Integrated Landscape Management to Reduce, Reverse and Avoid Further

Integrated landscape management to reduce, reverse and avoid further degradation and support the sustainable use of natural resources in the Mopane-Miombo belt of Northern Namibia

COVER PAGE: FAO-GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT

Project Title: Integrated landscape management to reduce, reverse and avoid further degradation and support the sustainable use of natural resources in the Mopane- Miombo belt of Northern Namibia

GEF ID: 10251 FAO Entity Number: 692102 FAO Project Symbol: GCP/NAM/021/GFF Country(ies): Namibia EOD (Implementation start): 1 May 2021 NTE (Implementation end): 30 April 2026 Environmental and low risk moderate risk high risk  Social Risk Classification: Gender Marker: G0  G1  G2a [X] G2b  Contribution to FAO’s FAO Strategic Objective/Organizational Outcome: Strategic Framework: Objective #2: Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable. Outcome 2.1: Countries adopted practices to increase productivity sustainably while addressing (Indicate as climate change and environmental degradation in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. appropriate) Country Outcome(s) UNDAF: Namibia’s UNDAF (2019-2023) . . Country Outcome Indicator: Achieve inclusive, sustainable and equitable economic growth (NDP5 goal 1); Promote good governance through effective institutions (NDP5 goal 4) Related UNDAF Outcomes: By 2023, Institutions implement policies for inclusive development and poverty reduction for vulnerable groups By 2023, vulnerable populations in disaster-prone areas and biodiversity sensitive areas are resilient to shocks and climate changes effects and benefit from natural resources management Regional Priority (Regional Initiative 2): Sustainable production intensification and value chain development in Africa/Building resilience in Africa’s drylands Outcome 3.1: Inclusive Growth, Economic Diversification, Production and Job Creation Outcome 3.2: Environmental Sustainability, Climatic Change and reduction of Risks Disasters.

Project Budget (GEF Trust Fund): US $ 6,130,275 Co-financing: US $ 172,300,000 Total Project Budget: US $ 178,430,275

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Namibia’s unique Miombo-Mopane Woodland Ecoregion in the Okavango and Kunene basins is of capital importance for the country’s development, especially in the regions of Kavango East and Omusati where these dry forests prevail. At least 600,000 people live in the rural parts of Kavango East, Omusati and Oshikoto provinces that are dominated by Baikiaea, Miombo and Mopane forest. Rural communities rely on naturally resilient ecosystems for food, nutrition, shelter, medicine, fiber and the availability of water – highly valued and vital ecosystem services. These woodlands are threatened throughout their entire distribution, within a sub-region of Southern Africa that includes Namibia. Deforestation, uncontrolled wildfires and unsustainable use of natural resources are increasingly fragmenting and destroying Miombo-Mopane woodlands across the Kunene-Cuvelai and Okavango river basins, all of which originate in Angola, are internationally shared and sustain populations on both sides of the Angola-Namibia border. In northern Namibia, resettlement programs contributed to population movements, increasing pressures on natural resources. Such pressures, coupled with poverty, unsustainable land use and production practices, and exacerbated by climate change impacts have resulted in extensive land degradation. This has been observed in areas around Etosha National Park (Oshikoto), Ruacana Village in Omusati and close to the Namibia-Angola border in Kavango East: all selected as project sites and thoroughly studied during the project’s preparatory phase to confirm current patterns of land use and status of land degradation. Subsistence farming systems and unsustainable range management are observed to be the main culprits of land degradation in northern Namibia, while mining activity and tourism are likely to accelerate land-use changes in future years unless land use can be adequately planned, sustainably managed and regulations enforced. 2

The project seeks to transform the management of production systems within Namibia’s Miombo-Mopane Woodlands using an ‘integrated landscape approach’ (i.e. multi-sector and, in the interests of ecosystem integrity, large-scale) that is focused on avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation in alignment with Namibia’s commitment to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) by 2030-2040. This GEF-7 funded project will demonstrate how LDN can be achieved through the adoption of sustainable, integrated management of multi- use Miombo-Mopane dryland landscapes in parts of the Kunene-Cuvelai, Etosha and Okavango river basins and, additionally, applying a transboundary focus whenever relevant. Fundamental to the success of the landscape approach is the opportunity to engage with stakeholders across all sectors and levels of governance having vested interests in the target landscapes. Thus, the project’s objective to sustainably manage these multi-use dryland landscapes will be achieved by addressing land-use management challenges at different scales through a collaborative, gender-sensitive and multi- sectoral approach, which by default is integrated. Importantly, achievement of LDN will also deliver huge national and global benefits in reduced carbon emissions and increased carbon storage (1,301,476 tonnes of CO2e over 20-year period), thereby also contributing to the delivery of Namibia’s commitments to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The project design comprises three components: The first addresses the enabling environment in terms of policy, regulatory, planning and participatory frameworks, including the preparation of Integrated Land-Use Plans (ILUPs) for each of the target landscapes. The second focuses on the practical application of such frameworks, notably implementing the ILUPs in their respective landscapes, using sustainable land and forest management practices to ‘avoid, reduce and reverse’ land degradation across a mosaic of land-use systems. Uptake of sustainable practices will be supported by significant investments in training, capacity development and rural extension services, heralded by the introduction of Farmer Field Schools and Agro-Pastoral Field Schools networked across landscapes; as well as in Forest-Farm Facilities, such as Community Seed Banks, and support to Forest Farm Producer Organizations. Sustainable land and forest practices will also be incentivized through the strengthening or creation of green value chains, with improved markets and access to them as appropriate. Component 3 strengthens knowledge, learning and collaboration on LDN-related matters, as well as monitoring and reporting. Mainstreaming knowledge gained, best practices and lessons learned will be supported within and between landscapes as well as nationally, including technical expertise in monitoring and reporting on LDN, and both regionally and globally through provision of a Regional Exchange Mechanism that feeds into the Impact Program’s Global Exchange Mechanism. Gender equity, innovation and partnerships will be fostered across the suite of interventions introduced by the project; and well-designed and facilitated engagement processes will generate consensus and ownership among stakeholders. Combined, the three components will demonstrate how a paradigm shift towards LDN can be achieved by integrating the management of production systems at landscapes scales, while prioritizing the conservation of Miombo-Mopane woodlands alongside the sustainable improvement of local livelihoods. By targeting Miombo-Mopane landscapes, the project will directly contribute to Namibia’s efforts to achieve its LDN targets, as well as other correlated targets at national level that are currently embedded in thematic and sectoral policies of the National Development Plan (NPD5 2011/18-2021/22), including climate change, resilience, agricultural production, forest management and rural value chain development at decentralized levels.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE ______1

COVER PAGE: FAO-GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT ______2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ______4

TABLES, FIGURES & BOXES ______6

ACRONYMS ______8

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION ______10 A. Focal/Non-Focal Area Elements ...... 10 B. Project description summary ...... 11 C. Confirmed sources of Co-financing for the project by name and by type ...... 13 D. Trust Fund Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Country(ies), Focal Area and Programming of Funds .... 14 E. Does the project include a “non-grant” instrument? ...... 14 F. Project’s Target Contributions to GEF 7 Core Indicators ...... 14

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ______15 1.a Project Description ...... 15 (1) Global environmental problems, root causes and barriers to address ...... 15 (2) Remaining barriers to address ...... 35 (3) Proposed GEF alternative scenario and theory of change ...... 42 (4) Project strategy ...... 49 (5) Expected Results ...... 50 (6) Alignment with GEF focal area and/or Impact Program strategies...... 79 (7) Incremental cost reasoning, expected contributions from baseline, GEFTF, co-financing ...... 80 (8) Global environmental benefits (GEFTF) and/or adaptation benefits (LDCF) ...... 81 (9) Innovativeness, sustainability, potential for scaling up and system-wide capacity development ...... 82 (10) Summary of changes in alignment with the project design with the original PIF ...... 84 1.b Project Map and Geo-Coordinates ...... 87 2.Stakeholders...... 87 3.Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment ...... 89 Gender equality ...... 89 3b. Gender Action Plan ...... 91 4. Private Sector Engagement ...... 94 4

5. Risks ...... 96 Section A: Risks to the project...... 96 Section B: Environmental and Social risks from the project – ESM Plan ...... 100 6. Institutional Arrangements and Coordination ...... 102 6a Institutional arrangements for project implementation ...... 102 6b. Coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects and other initiatives ...... 105 7. Consistency with National Priorities ...... 108 8. Knowledge Management ...... 113 9. Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 115 10. Benefits ...... 117

PART III: ANNEXES ______119 Annex A1: Project Results Framework ...... 119 Annex A2: Project Budget ...... 125 Annex B: Response to Project Reviews ...... 126 1) Comments at IP Approval Stage ...... 126 2) Comments at PRODOC for CEO Endorsement Stage ...... 126 Annex C: Status of Utilization of Project Preparation Grant (PPG) ...... 127 Annex D: Calendar of Expected Reflows (if non-grant instrument is used) ...... 127 Annex E: Project Map(s) and Coordinates ...... 128 Details of Project Intervention Areas ...... 129 Maps for Intervention Areas in Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai) ...... 137 Annex F: GEF TF / LDCF/ SCCF Core Indicator Worksheet ...... 144 Annex G: GEF Project Taxonomy Worksheet ...... 149 Annex H: Work Plan (indicative) ...... 154 Annex I1: Environmental and Social Risk Certification ...... 159 Annex I2: Stakeholder Engagement Matrix and Grievance Redress Mechanism ...... 164 Stakeholder Engagement Matrices ...... 164 Grievance Redress Mechanism ...... 174 Annex J: Indigenous Peoples ...... 177 Annex K: FAO’S Roles in Internal Organization ...... 178 Annex L: FAO and Government Obligations...... 183 END OF MANDATORY ANNEXES [A to L]...... 184

PART IV: DLS GCP-SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL ANNEXES (X-1 TO X-10) ______185 Additional Annexes – List and Links ...... 185 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1a: Co-financing Letters ...... 186 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1b: Co-Financing Partners and Calculus of Their Contributions ...... 187 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1c: Regional Exchange Mechanism ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-2: Value Chains Assessment at Landscape Scale ...... 193 5

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-3: Policy, institutional and Capacity Needs Assessment for LDN ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-4: Indigenous Peoples - Free, Prior and Informed Consent Assessment ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-5: Stakeholder Capacity Needs Assessment ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-6: Collect Earth Remote Sensing Assessment ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-7: Participatory Land Degradation Assessment ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-8: Household and Climate Resilience Assessment (sharp+) ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-9: LDN Methodology (ILAM) ...... 193 ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-10: International Experts - Terms of Reference ...... 193

TABLES, FIGURES & BOXES Table 1. Conservancies and protected areas overlapping project landscapes ...... 25 Table 2. Direct causes of land degradation that apply to Namibia (FAO LADA methodology) ...... 28 Table 3. Co-financing Summary – baselines and co-finance by project component ...... 33 Table 4. Extent of land-use systems targeted for avoidance, reduction and reversal of land degradation ...... 62 Table 5. Overview of SLM and SFM measures proposed for target landscape land-use systems* ...... 64 Table 6. Consolidated stakeholder recommendations on Green Value Chains (Source: Additional Annex X-2) ...... 69 Table 7. Alignment with IP objectives ...... 79 Table 8 Project alignment with GEF-7 LD and CC Focal Areas Objectives ...... 80 Table 9. Incremental cost reasoning ...... 80 Table 10. Household decision-making behaviour, by gender of respondent (N=316) ...... 89 Table 11. Gender entry points for monitoring during project implementation...... 90 Table 12. Coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects ...... 105 Table 13. Coordination and proposed collaboration with other relevant initiatives ...... 106 Table 14. Alignment of project’s enabling environment activities with LDN enabling criteria* ...... 113 Table 15 Fodder Production – Rapid appraisal results ...... 202

Figure 1. (a) Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion (b) River basins in project zone ...... 16 Figure 2. Broad land-use categories applied at national level (2002) ...... 19 Figure 3. Current mining cadastre for northern Namibia with project target landscapes overlaid ...... 20 Figure 4. National LDN status map for Namibia using 2018 data, with project landscape locations ...... 22 Figure 5. Map of areas under special management arrangement and Communal Conservancies defined ...... 25 Figure 6. Main income sources, by region (N=316) ...... 30 Figure 7. Human and cattle population density in Namibia...... 31 Figure 8. Project Landscape Locations ...... 34 Figure 9. Graphic explanation of FAO’s approach to mapping stakeholders using four categories ...... 87

Figure 10. Private sector stakeholder engagement framework ...... 95 Figure 11 Summary strategy for engaging private sector players in agro/forest VCs ...... 95 Figure 12. Project organization structure ...... 103

Box 1. Project’s alignment with Namibia’s LDN and related targets ...... 18 Box 2. Project’s target landscapes and changes in land cover (1995-2018)6F ...... 23 Box 3. Project landscape summary profiles ...... 34 Box 4. Access to land and livelihoods in target landscapes, based on PPG SHARP survey results...... 40 Box 5. How the Project can support resolution of land tenure issues under the Landscape Approach ...... 98

ACRONYMS AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFR100 African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (to restore 100 M ha) ANR Assisted Natural Regeneration APFS(s) Agro-Pastoral Field School(s) BaU Business as Usual BH Budget Holder CA Conservation Agriculture CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CNA Community Needs Assessment CSA Climate Smart Agriculture CSB Community seed banks CTA Chief Technical Advisor DLDD Desertification Land Degradation and Drought DRIP Dryland Restoration Initiative Platform DSL Dryland Sustainable Landscapes DSL IP Impact Program on Dryland Sustainable Landscapes DSS Decision Support System FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFF(s) Forest-Farm Facilit(y/ies) FFPO(s) Forest Farm Producer Organization(s) FFS(s) Farmer Field School(s) GCP Global Child Project GDP Gross Domestic Product/Good Distribution Practice GEB(s) Global Environmental Benefit(s) G/REM Global/Regional Exchange Mechanism GGWI-S Great Green Wall Initiative for Southern Africa GHG(s) Greenhouse Gas(es) GIS Geographic Information System HDI Human Development Index IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILAM Integrated Landscape Assessment Methodology ILM Integrated Landscape Management ILUP(s) Integrated Land-Use Plan(s) INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution ( to UNFCCC) IP Impact Program IRLUP Integrated Regional Land-Use Plan ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KMCS Knowledge Management and Communication Strategy LD Land Degradation LDN Land Degradation Neutrality LDN-TSP Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Program LMC Landscape Management Committee LMUs Land Management Units LPD Land Productivity Dynamics LULUCF Land Use, Land-use change and Forestry LUS Land-Use System M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAWLR Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform MEFT Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (previously MET pre-2020)

MFA Multi-Focal Area MRU Monitoring and Reporting Unit (LDN), University of Namibia MT Metric tons NACSO Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations NAP3 Third National Action Program (NAP3) for Namibia to Implement the UNCCD NAP(s) National Action Program(s) NBRI National Botanical Research Institute NILALEG Namibia Integrated Landscape Approach for Enhancing Livelihoods and Environmental Governance to Eradicate Poverty NPC National Planning Commission of Namibia NRM Natural Resource Management NTFP Non-timber Forest Products NUS Neglected Underutilized Seeds OBSC Okavango Basin Steering Committee OKACOM Okavango River Basin Water Commission OPIM Operational Partner Implementation Modality PJTC Joint Permanent Technical Commission PMC Project Management Costs PPG Project Preparation Grant PSC Project Steering Committee REM Regional Exchange Mechanism RS Remote Sensing SADC Southern African Development Community SAP Strategic Action Program SDG Sustainable Development Goals SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SEPP(-LP) Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan (for Landscape Planning) SFM Sustainable Forest Management SHARP Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists1 SLM(-SC) Sustainable Land Management(-Steering Committee) SO Strategic Objective SRAP Sub-Regional Action Program on Drought and Desertification SREP Smallholder Resilience Enhancement Project TF Task Force TPP Transformative Projects and Programs TWG Technical Working Group UNAM University of Namibia UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VC Value Chain VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

1 SHARP+ refers to the revised SHARP application released for laptops and tablets in late 2018. Source: http://www.fao.org/3/CA0927EN/ca0927en.pdf 9

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Integrated landscape management to reduce, reverse and avoid further degradation and support the sustainable use of natural resources in the Mopane-Miombo belt of Northern Namibia Country(ies): Namibia GEF Project ID: 10251 GEF Agency(ies): FAO GEF Agency Project ID 692102 Project Executing Entity(s): Ministry of Environment, Submission Date [FAO to enter date] Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) Expected Implementation 1 May 2021 Ministry of Agriculture, Water Start and Land Reform (MAWLR) GEF Focal Area (s): Multi-focal Areas Expected Completion Date 30 April 2026 Name of Parent Program IP SFM Drylands Parent Program ID: 10206

A. FOCAL/NON-FOCAL AREA ELEMENTS (US $) GEF7 Programming Trust GEF7 Focal Area Outcomes GEF Project Directions Fund Co-financing Financing LD Objective 1 Enhance Implementation of collaborative approaches to GEFTF 2,430,275 71,561,837 on-the-ground productive and conservation land uses that will provide implementation of SLM for livelihoods while preserving the ecological integrity using the LDN tool and global environmental value of ecosystems. LD-1-1: Maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services to sustain food production and livelihoods through Sustainable Land Management (SLM) LD Objective 2 Creating LD-2-2: Maintain or improve flow of ecosystem services, GEFTF 900,000 29,823,483 an enabling environment including sustaining livelihoods of forest-dependent to support voluntary LDN people through Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) target implementation CC Mitigation Land-based and value chain GHG mitigation GEFTF 500,000 14,253,000 Programmatic Approach (sequestration and [emission] avoidance): Mitigate the release of - climate smart agriculture GHG emissions through - GHG emissions reductions from food systems and avoided deforestation supply chains and by enhancing carbon - innovations and in soil quality improvement techniques stocks above and below that increase carbon storage in farmlands ground CCM-2-7: Demonstrate mitigation options with systemic impacts for the Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program DSL IP SFM Objective / Degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land GEFTF 2,300,000 56,861,680 Programmatic Approach and ecosystems in drylands avoided, reduced and further Multi-focal area reversed through an integrated and sustainable contribution to Dryland management of production landscapes Sustainable Landscapes IP SFM Drylands [GEF-7 Impact Program: Sustainable Impact Program Forest Management, Dryland Sustainable Landscapes (DSL)] Total project costs 6,130,275 172,500,000

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Project Objective: To initiate a transformational shift towards sustainable, integrated management of multi-use dryland landscapes in northern Namibia, building on Land Degradation Neutrality principles Project Components Type Project Project Outputs Trust (US $) /Programs Outcomes Fund GEF Project Co-financing Financing COMPONENT 1 TA Outcome 1.1 LDN 1.1.1 LDN stakeholder participatory GEF TF 470,833 28,823,491 Developing enabling policy, regulatory structures and processes strengthened/ frameworks for and participatory established at national level, with vertical applying LDN at planning integration to multi-sectoral Landscape national and frameworks Management Committees in the sub- landscape levels developed or basins. strengthened and 1.1.2 National and landscape level policy, harmonized. regulatory and participatory planning frameworks for effectively upscaling SLM/SFM interventions reviewed and revised. Outcome 1.2 1.2.1 Project sites and interventions Integrated land- confirmed, based on expanded and use planning for deepened landscape assessments using LDN applied to ILAM. landscapes. 1.2.2 Capacity and partnerships in integrated land-use planning improved at national and landscape levels, through training on ILAM/ILUP and collaborative agreements with partners. 1.2.3 Integrated Land-Use Plans developed for target landscapes in northern Namibia, using participatory consultation processes to apply LDN response hierarchy. COMPONENT 2 Inv Outcome 2.1 2.1.1 Gender sensitive SLM/SFM practices GEF TF 4,534,308 113,722,517 Strengthening SLM/SFM appropriate for target areas implementation and practices aligned identified/developed enabling scaling out with ILUP 2.1.2 Organizational structures and of SLM/SFM priorities and knowledge among land and resource demonstrated in users/managers improved to enhance target landscapes SLM/SFM practices Outcome 2.2 2.2.1 Community-based initiatives and SLM/SFM Forest and Farm Producer Organizations improved with supported through tools, facilities and support from other resources to adopt and promote green enterprises improved SLM/SFM practices and value chains 2.2.2 Green Value Chains strengthened or in target developed landscapes COMPONENT 3 TA Outcome 3.1 3.1.1 National and sub-national LDN GEF TF 669,117 21,350,000 Strengthening National land assessment, monitoring and reporting knowledge, learning information systems and tools, including LDN and collaboration to framework knowledge, developed and operational, support progress strengthened to with relevant reporting to global level. towards achieving inform LDN- 3.1.2 Capacity development program national LDN targets related policy, designed and delivered to support planning and national LDN reporting by improving 11

management at assessment, monitoring and analysis landscape, among key stakeholders at national and national and sub-national levels. global levels. Outcome 3.2 3.2.1 Project knowledge management, GEF TF Knowledge and communication and dissemination awareness framework and strategy developed and enhanced to implemented. support progress 3.2.2 Project M&E framework, supporting towards lesson learning and guiding adaptive achieving management, developed and operational national LDN from national through to community targets. levels. Outcome 3.3 3.3.1 Actions and investments identified GEF TF Collaboration and to address transboundary land and exchange at environmental degradation priorities in regional and Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion and bi-/multi- global levels lateral initiatives strengthened/ enhanced to established to progress towards LDN. support national 3.3.2 Collaborative actions undertaken to and sub-national support business and market efforts to deliver development for SLM/SFM products LDN. across Miombo-Mopane region. 3.3.3 Opportunities for national and landscape-level stakeholders to exchange knowledge, experiences and lessons learnt at regional and global levels identified, developed and supported. M&E NA NA NA GEF TF 164,100 Subtotal GEF TF 5,838,358 163,885,008 Project Management Cost (PMC) GEF TF 291,917 8,603,992 Total project costs 6,130,275 172,500,000

C. CONFIRMED SOURCES OF CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY NAME AND BY TYPE Sources of Name of Co-financier Type of Investment Amount Co-financing Co-financing Mobilized (US $) Recipient Government Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Public Investment Investment mobilized 9,700,000 Tourism (MEFT) Recipient Government Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Public Investment Investment mobilized 103,400,000 Reform (MAWLR) Recipient Government Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) Public Investment Investment mobilized 8,200,000 Recipient Government Environment Investment Fund (EIF) Public Investment Investment mobilized 16,000,000 Donor Agency KfW – KASA regional project Grant Investment mobilized 35,100,000 Implementing Agency FAO Namibia Country Office Grant Investment mobilized 100,000 Total Co-financing 172,500,000

Describe how any “Investment Mobilized” was identified.

The selection of programs, projects and initiatives that comprise the financial baseline and co-financing for the project are based on geographic and/or thematic relevance), duration and opportunity, according to GEF guidance. Four of them constitute public investment funds of the Government of Namibia based on the State’s Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF 2019/20 - 2021/22)2 under the National Development Program, and two relate to donor agency grants.

Funding from the above Government programs by default excludes recurrent expenditure – meaning that 100% of the baseline and co-financing amounts from Government correspond to investments, as currently prioritized in the MEFT and State budget for 2019. The following method was used to calculate the public investments shown in the table above:

• Government programs were selected on the basis of their thematic and geographical relevance vis-à-vis the subject matter of the project. • The baseline calculus for each individual program was initially based on budgetary figures in Namibian dollars (NAD) for the relevant programs as published in the MTEF 2019/20 - 2021/22. Amounts in NAD were converted to USD and, where relevant, extrapolated for the duration of the project, using conservative coefficients for discounting future uncertainties. Such uncertainties include: possible currency devaluations, non-realization of investments, and COVID-19 pandemic impacts. • By discounting the future in the baseline calculus, it is grounded in potential risks being realized. On a more optimistic note, there is also the possibility of mobilizing additional investments. • For baseline amounts, more flexibility on the exact amounts considered was applied (e.g. FY2019/2020 was included as a valid baseline, but not always as co-financing, because the investment would be made when the project starts). For co-financing amounts, the validity of public investment was stricter and considered only what is currently planned for FY2020/2021 onwards, plus some extrapolation for the period that will follow, after which the current MTEF will be superseded by a new one. Thus, co-financing amounts tend to be lower than the baseline.

FAO is providing $100,000 as co-financing from funds leveraged from its own resources in order to underpin project management activities with secure essential operational expenses. These funds are classified as investment mobilized. FAO’s allocation of these funds would not have been made, was it not for the project.

While the above assumptions and the calculus remain generally solid, they were based on official figures available in late-2019/early- 2020 and pre-dates the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential impact of the pandemic on public investment in Namibia was not taken into consideration. FAO and the GoN will monitor the situation, as it develops. Public investment may need to be recalibrated.

Besides public investment from three ministries (MAWLR, MEFT and MTI), other baseline and co-financing sources include: NAMSIP (funded by AfDB and GoN), two GCF projects managed by the Environment Investment Fund (EIF) and the KASA regional project funded by KfW.

2 Source: https://www.bon.com.na/CMSTemplates/Bon/Files/bon.com.na/9d/9d98205f-0a79-4a2a-b1f0-ebaab1f54560.pdf

D. TRUST FUND RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY(IES), COUNTRY(IES), FOCAL AREA AND PROGRAMMING OF FUNDS (US $) GEF Trust Country Programming of Focal Area Agency Fund Name/Global Funds GEF Project Agency Fee Total Financing (a) (b) (c)=a+b FAO GEFTF Namibia Land Degradation IP SFM Drylands 3,642,627 327,837 3,970,464 FAO GEFTF Namibia Climate Change IP SFM Drylands 444,223 39,980 484,203 FAO GEFTF Namibia Multifocal Area IP SFM Drylands 2,043,425 183,908 2,227,333 Total GEF Resources 6,130,275 551,725 6,682,000

E. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? No - // Not applicable //-

F. PROJECT’S TARGET CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEF 7 CORE INDICATORS Project Core Indicators Expected at CEO Endorsement 1 Terrestrial protected areas created or under improved management for NA conservation and sustainable use (Hectares) 2 Marine protected areas created or under improved management for conservation NA and sustainable use (Hectares) 3 Area of land restored (Hectares) 200 4 Area of landscapes under improved practices (excluding protected areas) 360,000 (Hectares) 5 Area of marine habitat under improved practices (excluding protected areas) NA (Hectares) Total area under improved management (Hectares) 360,200 ha 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigated (metric tons of CO2e) 1,301,476 7 Number of shared water ecosystems (fresh or marine) under new or improved NA cooperative management 8 Globally over-exploited marine fisheries moved to more sustainable levels NA (metric tons) 9 Reduction, disposal/destruction, phase out, elimination and avoidance of NA chemicals of global concern and their waste in the environment and in processes, materials and products (metric tons of toxic chemicals reduced) 10 Reduction, avoidance of emissions of POPs to air from point and non-point sources NA (grams of toxic equivalent gTEQ) 11 Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF 10,000 (40% women) investment

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

1.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(1) Global environmental problems, root causes and barriers to address

National Context 1. Namibia is located in the south-western part of Africa and has an area of 824,292 km². The country is vast and sparsely populated, bordering Angola in the north (1376 km), Zambia in the north-east (233 km), Botswana in the east (1360 km), South Africa in the south-east and south (855 km) and the Atlantic Coast in the west (1,572 km). There are five main geographical areas, each with distinct biotic and abiotic characteristics: Kalahari Desert, Namib Desert along the coast, Central Plateau, Great Escarpment and the Bushveld/Caprivi. 2. Namibia is considered as the driest country in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a mean annual rainfall of 270 mm. Large landscapes, sparsely populated due to harsh geoclimatic conditions, are wedged between the Namib and Kalahari deserts. From the coast to the interior the prevailing climate is Warm Desert (BWh), 3 Cold Desert along the southern coast (BWk) and Semi-Desert (BSh)1in the central plateauF . More importantly, Namibia’s climate is variable and unpredictable presenting serious challenges in terms of desertification, land degradation and drought. Rainfall in particular is highly variable, both temporally and spatially, which affects the viability of maintaining vegetation cover to protect the soil and the viability of rainfed food production in respective critical areas. 3. Project Zone. The northern part of Namibia is the focus of this project and it includes parts of all of the above-mentioned broad geographical areas of Namibia, except for the Kalahari and Namib deserts. Within northern Namibia the project zone is more specifically defined by the presence of Miombo-Mopane woodlands and grasslands, which comprise part of Southern Africa’s ‘Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion’4 (Figure 1a). Northern Namibia also harbours important, internationally shared river basins, notably the Okavango, Cuvelai and Kunene river basins (Figure 1b). Within Namibia, the continuing flow of these international rivers5 are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and local livelihoods, as well as for the agricultural sector as a whole, industry and public water supplies. 4. Miombo-Mopane woodlands, including Baikiaea woodlands, are classified as drylands, reflecting low rainfall patterns across the Afrotropical realm, although in the Namibian context the north has more rainfall than elsewhere in the country. Miombo-Mopane woodlands are rich in natural resources that are chiefly support rural livelihoods, yielding a diversity of non-timber products such as fruits, honey, fodder for livestock and fuelwood. Although rural communities in the ‘Miombo-Mopane Belt’ of northern Namibia depend on such ecosystem services provided by woodlands, grasslands and rivers for their livelihoods, these dryland landscapes are under high pressure from both present and past land and resource use. If unaddressed, such continuing pressures will result in the ubiquitous loss of topsoil and vegetative cover, disturbances to the water cycle, decreased land productivity and net loss of biomass and associated carbon. The latter is often a consequence of uncontrolled fires and it is reflected through reduced measures of organic carbon above and below ground. Together, these processes characterize land degradation and can be mutually reinforcing through negative feedback mechanisms. The project focuses on this problem of land degradation, as described in the next section.

3 Refer to Köppen Classification: showing the interior northern part of Namibia with a warm semi-arid climate (BSh) - see map online. 4 The term ‘Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion’ is used to group Mopane tree-dominated vegetation with the otherwise Miombo woodlands. It is based on the classification developed by Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D.;,Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’amico, J.A., Itoua, I.;,Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C. et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 2001, 51, 933–938. Miombo woodland is quite widespread in Southern Africa, while Mopane woodland tends to occur in hotter and drier climates in the sub-region. The ecoregion is also referred to as ‘Mopane-Miombo Woodlands and Grasslands’ because both vegetation types abound within it; so do shrubs, which are generally considered less productive from a land-use perspective. 5 All three river basins have their source and most of the near source runoff within Angolan territory. 15

Figure 1. (a) Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion (b) River basins in project zone

Note: Namibia’s Miombo-Mopane, see: (1) Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands Note: Map adapted from: Atlas of Namibia Project (2002), https://www.worldwildlife.org/eco regions/at0726; (2) Southern Africa: Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment Angola and Namibia https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0702. and Tourism (http://209.88.21.36/Atlas/Atlas_web.htm).

System Description and Core Problem Impact Program Context 5. This project is part of the Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program on Dryland Sustainable Landscapes, approved by the GEF in 2019 and benefitting 11 countries in Africa and Asia, which participate in the Program through Child Projects that are coordinated with each other. The goal of the Global DSL IP is to avoid, reduce, and reverse further degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in drylands through the sustainable – and integrated – management of production landscapes.

6. Among the 11 DSL IP countries, seven are part of the so-called ‘Miombo Cluster’: Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique6, and Tanzania. In addition, Zambia also joined the Miombo Cluster, as it is concomitantly developing a LDCF adaptation project with support from FAO and the Government wishes to coordinate the design process with other SADC countries. 7. Countries within the Miombo Cluster share not only similar ecosystems that are unique to Southern Africa—Miombo-Mopane Woodlands—but also similar and common challenges, including transfrontier ones, with respect to land-use management in the pursuit of the LDN goal. 8. Through the effective implementation of Child Projects of the ‘Miombo Cluster’, participating countries seek strategic and conceptual cohesion, regional collaboration and peer learning opportunities, in order to address these common challenges and devise solutions that can be shared across the Southern Africa region, along with support from regional bodies and partners. The shared interests of Miombo Cluster countries will add perspective to DSL IP processes and initiatives at the global level. Scope and focus of Namibia Child Project

The core problem to be specifically addressed by the DSL IP Namibia Child Project is the increasing degradation of land in the Miombo-Mopane dry forest belt of northern Namibia.

9. Much can be done through the project to strengthen Namibia’s response to land degradation for the benefit of local communities in northern Namibia, while simultaneously generating global environmental benefits. This project will directly support Namibia’s efforts towards achieving its Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) goals under its commitment to the UNCCD through an integrated (i.e. multi- sector) approach to sustainable management at landscape scales. Namibia has officially identified and agreed to a set of LDN targets (Box 1) and the project will contribute towards their realization, based on its scope comprising two elements and three thematic areas7 of intervention, as elaborated below.

6 The Miombo Cluster includes Mozambique, where the World Bank is developing an aligned GEF child project. 7 Also, see Annex G, which includes GEF’s taxonomy of themes for the project, outlining them in detail with thematic ramifications. 16

(i.) The first element of the project’s scope is linked to the regional and global reach of the DSL Impact Program, mentioned above, enabling the Namibia Child Project to benefit from collaboration with other Miombo cluster and Asian countries and thereby enhance its results. (ii.) The second element concerns its geographic scope, referred to as the project zone and broadly defined as northern Namibia, that is more narrowly focused on three representative landscapes within which specific project interventions will be implemented (Box 2). These landscapes are: Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai), Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) and Sub-basin 3 (Okavango). (iii.) The first thematic intervention area is concerned with addressing prevailing land-use practices within all types of productive land uses systems (LUS), specifically tree-covered areas (including (forests/woodlands), croplands and grasslands (whether or not used as pasture), because such practices exacerbate the underlying land degradation and have a cumulative impact over time. (iv.) The second area of intervention relates to land governance and land-use planning as key tools for reconciling competing land uses, addressing land degradation and generating various benefits. By focusing on land governance and land-use planning as viable ‘entry points’ for project interventions, barriers and drivers of land degradation will be addressed through more sustainable land management practices. It should be noted from a land governance perspective that northern Namibia comprises a complex mosaic of landscapes, such as important protected areas and communal lands with their own land tenure and governance management regimes, with specific mechanisms for land attribution and enforcement of rules. Evidence-based planning is not necessarily a prerequisite. northern Namibia also includes several Community Forests and Community Conservancies, nested within Communal Lands and under ‘special arrangements’ whereby land managers and users are expected to plan the use and management of land, often based on consultation and consensus, under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT). Specific provisions apply to Conservancies but seldom in practice.8 Land-use planning within a landscape that comprises a mosaic of land governance models will inevitably be more complex and necessarily need to engage with a wider range and number of stakeholders in order to be holistic and integrated in its approach. This is precisely where a unifying common vision and approach needs to be generated from the consultation process. (v.) The third area relates to Namibia’s past and current responses to land degradation from policy, regulatory, market, institutional and behavioral viewpoints and how they link with relevant global and regional initiatives. Namibia’s efforts to implement the UNCCD and other global environmental conventions embrace the concept of LDN both as a challenge and a necessity, involving the setting of measurable and time bound ‘targets’ for neutrality and the embracing of LDN principles (Box 1). LDN is also a huge opportunity: providing the driver to unite stakeholders across multiple sectors from national to local levels of government in the integrated, sustainable management of landscapes to achieve LDN. Thus, it is LDN that is central to the common vision mentioned above (iv) – necessary to address the complex mosaics through a landscape approach to planning and management of land use. It is encouraging to note that Namibia is quite advanced in its implementation of LDN and the development of a national ‘Neutrality Mechanism’, with pilots underway in at least three administrative regions.9

8 Community Forests and Community Conservancies can be nominally considered as protected areas, but not de facto. In an ‘ideal world’, these areas would contribute to wildlife tourism and safeguarding such wildlife, along with rational use of forest resources. In reality, much of the land use in such areas serves limited conservation purposes and is little different from patterns of land use elsewhere, due to population pressures coupled with ineffective policies concerning land allocation and natural resource use. 9 The neutrality mechanism counterbalances anticipated losses in land-based natural capital with planned gains, to achieve neutrality.

