1.1.3 Conduct economic feasibility and capacity needs assessments of short-listed TBEs and out-grower schemes,
opportunities including initial social and environmental risk assessments and gender and inclusion analysis
identified in 2.1.1.4 Hold meetings with relevant stakeholders in prioritized areas
targeted states 2.1.1.5 Develop business cases for economically viable TBEs for the pursuit of producer organizations and MSMEs
2.1.1.6 Develop investment cases for economically viable out-grower schemes and larger TBEs for attracting private sector
investment and engagement
Output 2.1.2 2.1.2.1 Review products and services of Financial Service Providers (FSPs) active in forestry and agricultural sectors in
Customized TBE targeted states, and screen those that have potential for providing services for the targeted TBEs
compatible financial 2.1.2.2 Identify state schemes to act as guarantors for loans for risk reduction purposes, ensuring linkages to targeted TBEs
products co- as needed
developed with 2.1.2.3 Engage FSPs and negotiate appropriate financial products (including insurance) targeting producer organizations
FSPs for producer and MSMEs, in line with the TBE business cases developed under Activity 2.1.1.4

14
 Outputs Activities
organizations and 2.1.2.4 Provided guidelines and train engaged FSPs on how they can evaluate and support TBEs
MSMEs 2.1.2.5 Work with IPs and other state actors to raise awareness negotiated financing opportunities and products to
support the pursuit of the high potential TBE opportunities identified through Activity 2.1.1.4
Output 2.1.3 2.1.3.1 Hold initial orientation and training sessions for IPs and other state and district-level stakeholders
Incubation & 2.1.3.2 Work with IPs to develop incubation service models (TOF Hubs), specifically to support the pursuit of the high
extension hub potential TBE opportunities identified through Activity 2.1.1.4
model scaled up in 2.1.3.3 Pilot 1 Hub in each state
targeted states 2.1.3.4 Scale up TOF Hubs in key locations across the states for an integrated offer of technical, business, and financial
services, e.g. through the VVK/KVK/KGK/NRDC networks
2.1.3.5 Build relevant TOF Hub capacity for a progressively broader service offer (including supportive extension services
targeting affiliated TOF producers [Output 3.1.1]), putting in place long-term institutional and financing modalities for their
continued operation
Output 2.1.4 2.1.4.1 Building on Activity 2.1.1.5, network with potential Private Sector Partners (PSPs) to pursue promising out-grower
Inclusive TOF out- schemes and large TBEs
grower schemes 2.1.4.2 Work with interested PSPs support them to develop inclusive and responsible out-grower and/or TBE development
and large TBEs co- strategies and business plans, updating initially conducted social and environmental risk assessments and gender and
executed with PS inclusion analyses (Activity 2.1.13)
partners 2.1.4.3 Work with PSPs, NGOs, and relevant line departments to develop capacity of involved TOF producers (building on
2.1.1.2) and provide access to QPM and extension support, e.g., through the TOF Hubs, as relevant
2.1.4.4 Support the development, implementation, and monitoring of equitable contractual arrangements between TOF
producers, other engaged value chain actors, and the concerned PSPs
2.1.4.5 Develop linkages with government support schemes, including green purchasing policies (building on 1.2.3)
Output 2.2.1 State- 2.2.1.1 Consult with targeted TOF stakeholders (with specific focus on women & other socially differentiated groups) to
specific QPM ascertain preferred species, traits, etc., as well as agroecological matching
delivery Road Maps 2.2.1.2 Building on Output 1.2.1 (Road Map), co-develop plans with relevant gov. departments and IPs to produce QPM for
co-developed with targeted TOF opportunities
stakeholders 2.2.1.3 Ensure sound and efficient implementation of other components of Road Map
Output 2.2.2 High 2.2.2.1 Assess opportunities to upgrade existing nurseries and undertake upgrading, informed by demand assessment
tech nurseries set 2.2.2.2 If no nurseries exist to upgrade, set up one high tech nurseries (HTNs) in each state
up in responses to 2.2.2.3 Link and create synergies between HTNs, IPs, and incubation hubs
high priority TBEs
Output 2.2.3 Large 2.2.3.1 Assess opportunities to scale up existing nurseries and undertake their expansion informed by demand assessment
& medium scale 2.2.3.2 If no nurseries to scale up, set them up (e.g. through women SHGs and/or at TOF Hubs) in accordance with TOF
nurseries scaled up scaling opportunities
&/or strengthened 2.2.3.3 Upgrade targeted nurseries vis-a-vis accreditation system
as per RoadMap 2.2.3.4 Link and create synergies between nurseries and TOF Hubs
Output 2.3.1 State 2.3.1.1 Review successful PES incentive schemes in other Indian states for possible adaptation and rollout
action plans to 2.3.1.2 Map out and obtain information on different payment and other incentive schemes in targeted states, if any
scale-up & 2.3.1.3 Present results to state stakeholders to review identified issues and co-devise strategies for harmonization,
harmonize existing including premiums for desirable indigenous species to be scaled up in landscapes
payment schemes 2.3.1.4 Support implementation and annual review of harmonization action plans
Output 2.3.2 MRV 2.3.2.1 Review current MRV systems in targeted states to identify gaps, if any
systems 2.3.2.2 Co-develop harmonized MRV system with states
operational, 2.3.2.3 Support initial implementation and build capacity for sustainability
ensuring timely
payments to
producers
Output 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 Review existing schemes in other states and domestic and international carbon market opportunities to inform
Schemes to link design of pilot projects in targeted states
farmers to Carbon 2.3.3.2 Work with relevant state agencies to design promising scheme to link tree growers to identified carbon markets
Markets piloted & 2.3.3.3 Ensure international certification of design scheme
scaled 2.3.3.4 Implement pilot and review initial results and lessons learned
2.3.3.5 If results are promising, support states scale up accordingly

Objective 3: Improved access to quality and actionable TOF information

Objective 3’s Result Framework is presented in Figure 10. The logic of Objective 3’s associated sub-ToC is as
follows: IF TOF technical extension services are effectively and efficiently integrated into TOFI’s IP and TOF Hub
model and supported by a dedicated Virtual Call Centre for enhanced reach and user convenience; AND IF
innovative TOF information delivery tools—TOF Market Information System, TOF App, and TOF Dashboard—
are widely accessible and used by a variety of TOF value chain actors, land users, and socially differentiated
groups; AND IF solutions for seemingly intractable challenges affecting TOF expansion and/or impact are
unlocked through stakeholder prioritized research, THEN tree growers, farmer organizations and cooperatives,
other land users, TOF MSMEs, PSPs, FSPs, philanthropic organizations, relevant state departments, NGOs, and
CSOs will have improved access to reliable, relevant, and actionable TOF information and innovative solutions
conducive for catalyzing socio-ecologically responsible, inclusive, and impactful TOF expansion.

15
 Figure 10: Objective 3—Results Framework

To achieve the outputs associated with Objective 3’s Results Framework, the following activities are proposed:

Table 4: Objective 3 Activities

Outputs Activities
Output 3.1.1 TOF 3.1.1.1 Building on work under Output 2.1.3, broker agreements on institutional arrangements & financing modalities for
extension services services, e.g. hybrid of PSP support plus referral and modest user fees
mainstreamed into 3.1.1.2 Hold state workshops on mainstreaming TOF technical extension services within TOF Hubs
IP & incubation hub 3.1.1.3 Identify and recruit Lead TOF Champions, one for Hub (28)
model 3.1.1.4 Set up integrated and contextually suitable agroforestry and related TOF demonstrations at Hubs
3.1.1.5 Identify and train TOF champions, e.g. existing extension agents & equip with materials linked to Output 3.1.2
3.1.1.6 Support TOF Champions to hold trainings and demonstrations within villages, as per the targeted TOF expansion
opportunities being pursued
3.1.1.7 Ensure linking and coordination of TOF App, TOF Virtual Call Centre & TOF Dashboard to IP-hub extension delivery
system for maximum synergy and complementarity
3.1.1.8 Work with IPs to put in place & implement monitoring systems to ensure quality extension delivery
Output 3.1.2 Qual. 3.1.2.1 Conduct gender & inclusion informed needs assessment of state specific extension & capacity development needs
extension material 3.1.2.2 Review and compile all relevant existing extension information and materials and identify gaps
pack to ensure 3.1.2.3 Develop TOF extension and training material ‘packs’, tailored to the TOF scaling opportunities being pursued and
quality provision of differing needs of women, men, and socially differentiated groups
TOF extension 3.1.2.4 Recruit graphic artist/communications company to develop posters, pamphlets, etc., as key components of the
services packs
3.1.2.5 Translate extension and training materials into all relevant language and deploy, including featuring on TOF
Dashboard
Output 3.1.3 3.1.3.1 Recruit consultancy firm to design web-based platform, integrating lessons and experiences from other countries
Infrastructure for 3.1.3.2 Co-design platform with IP representatives and partners, ensuring strong linkages to the information and extension
Virtual Call Centre services of the incubation and extension hubs (TOF Hubs)
(VCC) designed, 3.1.3.3 Pilot VCC in one state and scale out to others, integrating lessons learned
piloted in one state
& scaled out
Output 3.2.1 TOF 3.2.1.1 Recruit consultancy firm to develop TOF market information system
market info. sys. co- 3.2.1.2 Oversee and supervise compilation of TOF product price and related information, prioritizing the enterprise leaning
developed, focusing opportunities that are being pursued in the targeted states
on both current & 3.2.1.3 Conduct current and future demand assessments of targeted TOF products
future demand 3.2.1.4 Integrate information associated 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2 into database and thereafter into both TOF App and TOF
Dashboard
3.2.1.5 Ensure access to and use of market information via TOF Hubs among women, men & socially differentiated groups
Output 3.2.2 ICRAF 3.2.2.1 Review piloting of Odisha App, with view towards scaling out in 6 other states and beyond
Odisha AF App 3.2.2.2 Identify institutional ‘home’ for App and ensure its representatives are well engaged in its development and initial
adapted & deployment
expanded for use in 3.2.2.3 Co-develop TOF App with IP representation and other stakeholders, integrating key content associated with Output
all targeted states 3.1.2 and Output 3.2.1
3.2.2.4 Integrate use of App into all relevant training and capacity development activities, e.g. when training TOF Hub
extension providers
3.2.2.5 Support IPs and other stakeholder to publicize and promote use of App in targeted states

16
 Outputs Activities
3.2.2.6 Ensure institutional arrangements and technical capacity are in place to ensure App’s sustainability
Output 3.2.3 TOF 3.2.3.1 Hold initial stakeholder consultations to devise and review TOF Dashboard development options
dashboard co- 3.2.3.2 Identify institutional ‘home’ for dashboard and ensure its representatives are well engaged in its development and
developed & piloted initial deployment
with stakeholders 3.2.3.3 Develop initial dashboard components and share again with stakeholder group for feedback and input
3.2.3.4 Finalize core dashboard components and pilot in one state, orienting IP and other stakeholders on its use
3.2.3.5 Reflect on lessons from pilot, adapt, and deploy for use in all states through IPs & other stakeholders
3.2.3.6 Oversee periodic updating and integration of data into dashboards
3.2.3.7 Ensure institutional arrangements and technical capacity are in place to ensure Dashboard’s sustainability
Output 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 While pursuing Output 1.1.2, consult IPs and other stakeholders about key challenges associated with pursuing one
Consultations with or more of the prioritized TOF expansion opportunities with a view of generating inclusive impact
state SHs on 3.3.1.2 Work with state stakeholder to prioritize challenges of those for which research (carried out over the life of the
pertinent project) could help to unlock
challenges affecting 3.3.1.3 Identify and agree on consortium members and other research partners to carry out the prioritized research
TOF scaling/impact
Output 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 Support the development of quality protocols to carry out the prioritized problem-oriented research
Protocols 3.3.2.2 Ensure draft protocols are reviewed in timely manner and improved accordingly
developed & peer
reviewed for
prioritized research
Output 3.3.3 3.3.3.1 Deploy research protocols, e.g. survey administration and/or in-depth interviews and focus group discussions
Research protocols 3.3.3.2 Hold quarterly reviews of research progress, ensuring timely action is taken to resolve operational bottlenecks
implemented & 3.3.3.3 Ensure peer review preliminary research results
actionable results 3.3.3.4 Ensure results are disseminated widely (including through TOF App) and that work is taken with IPs to ensure their
disseminated effective actioning

2.4 Result Framework Indicators and Targets

For each result of TOFI’s proposed Results Framework, we propose indicators and targets. These are presented
in Table 5, together with means of (indicator status) verification and key assumptions, i.e., preconditions that
need to hold true for the indicator target in question to be realized. Where appropriate, reference is made to
relevant USAID Economic Growth (EG) indicators. The targets for the goal-level indicators deserve elaboration.
While the specific TOF expansion opportunities in the seven participating states have not yet been
determined, we aim to support the direct establishment of TOF on the equivalent of 100,000 hectares, on
average, per state (700,000 hectares in total). We will follow FSI’s methodology where one-hectare equivalent
of TOF cover equates to approximately 70% canopy cover. 13 This does not entail that all land areas, e.g.,
17F

farmland, will be targeted for such dense canopy cover; what trees are established and at what densities will
be determined by local (agro-)ecological conditions and socio-economic considerations. The reason is only to
ensure that we follow a consistent and clear measurement approach. FSI follows this approach in order to
document and monitor India’s geographic area under forest and tree cover, and we will follow suit, thereby
enabling us to evidence the extent TOFI will contribute to increases in such cover.

The policy work associated with QPM, TOF certification, import regulation, species deregulation, and PES
scheme harmonization and upscaling, coupled with the TOF App, TOF Dashboard, and informal information
sharing, is expected to result in significant indirect TOF expansion as well. However, it is difficult to predict or
control how this will unfold at the state-level. Thus, we conservatively expect that TOFI will indirectly induce
at least three times the level of TOF expansion as it will directly. This brings the total to 2.8 million hectares
equivalent under TOF (non-forest tree cover), representing a 88% increase over 2019 levels in the seven
participating states 14 (3,181,900 to 5,981,900 hectares).
18F

Assuming a) one-hectare equivalent of TOF cover comprises at least 1,000 maturing trees and b) each tree
sequesters approximately 25 kilograms of carbon per year for six years (from 2025 up to the end of 2030), this
will result in the direct and indirect sequestration of 105 and 315 million metric tons of CO2e gases,
respectively. The share of India’s geographic area of the seven participating states is 35%. Hence, if India’s
2030 NDC target (2.5 MT CO2e sequestered) is divided proportionally in terms area, the seven participating
states are expected to sequester just under 875 million metric tons of such gases in total. Hence, TOFI is
expected to contribute directly and indirectly to 12% and 36%, respectively, of the states’ combined
contribution to India’s NDC target. Given that this does not account for critical work that needs to take place

17
within forests to achieve the NDC target, coupled with the relatively smaller size of the current geographic
area under TOF cover, both the direct and indirect targets are significant and ambitious.
As described further in Section 3, over 100,000 women and men per state, on average, will be directly targeted
with improved economic opportunities to incentivize TOF expansion. Indirectly, their families are expected to
benefit also (3.7 additional individuals per family, on average), as well as 2.4 million others resulting from the
policy and improved information access interventions described above. The result is an indirect target of 6.16
million individuals. These individuals further represent a subset of those who are expected to gain livelihood
co-benefits (monetary or non-monetary) through TOFI’s interventions. In addition to the 800,000 individuals
cited above, 700,000 and 4.69 million others are expected to directly and indirectly benefit, respectively. This
will primarily be through the scaling up of household or community level tree-related practices, e.g.,
agroforestry to bolster crop productivity and mitigate climate change impacts, common land restoration, and
urban regreening. Hence, the direct target for the livelihood co-benefits indicator is 1.5 million people. The
indirect target was computed on a beneficiary category basis (see Section 3). For household level
interventions, for example, all individuals in the household are counted as direct beneficiaries, so we only
applied the two-to-one indirect beneficiary formula. We further assume that non-agroforestry practicing
households in communities where agroforestry will be considerably scaled up will indirectly benefit from
positive ecosystem service spill-over effects, e.g., increased water recharge, pollination, and ambient
temperature cooling. Here we applied the same two-to-one indirect beneficiary ratio.

