REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT TYPE OF TRUST FUND:GEF TRUST FUND For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Mainstreaming agricultural biodiversity conservation and utilization in agricultural sector to ensure ecosystem services and reduce vulnerability Country(ies): India GEF Project ID: 5137 GEF Agency(ies): UNEP (select) (select) GEF Agency Project ID: 00906 Other Executing Partner(s): Indian Council of Agricultural Submission Date: 16/03/2015 Research (ICAR), Bioversity Resubmission Date: 18/12/2015 International GEF Focal Area (s): Biodiversity Project Duration(Months) 60 Name of Parent Program (if NA Project Agency Fee ($): 289,403 applicable): For SFM/REDD+ For SGP For PPP
A. FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK Trust Grant Focal Area Cofinancing Expected FA Outcomes Expected FA Outputs Fund Amount Objectives ($) ($) BD-2 Outcome 2.1: Increase in 120,000 ha of agricultural land GEF TF 2,004,387 6,759,350 sustainably managed would be affected by landscapes and seascapes that sustainable utilization and integrate biodiversity management of agricultural conservation. biodiversity by 25,000 farmers across four agro-ecoregions of India. BD-2 Outcome 2.2: Measures to Regional (four) and national GEF TF 765,020 2,469,900 conserve and sustainably use (one) strategies and plans on biodiversity incorporated in integrated sustainable policy and regulatory agricultural improvement and frameworks. use of agricultural biodiversity developed and supported by implementation programmes of work Project Management Costs GEF TF 276,940 1,065,500 Total project costs 3,046,347 10,294,750
B. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: To mainstream the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity for resilient agriculture and sustainable production to improve livelihoods and access and benefit sharing Grant Trust Grant Confirmed Project Component Type Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Fund Amount Cofinancing ($) ($) 1. Adaptive TA Farmers (at least 25,000) 1.1 Extent and distribution GEF 1,073,935 4,537,310 management of crop across four agro- of genetic diversity of 14 TF diversity for resilient ecoregions covering crops in 4 agro-ecoregions agriculture and 120,000 ha in India determined, together with improved livelihoods. maintain and use an documentation of factors increased availability to that shape farmer decisions diversity of 14 crops on diversity maintenance, GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 1 which enhances including challenges adaptation, resilience presented by climate and improves income change; generation opportunities. 1.2 New and traditional crop genetic diversity meeting farmers’ needs and able to enhance ecosystem function, resilience and adaptation to climate change identified and made available;
1.3 Farmer identification, improvement and use of adaptive crop diversity through field experimental networks;
1.4 Improved farmers' access to genetic materials in all project sites through establishment of community biodiversity registers (CBRs), community seed banks (CSBs), and diversity fairs;
1.5 Production and non- market benefits/incentives from management and sustainable use of crop genetic diversity of 14 crops in four agro- ecoregions by farming communities identified and relevant intervention strategies for capturing and enhancing such benefits developed;
1.6 Local, regional and national markets identified and market chains developed for 14 crops to provide improved benefits to farmers and communities in all project sites for sustainably produced agricultural biodiversity products. 2. Strategies and TA Mechanisms for 2.1 National and regional GEF 601,330 2,216,400 policies for sustainable improved coordination policy platforms, including TF conservation and use of and implementation to involvement of ministries, crop diversity promote better local communities, including access and mainstreaming of indigenous organizations, benefit sharing. conservation, use and farmers, private sector, to sharing of crop diversity promote leadership and developed and supported mainstreaming of GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 2 by relevant policy agricultural biodiversity instruments, regulations, conservation and use strategies and plans including ABS established including access and and implemented; benefit sharing. 2.2 Analyses of public policies, relevant instruments and regulations undertaken and gaps identified and incentives for improved sustainable use and conservation of agricultural biodiversity including provisions and opportunities for improved access and benefit sharing recommended;
2.3 Model agreements that regulate access and benefit sharing with farmers communities and which recognise the core principles of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) established;
2.4 National and regional strategies and plans on integrated sustainable agricultural improvement, use and benefit sharing of agricultural biodiversity developed and supported by implementation programmes of work. 3. Improved TA Improved Agricultural 3.1 One national and eight GEF 766,762 1,968,540 agricultural support Support Systems regional level capacity TF systems, institutional (Research, Outreach and building training frameworks and Extension), Institutional workshops on the value of partnerships that Frameworks and agricultural biodiversity; its support crop diversity Partnerships at national, maintenance and use for on farm. regional and local levels resilient agriculture to ensure improved organised for different agricultural biodiversity stakeholder groups conservation, including government adaptability, resilience ministries and agencies, and farmer livelihoods. policy makers, non- governmental organizations, farmers, extension workers, teachers, researchers and consumers;
3.2 Enhanced capacities of government ministries and agencies, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, farmers, GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 3 extension workers, teachers, researchers and consumers in selecting and deploying adapted crop diversity through participatory approaches;
3.3 Improved national programmes which support mainstreaming of agricultural biodiversity and its improved use to support ecosystem function, resilience and adaptability activities are in place.
4. Project monitoring, TA Project implementation 1.Project monitoring GEF 327,380 507,000 evaluation and based on results based system operating providing TF knowledge management and systematic information on management. application of project progress in meeting project lessons learned in future outcome and output targets. operations facilitated. 2. Mid-term and final evaluation conducted.
3. Project-related “best- practices” and “lessons- learned” published.
4.Website to share the experience and information dissemination. Subtotal 2,769,407 9,229,250 Project management Cost (PMC) GEF 276,940 1,065,500 TF Total project costs 3,046,347 10,294,750
C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED COFINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE AND BY NAME ($) Cofinancing Sources of Co-financing Name of Co-financier (source) Type of Cofinancing Amount ($) National Government Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Cash 2,941,000 National Government Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) In-kind 2,068,500 National Government Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Cash 1,040,000 Authority (PPV&FRA) National Government Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right In-kind 315,000 Authority (PPV&FRA) International Organization Bioversity International Cash 2,600,000 International Organization Bioversity International In-kind 400,000 CSO Action for Social advancement(ASA) Cash 200,000 CSO Action for Social advancement(ASA) In-kind 100,000 CSO Gramin Vikas Viyan Samiti (GRAVIS) Cash 120,000 CSO Gramin Vikas Viyan Samiti (GRAVIS) In-kind 80,000 CSO Lok Chetna Manch (LCM) In-kind 100,000 CSO Mount Valley Development In-kind 80,000 Association(MVDA) CSO Himalayan Research Group (HRG) Cash 50,000 GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 4 CSO Himalayan Research Group (HRG) In-kind 100,000 GEF Agency UNEP In-kind 100,250 Total Co-financing 10,294,750
D. TRUST FUND RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY, FOCAL AREA AND COUNTRY (in $) Type of Country Name/ GEF Agency Focal Area Trust Fund Global Grant Agency Fee Total Amount (a) (b) c=a+b UNEP GEF TF Biodiversity India 3,046,347 289,403 3,335,750 Total Grant Resources 3,046,347 289,403 3,335,750
F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Grant Amount Cofinancing Project Total Component ($) ($) ($) International Consultants 33,000 109,500 142,500 National/Local Consultants 86,500 201,466 287,966
G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? No (If non-grant instruments are used, provide in Annex D an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your Agency and to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund).
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL PIF
A.1 National strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, if applicable, i.e. NAPAS, NAPs, NBSAPs, national communications, TNAs, NCSA, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, Biennial Update Reports, etc. As stated in the original PIF that India has a long history of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and over the years has developed a stable organizational structure and a strong legal policy framework for protection of environment in the country. India is committed to contributing towards achieving the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Aichi Targets. Strategies and plans for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources based on local knowledge systems and practices are ingrained in Indian ethos and are enshrined in the Constitution of India [Article 48A and Article 51 A (g)] in the form of environment protection. In recent times, the major components of policy framework, legislations and action plans that drive the country in achieving all the three objectives of CBD include, among others, Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002; National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006; National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP), 2008; and National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), 2008. A first major step was the development of the National Policy and Macro Level Action Strategy (1999) that called for consolidating existing biodiversity conservation programs and initiating new steps in conformity with the spirit of the convention followed by development of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and its implementation. The proposed project is fully consistent with the above national regulations and commitments and directly addresses its concern with the promotion of the increasing use of agricultural biodiversity, strengthening capacity to support maintenance of agricultural biodiversity, enhancing benefit-sharing and the promotion of conservation and use. The project would enable India to accelerate the implementation of the national priorities and policies listed above. It reflects the importance given by the Indian government to maintenance of diversity in production systems, livelihood and income generation, policy development and the development of the capacity needed to support maintenance and use of agricultural biodiversity. Therefore, the planned interventions are in line with the national priorities and action plans. Further more detailed information in provided in the project Document (Para 46 to 56) outlining how the project will support the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and contribute to the achievement of the CBD’s Aichi Targets. Details are provided in the table below:
Project Contribution to Aichi Declaration Targets
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 5 CBD Aichi 2020 How the project will support the achievement of each target – initial SMART indicators Targets which the project will contribute to
Target 7 Diversity of 14 crops will be mainstreamed on farm through participatory approach using (sustainable ‘Citizen Science” approach and the establishment of farmers’ Experimental network. The project management) will lead to the identification of adaptive crop diversity by farmers’ participation and its sustainable use through market and non-market incentives. Policy recommendations and guidelines and capacity building of stakeholders will lead to more support from national and state government for conservation and use of crop diversity at national and state level.