Box 1. Project’s alignment with Namibia’s LDN and related targets LDN POLICY RELEVANCE AND ALIGNMENT WITH PROJECT

National Land Degradation Neutrality Target Relevance and Project Contribution

LDN a concept central to the UNCCD and defined as: “... a state Namibia’s LDN target relates directly to whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to SDG 15 “Life on Land” and more support ecosystem function and services and enhance food specifically to SDG target 15.13* on LDN at security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and the global level. spatial scales and ecosystems”.10 Furthermore, according to the UNCCD, “[t]he implementation of LDN requires multi-stakeholder “The objective [of LDN] is that losses are balanced by engagement and planning across scales and sectors, supported by gains, in order to achieve a position of no net loss of national-scale coordination that utilizes existing local and healthy and productive land.”11 regional governance structures.” Namibia’s national LDN target was established in 2015, Apart from the national and specific bush encroachment two years after its third National Action Plan was targets (which are ambitious, long-term goals requiring approved. NAP3 is Namibia’s current strategy for fighting specific land restoration actions), LDN targets for forests, land degradation, drought and desertification. croplands and grasslands are relevant to the project’s target landscapes. The LDN target is Namibia’s measurable goal for sustainable land management, which will be achieved by The project will contribute to LDN targets at least the promoting a dual approach of measures to avoid or following results across all three sub-basins: reduce degradation of land, combined with measures to Land-Use System under improved management Area (ha) reverse past degradation. The LDN target comprises: Forests / Woodlands 200,200 ● Reforest and increase the productivity of 13.8 km2 Croplands 145,000 forests that have been converted into croplands or Grasslands 15,000 shrubs, grasslands and sparse vegetation by 2040. Total 360,200 ● Improve the productivity of 414.3 km2 of forest currently showing early signs of decline and declining The project strategy provides details on how the above- productivity by 2030. mentioned contributions to LDN will be achieved. ● Improve the productivity of 104,013 km2 of shrubs, Such improvements will also result in increases in organic grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas currently carbon, above and below ground, contributing a further showing signs of declining productivity by 2040. to LDN targets across the three sub-basins. 2 ● Improve the productivity of 14,849 km of cropland *SDG target 15.3 states: ‘By 2030, combat desertification, by 2035. restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by ● Reduce bush encroachment on 18,880 km2 by 2040. desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a ● Maintain the current soil organic carbon levels land degradation-neutral world.’ beyond 2040: forests at 17 t/ha; shrubs, grasslands, Source: Namibia -- Overview of LDN Targets: sparsely vegetated land, croplands at 14 t/ha; https://knowledge.unccd.int/home/country-information/countries- wetlands at 16 t/ha. having-set-voluntary-ldn-targets/namibia UNFCCC and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development The project will also contribute to the realization of Namibia’s national commitments to these global initiatives in the following ways. ● GHG emissions goal in above LDN target originates from Namibia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to UNFCCC. ● Sustainable Development Goals were taken into account with respect to project’s policy fit. Additional to SDG 15.3 (see above) are: — SDG 2.4 relates to area under productive and sustainable agriculture. The latter includes relevant sub-indicators 1 (farm output value) and 2 (net farm income). — SDG 15.1 on ecosystem services conservation and SDG 15.2 on sustainable management of forests — SDG 12.3 on food waste, SDG 7.2 on renewable energy, SDG 2 on ending hunger, SDG 13.1 on climate resilience and SDG 1 on eradication of extreme poverty are potentially among the project’s co-benefits.

10. The national LDN target includes long-term land management goals, to which the project will contribute, within its geographical scope and potential temporal impact, in addition to the Child Project’s specific results and outcomes in terms of strengthening the enabling environment for LDN at national level and delivering global environmental benefits. These are summarized in Box 1.

10 Source: https://www.unccd.int/actions/achieving-land-degradation-neutrality, accessed on 20/04/20. 11 Refer to: UNCCD Science-Policy Brief 02, Sept. 2016, “Land in Balance”. 18

Sectors, Policies, Institutions and Overarching Regulatory Framework Sector Relevance 11. The agricultural sector contributes most to the economy in the project zone, although nationally it comprises less than 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).12 However, crop production, livestock rearing and forestry are central to the majority of lives of Namibia’s rural population (Figure 2. . Directly or indirectly, some 2.6 million (70%) of the country’s population is assumed to be engaged in agricultural economic activities. In the case of project zone, the sector can be differentiated between a capital- intensive, relatively well-developed, mechanized and commercial-oriented sub-sector that accounts for about 44% of the total land area under agro-pastoral use; and the subsistence-based, communal sub- sector using the remaining agricultural land. The latter is high on labour intensity and low on technology, with small and often single family farms having limited use of mechanization. Agricultural productivity and the income are low, due to subsistence farmers having just enough for subsistence and, in the case of any surplus, limited access to markets to sell their produce. Importantly, both sub-sectors face land- degradation problems. Figure 2. Broad land-use categories applied at national level (2002)13

12. The travel and tourism are the second most important sector for northern Namibia’s economy. Nationally, it comprised 10.9% of GDP in 2018, accounting for at least one quarter of all formal employment and generating $1.5 billion in revenue. Namibia was ranked as the number 2 best-value destination by ‘Lonely Planet’ in 2017.14 The country receives approximately one million visitors per year, many of whom seek nature, viewing wildlife, and outdoors sports. Northern Namibia is a prime destination and Etosha National Park, a key attraction, receives approximately 200,000 visitors a year. Figure 2. shows the distribution of freehold in which tourism plays a significant role. Although important, the service-based

12 It was 4.5% in 2017, according to FAOSTATS. 13 Source: https://www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389/e/e1/download/atlas_namibia/e1_download_land_history_e.htm#land_uses. 14 Source: https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/best-in-travel-2017-top-10-best-value-destinations 19

economy fueled by the travel, tourism and hospitality segments is not large enough to absorb the labour force in rural parts of northern Namibia – at least, not enough to ease pressures on land resources. In drylands, growth in tourism could add pressures on scarce water resources. Reconciling conservation/ tourism-oriented with agricultural land uses should be a priority consideration in local land-use planning. 13. Other sectors could have stakes in land-use decision-making include mining, which is Namibia’s is most important revenue generator, followed by fisheries and then tourism. Exports of minerals, including diamond, gold, uranium, and copper, along with petroleum, fish and related products represented 62% of Namibia’s exports in 2018, generating some $4.3 billon in export earnings.15 Extractive industries may be relevant for revenue generation, but they employ less than 2% of the workforce and the location of their activities can rarely be reconciled with the sectors of interest to the project (agriculture, forestry in particular). Marine fisheries are clearly outside the project’s scope. 14. Mining and petroleum are not especially important for the local economy in the project zone but should not be overlooked. Petroleum sector activities mostly occur off-shore, albeit a few exploration licenses concerning large blocks for prospecting have been issued for on-shore areas, such as north of Etosha National Park. The only on-shore block that is currently operational is south of Windhoek, far away from the project zone. Hence, there are no immediate concerns about this sector. 15. More detailed assessment of the mining sector, using a GIS-based cadastre of mining concessions that GoN has officially adopted and made openly available to the public, shows very few mineral deposits, within a very few mining concessions, applications and claims in northern Namibia, compared to other parts of the country. Within the project landscapes, some active concessions are operational in all three sub-basins. They appear to be restricted to less that 10% of the three landscapes’ total area. In Sub-basins 2 and 3, this percentage is likely less than 5% (Figure 3). Figure 3. Current mining cadastre for northern Namibia with project target landscapes overlaid

16. The risk of mining operations within the project’s landscapes being a constraint or challenge during its implementation needs to be more carefully explored during project inception. Re-drawing the boundaries of the target landscapes and proposed land management units may prove to be a necessary measure in order to keep the focus on LDN.16

15 Source: The Growth Lab at Harvard University. The Atlas of Economic Complexity. http://www.atlas.cid.harvard.edu. 16 Potential land-use conflict between agricultural/tourism and the extractive industries is‘flagged’ in the project’s risk matrix. 20

Institutions and Policies 17. The institutional framework at national level includes two line ministries of key relevance to the project: the ministries of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) and Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR).17 At sub-national level, the following administrative regions of Namibia overlap with the project zone: Kunene, Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango East. Other local land-use decision-making bodies include the Municipal Governments of Outapi, Rundu and Ruacana (to name a few), as well as the traditional authorities responsible for communal lands that comprise of northern Namibia. 18. With respect to national policies, the following strategic sectoral documents and planning frameworks are particularly relevant: • Key strategies and plans include: Namibia’s Third National Action Program to implement UNCCD 2014 – 2024 (Box 1), Forest Policy and Forestry Act (2001), National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (2013-2020), Second National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2022, Namibia’s Agriculture Policy (2015) and the Strategic Plan for the Agrarian and Water Sectors (2017/18-2021/22). To support implementation of the relevant policies, Namibia has developed a some solid regulatory frameworks for land governance over the years, described in Section 7. • Particularly important for land-use planning is the recent Urban and Regional Planning Act No. 5, approved by Parliament in June 2018 after a long period of popular stakeholder consultation.18 The Act provides the most comprehensive legal framework for spatial planning at national level. Effectively implemented, it may even provide a model of integrated (multi-sectoral), participatory land-use planning for other countries in the sub-region to follow, or at least learn lessons. For example, — The Act stipulates, “spatial planning must follow an integrated approach to land use” by default. — It identifies other fundamental principles and standards for spatial planning, including inter alia the need for "protecting and respecting Namibia’s environment", as well as its cultural heritage. — It provides for public participation and disclosure and recommends that land-use planning implementation should seek to "optimize the use of resources" and "minimize negative financial, social, economic or environmental impacts". — The Act also mentions the need to "avoid land-use conflicts" and that "spatial planning must be aimed at redressing past imbalances in respect of access to land, land ownership and land allocation". To make the latter and other aspects operational, joint decision-making structures are envisaged, in particular joint national and/or local committees as appropriate. • The implications of the above policies, laws, strategies and frameworks for managing landscapes in northern Namibia were assessed during the PPG and identified gaps are reviewed in Section (2). 19. The analysis of sectors, policies and institutions highlights the human development conditions in northern Namibia and the need to address poverty, deprivation and gender inequality. The project’s solution will necessarily need to be found within the capabilities of the local landscapes, its interlinkages, resource flows and land governance. This also relates to the role of local communities in land-use management and the conditions of rural and national economies in Namibia. Patterns of Land-Use Change 20. Correlating land-use change with land degradation is an essential step in measuring LDN. Patterns of land use and land degradation relate to each other in complex ways and, in order to assess the extent of the land degradation problem in Namibia, it is important to understand change in land use and how it

17 Other line ministries are potentially important, such as those responsible for mining, roads and heritage, but MEFT and MAWLR ultimately have ‘power of veto’ over the project’s strategy and arrangements, as highlighted in its Stakeholder Analysis. The Stakeholder Analysis was carried out in 2019, when the sectors currently covered by MEFT and MAWLR were split across three line ministries: Environment and Tourism (MET), Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) and Land Reform (MLR). The ministerial reform in February 2020 placed the mandate for ‘land reform’ into the new MAWLR and ‘forestry’ was transferred to the new MEFT. Operationalization of this reform is still ongoing in October 2020 (e.g. MEFT web-site continues to cite MET in its address: https://www.met.gov.na/about-met/about-us/74/). 18 Refer to the following link for the full legal text on the Promulgation of Urban and Regional Planning Act, 2018 (Act No. 5 of 2018), of the Parliament: https://www.lac.org.na/laws/2018/6631.pdf. 21

affects landscapes at different scales and according to varying conditions. It is equally important to consider other aspects, including geophysical and socio-economic features, as well as land-use governance. Global data show that large tracts of land in Namibia are undergoing rapid degradation (Figure 4). In northern Namibia different degrees of degradation are evident, of which some are quite accentuated. Figure 4. National LDN status map for Namibia using 2018 data, with project landscape locations [Inset depicts shared river basins between neighbouring countries.]

21. Populations are attracted to northern Namibia because of the relative availability of water resources from the region’s perennial rivers. At the same time, some areas are considered high risk from the impacts of climate change. PPG assessments show that land and associated resources are being intensively used by resident populations for crop cultivation and livestock rearing, as well as for hunting, tourism, collection of grasses and other NTFPs. In certain areas woody biomass is also being harvested and used. Land carrying capacity for each of these activities is relative to a suite of variables across the landscape, including strong climatic influences to which Norther Namibia is naturally prone. 22. ‘Forests’, as such, are quite scarce in northern Namibia;19 ‘woodlands’ are more prevalent, along with grasslands and shrubs. Local inhabitants collect forests resources for various purposes within certain limits. Water is a relatively scarce and an important resource that is not immediately available to the majority of land users for irrigation purposes. Broad land-use categories are shown in Figure 2.

19 In the Namibian context, the term ‘woodland’ is more appropriate for defining the broad land cover class that harbours relatively denser woody biomass. Collect Earth data, using The PPG Remote Sensing Study gathered that areas E.g. according to a national Atlas Project of 2002, ‘forests’ are only found in scattered fragments in the Okavango basin. See, for example: http://www.uni-koeln.de/ sfb389/e/e1/download/atlas_namibia/main_namibia_atlas.html, under ‘Living Resources: Biomes & Vegetation’, accessed 01/07/20. 22

Box 2. Project’s target landscapes and changes in land cover (1995-2018)6F Project’s target landscapes (sub-basins)20 Three Miombo-Mopane Woodland landscapes (sub-basins) will be targeted by the project in northern Namibia. Sub-basin 1: Kunene-Cuvelai 600,844 ha Sub-basin 2 Etosha 559,659 ha Sub-basin 3 Okavango 294,646 ha. (See table below for more details.)

The total area of the three target landscapes exceeds 1.455 million hectares and harbours approximately 225,000 people21, of whom half are concentrated in Sub-basin 1. Approximately 87% of total area is considered to be under ‘production systems’ (~1.27 million ha). The remaining 13% is land under protection (i.e. protected areas, designated as national parks or non-consumption land use areas). Break-down of predominant land cover in 2018 across all three sub-basins* [1. Kunene-Cuvelai, 2. Etosha, 3. Kavango]

Land-cover change in target landscapes/sub-basins, from 1995 to 2018

Land Cover by sub-basin in 2018 (ha)* Sub-basin 1 Sub-basin 2 Sub-basin 3 Land cover Grand Total (Kunene-Cuvelai) (Etosha) (Okavango) Tree-covered areas 59,009.79 53,911.81 71,842.15 184,763.75 Croplands 226,900.32 225,070.21 65,635.13 517,605.66 Grasslands 272,434.67 160,608.66 144,115.60 577,158.93 Other lands 39,058.89 9,390.42 0.00 48,449.31 Artificial surfaces 433.56 7,656.23 7,276.42 15,366.21 Water bodies 3,006.03 102,922.19 1,200.12 107,128.34 Wetlands 0.00 0.00 4,576.95 4,576.95 Grand Total 600,843.26 559,559.52 294,646.37 1,455,049.15 *Source: PPG Remote Sensing Assessment, Collect Earth, Open Foris, Report prepared by FAO (2020).

20 The landscape locations shown here and their profiles are elaborated in Annex E. PPG baseline assessment reports are in the Additional Annexes and accessible on-line. 21 Source: PPG Remote Sensing Assessments, based on estimated resident population until 2015 (Additional Annex X-6). 23

23. Within the project zone, an analysis of land-cover change from 1995 to 2018 was undertaken for each of the target landscapes during the PPG. The results are summarized graphically in Box 2, which also shows the locations of these landscapes. Key findings with respect to land-cover change are: • Conversion of tree-covered areas and grasslands into croplands is most pronounced in Sub-basin 3 (Okavango), affecting 5% of the total area of this landscape; • Conversion of grasslands into cropland, affects approximately 9% of Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) and 1.4% of Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai); • An increase in artificial surfaces between 1995 and 2015 in all three sub-basins is indicative of a tangible increase in human settlements but at rates that differ siginificantly – 18% in Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai), 35% in Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) and 55% in Sub-basin 3 (Okavango); • There are is a significant increase (14.8%) in croplands at the expense of tree cover and grasslands across the three landscapes between 1995 and 2015, the largest increase being 51,122 ha in Sub- basin 2 and representing 29.4% of the Etosha landscape. • The above findings are reinforced by results from a simplified Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) undertaken during the PPG to establish baselines, whereby local stakeholders’ perceptions generated from focus group discussions were combined with remote sensing data. Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) is most impacted by land degradation (especially its cropland and forest land-use systems (LUS), followed by Sub-basin 3 (Okavango). In Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai), land degradation is considered light to moderate. LADA results are graphically summarized in Additional Annex X-7. Land-Use Governance and Land-Tenure Patterns 24. In common with any LUS, degradation of Miombo-Mopane woodlands results in diminishing flows of goods and services from the land and, with it, the livelihoods of people dependent on these woodlands for a living. When applying the landscape-level approach to land degradation, it is important to consider the differences and complementarity between ‘production’ and ‘conservation-oriented’ land-use systems, along with any significant ‘flows’ between them, given that such systems are often adjacent to each other. 25. In terms of land-use governance, two of the sub-basins targeted by the project include protected 22 areas of global significance: Etosha National Park in Sub-basin 2 and Bwabwata National Park 7F in the Caprivi Strip of Sub-basin 3 (Okavango). There are also several Community Forests and Conservancies that overlap with the target sub-basins where systematic nature protection measures have prevented and mitigated threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services. These protected landscapes are comparatively rich in biocarbon, but also prone to hazardous fire if not adequately monitored and managed. 26. Land and resource use within Namibia’s nationally designated protected areas are governed by their management plans. Thus, site-based access, control and enforcement measures 'are reasonably effective in preventing land-use conversion, aligning well with the avoid-reduce-restore approach to LDN. The PPG Remote Sensing Assessment confirms that national parks experienced limited land-use change. 27. The project’s interventions will focus on production systems, while also considering areas under ‘special management arrangements’ such as protected areas, community forests and conservancies, shared water bodies and productive land under State management (e.g. Etunda Irrigation Scheme). Having such areas among the mosaic of landscapes can contribute to the avoidance-of/reduction-in land degradation. Other types of special management areas could potentially play a similar role, notably: • Community Forests, while not necessarily equating to protected area status, can potentially contribute to forest conservation since their primary role is production of timber and NTFPs. However, PPG remote sensing results has shown Community Forests to be somewhat ineffective in terms of surveillance and enforcement of conservation-oriented land management.

22 Bwabwata National Park is part of the KAZA initiative to strengthen transfrontier protected areas. 24

Table 1. Conservancies and protected areas overlapping project landscapes Landscapes Overlapping conservancies and protected areas Sub-basin 1 Uukolonkadhi Communal Conservancy (Kunene-Cuvelai) Uukwaluudhi Communal Conservancy Kunene River Communal Conservancy Lipumbu ya Tshilongo Conservancy Uukolonkadhi Community Forest Sub-basin 2 Etosha National Park (Etosha) RAMSAR site: Etosha Pan, Lake Oponono and Cuvelai drainage* King Nehele Communal Conservancy Sub-basin 3 Hans Kanyinga Community Forest (Kavango) George Mukoya Community Forest Muduva Nyangana Community Forest Bwabwata National Park *The Ramsar site (600,000 ha), designated in 1995, is part of Etosha National Park (22,941 km2) established in 1975. • Community Conservancies are not considered to be protected areas as such but there are community-imposed limitations to resource use and offtake, primarily with respect to game. However, agricultural activities are not curtailed and some land management practices are not controlled. Thus, vegetation cover within Community Conservancies has decreased over the years and various parts of such landscapes show active, strong degradation. Table 1 provides a list of conservancies and protected areas (national parks) within the project landscapes; and their extent nationally is shown in Figure 5 – alongside the NACSO definition of Communal Conservancies. Figure 5. Map of areas under special management arrangement and Communal Conservancies defined

28. The Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NASCO) is an umbrella civil society organization that supports conservancies and other areas under ‘special management arrangements’ through, for example, its website from where material in Figure 4 was generated to provide an insight to land tenure arrangements. Both Community Forests and Community Conservancies technically fall under programs established and promoted by MEFT for Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM).23 However, Community Conservancies have been much less effective in conserving land and forest resources within their boundaries than, for example, Forest Conservancies despite what the statement in the previous paragraph about the lack of conservation-oriented management in the latter. Small cropland plots of 2-6 ha from which the natural vegetation has been cleared are the norm within Community Conservancies. Currently, in northern Namibia, Community Conservancies display a similar rate

23 Refer to Additional Annex X-1B (Table 1) for relevant CBNRM baseline financial interventions. 25

of advanced land-use conversion and subsequent degradation as do other cropland areas outside such Conservancies. This is confirmed by the PPG Remote Sensing Assessment.24 29. It is important to consider land-tenure perspectives local stakeholder capacities in SLM and SFM. Results from the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP+ Assessment) have highlighted some resilience challenges and difficulties faced by the inhabitants of the landscapes, including members of Community Conservancies. As for governance, currently much of the tenure in Namibia is already registered. Areas of high population pressure experience high competition for land in rural areas but, unlike urban areas, this is not accompanied by increased land values. Rural areas remain rural precisely because land use is primarily agricultural and population density remains below a certain threshold. However, for drylands in northern Namibia, this density is a pressure.

30. Governance of land tenure is complex in Namibia. In 2006, a FAO study of land tenure frameworks and patterns in Namibia correlated land degradation within Community Conservancies to the illegal but frequent practice of ‘fencing’.25 Although fencing is not permitted within Community Conservancies, as technically land is common property not freehold, enforcement of land use is lax and fencing is widely practiced. Within the project landscapes, the number of households that put up fences around small parcels of land for cultivation or animal husbandry is very large, as confirmed by online mapping platforms. Local Economy and Existing Value Chains 31. Developing rural areas is a major concern for Government, particularly given its commitment to fight poverty and inequality. Rural residents across the three landscapes have more challenging conditions than their counterparts living in urban areas (e.g. Omuthiya in Etosha) in terms of income, employment opportunities and access to public services. They also spend relatively more on basic needs and services such as food, water, shelter, energy, health, education, transport and communications. Namibia’s population is currently estimated to be 2,540,905 (mid-2020), of which 55.2 % is urban26, indicating a reversal over the last decade from 57% being rural according to Namibia’s 2011 Household Census. 32. The Namibian Household Income and Expenditure Survey of 2003/04 clearly shows a significant difference in access to public services between rural and urban communities and this disparity remains, as confirmed by the PPG SHARP survey in 2019. In addition, SHARP results for all three landscapes indicate that the majority of households interviewed are subsistence farmers/pastoralists, with crop production as their primary agricultural activity (millet and maize being main crops), whilst animal production (mainly cattle but also goats and/or donkeys) is a secondary activity. The SHARP study further reveals that most households have a considerable number of unemployed members; and in most cases had one or two sources of income mainly from pensions, formal employment or self-employment. In the case of Omusati Region in Sub-basin 2, a few households work for local irrigation schemes/projects though their labour is mostly paid in exchange for farm produce that they later sell from the roadside. 33. Those living in rural areas generally have less access to public services compared to their urban counterparts, according to the same 2011 Household Census: 80%of rural households lacked access to a toilet compared to 7% of urban households; 93% of rural households lacked access to electricity compared to 32% of urban households; 20% of rural households lacked access to safe drinking water compared to less than 2% of urban households; and adult literacy was 74% in rural areas and 92%in urban areas.

34. The cost of delivering goods and services, both public and private, to rural areas is exceptionally high, partly due to the small size of rural markets and those serviced being relatively poor. According to the same 2011 Census, 85% of the country’s poor people live in rural areas and about 42% of rural residents

24 Refer in parallel to Figure 2 to visualize Namibia’s land degradation hotspots. 25 Fuller, Ben (2006): Improving Tenure Security for The Rural Poor Namibia – Country Case Study. Investing in Rights: Lessons from Rural Namibia. FAO. The study also states: “Despite a well-developed legal framework for formalizing land and resource rights, there still are cracks. People without access, especially the poor and women, often lack the resources needed to navigate the government’s bureaucratic procedures. The situation is similar for farm workers and small-scale communal farmers in areas with a concentration of illegally fenced enclosures. All of these groups suffer varying degrees of marginalization.” 26 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision.

are poor. Furthermore, poverty reduction is taking place more slowly in rural areas as compared to urban areas. The number of poor rural people declined by 14.3% from 49% in 1993/94 to 42% in 2003/04, while the number of poor urban people declined by 58.8% from 17% to 7% in the same period. Kavango East and Oshikoto, where Sub-basins 1 and 3 are located, are among the regions having the highest incidences of overall poverty and rural poverty: over 40% of total households are classified as poor. 35. The average number of household members within Sub-basins 1, 2 and 3 are 15, 10 and 7 respectively: these figures that are significantly higher than the national average of 4.2 for rural areas. Often, household members are not present at home all year round: members may migrate for part of the year for employment. Unemployment, coupled with high natural resources dependency, low level of education (especially among indigenous people), drought, food shortages and water scarcity (common for villages far from the canal) are key factors that contribute to poverty and deprivation in these areas. 36. Notable income generating activities among communities include: sheebeens/bar businesses that sell traditional brews and packaged beverages; harvesting and selling of thatch grass from the forest and reeds from the riverbanks. (particularly Sub-basin 1); and seasonal selling of food products from local trees/plants such as Guibortia coleosperma, Sclerocarya birrea, Schinziophyton rautanenii, Strychnos cocculoides, Strychnos pungens, Berchemia discolor, Hibiscus sabdariffa and fish; and basket weaving and bead-making among women (especially in Sub-basins 2 and 3).27 37. In Sub-basin 2 (Etosha), some farms on privately-owned land irrigate their crops, producing and marketing a variety of products such as cabbage, onion, tomatoes, spinach, beans, and watermelons. These private farms vary in size but rarely exceed 6 ha per property. They belong to a group of farmers who, at some point, had sufficient incentives to invest in the land and generate a production surplus.

38. Agricultural assets in the project landscapes are mainly livestock (herd size has been severely affected by the recent drought), land and basic farm machinery such as ploughs, and pumps and generators to pump water from the canal. Some households rely on oxen for ploughing; those without can rent oxen from others or tractors from government. Tools include hoes, axes and machetes to weed/clear fields.

Threats, Root Causes and Drivers of Land Degradation 39. The main problem that the project addresses is land degradation, which is increasing within the project landscapes and more widely through the country. Land degradation is defined as the deterioration or loss of the productive capacity of soils for present and future generations. 40. Understanding land degradation processes and addressing their causes and drivers is important within the project context because land use has changed significantly during the past 25 years in northern Namibia,, resulting in widespread land degradation and, in certain places that display a high degree of aridity, it has resulted in desertification. Processes often involve the use of fire and machinery to remove the natural vegetation and change the land use.28 While the intention may be ‘land improvement’, the result is often the opposite and, coupled with improper approaches to land care that results in loss of land productivity, land-use change at scale almost invariably results in widespread land degradation, given the geophysical conditions in northern Namibia. According to the Third National Action Program for Namibia to Implement the UNCCD 2014-2024’ (NAP3), land degradation in the country is caused by inappropriate land uses and agricultural practices, which in turn are driven by a number of “structural root causes”.29 Threats and Root Causes 41. According to the simplified Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) methodology that was applied during the PPG, there are six out of at least 12 direct causes (or pressures) of land degradation in Namibia. These relate to soil and crop management, over-exploitation and removal of vegetation, infrastructural

27 Details of promising value chains in project landscapes are included in Additional Annex X-2. 28 At times, unsuccessful processes of land clearings or the setting up of fences can trigger a process of bush encroachment. Refer to Wikipedia for a simple definition of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_encroachment#Causes_and_Extent, accessed on 01/07/20 29 The quote uses the NAP3’s own language to refer to main causes of land degradation in Namibia more generally. 27

development and natural causes; and they are clearly defined in Table 2. Among them are immutable and systemic conditions that also cause land degradation. Immutable conditions include low rainfall, poor soil conditions and limited availability of water. Systemic (background) conditions include population pressure, poverty and unemployment, cultural norms and inadequate labour skills. While the project is not designed to address some of these conditions, others are drivers of degradation that constitute a hindrance to the realization of the solution sought by the project. They are the main ones and can be addressed through a barrier removal approach that is presented in the next Section 1.a (2). Table 2. Direct causes of land degradation that apply to Namibia (FAO LADA methodology) Direct Cause of land degradation and details according to the LADA typology Applicable s: Soil management: improper management of the soil this includes: X • cultivation of highly vulnerable soils • missing or insufficient soil conservation/runoff and erosion control c: Crop and rangeland management: improper management of annual, perennial (e.g. grass), shrub and tree crops. This X includes a wide variety of practices: • reduction of plant cover and residues (including burning, use for fodder, etc.) • nutrient mining: excessive removal without appropriate replacement of nutrients • shortening of the fallow period in shifting cultivation • inappropriate irrigation (full and supplementary): inefficient irrigation method, over-irrigation, insufficient drainage • inappropriate use of water in rainfed agriculture (e.g. excessive soil evaporation and runoff • bush encroachment and bush thickening X f: Deforestation and removal of natural vegetation: extensive removal of natural vegetation (usually primary or X secondary forest), due to: • expansion of urban / settlement areas and industry • conversion to agriculture X • forest / grassland fires e: Over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use: in contrast to "deforestation and removal of natural vegetation", this causative factor does not necessarily involve the (nearly) complete removal of "natural" vegetation, but rather X degeneration of the remaining vegetation, thus leading to insufficient protection against land degradation. It includes activities such as: • excessive gathering of fuel wood, (local) timber, fencing materials X • removal of fodder • excessive numbers of livestock • Overgrazing and trampling around or near feeding, watering and shelter points u: Urbanization and infrastructure development: include all adverse effects arising from industrialization and extractive activities, such as loss of land resources and their functions for agriculture, water recharge. It can cause considerable X run-off and excessive run-on on neighboring areas, causing accelerated damage like erosion, as well as other types of degradation (e.g. pollution). It includes land used for: • settlements and roads n: Natural causes: many occurrences of degradation are not caused by human activities. Although this assessment places X the emphasis on human-induced degradation, natural causes may be indicated as well. They include: • change of seasonal rainfall • windstorms / dust storms • flood X • droughts X

42. Land degradation manifests itself in the project landscapes in the following ways: • Initially, biotic and abiotic functions linked to soil, water, and vegetation cover diminish. • Land degradation leads to loss of soil carbon and to GHG emissions, for example: when fire is involved and linked primarily to land-use change that degrade ecosystem services; and certain practices such as excessive tilling and collection of firewood;30 • In croplands, the most important proximate cause of land degradation is linked to the prevaling destructive practices in the agricultural sector. • In rangelands, on the other hand, the loss of quality pasture is often a result of overgrazing, wildfires and bush encroachment. • In forests, deforestation is the most common cause of land degradation in Mopane woodlands.

30 Refer to Table 2 for a list of practices that apply. Several of them result in additional GHG emissions that can be avoided. 28

• In general, land degradation undermines the resilience of both ecosystems and people, and thereby becoming an even more serious threat. 43. As assessed by local stakeholder participants during PPG consultations with respect to northern Namibia, the main causes of land degradation concluded from the LADA are: • Unsustainable use of natural resources, such as water resources, wood and medicinal plants; • Unsustainable agricultural practices, and unsustainable forest and range management; and • Bush encroachment. Unless addressed, such causes of land degradation in Namibia will result in loss of biodiversity, including loss of soil fauna and plant cover, and degradation or loss of forested lands, and increased release of soil carbon and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. 44. According to Namibia’s 2015 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC31, Namibia was still a net carbon sink in 2010 but its ‘Agriculture, Forest and Other Land Use’ (AFOLU) sector potentially accounts for 81.7% of the country’s GHG emissions under a ‘Business as Usual Scenario’ (BAU) projected to reach 22,647 Gg CO2-eq by 2030. Sequestration alone would deliver 24% of the INDC targets. The bulk of INDC commitments are closely linked to the AFOLU sector and its underlying land degradation pressures that can be addressed, particularly: • wood removal from forests, including removals driven by the demand for charcoal; • various unsustainable practices in the forestry sector, including those concerning the management of natural and plantation forests; • unsustainable/inappropriate uses of grasslands; • management of both forest and grassland fires; • livestock management, including both herd numbers and approaches to grazing and livestock feed, given the sector’s extensive production systems; • techniques and practices in the agricultural sector, including the use of chemical fertilizers and its consequences for soil; and • opportunities embedded in the enhanced adoption of climate smart agriculture (CSA) as a means of reversing the status quo and addressing both climate and land management challenges. 45. There are both threats and opportunities linked to the continuing development of the AFOLU sector that have a bearing on both land degradation and climate change mitigation. Measures envisaged in the LDN target coincide with those under the INDC, providing huge opportunities for synergies based on integrated approaches to land-use planning and implementation to deliver both LDN and emissions targets. Without such integration across sectors at landscape scales, current agricultural and forestry land use practices will continue to have a negative impact on both climate and land degradation status. 46. As importantly, land degradation processes threaten local livelihoods dependent on the land for production and its natural resources, affecting farming, forestry and also the wildlife tourism sector, which is important in northern Namibia. Land degradation reduces productivity due to direct loss of soils, declining soil fertility and increased impacts of drought, floods and other extreme weather events on croplands and pastures, as well as disrupting and reducing water supplies and other ecosystem goods and services that are important for the survival of local communities and essential for sustainable development. 47. Direct and indirect causes of land degradation in Namibia, including the project target landscapes include: • Current maladaptive land management practices, such as cultivation on highly vulnerable soils, inadequate erosion control, with overuse of the available cropland and overgrazing of range land; • Conversion of forest areas into cropland and grazing land;

31 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC. Refer to Link. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Namibia%20First/INDC%20of%20Namibia%20Final%20pdf.pdf 29

• Urbanization and infrastructure development, reducing the area of productive land available and further increasing competition for such land; • Unsustainable use of natural resources, including excessive harvesting of wood (for charcoal and timber) and excessive removal of hay for fodder; • Excessive and uncontrolled fires (both wild fires and fires deployed to clear the land); and • Bush encroachment and degradation of soil.

Drivers, Including Context Specific Drivers 48. The above root causes of the land degradation processes are linked to poverty, limited access to the resources needed for land improvement and the prevailing practices, approaches and techniques applied in the land-based sector that either cause land degradation or contribute to it, as highlighted in Table 2. These root causes are being driven or influenced by a number of wider factors, a number of which are considered to be drivers of land degradation are present in northern Namibia, as described below. 49. Maladaptive local production practices feature high among drivers of land degradation. As indicated in NAP3, over 30% of households in northern Namibia are poverty-stricken and are among the poorest in the entire country. Such populations have less adaptive capacity and fewer investment opportunities to move from unsustainable to more sustainable practices including conservation tillage, climate smart agriculture and crop rotation. The most prevailing unsustainable practices are the following: — overgrazing, — overharvesting wood, — improper soil management and conservation e.g. conventional tillage, — using less drought-resilient crop varieties and livestock breeds, — inappropriate pest control, and — premature harvesting of crops. 50. Furthermore, competition for land is increasing: from 1975 to 2015 the estimated population density doubled in Sub-basin 1 and Sub-basin 3 and tripled in Sub-basin 2. This is likely to increase competition over land and resources; and contribute to prevailing harmful practices. 51. Poverty levels are higher in rural areas than in the cities despite Namibia being an upper-middle income country. According to NAP3, around 34.5% of the rural population is considered poor, compared to 4.9% in urban areas (2010). Poverty rates vary and are among the highest in the northern regions of Omusati, Oshikoto, Kavango West, Kavango East, where the project landscapes are located. Poverty increases the dependence of communities on natural resources in these landscapes. Without modern alternatives for domestic energy, for example, rural people continue to collect accessible firewood. Similarly, in the absence of alternatives to fertilize croplands, slash-and-burn techniques are used. Such practices exacerbate land degradation. Figure 6. Main income sources, by region (N=316)

52. In the SHARP+ survey, respondents reported on their income sources (Figure 6) and how they spent their income. Rural populations experience much more difficulty finding employment than urban ones. This impacts most on the most vulnerable groups, notably women and youth. According to SHARP, over 60% of households include at least one member who emigrated in a search of employment, which is a new phenomenon in the region (previously immigration was a phenomenon); and probably reflects declining productivity and increasing competition for land. Most survey respondents (86% of women and 90% of men) indicated food as the main expenditure of the household. A large majority of households are unable to afford a varied diet: 79-85% of the population consume only 1 to 3 food items per 24 hours, women being particularly affected). They may also be unable to afford seeds and fertilizers for their farming activities. This indicates that levels of poverty in target landscapes are quite severe.