Table 5: Logical Framework Analysis for TOFI Results Framework

Result Indicator(s) Target Means of verification Key assumptions
GOAL: Area under TOF • # ha under appropriate directly & 0.7M direct Field surveys triangulated Significant area & interest exists in
significantly expanded indirectly induced TOF expansion (EG.3.2- 2.1M indirect with remote sensing, with targeted states for appropriate
enhancing both 28; EG.10.2-2; EG.13-8) (60% increase) canopy projections TOF expansion
livelihoods & • # people benefiting from directly & 800,000 direct Participant tracking + Lucrative TOF economic
ecosystem services, indirectly induced TOF-based economic 6.16M indirect sample surveys opportunities exist conducive for
esp. carbon opportunities disaggregated by sex & age attracting broad investment
sequestration (EG.10.2-3)
• # people receiving directly & indirectly 1.5M direct Participant & scaling Significant opportunities exist and
induced livelihood co-benefits (monetary 11.55M indirect tracking + sample surveys interest to pursue non-directly
or non-monetary) disaggregated by sex & economic focused TOF
age (EG.13-5) opportunities
• Projected MT of CO2e emissions reduced 105M direct Field surveys triangulated Tree re-establishment will keep
to 2030 resulting from directly & indirectly 315M indirect with remote sensing, with pace with tree harvesting
induced TOF expansion (EG.13-6; EG.13-7) (48% of states’ carbon sequestration (staggered re-establishment and
proportional projections harvesting systems)
contribution to
national target)
Objective 1: Enabling environment strengthened for TOF expansion
Outcome 1.1: Public, • USD $ of additional investment leveraged USD $50M Leveraged contribution Significant non-program resources
private & philanthropic in support of TOF expansion (EG.13-4) tracking with annual available for and willingness to join
resources & action for computations forces among public, private &
TOF exp. bolstered philanthropic institutions
Output 1.1.1: TOF • # of active and inclusive Innovation 7 Review of state coordinator Relevant actors within the states
Innovation Platforms Platforms spearheading both public good quarterly reports willing to engage and spearhead
established and and enterprise leaning TOF expansion the IPs, bringing in expertise,
functioning opportunities in participating states networks & resources
Output 1.1.2: State- • # of states where public good and 7 Review of state coordinator Relevant stakeholders willing to
level mapping of TOF enterprise leaning TOF expansion mapping quarterly reports engage and in a position to provide
expansion has been carried out and validated with quality insights; other relevant
opportunities IPs and other stakeholders data accessible
Output1.1.3: FC, • USD $ of additional state allocation USD $10M Review of project quarterly Relevant national officials willing
CAMPA & MoCI supporting TOF expansion progress reports to engage and are responsive to
engaged to include engagement
TOF as criterion for
state allocation
Output 1.1.4: Bankable • # of public good TOF expansion projects 21 Review of state coordinator IPs and other stakeholders engage
'public good' TOF co-designed with IPs and other state quarterly reports in design and in a position to
scaling projects co- stakeholders and marketed provide quality inputs
designed & marketed
Output1.1.5: CSR • Extent follow-up engagement work is 100% Review of project quarterly CSR officials will to engage and are
provision for AF as successfully carried out progress reports responsive
permitted activity
expanded to TOF
Outcome 1.2: • TOF certification standards internationally 1 Review of NCCF quarterly No significant delay for
Certified TOF products certified (EG.13-3) progress reports, with international certification process;
promoted & regulated • # of states where TOF certification 7 verification key stakeholders in states willing
in construction & other standards are implemented and timber to engage on promoting
sectors regulation enforced Review & analysis of state certification standards
• Estimated value of TOF investment USD $107M (2% of coordinator reports
unlocked through certification & timber imports)
import regulation (EG.5.1-19)
Output 1.2.1 • # of national level bodies implementing 2 Review of NCCF quarterly Key stakeholders in states willing
Stakeholders engaged actions in support of TOF certification and progress reports; Review of to engage on promoting
timber regulation

18
Result Indicator(s) Target Means of verification Key assumptions
on TOF cert. & reg. of • # of state departments engaged and 21 state coordinator quarterly certification standards and
imported timber undertaking action to implement TOF reports regulation of imported timber
certification standards & measures to
regulate imported timber
Output 1.2.2 Actions • # of states where co-developed action 7 Review of state coordinator Relevant state stakeholders not
co-implemented to plans have been implemented to promote quarterly reports only willing to engage but also to
promote TOF cert. certified timber follow through on agreed actions
standards & reg. of • # of states where co-developed action 7 to promote TOF certification and
imported timber plans have been implemented to regulate regulate imports
imported timber
Output 1.2.3 Building • # of states where building codes have 7 Review of state coordinator As above
codes co-revised & been reviewed and revised quarterly reports
procurement • # of states with improved procurement 7
strategies for certified strategies for certified TOF products
TOF co-developed
Outcome 1.3: QPM • # of states where QPM standards and 7 Review of state coordinator Forest dept., public & private
standards & accreditation systems are adopted (or quarterly reports, with nurseries willing to engage and
accreditation systems strengthened) and enforced (EG.13-3) verification follow-up with action
adopted & enforced
Output 1.3.1 States • # of states where relevant government 7 Review of state coordinator As above
oriented on QPM departments have been oriented on QPM quarterly reports
guidelines with action guidelines and are undertaking action to
plans to support their support their promotion
promotion
Output 1.3.2 QPM • # of states with new or improved QPM 7 Review of state coordinator As above
accreditation systems accreditation systems quarterly reports
co-developed
Outcome 1.4: State- • # of laws, policies, or regulations in 21 Review of state coordinator Relevant state stakeholders not
level policies better support of appropriate TOF expansion quarterly reports only willing to engage but also to
harmonized to officially proposed, adopted, or follow through on agreed actions
promote TOF implemented (EG.13-3)
expansion
Output 1.4.1: Extent • # of states where formal commitments 7 Review of state coordinator As above
states have de- have been made to deregulate key tree quarterly reports
regulated AF species species
assessed & shared
Output 1.4.2: State- • # of states where state-specific action has 7 Review of state coordinator As above
specific engagement taken place to accelerate appropriate quarterly reports
undertaken to tree species deregulation
deregulate species
Output 1.4.3: State- • # of states with new or refreshed AF 7 Review of state coordinator As above
specific AF policies policies and/or NAP-oriented quarterly reports
&/or plans co- implementation strategies
developed with states
Objective 2: TOF expansion economically incentivized & risks reduced
Outcome 2.1: TBEs & • Full time equivalent employment 160,000 Participant & scaling Significant engagement & interest
out-grower schemes generated through support given to TBEs tracking + sample surveys engaging with identified TBE
inclusively scaled-up & & outgrower schemes disaggregated by Review of larger TBE & PSP development opportunities;
strengthened sex & age (EG.5.2) financials COVID-19 or other shock does not
• % change in sales of supported TBEs & 25% improvement flatten economy activity
PSPs (EG.5.15)
Output 2.1.1: • # of states where promising TBE 7 Review of state coordinator Financially viable TOF-based
Financially viable & opportunities have been economically quarterly reports, plus economic opportunities exist, with
socio-ecologically resp. appraised and social and environmental reports of Global Value potential for generating positive
TBE opportunities impacts assessed and used to inform TBE Chain lead social & environmental benefits
identified prioritization
Output 2.1.2: • # of private sector enterprises with 35 Participant & scaling FSPs in the required numbers and
Customized financial increased access to finance (EG.2-12) tracking + sample surveys locations willing to engage and
products co-developed • # of clients benefiting from TOF financial 210,000 Annual review of FSP customize their products
with FSPs for producer services (EG.4.2-1) financials
organizations & • Value of financing accessed by MSMEs $10.5M
MSMEs through FSP engagement (EG.3.2-27)
Output 2.1.3: • # of MSMEs supported though TOF Hubs 350 Hub use and activity Willingness of relevant
Incubation & extension (EG.5-12) tracking system stakeholders (e.g., Forest Dept. &
hub model scaled up in • # of days of training provided to support 3,500 Review of state coordinator Ag. Dept.) to collaborate through
targeted states TBE development (EG.4.2-4) quarterly reports established institutional network
• # of days technical assistance provided to 7,000 (e.g. VVK/KVK)
support TBE development (EG.4.2-5)
Output 2.1.4: Inclusive • $ value of PSP investments (outgrower USD $48M Annual reviews of PSP & Investment cases are successful in
TOF out-grower schemes and large TBEs) leveraged under large TBE financials attracting suitable PS investment &
schemes & large TBEs TOFI (EG.3.1-14) support
co-executed with PSPs
Outcome 2.2: • Extent to which targeted TOF expansion 100% Spatial QPM demand & Existing sites available for
Increased & equitable opportunities are linked to appropriate supply analysis upscaling near targeted TOF
access to demand and adequate QPM sources expansion initiatives or conducive
driven QPM, esp. TBEs conditions for new establishment
Output 2.2.1: State- • # of states with co-developed and agreed 7 Review of state coordinator Relevant gov. depts. willing to
specific QPM delivery QPM Road Maps. quarterly reports engage, work together, and take
Road Maps co- action
developed with
stakeholders
Output 2.2.2: High tech • # of high-tech nurseries strengthened or 7 Review of state coordinator Presence of suitable upgradable
nurseries set up in established quarterly reports high-tech nurseries or conditions
responses to high for setting up new ones
priority TBEs
Output 2.2.3: Large & • # of large-scale nurseries scaled up or 35 Review of state coordinator Presence of suitable upgradable
medium scale established quarterly reports nurseries or conditions for setting
nurseries scaled up • # of tertiary nurseries scale up or 70 up new ones
established

19
Result Indicator(s) Target Means of verification Key assumptions
&/or strengthened as
per RoadMap
Outcome 2.3: • % increase in the number of tree growers 100% Annual review of PES Existence and/or interest among
Producers incentivized in targeted states participating in tree- scheme records concerned state stakeholders in
for establishing & based PES schemes strengthening PES schemes
maintaining trees via
direct payments
Output 2.3.1: State • # of states with action plans to 7 Review of state coordinator As above
action plans to scale- harmonize and scale up tree-based PES quarterly reports
up & harmonize schemes
existing payment
schemes
Output 2.3.2: MRV • # of states with well working MRV 7 Review of state coordinator As above
systems operational, systems ensuring timely payments to quarterly reports
ensuring timely producers
payments to producers
Output 2.3.3: Schemes • # of schemes to support tree growers sell 1 Review of partner (TERI) Conducive carbon market and
to link farmers to carbon credits piloted reports certification conditions in place
carbon markets piloted • # of states where piloted schemes have 2
& scaled been scaled out
Objective 3: Improved access to quality & actionable TOF information
Outcome 3.1: • # of individuals who applied improved 280,000 Hub use & scaling tracking + Delivered extensions services well
Enhanced delivery of management practices or technologies sample surveys matched with user needs,
TOF extension services through TOFI support disaggregated by capacities & land-use systems
in targeted states sex & age (EG.3.2-24)
Output 3.1.1: TOF • # of people trained in appropriate TOF 175,000 Hub use and activity Capacity exists among the Hubs to
extension services establishment and management tracking system also take on extension and
mainstreamed into IP disaggregated by sex & age (EG.10.2-4) demonstration delivery
& incubation hub • # of tree planting demonstrations 1400
model (5/state * 1 per year for 4 years)
• # of ha where tree planting 1400
demonstrations have been undertaken
Output 3.1.2: Qual. • # of states with tailored and translated 7 Review of state coordinator It is feasible to have one tailored
extension material TOF extension material packs well quarterly reports extension pack to meet the varied
pack to ensure quality matched to the TOF expansion needs of potential state level
provision of TOF opportunities being pursued users, including women and other
extension services socially differentiated groups
Output 3.1.3: • # of states where VCC is in use 7 Review of state coordinator Appropriateness and feasibility of
Infrastructure for • Average number of monthly calls 3,500 quarterly reports using such a system to convey
Virtual Call Centre • % of calls with referral requests (as 25% Review of VCC system data varied TOF information meeting
(VCC) designed, piloted indicator of information need fulfillment heterogenous needs
in one state & scaled vis-à-vis prerecorded messages)
out
Outcome 3.2: TOF • Estimated # of people accessing TOF 3.5M Hub use and activity As above
information delivery market information through Hubs, VCCs, tracking system maintained
tools widely accessed App, and Dashboard at hub-level but aggregated
& used at state level
Output 3.2.1: TOF • # of states for which market information 7 Review of state coordinator As above
market info. sys. co- system has been adapted and tailored quarterly reports
developed, focusing on
both current & future
demand
Output 3.2.2: ICRAF • # of states for which AF App is in use 7 Review of App system data As above
Odisha AF App adapted
& expanded for use in • Average number of monthly users 3,500
all targeted states
Output 3.2.3: TOF • % unique website visits 200,000 Review of Dashboard Significant number of potential
dashboard co- • Average # page visits per session 3.5 system data users have Internet access and find
developed & piloted • Average time on sight 200 seconds the format useful
with stakeholders
Outcome 3.3: Know. • # of states where at least 1 stakeholder 7 Review of state coordinator Relevant knowledge gaps exist for
gaps affecting inclusive prioritized knowledge gap has been quarterly reports, with which research has a comparative
TOF exp. &/or impact successfully addressed or at least verification advantage in addressing
addressed significant insights gained
Output 3.3.1: • # of states where key stakeholders have 7 Review of state coordinator Stakeholders meaningfully engage
Consultations with been consulted on such challenges and quarterly reports in the framing and the
state SHs on pertinent issues identification of issues appropriate
challenges affecting for TOF-related PDR
TOF scaling/impact
Output 3.3.2: Protocols • # of prioritized problem driven research 7 Review of research partner Research design and review is
developed & peer projects for which protocols have been reports executing research done in good time
reviewed for developed and peer reviewed
prioritized research
Output 3.3.3: Research • # of states where prioritized research has 7 Review of research partner Research is carried out and
protocols implemented been successful undertaken, with results reports executing research disseminated in time for identified
& actionable results shared and validated solutions to be actioned.
disseminated

20
 2.5 Activity Timeline (Work Plan)
Output/Activity Unit
Output 1.1.1 TOF Innovation Platforms established and functioning
1.1.1.1 Hold initial consultations with key state-level stakeholders State
1.1.1.2 Convene initial IP meetings, including refining & validating TOF opportunities IP
1.1.1.3 Support IPs decide on initial TOF scaling opportunities to be pursued IP
1.1.1.4 Encourage IPs to bring in additional stakeholders and develop their capacity IP
1.1.1.5 Co-convene regular IP meetings & broader stakeholder engagement activities IP
1.1.1.6 Ensure institutional & financing arrangements for post-program IP operations IP
Output 1.1.2 State-level mapping of TOF expansion opportunities
1.1.2.1 Ascertain state-specific priorities (combined with Activities 1.1.1.1-1.1.1.3) State
1.1.2.2 Develop state level TOF scaling opportunity maps State
1.1.2.3 Validate maps with IPs and other key stakeholders State
Output 1.1.3 FC, CAMPA, etc. engaged for TOF as state allocation criterion
1.1.3.1 Consult with FC, involving NITI Aayog, and CAMPA through MOEFCC. Institution
1.1.3.2 Hold follow-up meetings with state government to access/allocated resources Institution
1.1.3.3 Conduct follow-up engagements for inclusion of TOF as criterion for funding
Output 1.1.4 Bankable 'public good' TOF projects co-designed & marketed
1.1.4.1 Co-develop bankable TOF expansion projects Project
1.1.4.2 Subject each to S&E risk assessment and gender & inclusion analysis Project
1.1.4.3 Support IPs market ‘public leaning’ TOF scaling projects Project
1.1.4.4 Work with IPs to ensure technical backstopping & access to relevant QPM Project
Output1.1.5 CSR provision for AF permitted act. expanded to include TOF
1.1.5.1 Hold follow-up consultations with Dept. of Public Enterprises Dept.
1.1.5.2 Carry out follow up engagement to ensure provisions are acted on Project
Output 1.2.1 Stakeholders engaged on TOF cert. & reg. of imported timber
1.2.1.1 Hold meetings with relevant Ministries, private sector, CSOs, etc. Workshops
1.2.1.2 Fast track final approval with PEFC Scheme
1.2.1.3 Field test certification scheme for NTTPs State
1.2.1.4 Hold consultations to build consensus on amending OGL Office
1.2.1.5 Follow-up on and ensure modification to OGL Office
Output 1.2.2 Actions to promote TOF cert. standards & reg. of imp. timber
1.2.2.1 Through IPs, consult to analyze state situation State
1.2.2.2 Hold state level trainings to review outcomes and develop capacity State
1.2.2.3 Spearhead awareness raising campaigns Campaign
1.2.2.4 Support and oversee action plan implementation Plan
1.2.2.5 Spearhead campaigns to promote green building concept Campaign
Output 1.2.3 Building codes co-revised & procurement strategies
1.2.3.1 Hold national level meeting with CPWD and relevant line ministries Meeting
1.2.3.2 Integrate building code and procurement agenda with Activity 1.2.2.1 State
1.2.3.3 Review building codes and devise recommendations for revisions State
1.2.3.4 Hold state level trainings to review and endorse recommendations Mechanism
1.2.3.5 Co-develop regulatory and incentive mechanisms with states Mechanism
1.2.3.6 Undertake initial piloting moving to full scale implementation State
Output 1.3.1 States oriented on QPM guidelines with action plans
1.3.1.1 Develop communications products associated for existing guidelines Package
Target 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Responsibility
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
7 CLG + State Teams
7 CLG + State Teams
7 DCOP + State Teams
7 State Teams + TSG
7 State Teams + TSG
7 State Teams + ATREE
7 State Teams + TSG
7 State Teams + TSG
7 State Teams
3 Sr. Mgt. + CLG
3 Sr. Mgt. + CLG + State Teams
42 State Teams + TSG
42 State Teams + TSG
42 Sr. Mgt. + CLG
21 State Teams + TSG
1 Sr. Mgt. + CLG
7 Sr. Mgt. + CLG
3 Sr. Mgt. + NCCF
1 Sr. Mgt. + NCCF
1 Sr. Mgt. + NCCF
1 Sr. Mgt. + NCCF
1 Sr. Mgt. + NCCF
7 State Teams + NCCF
7 State Teams + NCCF
7 State Teams + IPs
7 State Teams + IPs
7 State Teams + IPs
1 State Team + NCCF
7 State Team + NCCF
7 State Team + NCCF + IPs
7 State Team + NCCF + IPs
7 State Team + NCCF + IPs
1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG
21
Output/Activity Unit Target 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Responsibility
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
1.3.1.2 Hold state level workshops to orient state level stakeholders State 7 State Teams + TFRI
1.3.1.3 Work with financial institutions to devise incentives for nursery ops. FSP TBD State Team + NCCF + IPs
Output 1.3.2 QPM accreditation systems co-developed with states
1.3.2.1 Study accreditation system of NHM and adapt for TOF QPM System 1 TSG + NCCF
1.3.2.2 Orient and develop the capacity of relevant state departments, etc. State 7 State Team + NCCF + IPs
1.3.2.3 Facilitate initial rollout of star rating system State 7 State Teams + IPs
Output 1.4.1 Extent states have de-regulated AF species assessed & shared
1.4.1.1 Map which states have deregulated what species State 7 TSG + CAFRI
1.4.1.2 Hold consultations to identify reasons species not deregulated State 7 State Teams + TSG
Output 1.4.2 State-specific engagement undertaken to deregulate species
1.4.2.1 Share results and co-develop optimal portfolios State 7 State Teams + CAFRI
1.4.2.2 Initiate dialogue with orgs. campaigning against deregulation Org. TBD Sr. Mgt. + CLG
Output 1.4.3 State-specific AF policies &/or plans co-developed with states
1.4.3.1 Review extent of AF policy implementation at state level State 7 State Teams+NIAP+TSG
1.4.3.2 Work with states to identify gaps and actions for AF policy implementation State 7 State Teams+NIAP+TSG
1.4.3.3 Support states to give explicit attention to indigenous species State 7 State Teams+NIAP+TSG
1.4.3.4 Hold progress review & re-planning meetings (1/year/state for 2 years) Meeting 14 State Teams+NIAP+TSG
Output 2.1.1 Fin. viable & socio-ecologically res. TBE opportunities identified
2.1.1.1 Identify supply/demand trends for high potential TOF-based opportunities Opportunity 5-10 TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.1.2 Determine critical success factors of promising opportunities Opportunity TBD TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.1.3 Conduct economic feasibility & cap. needs assessments of short-listed TBEs Opportunity TBD TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.1.4 Hold meetings with relevant stakeholders in prioritized areas Sector 3 TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.1.5 Develop business cases for economically viable TBE Opportunity TBD TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.1.6 Develop investment cases for viable out-grower schemes and larger TBE Opportunity TBD TSG-VC + State Teams
Output 2.1.2 Customized TBE compatible financial products co-developed
2.1.2.1 Review products and services of Financial Service Providers (FSPs) FSP TBD State Team+TNAU/NIAP
2.1.2.2 Identify state schemes to act as guarantors for loans State 7 State Team+TNAU/NIAP
2.1.2.3 Engage FSPs and negotiate appropriate financial products FSP TBD State Team+TNAU/NIAP
2.1.2.4 Provided guidelines and train FSPs to evaluate and support TBEs FSP TBD TSG-VC + State Teams
2.1.2.5 Work with IPs etc. to raise awareness negotiated financing opportunities IP 7 State Teams + IPs
Output 2.1.3 Incubation & extension hub model scaled up in targeted states
2.1.3.1 Hold initial orientation and training sessions for IPs and other state actors IP 7 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.1.3.2 Work with IPs to develop incubation service models (TOF Hubs) State 7 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.1.3.3 Pilot 1 Hub in each state State 7 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.1.3.4 Scale-up TOF Hubs in key locations across the states for integrated services Hub 28 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.1.3.5 Build relevant TOF Hub capacity for a progressively broader service offer Hub 28 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
Output 2.1.4 TOF out-grower schemes & large TBEs co-executed with PS partners
2.1.4.1 Network with PSPs to pursue promising out-grower schemes and large TBEs PSP TBD Sr. Mgt.+TSG-VC+TNAU
2.1.4.2 Engage interested PSPs support them to develop TBE business plans PSP TBD Sr. Mgt.+TSG-VC+TNAU
2.1.4.3 Develop capacity of involved TOF producers and ensure access to QPM, etc. Producer TBD State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.1.4.4 Support equitable contractual arrangements between TOF producers & PSPs Scheme TBD Sr. Mgt.+TSG-VC+TNAU
2.1.4.5 Facilitate linkages with government support schemes Scheme TBD Sr. Mgt.+TSG-VC+TNAU
Output 2.2.1 State QPM delivery Road Maps co-developed with stakeholders
2.2.1.1 Consult with targeted TOF stakeholders to ascertain preferred species, etc. State 7 State Teams+TSG+TFRI
2.2.1.2 Co-develop Road Map to produce QPM for targeted TOF opportunities Road Map 7 State Teams+TSG+TFRI
2.2.1.3 Oversee implementation of other components of Road Map Road Map 7 State Teams + IPs