Target 13 (genetic Identified adaptive diversity will be maintained on farm through value-added products and diversity) targeted markets by small and marginal farmers. Its sustainability will be ensuring through improved local seed systems and the establishment of community seed banks/genebanks.
Target 14 The project will facilitate promotion of cultivating traditional crops and their varieties, which (ecosystem services) will lead to environment services through low water intake and use of chemicals.
Target 18 Traditional knowledge regarding use of crop diversity for value-added products and climate (traditional change adaptation will be incorporated into project activities through stakeholder participation; a knowledge) database will be developed and will be available on project web site.
A.2. GEF focal area and/or fund(s) strategies, eligibility criteria and priorities: NA A.3 The GEF Agency’s comparative advantage: NA A.4. The baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address: The baseline analyses undertaken during the PPG phase identified the following concerns to be addressed: (i) national threat for loss of crop diversity across all project sites and lack of experience of on farm conservation of traditional crop varieties; (ii) need for conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity to sustain the effects of climate change; (iii) analysis of the status of crop diversity at each site from socio-economic dimensions; (iv) opportunities and potential benefits from the improved maintenance and deployment of crop diversity on farm; (v) lack of clarity in the legal framework for Farmers' Rights and access to plant genetic resources that need systematic revision; and (vi) capacity building across all stakeholders to accomplish the above. These analyses were reviewed during regional workshops and resulted in the identification of the major barriers or gaps that the project will address with respect to: status and availability of agricultural biodiversity, national and regional policies and regulations, climate change adaptability and resilience of small and marginal farmers, economic opportunities and capacity and information needed to adopt appropriate management practices. The Government of India has marshalled extensive resources to address the above mentioned issues with numerous agencies, missions and programmes for which the scope for convergence and synergies exist and the project will operate within a context of numerous baseline projects. This will ensure that the Project not only benefits from collaboration with other relevant initiatives and with lessons learnt in other projects. It also ensures that the project can provide a platform for bringing together a wide range of different initiatives and partners in India around a common agricultural biodiversity agenda. Some of the most relevant initiatives are described in the project document (para 76- 81) and the proposed project will build on lessons learnt from number of past and current national, regional and global agricultural biodiversity management initiatives in the country.
The design of the Full Project proposal is in line with the original PIF proposal. However, following the recommendation of the Project partners, the expected outputs have been slightly revised, combined or moved to another GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 6 location in the logframe in order to make them more consistent with the Project intervention logic. The original three Project components remain intact however the Project partners also proposed some changes to the wording of the Project expected outcomes, so that they would be more action and impact oriented. The Component Outcomes in all three instances have been revised to make them more specific and to remove ambiguity and to make a clear statement of the kinds of outcome impacts expected at the end of the project, however they remain based on the same underlying rationale and principles.
Outcome revised during the PPG Outcome as written in the PIF 1. Farmers (at least 25,000) across four agro-ec 1.1 Farmers (25,000) across four agro-ecoregions covering 120,000 oregions covering 120,000 ha in India maintain ha in India maintain and use an increased diversity of 12 crops and use an increased availability to diversity of through improved availability of traditional local varieties and 14 crops which enhances adaptation, resilience enhanced access to new adapted and resilient diversity. and improves income generation opportunities. 1.2 Improved income generation opportunities through increased use of agrobiodiversity of small and marginal farmers (25,000) across four agro-ecoregions covering 120,000 ha in India. 2. Mechanisms for improved coordination and 2.1 Measures (policies and guidelines) for the sustainable use and implementation to promote better conservation of crop diversity are integrated into national (one) and regional (four) plans for agriculture. mainstreaming of conservation, use and 2.2 Farmers communities and other stakeholders in four agro- sharing of crop diversity developed and ecoregions in India benefit from the access and benefit sharing supported by relevant policy instruments, provisions under Biological Diversity Act and Protection of Plant regulations, strategies and plans including Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, in India. access and benefit sharing. 3. Improved Agricultural Support Systems (Re 3.1 Improved institutional frameworks at national (1), regional (4) search, Outreach and Extension), Institutional and local levels ensure improved agrobiodiversity conservation, Frameworks and Partnerships at national, regio adaptability, resilience and farmer livelihoods. nal and local levels to ensure improved agrobio 3.2 Improved agricultural support systems (research, outreach and diversity conservation, adaptability, resilience extension) supporting the mainstreaming of agrobiodiversity for and farmer livelihoods. adaptability, resilience and farmer livelihoods.
Further, the project outputs in all three components have been extensively reviewed by Project partners and revised to avoid potential overlaps and duplication, and basically to make them more specific, realistic and measurable. However they remain based on the original issues, constraints and subjects covered by all original outputs and follow the same underlying rationale and principles. The changes made can be summarised as follows: Component 1: Within Component 1, the number of expected outputs has been reconciled to six (Outputs 1.1 through 1.6) compared to nine expected outputs listed in the original PIF. When reviewing, Project partners felt that three of the original PIF expected outputs addressed issues which were covered or could be merged with other already existing outputs in this component. By doing this Project partners felt the outputs and component could be better implemented and managed as well as measured and monitored. Component 2: In Component 2, the number of expected outputs has been reconciled to four (Outputs 2.1 through 2.4) compared to eight expected outputs listed in the original PIF. In reviewing, Project partners felt that a number of the original outputs were more or less trying to do the same thing in relation to ABS and as such have been merged in such a way that all essential elements are still captured. Component 3: Within Component 3, the number of expected outputs have been reduced to three (Outputs 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) from the six expected outputs listed in the original PIF. In reviewing the Project partners felt that one Output each on Awareness (now Output 3.1); Capacity Building (now Output 3.2); and Research Programmes (now Output 3.2) was adequate to capture the essence of what was outlined and planned in the original PIF document.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 7 A.5 Incremental /Additional cost reasoning: describe the incremental (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or additional (LD CF/SCCF) activities requested for GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financing and the associated global environmental b enefits (GEF Trust Fund) or associated adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF) to be delivered by the project: The principles presented in the PIF were maintained.
A.6 Risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved, and measures that address these risks: A more in depth risk analysis and corresponding mitigation options has been carried out and added since the PIF. Please refer to section 3.5 in the Project Document. Assumptions and Risks related specifically to the achievement of the project Outcomes are also addressed in the Project Results Framework (see Annex A to this document).
A.7. Coordination with other relevant GEF financed initiatives: Coordination has advanced during preparation phase and will be further developed during implementation to ensure that synergies are maximized, redundancy avoided and lessons learned find continued application. For the status at present refer to section 2.7 in the Project Document.
B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT ADDRESSED AT PIF STAGE: B.1 Describe how the stakeholders will be engaged in project implementation.
Identification of key stakeholders was carried carefully by checking various factors such as their past and present work, interest in conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity, capacity to work with different partners and to collaborate effectively, ability to work with farmers and communities, capacity to influence others in the context of agricultural biodiversity conservation, involvement in policy making, etc.
The list of key project partners and stakeholders was later verified and agreed upon during the national and regional workshops and also by the members of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). It was also agreed that the involvement of the private sector in the project would be feasible only after the Project interventions progress to some degree, in second or third year of the full project implementation by when the project will be able to demonstrate marketable products from target crop species.
By and large, the stakeholder group consists of ministries and agencies dealing with issues of agriculture, environment, education, extension and rural development; state agricultural universities and schools; national agricultural institutions and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) directly involved with the transfer of agricultural technologies at farm level. In addition to these governmental agencies, farmers associations that address concerns relating to crop diversity conservation, NGOs involved in the conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources, as well as the development of participatory approaches with farming communities, key farmers and caretakers of crop genetic resources, and other local community groups will be involved in project implementation activities at the grassroots level. Individual stakeholder’s profiles will be pooled into a database that will be accessible to all participants during the implementation of the full project. This database will also be useful for future collaborative activities at national and regional levels.
Farmers, extension workers, local educational institutions, community-based organizations and indigenous peoples will benefit from representative partnerships built with local and national researchers and other relevant organizations in India through the implementation of this project. Staff of local and national research and education institutes will benefit from receiving specific training on how to use diverse local crop materials and local knowledge, and how to apply econometric methods to investigate the public’s valuation of the use of crop genetic resources for sustainable agriculture. This will in turn be used to partner with policy makers at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change level to develop policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with less dependence on external inputs. Recruitment of women professionals at management positions and creation of training opportunities will ensure active participation of women researchers, managers, GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 8 technicians and farmers to maintain gender balance and equity in national capacity building. Therefore universities and research institutes, extension and development based organizations will be better equipped to support farmers in their use of local crop diversity. Indigenous community groups will be active participants in the project as noted below. Private sector consumers and retailers will be active partners in the development of diversity rich practices; this will include activities and public awareness campaigns to change consumer norms and behaviors to support agricultural production systems that use local crop genetic diversity to reduce vulnerability in farmers’ fields.