53. Namibia is one of the least populated countries in Africa but population pressure is increasing, particularly in the north-central part of the country, which is characterized by high population density and rapidly expanding population though remaining largely rural settings. This creates additional strains on available land, water and forest resources. Unsurprisingly, cattle densities mirror human population densities and are highest in the far north, exacerbating pressures on natural resources (Figure 7). Figure 7. Human and cattle population density in Namibia

Sources: Atlas of Namibia Project (2002). Directorate of Environmental Affairs, MET. (http://209.88.21.36/Atlas/Atlas_web.htm), accessed 01/07/20. JRC GHSL Population Data (2015), Settlement Grid, accessed 01/07/20 via Google Earth Map (https://earthmap.org)

54. Pressure on the available natural resources is expected to increase inversely proportional to their availability. According to SHARP, access to water for example will become increasingly difficult as resources run out, based on what was observed by the majority of survey respondents in all landscapes surveyed. Similarly, access to fuelwood from the forests is becoming harder and the need for renewable energy sources is expected to grow. 55. Land reform and resettlement post independence in 1990 began with the Land Resettlement Program of 1995 by the (then) Ministry of Land Reform. This was the first comprehensive reform and redistribution of land in Namibia. The Program was costly and lasted more than a decade but delivered results to thousands of households. ‘Land scarcity’, ‘poverty and deprivation’ and the need for ‘social equity’ and ‘justice’ were among its main drivers that shaped the country’s landscapes, defining and demarcating large areas according broad and desired land-use categories. The Program was concomitantly rolled out with other historically important land-use management programs, such as Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) that lasted decades and remains active today. CBRM also has a socio-environmental agenda and focuses on the integrated ‘participatory management of landscapes’. 56. Although the Land Resettlement Program proved to be effective in many aspects, it contributed to land degradation through mechanisms that could not have been foreseen when the program was conceived. Most importantly, the resettled farmers were often not encouraged to make any investments 31

on the land, despite their legal lease right to the land. Additionally, they often did not have the necessary capacity or support from extension services. The latter was not provided to resettled farm lands by either Agricultural or Land Reform ministries, contributing to unsustainable practices in those areas and exacerbating land degradation. 57. The most recent 2002 Agricultural Land Reform Act established communal lands in 12 of 13 regions in Namibia. Maintaining sustainable agricultural practices is often hard in communal lands: for example, in the case of crop rotation, fallow fields may be taken by other farmers. (Note: 14 regions as of August 2018) 58. Food security and nutrition indicators have shown some improvements in the last two decades, and the topic remains a top priority issue for the Government. SHARP results revealed serious problems of insufficient nutrition, especially in Sub-basins 1 and 3 where households do not have enough food stored to ensure a daily meal at all times and the nutritional diversity of available food is poor. This is particularly severe in times of decreased productivity, such as during droughts. 59. Namibia’s dependence on food imports has been increasing since 2013. The prevalence of severe 32 food insecurity across the total population remains high (39%),16 and large areas of Namibia are susceptible to recurrent drought, often leading to crop failure and high rates of livestock mortality. Food insecurity is also unequally distributed across the territory. It is more prevalent in the north-western regions due mainly to the limited access to arable land, chronic poverty and droughts, according to initial findings of country- wide surveys that undertaken after the 2012/13 drought. The population also experiences problems paying for water from community taps and schooling for the children, both of which relate to nutritional health. 60. Food insecurity is a chronic threat to community members in the target landscapes. SHARP+ results showed that household revenues are mostly spent on food (86% of women and 90% of men respondents), followed by education (51% of women and 50% of men). Most households display low dietary diversity (79% in Sub-basin 3, 88% for Sub-basin 1, 88% and 85% for Sub-basin 2.) In addition, most families in Sub-basins 1 and 3 indicated that households at times do not have enough food and can go without food for days. In Sub-basin 2, most respondents indicated that households might not have enough food but are able to have a meal and sleep without hunger. 61. Factors such as unequal access to economic opportunities and incidence of HIV/AIDS contribute to food insecurity. SHARP results clearly indicate that over 30% of the population has limited access to government economic aid in the case of unforeseen disastrous events (e.g. droughts). Other factors, specific to rural areas, that intrinsically link food insecurity drivers to land degradation include: chronic drought and the consequent water shortage, resulting in death of animals and crop failures, widespread soil erosion leading to decreased land productivity, which in turn drives bush encroachment (a leading cause of degradation in project landscapes sites according to LADA) and loss of biomass including from wildfires. Policies designed to counteract the direct and indirect causes of land degradation have not been fully effective, as will be explained later, and other policies have contributed conflicting incentives. 62. The main food insecure segments of the population in northern Namibia comprise resource-poor households, women, youth, the elderly, orphans, the unemployed and households affected by HIV/AIDS – in general groups with limited income generating opportunities. They are also those segments of society most affected by land degradation. 63. On a concluding note, SHARP results show that over 97% of the study populations rely on crop production and 80% on livestock production mostly for subsistence, while much of their revenue (54-74%) is generated from employment (outside agriculture), government support and pensions (Annex E, Box 4). 64. Climate change is expected to exacerbate land degradation significantly in Namibia as conditions will become hotter and drier. Rainfall variability will increase, the consequence of which will be more frequent droughts – resulting in less agricultural productivity and declining contribution to Namibian GDP.

32 The 3-year average is 39% for 2016-2018, since when it has remained largely unchanged according to FAOSTAT. (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/147, accessed in March 2020) 32

It will particularly impact subsistence farming, threatening food security of the communities and their livestock, the latter being heavily reliant on frequent rainfall for rangeland health. 65. Anthropogenic pressures, combined with observed changes in weather patterns and predicted climate change will result in degraded landscapes through deforestation, reduced productivity of vegetation and perennial grasses, soil erosion and bush encroachment. These areas are experiencing pronounced signals of climate variability, such as reduced and more erratic rainfall, warmer temperatures, and higher frequency of droughts are signals of such changes being underway. For example, in 2018/19, Namibia suffered one of its worst droughts in decades, including that of 2013. Such extremes are reflected in Namibia being classified as the seventh country, globally, most at risk from climate-change-induced agricultural production losses, further exacerbated by bush encroaching grazing lands. Hence, the priority need is to create sustainable alternatives to livestock production and commercial farming nationwide. Baseline Initiatives 66. Various projects and programs are well aligned with this GEF-7 Project’s objective, contributing to its baseline as well as providing opportunities for collaboration, technical integration and co-financing, particularly with respect to the LDN agenda at national level and the pursuit of SLM and SFM practices at landscape scales. 67. Most of the projects, programs and other initiatives that comprise the financial baseline and co- financing for this project constitute public investments by the ministries of Agriculture Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), Environment Tourism and Forestry (MEFT) and Trade and Industry (MTI). These investments are summarized in Table 3, based on a much more detailed assessment of Namibia’s Medium- Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for 2019/20-2021/222 and applying conservative extrapolations of the budget allocations to the project duration. Table 3. Co-financing Summary – baselines and co-finance by project component

Row Baseline Project/Program/Initiative Baseline Baseline Co- Co-finance from Baseline No.* calculus finance total C1 C2 C3E total C1 C2 C3 from baseline 1 - 8 Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform $109.7 $0.2 $109.5 $0.0 $47.7 $0.1 $47.6 $0.0 (MAWLR), public investment 1 National Horticulture Support Program $0.0 $3.8 $0.0 $3.8 $0.0 $3.8 $0.0 $3.8 2 NCAs Beef & Dairy VC Dev Program in Northern $0.0 $21.4 $0.0 $21.4 $0.0 $21.4 $0.0 $21.4 Communal Areas 3 National seedbanks Program $0.0 $0.7 $0.0 $0.7 $0.0 $0.3 $0.0 $0.3 4 Agro-Processing $0.0 $2.9 $0.0 $2.9 $0.0 $1.6 $0.0 $1.6 5 Cereal VC Dev Scheme $0.0 $61.3 $0.0 $61.3 $0.0 $13.7 $0.0 $13.7 6 Communal Areas Livestock Project $0.0 $7.3 $0.0 $7.3 $0.0 $1.6 $0.0 $1.6 7 Water Resources Management $0.2 $9.4 $0.0 $9.6 $0.1 $2.4 $0.0 $2.5 8 Seed System Development Scheme $0.0 $2.8 $0.0 $2.8 $0.0 $2.8 $0.0 $2.8 9 Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism $9.7 $0.7 $9.0 $0.0 $9.7 $0.7 $9.0 $0.0 (MEFT), public investment 10 Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), public $8.2 $0.0 $8.2 $0.0 $8.2 $0.0 $8.2 $0.0 investment 12, 13 Environment Investment Fund (EIF) managing GCF $63.4 $0.0 $63.4 $0.0 $16.0 $0.0 $16.0 $0.0 funds 12 Project CBNRM EDA $0.0 $10.0 $0.0 $10.0 $0.0 $6.0 $0.0 $6.0 13 Project CRAVE $0.0 $53.4 $0.0 $53.4 $0.0 $10.0 $0.0 $10.0 11 AfDB and Government of Namibia through MAWLR, $81.4 $24.6 $56.8 $0.0 $55.7 $16.8 $38.9 $0.0 with respect to the NAMSIP Project on agricultural production and productivity 14 KfW KAZA Program $38.5 $13.5 $0.0 $25.0 $35.0 $12.3 $0.0 $22.8 [Exchange rate: T300M NAD= USD 20M] Totals (US $M) $311.0 $39.0 $247.0 $25.0 $172.3 $29.8 $119.7 $22.8 * Refers to row number in the ‘Baseline Matrix’ (Table 1 in Additional Annex X-1B), where full descriptions of the budget lines are provided and justified, with respect to meeting GEF-7 co-financing criteria. 33

68. The results of this more detailed assessment of Namibia’s MTEF, along with other investment initiatives funded by AfDB, GCF and KfW, are elaborated in Table 1 in Additional Annex X-1B. Details of the activities and their relevance to this GEF-7 project, potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration are also provided, all of which provides a transparent justification for their inclusion as co-financing. Project Landscapes Figure 8. Project Landscape Locations

Box 3. Project landscape summary profiles

PROJECT LANDSCAPES A watershed approach was used in order to define the areas of intervention, which is compatible with the landscape approach and enables the project to have an impact at larger, more holistic scales. The landscapes selected comprise three sub-basins, totalling 1,455,049 hectares, within important watersheds in northern Namibia (Figure 8). These sub-basins are, in turn, part of major international river basins in the sub-region: the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango River Basins (see their locations in Figure 1). Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) 600,843.3 hectares is located in the north-western part of the country and encompasses an important transboundary water supply scheme that brings water from the Kunene river basin to the region. The water canal is used for irrigation and domestic supply to thousands of people in Namibia, before being diverted back into Angola to also supply the city of Ondjiva. The area traverses three regions of Namibia: Kunene, Omusati and Oshana. Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) 559,559.5 hectares is located in the central north part of the country and lies entirely within the Oshikoto Region. It includes a large portion of Etosha National Park. It includes a small portion of the Etosha salt pan. Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) 294,646.3 hectares is located in the north-eastern part of the country. It differs from the other two sub-basins, having more closed forest cover and more humid ecosystems along the Okavango River. Information on the baseline sites and intervention areas in each target landscape is provided in Annex E. The map below shows the distribution of target landscapes in relation to Namibia’s administrative regions:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: An interactive map showing the project landscapes (above) and the baseline sites subjected to the Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) can be accessed via this link. The full report for the Remote Sensing Assessment covers: general features, hydrology, fire analysis, population (settlements and density), livestock density and plant diversity. It can be accessed Additional Annex X-6.

DATA SOURCES FOR MAPS AND POPULATION STATISTICS IN THIS BOX: [*] http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf [**] https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/jrc-ghsl-ghs_pop_gpw4_globe_r2015a

(2) Remaining barriers to address

69. The project’s logic and Theory of Change (ToC) is based on a ‘barrier removal approach’, to address the existing threats and their root causes to achieving the project objective. Six key interrelated barriers have been identified, based on the analysis of threats, root causes and drivers of land degradation in the previous Section. They are elaborated below, prior to explaining the ToC in the next Section. 70. Barriers 1 and 2 relate to governance and land-use planning frameworks for promoting LDN through an integrated landscape approach; and they will be addressed in Component 1. Barriers 3 and 4 concern national/local capacity and the adoption of SLM/SFM and other sustainable practices at landscape scales, which will be addressed through training and demonstration in the target landscapes under Component 2. Barriers 5 and 6 relate to supporting data, information and knowledge management systems to inform LDN decision-making and promoting their improvement to mainstream the realization of LDN targets across Namibia, Southern Africa and more widely. They will be addressed through improved information systems and knowledge about SLM/SFM and LDN practices/approaches under Component 3.

Barriers 1 and 2

Barrier 1 Weak governance frameworks for cross-sectoral coordination and implementation of policy, regulatory and associated multi-stakeholder decision-making mechanisms to support LDN at national and landscape levels Barrier 2 Inadequate frameworks and capacity for integrated land-use planning at landscape levels

Policies, Institutions and National Capacity 71. A detailed analysis of policy, planning and regulatory frameworks that are important for land-use management is provided in the Section 7. 72. Namibia’s systemic efforts towards implementing UNCCD goals date back to the early 1990s, since when it has enacted several laws and related policies, along with strategies and plans, aimed at developing the country while also protecting its fragile environment from desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD) for which it has accumulated a reasonable level of capacity for dealing with such issues.

73. The fight against land degradation in Namibia stretches from historic strategies such as the 1992 Green Plan up to the current National Action Program (NAP3, 2014-2024)33. National institutional capacity for SLM implementation and monitoring is diagnosed in NAP3 as follows: “In Namibia, institutional capacity issues seen as constraints to achieving SLM include centralized planning by service ministries with little involvement of land managers. The mandates for land management are spread among different government ministries, which do not plan in an integrated way - a situation that often leads to duplicated or even conflicting efforts.” And further: “Inadequate implementation mechanisms and monitoring systems have been identified as the main weakness in terms of the SLM policy framework.” 74. Namibia implemented several multi-sectoral policies aimed at reinforcing LDN at various levels. The most important ones are: Vision 2030, which includes goals related to water resources, agriculture production and forest management; National Development Plan with five-year sustainable development goals; and the Third National Action Program for Namibia to Implement the UNCCD (NAP3) 2014-2022, with its six LDN targets (Box 1) established in 2015, two years after the NAP3 was approved. 75. NAP3 is Namibia’s current strategy for fighting land degradation and desertification. Both LDN and NAP3 ‘processes’ are governed by Namibia’s statutory SLM Steering Committee. There is a need to retrofit the LDN targets into the NAP3 framework. Several projects have tried to mainstream LDN targets into planning frameworks, not all entirely successful. The number of subsequent comprehensive, plans, policies and strategies highlights the seriousness of Namibia’s land degradation issue that has yet to be addressed. 76. There are several updates to existing national land-use frameworks and others that are important for the management of landscapes and which are due to be reviewed in the next few years, for example: Forest Strategic Plan 2015-19 and National Agriculture Policy (1995). The comprehensive and long-term National Drought Policy and Strategy of 1997 is also due for a thorough review: despite proving to be inadequate to address the 2013 drought, there has yet to be a comprehensive update that identifies and applies the lessons to be learned. In parallel, existing legislation on land tenure, although comprehensive, needs to be better enforced, especially among underprivileged groups. Two major gaps can be therefore identified in relation to the frameworks described above: — lack of adequate strategies on climate-change-related problems (e.g. recurrent droughts); and — ineffective enforcement of land tenure regulations.

77. Other significant gaps that have been identified as priorities for addressing are elaborated below. • Absence of institutionalized land-use decision-making at landscape level – In the past, important such decisions were made by the Landscape Management Committee (LMC), which were created in several locations across Namibia under the NAM-PLACE project. Only a few of these remain operational, most likely because they were not institutionalized. Land-use decision-making needs to be delegated to a representative body of stakeholders at local landscape levels in order to be grounded in reality and secure the ownership of stakeholders. • Absence of any legal policy instrument that links the NPA3 and subsequent LDN targets to the Integrated Regional Land-Use Plan (IRLUP) process – For Namibia, the LDN target setting process created the need for more specific pathways to achieve the goals in the 2015 LDN Strategy. At the same time, there is a ‘missing link’ between national level LND target-setting and planning and implementation at downscaled levels (e.g. region). This gap is highlighted in the Final report: Land Degradation Neutrality Pilot Project, funded by GIZ and ending in 2018. The GIZ project, successful in many respects, was unable to mainstream LDN processes and assessments into the IRLUPs for its target regions (Otjozondjupa and Omusati). IRLUPs are the remit of the Land Reform Department, now under MAWLR. The final report states: “Although the implementation of the NAP3 is a national priority, there is no clear legal linkage between the NAP3 and the IRLUP process.” It goes on to state: “Implementing LDN through the IRLUP process will require extra budget allocations to the MRL [Ministry of Land Reform] for conducting the LDN assessments. Therefore, it is vital that a clear

33 Other land-degradation-related policies and strategies in Namibia can be found in the comprehensive reviews by: Desert Research Foundation, 2004; Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2010; and Rupel and Rupel-Schlichting (eds), 2013. 36

legal agreement or process is established, either through existing legal documents or through the production of new documents. This should ensure the justification for future additional budget allocations by the MLR and its supporting agencies for the LDN-IRLUP integration.”34 • Absence of any legal policy instrument for the direct practical implementation of NAP3, which is also highlighted in the 2018 GTZ Final Report as follows: “The NAP3 has a framework plan for its implementation, and its aim is to achieve LDN in Namibia. However, there are no legally binding guidelines for LDN related land degradation assessments that can help [in] identifying clear actions for the implementation on the ground.”34 Gaps for Collaborative Land-Use Management and Multi-Sectoral Decision-Making 78. At present, land management is divided between many entities that lack multi-sectoral decision- making support mechanisms. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) within MEFT is the national Focal Point for UNCCD. This ministry along with MAWLR and various other institutions involved in land management in the past have demonstrated limited capacity for multi-sectoral collaboration that would enable comprehensive land management planning to be implemented in alignment with regional efforts. Improved sectoral coordination and decision-making has been stressed as an urgent need in NAP3. While certain actions raised by the UNCCD focal point have been discussed and coordinated with respective line ministries, implementation has often been hampered by weak collaborative frameworks among them. 79. Other gaps include the limited LDN capacity of the MEFT, which is also currently understaffed, and a myriad of challenges face informed decision-making at various levels. For instance, there is no permanent forum where land-use trade-offs can be assessed and resolved. Some institutions, such as Namibia Statistics Agency or the newly established Monitoring and Reporting Unit at the University of Namibia (UNAM), use spatial data analysis as a planning tool but this is not widespread. Also, many existing sectoral policies remain compartmentalized within the confines of the sectors; and the few instruments and governance bodies that address transboundary water resource management receive limited investment. 80. Gaps and shortcomings described in this and the previous section above are embraced within Barrier 1, which will be addressed under Component 1. Gaps in Integrated Land-Use Planning 81. Integrated multi-level planning is fundamental to the successful application of existing policies at landscape and site levels. Land-use planning at national and landscape levels is not new to Namibia, particularly within the former MET (now MEFT) and Ministry of Land Reform (now MAWLR). The latter pioneered Integrated Regional Land Use Plans for three regions (Kavango East, Kavango West and Zambezi) and a strategic environmental assessment for the Zambezi Region in 2015. This capacity is evident from the way that land governance is structured across the country: through the establishment of conservancies which require a good understanding of landscape planning to be embedded in national institutions. Thus, there is sound capacity to conduct land-use planning but multi-sectoral coordination and implementation of land-use plans remains a challenge. 82. The second major challenge, as noted by GIZ in 2011 is: “land-use plans that are not binding and as a result lack implementation and are not respected”. The 2017 Republic of Namibia Northern Crop and Livestock Development Master Plan Study, developed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for the MAWF (now MAWLR) is an important example of a comprehensive and detailed planning initiative that failed to be implemented because no funds were allocated for its implementation. 83. Capacity at both institutional and individual levels needs to be improved for existing national policies at various levels to be effectively implemented and enforced. Capacity building has to be inclusive and gender-sensitive, as well as multi-sectoral to ensure integration and coordination of policy, regulations

34 Hengari, S. (2081). Final report: Land Degradation Neutrality Pilot Project. A project of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). November 2018, Windhoek, Namibia. 37

and decision-making; and NAP3 also presents a great opportunity to empower women in SLM, which will improve the enforcement of policy frameworks among marginalized groups. 84. The above gaps and shortcomings are accommodated in Barrier 2, which will be addressed under Component 1.

Barriers 3 and 4

Barrier 3 Limited capacity to apply SLM/SFM practices at landscape levels Barrier 4 Limited incentives to encourage the adoption of SLM/SFM practices and technologies at national and landscape levels

Capacity Gaps and Access to Rural Advisory Services 85. Lack of knowledge and will to implement SLM and SFM practices among farmers is related to gaps in the capacity of and access to existing extension services. In Namibia, rural extension services are provided by regional government institutions, most importantly the Directorate of Engineering and Extension Services (DEES) under MAWLR’s Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARD), with North-East, North Central and Central and North Western divisions. They are represented in the field by Agriculture Development Centers (ADPs), tasked with providing training assistance to farmers. 86. Outside the public sector, academia (e.g. UNAM) provides training at community level across the country. There are also several well-established NGOs (e.g. Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, Namibia National Women’s Organization) and community groups present in the field, but government and parastatal organizations are the major providers of training. Within the private sector are several producers’ organizations and agriculture unions (e.g. Namibia National Farmers Union, AgriFutura, Namibia Agricultural Union). According to the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS), “The government agricultural extension services mainly provide subsidized agricultural services and the administration of government programs such as drought relief and credit schemes”35. 87. Access to extension services is facilitated by regional divisions but transport for extension officers may be limited, while farmers needing support often live in remoter areas. Generally, small-holder farmers have more limited access to extension services than commercial farmers. Existing extension services are underfunded, which negatively impacts their capacity to train farmers in conservation agriculture. 88. In addition to limited services, the capacity of service providers is often limited, particularly regarding their knowledge and skills in participatory approaches and their understanding of climate change impacts and potential solutions to these impacts. While working with traditional communities, service providers might also be unfamiliar about certain traditional knowledge and its veracity.

89. The fact that agricultural research is managed by a separate entity, Directorate of Agricultural Research and Training (DART), within MAWLR, and not DEES results in poor coordination of efforts that still remains a problem, despite certain improvements in recent years with new strategies and approaches. Accessing Finance for SLM and SFM 90. Namibia has two functional conservation/environmental trust funds as well as a bank dedicated to agricultural development – the Agricultural Bank of Namibia. The Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF) supports conservation across Namibia, particularly community-based conservation initiatives. Both are managed by the Environmental Investment Fund (EIF), which was officially launched in 2012 as an innovative financing mechanism for the environment, in line with other environmental funds in Africa and elsewhere. EIF has a broad mandate, working with topics such as conservancies, land-use planning, renewable energy, waste management, pesticide use, green technology, research and awareness.

35 Source: https://www.g-fras.org/en/world-wide-extension-study/africa/southern-afrca/namibia.html 38

91. However, smallholders or land users cannot readily access finance, either through commercial banks or environment programs due to land-tenure issues. This constitutes an important gap, which creates a strong disincentive for land users to adopt SLM/SFM practices. 92. It should also be mentioned that over 95% of farmers have no access to Community Seed Banks (CSBs) that could serve as a form of insurance, thereby improving the capacity of the farmers to apply SLM/SFM practices. 93. An additional important point concerns financial capacity, specifically in relation to the baseline finance analysis carried out during the PPG that was based on selected public investment initiatives, all from government’s own funds, as follows: • Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, through various governmental programs identified. • Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism, through Integrated Forest Resource Management programs. • Ministry of Industrialization and Trade, through the Cosmetic Sector Industry Growth Program. The realization rate from previous years for several of the selected programs was 50%-65% below target, which is considered medium-low. Given the budget is 100% program-based, there is no mechanism that would allow joint implementation on the ground with the above-mentioned ministries. 94. Within the Mid-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), there is also no tagging of SLM/SFM/IWRM budgets and public expenditure, likewise for conservation and protected area funding. LDN frameworks will continue to underperform in Namibia, until strong linkages to finance are established and cultivated, both domestically and internationally. Land Tenure 95. Land tenure in Namibia is complex as previously described30, with historical roots dating back to the colonial era when “access to freehold tenure was reserved for white settlers and tenure security for indigenous Namibians largely disappeared. In non-white areas, rights were provided under indigenous tenure systems whose legal status was somewhat murky” 36 . Since Namibia’s independence, several initiatives were launched, aiming at returning land rights to disenfranchised Namibians such as: — Affirmative Action Loan Scheme (AALS) aiming primarily at large-scale livestock farmers; — Resettlement Program of 1995, describe previously55; — Establishment of conservancies; and — Land registration by the Communal Land Boards (Land Reform Act), approving tenure and aimed at small-scale farmers with plots up to 25ha. 96. Despite having an existing comprehensive framework that deals with land tenure issues, there are marginalized groups that comprise: commercial farm workers, whose right to land can end with their employment; historically excluded disadvantaged groups such as illiterate, women and indigenous people, whose access to government aid is limited; and small scale farmers. 97. Land-tenure practices and control of natural resources within community conservancies stand out as a strong barrier vis-à-vis the sustainable management of landscapes30. PPG assessments verified, for example, that communal lands are subjected to illegal fencing by better-off individuals, often restricting access to crucial resources such as water and leading to tensions within communities that ultimately added pressure on land, resources and degradation. Such issues can be addressed by the project but require a ‘non-threatening approach’ to land-tenure conflict resolution. 98. Namibia’s northern regions include communal lands comprising crops, pastures and woodlands that include small-scale commercial farms granted by leasehold on communal land, conservancies, and community forests. Communal land predominates by far according to SHARP+ results (92% of Sub-basin 3,

36 B. Fuller, Improving Tenure Security for the Rural Poor. Namibia – Country Case Study, 2006 39

88% of Sub-basin 1 and 100% of Sub-basin 2). However, a user fee often applies to agricultural land because available land is scarce. Most users of communal land (74%) declared that they paid such fees (in cash). In the case of privately owned land, 17% also paid a fee to their parents, for example, to use the land. Some other relevant aspects of land tenure are highlighted in Box 4. Box 4. Access to land and livelihoods in target landscapes, based on PPG SHARP survey results

PATTERNS OF ACCESS TO LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES • Communal land is the most common tenure category (96%), accessed and used for agricultural activities by land users/managers in the target project landscapes. • Only a minority of survey respondents in Omusati access private land (7%). Community chiefs allocate communal agricultural lands. • Likewise, community chiefs also decide on tree-cutting restrictions. Quotas are normally allocated by forest management groups advised by the Directorate of Forestry. However, in the case of Kavango, access is largely uncontrolled except in protected areas such as community forests or conservancies. • Forests are accessed by 67% of producers on average (212 HH); 93% of them in Kavango, 70% in Omusati and 35% in Oshikoto. Eighty two percent of households reported that forests were within a 5 km radius of their homes and 15% reported 10 km as the nearest forest. Most respondents (81%) acknowledged that forest resources had been degraded in the past three years.

99. The above gaps and shortcomings are inter-related and will be accommodated within Barriers 3 and 4 under Component 2 of this project.

Barriers 5 and 6

Barrier 5 Insufficient information and knowledge management systems to support effective evidence-based decision-making on LDN at national and local levels Barrier 6 Limited national, regional and global opportunities for improving knowledge of effective SLM/SFM and LDN approaches among practitioners

Regional and Global Perspectives 100. As a Child Project of the Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program on Dryland Sustainable Landscapes that embraces 11 countries across two continents (Africa and Asia) and as one among seven countries in the ‘Miombo Cluster’ of Child Projects in Southern Africa introduced previously5, participating nations have an opportunity to seek strategic and conceptual cohesion, regional collaboration and peer learning opportunities in order to address common challenges – including the management of target landscapes that abut international borders in a holistic, integrated context. Such collaboration is nested within the Global Coordination Project, promoting a higher-level knowledge exchange platform in support of sustainable management of dryland landscapes. 101. In the case of Namibia, there is a specific opportunity to enhance its collaboration with Angola in the management of shared Kunene and Cuvelai river basins that form and water the Etosha Pan, as well as supply hundreds of thousands of people in both countries with water. Adoption of the landscape approach in concert with planning to realize LDN targets within the shared basins of the two countries is a very real opportunity afforded by their respective Child Projects. 102. While the Governments of Angola, Namibia and also Botswana are accustomed to discuss matters of ‘shared water bodies’ and ‘integrated management of land and water’ within the relevant joint-basin commissions for the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango rivers, the project brings a potential unifying agenda item to the table - the LND perspective. With it, there is an opportunity to ‘simplify’ the otherwise complex decision making process on the management of land areas by apply the LDN response hierarchy. More specifically, it would inform and precipitate decisions on LDN responses to certain Land Management Units (LMUs) requiring an approach of ‘Avoiding’, ‘Reducing’ or ‘Reversing’ land degradation. For the participating countries, joint land-use activities would have an immediate benefit of framing the processes within the UNDCCD reporting mechanism. It would also produce enhanced global environmental benefits for all concerned countries in terms of land areas under improved and ‘collaborative’ management.

103. The sub-regional dialogue that would be generated from the activities would create an investment friendly environment under the auspices of SADC’s Great Green Wall Initiative for Southern Africa (GGWI- S), for example, including support from other regional bodies and partners. Such collaboration can also happen at the global scale, within a higher-level exchange mechanism for dryland landscapes. 104. The barriers to achieving more strategic and conceptual cohesion, regional collaboration and for fostering collective mechanisms and approaches among stakeholders in the Miombo/Mopane Cluster countries are linked to the availability of tailored support services. Need for a Regional-Global Exchange Mechanism 105. The need for support services benefiting the DSL IP’s stakeholders is primarily linked to the programmatic requirements of “delivering scale, cost-effectiveness and sustainability”, as well as to program-level Outcome 3.3, which addresses: ‘Collaboration and exchange with regional and global levels enhanced to support national and sub-national efforts to deliver LDN’. 106. It is important to consider any exchange mechanism from the point of view of the client, which in this case would potentially be the entire group of stakeholders in the DSL IP. Such a representative group of 200 stakeholders from governments, GEF agencies, global NGOs, GEF Secretariat and the UNCCD Secretariat came together at FAO’s Headquarters in Rome in January 2020 to mark the inception of the DSL GSP and exchange on progress and lessons from implementation of the respective PPGs in the 11 DSL IP countries. When the theme of support services was discussed, there was almost full consensus on the need for support services to be ‘demand-driven’. 107. Currently, several 'policy platforms’ and ‘knowledge hubs’ that cover themes relevant to the DSL IP are available. A brief analysis of these platforms and hubs shows that what they can offer is insufficient for reaching the IP’s goals under Outcome 3.3. There are gaps in the coverage of themes such as markets, finance, knowledge transfer and climate, particularly with respect to drylands, LDN and SLM/SFM. Moreover, the dissemination of innovative science-based solutions applied to the management of dryland landscape is an important gap not covered by existing platforms and hubs. 108. During the above Inception Workshop, stakeholders gave preference to a ‘mechanism’ at the regional level, which would not just complement and enhance global level support to the DSL IP Child Projects but also specifically service Miombo-Mopane countries. Specific services were identified by participants in a post workshop survey, the results of which are unequivocal about what should be top priorities for any Regional Exchange Mechanism (REM), as summarized in Box 5. 109. The call for a Regional Exchange Mechanism from IP stakeholders has been followed up since the January 2020 Inception Workshop, full details of which are given in Additional Annex X-1C and summarized in Box 6. Box 5. Results from survey of DSL IP global stakeholders on the REM In the aftermath of the Inception Workshop of for the Global Child Project (GCPs) under DSL IP (Rome, Jan 2020), an e- survey among participants was carried out to collect views and opinions on ‘the need for global and regional exchange mechanism under the IP’. Survey Results • A significant majority (76%) of participants expressed the opinion that the regional platform to help meet the needs and/or to assist in country coordination or technical inputs is needed and should be co-hosted by an existing institution with a similar mandate (87%). • In terms of knowledge management, facilitating engagement between countries to identify common challenges among dryland countries where collaboration might yield benefits and the establishment of mechanism for sharing knowledge were identified as the most urgent priorities. • Regarding private sector engagement, the priority is sharing of information on regional and global market opportunities for dryland products. • Countries and the global coordination project should make financial contributions to the regional platforms.

110. In terms of ‘hubs’ and ‘mechanisms’, there are a suite of global level initiatives. They include the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) and Forest Farm Facility (FFF), Pastoralist Knowledge Hub, Agroecology Hub and the NBSAP Forum – to name a few. They cover a number of relevant ‘practices and themes’ that support different agendas and processes under the DSL IP. However, there is a difference between accessing platforms online for looking up knowledge/information about different ‘practices’ and actually acquiring knowledge and developing skills to implement such practices. DSL IP countries’ needs for networking, capacity building for accessing facilitated technical assistance and market opportunities for drylands’ products will not be met through these other hubs and mechanisms only. 111. Regarding ‘platforms’, the Working Group on Dryland Forest and Agrosylvopastoral Systems (or the Drylands’ WG) is the most relevant one in terms of networking, having a regional anchor at SADC level and a rather narrow mandate with respect to exchange on policies. The Drylands’ WG is co-supported by the Global Mechanism under UNCCD and could likely be the founding members of the future Southern Africa DSL Regional Exchange Mechanism proposed herein. It is also worth mentioning that, historically, SADC countries have been implementing the Sub-Regional Action Program on Drought and Desertification (SRAP) since the early 2000s, which has become a lasting policy-support platform maintained by IUCN. 112. In addition, there are emerging new developments and mechanisms that support SLM and SFM in Africa, that have implications for the DSL IP across the continent. These include: • At global level under the auspices of the UNCCD, various countries have set targets for pursuing Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) at the landscape level. Many have also stared taking measures towards achieving LDN goals. Yet, the need for support represents an unmet demand. • Several African countries, including from the Southern Africa region, embraced the 2017 Bonn Challenge on ecosystem restoration and embarked on different initiatives to address the challenge. The African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) is one example whereby eight member countries of SADC have made pledges to date to restore degraded land through a concerted, multi-stakeholder effort. • SADC countries announced l the Great Green Wall Initiative for Southern Africa (GGWI-S) in 2018, under the auspices of the African Union, following in the wake of that launched for the Sahel in 2007. In late 2019, a draft strategy was prepared that currently awaits approval. The LDN Concept, the African Union’s Agenda 2063 for Africa’s drylands and SADC’ SRAP to Combat Desertification are some of the frameworks that underpin the GGWI-S strategy, which is a program on ecosystem restoration and investment, and public participation. The DSL IP is well positioned to support national initiatives that will become part of the GGWI-S but not without the necessary cohesion, harmonized approach and the means to track ongoing initiatives in countries. 113. The above limitations are inter-related and accommodated in Barriers 5 and 6 of Component 3.