22
Output/Activity Unit Target 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Responsibility
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Output 2.2.2 High tech nurseries set up in responses to high priority TBEs
2.2.2.1 Assess opportunities to upgrade existing nurseries and upgrade accordingly State 7 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.2.2.2 If no nurseries exist to upgrade, set up one high tech nurseries (HTNs) State TBD State Teams+TSG+TNAU
2.2.2.3 Link and create synergies between HTNs, IPs and TOF Hubs State 7 State Teams+TSG+TNAU
Output 2.2.3 Large & medium scale nurseries scaled up &/or strengthened
2.2.3.1 Assess opportunities to scale existing nurseries and oversee expansion State 7 State Teams + TSG
2.2.3.2 Set up new nurseries (e.g., through women SHGs and/or at TOF Hubs) Nursery TBD State Teams + TSG
2.2.3.3 Upgrade targeted nurseries vis-a-vis accreditation system Nursery TBD State Teams + TSG
2.2.3.4 Link and create synergies between nurseries and TOF Hubs Nursery TBD State Teams + TSG
Output 2.3.1 State action plans to scale-up & harmonize existing payment schemes
2.3.1.1 Review successful PES incentive schemes Scheme 1+ State Teams+TSG+ATREE
2.3.1.2 Map out and obtain info. on different payment and oth. schemes in states State 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
2.3.1.3 Present results to review identified issues and co-devise strategies State 7 State Teams + TSG
2.3.1.4 Support implementation and annual review of harmonization action plans State 7 State Teams +TSG
Output 2.3.2 MRV systems operational, ensuring timely payments to producers
2.3.2.1 Review current MRV systems in targeted states to identify gaps, if any State TBD State Teams + TSG
2.3.2.2 Co-develop harmonized MRV system with states State 7 State Teams + TSG
2.3.2.3 Support initial implementation and build capacity for sustainability State 7 State Teams + TSG
Output 2.3.3 Schemes to link farmers to Carbon Markets piloted & scaled
2.3.3.1 Review schemes in other states + domestic & international opportunities Scheme 1+ State Teams+TSG+TERI
2.3.3.2 Work with relevant state agencies to design promising scheme State 1 State Teams+TSG+TERI
2.3.3.3 Ensure international certification of design scheme Scheme 1 State Teams+TSG+TERI
2.3.3.4 Implement pilot and review initial results and lessons learned Scheme 1 State Teams+TSG+TERI
2.3.3.5 If results are promising, support states scale up accordingly State 6 State Teams+TSG+TERI
Output 3.1.1 TOF extension services mainstreamed into IP & incubation hub model
3.1.1.1 Broker agreements on inst. arrangements & financing modalities for Hubs State 7 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.2 Hold state workshops on mainstreaming TOF extension services within Hubs State 7 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.3 Identify and recruit Lead TOF Champions, one for Hub (28) Lead Chmp. 28 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.4 Set up integrated and contextually suitable agroforestry demos at Hubs TOF Hub 28 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.5 Identify and train TOF champions & equip with materials (Output 3.1.2) Champion 448 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.6 Support TOF Champions to hold trainings and demonstrations within villages Champion 448 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.7 Ensure linking and coordination of App, Virtual Call Centre & Dashboard TOF Hub 28 State Teams + TSG
3.1.1.8 Work with IPs to put in place & implement monitoring systems IP 7 State Teams + TSG
Output 3.1.2 Qual. extension pack to ensure quality provision of TOF extension
3.1.2.1 Conduct gender & inclusion informed needs assessment State 7 TSG + Gravis
3.1.2.2 Review and compile all relevant existing extension information Pack 1 TSG + Gravis
3.1.2.3 Develop TOF extension and training material ‘packs’ Pack 1 TSG + Gravis
3.1.2.4 Engage graphic artist/communications company to develop materials Pack 3 Sr. Mgt. + TSG
3.1.2.5 Translate extension and training materials into all relevant languages Language 5+ State Teams
Output 3.1.3 Infrastructure for VCC designed, piloted in one state & scaled out
3.1.3.1 Engage consultancy firm to design web-based platform Firm 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG
3.1.3.2 Oversee co-design of platform with IP representatives and partners IP TBD Sr. Mgt. + TSG
3.1.3.3 Pilot VCC in one state and scale out to others, integrating lessons learned State 7 State Team + TSG
Output 3.2.1 TOF market info. sys. co-developed, focusing on both
3.2.1.1 Recruit consultancy firm to develop TOF market information system Firm 1+ Sr. Mgt. & Sr. VC spec.
3.2.1.2 Oversee and supervise compilation of TOF product price and related infor State 1 TSG-VC + ATREE

23
Output/Activity Unit Target 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Responsibility
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
3.2.1.3 Conduct current and future demand assessments of targeted TOF products TOF prod. TBD TSG-VC + ATREE
3.2.1.4 Integrate information associated 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2 into database System 1 TSG-VC + ATREE
3.2.1.5 Ensure access to and use of market information via TOF Hubs Hub 28 State Teams
Output 3.2.2 ICRAF Odisha AF App adapted & expanded for use in all states
3.2.2.1 Review piloting of Odisha App for 6 other states and beyond App 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG
3.2.2.2 Identify institutional ‘home’ for App, ensuring its representatives are engaged App 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG
3.2.2.3 Co-develop TOF App with IP representation and other stakeholders IP TBD Sr. Mgt. + TSG + CGL
3.2.2.4 Integrate use of App into all relevant training and cap. dev. activities App 1 State Teams + TSG
3.2.2.5 Support IPs and other stakeholder to publicize and promote use of App IP 7 State Teams + TSG
3.2.2.6 Ensure inst. arrang. & tech. capacity are in place to ensure App’s sustainability App 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG + CGL
Output 3.2.3 TOF dashboard co-developed & piloted with stakeholders
3.2.3.1 Hold initial consultations to devise TOF Dashboard development options State 7 Sr. Mgt. + TSG-ICT
3.2.3.2 Identify institutional ‘home’ for dashboard Dashboard 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG-ICT + CGL
3.2.3.3 Develop initial dashboard components and share again with stakeholders Dashboard 1 TSG-ICT
3.2.3.4 Finalize core dashboard components and pilot in one state Dashboard 1 TSG-ICT + State Team
3.2.3.5 Reflect on lessons from pilot, adapt, and deploy for use in all states State 7 TSG-ICT + State Team
3.2.3.6 Periodically update and integrate data into dashboards Dashboard 1 TSG-ICT
3.2.3.7 Ensure instit. arrangements & capacity are in place to ensure sustainability Dashboard 1 Sr. Mgt. + TSG-ICT
Output 3.3.1 Consultations with SHs on challenges affecting TOF scaling/impact
3.3.1.1 Consult IPs, etc. about key challenges associated with TOF impact/scaling IP 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.1.2 Support prioritization of challenges to be addressed via research IP 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.1.3 Identify and agree on partners to carry out the prioritized research IP 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
Output 3.3.2 Protocols developed & peer reviewed for prioritized research
3.3.2.1 Support the development of quality protocols for problem-oriented research Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.2.2 Ensure draft protocols are reviewed in timely manner Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
Output 3.3.3 Research protocols implemented & actionable results disseminated
3.3.3.1 Deploy research protocols, e.g. survey administration Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.3.2 Hold periodic reviews of research progress Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.3.3 Ensure peer review preliminary research results Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
3.3.3.4 Ensure results are disseminated widely Research pro. 7 State Teams+TSG+ATREE
Monitoring Sub-plan
M1. Performance Indicator Tracking Quarter 20 MEL + State Teams
M2. Data Quality Audits (part of TSG visits/virtual reviews) visit/review 70 MEL + TSG
M3. Context “SWOT” monitoring Year 5 MEL+State Teams+TSG
Evaluation Sub-plan
E1. Policy environment & TOF investment landscape appraisals Appraisal 42 MEL+State Teams+TSG
E2. Participant sample surveys, with remote sensing verification Survey 35 MEL+State Teams+TSG
E3. Tree estab. monitoring for large plantations, with remote sensing verification Plantation 35 MEL+State Teams+TSG
E4. Documenting Cases of Indirectly Facilitated TOF Expansion (CIFT) CIFT 21 MEL+State Teams+TSG
Learning Sub-plan
L1. Annual intra- and inter-state reflection and sharing events Event 37 MEL + Sr. Mgt. + CGL
L2. Annual Learning Deep Dives Deep Dive 5 MEL + TSG

24
3. Target Beneficiaries
TOFI is expected to benefit several TOF value chain actors, as well as others through its “public good leaning”
initiatives, both directly and indirectly. These beneficiary categories are presented in Table 6, along with their
associated targets and the respective benefit mechanism. The beneficiary categories are not mutually
exclusive, so the numbers do not add up to the overall targets to avoid double counting. As explained in Section
5, explicit efforts will be undertaken to engage women and underrepresented groups. Hence, where
interventions are targeting individuals, we will aim to engage at least as many women as men. (See Subsection
2.4 for an explanation on how the indirect figures were estimated.)

Table 6: Beneficiary categories and targets

Category Number
Timber producers 350,000
Nursery operators
Aggregators
Traders
Transporters
Processors & other value-
added users
Employees of MSEs & PSPs
Migrants, tenant farmers &
laborers
TOF Hub operators
General AF practicing 1,050,000
households (HH level
benefits for all members)
Common land users, e.g., 140,000
NTFP collectors &
processers
Government officials
Non-AF practicing farming
households
Urban dwellers
Non-double counted totals
Number Direct benefit mechanism Indirect benefit mechanism
Direct Indirect
2,345,000 Demand for locally produced and certified TOF All HH members of direct beneficiaries
1050 7,035 products bolstered and lucrative TOF-based benefit from increased income. In addition,
350 2,345 investment opportunities identified and key policy levers triggered—TOF certification,
350 2,345 appraised—coupled with increased access to with improved regulation of it and imported
140 938 demand-driven QPM, enabling policies, timber; deregulation of targeted tree species;
6,580 44,086 appropriate financial products, and accessible QPM accreditation system; and more
TOF market and technical information—leads to harmonized intersectoral policies and
14,000 93,800 multiple expanded and new TOF-based strategies— complemented by enhanced
economic opportunities directly nurtured by access to reliable and relevant market and
TOFI. technical information create enabling
conditions for TOF-based value chain
opportunities to thrive, even without direct
facilitation and support.
56,000 375,200 Increased informal labor opportunities from Other HH members to benefit, and similar
large scale tree planting initiatives and TBEs opportunities are expected to emerge from
supported directly under TOFI. both the public good and enterprise leaning
opportunities TOFI is expected to indirectly
catalyze.
105 389 Enhanced employment opportunities for Hubs HH members of Hub operators also benefit
directly supported under TOFI and handed over indirectly through enhanced household
to appropriate state level institutions. income and possible skills sharing.
3,150,000 Farming HHs trained in and supported with Conditions for non-directly supported HHs to
QPM for strengthened AF systems. Enhanced also scale up agroforestry in place, i.e.,
income from tree products, plus farm improved access to QPM, technical
productivity benefits via enhanced ecosystem information (e.g., via App and VCC), species
services. deregulation, more supportive policies, etc.
420,000 As part of public good leaning opportunities, Additional tree-based restoration for
TOFI will directly target degraded common land, common land is expected to be catalyzed
leading to improved quality & quantity of through TOF opportunity mapping and
resources accessed from such restored lands. increased state and CSR allocations targeting
“public good leaning” TOF expansion
opportunities.
770 3,850 Benefit directly from TOFI’s cap. dev. & Others benefit indirectly from institutional
institutional strengthening efforts strengthening, Dashboard, App, extension
materials at a ratio of 5 to 1.
210,000 Not applicable Other HHs in landscapes with significant TOF
expansion expected to benefit from positive
ecosystem externalities, e.g., enhance water
recharge, pollination, ambient cooling, etc.
70,000 3,150,000 Aesthetic, pollution mitigation, and ambient Similar benefits are expected for public good
cooling benefits resulting from TOFI’s directly urban greening projects TOFI is expected to
supported urban greening demonstration indirectly catalyze through resource
projects (at least 10,000 beneficiaries per state) leveraging and the demonstrations.
1.5M 8.7M

4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan

TOFI’s proposed Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan comprises three components, the purpose
of each is as follows:

25
Component Purpose

Monitoring • To a) track the extent activities and outputs are being delivered on time and as per quality standards, as well as
Sub-plan progress being made towards outcome and goal level targets (Performance Monitoring); and b) keep the
Consortium, USAID, MoEFCC, IPs, and other stakeholders abreast of relevant developments (i.e. emerging
opportunities or threats) in TOFI’s national and state level operational context that may affect program progress—
either positively or negatively—thereby enabling the undertaking of timely and effective adaptive management
action (Context Monitoring).
Evaluation • To evidence a) TOFI’s contribution to enhancing the policy environment and investment landscape for enabling
Sub-plan ecologically responsible, inclusive, and impactful TOF expansion; and b) its directly and indirectly facilitated
socioeconomic and environmental impact contribution.
Learning • To a) capture, share, and out-scale key lessons and insights for enhancing both current and future program delivery
Sub-plan efficiency, inclusivity, and effectiveness; and b) address stakeholder prioritized knowledge gaps and learning
questions relevant to appropriate TOF expansion and/or the generation of inclusive and long-lasting impacts
associated with such expansion.

The above three components are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, yet distinct. The Monitoring Sub-plan
focuses on evidencing both program delivery and targeted outcome- and impact-level change, while the
Evaluation Sub-plan evaluates the extent to which TOFI contributed to such change. Given that TOFI is
primarily a development, as opposed to research, program—coupled with its strong resource leveraging
focus—evidencing precise attribution effects of the overall program would be challenging. Hence, we use the
language of impact contribution. This does not overcome the “attribution dilemma,” and, as explained below,
efforts will be undertaken to evaluate what likely would have happened in TOFI’s absence, i.e., the
counterfactual, so that its value-added contribution can be understood and appreciated. Moreover, neither
does it rule out the possibility of carrying out more rigorous attribution effect-oriented (yet actionable)
research, as part of TOFI’s Learning Sub-plan, e.g., comparing alternative approaches for promoting the
establishment of ecologically desirable indigenous tree species in key landscapes. In addition to carrying out
stakeholder prioritized research to answer knowledge gaps and learning questions, this sub-plan will also
ensure that key lessons relevant for enhancing both TOFI’s efficiency, effectiveness, and potential for
generating inclusive benefits and that of other programs and projects are shared widely and actioned. The
following outlines the main elements of each of these sub-plans.