The details the present status of stakeholders, their potential roles and contributions including their participation in management and coordination at the national and global level are described in Table below:
Stakeholders Type of Involvement National government agencies Ministry of Environment, Forests Representatives of the different Ministries will be invited to and Climate Change (MoE,F&CC), take part in project consultations, workshops, seminars, etc. New Delhi and will provide their advice and suggestions for the project Department of Agriculture Research management. They will also participate in policy and and Education (DARE) & awareness related campaigns for mainstreaming agricultural Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC), Ministry of biodiversity and its use for sustainable agriculture production. Agriculture, New Delhi Government Departments Protection of Plant Variety and These organizations will participate in organising awareness Farmers Rights Authority programmes on protection of farmers’ varieties and benefit (PPV&FRA), New Delhi sharing at national and regional levels; assist farmers in National Biodiversity Authority documenting special attributes of the landraces to be eligible (NBA) of India, Chennai for registration; registration of unique landraces/farmers’ varieties; and will participate in developing ABS agreements and crop biodiversity registers through State Biodiversity Authorities (SBA). State Government Agencies State Departments of Agriculture Participate in project implementation alongside communities; and Biodiversity Boards assist in mainstreaming agricultural biodiversity based on project findings; support developing village level agricultural biodiversity registers and marketing initiatives. Scientific communities (Research Institutes) National Bureau of Plant Genetic These organizations will support the project in providing Resources, New Delhi scientific and technical backstopping as well as collaboration Indian Agricultural Research in research and in the development of suitable methods and Institute, New Delhi approaches. Staff of these organizations will be invited to Central Arid Zone Research participate in project consultations, seminars, conferences and Institute, Jodhpur, Rajasthan workshops and will also take part in farmers’ field days. Will Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora also support provision of additional diversity to project sites ICAR Research Complex for NEH where needed. Region, Barapani Collaborate in the development of public awareness materials Ch. Sarvan Kumar Krishi for mainstreaming of agricultural biodiversity and the Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur dissemination and up-scaling of project outputs through peer- Assam Agricultural University, GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 9 Stakeholders Type of Involvement Jorhat reviewed scientific publications. Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Will contribute to identification of major knowledge gaps and Vishwavidyalaya, Gwalior Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa through the development of research proposals. Vidyalaya, Raipur Will organise training programmes for the project partners and Agricultural University, Jodhpur, will also participate in public awareness and policy dialogues. Rajasthan All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets, Bangalore, Karnataka All India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet, Jodhpur, Rajasthan Krishi Vigan Kendras (KVKs) in the operation districts CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresources Technology (IHBT), Palampur, Himalchal Pradesh Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Leh Multilateral Agencies Bioversity International Bioversity and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research are Indian Council of Agricultural the Executive Agencies and will be responsible for project Research (ICAR) execution and overall monitoring and hosting of the PMU; will be involved in planning and execution and monitoring of progress of project interventions and facilitating collaboration with partners. Will provide assistance in development and delivery of training, sharing their substantial tools and resources in relevant components. Non-Governmental Organizations Deendayal Research Institute Will works with farmers and communities to facilitate (DRI),Chitrakot, Madhya Pradesh consultation and collaboration with communities across project Action for social Advancement sites and assist in mobilizing participatory action research. (ASA), Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Lok Chetna Manch (LCM), Nainital Will be invited to take part in project consultation and (Uttarakhand) meetings and will be used extensively in the dissemination of Himalayan Research Group (HRG), outreach materials at the grass root level. Shimla (Uttarakhand) Will particularly support on farm field trials, organization of Awareness Services for Rural Areas (ASRA), Sirmour, Himachal field days, diversity fairs, farmers’ exchange visits and Pradesh mobilization of relevant traditional knowledge. Mount Valley Development Association (MVDA), Almora (Uttarakhand) GraminVikasVigyan Samiti (GRAVIS), Jodhpur (Rajasthan) GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 10 Stakeholders Type of Involvement Institute for Himalayan Environment Environment Research and Education (INHERE), Almora, Uttrakhand Center for Advanced Research & Development (CCD), Durg, Chhattisgarh North East Center for Rural Livehood Research (NECR), Golaghat, Assam Society for Socio-economic Awareness and Environment Protection (SSEAEP), Nagaon, Assam Local communities Community-based organizations Community-based organizations will be involved in the following activities: The Covenant Centre for Development, Chhattisgarh Undertaking baseline information across project sites; in Friends Rural Centre, Rasulia, participatory appraisals and community based activities to Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh map biodiversity and sustainable practices and to mobilize Piparai Biodiversity Management relevant biodiversity-based interventions (practices and Committee, Piparai, Muraina, materials). Madhya Pradesh Undertaking farmers’ field trials for proper evaluation of Bhim Rao Ambedkar Kisan Club, genetic diversity for climate change adaptation and will Sedva, Barmer, Rajasthan have access to training and capacity building and other Samridhi Mahila Cooperative benefits arising through the project. Society, Thakurdwara, Palampur, Assistance in the documentation of information and the Himachal Pradesh maintenance and use of traditional knowledge. Kamdhenu Milk Cooperative, Assistance in the establishment of community seed banks Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and their maintenance. Pragati Self Reliant Cooperative, Organization of farmers’ field days and seed diversity Motiapathar, Lamgada Block, Uttra fairs. Khand Organization of farmers exchange visits. Nari Ekta Self Reliant Cooperative, Involvement in the formation of self-help groups (SHG) Jamradi, Bhasiachana Block, Uttra and training of SHG members in value added products. Khand Activities relating to food preservation, processing and Farmers’ Organizations marketing. Activities relating to awareness generation and community Indian Grameen Services, Madhya mobilization Pradesh Event organization such as local food festivals and Guar Gum Growers Association, promotion of sustainable practices. Rajasthan Generation of micro credit and community enterprise Beej Bachao Andolan, Uttarakhand promotion. Bhartiya Health, Horticulture, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Literacy, Environment Incorporation (BHALEI Society), Himachal Pradesh Indigenous People’s Group
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 11 Stakeholders Type of Involvement Richharia Campaign, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh North East Affected Area, Development Society (NEADS), Jorhat, Assam Ramdev Kisan Club, Jadau, Barmer, Rajasthan Karaundamuda village Vana Suraksha Samiti, Bhaiyathan, Sarguja, Chattisgarh Laxmi Dharohar Self Help Group, Golawand, Kondagaon, Chattisgarh Spandan Samaj Seva Samiti, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh Women’s Groups Mahila Chetna Manch, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Samridhi Mahila Development, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Nari Ekta Self Reliant Cooperative, Jamradi, Bhasiachana Block. Uttrakhand Youth Groups Youth for Sustainable Development (YSD), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Youth and Social Development, Madhya Pradesh Foundation for Development Integration (FDI), Guwahati, Assam
In addition to the above, at the community, level active collaboration will be built with local bodies such as Gram Sabhas, Panchayats, etc. Partners from the private sector will also be identified during the first year of project implementation on the basis of their capacity and interest to contribute to specific outputs.
Further details of roles and responsibilities of the project partners is provided in the Project Document, section 5 and its Annex G.
Beneficiaries
The Project will impact many different people and organizations, which will benefit from the outcome of the project and be involved in its implementation. Farmers, extension workers, local educational institutions, community-based organizations and indigenous peoples will benefit from representative partnerships built with local, regional and national researchers and other relevant organizations through the implementation of this project. Staff of local and national research and education institutes in India will benefit from receiving specific training on how to use diverse crop materials and local knowledge for sustainable agriculture, and how to apply econometric methods to investigate the public’s valuation of the use of crop genetic resources. This will in turn be used to partner with policy makers at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to develop policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with inclusion of indigenous crops and varieties and less dependence on external inputs. Special thrust on involving women researchers, managers, technicians and farm level workers and creating more training opportunities for them will help achieve gender balance and equity. Active GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 12 partnership with universities and technical institutes, extension workers and local development organizations will support farmers in their use of local crop diversity. Indigenous community groups will be active participants in the project to keep the focus on farmers’ interest. Private sector consumers and retailers will be active partners in the development of diversity rich practices, which will include activities and public awareness campaigns to change consumer preferences, norms and behaviours to support agricultural production systems that use local crop genetic diversity to reduce vulnerability to climate uncertainties in diverse agro-ecosystems.
B.2 Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the Project at the national and local levels, including consideration of gender dimensions, and how these will support the achievement of global environment benefits (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF):
The project poses few environmental or social risks. The biodiversity that will be promoted and mainstreamed is locally-adapted and should result in fewer external outputs, such as pesticides, and will be important in helping local communities to adapt their agricultural landscapes to climate change. Most of the marginal farmers use minimum fertilizers and pesticides and the project will also look for and actively promote minimal inputs as required by most traditional landraces. Possible environmental dangers of a project of this nature could arise largely as a result of the promotion of certain agricultural biodiversity through enhanced linking of farmers to markets in order to improve income. However, as this project only deals with cultivated agricultural biodiversity and not with any extraction from the wild, there is no undue pressure on the biodiversity resource leading to possible over-harvesting and depletion. However, the project focuses on markets and commercialization of a particular crop species, food or product, there may be a possibility of influencing the dynamics on farmers’ fields, possibly reducing the overall biodiversity maintained. However, the project clearly avoids any practices that result in any reduction of agricultural biodiversity on farm, there is little scope for this happening.
The proposed project will ensure environmental social safeguards1 are provided through the close connectivity between the areas of production and employment of sustainable use tools, possible certification schemes and compliance with general eco-trade principles that ensure sustainable harvesting and sustainable management and production. In addition, the proposed project will monitor the biodiversity existing on farmers’ fields and ensure that products for market are coming from farms were biodiversity is not being negatively affected.
By focusing on rural communities and smallholders as target beneficiaries, supporting sustainable production practices and linking farmers to markets, the project ensures the involvement of a high percentage of the marginalized population in all the selected sites that otherwise might not have access to subsistence income. Strong farmer alliances should guarantee a more equitable distribution of income from marketing. Strengthening their income base, as well as their empowerment and social capital and linking them to relevant agencies and initiatives, can be seen as a social safeguard in its own right.