(3) Proposed GEF alternative scenario and theory of change

114. The proposed GEF alternative scenario is based on a Theory of Change (ToC) that sets out the causal logic and relationships between the project’s Outputs (goods and services delivered by the project) and immediate project outcomes (changes resulting from the benefit of project outputs to key stakeholders), medium and longer-term changes and states, and the project’s ultimate desired impact (fundamental, durable changes in environmental and social benefits). This is narrated in the next Sub- section and summarized in an accompanying diagram. Thereafter, the project strategy in Section 1.a (4), comprising the expected outcomes by end of project within three Component areas of action, is elaborated with details of indicative Activities under respective Outputs. 115. Implementation of the DSL IP Child Project in Namibia will provide a strategic opportunity to strengthen national policy and capacity on LDN and align them with key strategic initiatives including: — Forest Policy and Forestry Act (2001), — National Climate Change Strategy & Action Plan (2013-2020), — Second National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2022, and 42

— Namibia Agriculture Policy (2015) and MAWF’s Strategic Plan 2017/18-2021/22. 116. The project will scale-up SLM and SFM best practices in priority landscapes in the north of the country, with a transboundary focus and impact (Kunene basin) complementing existing interventions (i.e. GEF6 NILALEG and national development budget investments). It will contribute directly to SADC’s Great Green Wall Initiative and Sub-regional Action Programme to combat desertification. The strengthened national policy and capacity on LDN and empowerment of stakeholders in SLM/SFM/LR/IWRM planning and implementation, in combination with the establishment/strengthening of inclusive dryland commodity value chains, will have a positive impact beyond the target landscapes. Upscaling and mainstreaming of SLM/SFM/LR/IWRM investments in a coordinated fashion with other projects active in the same part of the country and creating transboundary synergies with Angola will have a positive long-term impact on a part of Namibia where land degradation is the most critical issue. In addition, the transboundary approach, including the linkage with GGWI/SADC, the regional knowledge platform and regional farmer support opportunities through the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) will ensure impacts at larger ecosystem levels. 117. The project will strategically address land degradation challenges in drylands through project components dedicated to: — Providing an enabling environment for LDN delivery at landscape level – Component 1, — Enhancing institutional stakeholder capacity for LDN/SLM/SFM/IWRM and community-based sustainable land-use management and livelihoods development – Component 2, and — Ensuring transboundary cooperation via SADC to mainstream the above – Component 3. 118. The project will lead to the achievement of the following global environment benefits (GEBs): — 200,200 ha of degraded forest restored/improved through SFM interventions, — 145,000 ha of cropland improved, — 1,301,476 million tCO2e mitigated over twenty years, and local/national benefits: — improved livelihoods for 10,000 beneficiaries in target landscapes, of which 50% are women. 119. A detailed description of the incremental cost reasoning, in terms of business as usual versus global and national benefits generated by the project is presented in Sections 1.a (7) and (8), respectively.

Theory of Change 120. The fundamental problem this project seeks to address is the widespread land degradation in northern Namibia, by focusing on three priority landscapes (Sub-basin 1 Kunene-Cuvelai, Sub-basin 2 Etosha and Sub-basin 3 – Kavango) as a precursor to mainstreaming the landscape approach post-project. Degradation in these multi-use landscapes, which are under a diverse array of land-governance regimes, is a result of negative land-use changes over the past 25 years that have depleted dryland ecosystem services and led to reduced productivity in forests, croplands and rangelands. Population density in northern Namibia is high, and so is competition for land. Local communities, many of whom live within Communal Conservancies in the project landscapes, depend on the productivity of land for their livelihoods. Thus, land degradation threatens the food security and sustainable development of local populations. As previously identified, the main causes of land degradation include bad management, land conversion, fire and more.47 121. The main drivers of land degradation include population pressure, poverty, inequality, land reform and resettlement48, exacerbated by climate change impacts such as extreme weather events that include prolonged droughts, changes in seasonal rainfall patterns and temperature rise. 122. The project will address land degradation in northern Namibia by strengthening national and landscape-level policy, regulatory and planning frameworks, as well as national capacity to tackle land degradation. The project’s model applies an ‘integrated landscape management’ (ILM) approach to reconcile competing land uses and empower stakeholders to make rational and planned decisions on land use through multi-sectoral, participatory processes.

123. The project seeks to transform the management of production systems within Namibia’s Miombo- Mopane Woodlands, using the ILM approach to address the six barriers to achieving LDN and thereby alleviate threats to these woodlands in the three target landscapes. Threats to ecosystem services in targeted Land Management Units (LMUs) will be subject to interventions that AVOID, REDUCE and/or REVERSE land degradation trends, while also contributing to national LDN targets, improved and more resilient livelihoods and to biodiversity conservation. Positive changes across production landscapes will be achieved by encouraging land users to adopt SLM/SFM practices. 124. Integrated land-use planning and implementation will be a key strategy in the project, in combination with strategies that strengthen the sustainability of dryland value chains. The development of value chains is particularly important for local communities, to the extent that it generates income and contributes to securing sustainable livelihoods for community members. 125. Given that the priority landscapes embrace parts of the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango river basins, the project will implement and up-scale SLM/SFM best practices with a transboundary focus that is also in synergy with other existing interventions, notably the GEF-6 NILALEG project, KASA initiative and selected sectoral programs under the National Development Programs funded by public investment. The project will additionally address challenges that are specific to the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion through a concerted participatory approach to learning and innovation, and through Namibia’s participation in the Regional Exchange Mechanism (REM). 126. The ILM approach will be realized through three interlinked strategies (components), comprising a set of project interventions (activities) and outputs that will address the respective identified barriers to avoiding, reducing and/or reversing land degradation and deliver the following ‘immediate project outcomes’ in the project landscapes. The three strategies are dedicated to: • Developing enabling frameworks (policy, regulatory, participatory planning) for applying LDN at national and landscape levels – Component 1 • Strengthening implementation and enabling scaling out of SLM/SFM – Component 2 • Strengthening knowledge, learning and collaboration to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets – Component 3 127. Component 1 will address Barrier 1: Weak governance frameworks for cross-sectoral coordination and implementation of policy, regulatory and associated multi-stakeholder decision-making mechanisms to support LDN at national and landscape levels and Barrier 2: Inadequate frameworks and capacity for integrated land-use planning at the landscape levels, by providing the necessary support for overcoming the limitations indicated by the barriers and by enabling key processes for operationalizing the landscape approach across governance levels, in harmony and alignment with LDN principles. More specifically, Component 1 will create an enabling environment for LDN by reinforcing the role and mandate of the national SLM Steering Committee for improved multi-sectoral coordination, policy and planning. Existing policies and frameworks will be revised to ensure their effectiveness and improve the overall regulatory framework conditions for sustainable integrated landscape management. At the same time, it will build on and reinforce existing planning models in Namibia, some of which already adopt integrated methods, including the ‘landscape approach’. A key focus of Component 1 will be the development of Integrated Land Use Plans for the project’s target landscapes. This will be preceded by preparatory and training activities to create the conditions and build capacity for implementing these Plans at landscape levels. Component 1 has two outcomes: 1.1. LDN policy, regulatory and participatory planning frameworks developed or strengthened and harmonized 1.2. Integrated land-use planning for LDN applied to landscapes 128. Component 2 will address Barrier 3: Limited capacity to apply SLM/SFM practices at landscape levels and Barrier 4: Limited incentives to encourage the adoption of SLM/SFM practices and technologies at national and landscape levels by supporting the adoption of SLM/SFM practices on the ground, aligned with policies and priorities in the Integrated Land-Use Plans, and combined with training and assistance

aimed at avoiding unsustainable land use practices through alternatives and diversification (e.g. creation/strengthening of green value chains, forest restoration, crop diversification). Component 2 has two outcomes: 2.1. SLM/SFM practices aligned with ILUP priorities and demonstrated in target landscapes 2.2. SLM/SFM practices supported by green value chains in target landscapes 129. Component 3 will address Barrier 5: Insufficient information and knowledge management systems to support effective evidence-based decision-making on LDN at national and local levels and Barrier 6: Limited national, regional and global opportunities for improving knowledge of effective SLM/SFM and LDN approaches among practitioners through more strategic regional collaboration and by fostering collective mechanisms and approaches to learning, innovating and devising solutions with other stakeholders in Miombo-Mopane Cluster countries. Component 3 has three outcomes 3.1. National land information framework strengthened to inform LDN-related policy, planning and management at landscape, national and global levels 3.2. Knowledge and awareness enhanced to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets 3.3. Collaboration and exchange at regional and global levels enhanced to support national and sub-national efforts to deliver LDN 130. Several Outcomes are interlinked and work together or depend on the delivery of others, as shown in the ToC diagram where key relationships (pathways) between the main elements in the Theory of Change are indicated by arrows. Component 1 (strengthening the enabling environment for LDN) is a prerequisite for all Outcomes under Component 2. Under Component 1, the ILUPs for the target landscapes will be developed, which will guide successful implementation under Component 2. Similarly, the provision of FFFs and development of GVCs promoted under Outcomes 2.1-2 will support the uptake of SLM/SFM practices on the ground and, indeed, are drivers for the scaling out of successful project results in the target areas and for ensuring that such efforts will continue into the future, leading to the project’s sustainability. 131. There is also a strong interconnection between Components 1 and 2 and the regional perspective of Component 3: whereby results and experiences from Components 1 and 2 feed into a national knowledge platform on LDN under Component 3, from which guidance on improved practices and lesson learned by the project are shared regionally and globally with the wider drylands community under global and regional exchange mechanisms (G/REMs), represented by a separate pathway in the ToC diagram. Conversely, knowledge gained and lessons learned by this project and other Global Child Projects (GCPs) are collated and fed back into improving Namibia’s SLM/SFM and LDN policies, regulations, financing strategies and land management practices under Components 1 and 2 (overlaps are indicated by hatched boxes and two-way arrows in the ToC diagram). These cross relationships between Component groups and their respective Outcomes is where the results and experiences from Components 1 and 2 contribute to the strategic leveraging of LDN at the regional and then global level under Component 3. 132. Combined, the three components will demonstrate how a paradigm shift towards LDN can be achieved: by integrating the management of production systems at landscape scales, while prioritizing the conservation of Miombo-Mopane woodlands alongside the sustainable improvement of local livelihoods. Delivery of project outcomes will also improve regional decision-making, collaboration and partnerships across the Miombo-Mopane cluster of countries.37 However, the project’s design and implementation rely on a number of underlying premises (i.e. prior ‘givens’ or proven conditions) and assumptions (i.e. unproven suppositions), as elaborated below. Key Premises 133. The project’s design and operation rest on a number of important premises:

37 This is represented by a separate causal pathway in the ToC diagram. 45

P.1 Primarily, it is presumed that SLM/SFM interventions can effectively address the land degradation problem, help decrease GHG emissions in the target landscapes, and can be successfully replicated (scaled out) in other dryland areas of Namibia. Although the SLM concept is well described in the literature and its successfulness proven by various studies and projects, its projected positive impact needs to be stated as a fundamental premise of this project. P.2 Cultural norms will not prevent women from actively participating in project interventions. It is crucial that women are involved in the project not only for the sake of gender equity but also for ensuring overall feasibility and future sustainability of the project. P.3 The potential short- and long-term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic remain contained to the extent that they do not drastically affect the project’s baseline conditions, such as the national budget, institutional setup, projected partnerships and interactions with stakeholders to the extent of undermining its purpose. P.4 National LDN targets are realistically applied and translated into practical land-use management planning within the target landscapes for the project to succeed. P.5 Technical assistance and rural advisory services are essential for a transition towards sustainable management being practiced across entire landscapes. P.6 Incremental income generated through land users’ participation in green value chains will contribute to their effectively adoption of SLM/SFM/IWRM practices and their wider dissemination of such practices across landscapes. P.7 Through regional and global collaboration and coordination under the DSL IP, Namibia’s contribution to the global LDN target and other co-related international instruments, including within SADC, will be more effective. Key Assumptions 134. In addition to the sine qua non premises, assumptions relating to the project’s timeframe need to be met for the project to operate and deliver at activity level. Overridingly important is securing the proactive commitment of key partners and other stakeholders to deliver the project’s objective of reducing land degradation and shifting towards LDN. This is especially important for interventions requiring changes to policy and regulatory frameworks, and for securing investments from co-financiers. Key assumptions are listed below and depicted by ‘A’ in the ToC diagram. A.1-A.7 apply during the project’s life and A.8 post- project. A.1 No major changes are made in the government that could result in decreased political will to engage, collaborate and ensure successful project implementation and program coordination. A.2 Local institutions are committed to improve their capacity to engage and implement sustainable and integrated management of multi-use dryland landscapes in the country. A.3 Local communities are willing to engage with project team to implement project activities and adopt SLM/SFM practices at the project target landscapes. A.4 Government allocates sufficient budget to field offices to ensure their involvement in the implementation of landscape level activities. A.5 Project solutions are considered more attractive financially, environmentally, sustainably and socially by land users than destructive ‘business as usual’ land and natural resource use practices. A.6 Private sector is willing to invest in SLM/SFM/LDN activities, encouraged by a supportive regulatory and financial environment. A.7 Countries continue to commit to regional collaboration, benefitting from both the enhanced LDN agenda across the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion and strengthened national capacity. A.8 Future climate change impacts do not irreversibly affect the structure and function of ecosystem services in production landscapes.

Impact Drivers 135. There are also a number of impact drivers38 that may increase the likelihood of progress along the causal chain, subject to the project and/or its partners exerting some influence. These are listed below and depicted by a ‘D’ in the ToC diagram. Note that D.1 and D.2 apply during the life of the project, while D3 and D4 become increasingly relevant post-project. D.1 Increased awareness among policymakers, land users, civil society and the private sector of the need to adopt resilient, adaptive or mitigation measures to counter climate change impacts. D.2 Increasing global demand and diversified markets for SLM/SFM products. D.3 Regional initiatives and forums, such as the Great Green Wall and SADC, promoting regional visions for sustainable land and natural resource use, facilitating increased inward investment, and building capacity for sustainable management of land and natural resources D.4 International legal obligations, such as national commitments to AFR100, SDGs, UNCCD, UNFCCC and CBD, sustaining the prioritization of the LDN agenda during project implementation and beyond. 136. The Namibia Child Project’s Theory of Change, summarized in the ToC diagram below, is well- aligned with the over-arching ToC for the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program (DSL IP) and Land Degradation Objective, as well as with the principles of GEF’s programmatic approach outlined in the 39 GEF-7 Strategy2 . This program approach applied by Miombo-Mopane countries will sustain integrated management in the target landscapes, thereby maintaining or improving the flow of both ecosystem services (LD 2.2) for biodiversity conservation and agro-ecosystem services (LD 1.1) for food production and the livelihoods of forest-dependent people.

ToC Diagram Note: Black arrows show key pathways; green arrows show pathways of the four drivers (D1-D4); and blue boxes (A1-A8) refer to the key assumptions.

38 Impact drivers are significant external factors that can positively influence the direction of change along the project’s causal pathways from outputs to outcomes to impacts; and over which the project and/or its partners and other stakeholders have some degree of control or influence (e.g. public pressure on decision-makers). 39 GEF-7 Programming Directions: https://www.thegef.org/documents/gef-7-programming-directions. 47

(4) Project strategy

Project Objective

137. The Namibia Child Project is part of the GEF-7 Impact Program Sustainable Forest Management Dryland Sustainable Landscapes (DSL IP), whose global objective is to avoid, reduce, and reverse further degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in drylands through the sustainable management of production landscapes. The Namibia Child Project will contribute to the above goal through the following project specific objective: Namibia Child Project Objective: To initiate a transformational shift towards sustainable, integrated management of multi-use dryland landscapes in northern Namibia, building on Land Degradation Neutrality principles.

138. The project has been designed to effect positive change through catalytic effects (i.e. the ‘transformational shift’) within targeted landscapes that harbor Miombo-Mopane woodlands (including Baikiaea woodlands). This assumes that the degradation of water, soil and vegetation functions, as well as GHG emissions contributing to climate change can be limited through SLM/SFM/IWRM practices that simultaneously conserve natural resources, increase yields and enhance land users’ resilience. The development and/or strengthening of dryland value chains is also part of the core strategy. 139. The project will additionally address challenges that are specific to the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion through a concerted participatory approach nationally and through Namibia’s participation in the Regional Exchange Mechanism. REM is a demand-driven partnership for networking, learning, managing and collaborating on ‘common management challenges’ of relevance to Miombo- cluster countries, as described in Additional Annex X-1C and applied in Output 3.2.1. Seven countries in Southern Africa are participating in the DSL IP and 11 in total globally.

Box 6. Summary of Regional Exchange Mechanism (Source: Additional Annex X-1C)

Miombo-Mopane Cluster – a Harmonized Approach 140. Namibia’s Child Project’s Theory of Change (TOC) is well aligned with the DSL IP’s TOC, as well as with the GEF-7 Strategy as previously mentioned.136 The overall programmatic approach, in which the Child Project ToCs are embedded, presupposes that it is possible “to effectively address threats to Miombo and Mopane woodlands and their globally important environmental values and ecosystem services, while contributing to land degradation neutrality (LDN), to the sustainability of local livelihood and to climate change resilience across landscapes” by pursuing the following key strategies, which are reflected in the three Components of Namibia’s Child Project that are described in the next Section II.1.a (5) : i. Developing the capacities of stakeholders to identify and assess the drivers of land degradation in a participatory manner for more informed decision-making on SLM/SFM (Components 1 and 3); ii. Strengthening multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder coordination and collaboration at all levels, for example, LDN platforms at national and landscape levels (Component 1); iii. Strengthening multi-sectoral rural advisory services to build capacities of land users in integrated SLM/SFM interventions (Component 2); iv. Providing incentives for land users to engage in SLM/SFM, for example through sustainable value chains and securing their rights (Component 2); and v. Sharing knowledge between the cluster (Miombo-Mopane) countries on good approaches and practices, reflective learning through effective transboundary coordination (Component 3). 141. In addition to enabling countries to address complex, commonly encountered drivers of land degradation in the targeted landscapes in a systematic and harmonious manner, the DSL IP provides an opportunity to tackle transboundary issues in an integrated way, particularly those related to water using IWRM experience and similarly to cross-border trade in the case of sustainable/green value chains. 142. In summary, the project strategy is designed to address the threats to Miombo-Mopane woodlands and their globally important environmental values, thereby contributing to land degradation neutrality, sustainable livelihoods and resilience to climate change, all which directly or indirectly enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services.

(5) Expected Results

143. The project will provide solutions that create incentives for safeguarding ecosystem services at landscape levels through: i. creating an enabling environment for multi-stakeholder decision-making – and in Namibia this will include a new modality of spatially-based land-use planning at the level of sub-basins, as a key enabling tool towards facilitating the achievement of LDN; ii. application of SLM and SFM practices – to address land degradation in selected landscapes of Namibian Miombo-Mopane ecosystems; iii. sustainable value chains development – including the most promising green value chains in Namibia for improving livelihoods and food security; iv. regional and transboundary perspectives, given their particular importance to Namibia with respect to their Child Project target landscapes that lie in internationally-shared river basins nested within Southern Africa’s Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion. 144. More specifically, the project will pioneer the application of two important LDN principles: v. embedding LDN in the integrated land-use planning mechanism for managing landscapes; and vi. applying the LDN response hierarchy of land degradation, ‘avoidance, reduction or reversal’, to actively managed landscapes and tracking their status consistently, thereby also pioneering monitoring protocols for Namibia’s reporting to UNCCD on progress towards its LDN targets.

Component 1. Developing enabling frameworks for applying LDN at national and landscape levels 145. The project adopts a nested landscape approach for to achieve its above objective; and Component 1 is designed to provide the necessary enabling environment for the ‘integrated landscape 50

approach’ to be operationalized under Component 2 in an inclusive, participatory manner that engages with all sectors at all levels, from national to community. The landscape approach is integrated (i.e. multi- sectoral) and cyclical. The latter comprises: planning what and how to sustainably manage over a given period (e.g. five years), implementing the management plan, monitoring the implementation of the plan and reviewing the results of management in order to identify any adaptive measures necessary to address successes, failures, delays and changes arising from unanticipated risks and threats. This cycle is renewed at least annually until the plan expires and a new round of planning is initiated. Within this approach, the goal is to ‘manage the landscapes sustainably’. Thus, the planning process is foreseen under Component 1 and planned activities will be implemented under Components 2 and, to a lesser extent, Component 3 in close collaboration with project partners.

146. This integrated and inclusive approach will be applied to activities at national and landscape levels to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in identifying, selecting and planning interventions, as well as contributing to their implementation as appropriate. Such comprehensive engagement of stakeholders at the outset of planning not only ensures a high degree of ownership of landscape plans but will also facilitate mainstreaming of such plans into other existing planning frameworks. 147. Key results (outcomes) expected are: the development or strengthening of policy, regulatory, planning and stakeholder engagement frameworks for integrated land-use at landscape scales (Outcome 1.1); and building institutional capacity in integrated landscape planning at national and landscape levels (Outcome 1.2). These two outcomes, respectively, are intended to address the weak (or lack of) governance frameworks and institutional capacities for: delivering Namibia’s LDN commitments to UNCCD (Barrier 1); and cross-sectoral planning at landscape levels (Barrier 2). The underlying assumptions concern: government’s ccommitment to fully engage in implementing the project and collaborating with other Child Projects, especially those in neighbouring countries that share river basins (A.1); and commitment of institutions within the different sectors to improve their capacity in integrated sustainable land management at landscape scales (A.2). 148. Responsibility for implementing Component 1 lies with the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (METF) through the dedicated Project Management Unit (PMU).

Outcome 1.1 LDN policy, regulatory and participatory planning frameworks developed or strengthened and harmonized 149. The two main aspects covered under Outcome 1.1 relate to the enabling environment for LDN and associated frameworks for sustainable land-use planning and management, as described below: i. Institutional structures, mechanisms and processes need to be integrated and strengthened to provide common frameworks for rational, evidence-based decision-making on land uses within landscapes and nationally. ii. Relevant policies, related legislation and regulations need to be reviewed to check their ‘fit-for- purpose’ and, importantly, whether they are being implemented/enforced. The development of local bylaws is also a valuable consideration that can help to precipitate effective management of landscapes, as passing of national legislation can be a lengthy and unpredictable process. Output 1.1.1: LDN stakeholder participatory structures and processes strengthened/established at national level, with vertical integration to multi-sectoral Landscape Management Committees in the sub-basins 150. Output 1.1.1 is focused on putting ‘building blocks’ in place to implement LDN-related measures, specifically in relation to setting up or strengthening the structures, mechanisms and processes that enable

horizontal/vertical coordination between sectors and ensure stakeholders are directly involved in decision- making from the outset, the importance of which is highlighted in the UNCCD guidance40: “Planning and implementation of LDN involves well-designed participatory processes that include stakeholders, especially land users, in designing, implementing and monitoring interventions to achieve LDN. Processes should consider local, traditional and scientific knowledge, applying a mechanism such as multi- stakeholder platforms to ensure these inputs are included in the decision-making process. The process should be sensitive to gender, and imbalances in power and information access.” It also addresses Criteria 1.2 (coordination) and 1.3 (stakeholders) of the institutional dimension of the enabling environment, described in the same guidance and featured in Table. 151. The role of the national Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Steering Committee (SC) 41 in Namibia will be strengthened. Established in February 2015 (Inception Meeting) to reinforce implementation of NAP3, SLM-SC has since been serving as a national body for steering and coordinating SLM efforts in the country.42 The 16-member SC, chaired by the METF Environment Commissioner, is a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder body, representing government, private sector, academia research bodies, civil society and community-based organizations. SC representatives report their actions annually as a contribution to the national UNCCD report. 152. With various LD/SLM projects planned, including this GEF-7 one, UNDP-GEF NILALEG and the new GIZ project underway in 2019, the SML-SC’s remit is gaining momentum. However, achievement of LDN targets needs further mainstreaming into specific policy interventions and frameworks. Moreover, more recently and perhaps due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the SLM-SC has only been meeting sporadically. 153. Thus, it is envisaged that the SLM-SC will oversee the adoption of an integrated approach towards LDN during project implementation and thereafter. Technical, logistical and coordination support will be provided by the project to the SC and its LDN Monitoring and Reporting Unit (MRU) that is being set up at the University of Namibia (UNAM) – see Output 3.1.1. A Decision Support System (DSS) is planned for the LDN implementation process at national and target landscape levels, enabling national efforts to be aligned with those of SADC and neighboring countries, as well as with the GGW-S initiative – see Component 3. 154. Alongside the strengthening of the SLM-SC, it is proposed to revive or (re)create Landscape Management Committees (LMCs), which were previously established in several locations across Namibia under the NAM-PLACE project that finished in 2007. During the DSL IP PPG, it was learnt that only a few of these LMCs remain operational, which is unsurprising as they were never institutionalized – a lesson for this project. These landscapes cut across administrative boundaries and those of conservancies; and, while there are many structures in place to manage these landscapes, currently there is no forum for dialogue or mechanism for participatory planning among stakeholders. 155. In order for the participatory stakeholder engagement process to be comprehensive in its inclusiveness, other planning and consultation mechanisms will need to be adopted in cases where they already exist or created, both at relevant administrative levels and also in respect of land users and local communities. Furthermore, in collaboration with the SLM-SC, consideration should be given to the potential need for a small LDN Task Force (TF) to be set up by the project and mandated to drive forward its LDN agenda, given that SLM-SC members are senior professionals with a national agenda and probably too limited time to focus on the project’s priorities alongside their other demands. 156. Indicative Activities under Output 1.1.1 a) Clarify the role of each national government institution in achieving LDN and ensure that their interests are incorporated into the participatory engagement process below.

40 P.H. Verburg, G. Metternicht, C. Allen, N. Debonne, M. Akhtar-Schuster, M. Inácio da Cunha, Z. Karim, A. Pilon, O. Raja, M. Sánchez Santivañez, and A. Şenyaz, 2019. Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality and its Potential Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. [https://knowledge.unccd.int/publication/creating-enabling-environment-land-degradation-neutrality-and-its-potential] 41 “The members of the LDN national working group are individuals nominated by their respective organisations to be part of the national Sustainable Land Management Steering Committee (SLM-SC).” [Source: Namibia Land Degradation Neutrality National Report 2015] 42 For the composition of the SLM Committee and more details refer to: https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/inline-files/namibia- ldn-country-report-updated-version2.pdf 52

b) Strengthen the national SLM-Steering Committee, beginning with a review of its role in relation to the project and its training needs. Prepare an Action Plan of strengthening measures and monitor their implementation. c) Re-establish/create Landscape Management Committees, one per landscape. Each LMC will be assigned a full-time Landscape Management Coordinator, responsible for coordinating the planning and management of their respective landscape and ensuring that the generic framework for stakeholder participation is tailored and adopted for their respective landscape. d) Consider the benefit of creating a small multi-sector LDN Task Force of no more than 10 members to spearhead and expedite the project’s LDN agenda. The LDN-TF would be represented on the SLM-SC, report to the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and its membership would include the Coordinator from each of the three target landscapes. e) Design a generic framework, comprising platforms and processes, that will enable stakeholders to participate in applying the landscape approach to the target sub-basins to achieve LDN. The framework should be fully integrated, both vertically (from national through to community levels) and horizontally (multi-sector), and applicable to individual landscapes as well as smaller administrative, tenure and land use units nested within them. It will reflect the governance structures and consultation processes to be put in place to ensure that all stakeholders are able to participate in land-use planning and management. It is particularly important for the private sector, civil society, minority groups and the interests of women and youth to be represented throughout the different platforms (consultative forums) of this governance framework. Any engagement with indigenous peoples will be compliant with FAO FPIC procedures. The SLM-SC is the key national LDN platform and the LMCs are the key platforms at landscape level. The latter will be supported by platforms created at communal and/or constituency levels, as appropriate, to raise awareness about LDN and capture consensus views on land-use planning and management to inform the respective LMCs. Within and between these levels are numerous stakeholder groups that must be accommodated within this generic framework. Scoping of the generic framework will be completed during project inception and its stakeholder groups targeted for relevant training modules under Output 1.2.2. f) Develop Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans (SEPPs) for planning each target landscape, based on the above generic governance framework. The scope of a SEPP should consider/ determine/include the following: • Gender-sensitive, FPIC compliant stakeholder engagement process that takes into account ethnic and other minority or marginalized groups, youth and the elderly into account in its design and in the composition of consultative mechanisms to ensure their representativeness. • Key stakeholders listed, profiled and their interest/relevance to the project identified, particularly with respect to enhancing the enabling environment (Component 1), integrated landscape planning management (Component 2), knowledge management and M&E (Component 3), and capacity building (cross-cutting). • Overview of the governance framework at national, regional, constituency, municipality, commune and land-owner/user levels, as well as traditional authorities and conservancies, with which integrated landscape planning and management will need to engage. Key stakeholders will be identified at each level, along with existing mechanisms/platforms for consultation.43 Where no mechanism exists, then new mechanisms (e.g. forum, consultative group) will be identified and confirmed by the Project Steering Committee. Note that NACSO can assist with consultations in addition to the elected representatives of the conservancies themselves.44

43 Note, for example, that NASCO (National Association of CBNRM Support Organizations), which comprises 8 NGOs and the University of Namibia, provides quality services to rural communities seeking to manage and utilize their natural resources in a sustainable manner. 44 Note: Namibia is divided into 14 regional councils and 57 unitary local authorities comprising 13 municipal councils, 26 town and 18 village councils. Municipal councils are further subdivided into three ‘Part I’ (cities) and 15 ‘Part II’ municipalities. [Source: www.clgf.org.uk/namibia] 53

• The Plans should include a monitoring framework to track stakeholder engagement during their preparation, timeliness of deliverables and feedback on the process from stakeholders in order to learn lessons.

Output 1.1.2: National and landscape level policy, regulatory and participatory planning frameworks for effectively upscaling SLM/SFM interventions reviewed and revised 157. Output 1.1.2 is focused on identifying and filling the policy and legislative gaps in enabling Namibia to pursue an LDN approach to planning and management at landscape scales, taking into particular account Criteria 3.1 (land tenure), 3.4 (regulations and rules) and 3.5 (policy coherence) of the policy/regulatory dimension of the UNCCD guidance on establishing an enabling environment (Table).

158. As noted by the SLM-SC in their 2015 LDN National Report to UNCCD, Namibia’s land degradation policy and legal frameworks are mostly comprehensive, including the means to address its immediate and root causes, drivers, effects and impacts. However, the SC concluded that there is “no cohesive policy that can be used to coordinate the effectiveness of the existing laws and regulations for Namibia to achieve

LDN”.2 This gap was confirmed during the PPG and is reflected in Barrier 1 (cross-sectoral coordination) and Barrier 2 (integrated land-use planning) that are addressed under Outcomes 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. 159. Review of the country’s regulatory frameworks will be focused on obstacles and short-comings that hinder the sustainable management of the target landscapes, including: access rights of local communities; and the institutionalization of comprehensive, integrated planning efforts to mainstream SLM and SFM through ILUPs and their implementation. Thus, the process will be both bottom up, benefiting the targeted land users, including those most vulnerable and women, and top down from the SLM-SC – using the stakeholder engagement platforms and mechanisms planned for each landscape (Activity 1.1.1f). FAO can also support the review process with technical assistance from its specialized normative units. 160. Indicative Activities under Output 1.1.2 a) Engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues with government, legislators, policy advisors, land users and communities to identify how national laws/policies can be applied and enforced in an adaptive manner at local levels, based on the premise that national LDN-related policy/legal frameworks are comprehensive but need coherent and cohesive coordination to apply them to achieve LDN. b) Review national regulatory framework and identify constraints to sustainable management of target landscape, especially with regard to access rights and integrated planning. c) Legal and/or specialized multi-disciplinary technical teams, working side-by-side with legal services and Permanent Secretaries within relevant ministries, draft bills and policies for public consultation, validation and eventual approval. d) Expedite mainstreaming of SLM by promoting the alignment of existing local accords, agreements and by-laws or creation of new landscape management measures to regulate, for example: • access to resources, such as wood/timber or water; • organization of a local producers’ market, including the introduction of new and enforceable hygiene standards; • development of local seeds’ policies; • creation and management of local savings groups; and, wherever appropriate, • enforcement of gender equality in the access to land and resources. e) It may be appropriate to simultaneously pilot certain proposed policies in the target landscapes during the consultation and validation process, thereby enabling lessons learned to be incorporated before finalizing the bill and policies.

Outcome 1.2 Integrated land-use planning for LDN applied to landscapes 161. Outcome 1.2. builds on preliminary findings from applying the Integrated Landscape Assessment Methodology (ILAM) undertaken during the PPG phase. The methodology is summarized in Box 7.

Box 7. Integrated Landscape Assessment Methodology (ILAM) toolbox An Integrated Landscape Assessment Methodology (ILAM) toolbox was developed to ensure that the six Southern African countries follow a harmonized, systematic approach to baseline assessments and subsequent project development that is linked to the LDN Conceptual Framework (LDN CF) and associated guidelines for application. The aims of the ILAM toolbox are twofold: i) to enable the systematic assessment of essential baseline information from national to regional/district level, initial site level and household level using an integrated strategic approach; and ii) to provide countries with a toolbox that is replicable to support the future baseline assessment and integrated land use planning, SLM/SFM decision making and monitoring at sub-national level in contribution to national priorities, processes and targets, including LDN. The essential components of the toolbox consist of a combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches that support various Modules in the LDN CF as follows:

LDN CF Module Toolbox components

Module A: To enable integrated landscape-level system • Rapid participatory land degradation assessment of land type description (e.g., biophysical, socio-economic, land degradation • Participatory stakeholder analysis processes and drivers, existing SLM/SFM, value chains, • Climate-risk assessment resilience, etc.). • Policy, institutional and capacity needs analysis • Indigenous Peoples and the Free, Prior and Informed Consent assessment (FPIC) assessments • Household surveys using the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) • Value chain analysis and selection Module B: To determine frame of reference/baseline values for • Remote sensing (Collect Earth, Trends Earth) land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon indicators*

Module D: • Policy, institutional and capacity needs analysis • Rapid participatory land degradation assessment of land type • Determine existing policies for land governance, land use • Household surveys using the Self-evaluation and Holistic planning and natural resource conservation and Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists management. (SHARP) • Preparatory assessments of land degradation status, resilience of current land uses, socio-economic context (including gender equality) Module E: Determine baseline values for LDN metrics • Remote sensing (Collect Earth, Trends Earth)

*The soil organic carbon indicator, due to its complexity, is derived from land cover change (traditional approach applied by basically everyone (e.g. IPCC https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=98 and https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=163, trends.earth and the EX-ACT team). During programme/project implementation, the REM/global project will provide further guidance on how to comprehensively estimate and monitor the SOC indicator.