4.1 Monitoring Sub-plan

A. Performance Monitoring:
We propose that the main means through which TOFI will fulfil the first part of the Monitoring Sub-plan’s
purpose is through setting up and regular updating of a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS),
overseen by the MEL Coordinator and supported by ICRAF’s Head of Impact Acceleration and Learning and
other colleagues (herein MEL team). This will be directly linked to and informed by a hierarchically tailored
reporting system, validated through periodically undertaken Data Quality Audits (DQAs). The outputs and
activities—and, indeed, many of the outcomes, associated with TOFI’s Results Framework, are specific to a
particular program unit or consortium partner. For example, the first output—Output 1.1.1: TOF Innovation
Platforms established and functioning in targeted states—is state specific and under the responsibility of State
Coordinators. As such, in their quarterly reports, they will be responsible for narratively reporting against it,
with a key focus on relevant aspects of its associated indicator, i.e., # of active and inclusive Innovation
Platforms spearheading both public good and enterprise leaning TOF expansion opportunities. They will not
only report whether their respective IPs have been established but also which actors are participating and
how, as well as the extent to which a balanced portfolio of both public good and enterprise leaning TOF
expansion opportunities are being pursued. Other outputs are at the national or program level, and either the
central program leadership team or concerned consortium partner will be responsible for reporting against
these. State Associates and TOF Technicians responsible for facilitating the formation and functioning of TOF
Hubs will further report into the State Coordinators for the outputs and activities focusing on this level, e.g.,
Output 3.1.1: TOF extension services mainstreamed into IP and incubation hub model.

26
Both state- and hub-level reporting will be aided through participant and TOF Hub use tracking systems. For
both the public good and enterprise leaning TOF opportunities being pursued, categories and numbers of
women and men participating in their roll out will be tracked, as well as any benefits received, e.g., loans and
insurance from engaged FSPs and/or engagement in new income generation opportunities. State staff and
partners responsible for the TOF Hubs will further track numbers of women and men receiving services and
training on specific topics. This will be critical for accurate reporting against several of the indicators in the
above LogFrame.

Once quarterly reports are received, reviewed, and accepted, the indicators for the program unit in question
will be updated in the PITS as reported but not yet verified. At least two times a year, TOFI’s inter-disciplinary
Technical Support Group (TSG), with relevant Consortium partner representation and, at times, including the
MEL Coordinator, other MEL team members, DCOP, or COP, will visit each state. i The overall purpose of the
0F

visits will be to review progress and provide the state teams with relevant technical backstopping. They will
further be tasked with verifying and reviewing the quality of output indicator reporting, i.e., conducting Data
Quality Audits (DQAs). Devising the structure and methods for the DQAs will be the responsibility of the MEL
team. If the TSG finds the reporting against an indicator inappropriate or exaggerated, this will be treated as
an opportunity to provide programmatic strengthening guidance to the state team in question, rather than
simply being an act of data quality policing. In this way, the DQAs will support the TSG to narrow in on specific
aspects of TOFI’s PDM in need of strengthening. Thereafter, when the TSG submit its report, the MEL team
will update the activity and output indicators in the PITS as verified or not.

Most of the output indicators associated with the VCC, App, and Dashboard (once deployed) will be
automatically captured through these systems. User related patterns will be important for improving either
the promotion of these tools or their content and structure. For example, we may find that certain tools are
more widely used in specific states or districts than others. Reasons for this can be explored with stakeholders
and corrective measures undertaken. We plan to further review use patterns associated with these tools to
provide insights into what information is in high demand and to identify key gaps, thereby informing system
development improvements.

Assessing progress towards TOFI’s outcome indicator targets will be more involving and will, therefore, take
place on an annual basis. Having a holistic understanding on the extent of program progress, the MEL team
will work with the state coordinators, relevant consortium members, and others to pursue several measures
to capture the extent of outcome level progress. A key program level indicator, for example, is USD $ of
additional investment leveraged in support of TOF expansion. While the opportunities being leveraged will be
well known and tracked, the precise dollar value that can be justifiably counted as being leveraged may not
be immediately apparent. For example, one leverage opportunity that will be pursued will involve
collaborating with state-level tree planting campaigns. TOFI’s contribution may not be directly financial in
nature in such cases. For instance, its resources may be brought to bear by providing technical advice and
training on nursery establishment and which trees to plant where and how, possibly combined with leveraging
additional resources (e.g., CSR funds) in support of such campaigns. Computing the dollar value of the TOF
expansion initiatives co-executed through TOFI will therefore require making some calculations, while
documenting the relevant paper trail. Anything counted leveraged will need significant “DNA” from both TOFI
and the leveraged source(s) in question.

Other means of verifying the status of outcome indicators will involve a) subjecting the reports of consortium
partner and state coordinators to the above described DQA process and b) carrying out specifically tailored
data collection efforts vis-à-vis sufficiently mature TOF expansion initiatives. Given that these opportunities
will be varied and at differing levels of progress at any one time, imposing standardized and mandatory data

i
In the advent that COVID-19 travel restrictions are in place, arrangements will be made to have these technical support exercises
take place virtually. For the data quality audits, discussions will take place with concerned stakeholders separately and
independently.

27
collection exercises would not be particularly useful. Rather, the MEL team—together with the DCP, state
coordinators, the IPs, and other stakeholders—will determine whether a TOF expansion initiative being
undertaken in a specific state is at a level of maturity conducive for assessment vis-à-vis its associated outcome
indicators. For example, if it is known that a TBE in a state has started selling tree products and hiring additional
staff, more thorough investigation on the extent it has generated fulltime equivalent jobs (EG.5.2) and
increased its sales (EG.5.15) will be undertaken and the results captured in TOFI’s PITS. Outcome indicators
requiring sample surveys among engaged participants, e.g., to ascertain uptake of new TOF practices, will only
be undertaken when adequate time has passed to expect movement on the outcome indicator in question.
Given that most of the participants to be engaged are likely to have mobile phones (or at least access thereof),
mobile phone survey methods will be used to save costs.

B. Context Monitoring:
It is expected that the state teams will be very busy overseeing the implementation of TOFI’s PDM. They
therefore may not be in an ideal position to “see the forest through the trees” and will require support in
identifying strategic issues potentially affecting program delivery and identifying means to effectively respond
accordingly. As such prior to the annual reflection and review events discussed below, TSG visits will coincide
with a facilitated Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) exercise. Progress review
meetings with the IPs and other stakeholders will focus only on the latter two, particularly with respect to any
relevant emerging state or local level political, economic, or sociocultural issues affecting or potentially
affecting TOFI’s delivery. Strategies for addressing these will then be co-designed and agreed. Thereafter, the
TSTs and state teams will meet privately to review the more internal facing issues with respect to the IPs and
other involved state and district level stakeholders. Issues to be reviewed will include, among others, the
extent of inter-departmental coordination, both public and private sector engagement, the extent to which
women and other socially differentiated groups are engaged in the program at different levels, geographic
reach, and resource allocations. Once all or a significant batch of state-level SWOT’s have been completed, a
similar exercise will be facilitated targeting the national level, and the results pertaining to both levels will be
reviewed collectively by the Consortium Leadership Group (CLG) to inform overall program strategy and
adaptive management.

4.2 Evaluation Sub-plan

A. Changes to the policy environment and TOF investment landscape

As described above, significant work will be undertaken under TOFI to improve the political, legal, and
regulatory environment in support of TOF expansion. We will also engage policy makers to reinforce changes
in the TOF “investment landscape” at state level, with the aim of enabling a greater number of TBEs operating
at different scales to benefit a more diverse set of socially differentiated groups. It will be important to
systematically assess both the policy environment and the investment landscape for TOF at baseline and
periodically thereafter. This effort will complement Output 1.1.2, State-level mapping of promising TOF
expansion opportunities, and focus on appraising their key aspects (dimensions).

The policy environment appraisal tool will examine dimensions such as a) state-level TOF resource allocation;
b) incentive mechanisms for TOF and pertinent conditions; c) degree of interdepartmental collaboration for
TOF promotion; d) extent of TOF specific policies or plans/strategies to implement NAP; e) nature and extent
of tree growing regulations and ongoing deregulation; f) QPM policies and systems for promoting its access;
g) green purchasing policies or similar preferential arrangements; and h) the extent to which sustainably
sourced and certified wood is promoted and regulated in the state. This tool will consist of numeric levels
(scores) with descriptors for each level vis-à-vis each dimension/sub-dimension, verified through literature
and documentation review and in-depth interviews.

The TOF investment landscape appraisal tool will have a similar structure (key dimensions and sub-
dimensions with scoring descriptors), but will focus on assessing who is doing what, how, and at what scale in

28
relation to public good and enterprise leaning TOF expansion in the participating states. Examples of areas to
be examined include a) diversity and scale of TBEs and public good leaning tree establishment initiatives; b)
extent and nature of female and marginal group engagement in targeted value chains; c) technical, business
and financial services available for TBEs, with their delivery mechanisms and modalities (for profit, cost
coverage, or free-of-charge); d) market trends (actual and projected demand) for key TOF products (e.g.,
timber and fruits, nuts, and other NTWPs); and e) nature of upstream (input supply) and downstream (market
access) linkages. The results of both appraisals will be reviewed with the IPs and other relevant stakeholders
for validation purposes and to agree on ratings for each area. In addition to their use for evaluation, they will
further highlight areas needing attention.

B. Projected changes in TOF cover and resulting CO2e GHG sequestration

Given that FSI estimates the number of hectares under TOF (tree cover) every two years, in an ideal world, we
would simply take the state level estimates from the upcoming 2021 ISFR as our baseline and those that will
be generated from the 2025 ISFR report as our endline. This would certainly be cost-efficient and
straightforward. However, there are several issues: First, FSI’s sampling approach inevitably leads to large
confidence intervals for some states, e.g., +/- 18% in the case of Tamil Nadu. Hence, even if TOFI induces tree
cover gains in particular locations of the state, this may not be picked up due to sampling error. Second, FSI’s
estimates are based on satellite imagery captured one or two years prior. Consequently, even if we were to
use the 2025 report to inform our endline assessment, it may be based on 2023 or, at best, 2024 data. Third,
many of the TOF expansion opportunities to be pursued are likely to involve the establishment of woodlots or
plantations larger than one hectare. However, in FSI’s approach, this would not be classified as tree cover but,
rather, forest cover outside of India’s Registered Forest Area (RFA), thereby potentially resulting in such
significant TOF cover contribution being overlooked. Finally, FSI’s inventory of trees in sampled points only
focuses on those with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) greater than five centimeters. Consequently, many
newly established trees would not be captured.

While we will still examine and reference the ISFR reports and the data that underpin them, we propose the
following mixed methods approach for estimating changes in area (and diversity) under TOF cover in the
participating states. This approach differs depending on whether the TOF expansion in question will take place
on relatively smaller, family or individually managed land (e.g., farmland) or larger areas of land, e.g.,
government and common land, degraded mining sites, industrial areas, and along linear infrastructure.

Program participant managed land (statistically representative samples):

We propose that estimating the extent of tree establishment on farm land and other smaller tracks of privately
managed land be linked to the socioeconomic survey exercises described below. Lists will be kept of program
participants associated with all TOF expansion initiatives being pursued in the participating states. Once these
initiatives have sufficiently matured, relevant categories of beneficiaries will be sampled and targeted for
interviews. If relevant, at least one survey module will focus on TOFI related tree establishment. At the end of
the interviews, the enumerators will physically confirm farmer self-reported seedling survival (as well as
species grown) and take geotagged polygons of the tree planting area(s). For each polygon, an accurate
recording of the planting area will be captured, plus the approximate number of new trees established and
surviving in that area. Recognizing the limitations, particularly for very recently established or slow growing
tree species, remote sensing will only be used to verify the field-based tree establishment counts and survival
rates, thereby providing an important data quality check. This will enable the computation of the above
described hectare equivalent metric, which will include the employment of sampling weights to ensure
statistical representativity.

Larger (typically not family managed) land areas (complete sample):

State field teams (or at least the IPs and other state partners) will be more directly involved in the larger TOF
expansion initiatives, e.g., those taking place on degraded common land and decommissioned mining sites.
Here, geotagged polygons will be taken using a suitable geo-tracking device for relatively smaller or less

29
geographically distinguishable land areas. However, for areas that are larger and readily geographically
distinguishable from satellite imagery, the polygons can be constructed directly on top of this imagery. This
method will also be appropriate for linear infrastructure like railways, highways, and canals. For these
initiatives, the numbers and species of trees established will be tracked and recorded, and there will be
periodic follow-up field assessments to evaluate seedling survival. As is the case for farms and other privately
managed land, this will be verified through the analysis of satellite imagery over time.

From the above, both the a) hectare TOF cover equivalent metric and b) the number of trees by species will
be reliably estimated and reported on. This reporting is expected to start on a small scale in Year 3, i.e., when
several key TOF expansion initiatives are expected to have reached a sufficient level of maturity to warrant
such survey and remote sensing work to take place. However, the bulk of the estimated numbers are expected
to be generated in TOFI’s last two years. Based on documented species growth rates and resulting carbon
sequestration trajectories, we will be able to credibly estimate how much CO2e gas will be sequestered up to
2030 and beyond.

C. Ascertaining economic and livelihood benefit

There are several issues to be confronted in estimating TOFI’s socioeconomic benefits. First, given its catalytic
and demand-responsive nature, it is difficult to know specifically who will end up participating in and
benefiting from the varied TOF expansion opportunities that will be pursued. Consequently, this rules out
undertaking a conventional baseline survey, as would be the case in the context of a development project
targeting specific villages and specific households within those villages. Second, and relatedly, it would be
difficult to restrict beneficiary participation and engagement in a planned way, e.g., setting aside control
communities as would be the case, for example, in a cluster randomized control trial (RCT). Limiting
participation is not insuperable, but it would bias the way TOF expansion opportunities are identified and
pursued and hence inconsistent with what we understand to be the program’s catalytic nature. Finally, the
full socioeconomic benefits for many (perhaps even the majority) of TOFI’s beneficiaries are not expected to
fully manifest until after program closure, e.g., after the established trees have fully matured.

Given the above and the nature of the USG indicators presented in the LogFrame, we propose that—at such
a time when work associated with a specific TOF expansion initiative reaches a relevant level of maturity—we
conduct focused sample surveys, capturing representative data from the key beneficiary groups engaged in
such initiatives. This will involve mapping out these groups and constructing group-specific (and gender
disaggregated) sampling frames. For large groups with female and male representation (e.g., tree growers), a
gender disaggregated random sampling procedure will be used to select those to be interviewed. Some groups
may be sufficiently small (e.g., aggregators) and sampling will, therefore, be unnecessary. Focused and tailored
surveys will then be administered to those that are sampled. In addition to obtaining informed consent and
capturing basic demographic data, questions will be structured in such a way as to ascertain both the
respondent’s and his or her household’s baseline (pre-program) and current livelihood pursuits, as well as how
they have engaged in the TOF expansion initiative in question and TOFI more broadly. This will be followed by
questions ascertaining whether any significant economic or broader livelihood benefits are being experienced
or expected to be experienced by the respondent and/or his or her household (including who in the household
has gained or is standing to gain increased access to and control over resources and benefits). If relevant, the
interview will conclude with the geo-tracing of the land area where the trees have been established, as
described above. Sampling weights will be imposed on the resulting data to ensure its representativity for the
initiative in question and the wider program.

Understanding how we will ascertain the extent of economic and livelihood benefit is best illustrated using a
hypothetical example. Let us say, for example, that we interview a male participant in a TOFI supported timber
out-grower scheme. We come to understand that his four-member household has been cultivating wheat and
rearing dairy cows on its two-hectare farm for the last 10 years. After hearing about the out-grower scheme
through the TOF Hub in his district one year ago, he decided to sign up and participate. He received training

30
and participated in a wheat and poplar intercropping planting demonstration. Thereafter, he was given 500
improved poplar seedlings to intercrop with wheat on one hectare of his two-hectare wheat field. While 50
of the seedlings died, 450 are doing well, and he entered into an agreement with the company to sell back the
mature poles in five years at a price of ₹2,000 per pole. He therefore expects to earn ₹900,000 in gross income.
Of course, given the space taken up by the trees, we know from literature that about a 20% loss in wheat yield
will be experienced, so his household will lose out on about ₹8,000 per year in gross income accordingly
(₹40,000 over the five-year period). However, he nevertheless expects to come out ahead at about ₹800,000
in net additional income, and even plans to scale up the poplar intercropping agroforestry model to his other
hectare in the next kharif season. When asked whether anyone else in his household is involved in the out-
grower scheme, he responds in the negative. He further emphasizes that he will decide on how to spend the
money earned from the sale of the poplar trees, as it has away been with the case of wheat. He is responsible
for farming in his household, and his wife is responsible for tending to the cows and undertaking domestic
duties. For this data point, we therefore have one male individual expected to economically benefit from TOFI,
and the three other members of his household are indirect beneficiaries (which happen to be one adult
female, one female youth, and one male youth). ii Moreover, given our hectare equivalent metric, we record
1F

0.45 hectares under new TOF cover (450 trees/our 1,000 tree hectare equivalent benchmark), rather than the
entire hectare.

D. Indirect benefit estimation

Indirect beneficiaries residing in the households of those directly reached and experiencing benefits through
TOFI will be captured as described above. However, there are many others that are expected to benefit from
TOFI’s policy and institutional strengthening efforts and through the spontaneous diffusion of promising
agroforestry practices and interventions to promote inclusive TOF expansion more broadly. We do not expect
to capture everything, but we will undertake measures to estimate key instances of such indirect benefits
being induced through TOFI. Given its very nature, such undertakings will be emergent and opportunistic.
However, both during annual reporting and state-level TST support visits, efforts will be undertaken to prompt
the identification of one or more Cases of Indirectly Facilitated TOF expansion (CIFT).

