Office Memorandum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE WORLD BANK/IFC/M.I.G.A. OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2001 TO: Mr. Ken King, Assistant CEO, GEF Secretariat Att: GEF PROGRAM COORDINATION FROM: Lars Vidaeus, GEF Executive Coordinator EXTENSION: 3-4188 SUBJECT: Regional: Integrated Silvo-Pastoral Ecosystem Management Submission for Work Program Inclusion Please find enclosed the electronic attachment of the above mentioned project brief for work program inclusion. We would appreciate receiving any comments by March 15, 2001. This innovative project seeks to address multiple global environmental issues through an integrated approach to land management in 3 countries. The proposal is consistent with the Criteria for Review of GEF Projects as presented in the following sections of the project brief: · Country Drivenness: Each of the participating countries (Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua) have ratified the CDB and have identified conservation and sustainable natural resource management as a priority. In addition, the national guidelines and policies of each country have emphasized a need for an integrated ecosystem management approach for sustainable development. This has also been reflected within each country’s respective CASs. Please see section B1a-b. (Sector-Related Country Strategy & National Environmental Strategies Supported by the Project) on page 2, for further discussion of country drivenness and D4 on page 20 (Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership) for a discussion of focal point involvement in project’s endorsement. · Endorsement: the national GEF focal point has provided an endorsement letter on: 1. Colombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, MMA: November 22, 2000 2. Costa Rica, FUNDECOOPERACION: January 26, 2001 3. Nicaragua, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, MARENA: October 27, 2000 · Program Designation & Conformity: This project applies the Integrated Ecosystems Approach to redress land degradation caused by open rangeland for livestock production in three representative regions within each of the countries. It supports complex land management systems that increase biodiversity habitats (including soil biodiversity), increase carbon sequestration, reduce soil erosion, and enhances water management, while improving socio-economic conditions in rural Mr. Ken King -2- April 9, 2001 areas. As such, with its emphasis on the integrated ecosystem management aiming to improve both land, water and bio-diversity of degraded pastures, the project fully supports the requirements of OP #12. Please see Section B1(c) page 3 (GEF operational strategy/program objective addressed by the Project). · Project Design: : The project design has been formulated to combat forest loss and land degradation by addressing underlying causes and issues surrounding sustainable natural resource management through incorporation of land-management techniques that generate multiple social and environmental benefits. Specific project components include: (i) ecosystem enhancement and capacity building, (ii) monitoring and evaluation of ecological services, (iii) establishment of an Ecoservice Fund, (iv) supporting and influencing policy formulation, outreach and sound project management. Please see section C on page 10 (Project Description Summary), Annex 1 (Project Design Summary), and Annex 2 (Detailed Project Description). · Sustainability: Past experience has indicated that once silvopastoral systems are established, they remain viable for least 20 years while continuing to provide local and global environmental impacts and benefits. In addition, the integration of local participation, training and capacity building into the project design promote the use of improved agricultural techniques and an increased sense of stewardship. See Section F1, (Sustainability) on page 29. · Replicability: Replicability is a key project component. Project activities include various means of information dissemination: through establishment of demonstration sites, seminars, workshops, regional consultations and publications. These activities will allow for wide dissemination to promote improved silvopastoral techniques by improving extension services and fostering farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing. Much of the information generated from project activities will be housed in LEAD’s Virtual Research and Development Centre and would be available for replication in other regions. See Section E7 (Participatory Approaches) on page 27. · Stakeholder Involvement: Throughout project preparation and implementation, stakeholder involvement plays a key role. For identification of project stakeholders, please see Section C3, page 11 (Benefits and target population); for a summary discussion of the involvement of stakeholders in preparation and implementation, please see Sections E5, page 23 (Social) and E7, page 26 (Participatory Approaches); for a detailed discussion of the issues, please see Annex 8 (Social Assessment Summary). · Monitoring & Evaluation: Given the pilot nature of this project, the M&E component is of fundamental importance. As discussed in detail in Annex 7, monitoring of biological and socio economic trends would be assured by monitoring programs in the baseline and as well as methods that will be established under the proposed project. The set of indicators on the environmental and economic impacts of project outputs and activities have been developed and are presented in Annex 1 (Project Design Summary) and Annex 2 (Detailed Project Description), respectively. Mr. Ken King -3- April 9, 2001 With regard to M&E of project administration, CATIE will act as the central executing agency and will be directly responsible for managing activities in Costa Rica while subcontracting NITLIPAN and CIPAV for overseeing project sites in Nicaragua and Colombia respectively. In each country the local project coordinator and financial project manager would be responsible for constant monitoring and evaluation to determine the success of project administration. For more details please see Section C4, page 12 (Institutional and Implementation Arrangements) and page 15 (Project Monitoring and Evaluation). · Financing Plan: A summary of the project cost table is presented in Section C1 page 10. A summarized financial analysis can be found in section E1 (a) on page 21. Additional information can be found in Annex 3 (Estimated Project Costs) and Annex 4 (b) (Financial Summary). The breakdown between baseline funding and incremental costs and the rationale for GEF support may be found in Annex 4(a) (Incremental Costs and Global Benefits). · Cost-effectiveness: Given the methodological difficulties in quantifying and valuing environmental services generated by the proposed project, a financial and economic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. In this analysis, the discounted costs of the program are compared with the costs of alternative investments. Information on cost effectiveness of the project can be found in Section E1(b) on page 21 and in Annex 4 (c). · Core Commitments and Linkages: As stated above, the project is consistent with WB Country Assistance Strategies in each country. The project complements on- going WB operations focussed on addressing poverty alleviation, natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. Please see the discussion of the project’s linkage to the WB Country Assistance Strategy in Section B1 on page 2, and how the project complements other on-going Bank projects in Section D2, page 16. · Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between IAs: Upstream consultations have ensured that there is complementarity UNDP activities (please refer to comments provided from UNDP on Dec 20, 2000). It should be noted that the Colombian component of the WB regional project focuses on the re-conversion of extensively degraded livestock systems into silvo-pastoral systems, whilst the UNDP Massif project centers on strengthening the protection of highly valued montane forest and paramo vegetation. We will continue the interaction with UNDP to ensure that demonstration site selection is done in coordination, and to ensure that there is no geographical overlap. For more details please see Section D2 on page 16-18 (Major related Projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies) for a discussion of the other programs with links to the proposed project. For coordination with other GEF-supported initiatives in Colombia Andes, see Annex 10 (Complementarities among GEF projects in the Colombia Andes). Mr. Ken King -4- April 9, 2001 · Response to STAP Expert Comments: An expert from the STAP Roster (Dr. Pedro Sanchez- Director, ICRAF) reviewed the project in January 2001 and found that the project was “highly innovative and worthy of funding….” Please see and Annex 9 (Comments of the STAP Review) to review outstanding issues and corresponding responses and comments by the preparation team. · Response to GEFSEC Review at the time of initial Pipeline Entry (October 2000): in their comments of October 2000 the Secretariat team recommended that the preparation team look at a number of concerns and issues. These have been carefully addressed in the preparation of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). GEFSEC comments (in italics) have been addressed as follows: (a) LEAD is not eligible as a proponent of a GEF project; it has to be a developing country institution; CIPAV, CATIE and NITLAPAN are now presented as project proposers. CATIE will be the executing agency . ABC and LEAD are now presented as international project partners and cofinanciers