The ILAM methodology provides a better understanding of direct and indirect drivers of land degradation and resilience, including anthropogenic causes, by: Identifying and analysing the level of exposure of production systems, livelihoods and landscapes to climate and non- climate hazards Understanding of the nature of vulnerabilities (sensitivity) of communities and landscapes to such threats. Assessing the capacity of households and ecosystems to respond to the identified risks as well as to changes in future trends and shocks (adaptive capacity). The combination of different tools and analyses allows the application of resilience thinking at different scales, comprising the transformational change and adaptation components. The combined analyses further applied a land-based approach based on land types, in line with the LDN approach. This integrated and participatory strategy supports the design of custom- designed strategies that foster the transformation of socio-ecological systems to desirable states, i.e. resilience, food security and LDN. Full details are provided in Additional Annex X-9. Following the testing of the ILAM toolbox during the PPG phase, the following main gaps have been identified. These will be addressed during project implementation in close collaboration with the Regional Exchange Mechanism (see Outcome 1.1): Improved, more detailed LD assessment methodology to map LD and SLM/SFM assessment results at sub-basin level; Identification of complementary indicators to assess LD and SLM/SFM to enable LDN monitoring; Validation of assessment results with major stakeholders, including land user representatives; Enabling identification of existing good SLM/SFM practices and reasons for their effectiveness; and Categorizing and accounting for land use decisions and the impacts of land use, land use change, climate variability, and management with respect to land degradation, resilience and livelihoods.

162. Preliminary findings from ILAM will be further elaborated and consolidated under the first Output (1.2.1) to inform the Integrated Land-Use Planning (ILUP) under the third Output (1.2.3), as modelled in Figure 9. ILUP is considered by UNCCD to be a highly effective instrument for delivering LND within landscapes: hence, it is prioritized within the DSL IP for piloting the landscape approach in conjunction with other mechanisms. The second Output (1.2.2) is focused on building capacity and partnerships at national and landscape levels in integrated landscape assessment (ILAM) and land-use planning (ILUP). Figure 9. Key elements of ILAM that feed into ILUP, based on a 2017 UNCCD framework45

Output 1.2.1: Project sites and interventions confirmed, based on expanded and deepened landscape assessments using ILAM 163. The project will build on the capacity of national stakeholders generated during the PPG period to fill gaps and collect additional data required for the final selection of intervention sites within the respective landscapes. A stepwise approach for site selection will be applied, building on key results from the PPG baseline studies that provide insights into the conditions at landscape level, within the national and international context in regard to neighbouring countries with whom river basins are shared (namely the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango in northern Namibia). 164. Renewed stakeholder consultations at landscape level using the engagement plan developed under Output 1.1.1 will be a top priority in Year 1, beginning from the outset of project implementation. Core activities will build on data generated from the PPG phase but complemented by new and updated data collected during the project’s inception. The project will be further contextualized using the refined integrated landscape assessment methodology (ILAM) that was developed in close alignment with the LDN framework and successfully applied in the pre-selected areas during the PPG phase. The refined methodology will provide a model/example on how decision makers can apply the landscape approach through ILAM and ILUP, leading to implementation and roll out of sustainable practices of managing land and forests to achieve LDN. 165. Potential land-use conflicts between the mining industry and the agrarian and/or tourism sector will be examined under Output 1.2.1 at this stage; and then supported under Output 1.2.2 with respect to capacity building for spatial planning and the forging of partnerships, including leverage of finance. 166. Final site selection will be geared towards the consolidation of the multi-tiered spatial planning exercises based on landscape-specific integrated land-use planning (ILUP). It will also be dependent on what can be funded through this Child Project and the partnerships it is able to forge.

45 Orr, B.J., A.L. Cowie, V.M. Castillo Sanchez, P. Chasek, N.D. Crossman, A. Erlewein, G. Louwagie, M. Maron, G.I. Metternicht, S. Minelli, A.E. Tengberg, S. Walter, and S. Welton. 2017. Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. This Framework was subsequently complemented by 2019 guidance on the enabling environment for LDN, described in Table. 56

167. Indicative Activities under Output 1.2.1 a) Review and revise, as necessary, both interventions and intervention sites within the respective landscapes that were pre-selected during the PPG, having first undertaken the following actions: • Identified current good practices in the target landscape46; • Collected additional data for the intervention sites; • Identified and articulated potential major conflicts between sectors and other interest areas, including between the mining industry and agriculture and tourism sectors; • Taken into account potential LDN synergies to be gained from collaborating with neighbouring countries in the case of shared river basins, specifically with respect to the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango in northern Namibia*; and • Expanded the landscape assessment using the refined ILAM toolbox, while ensuring that the updated selection of intervention sites generated from this refined toolbox follows the same selection criteria as applied at PPG stage (e.g. decline/stable productivity status or land tenure status across LUS) in order to cross-check the applicability of the identified intervention sites and ensure efficient implementation of tailored SLM and SFM interventions. Further refinements should include addressing the following gaps: *Note: It may be appropriate to use the REM to orchestrate and coordinate cross-border collaboration on interventions and their sites in the case of shared river basins. b) Final selection of intervention sites will need to consider the following: • Baseline government investments and specific co-financing to the project, for which a thorough analysis is provided in Table 1 (Additional Annex X-1B). • Any existing community-based sustainability initiatives, in particular those that were not identified during PPG because of the brevity of the consultation process. • Potential for rolling out a targeted FFS/APFS program to strengthen forest and farm producer organizations, in addition to the viability of strengthening existing drylands value chains and gearing them towards sustainability. Note that a large number of stakeholders were consulted during the PPG phase and studies generated a wealth of data that require further screening for potential scaling during Year 1. • Other criteria for site selection, which can be made explicit through GIS studies, that include: ecologically sensitive areas and areas of special tenure and land use (e.g. protected areas, large- scale commercial farms under irrigation schemes, community forests 47 and community conservancies), taking in to account their boundaries, governance structures and land-use patterns, as well as ease of access to infrastructure such as markets, water sources/points, nurseries and roads. c) Validate the final selection of interventions and intervention sites in consultation with stakeholders, using the respective engagement plan designed under Output 1.1.1 for each landscape. Validation should include the design and completion of a template that records and classifies land-use decisions on the basis of a ‘no net loss’ target for LDN. d) If necessary and not already in progress elsewhere, identify a set of complementary indicators to assess LD. e) Similarly, if not already designed and available in a generic framework from a third part either in- country or another Child Project, develop ‘counterbalancing' software that will enable optimal land-use strategies towards LDN to be automatically generated for a specific patch of land or entire landscape in response to a given set of inputs (criteria).48

46 Note that there is already a large catalogue of practices that has been identified from previous projects as well as in current ones (e.g. NILALEG – where the core barriers to adoption appear to be (i) limited understanding by land users of the sophistication of certain techniques and practices, and (ii) lack of finance, equipment and other associated constraints). 47 For details of Community Forest Management Plans, all dating back to 2005 and earlier, refer to the Department of Forests – currently in the process of migrating from its former MAWF to METF (http://www.mawf.gov.na/web/mawf/forestry-services, accessed on 29/04/20). 48 Note that a similar GIS model was developed for the Kavango East IRLUP, which might be a readily available alternative to what is being proposed here. Known as Land Use Conflict Identification Strategy, LUCIS is a goal-driven GIS model that generates a spatial representation

f) Support the inventory of plant (and animal) genetic resources within each of the finally selected intervention sites to establish a baseline against which subsequent changes can be tracked. 168. Output 1.2.1, having been generated to a large extent from ILAM, validated and agreed by consensus among stakeholders will feed directly into ILUP under Output 1.2.3 alongside initiatives under Output 1.2.2 to improve capacities and partnerships in integrated land-use planning.

Output 1.2.2: Capacity and partnerships in integrated land-use planning improved at national and landscape levels, through training on ILAM/ILUP and collaborative agreements with partners 169. The capacity of different groups of stakeholders to: (i) drive and guide the process of mainstreaming the LDN concept across relevant planning frameworks, and (ii) implement SLM/SFM practices will be enhanced, based on the robust guidelines from UNCCD’s Science-Policy Interface49, and contextual analysis relevant to Namibia and its northern region. 170. One of the barriers identified during the PPG concerns capacity and skills constraints in applying the landscape approach. While extensive training by rural advisory services will be focused on local land users under Component 2, training and capacity development in land-use planning will be focused on land managers under Component 1, supported by the ILAM/ILUP training program in the knowledge that enhanced ability to use, analyze and further develop spatial data will yield much better results. 171. Thus, Output 1.2.2 is designed to enhance the technical capacity of strategically positioned stakeholders in government, academia, civil society and the private sector to champion the LDN concept and facilitate the adoption of SLM/SFM practices on the ground. Champions in this context are those who are able to lead, innovate and bring about transformational change towards LDN through mainstreaming SLM and SFM; and they will also be able to ensure that a wider group of land users and managers adhere to such principles. Enhanced capacity will need to focus on the policy-science interface and financing of LDN, along with the capacity to forge new strategic partnerships to mobilize financial and human resources. At the national level, Namibia’s capacity for levering financial resources from climate funds, the GEF and other related mechanisms is considered high but much more needs to be achieved at landscape and more local levels. These activities are elaborated below 172. Indicative Activities under Output 1.2.2 a) Enhance the technical capacity of key stakeholders to explore the policy-science interface of LDN, with respect to the following: • Effectively manage data and monitoring systems, including GIS-based land information; • Analyze and disseminate information on the causes/effects of land degradation, LDN and related ecological, social and economic frameworks; • Carry out complex assessments and planning exercises that involve multiple stakeholders, sectors, scales and perspectives; and • Articulate the multiple benefits of SLM, SLM and LDN including, for example, for biodiversity, climate and livelihoods. b) Enhance the capacity of key stakeholders to explore the financial aspects of LDN, including: • Identify financing needs for LDN, assess costs, and develop plans with robust and viable budget for LDN implementation (including operational, monitoring, evaluation aspects); and • Identify sources of finance and develop relevant finance instruments and mechanisms.

of possible patterns of future land use using a raster-based approach. It is based on developing alternative land use scenarios by identifying land use potentials and conflicts and suitable areas for specific land uses. Integrated Regional Land Use Plan for the Kavango East Region Baseline Report (Volume 1). [Source accessed 2 November 2020: https://mlr.gov.na/documents/20541/497602/Kavango+ East+Volume+1+March+2015.pdf/911cdfb1-bc85-4e8f-ad20-7895b7c35244] 49 See https://knowledge.unccd.int/science-policy-interface/spi-publications, accessed 01/05/2020. A key publication is: P.H. Verburg, G. Metternicht, C. Allen, N. Debonne, M. Akhtar-Schuster, M. Inácio da Cunha, Z. Karim, A. Pilon, O. Raja, M. Sánchez Santivañez, and A. Şenyaz. 2019. Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality and its Potential Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany. 58

c) Enhance national and landscape level capacity to develop strategic partnerships that will help conceive new projects and mobilize financial and human resources: • At project intervention site level, where community leaders have a significant responsibility for the management of landscapes, address gaps in capacity in close collaboration with NACSO, targeting male and female community and conservancy leaders to mobilize partnerships at landscape and more local (community) levels. • Roll out tailored training, building on the excellent materials available through the NBSAP Forum, WOCAT and other existing platforms. • Provide training in conflict management at landscape level and develop a conflict management strategy for each target landscape to inform the ILUP process under Output 1.2.3. Such strategies should also be designed with partnerships in mind to resolve long-standing conflicts. d) Other capacity development and partnership activities to be prioritized according to needs include: • Targeted training of leading sectoral stakeholders, including private sector players, and engage them in translating LDN frameworks, targets and indicators into concrete actions on the ground, with responsibilities, timing and funding assigned. • Awareness-raising activities on the causes and effects of land degradation and LDN, covering their ecological, social, economic aspects and with examples from landscapes to demonstrate the multiple benefits of implementing activities that seek to achieve LDN targets (and related SDGs).This may be carried out in collaboration with the NILALEG Project, so that coordinated planning between the two projects can be operationalized. • Conduct sectoral surveys and carve-out partnerships and sign agreements on data sharing with respect to the three global LDN indicators.

Output 1.2.3: Integrated Land-Use Plans developed for target landscapes in northern Namibia, using participatory consultation processes to apply LDN response hierarchy 173. Output 1.2.3 is focused on ILUP: land-use planning that is integrated across sectors, disciplines, communities, land-users and other interest groups in order to deliver LDN harmoniously at a landscape scale. The planning process will follow the guidance in the Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan for Landscape Planning (SEPP-LP) for the respective target landscapes (Activity 1.1.1f)), which will be shared with stakeholders so that they understand the processes and mechanisms by which they will be informed on a wide range of matters (e.g. SLM, SFM and LDN principles, best practices, capacity building opportunities) and consulted for contextual information (including traditional knowledge) and their views (concerns, expectations, preferences) on land use. The ILUP process is likely to require up to one year of iterative planning and consultation, building consensus as it progresses. It will be essential to keep to the overall timeframe, which will have been agreed among those stakeholders involved in designing the SEPPs and confirmed at the outset of planning, in order to be implementing these landscape plans by the end of Year 2.50 174. The integrated land-use plan for each landscape will comprise a set of consistent and spatially nested land-use plans generated for each planning unit and/or land-use system (LUS) within the respective sub-basin. Much can be learnt and potentially adopted/adapted from Namibia’s recent first experience in integrated land-use planning at regional level, with IRLUPs completed for Kavango East, Kavango West and Zambezi Regions in 2015.51 The main differences between this GEF-7 integrated landscape approach and the integrated regional approach of the IRLUPs is that the latter are based on administrative jurisdictions rather than river basins (sub-basins) and do not specifically focus on reducing the impacts of land degradation. In other respects, there is much complementarity in terms of both being sector-integrated, inclusive, participatory, large-scale and bottom-up planning processes.

50 It is very important to ensure that implementation has been ongoing for at least 6 months prior to the project’s Mid-Term Review, ideally to be in the second half of Year 3, in order to have some tangible results (beyond planning) regarding project interventions on the ground. 51 Refer to the following link for the current series of IRLUPs available: http://www.mlr.gov.na/irlups, accessed on 28/04/2020. 59

Figure 10. Integrated landscape planning and management [Grounded in topographic reality (river sub-basin level); focused on LDN delivery by scaling out/up SLM/SFM at land-user levels]

175. The IRLUP for Kavanago East is particularly relevant because it encompasses all of the Okavango landscape (Sub-basin 3). It should provide a solid foundation with which to design the SEPP (Activity 1.1.1f), taking into account the participatory processes and platforms used to engage stakeholders in the IRLUP, while accommodating the GEF-7 project’s need to apply a more detailed, LDN lens to Sub-basin 3 that harmonizes existing planning efforts into one comprehensive plan. The other two IRLUPs do not relate geographically to any of the target landscapes. However, Sub-basins 1 and 2 of the GEF-7 project do lie almost entirely within Omusati and Oshikoto regions, respectively, which are included within the JICA- funded 2017 Northern Namibia Crop and Livestock Development Master Plan Study52 that has yet to be implemented. Other policy, planning and implementation instruments will also need to be taken into account and harmonized in the ILUPs, particularly the Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) plans for the major river basins. 176. The stakeholder engagement processes will support the landscape planning efforts towards a more integrated, science-based and gender-sensitive management of land-use systems – one that goes beyond current administrative boundaries and sectoral ‘silos’, while also building on existing structures, processes and planning frameworks as appropriate. The planning and participatory stakeholder process are very much dovetailed and have been designed to address the different levels of organization and decision-making, integrate sectoral and other potentially competing interests, and be applicable to various scales through a nesting approach. Much of this complexity in applying an integrated landscape approach will be addressed under this Output. 177. Indicative Activities under Output 1.2.3 a) Establish a decentralized field office in each of the Sub-basins, each staffed by a full-time Landscape Coordinator who will be recruited by the project. This should be completed during project inception. b) Create (or re-establish) a Landscape Management Committee for each Sub-basin, develop its terms of reference, and establish its membership (10 members maximum, 40-60% women). c) Each LMC to host an ILUP Inception Workshop, facilitated by its respective Landscape Coordinator, to share with their stakeholders the respective expanded landscape assessment from the refined ILAM analyses and final selection of interventions and intervention sites (Output 1.2.1), as well as to inform them about their Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan for Landscape

52 Refer to https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12291258.pdf 60

Planning and timeframe for delivery of their Landscape ILUPs. This will provide further opportunity to refine plans and processes, all of which should be documented. d) LMC, facilitated by its respective Coordinator, to initiate and oversee delivery of the SEPP in concert with preparing the ILUP for each target landscape (sub-basin), in parallel with Coordinators collaborating closely with each other so that each participatory planning process benefits from lessons learnt by the others. The following are envisaged with respect to each target landscape: • Consider establishing a Technical Working Group (TWG) of planners and experts from key sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Environment, Forestry, Land Reform, Water Resources, NASCO) to oversee the formulation of the landscape ILUPs. These ILUP-TWGs, set up under the respective LMCs and facilitated by their respective Landscape Coordinator, could provide a clearing house for harmonizing existing and proposed land use/management plans and resolving conflicting/competing interests. They would also have access to the proposed national LDN- Task Force via their respective Landscape Coordinator and Task Force member (Activity 1.1.1d). • Initiate the ILUP process (following Activity 1.2.3c), focusing initially on establishing the consultation structures and mechanisms elaborated in the respective SEPP for the relevant levels of governance necessarily involved in land tenure and land-use planning, from national to local and traditional authorities and including the likes of Community Forests and Conservancies. • Stakeholders may be involved periodically in data collection, output measurement and, importantly, a stricter and more closely monitoring of land management with due attention to gender equity practices. Such inputs of time and resources will bring potential benefits, including access to land-use knowledge and data, participation in training and capacity building and access to resources for land improvement. • Include the ILUP process and SEPP in the Communications Strategy (Component 3) for awareness raising and dissemination, respectively. e) Draft and finalize the ILUP for each target landscape within a 12-month period, including monitoring protocols and GIS maps of baseline and end of project targets for LDN, and ensure it is subjected to the consultation protocols specified in the SEPP. The final version should be signed off/endorsed by the key stakeholders, as appropriate and in accordance with local/regional planning authority protocols. The final ILUP should also be accompanied by a short, focused and time-bound Action Plan that is reviewed and monitored annually, with respect to the status of actions (e.g. not started, ongoing, completed). Some actions may be thematic and focused on specific problems such as use of fire for management or pest control. Actions will not be a substitute for or override other planning or development instruments, rather they should be aligned to support them. f) Develop a protocol and guidelines for the integration of spatial planning of land use at landscape level, and its nesting and adoption within respective Integrated Regional Land-Use Plans. g) Identify, establish and apply an appropriate vehicle and mechanism for institutionalizing LMCs by project closure.

Component 2. Strengthening implementation and enabling scaling out of SLM/SFM 178. Component 2 is focused on implementing the three landscape ILUPs output (1.2.3) from Component 1 and delivering two main Outcomes: i. sustainable land management interventions using improved, scaled out SLM/SFM practices that directly address land degradation by avoidance, reduction and reversal; and ii. supporting the uptake and scaling out of such interventions by increasing market demands and values through strengthening capacities of famer producer organizations and promoting green value chains. Strengthening capacities through investment mechanisms to enable individual land users and communities to secure the financial resources necessary to make a paradigm shift in their land use activities towards 61

LDN and realize their aspirations will be an important element of capacity building. The dissemination and upscaling of the SLM/SFM practices will depend on two main multiplier mechanisms: (i) rollout of agrarian support services through Farmer Field Schools (FFSs), Forest Farm Facilities (FFFs) such as community seed banks (CSBs), and Forest-Farm Producer Organizations (FFPOs); and (ii) strategic investments in the development of drylands value chains. Table 4. Extent of land-use systems targeted for avoidance, reduction and reversal of land degradation Grand Intervention areas / LUS / Strategy acc. to LDN mitigation hierarchy AVOID REDUCE REVERSE Total Forest and Woodlands 85,000 115,000 200 200,200 A1. Ruacana area (mixed) + Uukolonkadhi Community Forest 85,000 85,000 A2 (plus). George Mukoya and Muduva Nyangana Community Forests 200 200 A2. George Mukoya and Muduva Nyangana Community Forests 115,000 115,000 Cropland 145,000 145,000 B1 Uukolonkadhi Communal Conservancy + Ruacana area (mixed) 105,000 105,000 B2. Omuthiya peri-urban croplands 40,000 40,000 Rangeland/Grazing land 15,000 15,000 C1. Rangeland area North from Etosha (B1 road) 10,000 10,000 C2 Ruacana area (mixed) 5,000 5,000 Grand Total (ha) 85,000 275,000 200 360,200

179. The overall SLM and SFM interventions are aligned with the LDN concept of addressing pressures on degradation of existing Miombo-Mopane Woodlands by the following means: • AVOIDING the conversion of standing forests through protective measures, in particular where forests are at risk of being cleared, burned or used unsustainably; and strengthening and adding value to the yields of production forests, mostly through planned and monitored forest management action, considering to sustainable offtake. • REDUCING the negative impact of productive activities on the land and associated resources. Where the opportunity presents itself, ecosystem management activities will be implemented within landscapes, combining conservation and assisted regeneration of selected habitats (restoring land). This will be done while also increasing the productivity, resilience and sustainability of surrounding cropland and rangelands, complemented by targeted sustainable forest management interventions. • REVERSING land degradation and, with respect to forests forests/woodlands, promoting the rehabilitation of key ecosystems through a ‘low-hanging-fruit approach’ whereby forest restoration of functions and structures is the easiest and most cost effective intervention. 180. The total extent of these interventions targeted at different land-use systems is summarized in Table 4, Further details are provided in Annex E, with a set of maps for each target landscape and intervention areas demarcated. The total area of 360,200 ha under improved SLM is a key global benefit. 181. Responsibility for implementing Component 2 lies with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) through the dedicated PMU, with FAO technical assistance where indicated.

Outcome 2.1 SLM/SFM practices aligned with ILUP priorities and demonstrated in target landscapes 182. GEF funding will support the implementation of ILUPs incrementally, complementing the baseline finance with a clear narrow mandate to achieve global environmental benefits in terms of LDN. The results of the wider landscape assessments will be applied to help create the basis for implementing the ILUPs across all three target landscapes. The ILUPs for these landscapes are intended to be owned by all stakeholders, government and non-government across all sectors and all levels of governance from 62

national to community, as a result of having adopted the participatory process outlined in the respective Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan (SEPP) designed for each landscape (Activity 1.1.1f). Just as stakeholders contributed to designing the ILUPs, so they will be engaged in implementing these integrated land-use plans at landscape scales, reinforcing their commitment to these landscape plans and further strengthening their ownership of them. 183. The scope of the ILUPs prepared for the target landscapes with project assistance under Output 1.2.3 will broader than that of the project and its duration longer. ILUPs will be longer-term, dynamic plans of 8-10 years duration, with rolling Action Plans and Budgets revised annually, in contrast to the project’s duration of 5 years Hence, the project’s interventions are designed to be highly strategic, with in-built post-project sustainability aspects of capacity building, institutionalization and financing to be addressed from the outset of implementation and delivered by project closure. 184. Some proposed actions in the ILUPs are due to be supported and funded by sources other than this GEF-7 project, including baseline and co-financing initiatives for which synergies and potential collaboration have already been identified (Annex E, Table 1). Most of them relate to Component 2. 185. The focus of Outcome 2.1 is the step-wise implementation of SLM and SFM on the ground, based on the priority actions in the ILUPs. It will start with the identification of SLM/SFM practices that are gender-sensitive and appropriate to be applied to the final selection of interventions to be delivered in target landscapes (Output 2.1.1). Then, the capacity of relevant stakeholder to implement these practices will be built (Output 2.1.2). Details of each Output are elaborated below. Output 2.1.1: Gender sensitive SLM/SFM practices appropriate for target areas identified/developed

186. It is important to include gender dimensions in the application of SLM/SFM practices (i.e. women are involved in implementing the practices), as well as in the identification of these dimensions (i.e. women are consulted during the process of identification and development of these practices). In order to achieve the latter, SLM/SFM practices will be developed in a gender-participatory manner ensuring that at least 50% of stakeholders consulted are women from across all levels of governance (e.g. regional, constituency, local authority, community), scales of intervention (e.g. river basin/sub-basin/landscape, community forest, conservancy, land-use system) and sectors of interest (e.g. environment, forestry, agriculture, water resources, tourism, mining) and spheres of employment (e.g. government, non-government, private). 187. Based on the initial baseline assessment of the target landscapes, a set of interventions have been identified across the main land-use systems (LUS) to contribute to national LDN targets. They are elaborated in Annex E (Table 1) and accompanied by set of maps showing their spatial locations within their respective target landscapes. That information is summarized in Table 5, which provides the starting point for addressing land degradation once these pre-selected interventions and sites have been reviewed by stakeholders, further refined and incorporated within the ILUPs for each target landscape. 188. Indicative Activities under Output 2.1.1 a) Apply gender-sensitive measures to the final selection of project interventions, totalling 360,200 ha across three landscapes, using the SEPPs for the respective landscapes as a means of enabling women to participate in the identification and development of these measures. [Note the above target of ensuring that at least 50% of participants from across the entire spectrum of stakeholders consulted are women. b) Incorporate gender-sensitive measures into the project’s Gender Strategy and Action Plan; and monitor implementation progress using relevant gender-disaggregated data. c) Incorporate gender-sensitive measures in other strategies, manuals and guidelines such as Outputs under 2.1.2.

Table 5. Overview of SLM and SFM measures proposed for target landscape land-use systems*

SLM in Croplands LUS SFM in Forest and Woodlands LUS SLM in Rangeland (Grazing Land) LUS (B1) Kunene Cuvelai – Uukolonkadhi Communal Conservancy (A1) Kunene-Cuvelai – Uukolonkadhi Community Forest (C1) Etosha – 10,000 ha stretch of forest land within King covering 300,000 ha, of which some 80,000 ha is Forest covering some 85,000 ha, including a strip of land between the Nehele Conservancy at the north border of Etosha National Conservancy and half of the remaining area is predominantly northern border of the Forest and Namibian border with Park. Area encroached by a large number of illegal cattle posts, rainfed cropland. Angola, in the vicinity of Ruacana Village. Area is characterized moving from unfertile overgrazed land into recently cleared Indicative SLM practices: by low precipitation and is prone to fires. fertile forest land. ▪ Sustainable cropland intensification: Indicative SFM practices: Indicative SLM practices: - Crop diversification ▪ Active forest management and forest protection ▪ Range Management - Crop rotation - Sustainable charcoal production - Buffer zones on Small Scale Commercial Farms - Distribution of improved, drought resistant seeds - Assisted regeneration - Range management programs ▪ Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) ▪ Improving existing LU plans of the forest conservancies and ▪ Sustainable grazing management ▪ Diversification: agroforestry: Marula Value Chain – enforcing it - Rotational grazing preservation of the trees - Reclaiming irregular cropland - Setting land for pasture areas ▪ Sustainable water management practices - Securing access to forest for interested communities (B2) Etosha – 40,000 ha surrounding Omuthiya Town, (A2) Okavango – George Mukoya and Muduva Nyangana (C2) Kunene-Cuvelai –5,000 ha of grassland within 15,000 ha characterized by predominately rainfed cropland, with strong Community Forests together with an additional strip of land at of mixed land use around Ruacana Village. Area is prone to presence of livestock and scattered forest fragments. Site is the extension of Northern and Western borders of these overgrazing. well connected to the road network, providing access to community forests. Indicative SLM practices: markets. Land productivity has decreased over recent years Indicative SFM practices: due to unsustainable land practices associated with droughts. ▪ Sustainable grazing management ▪ Active forest management and forest protection Indicative SLM practices: - Farms within the Muduva Nyangana Conservancy and ▪ Sustainable cropland intensification: George Mukoya Conservancy to be de-gazette - Crop diversification - Farms not to fall within the Muduva Nyangana - Crop rotation Conservancy Small Scale Commercial Farms - Distribution of improved, drought resistant seeds - Assisted regeneration - Climate smart Agriculture (CSA) ▪ Forest restoration: ▪ Enforcement of regulations against irregular settlements in - Restoration activities in areas near riverbanks in the King Nehele Communal Conservancy, more precisely in a Okavango basin and in areas around Nyondo, Nyangana part constituting Etosha buffer zone. and Nyondo localities. ▪ Improving existing LU plans of the forest conservancies and enforcing it - Reclaiming irregular cropland - Securing access to forest for interested communities

*Full details of these interventions can be found in Table 1 (Annex E), together with a set of maps showing their spatial distrubutions within their respective landscapes. 64

Output 2.1.2: Organizational structures and knowledge among land and resource users/managers improved to enhance SLM/SFM practices 189. Implementation of SLM/SFM practices that follow on from preparation of the ILUPs will require building the capacity of both farmers engaged in applying the practices and extension workers. Insufficient capacity among both groups was identified as a major shortcoming to be overcome (Barrier 3) . Adequate capacity among rural advisory services are crucial for implementing all activities under Component 2. 190. Although an institutionalized extension services has a long and solid tradition in Namibia, as highlighted in the Barriers Section 1.a (2) Remaining barriers to address support is currently required for such services and MAWRL plans to start up a Farmer Field School (FFS), of which Agro-Pastoral Field School (APFS) is a variant, and Forest-Farm Facility (FFF) program. This will support the inclusion of agro-forestry techniques on farms and a market-oriented approach to production based on community self-organization (e.g. forming or strengthening cooperatives, associations and facilities such as community seed banks and tree nurseries), with the goal of intensifying farming and agro-forestry to sustainably produce higher yields or values per unit area and thereby reduce and ultimately avoid the need to encroach into natural areas. 191. The FFS approach has yet to be piloted in Namibia and therefore a specific set of standard activities will be implemented with the goal of setting up the FFS/FFF program, including initial training of Master Trainers and Facilitators. This will be done in coordination with existing extension services and whenever possible, using their human resources and capacity in order to ensure the sustainability of the FFS/FFF framework in the country. The agenda will be tightly aligned with the outcomes of the planning effort under Component 1 and the previous Output 2.1.1, reinforced by land data system under Component 3. Additional tools and resources will be availed to the Facilitators to ensure their mobility in the field.

192. Once the FFS/APFS/FFF model is setup, including design of the training program, the SLM/SFM training will begin. The overall process of the development and implementation of SLM/SFM training can be summarized in the following three steps: i Participatory selection and validation of appropriate and new SLM/SFM intervention sites for initiating the FFS/APFS, ensuring effective participation of target land users/beneficiaries including women, to reinforce ownership of practices during their implementation. ii Participatory development of training SLM/SFM manual(s) adapted to the Namibian context, including management requirements for targeted landscapes having a mosaic of LUSs. iii Rolling out the SLM/SFM training and support in implementation of SLM and SFM through the FFS/APFS. Note that the FFS team has developed a manual on running FFS in times of COVID-19. 193. Farmer training will be organized in two ways: on-farm and off-farm. The FFS/FFF framework will provide on-farm training, while the off-farm approach refers to the management of community- conservancies and community forests, that needs improvement in terms of forestry techniques. This will be reinforced by updating and improving the management plans for these areas, accessing ILAM under Component 1 and other land info systems under Component 3 as necessary. 194. Importantly, training foreseen under this Output will establish the capacity of land users and FFPOs to identify and apply gender-sensitive SLM/SFM practices. Dissemination of these practices among land users will be scoped and prioritized during the training, including their spatial application. They will be rolled out through an inclusive, multi-tiered process based on the ‘integrated landscape approach’. 195. Indicative Activities under Output 2.1.2 are summarized below. Much of the context and detail has been described above and is not repeated here. a) FFS/APFS/FFF program initiated by Extension Services in each of the three target landscapes, based on FAO guidelines and reinforced by technical support from FAO’s Country Office. Engage closely with stakeholders in the scoping of this program, anticipating that what is piloted in each landscape can be readily, economically and feasibly replicated in other landscapes during and post project. Note that the FFF element of the program is addressed under Output 2.2.1.

b) Develop and implement a training program, based on participatory identification of training needs in relation to SFM/SFM interventions and provision of training manuals for on-farm, community conservancies and community forests. On-farm training will be delivered under this Output, while some off-farm training will be delivered under Output 2.2.1. (e.g. FFPOs). c) Ensure that training of trainers (Extension Services) and Facilitators is undertaken ahead and alongside training of land users, with emphasis on meeting gender-oriented targets. d) Once updated in latest knowledge and SLM/SFM best practices and as part of their training, Extension Services will develop a brief Strategy and Action Plan for their provision of advisory support to the respective target landscapes and monitor its implementation. e) Review/update, adopt and apply manual on running FFS/APFS/FFF program in times of COVID-19. f) Develop and deliver a strategy for institutionalization of the training program post-project.