For example, working with its respective IP, a state team may be successful in deregulating several key tree
species for which there is considerable market demand. Such a “policy win” will enable the TBEs being directly
supported under TOFI to capitalize on this demand. However, many other TBEs may spring up as a
consequence as well without being directly supported, and/or farmers in untargeted areas may start growing
these trees. It is expected that many cases such as these will become known to the IPs and other involved
stakeholders or may be identified during the TSG visits. The state coordinator will be responsible for reporting
such cases as a potential CIFT worthy of further investigation. The MEL team will interrogate the reported
cases further in order to decide whether they warrant further investigation, e.g., in terms of scale and
plausibility of evidencing a clear TOFI “signature”, i.e., something clearly connecting the case of TOF expansion
back to TOFI. If significant and a plausible link can be evidenced, focused evaluative investigation will be
implemented to estimate plausible ranges of people that are likely to indirectly benefit, hectares of equivalent
land area under TOF, and, consequently, projections of indirect CO2e sequestration. Given the likelihood of
significant estimation error, we will err on the side of caution and only report lower bound estimates for
indirect beneficiary reporting. We do not expect CIFT evidencing will involve primary data collection as
standard practice, given resource limitations. However, this will involve undertaking key informant interviews,
likely in combination with geospatial analysis. Moreover, it may be that a CIFT or an interrelated set of CIFTs
may warrant even deeper interrogation for learning purposes. In such cases, resources allocated under the
Learning Sub-plan may be brought to bear.

Potentially emergent CIFTs may manifest even outside the boundaries of the seven participating states, and it
will be the responsibility of the TOFI leadership team, supported by the Steering Committee, to be on the

ii
Note: If the situation had been different and the man’s wife had participated in the training and was involved in the managing and making decisions
pertaining to the poplar-wheat intercropping model, she too would be counted as a direct beneficiary.

31
lookout for such. When potential CIFTs at this level are identified, the same investigative procedure described
above will be followed.

4.3 Learning Sub-plan

A. Stakeholder prioritized Problem Driven Research (PDR)

This is the focus of Outcome 3.3 and, therefore, will not be elaborated here. It falls under this sub-plan because
the solutions unveiled through this research are expected to enhance TOFI’s effectiveness and generation of
inclusive impact, while doing the same for similar programs both within India and beyond.

B. Structured intra- and inter-state reflection and sharing events

Given its catalytic role in both identifying and unlocking promising opportunities for TOF expansion, much of
TOFI’s success relies on successfully implementing the key principles of adaptive management, e.g., iterative
learning and decision-making, flexibility and responsiveness, stakeholder collaboration and connectivity, and
subsidiarity. Consequently, structured program team and stakeholder progress reflection and learning events
form a key part of TOFI’s Learning Sub-plan. As part of program management, these will take place on a
quarterly basis among the key program team, i.e., COP, DCOP, MEL Coordinator, State Coordinators,
Consortium partner representatives, ICRAF senior leadership, and other members of the technical support
team. The focus will be on reviewing progress of the annual work plan and overcoming emergent operational
challenges and bottlenecks.

However, prior to annual work plan and budget submission, structured reflection and sharing events will be
held at state level with the IPs and other key stakeholders. MEL and other relevant data illustrating the extent
of PDM delivery will be presented and reflected on, with agreement on jointly conceived strategies and actions
for overcoming any challenges, as well as for taking advantage of newly emerging opportunities. A key focus
will be to agree on ways of scaling up what is working well and scaling back what is not. We will time TST visits
with these events, but this may not always be possible. In Year 3 and Year 5 this concept will be extended to
the program level, where state teams and IPs will share progress, lessons learned, answers to key learning
questions (see below), and insights into what is working well which could be scaled out in other states. MoEFCC
and USAID will be invited to participate in these events. Year 5’s program-level reflection event will be held
earlier during the year to jointly share and improve plans for promoting intervention sustainability and
continued TOF expansion.

C. Annual learning deep dives

During the annual reflection events, key questions are expected to emerge, having answers for which will be
important for strengthening the program and enhancing its potential to generate inclusive impact at scale.
Many of these questions are expected to be evaluative, rather than research oriented, in nature (hence
outside Outcome 3.3’s scope). One key output from the reflection events in years 2 to 4 will be the
prioritization of at least one learning question for the focus of the upcoming year’s Annual Learning Deep Dive.
Where possible and as opportunities permit (e.g., collaborations with universities), we will seek to answer
more than one prioritized learning question. The MEL Coordinator will have the responsibility for ensuring
that appropriate evaluation protocols and data collection and analysis plans are implemented accordingly,
e.g., through contracting suitable evaluators or delegating such work to appropriate consortium partners.

Given that there will be no reflection event until the end of Year 1, the proposed prioritized learning question
for TOFI’s first year has already been determined. As described above, TOFI will seek to encourage farmers
and others to plant desirable (generally indigenous) tree species that may not be directly profitable but
provide important environmental services. It is important to understand which existing schemes are working
well and which are not. Moreover, in some states farmers are encouraged to plant tree species with varying
maturation rates targeting different life stages of the girl child, e.g., fruit trees for primary education, medium
duration trees for higher education, and those of long duration for marriage expenses. Consequently, these

32
various schemes will be reviewed to identify lessons for upscaling (as well as avoiding critical mistakes) in the
seven participating states. The learning question prioritized for Year 1 is therefore:

• What schemes are working well and not so well in the targeted states and others to incentivize the planting
of indigenous and non-economically oriented tree species in general and those intended to bring about
positive outcomes for women and girls in particular?

5. Gender and Social Inclusion Considerations

Given their differing roles and responsibilities, as well as access to and control over resources, such as land
and trees, benefits associated with TOF expansion can vary significantly for women, men, and other socially
differentiated groups. Consequently, meaningfully engaging both women and men from different social and
economic backgrounds in such efforts, while tailoring interventions to their idiosyncratic needs and interests,
is critical for equitable benefit realization. Furthermore, the success and sustainability of tree establishment
efforts is often affected by socio-political factors that perpetuate social inequalities, such as tenure insecurity
and skewed labor and benefit distribution mechanisms. This is particularly important to consider in the wake
of the COVID-19 pandemic, where such pre-existing inequalities have likely been significantly exacerbated. 15 19F

Consequently, addressing both the underlying drives of such inequalities and the differentially experienced
impacts of external shocks, such as COVID-19, can both improve environmental outcomes and contribute to
the empowerment and wellbeing of women and marginalized groups. 16 However, all too often, climate
20F

mitigation and restoration efforts are gender-blind, thereby leading to suboptimal environmental outcomes
and the potential reinforcement and even exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities. 17 We therefore propose a
21F

gender-responsive strategy for TOFI that will not only promote inclusive buy-in and equitable benefit
distribution but also contribute to the promotion of broader gender and social equality. Our fourfold Gender
and Inclusion (G&I) Strategy is as follows:

1. Improve G&I attitudes, perceptions, and mindsets of TOF expansion change agents
One foundational hypothesis underpinning our G&I Strategy is that if a) key actors involved in efforts to
promote TOF expansion are gender blind; and b) their attitudes and behavior perpetuate and reinforce pre-
existing inequalities, efforts to meaningfully address gender and inclusion issues in the program will be
frustrated. Consequently, all partner organizations, project staff, and other stakeholders involved in the
implementation of TOFI will participate in periodic exercises to facilitate critical awareness, self-reflection, and
dialogue around discriminatory gender roles and norms relevant to TOF expansion. In general, these will not
be standalone exercises, but carefully integrated into program meetings, capacity development sessions, and
policy engagement events. The flipside of our foundational hypothesis is that if the desired attitudinal and
mindset transformation takes place, the proceeding three remaining strategies will not only be more effective
but also much easier to execute.

2. Ensure the meaningful engagement and voice of women and under-represented groups
As part of the identification and validation of TOF expansion opportunities at the state level, we will ensure
the representation and voice of women and other social groups that might be interested in and potentially
affected by these opportunities. Here, CIFOR-ICRAF’s guidelines for gender-responsive multi-stakeholder
forums (MSF) and participatory visioning exercises, such as Adaptive Collaborative Management, 18 will be 2F

used to both identify and challenge inequitable norms. Moreover, we will work to ensure that the state-level
TOF Innovation Platforms (IPs) include women’s organizations and advocates for other underrepresented
groups, as well as local governmental and non-governmental organizations with an interest in and
responsibility for supporting gender equitable policies and programming. These organizations and
representatives will participate in the TOF expansion opportunity mapping and prioritization exercise (see
above), specifically to ensure that a diversity of needs, preferences, and interests are catered for in relation to
tree species and uses, as well as ecosystem services to be restored. Similarly, tree establishment activities

33
involving communities, especially those in communal land and on homesteads, gendered preferences and
knowledge on tree species will be considered and catered for and QPM will be made available accordingly.

3. Promote the equitable provision of inputs and services

Women are already significantly involved in tree- and forest-based enterprises in India. They are involved in
the collection of products that have both a low economic value (e.g., fodder and fuelwood) and a high
economic value (e.g., honey, gums, and resins). However, they often lack access to information, technical
support, financial services, and markets that would allow them to participate in the more profitable nodes of
tree-based value chains. 19 Activities and interventions under Objective 2 will, therefore, be adapted and
23F

complemented with targeted efforts to ensure equitable access to and participation in TOF-related economic
opportunities for women and men from different ages and social groups. To this end, we will:
a) Review existing lending models and products of targeted financial institutions ensuring their
conduciveness for inclusive participation (e.g., that they do not implicitly prevent women from joining by,
for example, requiring a man’s signature to approve loans or pre-financing arrangements) and consider
group guarantee schemes as an alternative to collateral requirements.
b) Identify bottlenecks and amelioration strategies in delivery channels limiting equitable access to QPM,
e.g., by encouraging the use of smaller, cost effective seed packets that use local languages and/or pictures
for illiterate farmers, or by supporting women and youth groups to set up and run their own nurseries as
business opportunities;
c) Prioritize several TBEs in each state where women or marginalized groups will be able to actively
participate in and control, with additional resources dedicated to building their leadership capacity and
business skills (including financial literacy).
d) Adapt training and extension materials to be more gender-responsive, promoting positive gender roles,
acknowledging women’s multiple activities and contributions. Additionally, we will promote the use of
gender-responsive farmer-to-farmer extension approaches.
e) TOF Hubs will make deliberate efforts to engage women from involved villages as TOF champions that will
step down technical support and information to other women in their villages. To support their
participation, we will set up a network of women TOF champions, which would allow them to exchange
experiences and collectively address challenges.
f) To support gender responsive information systems and processes that are at the core of Objective 3, we
will identify and address differences in information needs and information sources for men, women,
youth, and other socially differentiated groups and ensure that these are catered for accordingly.

In addition to the above, strategies for gender-responsive support to the targeted TBEs will be tailored to the
sociocultural context and how COVID-19 has differentially affected women, men, and other socially
differentiated groups in each of the targeted states and communities, as well as the gender dynamics
particular to the value chains in question.

4. Enable equitable benefit distribution

Lessons from past restoration efforts have shown that, although women are mobilized to provide labor and
skills for restoration initiatives, they usually have less ability to benefit than men. While women make
substantial contributions to labor in agroforestry systems, they often disproportionately bear the costs of tree
management. Yet, they realize only a fraction of the benefits 20 and tend to be enlisted for decision-making
24F

only when tree resources are degraded. 21 Particularly in India, restrictions on access to communal or state
25F

managed forests create additional hardships for women, especially tribal women, responsible for collecting
firewood, fodder, medicinal plants, and other non-timber forest products that would supplement household
income. 22 As mentioned above, generating wider benefits that can be realized by women and other social
26F

groups is essential for the promotion of positive environmental and social outcomes. To this end, we will
undertake the following:
a) All prioritized TOF expansion opportunities to be pursued will undergo a social and environmental risk
assessment. The assessment will look at potential impacts on labor and time and access to and control

34
 over resources and benefits among women, men, and other relevant social groups. Where risks are
identified, social safeguards will be put in place during program implementation, examples of which
include: a) provision of fair and just compensation in cases where livelihood pursuits are affected (e.g.,
when public good TOF expansion initiatives restrict access to firewood or when woodlots displace
women’s crops); and b) sensitizing TBE operators on the need for providing decent employment conditions
for formal and informal laborers and equal pay for men and women for doing similar work.
b) Promising TOF-based value chains and specific TOF expansion opportunities will also be subjected to
gender analysis 23 to identify gender differences and inequalities in the extent and nature of participation,
27F

as well as the costs, benefits, and livelihood outcomes for women and youth and their differential
experiences vis-à-vis COVID-19. The findings will inform TOFI capacity development activities to address
key gaps and contribute to more balanced participation and benefit sharing.
c) In recognition of women’s highly specialized knowledge of trees and forests in terms of species’ diversity,
uses, and conservation practices, we will prioritize rural women and youth as beneficiaries of capacity
development activities related to the production of QPM. Other opportunities to promote skill
development in TBEs for women entrepreneurs and vulnerable groups like migrants or landless farmers
will also be identified and prioritized to enable their participation in the targeted TOF value chains.

6. Sustainability Strategy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Scale

A. Sustainability Strategy
As described above, in order to cost-effectively deliver on TOFI’s three central objectives, we propose to put
in place several innovations (e.g., the Dashboard, App, and VCC) and promote the identification and
undertaking of promising TOF expansion opportunities (striving to obtain a healthy balance between those
that are “public good” and “enterprise leaning”). Putting in the requisite supports for sustaining any achieved
impacts and supporting their continued expansion is therefore important. In Table 7, we have listed each of
our main proposed innovations and interventions and ways we will seek to promote their institutional,
financial, and technical sustainability. Given that we have yet to engage with relevant state-level stakeholders
and identify and agree on institutional arrangements, etc., it is challenging to be precise and definitive at this
stage. However, devising and agreeing on such will be prioritized once such engagement has taken root.

Table 7: Sustainability Matrix

Innovation/ Institutional sustainability
intervention
TOF Innovation • Identify an institutional champion in the
Platforms state early on that will either co-
convene or convene the IPs, e.g., State
University, Dept. Forest, Dept. of Agr.
The states have varying set-ups, so
institutional arrangements will be
tailored for each state.
TOF Hubs • An appropriate institutional home within
the state will be important. The network
of KVK iii and/or VVK iv knowledge
2F 3F
resource centers for agriculture and
forestry, respectively, are obvious
candidates. However, the most suitable
institutional arrangement will need to
be decided with the IPs and other state
stakeholders.
• Hubs obviously need to be situated near
the TOF opportunities being pursued, so
there will be trade-offs.
Virtual Call Centre • These ICT innovations are not entirely
TOF Dashboard & state specific, despite their provision of
TOF App state specific info. Thus, it makes sense
Financial sustainability Technical sustainability
• The IPs can even meet virtually and • Providing basic training to the IPs will be
generally do not have paid staff. We will important, but this needs to be done
identify one or more institutions or other non-condescendingly to avoid
stakeholders to champion and convene undermining ownership.
the IPs that’s existing mandate/objective • Posters & other IEC materials will be
is well fulfilled in doing so. developed to illustrate how to
successfully spearhead TOF IPs.
• We assume we cannot add on additional • Phased and periodically refreshed cap.
TBE incubation and TOF extension duties dev. program to be delivered to all Hub
to, for example, existing KVK or VVK operators, with ongoing mentoring from
staff. It is likely new people will need to state coordinators and others.
be recruited and capacitated, and the • We will to recruit, train, and maintain
work will be too much for volunteers. female Hub operators as well and all will
We will therefore work with the IPs to undergo gender training.
identify ways of financially sustaining • Easy to follow and visual TBE incubation
them, e.g., via brokering agreements and TOF extension materials translated
with engaged PSP(s) or levying small fees into local languages for easy and
on facilitated TOF product sales. standardized delivery.
• The bulk of the cost of all three products • The targeted institutional champion will
will occur during their development and be involved in co-developing these tools,
refinement over the course of TOFI’s and a technical guide to support their

iii
See: https://kvk.icar.gov.in/Homepage.aspx
iv
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Vigyan_Kendra

35
 Innovation/ Institutional sustainability
intervention
TOF Market for them to have a national level home.
Information Our initial thinking is that MoFCC is
System appropriate, but discussions and
agreements are required.
TBEs and out- • Key to institutional sustainability for
grower schemes supported MSMEs is to ensure long-
term effectiveness of the hierarchical IP-
Hub support system and their
integration therein. For out-grower
schemes, priority will be given to
ensuring clear and fair contractual
arrangements between both parties.
“Public good • The land targeted for such TOF
leaning” TOF expansion will fall under varying
expansion administrative authorities, e.g., Revenue
initiatives Department (via District Collectors) and
local governing bodies for much of the
common land, Urban Land Boards for
urban areas, Ministry of Railways for
railway land, etc. Hence, it will be key to
obtain permission from and ideally
partner with such bodies. Active
participation with local Panchayats and
village committees will also be critical
for success, including developing or
refreshing by-laws regulating access and
use.
TOF incentive • Harmonize existing and scale-up such
schemes, schemes that are working well. This will
including carbon be done under close collaboration with
credits the state authorities in question, e.g.,
Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of Forest.
While the institutional homes for such
schemes may vary, an institutional
coordinating mechanism, e.g., via the
IPs, will be put in place for long-term
institutional sustainability.
Financial sustainability Technical sustainability
implementation. With systems and updating and maintenance will be
protocols eventually developed and developed.
agreed, we believe that the institutional • At state level, IPs and concerned
“beneficiary” will be able to sustain departments will be oriented in their use
these innovations at a manageable cost. and supported to both use and promote
them.
• Assessing the potential for the targeted • Targeted cap. dev. plans will be
TBEs and out-grower schemes to be developed and rolled out for key actors
economically viable, as well as for what of the targeted TBEs and out-grower
will need to be in place for facilitating schemes. Their specific capacity needs
this, will be a key focus of the economic will be ascertained first through Activity
feasibility assessment work delivered 2.1.1.3 and refined as the cap. dev.
under Output 2.1.1 and followed materials for the Hubs are developed &
through by the services of the Hubs. iteratively improved.
• The bulk of financing for such initiatives • A key role of ICRAF and partners will be
will take place during the program to advise on which tree species should
period, ideally with significant leveraged be planted where and how (with priority
contributions, e.g., through CSR funds. given to indigenous species and a
However, there will likely be a need for diversity of such species for restoring
some modest financing post-TOFI, e.g., ecological functions), as well as providing
for monitoring and management upkeep. the concerned institutions with
As relevant, MoUs will be signed with the guidelines and reference material so that
relevant authorities when collaborating they can do this independently for the
on such initiatives where responsibilities long term. Tailored training and
for such will be specified. In the case of guidelines will also be provided for
common land, village institutions will effective long-term management and
play a role in long-term management maintenance, including village-level
and oversight. training as required, noting that ensuring
sustainable access and use are evidenced
predictors of long-term success.24
• While TOFI’s resources will be used to • As above, Year 1’s Annual Learning Deep
support tree growers establish trees, its Dive will focus on assessing which
resources will not be used to pay them schemes across India are working well
for maintaining these trees or those that for upscaling in the 7 states. Relevant
already exist. This will be done through guidelines will be developed, and
policy engagement efforts to better training provided to support their
harmonize and scale-up successful PES piloting and rollout once agreed. TERI’s
schemes (Outcome 1.4). Hence, if this work in piloting and scaling up promising
work proves successful, financial schemes to link tree growers to carbon
sustainability is already built in. markets will require concerned state
level actors to be trained and equipped
with guidelines as well.