The project will fully be in compliance with all applicable domestic and international law. For example there will be PICs signed with all the communities in which project interventions occur. The project strives to get ABS agreements in place resulting in fair and equitable access to benefits, clearly in line with Farmers’ Rights as per the agreement under the ITPGRFA.
There is slight risk that the project could have some disproportionate impact on marginalized and vulnerable groups and tribal communities. This will be avoided by building their capacity to manage their agricultural biodiversity and with ownership by assisting in registration of their varieties with the PVP-FA.
The project is designed and implemented in such a way that both women and men (a) are able to participate fully and equally; (b) receive comparable social and economic benefits; and (c) do not suffer disproportionate adverse effects during the development process.
1 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/Docs/PL.SD_.03.Policy_on_Environmental_and_Social_Safeguards.Update_09_1 2_2013.pdf (accessed on 26/02/2014) GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 13 The project clearly works with indigenous people (tribal people) at some sites and is fully cognizant and is fully consistent with their rights and responsibilities and interventions are only to assist in improving their livelihood assets. Further, the project clearly recognises the important role that rural women play in agricultural biodiversity management and sustainable use. As custodians they have a strong influence on the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. In line with this the project pays close attention to their important role, different needs and priorities. Efforts are embedded in the project to track and monitor this and to ensure that this critical role is not overlooked and to also ensure that mechanisms and incentives can be developed which provide rewards and benefits to women and thereby strengthen their role in conservation and safeguarding of agricultural biodiversity.
B.3. Explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design:
In situ maintenance of diversity is an effective and economic way of maintaining diversity. It allows evolution to continue thus ensuring maintenance of diversity and adaptability. This has clearly been demonstrated in the case of pearl millet and sorghum in W Africa. Ex situ conservation does not permit evolution and change can only be achieved through substantial investment in crop breeding programmes. Such investment includes not only the cost of the breeding programme but also the costs of variety testing, approval, registration and distribution programmes. In situ management with participatory farmer based improved represents a cost effective alternative involving public and private (farmer) partnerships.
Ex situ conservation is a relatively costly process involving substantial and continuing investment over long periods in such activites as regeneration. There is also continuing concern about the documented loss of genetic diversity in most gene banks due to the impracticality of maintaining populations of sufficient size over long periods. On-farm maintenance avoids these costs and allows ex situ activities (supported by complementary funding) to be used as back up - the most economically effective role for such approaches.
In view of the focus of the project on in situ on-farm conservation and its ability to bring together partners from public and private sectors as well as farming communities, is expected to be cost-effective in the first instance. Its close linkages with other relevant sectors such as the environment, climate change, agriculture, education and national economic development sectors are expected to bring their own different perspectives, experiences and skills to the Project and their collaboration will ensure that the agricultural biodiversity agenda is addressed in ways that reflect the experience, interests and concerns of the widest possible range of stakeholders.
As the Project envisages the involvement of Environmental Agencies, the Agriculture Research, Education, and Extension Agencies, various NGOs and IGOs, and different universities, it will maximize the technical cost effectiveness of its activities. The Project will create the opportunities for realistic appreciation of trade-offs between production and conservation and for the identification of opportunities for win-win solutions that improve livelihoods, secure the maintenance of agricultural biodiversity and enhance adaptability to climate change.
The emphasis placed on the development of farmer and community led activities is central to the Project. The use of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) approach and participatory methods and community based approaches will ensure that the outputs reflect the realities on the ground in rural areas and are not as a routine response to a need to national policies or possibly inappropriate options that come from ungrounded research and development actions. This approach will ensure that the agricultural biodiversity outputs are firmly grounded on and connected to the realities of rural production and the needs of the farmers and rural communities involved to improve their livelihoods (income, health, food security), along with their empowerment to manage these in the future. When something becomes sustainable through this means/way, it will automatically be more cost-effective than any attempt that only looks for the success of the Project. Not being overly altruistic and due to the emphasis placed explicitly on improving income of farmers and communities, the Project provides the necessary framework for ensuring that the different agricultural biodiversity conservation activities are secured through their beneficial effects for the communities who undertake them. This significantly enhances the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Through its involvement of local, regional and national NGOs, the Project provides an appropriate cost effective framework for linking formal and informal sectors. The different NGOs involved, working with IGOs, will support
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 14 farmers through strengthening local institutions and through their work to secure adequate market returns from the production of agricultural biodiversity rich products. They will also play an important wider role in ensuring that Project outputs become more widely known and recognized in India, both by the public and by those involved in developing and implementing policy. The participation of regional and national NGOs also helps in upscaling the project results.
The cost-effectiveness of the investment by the Project will be supported through the development of a set of proposed policies and regulations, which take account of the perspectives of the different stakeholders involved in execution. Since this project uses the multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-sectoral approach (3M approach) to resolve the issue and problems, the solutions developed are right away in agreement with the different actors so that it enhances cost-effectiveness significantly. Instead of a single sector approach in which e.g. the concerns of the agriculture sector or environmental sector are foremost, the Project execution framework ensures that policies and regulations that are identified can reflect the perspectives of different stakeholders from local groups to national ones and from different environmental, economic development and agricultural sectors. This is particularly important in enabling India to respond to the challenges of agricultural biodiversity conservation on-farm and of climate change.
C. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN:
The Project will follow UNEP standard monitoring, reporting and evaluation processes and procedures. Substantive and financial project reporting requirements are summarized in Appendix 8. Reporting requirements and templates are an integral part of the UNEP legal instrument to be signed by Bioversity and UNEP. A costed project M&E Plan is presented in Appendix 7 of the Project Document. Costs mentioned in this tool are fully integrated in the project budget, presented in the Project Document, Appendix 1.
There are three entities with roles to play in the M&E process: a. Bioversity International, as the Executing Agency, in close collaboration with the ICAR, will facilitate submission of bi-annual progress reports and quarterly financial reports from all partners, attendance in international steering committee meetings, site visits for review and backstopping and annual project evaluation by Bioversity International management. b. The Project Management Unit (PMU) based at Bioversity International’s Delhi Office, will prepare bi- annual and annual summary progress and quarterly financial reports and submit them to the Bioversity International in timely manner. It will coordinate activities and carry out regular visits to project sites to supervise and provide guidance in the implementation of project activities and attend meetings with stakeholders. c. The National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) will provide overall guidance for project implementation. It will receive and review progress and financial reports prepared by the PMU. It will provide policy guidance and advice in resolving conflicts and difficulties in project implementation develop linkages with other projects and governmental and inter-governmental bodies to ensure wider impact of the project.
The project M&E plan is consistent with GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policy. The Project Results Framework presented in Appendix 4 includes SMART indicators for each expected outcome as well as mid-term and end-of-project targets. These indicators along with the key deliverables and benchmarks included in Appendix 6 will be the main tools for assessing project implementation progress and whether project results are being achieved. The means of verification and the costs associated with obtaining the information to track the indicators are also summarized in Appendix 7. Other M&E related costs are also presented in the Costed M&E Plan and are fully integrated in the overall project budget.
The M&E plan will be reviewed and revised as necessary during the Project Inception Workshop to ensure that there is no ambiguity among the project stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis project monitoring and evaluation plan. Indicators and their means of verification will also be fine-tuned at the inception workshop, if required. Day-to-day project monitoring is the responsibility of the Project Management Unit with oversight and backstopping from Bioversity. Other project partners will have responsibilities to collect specific information to track the indicators. It is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to inform UNEP and Bioversity of any delays, deviations or difficulties GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 15 faced during implementation, so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely fashion. Bioversity International will also monitor progress and ensure that UNEP is advised of any delays and support the development of any corrective measures, if necessary.
The NPSC will receive periodic reports on progress and will make recommendations to UNEP concerning the need to revise any aspects of the Results Framework or the M&E plan. UNEP Task Manager will be responsible for Project oversight to ensure that the Project meets UNEP and GEF policies and procedures. The Task Manager will also review the quality of draft project outputs, provide feedback to the project partners, and establish peer review procedures to ensure excellence in quality of scientific and technical outputs and publications.
Project supervision will take an adaptive management approach. At project inception, the UNEP Task Manager, in collaboration with Bioversity International, will facilitate the development of a project supervision plan, which will be communicated to all project partners during and after the Inception Workshop. The emphasis of the UNEP Task Manager supervision will be on outcome monitoring, but without neglecting the financial management and implementation monitoring. Progress, vis-à-vis delivering the agreed global environmental benefits, will be assessed by the Project’s Steering Committee at agreed intervals. Project risks and assumptions will be regularly monitored by project partners, UNEP and Bioversity. Risk assessment and rating is an integral part of the Project Implementation Review (PIR) process2. The quality of project monitoring and evaluation will also be reviewed and rated as part of the PIR. Key financial parameters will be monitored quarterly to ensure cost-effective use of financial resources. Monitoring will also include periodic assessments of the project’s performance in relation to the environment and social safeguards put in place by GEF Implementing Agencies.
UNEP will be responsible for managing the mid-term review/evaluation and the terminal evaluation. The Project Coordinator and partners will participate actively in the process. The project will be reviewed or evaluated at mid-term. The purpose of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) or Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) is to provide an independent assessment of project performance at mid-term, to analyze whether the project is on track, what problems and challenges the project is encountering, and which corrective actions are required so that the project can achieve its intended outcomes by project completion in the most efficient and sustainable way. In addition, it will verify information gathered through the GEF tracking tools. 6.