Outcome 2.2 SLM/SFM improved with support from green enterprises and value chains in target landscapes 196. Under this Outcome, key value chains for sustainably harvested NTFPs, sustainable wood fuel and selected agricultural products will be strengthened (or established, if viable), with financial and market support mechanisms for producer organizations put in place with technical assistance provided by the project. Also, Rural Advisory and Extension Services will be supported, as an important incentive mechanism for adoption of the SLM/SFM approach. 197. As a result, (i) capacity of FFPOs to adopt SLM/SFM will be significantly strengthened through multi-sectoral, participatory rural advisory models and enabled through provision/development of the necessary tools and resources for implementing SLM/SFM practices; and (ii) selected green value chains will be strengthened/developed across and within the targeted landscapes in northern Namibia based on sustainably produced and harvested drylands forest-farm products. Also, improved seeds from Community Seed Banks may prove to be a relatively high-value product having a green value chain that can be explored once such seed banks are operational. 198. MAWLR will be responsible for implementing these outputs, through PMU, by establishing working partnerships within government and obtaining FAO technical assistance as necessary. Output 2.2.1: Community-based initiatives and Forest and Farm Producer Organizations supported through tools, facilities and other resources to adopt and promote improved SLM/SFM practices 199. The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) approach53 will support community-based initiatives and the collective action of Forest and Farm Producer Organizations (FFPOs) to enable them to play a key role in accessing markets. This Output will support the improvement of SLM/SFM practices through: i. Provision of FFFs to address the priority of improving access to community seedbanks (CSBs) in the country. This builds on the support to Extension Services provided by the FFS/APFS/FFF program under Output 2.1.2. Only 1% of farmers in northern Namibia across all three landscapes have access to seed banks, improved seed or other related agricultural input that would enable them to transition to a more sustainable agricultural practice. Therefore, setting up CSBs within the landscapes or reviving existing ones is a top priority and a means to an end for intensifying agricultural practices, restoring forests and, importantly, helping to increase resilience and food security among farmers. Under this Output, activities will build on the strengthened collaboration and platforms created under Component 1. Work will be divided in two phases. A preliminary review of existing regulations related to seed banks, including existing support mechanisms, together with multi-

53 “The Forest and Farm Facility provides direct financial support and technical assistance to strengthen forest and farm producer organizations representing smallholders, rural women’s groups, local communities and indigenous peoples’ institutions. Collectively, forest and farm producers have the potential to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and to respond to climate change at landscape scales”. Source: http://www.fao.org/forest-farm-facility/en/

level stakeholder consultations. This review may be done alongside other legal regulatory reviews under Component 1. The role of the proposed review is specifically aimed at identifying potential CBS locations in order to prepare the ground for interventions at community levels, taking into account existing community-based land management (i.e. conservancies and community forests). Potential CBS locations will be visited by experts hired by the project and further stakeholder and community consultation will be conducted, together with a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) to identify infrastructure, technical capacity and training needs locally. A suitable service provider will be procured or identified. The second phase of CSB implementation will start with improvements to the infrastructure based on CNA findings and recommendations. Next, a training program will be rolled out to build capacity to manage and operate the CSBs. Also, a national event (workshop) will be organized in collaboration with the National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) to share the results of the preliminary activities under this Output, create awareness of CSBs and to reach out to a wide range of relevant stakeholders. The project, in collaboration with NBRI, will develop community protocols for access and benefit- sharing (ABS) of genetic resources and provide support to NBRI and newly established CSBs in relation to seed collection, use of farmer varieties and seed exchange through training programs that include other relevant matters (e.g. business administration and management) aimed at gradually building ownership among the communities and establishing their technical capacity in CSB operations. Small-scale seed bank facilities will be established and legally recognized as commercial community-based farmer seed production enterprises, with technical assistance from MAWLR. They will be aimed at producing quality seeds and mainstreaming SLM/SFM knowledge among communities Activities will closely follow step-by-step guidance developed by FAO and the International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, as part of a capacity development approach (Additional Annex X-5). Interventions will benefit further from lessons learnt through good CSB practices that will be shared by the Namibia Child Project, using the Regional Exchange Mechanism under Component 3. ii. Training FFPOs identified from the target landscapes to effectively implement appropriate SLM/SFM best practices in the intervention sites aligned to the relevant LUSs in the ILUPs. FFF(s) will strengthen FFPOs at different levels to support in-business development, sustainable and climate resilient forest and farm management, and social and cultural service provision. Also, a review of operational objectives and activities/achievements will be undertaken, targeting government agencies (MEFT and MAWLR Extension Services, MITSMED, NAB, NBRI etc.), NGOs and private NTFP national, regional and local management and organization structures in relation to the prioritized value chains identified. The review will result in establishing a set of recommendations that can help improve the productive capacity of local NTFP collectors and processors. 200. Indicative Activities under Output 2.2.1 are differentiated between CBOs and FFPOs. Much of the context and detail for CBOs has been described above, so is not repeated here. Activities involving FFPOs have yet to be finalized but examples are listed. Community Seed Banks Note that CBO activities should follow the FAO and ITPGRFA guidance. a) Undertake a scoping study for Community Seed Banks to be established/revived in each target landscape, based on the following: • Review existing regulations on seed banks and identify specific gaps and requirements with respect to provisions for CSBs;

• Consult with relevant stakeholders on the locations for CSBs, using participatory processes and mechanisms articulated in the respective landscape SEPPs; and • Undertake a comprehensive needs assessment, covering infrastructure, technical capacity and training requirements. b) In collaboration with NBRI, implement the CNA recommendations with respect to establishing infrastructure; designing and delivering the training program; and supporting the creation of CSBs with respect to legal, business and administration aspects. c) In collaboration with NBRI, develop community protocols for access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. d) Identify and pursue other community-based initiatives for FFFs, such as tree nurseries, that support SLM/SFM. Forest and Farm Producer Organizations e) Map existing forest farm producer groups and identify potentially interested groups, including water user associations at landscape level. f) Review prior attempts at forest enterprise development and consolidate FFPO knowledge of production options based on woodland. g) Undertake landscape-level awareness raising campaign in local language. h) Using participatory approaches, support women, youth and men from FFPOs to select suitable climate-resilient production options for diversified tree and woodland products. i) Work with communities to raise awareness of benefits of forming FFPOs (around many different potential products) and provide training in necessary steps to formalize/legitimize/legalize such groups. j) Provide Market Analysis and Development training-of-trainers for women and men from FFPOs and Forestry Extension Services to enable them to deliver training on how to screen and develop viable market options for more promising timber, charcoal and NTFP products. k) Train women and men producers in Market Analysis and Development to build entrepreneurial ability to assess markets and financial profitability, technologies (for quality, aggregation, processing, packaging), sustain natural resource supply-base, undertake legal registration of FFPOs, arrange social benefit sharing. l) Support FFPOs to develop group savings and loan structures (from the profits of their existing value chains) with a view to investing in alternative environmentally friendly forest-based initiatives. Preferred choices will emerge from working further with FFPOs and rural advisory services to develop a diverse (basket) of dryland NTFP value chains and overcoming the specific barriers discussed at length during the PPG. Currently, the key priorities to follow-up are: m) Promote the Forest Farm Facility (FFF) approach among FFPOs and communities more widely. This could be included within the SEPP and undertaken as part of the landscape ILUP process, acting as a further incentive for the farming sector to engage from the outset of project implementation. By the time ILUPs are completed for the three target landscapes (one year), it will have been possible to prioritize activities under this Output. n) Rural advisory services to commence piloting their support to a small selection of viable FFPOs in the development of their business plans and sustainability strategies. This will also help to strengthen such extension services and gear up for future interventions. Output 2.2.2: Green Value Chains strengthened or developed (including research and development for new products, improved post-production and marketing) 201. Strengthened entrepreneurship, access to markets and finance through equitable dryland commodity value chains and the development of business services within FFPOs will be supported under Output 2.2.2. It is aimed at increasing the scale of its market share, processing enterprises and prioritizing investments and broker access to finance for forest and farm businesses.

202. A rapid Value Chain Analysis was carried out during the PPG, details of which are elaborated in Additional Annex X-2. Stakeholders were consulted extensively and intensely regarding realistic opportunities to develop sustainable value chains for each land-use system in the respective target landscapes. The results provide clear directions for scoping several of value chains and although they may not be particularly innovative on a regional scale, they are potentially important for northern Namibia and have strong local support. Several opportunities to develop sustainable Value Chains have been identified for each of the three sub-basins targeted by the project, as summarized in Table 6,. 203. Activities will involve local communities, local economic agents, lead private entities in Namibia and the Government of Government of Namibia. A detailed description of stakeholders is included in Section 1.b.(2). NACSO is a potential civil society partner, given that several of the intervention sites are community forests or community conservancies, who are members of the Association. Other partners, including from parastatals and the private sector may also be well positioned to assist CBOs in realizing their goals. The Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan provides guidance on who and how to engage these players.

Table 6. Consolidated stakeholder recommendations on Green Value Chains (Source: Additional Annex X-2) Recommended: Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) Sub-basin 3 (Kavango) Green Value Chains Poultry YES NO YES Cowpea YES YES NO Fodder NO YES NO Beef / Livestock products NO YES YES Marula YES YES NO Ximenia NO YES NO Thatching grass NO NO YES

204. Indicative Activities under Output 2.2.2: a) During the project inception, the short-list of potential GVCs in the above Table will be reviewed and further consultations held in order to share a definitive list with stakeholders at the Inception Workshop. Recommendations from the Inception Workshop will be followed up by PMU and a proposal submitted to the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee to scope those GVCs considered to be a priority. b) Recommendations arising from the scoping studies will be followed up as appropriate, following approval by the PSC.

Component 3. Strengthening knowledge, learning and collaboration to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets 205. Component 3 responds to Barriers 5 and 6 to achieve sustainable management of Namibia’s Miombo-Mopane Woodlands, discussed in Section 1.a.(2) and includes the following shortcomings: i Lack of awareness of LDN and its key contribution to meeting local development needs and achieving the SDGs; ii Lack of mechanisms and capacity to assess, monitor and report on progress towards national LDN targets, and absence of harmonized approaches to assess and monitor the effect of improved practices of SLM and SFM on selected indicators and progress towards LDN iii Weak capacities/mechanisms for knowledge management on sustainable production practices (SLM/SFM) and LDN at national and sub-national levels (including within governmental institutions and extension services), as well as at the regional level; iv Limited information exchange and opportunities for sharing approaches, solutions, lessons and mechanisms for scaling out good practices for SLM/SFM to guide decision-making at landscape, national and regional levels; and

v Limited progress with neighbouring countries in managing shared river basins in sustainable ways that address the continuing degradation of Miombo-Mopane Woodlands. 206. Consequently, Component 3 has a strong focus on knowledge management, including information flow at and between district, national, regional and global levels, identification of lessons and best practice, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for informed decision-making and adaptive management, and promoting regional and global exchange and collaboration to strengthen national efforts to address land degradation. Component 3 also seeks to promote programmatic consistency, cohesion and synergies. 207. Component 3 will support the systematic creation and sharing of knowledge related to best practices on sustainable dryland management and contribute to increasing the capacity of Namibia to meet its national targets on LDN. Opportunities for exchange with other DSL-IP child projects in the Miombo- Mopane Ecoregion and with the global IP platform will be an important aspect of this component. It also seeks to enhance collaboration between both DSL-IP and non-DSL-IP countries to achieve a less piecemeal and more coherent approach to dryland management regionally, including identifying and exploring opportunities for potential joint initiatives targeted at addressing common challenges across neighbouring country borders and throughout the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion. 208. Component 3 will also support project M&E for effective project coordination and adaptive management, and provide important information and knowledge on project results of relevance to national and global knowledge platforms on SLM/SFM and LDN. This will help the project in achieving its anticipated impact at wider (transboundary/regional/ ecosystem/global) scale.

Outcome 3.1 National land information framework strengthened to inform LDN-related policy, planning and management at landscape, national and global levels

209. The project seeks to strengthen existing land information monitoring, assessment and reporting systems and tools; and management of the data collected within the national LDN knowledge platform to support assessment of progress towards LDN targets. The platform will support application of the LDN hierarchy, including tracking land use decisions with respect to maintaining (or exceeding) LDN and, where necessary, helping to counterbalance LDN anticipated losses with planned gains elsewhere. It will facilitate national LDN reporting responsibilities under UNCCD.

210. It is expected that the knowledge platform will serve as a national repository of information on sustainable production approaches and good practices that can help to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation. The platform will include information on successful project experiences, such as on ILMP (integrated landscape management plan) design and implementation and the effectiveness of FFS as a vehicle for capacity development for SLM/SFM. Information may include data on land capability, condition and use, land value, land tenure and LDN status, and draw on cadastral mapping, topographic mapping, land capability, resilience assessments and maps, land degradation maps, land use and population maps. The platform will also support scaling out of project experiences and results. 211. The project will support the development of a comprehensive system for assessment and regular monitoring of land use/degradation in the target sub-basins, feeding into national reporting requirements on LDN achievements towards targets and building on existing assessment and monitoring processes (e.g. agricultural, forestry and pastoral aspects). This Outcome informs Outcome 1.1, which addresses the strengthening of the national SLM Steering Committee for LDN and proposes the establishment of an LDN Task Force under the SLM-SC as well as Technical Working Groups for each landscape to help foster greater inter-institutional collaboration in integrated land-use planning/management to avert land degradation. 212. Outcome 3.1 also responds to calls from the UNCCD Science-Policy Interface and GEF-STAP to consider the effectiveness of land degradation data and monitoring systems, as well as wider consideration of the three global LDN indicators. The project will cover operational costs, equipment, capacity development and technical assistance to enhance national capacity to monitor long-term impacts of LDN.

Output 3.1.1: National and sub-national LDN assessment, monitoring and reporting systems and tools, including LDN knowledge platform, developed and operational, with relevant reporting to global level

213. Namibia does not as yet have a centralized, publicly available national database system hosting LDN-related information. Thus, it is limited in its ability to share or report information with relevant sectors and agencies at both national and sub-national levels, as well as at regional and global levels in an efficient and timely manner. This works against the adoption of effective SLM and SFM practices across sectors and scales to address degradation drivers in the Miombo-Mopane system and achieve a transformational change towards sustainable management of the landscape. Strengthening the national knowledge management framework will help to better inform decision-making and scale out successful SLM/SFM and LDN practices to other Miombo-Mopane Woodlands within the country. 214. Both METF and in MAWLR are equipped with GIS systems and staff skilled in managing and interrogating spatial data, some of which is freely accessible in the public domain. Currently, an LDN Monitoring and Reporting Unit (MRU) is being established with the assistance of the UNDP GEF-funded NILALEG project at the University of Namibia (UNAM). The Unit will be equipped and trained in LDN analysis to support of decision-making. The project will engage with these foundations and initiative and, through collaboration and partnerships, contribute to the further development of the MRU and training in GIS in support of the preparation of the ILUPs and monitoring of their implementation in terms of quantifying progress towards LDN. 215. The current national LDN monitoring framework needs to be reviewed with respect to measurable, achievable benchmarks for progress towards LDN, including a system for collecting, storing and analyzing data that presumably will be forthcoming from the MRU. The project will contribute support as required by MRU for further definition of goals, core indicators, metrics, data sources, and baseline data to monitor progress towards LDN in the target landscapes using LDN methodologies that can be scaled out for national reporting purposes to UNCCD. Two other identified needs: securing high-level buy-in by multiple ministries for the LDN framework and associated monitoring system; and the strengthening of the national multi- sectoral SLM-SC, which is dedicated to driving forward the LDN agenda including development of the LDN monitoring system under Outcome 1.1. 216. Indicative Activities under Output 3.1.1 a) Review current national LDN indicators, assessment and monitoring systems, and tools and their utility at national and sub-national (region, local authority including municipalities, community/village) levels and identify improvements/standardization where required, based on LDN core indicators, with support for the harmonization of the methods used to calculate them. b) Develop, establish and operationalize a participatory landscape level LDN assessment, monitoring and reporting system, using a participatory methodological approach validated by local communities. c) Support a digital knowledge platform/information clearing house mechanism (CHM)54 and focal node for storage, management and analysis of land degradation and LDN-related data, practices and lessons learned to provide accurate and timely information to inform decision-making, focused on national and sub-national level data but also linking to other relevant regional and global databases. d) Establish a specific ‘dashboard’ within the LDN knowledge platform targeted at government decision-makers to facilitate ease of reporting under international requirements. e) Where necessary, update existing spatial planning/GIS-based systems/facilities to provide robust data and information management capacity to support the knowledge platform, and link with

54 The platform will have different access levels, where non-sensitive information can be shared directly with the public but access to sensitive information (for Government officials, managers, etc.) would require a login/password procedure. 71

relevant international and regional databases and tools that can support national spatial analyses of land degradation, such as Trends.Earth55. f) Further develop/refine the ILAM toolbox, piloted during the PPG process, for LDN monitoring and reporting purposes, including consideration of the Neutrality Mechanism Balance Sheet. g) Further operationalize nationally the LDN Framework as a decision-support system to guide land degradation and SLM/SFM assessment, monitoring and decision-making, including further development and promotion of the use of the ‘avoid, reduce, reverse’ concept (no net loss of land- based natural capital) employed in the ILM planning process under Outcome 1.2. h) Develop and operationalize a plan for the sustainability (financial, institutional and human capacity) of the LDN monitoring and reporting system by project closure. The project will provide the assistance required for the Government to develop a strategy to ensure that project capacity building efforts endure beyond the life of the project. 217. This Output links directly with Output 1.1.1 by providing the national LDN WG with improved sources of information to support evidence-based decision-making for LDN. This will help support the process of further developing and integrating LDN indicators into wider relevant national development and adaptation frameworks, such as the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), and developing a harmonized national system to support reporting on LDN indicators. 218. The design/strengthening and operation of the LDN digital knowledge platform will be informed by the experience and lessons emerging from similar platform development being undertaken by other DSL IP child projects, as well as from other relevant national, regional and global platforms and information sources of relevance to SFM, SLM and LDN objectives (e.g. WOCAT, CAADP and DRIP). It is expected that the knowledge platform will be linked with, and consolidate information from, these other information sources, as well as being open to other experiences from SADC, AFR100 countries and elsewhere. The effectiveness of the platform will be regularly monitored through usage tracking and interviews with target stakeholders to ensure it is addressing their needs and leading to tangible improvements in good practice. 219. Field monitoring data will be complemented by remote sensing data collected at national level. This will be facilitated by FAO through capacity development of the MCTA using a variety of relevant tools, including Trends.Earth or other GIS-based systems that combine high-resolution imagery with a cloud- based architecture and user-friendly interface for monitoring. The DSL-IP Regional Exchange Mechanism (REM – see Box 6) will assist the PMU and the LDN SLM-SC to establish a remote sensing data collection system where needed. Output 3.1.2: Capacity development program designed and delivered to support national LDN reporting by improving assessment, monitoring and analysis among key stakeholders at national and sub-national levels 220. This output builds the knowledge and skills of key stakeholder groups, from national to community level, to enable them to assess and monitor LDN. It will include: technical training and provision of equipment/tools to local government officers and local volunteers for monitoring land use/degradation, biodiversity and other relevant indicators to support delivery of Output 3.1.1; and how to use this information to strengthen decision-making, particularly with respect to Outcome 1.1.

221. Indicative Activities under Output 3.1.2 a) Develop training modules for key stakeholder groups on LDN assessment and monitoring and use of LDN-related indicators at landscape, national and international levels, including use of global monitoring tools designed to support LDN assessment and to build capacities to identify, assess, monitor and report on land degradation trends and degradation hot spots. Tools to consider include Open Foris Collect, Collect Earth, SEPAL, and Earth Map.

55 Trends.Earth is an online platform that monitors land degradation, using satellite imagery and global data, including basic data for reporting on the three key UNCCD indicators. See http://trends.earth/docs/en/ 72

b) Support the Landscape Management Committees (LMCs) in the target sub-basins to develop Landscape Monitoring Action Plans (LMAPs) and oversee piloting the use of LDN indicators defined under the national LDN framework. 222. Key stakeholder groups targeted for training under this output include: national and sub-national government staff, LMCs, rural extension services (agriculture and forestry), representatives of involved FFS and FFPOs, and other relevant civil society groups. Training will include: definition of LDN indicators; LDN baseline mapping; data quality standards and specifications; methodologies and tools for estimating and measuring LDN indicators; mechanisms for validation on the ground; and data analytics. Training will follow a ‘training of trainers’ approach so that capacity building can be multiplied up. (This approach is being applied generally across the project.) The REM will support PMU in the organization of training workshops.

223. The national SLM-SC, LMCs and their respective proposed Task Force and Technical Working Groups, should these be set up, will assess the suitability of the proposed data collection and monitoring tools, based on costs, scope, data type and ease of implementation; and they will adapt them as needed, according to the time- and capacity-constraints of the collectors, to ensure that monitoring does not involve adding too much extra-work to their daily tasks. 224. The project will build on existing collaborative partnerships that can be used for LDN assessment and monitoring. For instance, the project will support the strengthening of existing knowledge platforms that target FFS56/FFPOs/CBO/rural advisory services, which effectively act as ‘communities of practice’ for SLM/SFM and as channels of technical know-how on SLM/SFM for field practitioners.

Outcome 3.2 Knowledge and awareness enhanced to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets 225. Outcome 3.2 is concerned with the dynamic process of the generation, management and communication of information, including that from lesson learning/sharing and project M&E activities, to facilitate the sharing, transfer and up-scaling and out-scaling of knowledge and best practice produced through the project (and DSL-IP) on SLM/SFM and LDN. This is aimed at key local, national and global stakeholders to inform decision-making and to raise awareness among wider audiences. These activities link to the capacity development, monitoring and reporting efforts promoted under Components 1 and 2.

226. Along with an increased knowledge base on best practice for sustainable drylands management towards LDN, it is expected that the project will generate and systematically document results that will contribute to understanding the complex dynamics of the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion, its values and the multiple demands placed upon it. Output 3.2.1: Project knowledge management, communication and dissemination framework and strategy developed and implemented 227. Documentation and dissemination of knowledge on SLM/SFM and LDN methodologies, tools, lessons learned and best practices is a critical component of the project that requires a coherent, coordinated approach. Consequently, project knowledge management, communications and outreach activities will be guided by a Knowledge Management and Communications Strategy (KMCS), supported by a project web-based knowledge management portal and innovative information-sharing program.

228. Indicative Activities under Output 3.2.1 a) Develop and implement a gender-sensitive KMCS (based on a gender analysis to identify project- specific gender gaps/issues/constraints in relation to KMC and activities to address them) and associated financing plan to guide all project knowledge management, communication and outreach activities, with tailored knowledge management and communications plans for individual target landscapes and their respective local authorities/communities as appropriate.

56 Knowledge generation, distribution and management are fundamental to the success of the FFS approach. 73

b) Develop project communication materials, activities and events (including a final workshop) to inform multiple stakeholder audiences (from national to community levels) about project aims, progress and results, using the most appropriate media for the target audience, with a web-based platform to host and disseminate project-related communication materials, lessons learned and best practices from the project and wider DSL IP network. Note that mechanisms and platforms generated by the Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans for Landscape Planning will be appropriates vehicle for reaching out to target audiences. c) Synthesize all new project-generated knowledge acquired about SLM/SFM and LDN in Miombo- Mopane landscapes and publish relevant results in manuals and (where appropriate) academic journals, with emphasis on delivering core knowledge and best practices in guidelines translated into local language(s). d) Develop a framework/process for a two-way transfer of project information between the national and landscape/community levels. At the landscape level, it is likely that the LMCs, FFS and FFPOs and agriculture and forestry extension services will facilitate dissemination and outreach activities to stakeholders in each target landscape, but also feed results and experiences back into the knowledge management structure at the national level through the PMU. e) Similarly, with support from the REM (briefly explained in Box 6), develop a framework/process for a two-way transfer of information between the project and GCP, with key project reports, studies, experiences and lessons learned, ‘best practice’ documents, and other relevant material on SLM/SFM/LDN fed to regional and global databases/knowledge platforms (identified in Outputs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above), while recent scientific knowledge and information on global evidence- based good practices flowing through the REM to the project and its country stakeholders. f) Design and deliver a training module on communication and outreach to develop the capacity of the Project Management Unit and key stakeholders to design and deliver effective social-media content. g) Participate in relevant Communities of Practice to exchange project knowledge and learning and sharing results with project stakeholders. h) Participate in regional and global events of relevance for knowledge management in coordination with the GCP. 229. The KMCS will set out a systematic knowledge management process to capture and communicate project results, impacts, lessons learned and best practices, addressing the needs of practitioners, decision- makers and local stakeholders, making use of both traditional and new communication media and networks. The KMCS will also incorporate specific monitoring tools to ensure that key audiences are reached, engaged and able to contribute; and that the project is effectively communicating key messages and results. 230. Project communication materials (culturally appropriate and in relevant languages) will include various digital and printed knowledge products (e.g. publications, leaflets, journal articles, booklets, case studies, best practice documents, presentations and audio-visual materials), as well as social media content and a quarterly electronic project newsletter. Communication events with stakeholders may include information days, on-farm demonstrations, local fairs, and radio programs, as well as national-level workshops and conferences. TV and radio stations will be key partners in the dissemination of news about the project. Outreach will include innovative tools such as smart-phone applications designed to engage and inform stakeholders at multiple levels (e.g. easily accessible to farmers and rural private producers), based upon best international practices. All project knowledge, communication and awareness-raising activities will be tailored to the target audience and consider the information needs and ambitions of women and minority groups. A Knowledge Management and Communications specialist will be employed as part of PMU, and work with other relevant specialists (e.g. journalists) to identify and create targeted products (e.g. ‘success stories’ for media). 231. The project’s KMCS will be informed by and closely aligned/integrated with that developed at the program level, as well as harmonized with those of the other Miombo/Mopane child projects and supported by the REM (Box 6). This will facilitate the sharing of evidence-based good practices between 74

countries and across the DSL IP. KMCS activities will be aligned with the GEF communication and visibility policy and FAO’s corporate communication strategy. Output 3.2.2: Project M&E framework, supporting lesson learning and guiding adaptive management, developed and operational from national through to community levels 232. The project will develop and implement a detailed M&E framework (see Section 9), which includes the Mid-Term Review (MTR) and Terminal Evaluation (TE), to support an adaptive, results-based management approach to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of project implementation and delivery of project results and impacts. The project M&E framework will be consistent with the overall M&E framework and learning program of the REM (see Output 3.2.1 above) established by the GCP. 233. The project M&E framework will generate and systematically document lessons learned (supported by the REM on methodology) that will contribute to the knowledge base on SLM/SFM approaches and practices and means to achieve LDN targets. Based on experiences during the PPG period, it is expected that the project will provide particularly important lessons on land tenure and access, resilience, the role of women in the sustainable management of drylands, role of public-private partnerships in addressing land degradation, and the effectiveness of market-based instruments to encourage and maintain sustainable land management practices. 234. Indicative Activities under Output 3.2.2 a) Further development and implementation of the project M&E strategy (Section 9), with the role of each project stakeholder group/institution involved in project-related monitoring, evaluation and reporting agreed (in a participatory manner), and, where needed, training (including guidelines) provided on the implementation of the M&E strategy. b) Support development of community-level participatory monitoring of project activities, with training in M&E methods as needed. c) Review and revise the project objective and outcome-level indicators and their associated baseline and targets during the project inception period (first 3 months of implementation) to ensure that indicators are SMART57, baseline data complete and targets realistic, particularly with respect to any prevailing COVID-19 limitations on the project at the start of implementation. d) Develop a set of performance/process indicators to measure delivery and achievement of project activities and outputs (FAO FPMIS requirement) and incorporate a set of global platform indicators (provided by REM) during project inception period (first 3 months of implementation). e) Establish a framework and methodology (process) for the identification and capture of best practices 58 and lessons learned from the project and disseminate the results through implementation of the KMCS under Output 3.2.1. f) Undertake a Mid-Term Review (MTR) in Year 3 and a Terminal Evaluation (TE) in Year 5, disseminate results and deliver their respective management responses. g) Organize annual 1-day project retreats for PMU staff and key stakeholders to provide an opportunity to reflect on project management, operation and delivery, and identify practical solutions to resolve issues and overcome barriers hindering project performance to support adaptive management. h) Feed results and recommendations from project M&E activities into the project Knowledge Management framework (Output 3.2.1) as appropriate. 235. The project will hire an M&E specialist as a member of the PMU during Year 1 to: (i) develop and oversee delivery of the M&E system; (ii) collect and collate information on progress in meeting targets and evaluate results; and (iii) lead on the identification of project best practices, lessons learned and the systematization of experiences, and the preparation of FAO and GEF monitoring reports. As part of the

57 Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound (indicators) 58 Best practices will also aim to cover “effective learning practices” to document the transfer of skills and knowledge into practice. See http://www.fao.org/3/a-be975e.pdf. 75

Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) planning process, the project will also hire national experts to gather baseline information and elaborate the initial values of the GEF Core Indicators and selected LDN indicators once selection and demarcation of the target intervention sites is finalized. 236. The MTR is considered particularly crucial, providing a vital opportunity for reviewing progress, identifying successes, shortfalls, bottlenecks and any needs for re-alignment through adaptive management. Lessons learnt and recommendations produced by the TE will inform discussions on sustainability/durability of project results and impacts and future replication and scaling-out/up initiatives. 237. M&E tools used by the individual child projects will be harmonized as much as possible to facilitate program-level reporting and monitoring, knowledge sharing, and good practices identified and their successes highlighted. This will include agreement and harmonization on the use of common indicators for LDN assessment and monitoring, piloted under Outcomes 3.1 and 3.2. The project is aligned with DSL IP objectives at regional and global levels and includes a number of relevant GEF-7 Core Indicators (namely: number 3 (area of land restored); 4 (area of landscapes under improved practices); 6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigated); and 11 (number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF investment). The project will also track contributions to the minimum set of UNCCD LDN indicators – land cover/land cover change, land productivity (metric: net primary productivity), carbon stocks above and below ground (metric: soil organic carbon) and SDG 15.3.1 – proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. 238. Project M&E will also contribute to the national LDN assessment and monitoring framework, providing important information to help populate the national LDN platform (Output 3.1.1). Links will also be established with program-level monitoring organized through the REM, with relevant M&E data fed to the REM to consolidate data at regional and global levels.

Outcome 3.3 Collaboration and exchange at regional and global levels enhanced to support national and sub-national efforts to deliver LDN 239. This Outcome is designed to enhance the project’s national and sub-national delivery and impacts by engaging with additional opportunities available through collaboration with other DSL-IP countries, the global DSL-IP and more widely at regional and global levels. It focuses on three areas to achieve this: i. Supporting regional collaboration and coordination on actions to address common challenges to the sustainable management of drylands in the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion; ii. Offering increased opportunities for market development of SLM/SFM products from the project target landscapes; and iii. Improving access for national and sub-national project stakeholders to knowledge and mutual learning opportunities available at regional and global levels, while leveraging the project’s results, experiences and lessons learnt for wider impact at regional and global scales. 240. The Outcome will strengthen connections between the Namibia Child Project, its in-country partners, other child projects and the overall DSL IP, supporting networking and partnership development as well as promoting South-South cooperation. As an IP member, the Namibia Child Project is able to access additional resources and opportunities that would not be easily available to a stand-alone project. 241. Activities under this Outcome are largely developed through partnership with the REM, which is focused on ensuring that the project and its partners can benefit from these additional shared opportunities. As mentioned above (Box 8), the REM functions as a mechanism to strengthen national- and landscape-level project delivery through its services across all project components, as well as facilitating national, regional and global exchange of knowledge, lessons learned and best practices to accelerate and amplify the uptake of such practices (see Output 3.2.1). 242. The project will use part of the DSL IP incentive to ‘access’ these additional services and opportunities offered by the IP at global level through the REM on a demand and adaptive basis, to enable the Namibia Child Project to achieve its anticipated impact at wider transboundary ecosystem scales.

Output 3.3.1: Actions and investments identified to address transboundary land and environmental degradation priorities in Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion and bi-/multi-lateral initiatives strengthened/established to progress towards LDN 243. This Output aims to support and further develop regional and cross-border collaboration and coordination to maintain the ecological integrity of the Miombo-Mopane Eco-region. This is expected to involve both DSL-IP countries and non-DSL-IP countries, with the aim to develop joint solutions to common challenges in sustainably managing the region’s natural resources, including exploring the possibility of new cross-border and regional initiatives and investments. In doing so it will also facilitate the sustainability and scaling up and scaling out of project results across the region. 244. The Output begins with the identification of common or transboundary land degradation, sustainable drylands management and other environmental challenges across the region, and progresses to prioritizing actions to jointly address them. 245. Indicative Activities under Output 3.3.1: a) Key project stakeholders participate in regional review and identification of priorities for transboundary and regional collaboration to address threats from environmental degradation and unsustainable natural resource use (e.g. veldt fires, invasive alien species, illegal mining, charcoal, collection of indigenous plant resources, conflicting watershed management) in the Miombo- Mopane Woodlands and the identification of joint solutions to address them in a collaborative manner with development of an Action Plan. [Activity organized through the REM.] b) Identify and develop proposals for transboundary and regional initiatives to address common challenges to managing the Miombo-Mopane system, such as biodiversity (e.g. endangered species’ ranges covering several Miombo-Mopane countries), protected areas with a shared national border and, in the case of Namibia and Angola, shared river basins. In addition to identifying and responding to regional priorities, collaborative actions with other child projects promoted by the project may include: c) Participation in reviewing regional and global initiatives and investment sources (including private sector companies and institutions), with a mandate including sustainable drylands management (e.g. Miombo Forum SADC-GGWI) to identify potential financing (sources, innovative financial tools) in support of both regional priorities identified through the above activities and the national LDN targets, with a database held by REM. [Activity organized by the REM.] Output 3.3.2: Collaborative actions undertaken to support business and market development for SLM/SFM products across Miombo-Mopane region 246. This Output, supported by the REM, addresses the identification of markets and networking with cross-border, regional and global markets for LDN-compliant land-use products promoted by the project. Activities support those under Outcome 2.2 on value chain development, while focused on improving market opportunities across the wider region for selected SLM/SFM products from the target landscapes. 247. Indicative Activities under Output 3.3.2: a) Provide national inputs into REM needs assessment surveys related to private sector engagement, market analysis and business opportunities for further development of transboundary, regional and global markets (with a focus on linkages with other DSL countries) for SLM/SFM products such as charcoal59 and NTFPs (building on the preliminary work undertaken during the PPG period on value-chain activities), including identification of potential sources of commercial financing. b) Engage with REM-promoted regional business networking events, commodity roundtables, and multi-stakeholder platforms relevant to value-chain development and promotion of products from

59 For instance, regional discussions and knowledge sharing on sustainable charcoal value chains in the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion will build on the recently conducted regional wood fuel workshop – hosted by FAO and Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in February 2020 – where eight countries in Southern and Central Africa discussed and shared lessons on the regional charcoal trade and distribution, tenure and institutional arrangements for charcoal sourcing/production systems, options for sustainable wood sources and the promotion of efficient charcoal production practices. 77

target intervention sites under SLM/SFM practices. Lead national engagement with producers, SMEs, local finance institutions to complement outreach at regional and global scale. c) Provide national input to any proposed development and promotion of a Miombo-Mopane ‘brand’ for SLM/SFM products, delivered through the project to support market development. 248. The REM will provide a dedicated ‘business development facility’ function, supporting the (largely) underdeveloped value chains for SLM/SFM products from the target landscapes. Among other support, REM will populate a database with information on potential products, businesses, sources of financing and markets, which will be available to Namibia and other DSL-IP child projects. The REM will also explore the development a Miombo-Mopane ‘brand’, drawing on FAO’s experience with Geographical Indication (GI) schemes60.

249. Products from areas under SLM/SFM practices with global appeal and markets are relatively limited in Namibia, with some exceptions such as honey markets. Consequently, it is expected that much of the business and market development through the project will be relatively local (regional or national). Output 3.3.3: Opportunities for national and landscape-level stakeholders to exchange knowledge, experiences, and lessons learnt at regional and global levels identified, developed and supported 250. This Output seeks to identify and promote opportunities for project stakeholders to exchange knowledge, experiences and lessons learnt and enhance mutual learning with other DSL-IP projects, as well as connecting project stakeholders with other relevant regional and global knowledge sources and learning opportunities. This will further strengthen evidence-based decision-making capacity for LDN in Namibia. This Output will particularly assist with, and add value to, project efforts under Outcomes 3.1 and 3.2 to inform and be informed by the expanding body of global knowledge and practice on SLM and SFM practices and measures to achieve LDN. 251. The project’s framework is closely aligned with the DSL-IP global framework, and those of other Miombo-Mopane child projects. It will facilitate sharing of evidence-based good practices across initiatives. The REM will play a major role in assisting the Namibia project to engage in and deliver this Output. 252. Indicative Activities under Output 3.3.3: a) Liaise with the REM, other DSL-IP countries and other relevant initiatives and platforms to identify appropriate opportunities on offer through the DSL-IP to improve Namibia’s access to regional and global knowledge and expertise in relation to sustainable drylands management and LDN. b) Supported by the REM, organize national and sub-national participation in regional and global ‘cross-fertilization’ exchanges, study tours and peer-to-peer learning opportunities, including exchange-learning visits for key project participants and partners to other DSL-IP projects in the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion, and to other relevant projects providing best practices under the AFR100 network to improve mutual learning. c) Supported by the REM, develop linkages and engage with key global forums and working groups on drylands and related platforms (e.g. Collaborative Partnership on Forests, Global Landscapes Forum, Global Soils Partnership, Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock, FAO’s Family Farming Platform, GEF-6 IAP Policy and Science Interface and WOCAT) and regional platforms (e.g. SADC GGWI, Miombo Network), with specific training provided on a demand basis to relevant departments on the use of existing sources of information (e.g. WOCAT, TerrAfrica). d) Ensure close coordination with FAO’s Committee on Forestry (COFO) Working Group on Dryland Forests and Agrosilvopastoral Systems, including support for the country’s representative to participate in relevant meetings in order to help channel knowledge and policy support between the Child Project, regional level and GCP steering committee. e) facilitated by the REM) Organize (participation of the Namibia project team and partners to the annual meetings of DSL IP and other capacity development events and networking opportunities organized by the GCP, SADC, UN COPs (particularly UNCCD), IUCN Global Congress, among others.

60 See www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1128101/ 78

253. The project and the REM will jointly identify the most suitable learning opportunities in other DSL- IP countries and organize at least two visits of approximately one week to relevant sites, with the help of the host partner. Visits are expected to involve between 8-10 participants from Namibia. Participants will be required to prepare a report for dissemination and conduct workshops or meetings to share the knowledge acquired on returning to Namibia , identifying how it might be applied in a brief action plan. Actions will then be monitored and reported to the PSC. In return for the Namibia project being able to participate in wider learning opportunities, the PMU will liaise with the GCP to host similar learning visits for other DSL IP partners, based on the most successful achievements of this Namibia Child Project.