B. Cost-effectiveness
Given both the direct and indirect figures presented above, our proposal is highly attractive from a value for
money perspective. It would be difficult to design a realistic alternative that would outweigh its return on
investment. The cost-efficiency ratio (considering USAID’s investment of USD $25 million only) of our TOF
hectares equivalent metric, for example, is USD $35.7 for the direct target and USD $11.9 when the indirect
target is also included. Given that costs can exceed USD $1,500 for tree establishment per hectare 25 while 28F

potentially being as low as USD $30-74, 26 this is a financially attractive proposition. Moreover, it is associated
29F

with other desirable benefits, e.g., high caliber technical oversight to ensure that appropriate trees are
established and maintained in appropriate ways in appropriate places, coupled with the generation of
significant socio-economic benefits. The costs for generating these latter benefits is USD $16.7 per direct
beneficiary and USD $3.2 when both direct and indirect beneficiaries are considered. Even if our carbon
sequestration projection (less than USD $1 per metric ton of CO2e) is off by a factor of 10, it will still be in range
of being one of the lowest cost carbon sequestration initiatives thus far demonstrated at USD $7 per ton. 27 30F

More formal economic analysis substantiates the above conclusion (see below). Let us assume that TOFI
generates no economic equivalent benefits in its first two years. By Year 3, benefits start materializing for 10%
of the targeted beneficiaries at a conservative average of USD $50 per year. The percentage rises to 25% in
Year 4 and 40% in Year 5. Given that trees take time to grow, most beneficiaries do not start benefiting until
after TOFI’s closure, starting at 60% in Year 6 with 10% gains up to Year 10, where the average economic
equivalent annual benefit for all beneficiaries is still conservatively estimated at USD $50. Even using a high

36
discount rate of 15% and with the bulk of economic equivalent benefit expected to take place after Year 5,
TOFI’s Net Present Value (NPV) becomes positive in Year 5 (USD $5.6M), rising to USD $102M by Year 10. This
translates into a discounted cost-effectiveness ratio of 4.1 (13.25 non-discounted). Of course, we expect the
economic equivalent benefits induced by TOFI to be far greater than the above for many program participants,
including a significantly higher average figure. Moreover, we have not factored in the indirect beneficiaries
into the analysis, nor the public good benefits associated with the unlocked ecosystem services, including CO2e
gas sequestration.

Table 8: 10 Year Cash Flow Analysis—TOFI Investment versus "Lower Bound" Expected Economic Equivalent Returns
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
USAID Investment $ 25,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

Average economic equivalent returns $ 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Discount factor @ 15% discount rate 1.000 0.870 0.756 0.658 0.572 0.497 0.432 0.376 0.327 0.284 0.247

Number of direct beneficiaries 1,500,000

% expected to benefit 0% 0% 10% 25% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Discounted returns $ 0 0 4,931,372 10,720,373 14,915,302 19,454,742 19,736,695 19,614,106 19,187,713 18,538,853

Annual discounted returns $ -5,000,000 -5,000,000 -68,628 5,720,373 9,915,302 19,454,742 19,736,695 19,614,106 19,187,713 18,538,853
Net present value $ 0 -25,000,000 -25,000,000 -20,068,628 -9,348,255 5,567,047 25,021,789 44,758,484 64,372,590 83,560,303 102,099,156

C. Leveraging and Out-scaling Strategies

Resource leveraging to support TOFI Results Framework delivery

Given that the specific TOF expansion opportunities have yet to be identified and prioritized with stakeholders
in the seven participating states, providing a precise figure for the dollar value the Consortium will leverage to
support the delivery of TOFI’s Results Framework is challenging. Nevertheless, we commit to and are confident
that the total amount we will leverage (with supporting documentation and valid computations) over TOFI’s
five-year lifetime will equate to a cash equivalent of at least USD $50 million. Table 9 presents the key leverage
opportunities we have already started pursuing, how we have or will leverage each (leveraging
strategy/mechanism), and the current status. As can be seen, we already have support letters equating to
nearly USD $10 million in committed leverage resources.

Table 9: Leveraging Plan

Opportunity Leveraging strategy/mechanism Current Status
In-kind As indicated in the attached letters and supporting documentation, cash and in-kind Partner support letters and relevant
Consortium contributions of the Consortium partners are varied and highly complementary for supporting documentation amounting to USD
contributions the realization of TOFI’s objectives. These contributions range from a) cash resources associated $3,889,975 cash equivalent in
with existing projects that will be deployed in the targeted states in support of TOFI’s objectives leveraged cash and in-kind
and b) in-kind professional staff through to c) the offering of state-of-the-art training, business resources (see attached).
incubation, and field research station facilities; laboratories; tissue culture and cloning material;
and high-end industrial machinery and equipment. Indeed, one could argue that many of these
contributions hold greater value to TOFI than their monetized cash equivalent, as access to them
would otherwise be impossible, such as that associated with cloned QPM or advanced
technology and equipment.
Relevant state- There are several states spearheading large programs to boost the income and well-being of Support letter (see attached) from
level scaling India’s farmers, particularly following the Prime Minister’s call for nation-wide efforts to double Vijay Kumar Thallam, Advisor and
programs their income. To this end, there is considerable interest in integrating the promotion of Co-Vice Chairman of Andhra
agroforestry into this agenda. This provides TOFI with an opportunity to partner with these Pradesh Community Managed
initiatives and reach significantly more farmers than would be the case otherwise. The large Natural Farming (APCNF) has been
Andhra Pradesh Community-based Natural Farming (APCNF) program is one example, which is secured, combined with our
targeting 6 million farmers over 8 million hectares, with a combined current (and growing) projected leveraged contribution of
budget of over USD $300 million. Diversifying farming systems with trees is a key objective of at least USD $6 Million (lower
the effort, and there is formally communicated interest to join forces. TOFI would, in fact, be bound estimate).
capitalizing on APCNF’s scaling model, which is valued at USD $50 per farmer (USD $300M/6M
farmers). We can safely assume that the collaboration will reach at least 10% of the targeted
farmers, with at least 20% of APCNF’s scaling model being leveraged for agroforestry promotion.
Consequently, a minimum of USD $6 million will be leveraged from this collaboration (6M
farmers x 10% x USD $10 per farmer).
State tree Given GoI’s commitments described above, many states undertake large-scale tree planting Discussions and negotiations will
planting campaigns. Uttar Pradesh, for example, has undertaken such campaigns for the last four years. take place—particularly through
However, long-term tree survival of the millions of trees being planted is a concern. Working 4F

37
Opportunity Leveraging strategy/mechanism Current Status
with such campaigns in terms of advising which tree species to plant where and strengthening the IPs—once the states are
QPM, e.g., through improved seed sourcing and nursery management, are key ways TOFI can formally engaged.
make a big difference and extend its footprint. Where states have not initiated large campaigns,
TOFI can support them to do so, including leveraging CSR funds and funding from the other
sources outlined below.
CSR funds Large potential source of funding (USD $140M in 2020) but with little to date spent on tree Previous engagement with the
establishment. By developing clearly defined and attractive “public good leaning” TOF expansion Ministry of Corporate Affairs was
projects—coupled with networking with relevant private sector companies and engagement to successful in getting agroforestry on
expand the list of permissible CSR activities to TOF more broadly—we believe that significant the list of permitted CSR activities,
CSR funds can be leveraged to support TOFI’s delivery. While CSR funds cannot be used to but further engagement will be
support government operations, the IPs will, nevertheless, work with engaged NGOs and other undertaken for this to be expanded
eligible entities to develop CSR funding proposals vis-à-vis key prioritized TOF expansion to TOF more broadly.
opportunities.
Key GoI There is some uncertainty on the extent to which CAMPA funds (a pot of ~USD $6.5 billion to MoEFCC will be approached soon
resource support afforestation for offsetting loss of state forest land) can be used to support TOF after program start-up to clarify the
windows expansion. However, our understanding is that several states are doing this. Hence, we will CAMPA funding issue in favor of
engage with MoEFCC for clarification and for a favorable outcome for TOF. MGNREGA funds are TOF. For example, it may be
another key opportunity, particularly in terms of supporting labor costs for tree establishment agreeable that such funds be used
vis-à-vis the public good leaning TOF expansion opportunities we will pursue with state partners. for certain public good leaning TOF
ICRAF’s partner, Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), employs this approach to support the expansion projects, e.g.,
restoration of common land, and TOFI will follow this lead. reforestation of common land.
Private Sector Engaging with well-resourced and established private sector companies is a key way of Initial discussions have taken place
Partnerships efficiently and effectively integrating farmers into lucrative value chains. We anticipate with with Dabur India, and there is keen
(PSPs) rising demand for certified wood products in the construction and other sectors, there will be interest to collaborate on a tree-
considerable interest among investors in setting up or scaling up timber outgrower schemes. based medicinal product out-
But these are certainly not restricted to timber, and opportunities for collaborating on other grower scheme.
TOF products such as fruits and medicinal products will be explored. The cash and in-kind
resources PSPs bring to support the targeted tree growing will be counted as leveraged.
International ICRAF is well networked with several international organizations that are interested in Discussions currently underway
Payment for supporting tree planting campaigns in India and other countries. It, for example, has been with Reforest'Action.
Ecosystem recently approached by Reforest'Action, which is keen to develop its project portfolio in Asia
Services (PES) and pays up to USD $1.40 per tree. Even if such funds are only leveraged for 1% of the trees
opportunities targeted for establishment under TOFI, this would still amount to USD $9.8 million. Other
organizations we will approach include Ecosia, One Tree Planted, Terraformation, and Grow-
Trees. They are particularly interested in linking farmers with voluntary carbon markets, so such
efforts will be directly linked to the carbon credit schemes TERI will be pursuing.

Avenues for scale:

As explained above, our Results Framework for TOFI has been explicitly designed to unlock opportunities for
appropriate and largescale TOF expansion, while directly spearheading specific promising expansion
opportunities with the seven participating states. This includes: 1) an improved policy environment, with more
harmonized inter-departmental strategies and deregulation of key tree species; 2) enhanced access to QPM,
financial and business support services, and TOF-related market and technical information; 3) increased
availability of financial resources to support TOF expansion, e.g., CSR and, potentially, CAMPA funds; 4)
identification of a balanced portfolio of “public good leaning” and “enterprise leaning” TOF expansion
opportunities, not all of which can be pursued directly by TOFI, thereby presenting opportunities for further
investment; and 5) documentation of cost-effective approaches for catalyzing TOF expansion (evidenced
through the program’s MEL and research components) and disseminated widely for replication in other states
(e.g., via TOF Dashboard, virtual workshops, policy briefs, Agroforestry Sub-mission, and media engagement).

7. Project Team and Management Plan

Figure 10 presents our proposed organizational chart for TOFI. High-level advisory oversight will be provided
by a TOFI Advisory Committee (TAC), comprising representatives from MoEFC, MoAFW, the seven
participating states, and USAID, with ICRAF’s Asia Director as its Secretary. An internationally recruited and
full time Chief of Party (CoP) will chair the Consortium Leadership Group (CLG) and be directly responsible
for ensuring the successful and efficient delivery of TOFI’s Results Framework, as well as the deployment and
use of program resources for their intended purposes. S/he will be supported by a Deputy Chief of Party

38
(DCoP), who will work with a dedicated group of full time State Coordinators spearheading the work of multi-
partner State Implementation Teams.

A dedicated MEL Coordinator, Communications Officer, Gender Coordinator, and Financial and Compliance
Officer (FCO) will support the overall program and report to the CoP, with the former being a member of
TOFI’s Senior Management Team, together with the CoP, DCoP, Asia Director, India Country Coordinator, and
Senior Impact Acceleration and MEL Specialist. The latter will provide technical backstopping to the MEL
Coordinator and overall impact acceleration guidance. The FCO (and CoP) will be supported by ICRAF’s Senior
Finance Fellow and will manage a dedicated Logistics and Procurement Officer. A team of senior ICRAF and
partner technical specialists will support TOFI as per their respective specializations, many of whom will be
part of the Consortium’s interdisciplinary Technical Support Group (TSG). The TSG will work at both national
and state levels to support TOFI’s inclusive and cost-effective delivery, which will include supporting TOF
Innovation Platforms (IPs)—comprising relevant government, private sector, university, and civil society
representation—that will drive TOFI’s delivery and general TOF expansion at state level. The IPs will oversee
TOF Business Incubation and Extension Hubs and nursery operations that will ensure that engaged MSMEs,
farmer cooperatives and associations, women’s Self-help Groups (SHGs), and other members of local
communities obtain the support and QPM required to successfully pursue and benefit from the targeted TOF
expansion opportunities.

Figure 10: Program Oversight, Management, and Delivery Structure

Our Staffing Matrix (Table 10) complements the above by showing our proposed positions to be supported
with TOFI resources, as well as the percentage of time allocated for each, their main role, and existing (or
required) qualifications. More details are provided for the first three Key Positions in Annex 1, the recruitment
for which is in process. Most of the other proposed positions are poised for immediate deployment.