The GEF tracking tools are attached as Appendix 14. These will be updated at mid-term and at the end of the project and will be made available to the GEF Secretariat along with the project PIR report. The mid-term review/evaluation and terminal evaluations will verify the information of the tracking tool.
The project Steering Committee will participate in the MTR or MTE and develop a management response to the evaluation recommendations along with an implementation plan. It is the responsibility of the UNEP Task Manager to monitor whether the agreed recommendations are being implemented. An MTR is managed by the UNEP Task Manager. An MTE is managed by the Evaluation Office (EO) of UNEP. The EO will determine whether an MTE is required or an MTR is sufficient.
An independent terminal evaluation (TE) will take place at the end of project implementation. The EO will be responsible for the TE and liaise with the UNEP Task Manager throughout the process. The TE will provide an independent assessment of project. The TE report will be sent to project stakeholders for comments. Formal comments on the report will be shared by the EO in an open and transparent manner. The project performance will be assessed against standard evaluation criteria using a six point rating scheme. The final determination of project ratings will be made by the EO when the report is finalised. The evaluation report will be publically disclosed and will be followed by a recommendation compliance process.
The direct costs of reviews and evaluations will be charged against the project evaluation budget. Performance (in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency), and determine the likelihood of impact and sustainability. It will have two primary purposes:
2 PIRs will be shared with GEF OFP India for review and comments prior submission to GEFSEC GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 16 to provide evidence of results to meet accountability requirements, and to promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing through results and lessons learned among UNEP and executing partners.
While a TE should review use of project funds against budget, it would be the role of a financial audit to assess probity (i.e. correctness, integrity etc.) of expenditure and transactions.
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF AGENCY (IES)
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S): (Please attach the Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this form. For SGP, use this OFP endorsement letter).
NAME POSITION MINISTRY DATE (mm/dd/yyyy) Mr. Hem Kumar PANDE Joint Secretary Ministry of Environment 09/04/2012 and Forests
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF policies and procedures and meets the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF criteria for CEO endorsement/approval of project.
Agency Date Project Coordinator, Signature (Month, Contact Telephone Email Address Agency Name day, year) Person Brennan December, Marieta +39 06570 [email protected] Vandyke, 18, 2015 Sakalian, 55969 Director, GEF UNEP Senior Coordination Programme Office, UNEP Management / Liaison Officer (CGIAR/FAO), Biodiversity
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 17 ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Project Objective By the end of the project At baseline, relevant Project has drafted At least two politically National Reports Farmers are To mainstream the adaptive gender- national public recommendations significant national and Action Plans willing and able conservation and use of sensitive management policies, strategies and for the revision of documents drawing and Strategies; to collaborate. agricultural biodiversity practices using crop instruments relevant national attention to the NBAP. for resilient agriculture diversity are validated demonstrate limited public policies, importance of and sustainable and mainstreamed in inclusion of the benefit strategies and conservation, use and production to improve relevant national public and value of crop instruments. access and benefit livelihoods and access policies and strategies diversity. sharing of crop diversity and benefit sharing. and other instruments are endorsed by the end (NBAP, NMSA, of the project. Agricultural Plans/Strategies) and widely promoted by agricultural support and research systems.
By the end of the project At baseline, Sustainable and An increase of 20% in Measurement at Local institutions the area under unsustainable adaptive practices varietal diversity across project sites of manned by sustainable practices and agricultural practices which include project sites as measured richness committed conserving crop using limited crop opportunities to by richness and (numbers) and personnel; diversity is increased. diversity are in place improve richness evenness. evenness in most farms in all of crop (species (distribution) of Policies are four agro-ecoregions, and varietal) varieties and appropriate with with certain varieties diversity are being landraces; minimal negative and landraces tested. incentives. threatened. Project reports and peer- reviewed publications.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 18 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Farmers (female and At baseline, capacity Institutional Fully functional Measurement at Support to male) and local of agricultural support capacity agricultural support each site of conservation and communities are systems and research strengthened and systems and research richness use at local level actively using crop programmes to increased resource programmes which are (numbers) and improves. diversity for improved promote crop diversity allocation to better gender sensitive and evenness adaptation and and community support research more responsive to (distribution) of livelihoods through biodiversity and programmes to farmer and local varieties/ enhanced support from management promote crop community needs to landraces; improved and inclusive approaches is limited. diversity and better deploy crop agricultural support community diversity and community Reports on systems and research biodiversity biodiversity improved gender programmes which are management is in management approaches sensitive more responsive to their progress. are in place across four practices that needs. agro-ecoregions. help maintain diversity on farms, surveys that throw light on increased income of farmers.
By the end of the Awareness of relevant Awareness raising At least one local Numbers of fully Local institutions project, farmers’ and actors and stakeholders initiatives of inclusive institution in functional local engage committed local communities, of the need to conserve relevant actors and each project site fully institutions with personnel; NGOs, local institutions, and use crop diversity stakeholders and operational and self- crop diversity outreach and research to improve livelihoods awareness raising sustaining for conservation and Policies are staff and senior officials and help manage campaigns to conducting awareness use in their appropriate with from relevant ministries recent changes in highlight the campaigns promoting agendas. minimal negative have increased climate is limited benefits of crop crop diversity and incentives; knowledge and including awareness of diversity and community biodiversity awareness relating to farmers’ rights and community management. Farmers are conservation and use of access and benefit biodiversity willing to share crop diversity for sharing (ABS) management in their varieties. climate change mechanisms across all progress at all
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 19 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification adaptation and access project sites. project sites. and benefit sharing mechanisms for improved livelihoods.
Inclusive non- At baseline, very Capacity NGOs, CBOs and Numbers of NGOs, CBOs and governmental agencies limited interaction development and extension service functioning government (NGOs) and between NGOs and partnership partnerships established relevant local agencies are community-based CBOs with research building involving in all project sites with institutions. willing to organizations (CBOs) and extension agencies NGOs, CBOs and capacity and resources collaborate and work in close across project sites, government to better deploy and participate; partnership with with majority of CBOs extension staff in mobilize crop diversity government research and NGOs having progress at all for improved adaptation Farmers and extension agencies limited understanding project sites. and livelihoods using willingness for that operate in or near of the potential of crop community biodiversity knowledge the sites and include use diversity to improve management. enhancement; of crop diversity for adaptation and livelihoods and climate livelihoods. Local institutions change adaptation in willing to share their approaches and facilities. strategies.
New crop diversity rich At baseline, most Market chain At least one crop Measurements of Staff and traders products available in marketed agricultural analysis has diversity-rich product income and other are able to support local and national products are based on identified potential providing increased benefits from proposed markets; a limited diversity of crop diversity rich benefits to local crop diversity activities. crops, landraces and products from each farmers, especially rich products varieties with no project site; female farmers, and from diverse mechanisms in place to communities at least 15 crops and adequately reward project sites; varieties; farmers for conserving and using greater crop Availability of diversity; products in regional and
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 20 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification national markets;
Publicity and media documentation.
National agricultural At baseline, no A user-friendly A model user friendly Web-based Relevant biodiversity information national agricultural national national agricultural information information system Including biodiversity agricultural biodiversity information system; provided by all information on climate information system is biodiversity system that allows stakeholders. smart collections of available to cater for information system knowledge access to Database, user varieties and landraces the needs of all is under design and various stakeholders and manual, news accessible to users. stakeholders in order information an easy monitoring of items and web to enhance the gathering in the status of crop announcement; conservation, use and progress. diversity is widely benefit sharing of crop accessible and being Surveys of access diversity. utilized by relevant and use. actors and stakeholders
Component 1. Adaptive management of crop diversity for resilient agriculture and improved livelihoods Outcome Strengthened seed Although informal At least 3 local At least 5 local seed Documented and Farmers are Farmers (at least 25.000) systems in terms of local seed networks seed networks networks linked to 10-12 operational seed willing and able across four agro- numbers and types of exist, these function linked to 5-6 community seed banks networks; to collaborate; ecoregions covering exchanges of relevant poorly and rarely community seed to improve farmers 120,000 ha in India crop diversity within and ensure that crop banks to improve access to crop diversity Progress and Farmers have land maintain and use an between project sites diversity available farmers access to in the 4 agro-ecoregions survey reports of and time to test increased availability to and other areas; across all project sites crop diversity in to traditional and other number of crops new varieties; diversity of 14 crops is sufficient to meet the 4 agro- varieties of 14 target and varieties on Communities at which enhances Areas adapting crop challenges posed by ecoregions to crops; farm; project sites have adaptation, resilience biodiversity practices climate uncertainty or traditional and Measurement at appropriate and improves income identified as sustainable potential market other varieties of Improved local seed each site of institutional generation opportunities. and resilient; opportunities. 14 target crops; systems in all the project sites that provide farmer richness framework to Income levels of farmers At least 10% desired seed of quality (numbers) and support project GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 21 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification (female and male) in increase in number and quantity for 14 crops evenness activities; project sites based on of varieties used by across 4 agro-ecoregions (distribution) of increased returns, at least 20% of varieties/ Suitable crop reduced input costs or households across At least 10% more crop landraces; diversity exists; improved efficiencies in 10 project sites; diversity in all project production. sites made available as Records of CSBs, Resource New markets measured by richness CBRs and constraints do not identified for and evenness; diversity fairs; limit adoption of targeted crop some practices. diversity. 25,000 farmers (female Distribution and male) across four records of agro-ecoregions use an government and increased number of non-government varieties of 14 targeted agencies; crops; Guidelines and Farms in about 120,000 reports on ha are sown with diverse improved varieties of 14 targeted management crops; practices that help maintain At least 10% of farmers diversity on farm; in project sites show a 10 to 15% increase in Data on provision income derived from of relevant targeted crop diversity. provisioning, supporting and regulating ecosystems services;
Data on farmer incomes and contribution of target crops; GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 22 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Reports on market surveys;
NGOs/CBOs reports.