(6) Alignment with GEF focal area and/or Impact Program strategies

254. As one of the Child Projects of the SFM-DSL Impact Program, Namibia and other Miombo/Mopane Child Projects will contribute to the objective of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of GEF-7 investments in sustainable drylands management. The Namibia Child Project’s alignment with the SFM-DSL Impact Program strategies and objectives is highlighted in Table 7. Table 7. Alignment with IP objectives SFM-DSL Impact Program Namibia Child Project Alignment Objectives 1) Integrated landscape Through Components 1 and 2, the project will first prepare harmonized, integrated management with particular land-use plans (ILUPs) for three landscapes covering some 1.2 million hectares of focus on sustainable forest Miombo-Mopane Woodlands, based on a participatory multi-sector engagement management and restoration, process, and then support necessary their implementation, including strengthening rangelands, and livestock capacity and consolidating the Farmer Field Schools approach. production 2) The promotion of diversified Component 2 will work towards the consolidation and scaling up of SLM and SFM agro-ecological food best practices, which will contribute to the well-being of local communities and production systems in ecosystems. The above-mentioned robust stakeholder engagement processes will drylands. build awareness and national and local capacity to promote and adopt climate- adaptive and gender-sensitive SLM/SFM/LR approaches and techniques on-the- ground, including through the FFS approach and targeted training. 3) The creation of an enabling Component 1 is designed to address the enabling environment through environment to support the introduction and strengthening of policies and regulations, as well as developing two objectives above. institutional capacities, multi-sector coordination and collaboration. Implementation of capacity-building and stakeholder engagement activities under all three components will contribute further this enabling environment to support the above objectives, as well as future sustainability of the ‘integrated landscape approach’ initiated by this project to address land degradation across Namibia’s dryland forests, croplands and rangelands in partnerships with land-owners, land users and communities with a common goal of achieving LDN.

255. In addition to its contribution to drylands sustainability and more globally, as elaborated in Part I (Table A), the project will contribute to three GEF Focal Area outcomes: • LD-1-1: Maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services to sustain food production and livelihoods through Sustainable Land Management (SLM) • LD-2-2: Maintain or improve flow of ecosystem services, including sustaining livelihoods of forest-dependent people through Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) • CCM-2-7: Demonstrate mitigation options with systemic impacts for the Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program • IP SFM Drylands - GEF-7 Impact Program: Sustainable Forest Management, Dryland Sustainable Landscapes (DSL) 256. The above will be achieved through an Integrated Landscape Approach. The intensified adoption of SLM/SFM practices in managing landscapes will be tailored according to the identified land-use systems and their trends across the wider landscapes. This shift towards sustainability is expected to stabilize the 79

flow of multiple ecosystem services in the medium-term and also increase production, productivity and income for farmers and forest users as co-benefits. In the process, biocarbon benefits will also be generated. Refer to the project’s Results Framework (Annex A1) for overall targets. The project’s alignment with the GEF is summarized in Table 8. Table 8 Project alignment with GEF-7 LD and CC Focal Areas Objectives GEF 7 Focal Area Namibia Child Project Alignment LD-1-1: Maintain or improve flow Under Component 1, an enabling environment for adoption of SLM at policy, of agro-ecosystem services to regulatory and participatory planning levels will be created. Under Component sustain food production and 2, SLM will be implemented on the ground with the goal of improving livelihoods through Sustainable sustainable livelihoods and food security, in conjunction with establishing Land Management (SLM) Community Seed Banks. LD-2-2: Maintain or improve flow Under Component 1, an enabling environment will be created for strengthening of ecosystem services, including SFM policy, regulations and participatory planning. Under Component 2, SFM sustaining livelihoods of forest- will be implemented on the ground with the goal of improving sustainability of dependent people through communities’ livelihoods, further enhanced by forest restoration and Sustainable Forest Management development of GVCs. CCM-2-7: Demonstrate mitigation Under Component 1, harmonized, integrated land-use planning will be rolled options with systemic impacts for out across landscapes comprising a mosaic of LUSs, including forests. the Sustainable Forest Implementation of these ILUPs across three landscapes will result in avoiding or Management Impact Program reducing LD in 200,000 ha of forest and reversing LD (restoring forest) in 200 ha.

(7) Incremental cost reasoning, expected contributions from baseline, GEFTF, co-financing

Table 9. Incremental cost reasoning Current Baseline (B) Alternative (A) GEB (A-B) [scenario without project] [scenario with project] [GEBs generated by project] Not implementing this DSL Child With the GEF-7 alternative, dryland Avoided GHGs emissions: Project will lead to increasing land degradation will be avoided, 1,301,476 tCO2e degradation across northern reduced or reversed in parts of Progressing towards achieving Namibia as a result of unsustainable northern Namibia, demonstrating a LDN in 360,200 ha of project agricultural practices. This will have national pathway to achieve LDN. target landscapes the following consequences: Specifically, the project will Avoided land degradation in Increased degradation of the contribute to the following: 360,200 ha within project Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Land degradation stabilized in landscapes Ecoregion in northern Namibia selected landscapes of Mopane Improved provision of agro- Namibia is unable to achieve Miombo ecosystems in ecosystem and forest- its LDN targets northern Namibia ecosystem services from Ineffective transboundary river Namibia able to achieve its LDN 345,200 ha of production basin/ecosystem management targets, subject to replication landscapes (145,000 ha with Angola Improved transboundary river croplands, 200,000 ha Reduced national contribution basin/ecosystem management production forest, 200 ha forest to the SADC´s regional land with Angola restoration) degradation prevention and Increased contribution to Conservation and sustainable management objectives and SADC’s regional LD prevention use of biodiversity in 200,200 missed opportunity to and management objectives; ha of production landscapes collaborate with other national established collaboration with partners of the Miombo other national partners of the Cluster and beyond Miombo Cluster and beyond Reduced contribution to Increased contribution to national climate change national climate change mitigation action mitigation action

Current Baseline (B) Alternative (A) GEB (A-B) [scenario without project] [scenario with project] [GEBs generated by project] Limited capacity to manage Improved capacity to manage landscapes harmoniously landscapes harmoniously across sectors across sectors Limited business development, Increased business insufficiently organized development in agricultural Human livelihoods increasingly and forestry sectors deprived to the extent of their Improved livelihoods on the dependencies on the natural ground, less human suffering resources of the Miombo- Mopane landscapes in northern Namibia.

(8) Global environmental benefits (GEFTF) and/or adaptation benefits (LDCF)

Targets for improved land management 257. The project will deliver a range of Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) by halting and reversing negative trends of land degradation and biodiversity loss in degraded areas of the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands in northern Namibia by applying an integrated landscape management approach, predominantly to production systems. Productive land under different land-use systems will come under improved management within three target landscapes (sub-basins) through the application of SLM and SFM practices that embrace LDN as a long-term goal.

258. The total area of productive land identified for improvement is 360,200 ha, which is the immediate term GEB with respect to land degradation and represents 24.8% of the combined area of the three target landscapes (1,455,049 ha). Improvements relate to seven intervention areas: four in Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) comprising forest, cropland and rangeland land-use systems; two in Sub-basin 2 (Etosha), comprising cropland and rangeland; and one in Sub-basin 3 (Okavango), comprising forest/woodlands. These intervention areas have been pre-selected during the PPG phase, demarcated on maps of their respective landscapes and elaborated in an accompanying Table 1 in Annex G; and they await final consultation and confirmation during project inception. The breakdown of the LDN response hierarchy for these intervention areas shown in Table 4 and proposed SLM/SFM measures elaborated in Table 5 provide the basis of the following results anticipated in the immediate term: • 145,000 ha of croplands under improved SLM, having reduced LD through agricultural improvement interventions. (300,000 ha is Community Conservancy, of which 80,000 ha is Forest Conservancy.) • 15,000 ha under sustainable rangeland or grazing management will be subject to reduced LD; • 200,200 ha of forest/woodlands, of which 85,000 ha is or will be under active forest protection and conservation management measures to avoid LD, 115,000 ha will be subject to LD reduction measures, and 200 ha of rivers banks will be under restoration. 259. The medium term benefit will be 1,455,049 ha of target landscapes under improved management, subject to best practices in SLM/FSM and other types of intervention demonstrated during project implementation being replicated post-project. An Exit Strategy will be designed in the last year of the project to flag up what will need to be in place by way of the enabling environment (policies institutionalization of policies, mechanisms and platforms, best practices, continuing capacity development and sustainable financing by project closure to secure continuity post-project and linkages to any potential new opportunities of rolling out the LDN agenda across other priority landscapes. 260. Together, these immediate and medium-term improved practices will lead to increased ecosystem and community resilience, and the sustainable provision of ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level. Moreover, they will contribute to the conservation of globally significant biodiversity in the Miombo-

Mopane woodlands, contributing significantly to the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) objectives by bringing degraded land into restoration by 2030. Targets for carbon sequestration 261. A major co-benefit of the above interventions to reforest and reduce land degradation and deforestation will be avoided GHG emissions and carbon sequestration, estimated at 1,301,476 tCO2e over the project’s 5 years of implementation and 15 years of capitalization (20-year lifespan). Policy changes and behavioural changes associated with capacity-development activities are also expected to contribute to this co-benefit. The carbon benefit calculus takes into account the following considerations and areas of intervention subject to SLM practices: • Miombo and Mopane woodlands are considered to be dryland forests. • In Mopane vegetation, the above-ground density of live woody biomass is low and tree canopy is below 30%. • Carbon stocks are typically higher but much more susceptible to fire in Miombo than in Mopane landscapes. • Most of the carbon stocks in Miombo-Mopane landscapes are stored in the soil. • If the vegetation cover is removed and soil is not protected from erosion, land degradation ensues and soil carbon will be lost over time. This process is avoidable and the current trends can be reversed through more adaptive and sustainable land uses/practices. • The approach of avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation will apply to 145,000 ha of croplands and 200,000 ha of production forests in at least two of the three landscapes. • In addition, through reforestation and controlled forest use in reserved areas, 200 ha in Sub- basin 3 (Okavango) will be rehabilitated with vegetation. • In addition to the above forest and cropland interventions, 15,000 ha of rangeland will also be brought under sustainable management practices. • It is within these settings that potential carbon benefits have been assessed. 262. In summary, safeguarding highly useful and valuable ecosystem services in production landscapes, including carbon, will generate GEBs through a combination of strategies and land-use practices. These include avoided deforestation, assisted regeneration of forest ecosystems and the adoption by local communities of a suite of climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices. All these strategies and interventions ‘fit’ under the broad umbrella of SLM and/or SFM practices.

(9) Innovativeness, sustainability, potential for scaling up and system-wide capacity development

263. The Namibia Child Project is part of the GEF/SFM DSL Impact Program, whose programmatic approach contrasts with the conventional model of country-specific projects. Although this element, in itself, is not fully ‘innovative’ as it is the second cycle of GEF Impact Programs, the IP affords two advantages to this Child Project (and others) pertaining to scale (potential to scale up and out) and to sustainability, which would not apply to stand-alone projects: • First, there are the advantages of ‘scale’ and commonality embedded in belonging to the ‘Miombo Cluster’ of child projects. As stated in the introduction, countries within the Miombo Cluster share not only similar ecosystems that are unique to Southern Africa—the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands—but also similar and common challenges, including transfrontier ones, with respect to land-use management. By taking a supra-national view on the SFM DSL topic, the program is able to address key regional and transboundary issues through simultaneous actions by the respective child projects, increasing the impact individual child projects and the program as a whole. The regional aspect can also facilitate local stakeholders’ access to a wider range of different opportunities. Certain products are on high demand across the entire region and reaching global markets (e.g. Marula oil). For private sector players, it implies broader connections and the expansion of their potential to reach multi-country supply partnerships. For the local value chain

participants, the kind of scale enabled through the DSL IP will allow them have access to innovations they would otherwise not have imagined. • Secondly, there is the challenge of sustainability, especially financial. If countries in the DSL IP advance towards their LDN agenda, they will have proven a model that seeks to apply LDN across landscapes with shared, coordinated and relatively harmonized approaches. They can then collectively use the child projects as a ‘springboard’ for accelerating LD measures towards the neutrality goal at the regional level across the Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion. Collectively, countries will be well positioned to access future funding for LDN and CCM and also impact investments for large-scale ecosystem restoration.

264. The project demonstrates innovation within a Namibian context with regard to a number of interventions, even if they have been piloted or adopted by one or several other countries in Southern Africa or further afield. The following are highlighted: i. The project applies the LDN response hierarchy across land-use systems within a targeted landscape framework of sub-basins to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation. Moreover, interventions will be tracked and, ultimately, enable the Government to report to UNCCD on its progress nationally towards LDN, using methodologies, tools and monitoring systems aligned with the LDN principles and demonstrated by the project. Application of the LDN response hierarchy will be based on carefully designed land-use plans developed through inclusive participatory processes that are cross-sectoral and integrated ii. Multi-sectoral planning and management requires close collaboration to integrate stakeholder interests through consensus. Weak cross-sectoral coordination, as acknowledged by government and identified as Barrier 1, will be addressed by the ‘integrated landscape approach’ that is expressly designed to address multi-sectoral planning and management, as well as the issue of large scale that is essential for maintaining the integrity of an area in terms of ecosystem functions and services.. iii. New models of rural advisory/extension services will be introduced by the project in the form of Farmer Field Schools, Agro-Pastoral Field Schools, Forest-Farm Producer Organizations and Forest- Farm Facilities to help address shortfalls in capacity among rural extension services in Namibia. It is expected that successful setup and execution of training by the FFS/APFS will help to reinforce the overall capacity of existing rural extension/advisory services at the same time bringing in a new approach to training that has proven successful in other countries. iv. The LDN knowledge platform Hub and Regional Exchange Mechanism under Component 3 also contribute elements if innovation with respect to sharing, dissemination and reporting of innovative science-based solutions at national, regional and global levels, together with information on topics currently not covered by existing platforms e.g. markets, finance, knowledge transfer or climate. 265. This Project will incorporate a system-wide capacity development approach to maximize country ownership, sustainability and scale of intended results.61 The project preparatory phase highlighted several capacity gaps across individual, organizational, institutional and the enabling environment policy capacities at national and sub-national level. At the onset of the project, capacity gaps and needs of all stakeholders belonging to institutional, private, civil society, and community sectors across national and sub-national levels will be further analysed based on the information previously gathered during the formulation phase. Methodologically, FAO Capacity Needs Assessment Tools will be applied, including implementing a system-wide capacity assessment of all concerned stakeholders in the target landscapes across the three capacity development dimensions – individual, organizational and enabling environment. As a result of the inclusive capacity assessment, a capacity enhancement strategy will be designed to inform and guide the fine tuning of capacity development actions across the three project components. 266. Methodologically, all envisioned training activities will apply effective learning practices including: pre-event learning needs assessments, post-event follow-up support to facilitate transfer of knowledge

61 See System-wide capacity development for country-driven transformations, page 38 in Feeding People Protecting the Planet, FAO-GEF Partners in Action http://www.fao.org/3/CA0130EN/ca0130en.pdf 83

into practice, and institutionalization of curricula through partnering with and enhancing the capacities of local universities and research centres. This will contribute to achieving sustainable results. Efforts will also include organizational and institutional capacity strengthening, including multi-sectoral, multi- coordination and collaboration mechanisms such as the LDN platforms at national and landscape levels. Finally, all capacity enhancement activities will be aligned with a harmonized approach across the GEF IP Programme, including the capacity enhancement strategy of the global coordination project and individual child project capacity enhancement strategies. 267. A dedicated expert will be hired by the Project to follow the systemic capacity development components, together with knowledge management and stakeholder engagement, with methodological guidance from FAO. (See ToRS in Additional Annex X-10.)

268. As the project will establish strong foundations in knowledge sharing, stakeholder engagement and system-wide capacity development, it is expected that local communities and authorities, as well as regional and national institutions will be able to sustain the practices developed and implemented during its life, particularly if good progress is made towards LDN as this will attract future financial investment support for further scaling out. Strong Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans for each target landscape, drawing on the Gender Action Plan, are important measures designed into the project to raise awareness and maximize its ownership by land owners and users, communities and local/regional authorities. This will help to develop a strong commitment and mutual accountability towards achieving LDN and, thereby, reinforcing the likelihood of long-term sustainability and high scalability potential.

(10) Summary of changes in alignment with the project design with the original PIF

269. In the GEF-7 Child Project Concept 62 for Namibia, land use changes caused by the steady conversion of grassland to cropland (25% increase from 1995 to 2015 in the 65,000 km2 landscapes) and a general loss of tree cover (3,771 ha of 119,085 ha lost between 2001 and 2015) are considered to be the most significant environmental challenges in the targeted Miombo-Mopane Woodlands, with land degradation driven by agricultural expansion, charcoal production and overgrazing. Climate change and an increasing human population are considered to be indirect drivers, accelerating the process. 270. This Global Child Project (GCP) provides a strategic opportunity to strengthen Namibia’s national policy and capacity on LDN and align with key agriculture and forest policies, climate change and biodiversity strategies; as well as to scale-up SLM/SFM best practices in priority landscapes in northern Namibia, with a transboundary focus on Kunene Basin that will complement existing GEF-6 NILALEG interventions. 271. The GCP concept is closely aligned with the DSL IP’s ToC: addressing the main barriers behind dryland degradation (cross-sectoral policies and coordination mechanisms, ineffective policies, enforcement and governance to prevent causes of land degradation, and limited/unequal access of communities to know-how and investment opportunities) by applying a landscape level approach to LDN implementation, enhancing stakeholder capacity and community-based sustainable land-use management, and ensuring transboundary cooperation through SADC. 272. Thus, Component 1 focuses on strengthening capacities of national/local stakeholders, mainstreaming LDN policies and improving coordination across sectors; Component 2 supports the strengthening/establishment of value chains for dryland forest products and crops, targeting poor women and youth, as well as up-scaling SLM/SFM best practices; and Component 3 contributes to and benefits from the Global Coordination Project and regional platforms that will facilitate the collection and dissemination of best practices, as well as address M&E requirements. 273. In terms of global environment benefits, GCP concept interventions are designed to achieve: (i) 42,760 ha of degraded forest improved; (ii) 80,000 ha of crop land improved; and (iii) reduced carbon

62 There is no PIF as such for Child Projects, hence the reference to the Concept developed for each Child Project under the SFM Drylands IP.

emissions of 5.7 million tCO2e over twenty years. Local/national benefits: improved livelihoods for 30,000 beneficiaries in target landscapes, of which 50% women. Changes in alignment with the Child Project concept 274. The project design has not changed conceptually with respect to its objective of seeking a transformational shift towards sustainable, integrated management of multi-use dryland landscapes in northern Namibia, albeit the language has been changed from ’to support’ to ‘to initiate’ such a transformational shift in order to highlight the catalytic significance and timeliness of the project. 275. The three ‘main barriers’ outlined in the GCP concept have been elaborated into six barriers. Thus, Component 1 is focused on developing frameworks to enable LDN to be applied at national and landscape levels, thereby addressing Barrier 1 (weak governance frameworks for cross-sectoral coordination and implementation of policy, regulation and participatory planning) and Barrier 2 (inadequate frameworks and capacity for integrated land-use planning at landscape levels); Component 2 will strengthen implementation and enable scaling out of SLM/SFM in response to Barrier 3 (limited capacity to apply SLM/SFM practices at landscape levels) and Barrier 4 (limited incentives to encourage adoption of SLM/SFM practices and technologies); and Component 3: strengthens knowledge, learning and collaboration towards achieving national LDN targets impeded by Barrier 5 (insufficient information and knowledge management systems) and Barrier 6. 276. In Component 1, more emphasis has been given to engaging stakeholders in landscape-level planning by introducing the design of a participatory process template for land-use planning (Output 1.1.1) that can be tailored to each landscape. This will set out the participatory process and structures to be adopted for preparing the landscape ILUPs (Output 1.2.3). The GCP concept refers to: “the project area” extending “over two landscapes (65,000 km2)”, one being in the Kunene Basin and another in the Okavango Basin. This is misleading as there are two landscapes within the former Basin, as shown in the GCP concept maps.63 Boundaries of the three landscapes have since been refined during the PPG in accordance with ILAM findings. The three landscapes now cover 14,597 km2, of which production systems comprise 11,984 km2. Project intervention areas across the three landscapes total 3,602 km2. 277. Component 2 is concerned with implementing the ILUPs in the three landscapes, initially in the intervention areas and subsequently scaling out across all production systems. There is a clear distinction between Outcome 2.1 gender-inclusive SLM/FSM best practices to support individual farmers and Outcome 2 green value chains support for more collaborative initiatives through Forest-Farm facilities and producer organizations. 278. In Component 3, a Regional Exchange Mechanism has been designed Components 1 and 2 remain focused, respectively, on: the enabling environment; and implementing and scaling up/out SLM and SFM best practices at landscape levels. 279. The scope of Component 3 has been expanded from knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation to giving more emphasis to learning and the inclusion of collaboration to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets. Importantly, a template for Component 3 Outcomes, Outputs and to a lesser extent Activities has been developed at Impact Program level in order to accommodate support from the Global Program to the GCPs and, conversely, scaling up of knowledge gained and lessons learned from GCPs to the Global Program and on to GEF. Much of this reciprocal support and sharing will be facilitated through the establishment of a Regional Exchange Mechanism (Box 6) under Output 3.2.1 in response to a 75% majority among some 200 key stakeholders representing the respective GCPs (Box 5). 280. Global and national environmental benefits have been modified based on more detailed analysis of baseline scenarios, findings from ILAM and feedback from stakeholders. In summary, key benefits are:

63 Refer to https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EZjvIJFdh21W7r6OA_mK8bRJ7SQUabf8

• 360,200 ha of production systems will be under improved management practices, which compares favourably with totals of 42,760 ha for degraded forest and 80,000 ha for cropland in the GCP concept (refer to Annex E, Table 15 for detailed comparisons). • GHG mitigation target (Core Indicator 6) was reduced from 5,700,000 tCO2e at PFD stage to 1,301,476 tCO2e at CEO endorsement request (see updated Ex-Act calculation in Annex X-12 of the ProDoc). The current figure only reflects the benefits from the project’s direct interventions. It is expected that additional carbon benefits will be secured during the project implementation as part of the integrated landscape planning and implementation/financing of corresponding land use plans. The latter is difficult to calculate/estimate at this stage as the plans are not yet in place, finances not yet secured and targeted LUS not yet known.

• Improved livelihoods for at least 10,000 beneficiaries, comprising at least 40% women, from the three target landscapes (Kunene-Cuvelai: 5,500; Etosha: 2,500; Okavango: 2,000). This is much less and more realistic than the 30,000 beneficiaries (50% women) cited in the GCP concept. • There is also targeted provision for training at least 300 land managers (30% women) in SLM/SFM and other best practices, which does not feature on the GCP concept.

1.b PROJECT MAP AND GEO-COORDINATES

Refer to Annex E

2. STAKEHOLDERS

Select what role civil society will play in the project: Consulted only; Member of Advisory Body; contractor; Co-financier; Member of project steering committee or equivalent decision-making body; Executor or co-executor; Other (Please explain)

Stakeholder engagement 281. Meaningful and continuous stakeholder engagement during the project design and implementation is key to maximize country ownership and contribute to more enduring results at scale. Moreover, the project intends to strengthen polycentric, multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms within the identified landscapes, building on and beyond integrated spatial planning and management64 to result in positive impacts within the productive landscapes and contribute to preserving the natural capital. 282. Existing and potential stakeholders (individuals, groups and entities) were identified during the PPG process through various events and consultative meetings, including: national inception workshop held on 26 September 2019; and landscape-level consultations on 2 and 3 October 2019 in Omusati and Oshikoto regions. Individual and organization capacities were assessed during these events and other occasions when opportunities arose, using various communication media. Such surveys were by no means comprehensive; and more extensive exposure of the project and continuing consultation with stakeholders will commence at project onset. The extent to which stakeholders were consulted during the formulation of this project document is summarized in Table 1 (Annex I2) with respect to their interest in the project, current involvement in project preparations and planned or potential role in its implementation. Stakeholder mapping and analysis Figure 9. Graphic explanation of FAO’s approach to mapping stakeholders using four categories

Veto players: have the power to stop project implementation, e.g. Government of Namibia, FAO, Civil Society.

Key stakeholders: are the institutions having a central role in implementation. They have skills, knowledge and/or power to significantly influence the project, including power of veto: e.g. FAO, by default; project’s Operational Partners, MEFT, MAWLR; and national SLM-SC.

Primary stakeholders: are those directly affected by the project, e.g. local governments and communities in target landscapes. Also referred to as direct beneficiaries.

Secondary stakeholders: are those with peripheral, Central to the project is the LDN Agenda, which is focused indirectly or temporary interest in project, e.g. less involved on sustainable land use planning and management to government bodies, such as Namibia Institute of Statistics. avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation.

64 See: Strenghtening civic spaces in spatial planning processes - A technical guide on regulated spatial planning and tenure to balance societal priorities in the use of land, fisheries and forests. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb0422en/ 87

283. A Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis exercise was undertaken with MEFT and MAWLR during the PPG phase using FAO’s methodology to identify key, primary and secondary stakeholders at national and landscape levels in relation to Namibia’s LDN agenda. The method, described in Figure 9, was applied to existing and potential stakeholders and the results are listed in Annex I2 (Table 2), accompanied by such details as stakeholder category, area of influence and context, frequency and means of engagement. Stakeholder capacity for mainstreaming LDN through landscape level management 284. Stakeholder capacity was assessed at both national and landscape/intervention site levels. At landscape level, a further distinction was made between individual capacities in the intervention sites and capacities of the main stakeholder organizations such as Traditional Authorities, Regional Government and Conservancies as primary stakeholder institutions. 285. At national level, MEFT and MAWLR were requested to provide additional information compared to other key and primary stakeholders with regard to their capacities in fulfilling their mandates to progress the LDN agenda. Findings from this and related LDN capacity needs information are reported in Additional Annex X-3; and a Stakeholder Capacity Needs Assessment that is focused on individual capacity needs is provided in Additional Annex X-5. Stakeholder Engagement Plan 286. A Stakeholder Engagement Plan has been developed, in alignment with GEF guidelines65 and informed by the stakeholder analysis, to ensure that engagement with stakeholders is effective, meaningful and inclusive and, thereby, enables stronger partnerships to be forged with the likes of Indigenous Peoples, communities and the private sector, while also harnessing the knowledge and expertise of all stakeholders. Both the Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Plan are included in Annex I2.

287. Considerable emphasis in the design of this project has been given to ensure that stakeholders are effectively consulted and able to engage in its implementation and delivery of results. Various budget lines have been allocated to ensure that relevant stakeholders are involved appropriately in decision-making processes, with prior opportunities for training and capacity development at local and regional levels. The regional exchange mechanism (REM) will also provide opportunities for sharing and learning lessons from other countries participating in this Impact Program. 288. Additionally, provision has been made under Output 1.1.1 for Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans for Landscape Planning (SEPP-LP) to be designed during project inception for each of the three target landscapes, based on an initial generic template with provisions for articulating stakeholders to be engaged, platforms to be used or created for consultation and consensus building, and timeframes outlined for the development of the ILUPs. These Process Plans will include indicators and targets to monitor stakeholder engagement. 289. Similarly, more specific provisions have been developed for engaging with the private sector. These are articulated in Section 4 (Figure 10). 290. The PMU will be responsible for implementing the stakeholder engagement activities as outlined in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Matrix. It will also be responsible for monitoring and reporting on stakeholder engagement in the annual project implementation reports (PIRs). Relevant tasks have been incorporated into the ToRs of the project staff and budgeted accordingly (see Annex A2). In the annual PIRs, the PMU will report on the following indicators: i. Number of government agencies, civil society organizations, private sector, vulnerable groups and other stakeholder groups that have been involved in the project implementation phase.

65 Guidelines on the implementation of the policy on stakeholder engagement (SD/GN/01). GEF Secretariat, 2018. http://www.thegef.org/council-meeting-documents/guidelines-implementation-policy-stakeholder-engagement

ii. Number of engagements (such as meetings, workshops, official communications) with stakeholders during the project implementation phase. iii. Number of grievances received and responded to/resolved.

3. GENDER EQUALITY AND WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT

Does the project expect to include any gender-responsive measures to address gender gaps or promote gender equality and women’s empowerment? (yes /no ) If yes, please explain and upload/annex Gender Action Plan or equivalent. Sources used: GEF Gender Equality Guidelines, Guide to mainstreaming gender in FAO's project cycle, GEF Gender Guidelines. If possible, indicate in which results area(s) the project is expected to contribute to Gender Equality: closing gender gaps in access to and control over natural resources; improving women’s participation and decision making; and or generating socio-economic benefits or services for women. Does the project's results framework or logical framework include gender-sensitive indicators? (yes /no )

Gender equality 291. Gender balance has been considered in the development of the project, in line with national gender sensitivity policies and laws, GEF Gender Strategy and the FAO Policy on Gender Equality. The PRODOC for this project contains a complete Gender Action Plan (GAP), informed by a gender (mainstreaming) analysis. 292. Agriculture contributes about 5% to national GDP but up to 40% of the population depends on it for their livelihoods. In rural areas of Namibia, about 44% of households are headed by women, while only 19.4% are formally employed in agriculture according to a 2012 report by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW). The Communal Land Boards (CLB), established under the Communal Land Reform Act, are required to have 33% direct representation by women, while members from different representative institutions on the board can also be women. The CLBs are established according to the gender sensitive guidelines of the former Ministry of Land Reform (MLR). A 2013 GIZ study found that 41.5% of women in communal lands have land ownership certificates issued by the MLR via the CLBs, suggesting that this figure had remained the same or improved in the intervening period. 293. Some gender disaggregated data on decision-making in households is available from the SHARP+ assessment undertaken during the PPG phase, based on 316 households surveyed in Omasati, Oshikota and Kavango East regions, where the three target landscapes are located. Results presented in Annex E (Box 10) and summarized below in the key findings of the gender analysis indicate that 34% of households are female-led, 18% are male-led and 48% have dual leadership. 294. Further analysis of gender-related decision-making within these 316 households is presented in Table 13; and the accompanying notes indicate a considerable degree of inclusivity and participation between genders, as and when felt necessary. Elsewhere, however, key findings from the gender analysis (below) indicate tangible gender inequities concerned with the likes of land tenure, access to land and natural resources, employment opportunities and ineffective enforcement of the 2010-2020 national Gender Policy. Hence, further mainstreaming of these and other gender issues into project frameworks and landscape level decision-making is important. Table 10. Household decision-making behaviour, by gender of respondent (N=316) Topics Responses

Number of respondents = 131 Proportion of decisions made by men Participate in the decisions Male respondents Most / all Less than High extent Medium Small NA decisions half decisions extent extent Household budgeting 34% 66% 54% 36% 2% 8% Food purchase 24% 76% 50% 42% 7% 2% Minor non-food expenses 28% 72% 47% 44% 4% 6% 89

Topics Responses

Major HH purchases 10% 90% 14% 8% 4% 75% Domestic labour 14% 86% 31% 26% 1% 43% Major farm investments 4% 96% 8% 3% 0% 89% Land buy/sale ------Way in which financial decisions are Jointly Only you Your spouse High extent Medium Small NA made / other extent extent Undertake any non-farm employment 21% 13% 0% 28% 5% 1% 66% Engagement in wage employment 16% 5% 0% 16% 5% 0% 79% Own money expenditure 31% 16% 0% 40% 6% 1% 53% Number of respondents = 185 Proportion of decisions made by men Participate in the decisions Female respondents Most / all Less than High extent Medium Small NA decisions half decisions extent extent Household budgeting 14% 86% 63% 19% 13% 5% Food purchase 12% 88% 61% 25% 12% 2% Minor non-food expenses 12% 88% 58% 26% 10% 6% Major HH purchases 4% 96% 9% 7% 2% 82% Domestic labour 7% 93% 29% 17% 4% 51% Major farm investments 2% 98% 2% 1% 1% 96% Land buy/sale ------Way in which decisions are made Jointly Only you Your spouse High extent Medium Small NA / other extent extent Undertake any non-farm employment 14% 18% 2% 25% 6% 2% 67% Engagement in wage employment 8% 6% 2% 11% 2% 2% 85% Own money expenditure 18% 15% 0% 28% 4% 1% 67%

NOTES: This table presents information on decision-making processes regarding general household management. Data is disaggregated by gender of respondent to capture the perceptions of men and women regarding their participation in decisions. Some patterns can be identified from the collated data: most decisions are made jointly, including those related to income management, and almost no exclusivity in decision made by men or women is observed. Moreover, even when respondents did not have the final say in the decision, they feel they can participate to a high extent if they wanted to. This applies for all types of decisions, including food and non-food purchases, household budgeting and finance.

295. Key findings from the gender analysis below are also relevant to the project’s interests in drylands value chains. Currently, the level of household engagement in taking products to markets is low, with 10% of households selling at least a few products; and there is only a small gender difference, with 9% of households involving men and 11% of involving women. 296. The project is tagged as G2A, indicating that, while gender equality is not a main objective, the role of women is fundamental to the achievement of the project’s objective, hence the importance of addressing gender inequalities. Specific areas for mainstreaming and monitoring gender across the project are identified in Table 11. Table 11. Gender entry points for monitoring during project implementation # Question Answer Comment 1 Does the project expect to include Yes Following a gender-analysis during the PPG process, gender- any gender-responsive measures to responsive measures were designed to increase women’s address gender gaps or promote participation and leadership role in the agricultural sector, especially gender equality and women’s in family farming, understanding LDN and related climate smart empowerment? agriculture, improved land, water and energy management, product marketing and cooperation mechanisms to promote women’s empowerment through project activities. 2 Which area(s) the project is Yes Ensure balanced financial benefits from value chain development: expected to contribute to gender production, collection/harvesting, marketing. equality: Implement project activities in line with current and any new gender 2a Closing gender gaps in access and Yes sensitive land management guidelines. control over natural resources Ensure women representation in project decision making bodies at 2b Improving women’s participation Yes national, regional and constituency/landscape levels. and decision-making Target women in awareness raising, training and other capacity 2c Generating socioeconomic benefits Yes building opportunities relating to LD and SLM/SFM. or services for women Develop gender sensitive value chains that ensure direct financial benefits to women in the project landscapes.

# Question Answer Comment 3 Does the project’s results Yes All project outputs and activities have gender sensitive considerations framework include gender-sensitive incorporated within them. Where appropriate and practicable, indicators? monitoring will deploy gender disaggregated data. Source: GEF Guidance to Advance Gender Equality 2018.

GENDER MARKING: The current project has been tagged as G2A (see cover page) – i.e. it “[...] addresses gender equality in a systematic way, but this is not one of its main objectives”.66

3b. Gender Action Plan 297. Key findings from the SHARP+ socio-economic assessment (Annex E) relating to gender inequalities are aligned with the project components in the summary below. They provide the basis to the Gender Action Plan that follows thereafter.