39
Table 10: Staffing Matrix
Position
ICRAF
Chief of Party*
Deputy Chief of Party*
MEL Coordinator*
Asia Dir. (Policy Special.)
Sr. MEL & Impact Spec.
Gender & Inclusion Coor.
Sr. Gender Specialist
Finance & Comp. Officer
ICRAF Finance Officer
Logistics/Procure. Off.
Communications Officer
Sr. Coms. Specialist
State Coordinator (7)
State Associates (14)
Accounts & Admin (8)
Logistics Assistants (8)
Sr. Geoinformatics Spec.
Geoinformatics Spec.
Geospatial Programmer
Sr. Value Chain Specialist
Carbon Market Specialist
Nurs. & seed mgt. spec
Agroforestry specialist
Socio-economist
Training Coordinator
Rem. Sen. GIS Scientist
ATREE
Dir./Sr. Policy Analyst
Research Associate
TOFI Coordinator
Accounts & Admin
Research Fellows (2)
NCCF
Dr./Certification Coor.
Ass. Coordinator
TOFI Coordinator
Accounts & Admin
Research Fellows (3)
GRAVIS
Program Lead
Program Coordinator
TOFI coordinator
Accounts & Admin
Field Staff (3)
TERI
Carbon Markets Coor.
Ass. Coordinator
TOFI Coordinator
Accounts & Admin
Research Fellows (3)
TNAU
IP & TBE Incubation Cor.
Other specialists (3)
Sr. TOF technicians (3)**
TOF technicians (4)**
TFRI
AF Demo. Coordinator
QPM Specialist
Capacity Building Spec.
Sr. TOF technicians (3)**
TOF technicians (3)**
CAFRI
AF system specialist
Research Specialist
Remote Sensing Scientist
Senior Technicians (3)**
Technicians (3)**
NIAP
Policy specialists (3)
Senior Technicians (2)**
Technicians (2)**
*Key Personnel
**Project staff appointed under umbrella of ICRAF; IK = In-kind contribution; percentages averaged over 5-year period, but may vary year by year
Time % Main role Qualifications
100% Responsible for overall program management and delivery of TOFI’s Results Framework. Mast; 15+ years exp.
100% Responsible for overseeing and coordinating state-level delivery of TOFI’s PDM. Mast; 10+ years exp.
100% Responsible for delivering and fine tuning TOFI’s MEL Plan. Mast/PhD; 8+ yr exp.
21.7% Overall program oversight, including championing program at highest levels of gov. PhD; 30+ years exp.
21.7% Overall program delivery design and adaptation, with high-level MEL design support PhD; 20+ years exp.
100% Ensure strong design and meaningful execution of TOFI’s Gender & Inclusion Strategy Mast; 10+ y exp.
8.3% To provide technical backstopping and support to full time Gender Coordinator Mast; 10+ years exp.
100% Design and delivery of program financial management system and overall fin. reporting Bach; 10+ years exp.
8.3% To provide financial backstopping support and guidance for FCO Mast; 30+ years exp.
80% Oversight of all program related procurements, ensuring timely deliver and compliance Bach; 10+ years exp.
100% Design & deployment of coms. products for enhancing delivery, out-scaling & leveraging Mast; 5+ years exp.
5% Provide backstopping and writing support to full time Communications Officer Mast; 20+ years exp.
100% Overall responsible for spearheading delivery of TOFI’s PDM in states, together with IPs Mast; 5+ years exp.
100% Directly support State Coordinators and IPs in delivery of TOFI’s PDM in targeted states Bach; 3+ years exp.
100% Support to State Coordinators and FCO to ensure financial procedural adherence Bach; 3+ years exp.
100% Provide state teams with general logistical support Dipl; 2+ years exp.
6.7% Provide high-level technical design support & guidance for TOF Dashboard, App & VCC PhD; 20+ years exp.
13.3% Lead design of TOF Dashboard, App, and VCC Mast/PhD; 10+ yr exp.
23.3% Support design of TOF Dashboard, App, and VCC Mast; 5+ years exp.
6.7% Lead supply/demand & economic feasibility assessments of TOF VC opportunities PhD; 20+ years exp.
3.3% Provide India specific and international insights on carbon market financing projects Mast; 10+ years exp.
20% To support State Coordinators to rollout QPM guidelines & design accreditation systems PhD; 10+ years exp.
20% Provide guidance & quality assurance in best fit TOF species & plantation models PhD; 30+ years exp.
20% Support delivery of socioeconomic surveys and problem-driven research activities PhD; 10+ years exp.
20% Support design and deployment of TOF capacity development materials PhD; 10+ years exp.
21.7% Support state TOF opportunity mapping & MEL TOF expansion monitoring & verification Mast; 5+ years exp.
16.7% Co-lead analysis of enabling environment, research & annual learning deep dives PhD; 10+ years exp.
16.7% Support policy analyst in the above, including market info. systems Mast; 2+ years exp.
67% To act as focal point for all ATREE’s engagement in TOFI activities Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
25% Accounting and administrative support Dipl; 4+ years exp.
100% Provision of general program support for ATREE’s work under TOFI Mast; 1-2 years exp
16.7% Co-lead all policy engagement on TOF certification and regulation of imported timber Mast; 10+ years exp.
16.7% Support Certification and Standards Coordinator in the above Master; 5+ years exp.
67% To act as focal point for all NCCF’s engagement in TOFI activities Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
25% Accounting and finance support Dipl; 4+ years exp.
100% Provision of general program support for NCCF’s work under TOFI Mast; 1-2 years exp
16.7% Spearhead design & out-scaling of community engagement & demonstration models Mast; 10+ years exp.
16.7% Support states rollout the above and support delivery of TOFI PDM in Rajasthan Dipl; 5+ years exp.
67% TOFI activities coordinator at ATREE Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
25% Accounting and finance support Dipl; 4+ years exp.
100% Spearheading field work in Mast; 1-2 years exp
16.7% To spearhead piloting and scaling of schemes to link tree growers to carbon markets Mast; 10+ years exp.
16.7% To support Coordinator to do the above. Bach; 5+ years exp.
67% TOFI activities coordinator at ATREE Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
25% Accounting and finance support Dipl; 4+ years exp.
100% Provision of general program support for TERI’s work under TOFI Mast; 1-2 years exp
30% (IK) Spearhead design of IP & TBE incubation service delivery models and design options Mast; 10+ years exp.
30% (IK) Support IP and Industrial consortium and capacity building across TOFI Mast; 5+ years exp.
100% Support states rollout the above and support delivery of TOFI PDM in Tamil Nadu Master; 3-4 years exp.
100% Support Senior TOF Technicians in the above Master; 1-2 years exp.
30% (IK) Technical support and guide agroforestry model demonstrations across states Mast; 10+ years exp.
30% (IK) Provide technical support in strengthening public and private nurseries Mast; 5+ years exp.
30% (IK) Support coordination of capacity building initiatives in AF demos. & nursery mgt. Mast; 5+ years exp.
100% Field work and analytical support Mast; 5+ years exp.
100% Field work and analytical support Master; 1-2 years exp.
30% (IK) Provision of technical support on agroforestry systems PhD; 5 years exp
30% (IK) Support in identification of strategies for overcoming agroforestry adoption constraints PhD; 5 years exp
30% (IK) Support AF/TOF mapping, App, and Dashboard development Mast; 5+ years exp.
100% Field work and analytical support Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
100% Field work and analytical support Mast/PhD; 2+ y exp.
20% (IK) Support policy analysis, modifications, approvals, and enhanced adoption PhD; 5 years exp
100% Desk work research on policies & strategies Mast/PhD; 5+ y exp.
100% Analytical support/data entry Mast/PhD; 2+ y exp.
40
B. BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKING PLAN

OVERVIEW
This Branding and Marking Plan (BMP) is prepared as per USAID Branding and Marking Regulations described
in ADS 320 and Section 700 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The BMP defines how World
Agroforestry (ICRAF) and other partners in the Consortium—Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE), Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti (GRAVIS), the Central Agroforestry Research Institute
(CAFRI), the National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NIAP), the Network for
Certification and Conservation of Forests (NCCF), the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University (TNAU), and the Forest College and Research Institute (FCRI)—will communicate and
promote the Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI) Activity to its participants and the wider Indian public, as
well as showcase USAID’s logo in program materials, in order to ensure that USAID and the American people
are publicly and visibly acknowledged and credited for supporting it.

Program Name: Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI)

Objectives and Goals: TOFI’s overall goal is that the Area under TOF significantly expanded enhancing both
livelihoods and ecosystem services, especially carbon sequestration. This goal is to be achieved by enhancing
the enabling environment for TOF expansion (Objective 1); economically incentivizing and reducing risks
(actual and perceived) associated with such expansion (Objective 2); and improving access to reliable,
relevant, and actionable TOF information (Objective 3).

Key Deliverables: The consortium has developed a Program Delivery Model (PDM) for TOFI (see above) to
document how TOFI’s core interventions and engagement processes are expected to interact together to
deliver its Results Framework. The key deliverables defined under PDM are:
1. State-level TOF Innovation Platforms (IPs)
2. TOF Expansion Opportunity Mapping
3. “Public Good Leaning” TOF Expansion Initiatives
4. Policy work to unlock resources for “public good leaning” opportunities
5. Harmonizing and scaling up Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes
6. TOF certification and import regulation to catalyze “enterprise leaning” TOF Expansion
7. Private sector partnerships to pursue promising outgrower schemes and large TBEs
8. Integrated support for TOF-based Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)
9. TOF Virtual Call Centre
10. TOF Market Information System (MKIS)
11. TOF Dashboard and TOF App
12. Quality Planting Material (QPM)
13. Harmonizing TOF-related policies and strategies
14. Problem driven research and ensuring inclusive and sustainable impact at scale

Key messages: The key messages of TOFI are that the significant expansion in the area under TOF in the
targeted states will promote a) inclusively improved livelihoods and economic opportunities for the
rural population and other value chain actors and b) enhanced ecosystem services, especially carbon
sequestration but also nutrient cycling, water infiltration, erosion prevention, and pollination. For this
purpose, TOFI will act as a catalyst, while simultaneously directly delivering exemplary interventions.

Tools used for communicating these messages will include printed or electronic announcements, brochures,
posters, banners, success stories, briefing papers, white papers, guidelines, package of practice, technical
notes, virtual call center TOF dashboard, TOF mobile app, and formal communications on behalf of the
program. ICRAF will emphasize communication of the program’s message during planning and consultation
meetings, training workshops, as well as through communication events to disseminate program achievement

41
and impacts. All communications will include acknowledgement of USAID’s support, as per its co-branding and
co-marking guidelines.

1.1 Primary Audiences

The following primary audiences are targeted for the positive promotion of TOFI visibility:
• Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
• Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoAFW)
• NITI Aayog
• Ministry of Tribal Development
• Ministry of Rural Development
• Ministry of Commerce and Industry
• Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and its associated institutions
• Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) and its associated institutions
• Tamil Nadu Agricultural University- Forest College and Research Institute
• Participating State Governments
• Companies active in the timber and plywood sectors
• Financial and Insurance Banks, e.g., NABARD
• Community and district-level governance structures, including traditional leaders
• Civil society (NGOs/CBOs) in the environmental and rural development arena
• Community members in the target areas
• Relevant sections of the print and digital media, e.g., science and environment reporters/editors

These organizations and individuals are considered key clients because TOFI’s long-term success and
sustainability relies on their active and positive engagement.

Resource users will be directly engaged via trainings, surveys, mass media, social media, standalone
Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) platforms, as well as community-level and in-person
communications targeting male and female farmers; tree nursery operators; research and scientific
organizations; extension agencies; private entities engaged in targeted TOF value chains; and the broader
public. Bottom-up, strategic communications will target often-overlooked stakeholders, including women and
youth with messages of particular concern to these groups.

1.2 Secondary Audiences

The secondary audience for materials and documents produced under TOFI will include research institutions;
students and scholars; media at the national and global levels; bilateral, multilateral and international
organizations, such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations (FAO); philanthropic organizations; Company Social Responsibility Fund
institutions, among others, and key national and regional stakeholders.

1. BRANDING STRATEGY
ICRAF and its partners will meet USAID references to Section 320.3.3 of ADS 320 based on “co-branded and
co-marked.” The details will be developed after the Agreement is signed. However, the required USAID
Graphic Standards Manual and Partner Co-Branding Guide will be closely followed.

All communication material produced as part of this project will include the USAID Identity, comprising the
USAID logo and brand mark, with the tagline “from the American people” as found on the USAID website at
www.usaid.gov/branding. USAID’s identity “from the American People” will be displayed at visually equal
size and prominence equivalent to ICRAF, or any other third party’s identity or logo.

To show partnership with the host government, where applicable, a host country symbol or ministry logo
may be added. All additional logos including from participating national or state governments/municipal

42
entities and/or program partners that contribute to the program activity will be allowed on a case-by-case
basis. In each case, the logo usage should be approved by the Project AOR. In the event of co-branding
where a host-country symbol, ministry logo, or other government seal/logo may be involved and is approved
by the AOR, the Chief of Party (CoP) will verify and seek written approval by the relevant government officials
before proceeding.

1.1 Project Positioning

ICRAF and the other Consortium partners will use “Trees Outside Forests in India (TOFI)” as the title for the
Activity, and refer to it as a program, rather than an Activity. TOFI will not have a unique program logo. Rather,
the program’s name in English will be indicated on all relevant communication materials.

1.2 Communications and Publicity

All external communications regarding TOFI will visibly acknowledge USAID support through the inclusion of
the USAID Identity (logo, brand mark, and tagline). As such, all materials will acknowledge that they were
produced with support “from the American people.” The role and support of MoEFCC in achieving program
accomplishments will also be marked as concurred from USAID.

1.3 Communication Tools to be used

A variety of communication materials and products will be used to support the realization of TOFI’s objectives
as outlined in Table 1. All these materials will display USAID’s logo, together with those of MoEFCC, ICRAF,
and the other Consortium Partner logos. In case, additional logo is required to be displayed, prior approval
of AOR will be sought. ICRAF and all sub-recipients will acknowledge USAID as the funder whenever TOFI is
featured on ICRAF’s website or those of the other Consortium partners.

Table 1: Communications Tools intended to be used in the TOFI Program

Tool Description/Use
Press Releases For national and state events and products
Program flyers, leaflets, Cost-effective communication materials to meet project evidence-based reports, briefs, policy
brochures, and posters recommendations and Factsheets. Also, in the local language of states, if required
Photography To systematize all events, state activities funded by the project. Caption with photo credit to
thephotographer.
Beneficiary Testimonials On-demand
Radio If needed (state level)
Media and press At the national and state levels to raise public awareness for targeted activities, both print and
digital(English and other languages).
Website ICRAF and consortia partners websites will be used for project communication, product sharing
and Capacity building. Information will be posted at websites of USAID-India and MoEFCC (if
required)
Webcasts, e-invitations, The evidence-based products from TOFI will use collaborative tools based on the internet to
blogs, social media communicate with partners, communicate specific messages and monitor activities, such as blogs,
platforms, and other webcasts, tweets, events alerts through Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc.
internet tools
Project Events Program events will be used to advance program goals and share information about progress
made. These will include thematic training sessions, workshops, seminars, conferences and
roundtables.
TOF Extension Materials There will be a collection of learning posters, pamphlets, training materials, and other visual aids
tocommunicate technical information to extension agents and tree growers.
Virtual Call Centre, TOF Interactive standalone tools and platforms for the enhanced dissemination of market and
Dashboard, TOF Mobile technicalinformation to assist stakeholders in decision making related to TOF expansion.
App

1.4 Information Technology Tools and Data Security

TOFI will be developing interactive standalone “Data dissemination & Decision support” tools and platforms
to relay market and technical information and data pertaining to Trees Outside Forests. Table 2 presents
these Data dissemination & Decision support tools, the nature of the data they will relay, relevant data

43
privacy and security risks, and measures undertaken to mitigate these risks. These tools will follow ICRAF’s
Privacy Policy, which defines type of information collected from the user on registration at these platforms,
make an enquiry and/or sign up to receive feedback. In collecting this information, ICRAF acts as a data
controller and, by law, is required to provide the users with information about itself, why and how the users
data will be used, and the rights that the user have over its own data. Geolocation, GPS-level data is often
collected for efficient, precise and location-related information, products and advisory services. Most ofthe
user information is retained on secure ICRAF servers, which may result in the transfer of information across
international boundaries. All data and information will be screen and anonymized prior to public sharing.
ICRAF maintains commercially reasonable safeguards to secure the data. ICRAF and the other Consortium
partners will coordinate with USAID for their concurrence and data security clearance before public launching
of these ICT Tools.

Table 2: Exceptional ICT innovations to be employed in TOFI

ICT Tool Nature of Data to be Featured
TOF Virtual Interactive Voice Recording (IVR) system,
Call Centre with a large collection of pre-recorded
market and technical information messages
pertaining to TOF. User will dial in and is
first requested to record district of
residence and to confirm preferred
language before being taken to a series of
menu options. Options will be availed to
speak to a relevant technician directly, with
permission solicited to have phone number
recorded for call back if the technician is
unavailable.
TOF 1)Government and publicly accessible
Dashboard statistics, data, and other types of
information; 2) technical and published
extension-related information; 3) primary
data systematically collected through TOFI;
4) secondary data collected by other
programs and initiatives; 5) crowd sourced
data collected under TOFI and by other
programs; and 6) geospatial data extracted
from satellite imagery and aerial
photography.
E TOF Mobile Similar data as presented in dashboard will
App be featured on TOF Mobile App. The App
will have a feature where the user can
capture crowd sourced data. Here, users
will capture their geolocations and enter
other TOF related information and upload
both onto a secure, password protected
server.
Data Privacy & Risk Mitigation Measures
Security Risks
Personally Identifiable System will be established s per standard
Information (PII) theft, CIFOR-ICRAF ICT policies. In addition,
e.g., phone numbers technicians will sign confidentially
left for call backs or agreement to not share information or
menu response pattern personal details tothose they advise over
the phone; captured phone numbers
discarded after 4 weeks; individual menu
response patterns will not be traceable
back to individuals.
PII theft and misuse All primary and crowd-sourced information
will be kept on secure server (as per
standard CIFOR-ICRAF ICT policies) with
restricted access (only to selected project
staff). All data dissemination tools will work
with anonymizeddatasets, thus, eliminating
the risk of PII misuse. Data sharing policies
will also be developed as per local/national
standards.
PII theft and misuse, The mitigation measures indicated for
e.g., personal details dashboard to be applied. Additionally,
(including geolocation) during user registration through App, user’s
recorded by App and consent will be acquired, and user will be
stored in backend informed about the details like (a) which
server. type of information will be stored; (b) for
how long the information be stored ;(c) for
which purpose the information will be
stored; and (d)for which projects the
information will be stored. Local
regulations will also be studied and applied.
In addition, all crowd source data will be
kept on a secure, password protected
server for maximum of 5 years and
screened and anonymized (and aggregated)
prior to featuring back on any data
dissemination
system like the App or Dashboard.

Moreover, in case of paper-based data collection (including taking photos/videos), consent will be obtained
from individuals before data collection. The following information will be relayed when obtaining such

44
consent: what information will be stored; for how long the information be will be stored; and for which
purpose the information will be stored. Finally, the data collected using this program, will also be tagged with
a data license, as are per India’s local data protection laws.

1.5 Acknowledgements
ICRAF and the other Consortium partners may co-brand program materials with their logos, as long as the
following conditions have been met:
• The USAID-India Identity is given an equal prominence;
• The program benefits from co-branding with implementing partners’ identities; and
• The space permits multiple logos, and the work is not deemed cluttered or unattractive.

For this program the USAID-India Identity should be top left, MoEFCC should be top right after USAID Identity,
ICRAF’s bottom left, and the other partners arrayed along the bottom (Figure 1).

Figure 1: An illustration of the logo placement

1.6Monitoring of Sub-recipient Branding and Marking Compliance

ICRAF will ensure compliance as described in ADS REFERENCE 320SAB: Branding and Marking—Monitoring
and Verification Form, with proper branding and marking throughout the project. USAID branding and marking
requirements will be informed to the other Consortium partners via a standard provision that will be included
in all ICRAF sub-agreements. The partner’s signature on the grant agreement and/or modifications
acknowledges awareness of, and agreement to comply with branding and marking requirements. Shortly after
signing sub-agreements, ICRAF will request and coordinate with USAID to provide orientation and training
to ensure compliance with the TOFI BMP and will provide ongoing monitoring and support to ensure
compliance. ICRAF’s communications specialist will review final documents and publications for proper
branding and marking, which will be then cleared by the Chief of Party for taking concurrence from USAID,
before release and uploading at websites of consortia partners and USAID.

2. MARKING PLAN
The marking plan complies with the requirement of ADS 320 that projects activities, public communications,
commodities, and program materials, and other items will visibly bear the “USAID Identity,” which comprises
the USAID logo and brandmark, with the tagline “from the American people.” ICRAF and its consortium
partners will co-mark this program in the following manner:

45
Marking of Public Communications: USAID Identity will be cobranded with MoEFCC and ICRAF logo, and
partners logo where/as appropriate. The USAID Identity (logo and brand mark) and the message, “from the
American People” will be printed on all materials. As per USAID guidelines, ICRAF understands public
communications to be defined as all documents and messages intended for distribution to audiences
external to ICRAF, including project- related correspondence, publications, reports, brochures, pamphlets,
fact sheets, audio-visual products,applications, forms, promotional materials, online and digital material and
communications, training material, package of practice, guidelines, certificates, conferences, seminars, and
other project-related activities or communications funded by USAID.