Output 1.1 Data, disaggregated by No systematic Baseline situational Databases developed Cop diversity Collaboration of Extent and distribution gender, on socio- information on extent analysis of extent and operational catalogues; farmers and local of genetic diversity of 14 economic-cultural and and distribution of and distribution of including existing communities to crops in 4 agro- environmental factors genetic diversity or crop diversity on pattern of crop diversity Databases; share information; ecoregions determined, influencing the choice documentation of farm in 4 agro- and associated GIS Maps, together with and distribution of crops factors influencing ecoregions traditional knowledge on Farmers and climate change documentation of factors and cultivars including farmer decisions on completed. use, and accessible and communities sign models and that shape farmer associated traditional diversity maintenance managed by local and agree FPIC. predictive maps; decisions on diversity knowledge documented across the project sites. institutions in all project maintenance, including in all project sites by sites; Portals and challenges presented by year 5. websites; climate change. Crop-diversity rich practices that provide benefits to farmers Project reports; (market or non-market) and help to maintain Publication of diversity on farm (GPD- GPDs; good practice for Other diversity maintenance) publications. identified and documented.
Output 1.2 Farmer needs No information Diversity needs Most promising Catalogues and Right choice of New and traditional crop documented by gender available on farmer identified for at diversity of all 14 target databases of new varieties as genetic diversity and most promising needs or adaptive crop least 14 project crop cultivars identified and traditional climate is meeting farmers’ needs diversity identified for diversity of target sites for all target for all project sites and varieties; variable; all project sites; crops needed for GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 23 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification and able to enhance Seed production and climate change crops; catalogued; Progress reports; Favorable policy ecosystem function, availability adequate for conditions; environment to resilience and adaptation all project sites. Seed multiplication Seed needed for planting Seed link genebanks to to climate change Seed of traditional and plots established. demonstration/ multiplication farmers/ identified and made new varieties experimental plots of and production community seed available. insufficient for on farm target crops produced records. banks. experimentation. on-farm and linked to CSBs.
Output 1.3 New adapted crop No such adapted crop At least one At least one PPB/PVS Reports on Favorable Farmer identification, diversity tested and diversity identified and PPB/PVS programme per crop adaptive diversity changes in improvement and use of introduced by farming limited PVS/PPB programme per (14) in each agro- testing; researchers’ adaptive crop diversity communities, using programmes exist in crop (14) in two ecoregion; attitudes and through field participatory the country, especially agro-ecoregions; Training modules farmers to work experimental networks. approaches, identified across the project sites. At least two new crop on PVS/PPB; together. across all project sites. At least two new varieties (14 crops) crop varieties (14 adapted to climate Reports of PVS crops) adapted to change and being used and PPB climate change and in at least 14 project programmes. being used in at sites; least 6 project sites. Farmer experimental network established across all project sites and farmers trained in PVS and/or PPB to become citizen scientist.
Output 1.4 Numbers and/or Concept of community Community Appropriate crop Community FPIC agreements Improved farmers' distribution of new and biodiversity biodiversity diversity made available biodiversity developed and access to genetic traditional crop varieties management registers to all participating registers; signed by materials in all project have improved as approaches (including established in at farmers, female and communities and sites through measured by richness CBR, CSB and least 10 project male, as per their needs Survey data; relevant partners; establishment of and evenness data in diversity fairs) to sites; in all project sites; Brochures on GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 24 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification community biodiversity each project site; enhancing on farm Crop diversity fairs Community biodiversity crop diversity Traditional registers (CBRs), crop diversity is organized in at registers established in fairs and varieties located community seed banks Community biodiversity relatively new and not least 10 project all project sites; awareness and where (CSBs), and diversity management approaches fully operating; sites; material; necessary made fairs. (CBR, CSB, diversity Crop diversity fairs available from fairs) established to Local seed production Community seed organized annually in all Reports of local appropriate strengthen local seed and exchange systems banks established project sites; seed networks sources. systems and exchange are weak. in at least 10 and seed flow networks. project sites; Community seed banks maps; linked to local Local seed Panchayats/ CBOs Agricultural production and established in all project extension exchange networks sites; brochures and developed in at package and least 10 project Local seed production pamphlets; sites including and exchange networks relevant seed strengthened and Reports by production training established in all project Community seed workshops. sites, including relevant banks on their seed production training operations, workshops. including seed production and management and seed distribution records;
Training manuals and database.
Output 1.5 Production and non- Limited description A potential set of Production and non- Project reports; Practical Production and non- market benefits from and quantification of production and market benefits at 12 difficulties are market sustainable use of crop production and non- non-market project sites arising from National overcome to benefits/incentives from diversity well defined market benefits/ benefits as well as sustainable use of crop Agricultural measure, capture management and and potential benefits incentives from potential incentive diversity quantified; Biodiversity and enhance the described at all project sustainable mechanisms for Strategy and production and GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 25 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification sustainable use of crop sites. management and use their capture and Documentation of NBAP; non-market genetic diversity of 14 of crop diversity at enhancement nutritional value benefits/ crops in four agro- local and national identified at all (including knowledge on Pamphlets and incentives arising ecoregions by farming level. project sites; food culture and recipes) brochures; from the communities identified developed for all crops maintenance of and relevant intervention Documentation of across all project sites; Database of crop diversity. strategies for capturing nutritional value custodian and enhancing such (including Custodian farmers and farmers; benefits developed. knowledge on food their networks identified culture and recipes) and recognized at all Local, regional developed for all project sites; and national crops across at 10 reports on project sites; Farming models recognition given promoting crop diversity to custodian Farming models and responsible farmers; promoting crop agriculture for diversity and sustainability of the Strategy responsible ecosystem are document that agriculture for demonstrated in all mentions the role sustainability of the project sites of custodian ecosystem are farmers. demonstrated at 10 Mechanisms to support sites. capture and enhancement of production and non- market benefits identified, designed and tested.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 26 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Output 1.6 At least 10 high value Formal marketing Market chain Market chains explored Project and Continued access Local, regional and products, including opportunities for house analysis for all 14 for all 14 crops across market surveys to markets for national markets those with high hold/; crops carried out in four agro-ecoregions; reports; products; identified and market nutritional value, 4 agro-ecoregions; chains developed for 14 identified from crops to provide improved use of crop Community level At least one value added List of potential No regulatory improved benefits to diversity by year 5. products are limited Potential value- product identified for at products barriers in place; farmers and and even these do not added products least 10 crops for sale in identified; communities in all specifically recognize from at least 6 local, regional or project sites for crop diversity value of target crops for sale national markets; sustainably produced products or their in local, regional or Potential for agricultural biodiversity ecosystem national markets. Small scale enterprises Reports on marketing new products. sustainability involving farmers, with market chains in products exists properties. a focus on women, and all the four agro- and sustain private agencies ecoregions and interest of private established in at least 10 marketing plans partners. sites. for all 14 crops;
Trade and market statistics, sales reports;
Marketing and promotional campaigns.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 27 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Component 2. Strategies and policies for sustainable conservation and use of crop diversity including access and benefit sharing OUTCOME National Biodiversity National Biodiversity Review of National Updated and revised National Policy level Mechanisms for Action Plan (NBAP) and Action Plan (NBAP) Biodiversity Action National Biodiversity consultations; recognition and improved coordination Farmer’s Rights and Farmer’s Rights Plan (NBAP) and Recommendations made support for crop and implementation to legislation clearly legislation does not Farmers’ Rights to NBA and PPV&FRA National diversity to promote better reflects the need for fully recognize the legislation in for making appropriate workshops remain very mainstreaming of increased use of crop potential of crop collaboration with revisions in the National reports; important at conservation, use and diversity to enhance diversity in income PPV&FRA in Biodiversity Action Plan national level; Project reports; sharing of crop diversity ecosystem services and generation and in progress at the (NBAP) clearly developed and supported benefits and livelihoods providing ecosystem national level and articulates the benefits Government is Draft strategies by relevant policy and incomes of farmers. benefits. linked to project and need for increased committed to and documents; instruments, regulations, finds in pilot sites. use of crop diversity to mainstreaming strategies and plans enhance ecosystem agricultural Policy including access and services and benefits and biodiversity. consultations. benefit sharing. livelihoods and incomes of farmers with a focus on women.
Output 2.1 Institutional No such mechanisms Institutional Institutional Minutes of Inter- and Intra- National and regional mechanisms, that are or platforms are mechanisms, that mechanisms, that are platform sectorial policy platforms, gender inclusive, for currently in place are gender gender inclusive, for meetings collaboration and including involvement linking different sectors inclusive, for linking different sectors willingness to of ministries, local and actors are identified linking different and actors in 4 regions Progress reports collaborate communities, farmers, and implemented sectors and actors are established and Collaborative indigenous organizations nationally and in 4 agro- are identified and identified Support from agreements private sector, to ecoregions national platform is relevant promote leadership and established and Ministries mainstreaming of implemented agricultural biodiversity conservation and use including ABS established and implemented
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 28 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Output 2.2 Policy guidelines and No such guidelines Existing policies Policy recommendations Policy review Policy Analyses of public recommendations that exist or are currently and regulations and and guidelines on issues reports recommendations policies, relevant provide incentives to limited. There are their impact on the like Farmers’ Rights, will be accepted, instruments and conserve, use and share national guidelines or conservation and ABS, treaty Draft Policy ratified and regulations undertaken benefits of crop diversity mechanisms that use of crop implementation, Guideline and implemented and gaps identified and are developed and under promote conservation diversity analyzed proactive conservation Recommen- incentives for improved consideration by of crop diversity and of agricultural dations Policy guidance sustainable use and year five sharing of genetic Challenges and biodiversity on farm will be followed Government conservation of resources by farmers opportunities for etc., reviewed and and acted upon Reports agricultural biodiversity and communities, but improving the revised policy under National including provisions and they are under policy environment consideration by year 5 Government legislative bodies opportunities for different Ministries determined and gazetted reports willing to receive improved access and and not well policy information and benefit sharing coordinated; no policy recommendations Revised policy advice to support recommended guidelines that and guidelines enhance the use of drafted documents a favorable policy crop diversity for framework Policy briefs climate change government published and adaptation and house approach disseminated hold food and nutrition security
Output 2.3 Access and benefit There is currently Advocacy At least 10 signed ABS Workshop Political will Model agreements that sharing agreements that limited implementation workshops are agreements are in place reports; exists; regulate access and incorporate Free, Prior of the core principles carried out in all across project sites that benefit sharing with Informed Consent and of ABS and project sites to put in place mechanisms Advocacy and Political farmers communities mutually agreed terms consequently little raise awareness for farmers, especially awareness leadership; and which recognize the developed and recognition of the among local women, to benefit from materials; Appropriate core principles of Access implemented with at benefits from institutions, conserving, sharing and Signed ABS enabling policy. and Benefit Sharing least 10 signed conservation and use communities, using crop diversity; agreements; (ABS) established. agreements with farmer of crop diversity including communities across the (among farmers in indigenous groups, At least 100 ‘unique project sites. project sites); and farmers of farmers’ varieties’ Database of rights and benefits identified for registration ‘unique farmers’
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 29 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification ‘Unique farmer With the exception of on crop diversity with PPV&FRA with at varieties’; varieties’ are registered rice very few unique they conserve and least 35 ‘unique farmers with Protection of Plant farmers’ varieties manage varieties’ fully registered PPV& FRA Varieties and Farmers’ registered with with PPV&FRA with Authority records Rights Authority PPV&FRA At least 50 ‘unique benefits flowing to and lists. (PPV&FRA) and farmers varieties’ farmers. benefits are flowing to are identified from communities in project across all project sites. sites for registration with PPV&FRA.
Output 2.4 A national and 4 No specific strategy National strategy One national and four Stakeholder Inter- and Intra- National and regional regional inclusive that supports and action plan for regional strategies and consultation sectorial strategies and plans on strategies and action integrated, sustainable integrated action plans for workshop reports; collaboration; integrated sustainable plans for integrated and resilient sustainable integrated sustainable agricultural sustainable agriculture agriculture using local agriculture using agriculture using crop Draft strategy Support from improvement, use and using crop diversity crop genetic diversity crop diversity diversity developed, documents; relevant benefit sharing of developed and developed. drafted and under approved and under Ministries and Proceedings of agricultural biodiversity implemented by the end consideration; implementation. other actors. conferences to developed and supported of the project. facilitate policy by implementation Draft regional maker awareness programmes of work. strategies and plans based on project of draft findings prepared. strategies;
Programme of work for strategy implementation documents.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 30 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification Component 3. Improved agricultural support systems, institutional frameworks and partnerships that support crop diversity on farm OUTCOME National, regional and Limited agricultural Major elements for Strategy guidelines for Research and Research Improved Agricultural local level agricultural support systems, strategy guidelines improved national, extension agency leadership is Support Systems support systems, institutional for improved regional and local plans and supportive of (Research, Outreach and institutional frameworks frameworks and national, regional agricultural support guidelines; change; Extension), Institutional and partnerships, that partnerships to ensure and local systems and institutional Frameworks and are gender sensitive, improved crop agricultural support frameworks, that are Guidelines for Political will Partnerships at national, improve crop diversity diversity conservation, systems and gender sensitive, to improved R&D support; regional and local levels conservation and use. use for adaptability, institutional support the Strategies; Inter-sectoral to ensure improved resilience and farmer frameworks, that mainstreaming of crop Guidelines for collaboration; agricultural biodiversity livelihoods in marginal are gender diversity for improved specific crop conservation, areas. sensitive, to conservation, diversity Gender adaptability, resilience support the adaptability, resilience promotion; inclusiveness is and farmer livelihoods. mainstreaming of and farmer livelihoods crop diversity are are developed and supported. identified and implemented Drafted policy policies relevant to recommendations the maintenance Drafts of appropriate and use of crop policy recommendations diversity reviewed. targeting incentives and disincentives are available.
Output 3.1 Increased number of Awareness of the Strategy developed One national and eight Awareness Public awareness farmers, extension importance of crop for awareness regional level awareness campaign information workers and policy diversity in raising campaigns raising campaigns material; reaches One national and eight makers with enhanced agricultural covering all project targeting 22 project sites appropriate regional level capacity awareness of the role of development in sites; on value of crop Websites and stakeholders; building training crop diversity for general and rural diversity and blog highlighting workshops on the value sustainable agriculture development in Awareness importance of its project outputs, Most effective of agricultural production and particular is limited campaigns for maintenance and use good practices and culturally biodiversity; its environment protection. and rarely figures in different completed; and success appropriate maintenance and use for relevant documents, stakeholders stories; communication resilient agriculture strategies, plans and organized and GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 31 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification organised for different policy briefings other implemented in at Awareness among National and tools are utilized; stakeholder groups than crop improvement least 12 project national and regional regional including government sites. level policy makers on Agricultural ministries and agencies, on-farm conservation Biodiversity policy makers, non- and benefits it provides Strategies; governmental is enhanced and is a organizations, farmers, recognized component Policy Briefs. extension workers, of national and regional teachers, researchers and policy implementation. consumers . Farmers collaborate and share;
Policy makers are active and receptive;
Supportive and positive institutional and political climate continues.
Output 3.2: At least 1000 Few researchers and Needs assessment Researchers and Farmers Training/ Collaboration researchers, extension extension and outreach completed and in 22 project sites Workshop between and outreach staff from staff with training in training trained in participatory reports; and researchers and Enhanced capacities of government and non- participatory research programmes approaches and training manuals; farmers mediated government ministries government methods or community designed and Community Biodiversity by NGOs and and agencies, policy organizations and biodiversity delivered in 12 Management and able to Number of CBOs; makers, non- farmers in 22 project management working project sites support local farming trained staff and governmental sites trained in with farmers directly; communities and farmers, Trainees apply organizations, farmers, participatory approaches institutions to select and disaggregated by new skills and extension workers, and community deploy adapted crop knowledge in the teachers, researchers and GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 32 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification consumers in selecting biodiversity Farmers' contribution diversity; gender; workplace; and deploying adapted management (CBM) to to research is limited crop diversity through better deploy crop to hosting of on-farm Farmer biodiversity Trained officers participatory approaches diversity; testing plots or federation/ associations are retained in the demonstration plots set up in 4 regions; Farmer regions; At least 50% of those with no decision Federations/ trained by the project making roles. Organization of training Womens Self- Cooperation is apply new skills ; programmes in all 22 Help Groups; forthcoming from project sites. regional and Number of female National roster of national media researchers, extension experts; and PA outlets and outreach staff (TV, radio, press). trained. Surveys of workplace performance;
Project progress reports;
Models and institutions of CBM approach in place in project sites.
Output 3.3 Innovative, gender Relevant research Improved use of At least 4 new Project Reports; Relevant national Improved national sensitive, programmes and crop diversity to Innovative, gender research bodies programmes which interdisciplinary and proposals that facilitate support ecosystem sensitive, Research are supportive and support mainstreaming participatory research improved use of crop function, resilience interdisciplinary and Proposals; make sufficient of agricultural programmes and diversity including and adaptation is participatory research resources Reports on on- biodiversity and its proposals that facilitate selection from farmer promoted to be proposals are identified available; farm testing; improved use to support improved use of crop fields and linking recognized as a key and submitted for ecosystem function, diversity to support farmers to national research area by implementation in the 4 Collaboration Peer reviewed resilience and ecosystem function, genebank are few or relevant national target ecosystems between resilience and non-existent and research supporting addressing the needs of researchers and GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 33 Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Indicators Baseline Mid-term target Target Sources of Assumptions verification adaptability activities are adaptation. seldom bodies. the 22 project sites. publications. farmers mediated in place. interdisciplinary. by NGOs and CBOs.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 34 ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).
Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval. (FSP) Response
Is there a clear description of: a) the socio-economic Additional information on local benefits and gender disaggregated benefits is provided benefits, including gender dimensions, to be delivered by in the project document as follows: the project, and b) how will the delivery of such benefits support the achievement of incremental/ additional The main beneficiaries and implementers of the project activities will be farmers and benefits? user groups, particularly targeting women and the poor. As highlighted in the project Risk Analysis and Risk Management Strategy (Section 3.5) special emphasis will be Some information has been provided. It is expected that detail placed on recruitment involving both men and women from the participating information on the local benefits as well as gender disaggregated benefits are clarified at the time of CEO communities and all team members will be trained in participatory data gathering, endorsement. participatory research approach and in gender sensitivity. This will ensure that the needs of women can be clearly defined and interventions effectively implemented to meet these and guarantee that real benefits accrue to all beneficiaries including women. Further, as highlighted in the Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis (Section 2.5) a number of NGOs with expertise on gender issues will be involved in project activities. The project will lay special emphasis on capacity building and empowerment of women farmers in project sites to strengthen organizational and leadership skills. The project will further provide benefits in opportunities for women to organize Self-Help Groups, small scale enterprises and entrepreneurial skills and capacity as well as improved linking of women to markets. It is envisaged that this strategy will contribute numerous benefits including new products and income for women, decreasing the cost of production and drudgery to women by improving the processing technology and identifying suitable partnerships and market links. The project also has a thrust on strengthening the involvement of women researchers, managers, technicians and farm level workers and creating more training opportunities for them will help contribute to improved gender balance and equity. Overall, the project will ensure that woman’s knowledge, understanding and awareness on a range of issues around agrobiodiversity conservation and use is strengthened by the end of the project. It was highlighted during the PPG baseline phase that access to information and knowledge is still poorer in the
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 35 case of women farmers across the project sites.
With respect to local benefits a key strategy of the project is to deploy the adaptive diversity which will ensure the resilience and sustainability of the farming system thereby improving their access to subsistence income. In addition the biodiversity that will be promoted and mainstreamed is locally adapted to marginal conditions that need few external inputs such as water, fertilizers and pesticides. These actions will provide direct benefits at local level.
The project also aims to work with indigenous peoples (tribal people) in many sites and is fully cognizant and consistent with their rights and responsibilities. The project intervention is only to assist in improving their livelihood assets and the planned interventions will provide direct local benefits in e.g. diverse adapted materials and capacity development.
Traditional knowledge regarding use of crop diversity for value-added products and climate change adaptation will be incorporated in the project activities through stakeholder participation. This identified diversity will be maintained on farm through value added products and targeted markets by small and marginal farmers and its sustainability will be ensure through improved local seed systems.
Policy recommendations and guidelines and capacity building of stakeholders will lead to more support from national and state government for conservation and use of crop diversity at the national and state level.
Does the project take into account potential major risks, Please refer to Sections 3.5 and 3.11 of the Project Document. The project document including the consequences of climate change and provides describes a set of Policy, Institutional, Capacity Building and Pilot Actions to address sufficient risk mitigation measures? (i.e., climate resilience) climate change which will be mainly addressed through project Component 1. Climate change adaptation will be addressed using enhance crop diversity for resilient Key risks are identified as well as the mitigation actions. It is expected that further details would be provided by the time of agriculture and improved income generation opportunities. The project will mainstream CEO endorsement. diversity of 14 crops through participatory methods using “Citizen Science” approach and the establishment of “Farmers’ Experimental Networks” using crowdsourcing. Output 1.1 of the project will assess the extent and distribution of genetic diversity of target crops and will document the factors that shape farmers decision on diversity maintenance including challenges presented by climate change; Output 1.2 will identify new and traditional crop diversity that will meet farmers needs and enhance ecosystem functions resilience and adaptation to climate change; and Output 1.4 will GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 36 improve farmers’ access to genetic material through the establishment of CRBs, CSB and diversity fairs.
The GEFSEC expects that UNEP ensures larger co-finance at The co-financing secured is $ 10, 294,750which is higher than the amount indicated at the time of CEO endorsement. PIF stage $8,604,750.
RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW
Guidance from STAP Response
STAP Advisory Response: The STAP review was taken fully into consideration during project preparation.
Based on this PIF screening, STAP’s advisory response to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agency(ies): Consent
STAP acknowledges that on scientific or technical grounds the concept has merit. However, STAP may state its views on the concept emphasizing any issues where the project could be improved. 1. STAP welcomes this important project on the in-situ The added value of this project is provided through: conservation of crop genetic resources. It is not clear, however, 1. The conservation of unique diversity of global importance present in the areas identified for project activities; how this project will add value to the existing wide diversity of 2. The integrated approach which directly addresses benefits for the communities projects on this topic, listed in section B6 of this PIF. within a framework that takes account of the need to address policy dimensions in This aspect might be more fully elaborated in the project practical ways and for reorientation of the agricultural research and advisory perspectives in India; document. 3. The ways in which a broad spectrum of stakeholders is being mobilized to optimize the direct benefits to local communities of rural and indigenous peoples with specific concern with benefits to women and the very poor; 4. The ways in which both civil society and government are committed to ensuring sustainability of project outcomes and their further up-scaling and out-scaling. 2. The project appears to assume that the conservation of the This has been well described in the full project document (Section 3.) and all three
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 37 genetic diversity in the selected 14 crop species will in Components of the project will address several market and non-market incentives to farmers and communities. Suitable incentives include access to new markets and the itself be sufficient incentive for farmers to participate. STAP provision of skills and capacity to exploit these, as well as resources and equipment to recommends that the nature and implementation of improve processing where relevant. Through the project farmers will have improved incentives to participant farmers be more fully described in the access to genetic resources, information and knowledge which will give them a project document. comparative advantage to other farmers not participating. Access to such resources in a context of changing climate will be a considerable incentive. Farmers will also have opportunities to form groups and associations which will give them collective power in marketing and other arenas. In addition to this a strong partnership has been established with the protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) of India, which is the main government agency to take care of farmers’ rights benefits through Access and Benefit Share mechanisms. In the proposal it has been very well described that Farmers’ varieties will be identified across all project sites and will be registered with PPV&FRA and that appropriate benefits will accrue to farmers. Further, proposed policy recommendations will also better recognize and reward Custodian Farmers in the future.
3. The conservation of genetic diversity in high value crop This has been addressed in the full project document. As mentioned above a strong link plants has obvious commercial potential. Much of this has been established with PPV&FRA and all farmers’ varieties identified across project sites will be registered with PPV&FRA for ABS (Section 3.3, Component 2). The potential might take many years to realise. It is therefore communities maintaining high crop diversity will also be identified across project sites appropriate that the project gives special emphasis to ABS and will be recommended for Gene Savior Award by PPV&FRA. The project will arrangements for each participating farmer community. It is not establish community genebanks across all project sites where farmers will have easy clear how the project will link future values of specific access to local adaptive crop diversity for climate change adaptation. There is also a strong component of capacity building of farmers and extension workers, including traits in the selected crop varieties to immediate needs of capacity building of seed production of landraces and neglected crops that will participating farmers. The commercial opportunities and strengthen local seed system. The project Output 1.5 will explore the production and non-market benefits by reducing production cost that will be attained through the financial viability benefits to participating farmers could be reduced application of pesticides and fertilizers and low use of water; as well as the more explicitly stated. availability of low cost quality seeds through the establishment of community seed banks (Section 3.3, Component 1). Market benefits will be achieved through proposed Output 1.6 (Section 3.3) through building Farmers’-Public-Private Partnerships.
4. By looking for potential ways to generate new business in the Yes the project address both these issues equally and the methodology has been supply chain, and new demand, the project will be described in more detail in the full project document (Activities 1.6.1, 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 of Output 1.6, Component 1 under Section 3.3).
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 38 better placed to identify potential financial sustainability mechanisms. Also, for many members of the general public,
understanding of financial benefits is far more likely to secure buy-in than being assured of resilience benefits that
might result from longer term breeding programmes.
5. The incorporation of "track and trace" to allow one to show We fully agree with this suggestion. The project sites has been carefully identified and provenance of a crop variety (where it originated, when are located in remote areas where farmers are still depend on subsistence agriculture production and the project suggested approach of mainstreaming crop diversity is based harvested from what field and conditions at each stage to on low input cultivation. Therefore, the value-added products will be close to organic market) might be explored, as this can also add value to a farming. Since most of the target crops are minor crops, innovative methods to market future high-value agricultural product. Given the rise of wheat, their value-added products will be explored during the project cycle and can include the soy and other allergies in the West in particular, many suggested “track and trace” methods.
of the crop varieties mentioned in this PIF could be of great commercial value. Traceability of food further adds to the
product value. Whilst many of the commercial elements mentioned will not likely be fully recognized with the limited
funding, there could be some foundation laid towards such, giving potential for follow-on project work and could be
explored during PPG.
RESPONSE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS Japan comments Response Following the GEF project will be implemented in the same The comments from the government of Japan are noted and relevant links with JICA countries and scopes of activities of JICA (Japan International will be established to avoid duplication Cooperation Agency). In order to avoid duplication of assistance then create synergy between projects, close coordination with JICA is highly recommended. We will provide the detail of each JICAs Project shortly.
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 39 JICAs Projects;
West Bengal Forest and Biodiversity Conservation Project
Rajasthan Forestry and Biodiversity Project (Phase 2)
Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening ProjecSikkim Biodiversity Conservation and Forest Project
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 40 ANNEX C: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS
A. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES FINANCING STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:
PPG Grant Approved at PIF: $150,000 Project Preparation Activities Implemented GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Amount ($) Budgeted Amount Spent Amount Amount Todate Committed 1. Baseline data collection 74,600 62,996 11,604
2. Stakeholder consultation, institutional 30,400 15,134 15,266 assessment and implementation arrangements 3. Feasibility analysis and budget 28,300 13,637 14,663
4. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms 16,700 8,600 8,100 defined to measure performance and impact Total 150,000 100,367 49,633
ANNEX D: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS (if non-grant instrument is used)
Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)
NA
GEF5 CEO Endorsement Template-February 2013.doc 41