Labelling of all other materials: Physical equipment and supplies funded by USAID for use during the project
implementation will be co-marked with a sticker bearing the USAID Identity and the message, “from the
American People”, and implementing partners logo, in this case, the leading partner of that activity and
ICRAF logo. In the instance that other logos may appear on these items, it would be ensured that the USAID
Identity will be in equal size and prominence to any other logo that appears.
All partner logos would be placed on the same line either at the bottom or at the top of the front cover of
the publications. All logos would be visually equal; no one logo would take precedence over the other logos
of partnering agencies or organizations.

Marking of Activity sites: Activity sites funded by USAID, including quality planting material nursery, will be
visibly marked with USAID Identity (logo and brand mark) and the message, “from the American People”,
along with ICRAF and leading partner logo.

Verbally communicate USAID‘s brand in public venues: If the USAID Identity cannot be displayed, ICRAF and
Consortium partners will ensure to verbally acknowledge USAID and the support of the American people.
Verbal communication will be supplemented by physical, marked signage wherever possible.

All project documents will follow USAID Branding Guidelines. For all branding and marking issues, the project
will follow the USAID Graphic Standard Manual and guidelines available at http://www.usaid.gov/branding.
Details as to how specific project items are to be marked are reflected in Table 3.

Table 3: Marked Deliverables

Deliverable Material Used When Marking Starts Placement of Marking
Materials to announce project USAID Template Immediately Cover page
Reports and publications USAID Template Immediately upon USAID Identity on cover according to USAID
completion of marking guideline. Disclaimer will appear onthe
documents bottom of the inside cover page
Informational products including certificates, USAID Template Immediately USAID Identity on cover according to USAID
package of practice, reports,guidelines, marking guidelines. Disclaimer and
brochures, training manuals, acknowledgement on the inside cover page.
and PowerPoint presentations
Trainings, meetings, and events USAID Template Immediately Top left of displayed banners, first page of
agenda/other material
Tree Nursery As the nursery is Exterior Door
established
Dashboard, mobile App, Virtual Call ICRAF Template As soon as the tools are On the top left side of the landing/opening
Center (VCC) developed. page

Marking of Administrative Material: USAID logo, type mark or seal will not be used on any administrative
materials, including business cards, stationery, offices and vehicles. The staff/employees hired under the
project by ICRAF and consortia partners will have a penalty clause prohibited them from claiming the status
of or being perceived as a USAID employee or member of the United States Government or Diplomatic
Mission.

46
Media and Press Relations: The Communications Officer of the project will engage with the national and
regional press in promoting program objectives and outcomes through press meetings, event launches and
press releases and article placement. For each of these, the project would develop a media briefing kit and
press releases for approval by the AOR and the Communications Officer of USAID. The Communications Officer
of the project will not speak on behalf of USAID but will refer all requests for USAID information to the USAID
AOR/ Communications Officer.

Social Media and Website

The project will create a dedicated social media channel at platforms, such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, LinkedIn. ICRAF will make sure that the project’s social media channels do not need to reflect the
look-and-feel of official USAID platforms and will not use the USAID logo as a profile picture. The project will
use a photo reflective of the project as the profile picture. The project will acknowledge USAID and other
partners in the “Profile” or “About” section. The evidence-based products from TOFI will use these
collaborative tools to communicate with partners, communicate specific messages and monitor activities.

The “Data dissemination & Decision support” tools (Table 2) – TOF Dashboard and E-TOF mobile App will have
a dedicated website with a single database from where each system will fetch to take appropriate action (like
app will fetch to build offline dataset that will go with the app, dashboard will fetch to analyze and visualize
etc.). The website shall display the USAID logo on the homepage in visually equal size and prominence to other
partners. The USAID logo does not need to appear in the top banner. As guided by the AOR, ICRAF will seek
written permission from MoEFCC for hosting this website at the NIC servers. In case of delay, it would be
hosted at the ICRAF servers initially, depending on the time required for its development.

2.1 Marking Cost Implications

The cost of marking most printed materials is absorbed in the cost of material development and printing. In
cases where incorporation of the logo or Identity is not possible in the printing process, ICRAF and consortia
partners will purchase and keep USAID stickers that can be applied post-production. ICRAF will use banners
of the USAID Identity in workshops/training events/ stakeholder consultations. The expenditures for the
banners, stickers, and any additional unanticipated branding and marking actions are included with each
activity.

2.2 Waivers and Presumptive Exceptions

ICRAF is optimistic that the program will be implemented smoothly with the USAID branding and marking
measures described here. However, if a prominent display of US sponsorship results in frequent or serious
obstacles, ICRAF may request a waiver or presumptive exemption for certain activities or commodities. The
CoP may request an exception or waiver, if required at a later stage, of the Marking Plan or of the marking
requirements, in whole or in part, as per the ADS 320. The CoP will submit the request through the AOR. The
request will describe the compelling concerns reasons that require an exception or waiver, detail the
circumstances and rationale for the request, detail the specific requirements, and include a description of
how program materials will be marked (if at all) if the USAID identity is removed. The request would also
provide a rationale for any use of recipient’s own identity/logo or that of a third party on materials that will
be subject to the exception/waiver.

Disclaimer:
All studies, reports, publications, websites, and all informational and promotional products not authored by
USAID will contain a provision substantially as follows:

“This study/report/website (specify) is made possible by the support of the American People through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this (specify) are the sole
responsibility of [Name of Consortium Partner] and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United
States Government.”

47
Pre-Production Review: USAID reserves the right to request pre-production review of USAID-funded public
communications and program material for compliance with USAID graphic standards and the approved
Marking Plan. All external outreach materials, such as press releases, web content and social media will be
submitted to the AOR to ensure both approval is granted where required and strong coordination is
maintained with USAID.

Sub-recipient: As specified in the standard provisions, the marking requirements will “flow down” to sub-
recipients or sub-awards and will include the USAID-approved marking provision in all USAID funded sub-
awards, as follows: “As a condition of receipt of this sub-award, marking with USAID identity of a size and
prominence equivalent to or greater that the recipient’s, sub-recipient’s, other donor’s or third party’s is
required.”

Budget
The is no separate costs envisaged from implementing this BMP. The costs will be absorbed by other already
costed budget item.

C. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

1. SFS 424 FORMS

i. SF-424-signed.pdf
ii. SF424A-V1.0-3.pdf
iii. SF-424B_ ASSURANCES - NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS.pdf

2. DUNS and Bradstreet number and SAM Registration

S.N CONSORTIA DUNS CAGE Code SAM Continue to maintain an active SAM
1 ICRAF 644848277 SBZ53 TE51MM31C293 Yes, due in March 2022
2 ATREE 918625083 SY381 NRE4W46BBKN1 Yes, due in Nov 2021
3 GRAVIS 650548196 O951Y ZHNNM76D51C6 Yes
4 NCCF 565239229 Applied on 16 August 2021
5 TERI 862257052 SCX02 QXGDULYS67W1 Yes, due in Nov. 2021
6 TNAU 872302709 Applied on 10 August 2021
7 CAFRI Applied on 16 August 2021
8 NIAP Applied on 16 August 2021
9 TFRI 915159656 Applied on 6 August 2021

3. Critical Points Discussed during Co-creation Workshop

i. Notes from Day 1-of co-creation workshop 13 July 2021.pdf
ii. Notes from Day 2-of co-creation workshop 15 July 2021.pdf
iii. Notes from Day 3-of co-creation workshop 19 July 2021.pdf
iv. Notes from Day 4-of co-creation workshop 23 July 2021.pdf

48
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for Key Staff

Chief of Party (CoP)

Duty Station: New Delhi, India with frequent travel (25%)

Job Summary and Responsibilities:

The successful applicant will be based in New Delhi, India and will report to CIFOR-ICRAF’s Asia Director. As
the focal point for TOFI’s Senior Program Leadership Team (SPLT), s/he will be responsible for overall program
management and the successful delivery of TOFI’s outputs, outcomes, and objectives, including providing
vision, leadership, and guidance for involved ICRAF staff and the broader partner Consortium. Specific
responsibilities include:
• Provide overall leadership for the partner Consortium, chairing the Consortium Leadership Group
(CLG) to ensure that all partners are working effectively and efficiently to deliver on TOFI’s Results
Framework;
• Spearhead the development and implementation of overall program annual work plans;
• Oversee operational budget management and performance monitoring;
• Regularly liaise and constructively engage with USAID, concerned ministries, state governments,
other government bodies, implementing partners, and other donor organizations;
• Identify and mitigate program risks, both programmatic and financial;
• Lead national level program efforts to identify and pursue promising leveraging and partnership
opportunities to magnify TOFI’s ability to achieve largescale impact;
• Oversee and coordinate the quality and timely submission of narrative progress and financial reports;
• Ensure ICRAF and partner compliance with the ethical standards, procedures, and policies enshrined
in USAID’s rules and regulations;
• Supervise key program staff: Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP), Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)
Coordinator, Communications Officer, Gender and Inclusion Coordinator, and Finance and
Compliance Officer.

Required Qualifications:
• Master’s degree in a relevant subject or higher;
• At least 8 years of senior program/project management experience (USAID-related a strong
advantage), with at least 15 years of development programming experience;
• Substantive understanding of and experience working in India’s rural context in general and its
agricultural and/or forestry sectors in particular;
• Demonstrated ability to work in challenging environments and with multi-cultural teams;
• Strong networking, strategic planning, interpersonal, and English oral presentation and writing skills.

Duration of the contract: 5-year fixed term.

Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP)

Duty Station: New Delhi, India with frequent travel (35%)

Job Summary and Responsibilities:

The successful applicant will be based in New Delhi, India and will report to TOFI’s Chief of Party, CIFOR-ICRAF.
As a key member of TOFI’s Senior Program Leadership Team (SPLT), s/he will be responsible for overseeing
and coordinating the state-level delivery of TOFI’s Program Delivery Model (PDM), including supervision of

49
State Coordinators to do the same, as well as deputizing and supporting the CoP in overall program
management. Specific responsibilities include:
• Ensure appropriate development and implementation of annual state-level work plans, including
reporting on their progress and supporting state teams (including Innovation Platforms) to overcome
operational bottlenecks;
• Oversee deployment of the multi-partner Technical Support Group (TSG) to the states, ensuring their
Support and Quality Review Missions (SQRMs) target areas critical for enhancing state-level
performance and addressing state-specific issues;
• Support the COP to lead the program team in its technical and operational aspects, including planning
and implementation;
• Liaise with national and state government institutions and civil society and private sector partners to
capitalize on opportunities and overcome bottlenecks affecting program delivery;
• Hold frequent meetings with state teams (bi-weekly) to keep abreast of program progress and provide
operational guidance accordingly;
• Work with COP on the development of the annual implementation plan, budgets, and other project
deliverables.

Required Qualifications:
• Master’s degree in a relevant subject or higher;
• At least 4 years of senior program/project management experience (USAID-related a strong
advantage), with at least 10 years of development programming experience;
• Substantive understanding of and experience working in India’s rural context in general and its
agricultural and/or forestry sectors in particular, with experience in one or more of the program’s
targeted states being a strong advantage;
• Demonstrated ability to work in challenging environments and with multi-cultural teams;
• Strong networking, strategic planning, interpersonal, and English oral presentation and writing skills.

Duration of the contract: 5-year fixed term.

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Coordinator

Duty Station: New Delhi, India with frequent travel (35%)

Job Summary and Responsibilities: The successful applicant will be based in New Delhi, India and will report
to TOFI’s Chief of Party, CIFOR-ICRAF. As a key member of TOFI’s Senior Program Leadership Team (SPLT) and
supported by ICRAF’s Head, Impact Acceleration and Learning, s/he will be responsible for delivering and fine
tuning TOFI’s MEL Plan (Monitoring Sub-plan; Evaluation Sub-plan; and Learning Sub-plan). Specific
responsibilities include:
• Set up and oversee TOFI’s Performance Indicator Tracking System (PITS);
• Oversee and coordinate Data Quality Audits (DQAs);
• Support and synthesize results from context “SWOT” monitoring reviews;
• Coordinate state-level appraisals of the policy environment and TOF investment landscapes;
• Design and oversee the administration of sample surveys and large plantation monitoring, liaising with
key geoinformatics scientists for remote sensing-based verification;
• Verify and document Cases of Indirectly Facilitated TOF Expansion (CIFT);
• Organize and support the facilitation of annual intra- and inter-state reflection and sharing events;
• Design and coordinate the undertaking of Annual Learning Deep Dives;
• Package and communicate data and evidence pertaining to the above to both inform adaptive
program management and out-scaling processes.

50
Required Qualifications:
• Master’s degree in a relevant subject, with preference for PhD;
• At least 8 years of field experience in conducting surveys, monitoring interventions of donor-funded
projects and or/development programs;
• Experience with survey development, statistical sampling, mobile surveys, and data analysis, using
software, such as ODK, SurveyCTO, or Kobo, and statistical analysis packages, such as Stata or R.
• Demonstrable experience working in India’s rural context in general and its agricultural and/or
forestry sectors in particular;
• Demonstrated ability to work in challenging environments and with multi-cultural teams;
• Strong skills in conceptualization, communication, and reporting;
• Fluency in written and spoken English, with excellent writing, verbal communication, and
interpersonal skills.

Duration of the contract: 5-year fixed term.

51
Annex 2: Endnotes
1 FSI. 2005. State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests. Dehradun; FSI. 2019. India State of
Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change. Dehradun.
2
MoEF. 1988. National Forest Policy. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. New Delhi.
3 FSI. 2019. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change). Dehradun.
4FSI. 2005. State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change. Dehradun; FSI.

2019. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change). Dehradun.
5 FSI. 2019. India’s Nationally Determined Contribution of Creating an Additional Carbon Sink of 2.5 to 3 Billion Tonnes of CO2 Eq

Through Additional Forest & Tree Cover: Possibilities, scale and costs for formulating strategy . FSI Technical Information Series:
Volume 1, No. 3, 2019. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change. Dehradun.
6
Clark, B., DeFries, R. and Krishnaswamy, J. 2021. India’s Commitments to Increase Tree and Forest Cover: Consequences for
Water Supply and Agriculture Production within the Central Indian Highlands. Water, 13(7).
7 Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics

and Society, 29, 485–514.

8 Chavan, S. B., Keerthika, A., Dhyani, S. K., Handa, A. K., Ram Newaj and Rajarajan, K. (2015). National Agroforestry Policy in India: a

low hanging fruit. Current Science, 108, 1826- 1834.

9 Shrivastava, S. and Saxena, AK. (2017). Wood is Good: But, is India doing enough to meet its present and future needs? Centre for

Science and Environment, New Delhi.

10 Pandey, R. 2007. Contribution of forestry – Role in socio-economic of Jaunsaries and development of index. Ph.D. thesis, FRI

University, Dehradun.
11 MoA. 2014. National Agroforestry Policy. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of

India. New Delhi.

12 Singh VP, Sinha, R.B, Nayak D, Neufeldt H., van Noordwijk, M, Rizvi, J. 2016. The national agroforestry policy of India: experiential

learning in development and delivery phases. ICRAF Working Paper No. 240. New Delhi.
13FSI. 2019. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change). Dehradun.
14FSI. 2019. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change). Dehradun.
15
Megan O’Donnell, Mayra Buvinic, Shelby Bourgault, and Brian Webster. 2021. “The Gendered Dimensions of Social Protection in
the COVID-19 Context.” CGD Working Paper 576. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/
publication/gendered-dimensions-social-protection-covid-19-context
16 Crossland, Mary, et al. 2021. "Onto the Farm, into the Home: How Intrahousehold Gender Dynamics Shape Land Restoration in

Eastern Kenya." Ecological Restoration 39, no. 1: 90-107.

17 Basnett, Bimbika Sijapati, Marlène Elias, Markus Ihalainen, and Ana Maria Paez Valencia. (2017) Gender matters in Forest Landscape

Restoration: A framework for design and evaluation. Centre for International Forestry Research.
18 Evans K, Larson A.M., Mwangi E, Cronkleton P, Maravanyika T, Hernandez X, Müller P, Pikitle A, Marchena R, Mukasa C, Tibazalika

A and Banana A. 2014. Field guide to Adaptive Collaborative Management and improving women’s participation. Bogor, Indonesia:
CIFOR.
19 Yadav, M., Dugaya, D. 2013. Non-timber forest products certification in India: opportunities and challenges. Environ Dev

Sustain 15, 567–586.

20 Mehta, A.K. 1998. Sustainable interventions for poverty alleviation: A best practice case of gum karaya in Andhra Pradesh, India.

New Delhi: UNIFEM.

21 Arun Agrawal and Ashwini Chhatre. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian

Himalaya, World Development, Volume 34, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013.

22 Bose, P. 2011. Forest tenure reform: Exclusion of tribal women's rights in semi-arid Rajasthan, India. The International Forestry

Review, 13(2), 220-232.

23 Markus Ihalainen, Jolien Schure, Phosiso Sola. 2020. Where are the women? A review and conceptual framework for addressing

gender equity in charcoal value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, Volume 55.
24
Rana, Pushpendra & Miller, Daniel C., 2021. Predicting the long-term social and ecological impacts of tree-planting programs:
Evidence from northern India. World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
25 Chris Reij and Robert Winterbottom. 2017. Can We Restore 350 Million Hectares by 2030? World Resources Institute.

https://www.wri.org/insights/can-we-restore-350-million-hectares-2030
26 Michael Wolosin. 2017. Large-scale Forestation for Climate Mitigation: Lessons from South Korea, China, and India. Climate and

Land Use Alliance. https://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/reports/arr/

27Yishan Wong. 2021.The Carbon Removal XPrize Winner Will Have to Beat USD $7 per Ton. Terraformation.

https://www.terraformation.com/blog/the-carbon-removal-xprize-winner-will-have-to-beat-7-per-ton

52