Key findings from the socio economic analysis that relate to gender inequality Components 1 and 2 gender related analysis: 1. Men and women have unequal socio-economic conditions at the national level, which also reflects on conditions at local levels, where gender inequality conditions are aggravated by demographic and income-related patterns, coupled with traditions and cultural practices. This includes: a. Unequal pay and employment opportunities income. b. Unequal access to land and security of tenure (35% of women compared to 32% of men, with a level of insecurity increasing in a spouse death or divorce scenario67). c. Unequal access to natural resources. 2. There is a comprehensive legal framework for gender equality and mainstreaming: National Gender Policy 2010- 2020 and Gender Action Plan and other acts but the implementation of these frameworks is ineffective, and their enforcement is insufficient. 3. Women’s participation in the national SLM Steering Committee for LDN is marginal. In the local land management committees, women’s participation is marginal and no gender mainstreaming mechanism is in place. 4. Gender-sensitive results from the SHARP+ assessment carried out during the PPG appear to be more or less balanced: a. Household decision-making and leaderships (male/female) is generally balanced: dual household leadership 48%; female-led households 34%; male-led households 18% -- while the national average is 43.9% of households led by women (source: The World Bank). b. Food security and nutrition data show that women appear to be worse off than men. 5. Women’s participation in drylands value chains in Namibia is such that women in local communities are more engaged in taking products to the market, although access to those is difficult (10% of households sold at least a few of their products in the market, 9% of men, 11% of women). In Oshikoto, the percentages of farmers being members of agriculture-related groups is higher than in other landscapes, while in Omusati the percentage of women membership in women groups is higher. Component 3, Namibia-related gender analysis with respect to the regional and global component of the DSL IP Child Project: 6. Women’s participation in the DSL IP at the global and regional levels (stakeholder count shows: at the global level XXXX; for the Miombo Cluster: XXXX). Gender inequality probably still permeates the participation of DSL IP national stakeholders in regional and global mechanisms of engagement. (Currently, it is not known if there are differences between Africa and Central Asia regions – i.e. excluding the ‘purely global’ stakeholders – Indicators are being developed). 7. Women’s participation in the regional river basin committees is more or less balanced

66 With reference to FAO’s Guidance Note on Gender Mainstreaming in project identification and formulation.

67 Women’s Perceptions of Tenure Security, Prindex, 2019 91

GENDER ACTION PLAN Strategic Goal/ Activities Detailed description / Timeline Indicators and targets Budget 1. Ensure sustainability of land use and agricultural and pastoral [as below] [as below] production 1.1 Collect national and regional level gender parity data Targeted surveys (electronic where needed) 1 round at inception, mid-term $5K in PY1 and project end 1.2 Conduct a new round of baseline SHARP with due gender and HH survey using SHARP+ methodology covering statistically Conclude at least 1 round of ethnicity sensitivity significant number of HHs. SHARP surveys with due methodological stringency at Results at inception will complement existing SHARP results project end. at project closing. 2. Reduce land degradation impacts among most vulnerable social [as below] [as below] [as below] groups by making use of their traditional knowledge base to better address LD impacts and improve food security 2.1 One gender sensitive ethnobotanical study carried out in each Methodology to be developed. Preferred timing Year 2. landscape 2.2 One qualitative/quantitative study on gender and water carried out Methodology to be developed. Preferred timing Year 2. in each landscape 3. Foster women’s full access and equal participation in learning and Throughout implementation: foster women’s full access and [as below] [as below] later implementing activities with Agricultural Support Services equal participation in learning and later implementing activities with Agricultural Support Services 3.3 Identification of 10 community water retention installation and 5 in each project landscape construction with villagers and farmers, community associations, training on water disinfection methods 3.4 Construction of wells, if applicable, with solar pumping mechanism 5 in each project landscape 3.5 Testing and training of 50/50 women/men on improved fruit 1 in each project landscape collection and processing techniques 4. Women and men learn together how they can become more Throughout implementation: foster women’s full access and [as below] [as below] resilient to LD and CC equal participation in learning and later implementing activities with Agricultural Support Services [SUGGESTION] 4.1 Functional alphabet courses for young girls, women, Different schools, 1 year, Participants: gender parity is Increase FFS /FFF by 3- boys and men, as applicable for the project zone; rising education levels 10 in each zone, embedded in FFS. the goal 5% to include this in through formal school, agricultural training respective packages 4.2 Agricultural extension mechanisms through FAO mechanism: Training module 30 days in 3 months, block training, 6x5 days Participants: gender parity is NA – already included information/training on crop and livestock production and the goal in respective budgets management, post-harvest food storage, pest management practices, 5 training sessions in Sub-basin 1, 2, 3 (total of 15 sessions) for FFS / FFF pests and crop diseases, and overall adaptation practices 92

GENDER ACTION PLAN Strategic Goal/ Activities Detailed description / Timeline Indicators and targets Budget 4.3 Special training of women and men on integrated management and Training module 9 days in 6 months, block training, 3x3 days Participants: gender parity is NA – already included use of sustainable alternatives such as natural pesticides, crop rotation the goal in respective budgets or increased biodiversity, irrigation and reforestation activities. Five training units in Sub-basin 1, 2, 3 (total of 15 sessions) for FFS / FFF 4.4 Community training: women/men parity participants on the use of Participants: gender parity Participants: gender parity is NA – already included climate information services, Climate Smart Agriculture, including e- the goal in respective budgets sources, to improve climate shock preparedness and capacity of small for FFS / FFF farmers toprepare against climate shocks, droughts etc. 4.5 Foster establishment of a corps of female extension and agro-value Rural extension: dissemination of appropriate techniques, in For rural extension: Target NA – already included chain technicians; and due consideration of potential multiple roles of which women’s positive role in selection of crops, seeds and quota 30 – 40% female in respective budgets women in dryland landscape management agro-sylvo-pastoral land-use management practices can be participation in overall rural for FFS / FFF enhanced and steered towards sustainability. extension activities through the FFS and FFF packages Agro-value chain: As part of value chain development activities, assist women and men with business planning, For Agro-value chains: Target organization and efficiency tools. quota 60% female

4. PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT

298. The project’s engagement with the private sector follows the guiding principles of the GEF’s 2019 Private Sector Engagement Strategy (PSES):68 • strong in-country networks and relationships; • specificity that is useful for the private sector: geographies, metrics, transparency; and • insights into the major developing markets, with a gender-sensitive perspective. 299. These strategies are incorporated in Namibia’s Agricultural Policy 2015 and the Northern Namibia Crop and Livestock Development Master Plan, supported by JICA; and there exist initiatives encompassing the project’s focal areas in agriculture and forestry that promote private sector engagement in line with the above-mentioned GEF principles. 300. Private sector development is among the pillars of Namibia’s Country Partnership Strategy with the World Bank, that has supported investment in infrastructure and production through “IFC and debt equity investment in Namibia firms”, credit enhancement and risk insurance, as well as promoting competitiveness in the market place. Concommitently, the African Development Bank’s Assistance Strategy has focused on skills development and improving the regulatory environment for the private sector, more specifically by supporting Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). 301. In terms of private sector involvement in sustainable crop, forestry and fodder production, the following approaches and activities are being prioritized: • Improving incentives for private sector investment by promoting PPPs and joint ventures (JVs). • Collaborating with private sector to support training, skills development and technology transfers in agriculture, agro-processing and forestry sectors. • Providing reliable information for agricultural planning and decision-making to public and private enterprises. • Engaging private sector in assistance with ploughing (private tractors) - Dryland Crop Production Program (2009/2010). The following activities are prioritized with regards to livestock production: • Diversifying breeding livestock through breeding centers. • Increasing the number of farmers that benefit from diversified breeding stock, originating from livestock breeding centres. 302. The private sector is a key stakeholder and essential part of the project’s strategy. Building on the above-mentioned priorities, strong participation with the private sector is foreseen, particularly with respect to green value chains under Outcome 2.2, underpinned by a Green Value Chains Strategy for Namibia’s Drylands to be developed in partnership with key players. However, it faces constraints to mainstreaming SLM/SFM practices that concern capacity and access to advisory services, financial and other incentives, and land tenure, which are discussed and incorporated within Barriers 3 and 4 and described further in Additional Annex X-2 and Outcome 2.2. 303. The project will build on the above-mentioned priorities to engage with the private sector through (i) creating incentives for private sector investment; (ii) capacity building of and in a collaboration with the private sector; (iii) ensuring provision of GIS-based information needed for effective planning and decision- making to all relevant stakeholders, including the private sector. More specifically, the following activities are anticipated: • Conducting a rapid study for identification of private sector players; • Involving private companies (e.g. AMTA and AgriBusdev) in promoting PPPs and JVs for improving incentives for private sector investment in sustainable land management practices; • Capacity building activities in Output 2.2.2 (green value chains), including private sector players;

68 https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF_C.57_06_GEF’s%20Private%20Sector%20Engagement%20Strategy_1.pdf 94

• Revision of operational objectives of private NTFPs; • Studies on market access including private sector analyses; and • Capacity building under 3.1.1. will include aspect of the private sector needs assessment in relation to spatial data on crop, forestry and livestock production.

304. A general strategic framework for private sector engagement is outlined in Figure 10 and Figure 11. It is intended to address four topical areas of constraint that are embraced within Barriers 3 and 4: • maladaptive local production practices; • technology, know-how and production diversification challenges; • gender equality gap; and • market access and upscaling. Figure 10. Private sector stakeholder engagement framework Component Private Sector Government Local producers ‘Catalysts’ Strategic Help stakeholders Help stakeholders Provide data and be Convey analysis Analysis understand conditions of identify policy barriers willing recipients of results. market access sustainability for sustainable assistance for different GVCs development of local drylands economy Capacity Identify opportunities and Help remove policy Technically support: Identify best suited development risks through gender- barriers for sustainably FFS/APFS and other technologies and sensitive business incubation developing local drylands models of rural extension practices for VC and development economy towards improving development in any techniques, choice of given context in crops dryland landscapes Facilitation Match supply and demand / Negotiate land uses and Help develop local Link needs to producers to buyers, etc. their implications (e.g. Business Plan solutions, including provide seed funding (co- GreeNTD) and facilitate technologies and financing) access to seed funding practices

305. The model in Figure 11 exemplifies how key stakeholders within the private sector can be incentivized to become involved in dryland commodity green value chains, through attention to the enabling environment (policy support), technical and business planning support and financial incentives. Figure 11 Summary strategy for engaging private sector players in agro/forest VCs

5. RISKS

Section A: Risks to the project

Probability* Responsible Description of risk Impact* Mitigation action of occurrence party Changes in M L A participatory project design process ensures that PMU government result in the project’s objectives and results are aligned with reduced political will national priorities, policies, and strategies, as well as among key the Government of Namibia’s international Government commitments. Moreover, a strong plan for institutions to engage, stakeholder engagement and empowerment will be collaborate, and invest implemented in order to raise awareness about the public funds to ensure importance of a successful project outcome that is successful project of significant interest to government in terms of the implementation in national interest – land degradation – and coordination with the Government’s commitments to UNCCD to meet it program. LDN targets by 2030 -2040. [Ref. to Assumption 1] Insufficient capacity of L M Specific activities under Components 1 and 2 (e.g. PMU decentralized Outputs 1.1.1 (stakeholder engagement), 1.2.1 (local institutions and local level assessment) 1.2.2 (capacity development along level stakeholders to with a suite of training initiatives) and 1.2.3 engage and implement (integrated landscape planning). Outcomes 2.1 and sustainable and 2.2), respectively, focus on strengthening capacity of integrated land managers and land users in different SLM/SFM management of practices; and supporting communities and FFPOs to Namibia’s multi-use promote SLM/SFM practices through access to dryland landscapes . Forest Farm Facilities for Community Seed Banks and strengthening/creating Green Value Chains. [Ref. to Assumption 2] Component 3 is also dedicated to capacity building through knowledge sharing and learning among the other countries in the Miombo Cluster. Investments of this magnitudes are intended to reduce such risks. The project team is not M M The project preparatory process has included PMU able to fully engage consultations at project sites that raised awareness local communities in and significant ownership by local communities , the implementation of reducing risks of lack of engagement. Engagement is project activities and further enhanced by introducing a process to engage adoption of SLM/SFM stakeholders that is tailored to the formulation of practices in the project each Landscape Management Plan (Output 1.1.1). landscapes. Given the challenge of addressing land conflict issues, further support will be provided by FAO’s [Ref. to Assumptions Land Tenure Unit (Box 9). 3- 4] The COVID-19 pandemic made the continuation of a face-to-face stakeholder engagement more difficult, but mitigation plans are being made for the post- pandemic period. Project will also review its Stakeholder Engagement Plan and continue to nurture and strengthen relationship between the project team, government institutions and local communities. Communities will also be Intensively targeted with capacity development activities; as will a capacity building program on user rights and tenure-related knowledge and skills be rolled out among underprivileged groups in the landscapes. The consequences of M H It is likely that the project will experience PMU the global Covid-19 operational impacts from the global Covid-19 virus. pandemic can impact In the introductory part of the ProDoc the potential the project’s impacts on Namibia’s economy, co-financing institutional and (government investment) and food security are

Probability* Responsible Description of risk Impact* Mitigation action of occurrence party financial support, presented. Given the timeframe of the PPG process, partnerships and the project team was able to consider the potential interactions. impacts on the project design. Measures such as the consolidation of co-financing sources and adjustments to methodologies used to interact between project participants, at least in the short term, were included, as well as modifications to the workplan. More detailed risk and counter-measures are provided below (Table 12). These operational aspects will be reviewed during project inception and changes made to accommodate any national or local constraints imposed by the pandemic. Current and future M H This risk was minimized through the project design PMU climate change impacts focus on developing and promoting opportunities will threaten the for more sustainable livelihoods and recovery of sustainability of the degraded lands and ecosystems within the project project’s investments landscapes, which will help strengthen the local and results communities’ resilience. Moreover, the project will work on raising awareness and sharing knowledge [Ref. to Assumption 3] about climate change impacts and how to build resilience at community level, which will contribute to the successful delivery of project results. Potential land-use M L In the current context for the petroleum sector only, PMU conflict between it is assessed that it could take years before such agrarian and tourism conflict would become actual. No further analysis of land users, on the one the sector and its frameworks is needed. hand, and extractive As for the mining sector, there is a need for industries on the continuing careful monitoring of the situation and other. assessing potential overlaps in land uses in the project landscapes. *H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low

The Miombo/Mopane child projects will follow a similar process that takes identified climate risks, vulnerabilities and corresponding management actions into account. Component 1:

Climate risks will be systematically incorporated in the integrated land use planning process to anticipate future extreme weather events and plan positive actions of sustainable land management. This joint planning process will benefit from climate change related assessments conducted during the PPG (SHARP) as well as available climate change analysis (e.g. IFAD/ACDI climate analysis) and other available data sets.

The National Meteorological Authorities (NMA) and other institutions leading the collection, analysis and use of climate data should be engaged in the development and implementation of LDN strategies. Trainings and capacity building of relevant stakeholders should include activities on the use of climate information for informing strategies and planning, certain activities can be led by the NMAs. Component 2: The selection of evidence-based climate smart SLM/SFM practices will follow the results of the joint planning process (component 1) to ensure they are adapted to local contexts and supported by scientific evidence of project climate conditions. The identified practices should be integrated in the forest and farm producers’ training manuals and be part of the Famers Field Schools curricula. The newly developed global note for FFS facilitators on integrating climate change adaptation into farmer field schools can inform this process as well as lessons learned from participatory engagement approaches such a PICSA. Climate field 97

schools can link to demonstration plots of sustainable intensification practices and resilience measures post-harvest. The selection of dryland value chains should also consider climate related risks. Their selection should be based on (i) their viability under climate change in the mid to long term; (ii) their contribution to drivers of climate-related impacts; and (iii) their ability to increase the resilience of the most vulnerable populations. Development of green value chains, including appropriate infrastructure or technologies to climate proof food value chains, should be based on results of climate impact assessments. Planning around drying, storage and transport can be informed by climate impacts at each stage. Additional information: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ng- VWBnviBbLVHTxccbN4msvHWUSnrOy/view?usp=sharing

306. Risks are identified in the above table and assessed with respect to their potential impact and probability of occurring. Where they relate directly to assumptions identified for the Theory of Change, the linkage is highlighted. Two areas of risk are elaborated in more detailed below: the first concerns land conflict and tenure disputes, identified as a barrier and risk to the project during the PPG that cuts across Barriers 2-4 within which it is incorporated; and the second is COVID-19, for which further counter- measures have been developed post-PPG. 307. To address land conflict risks, selected activities will focus on applying an integrated landscape approach to resolve unsecured or inequitable land tenureship, based on rights of use and benefits of ecosystem services, as well as weak common property regimes and natural resources management institutions. Conflict resolution processes will necessitate inclusive participation by all relevant stakeholders . FAO’s PSPL Division is well placed to assist with advisory services, as highlighted in Box 5.

Box 5. How the Project can support resolution of land tenure issues under the Landscape Approach

FAO Land Tenure Unit Support

Land Tenure Unit (PSPL) within the Partnerships Division, including with TA a speciality in the use of the SOLA Open Tenure, Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure (VGGT) / Governance of Tenure, etc. The FAO Unit (PSPL) has developed several tools, including training manuals, that may be useful to address land conflicts and boundary disputes as the project is implemented. Sketch or GIS maps can be developed as the process moves forward seeking consensus from all parties: this way all the patches of a territory can be filled over the course of the project. For example, deployment of the SOLA Open Tenure application is instructive as to how new technologies can help produce geospatial data in a cost-effective manner. FPCL’s experiences in this respect will be immensely helpful for project implementation. Proposed indicative activities: 1.1. Collect and collate information to analyze existing tenure and rights including common accessed resources. 1.2. Support stakeholder dialogue(s) and follow-up actions, as the basis for securing rights and tenure through strengthening local institutions. 1.3. Facilitate the development of community environmental management plans - communities to establish agreements for community land governance and develop their own management plans to foster ownership of SLM/SFM activities and their sustainability. 1.4. Local capacity development for the targeted communities/landscape and their traditional institutions according to identified needs (adaptation, planning, risk management, negotiation skills, etc.). 1.5. Promote gender equality in community and government dialogues.

How the project will take into account any risks to implementation posed by Covid-19

308. The first case of COVID-19 in Namibia was reported on the 14 March 2020, three days after the WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic a global emergency. As at 15 November 2020, there were nearly 13 555 confirmed infections, 12 843 recoveries and 138 deaths across the country (Ministry of Health and Social Services Report 15th November 2020). 309. Namibia with its open economy is not immune to the harmful effects of COVID-19. It has significantly slowed down economic activity and created uncertainties in the short- and medium-term outlook of Namibia’s economy. It has shocked economic activities on both demand and supply sides. On the demand side, containment efforts and consequent policy actions, such as physical distancing and lockdowns, have led to reduced demand for Namibian commodities both domestically and internationally. This is exacerbated by a sharp decline in global economic activities, including the decline in global commodity prices, some of which have been at the core of driving the country’s growth. On the supply side, the labour force remained at home to prevent infection and spread of the virus, which led to a decline in domestic economic activities. 310. Namibia’s economy in the past two years has been weakened and its growth has been slowed down due to: (i) downturn of the anticipated global economic recovery and growth; and (ii) severe drought which exacerbated food and livelihood insecurity for the communities across the country, resulting in the declaration of a national drought disaster in 2019. 311. In terms of public health, therefore, government was already battling with improving access and quality services in respect to a disease-burden of Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) and infectious diseases such as TB, HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis E. Hence, the pandemic is expected to disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. It is also exposing and deepening previously existing vulnerabilities, such as poverty, inequality, unemployment and overall human insecurity. 312. Recent reports from the Ministry of Health and Social Services indicate a decreasing number of newly infected COVID-19 cases. However, there is still a possibility or risk of new COVID-19 infections and uncertainty on future COVID-19 situation, which means government will divert some of its funds towards fighting and controlling this pandemic. This could have some implications on the DSL project in Namibia: for example, the already identified big share of co-financing from government could be affected. Current mitigatom measures are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13. COVID-19 — Risks and counter-measures at operational level

Category Risks Mitigation Measures Implications at national level Short to • Reduced financial (co-financing) support • If there are changes in co-finance, then partners will work medium from Government, development partners closely together to seek alternative options for co-financing term and private sector, due to: limited overall and ensure continuity of resource allocation to ongoing funding availability resulting from COVID- initiatives in project target landscapes. 19 related economic downturn; and/or diversion of available funds to COVID-19 related needs. • Government budget and expenditure and • It is expected that project activities will support the prioritization of different programs and Government’s interventions in responding to COVID-19 sectors, including agriculture, food through its activities aimed at improving livelihoods of rural security and natural resources might communities in the three project intervention areas change as a result of diverting funds to through value chains development of indigenous plants. pressing health matters. Project activities will be further refined during project inception workshop. This will include review and mainstreaming of COVID-19 responses in the project implementation. Implications for project activities (on the ground) Short to • Uncertainty with COVID-19, periodic, • To mitigate implementation delays, the project will put medium temporary closure of government and UN measures in place such as having local term offices as result of confirmed COVID-19 facilitators/moderators to work with local project partners cases, restrictions on people’s movements to ensure field project activities are effectively 99

locally or between regions and limitations implemented. Facilitators will also ensure use of virtual on size of gatherings for platforms to conduct meetings and workshop when meetings/workshops could delay launching physical meetings are not permitted. project and impact smooth implementation. • Limited opportunities for face-to-face • Set out engagement plans with limited number of interactions with project beneficiaries. participants, mainly representatives /leaders of constituencies/communities and ensure provision of sanitizers and face masks. • Constraints on conducting face-to-face • Opt for online or telephone surveys. baseline surveys. Short to • Potential for community transmission of • Put measures in place to raise awareness of COVID-19 long term COVID-19. transmission and prevention. Provide guidance on steps to be taken by institutions (public and private) when exposure to COVID-19 occurs or is suspected to have occurred. • Provide social support to COVID-19 affected families and communities.

Section B: Environmental and Social risks from the project – ESM Plan

Risk Risk Mitigation Action (s) Indicators Progress on identified Classification mitigation action ESS 1 Moderate During implementation, the project activities # of beneficiaries trained on N/A Natural will address tenure rights by applying an the implementation of the Resources integrated landscape/territorial approach VGGT Management resolving insecure or inequitable tenure (right Level of influence and to use and benefits of ecosystem services), engagement with Tenure weak common property regimes, and natural government around the resources management institutions. Conflict principles enshrined in the resolution measures to address land conflicts VGGT and boundary disputes will be applied as part of an inclusive engagement of all relevant # of land use plans in place stakeholders in this process. For this purpose, and regulations effectively the project will follow the stakeholder implemented engagement plan (Annex I2) as well as core # of communities with secure elements of the Integrated Landscape tenure rights to land, with Assessment and Management Methodology legally recognized (ILAM) (Outcome 1.2), in particular the multi- documentation(CCROs) and stakeholder workshop approach which was who perceive their rights to successfully applied during the project’s land as secure, by sex and by preparation. type of tenure The project will apply and adhere to the # of land based conflicts principles/framework of the Voluntary resolved and # of people that Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of have actively participated in Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the the conflict resolution Context of National Food Security (VGGT) and activities (disaggregated by stakeholders will be trained in its use. gender) ESS 3 Moderate As part of the integrated landscape # of smallholder farming N/A Plant and management approach the project will households who are applying Genetic promote sustainable agricultural sustainable agricultural Resources for intensification through the diversification of intensification and Food and the agricultural production. The focus will be diversifying their production. Agriculture on drought tolerant, nitrogen fixing and soil # of farmers involved in CSB stabilizing pulses (and other neglected and activities and benefiting in underutilized species/NUS) to increase resources resilience and productivity, strengthening sustainable local food systems and mitigating # of crops and varieties per the negative effects of land degradation and crops conserved and climate change. exchanged through the CSB.

100

Community Seed Banks (CSB) will serve as # of training beneficiaries hubs where local communities can conserve (management of CSB and and exchange seeds that can be used for seed conservation, diversifying the agricultural systems locally. Participatory Plant Breeding The selected seeds and planting material will (PPB), small-scale seed be largely derived from locally adapted crops production and climate and varieties and will be suitable to local change adaptation strategies) conditions and preferences of farmers and National level analysis and consumers. recommendations produced The CSB and associated trainings will enable on policy and legal the targeted farmers and their families to environment in relation to conserve local varieties of their preference, access and benefit-sharing, multiply seeds, and distribute them within conservation, use and across farming communities. The CSB exchange of germplasm. management will ensure that the seeds and # of training beneficiaries on planting materials are free from pests and the mutual implementation diseases according to agreed norms, of ITPGRFA and Nagoya especially the IPPC. The transfer of seeds Protocol and national across borders will take place, if needed, implementation of Farmers’ following international regulations on plant Rights) health (IPPC) and access and benefit-sharing, for example through a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA). The project (with support of the Regional Exchange Mechanism) will further support communities’ increased access to genetic diversity and greater knowledge of their own national programs, other countries and international organizations. The project includes national level analysis on the policy and legal environment of target countries in relation to access, benefit- sharing, conservation, use and exchange of seeds in order to ensure that CSBs activities complement, and operate within the regulatory context of target countries. As such, guidance will be provided within the context of the ITPGRFA and capacity development activities on Farmers’ Rights are key planned activities. ESS9 Moderate During the PPG, the presence of indigenous Stakeholder engagement FPIC being Indigenous peoples was confirmed within the targeted plan conducted People wider project landscape. The process of Free, # of beneficiaries belonging during PPG Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) was to indigenous peoples (steps 1 to initiated with its first 3 steps being put into 3) practice according to the procedures outlined # of consultations sessions in the FAO FPIC Manual for project held with indigenous practitioners. The identified community peoples’ communities groups are represented in the Kunene Cuvelai # of FPIC agreements basin (Sub-basin 1) area, while the San and endorsed by the concerned disabled people communities also occur in the communities Etosha and the Kavango basin areas. Consultations were carried out by the PPG Capacity Institutions and Policy consultant with assistance from local officials at each project site in order to: a) collect relevant demographic and geographic information; b) disclose project information in a transparent way through participatory communication

101

and c) document indigenous peoples’ needs in relation to the proposed project.

The actual project intervention sites with direct SLM/SFM interventions on the ground will still be agreed upon with the government at project start as explained in the project document. In case the sites fall within the vicinity of indigenous peoples identified, the project will conduct the remaining FPIC steps comprising of (i) reaching an agreement with concerned communities on the proposed project activities, (ii) the participatory monitoring and evaluation of the agreement and (iii) subsequent documentation of lessons learned and disclosure of achievements. The project will hence respect the cultural characteristics of the identified indigenous peoples in the implementation of its interventions. To this end, the project will work closely with identified community organizations and will take advantage of existing spaces for dialogue. To ensure the empowerment of indigenous peoples, their organizations and representatives will be invited to participate in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages of the project. Participatory dialogue and coordination will be established with communities to report, motivate, raise awareness and receive systematic feedback on the project.

6. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND COORDINATION

6a Institutional arrangements for project implementation 313. The Government of Namibia will have the overall executing and technical responsibility for the project, with FAO providing oversight as GEF Agency as described below. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (Operational Partner) will act as the lead executing agency and, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (Operational Partner), will be responsible for the day-today management of project results entrusted to them in full compliance with all terms and conditions of the Operational Partnership Agreement signed with FAO. As OPs of the project, the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism and Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform are responsible and accountable to FAO for the timely implementation of the agreed project results, operational oversight of implementation activities, timely reporting, and for effective use of GEF resources for the intended purposes and in line with FAO and GEF policy requirements 314. The project organization structure is as of Figure 12. The government will designate a National Project Director (NPD). Located in the Ministry of Environment, Foresty, and Tourism, the NPD will be responsible for coordinating the activities with all the national bodies related to the different project components, as well as with the project partners. S/he will also be responsible for supervising and guiding the Project Coordinator (see below) on the government policies and priorities 315. A designated person from lead national institution will chair the Project Steering Committee, which will be the main governing body of the project. The PSC will approve Annual Work Plans and Budgets on a yearly basis and will provide strategic guidance to the Project Management Team and to all executing partners. The PSC will comprise representatives from The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism 102

and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform. The members of the PSC will each assure the role of a Focal Point for the project in their respective agencies. Hence, the project will have a Focal Point in each concerned institution. As Focal Points in their agency, the concerned PSC members will: (i) technically oversee activities in their sector; (ii) ensure a fluid two-way exchange of information and knowledge between their agency and the project; (iii) facilitate coordination and links between the project activities and the work plan of their agency; and (iv) facilitate the provision of co-financing to the project. 316. The National Project Coordinator (see below) will be the Secretary to the PSC. The PSC will meet at least twice per year to ensure: i) oversight and assurance of technical quality of outputs; ii) close linkages between the project and other ongoing projects and programs relevant to the project; iii) timely availability and effectiveness of co-financing support; iv) sustainability of key project outcomes, including up-scaling and replication; v) effective coordination of government partner work under this project; vi) approval of the six-monthly Project Progress and Financial Reports, the Annual Work Plan and Budget; vii) making by consensus, management decisions when guidance is required by the NPC of the PMU. Figure 12. Project organization structure

317. The project Team will comprise a project coordinator, CTA and field coordinators on the ground. The Government of Namibia will assign staff members who will be present in the landscapes in a rotational manner (2 experts per site). They will be experts in environmental management, agriculture, forestry and gender. The FAO will provide specialists on land tenure, mapping and data management, FFFs (including FFSs experts), and a CBSs specialist 318. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be co-funded by the GEF and established within the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism. The main functions of the PMU, following the guidance of

103

the Project Steering Committee, are to ensure overall efficient management, coordination, implementation and monitoring of the project through the effective implementation of the annual work plans and budgets (AWP/Bs). The PMU will be composed of a National Project Coordinator (NPC) who will work full-time for the project lifetime. In addition, the PMU will include a full-time Coordinator for each Landscape. 319. The National Project Coordinator (NPC) will be in charge of daily implementation, management, administration and technical supervision of the project, on behalf of the Operational partner and within the framework delineated by the PSC. S/he will be responsible, among others, for: i. coordination with relevant initiatives; ii. ensuring a high level of collaboration among participating institutions and organizations at the national and local levels; iii. ensuring compliance with all OPA provisions during the implementation, including on timely reporting and financial management; iv. coordination and close monitoring of the implementation of project activities; v. tracking the project’s progress and ensuring timely delivery of inputs and outputs; vi. providing technical support and assessing the outputs of the project national consultants hired with GEF funds, as well as the products generated in the implementation of the project, vii. approve and manage requests for provision of financial resources using provided format in OPA annexes; viii. monitoring financial resources and accounting to ensure accuracy and reliability of financial reports; ix. ensuring timely preparation and submission of requests for funds, financial and progress reports to FAO as per OPA reporting requirements; x. maintaining documentation and evidence that describes the proper and prudent use of project resources as per OPA provisions, including making available this supporting documentation to FAO and designated auditors when requested; xi. implementing and managing the project’s monitoring and communications plans; xii. organizing project workshops and meetings to monitor progress and preparing the Annual Budget and Work Plan; xiii. submitting the six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs) with the AWP/B to the PSC and FAO; xiv. preparing the first draft of the Project Implementation Review (PIR); xv. supporting the organization of the mid-term and final evaluations in close coordination with the FAO Budget Holder and the FAO Independent Office of Evaluation (OED); xvi. submitting the OP six-monthly technical and financial reports to FAO and facilitate the information exchange between the OP and FAO, if needed; xvii. inform the PSC and FAO of any delays and difficulties as they arise during the implementation to ensure timely corrective measure and support. 320. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) will be the GEF Implementing Agency (IA) for the Project, providing project cycle management and support services as established in the GEF Policy. As the GEF IA, FAO holds overall accountability and responsibility to the GEF for delivery of the results. In the IA role, FAO will utilize the GEF fees to deploy three different actors within the organization to support the project (see Annex J for details): ● the Budget Holder, which is usually the most decentralized FAO office, will provide oversight of day to day project execution; ● the Lead Technical Officer(s), drawn from across FAO will provide oversight/support to the projects technical work in coordination with government representatives participating in the Project Steering Committee;

104

● the Funding Liaison Officer(s) within FAO will monitor and support the project cycle to ensure that the project is being carried out and reporting done in accordance with agreed standards and requirements. FAO responsibilities, as GEF agency, will include: ● Administrate funds from GEF in accordance with the rules and procedures of FAO; ● Oversee project implementation in accordance with the project document, work plans, budgets, agreements with co-financiers, Operational Partners Agreement(s)and other rules and procedures of FAO; ● Provide technical guidance to ensure that appropriate technical quality is applied to all activities concerned; ● Conduct at least one supervision mission per year; and ● Reporting to the GEF Secretariat and Evaluation Office, through the annual Project Implementation Review, the Mid Term Review, the Terminal Evaluation and the Project Closure Report on project progress; ● Financial reporting to the GEF Trustee.

6b. Coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects and other initiatives 321. The project will coordinate with ongoing GEF and non- GEF initiatives in Namibia to ensure synergies are generated, particularly with the GEF projects described below in Table 12. Coordination with these and other initiatives, described in Table 13, will focus on exchanging lessons learned, sharing technical expertise and, where appropriate, establishing partnership agreements and joint work plans. Table 12. Coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects # Agency Title Budget Period Lessons learned, synergies, proposed and Link with GEF US $ M collaboration project 1 UNDP Sustainable Management of 4.4 M 2014- The NAFOLA project’s goal is to maintain Component 1 Namibia’s Forested Lands - 2020 current dry forests and the ecosystem goods and 2 NAFOLA (GEF ID 4832) and services they provide in 13 Community Forests covering over 2.8 million hectares of forest lands through legalization of Community Forests. The project objective is to reduce pressure on forest resources by facilitating gazettement of CFs and increasing capacity for uptake of improved agriculture, livestock and forestry management practices in the community forest areas. 2 UNDP Scaling up community 3.0 M 2015- The project aims to strengthen adaptive Component 2 resilience to climate 2019 capacity for climate change and reduce variability and climate vulnerability to droughts and flood for change - SCORE (GEF ID approximately 4000 households, of which 80% 5343) are women-led, in the northern area of the country prone to environmental shocks. 3 UNDP Namibia Integrated 10.8 M 2019- The project objective is to promote an All Landscape Approach for 2025 integrated landscape management approach in components Enhancing Livelihoods and key agricultural and forest landscapes, reducing Environmental Governance poverty through sustainable nature-based to Eradicate Poverty – livelihoods, protecting and restoring forests as NILALEG (GEF 9426) carbon sinks, and promoting LDN.

105

Table 13. Coordination and proposed collaboration with other relevant initiatives

# Title Institution Period Lessons learned, synergies, proposed and collaboration Link with the GEF project 1 NHSP National Ministry of 2020- The NHSP is part of the broad set of national programs and is slated to be Component Horticulture Agriculture, 2025 implemented in various regions, including in Kavango West, Omusati and 2 Support Program Water and Oshikoto. NHSP and this DSL Child Project Namibia will collaborate in Land Reform defining ideal locations for investments by focusing on sites where agricultural intensification is most needed and most cost effective and has best chances of being sustainable. If practiced with adapted SLM, IWLM and CSA agricultural practices, horticulture is a proven and effective land- use sub-system under cropland which can significantly contribute to farmers’ food security and sustainable income generation. Horticulture tends also to be by default gender sensitive, given that women are those primarily engaged in it. In drylands, most horticultural practices depend on some level of irrigation, requiring an integrated approach to land and water management. With technical assistance provided by the project, cultivation techniques and practices within the targeted landscape will be located in the most suitable lands. Standards of SLM, IWRM and CSA will help with sustainability. By linking up it up with value chain development, horticulture can achieve scale in a relatively short period of time, while contributing at the same time to the achievement of Namibia’s LDN targets. 2 Beef Value Chain Ministry of 2012- Livestock products is one the value chains proposed by the project to be Component Development in Agriculture, 2025 targeted in project site ‘Sub-basin 2 (Etosha)’. There an area covering 2 The Northern Water and 10,000 ha along the stretch of land between Omuthiya and Oshivelo is Communal Areas Land Reform commonly used rangeland used for pastoral uses but where overgrazing (NCAs) and land degradation are becoming a problem due to overstocking. Working with MAWLR and other partners (GIZ e.g. which is also executing sustainable land management initiatives in the area together with Herero communities), the DSL Child Project can be instrumental in promoting a rational use of the rangeland and surrounding landscapes through rotation grazing and commercialization of surplus stock and of other livestock products. 3 Production Ministry of 2018- Although small, the Government’s ‘Sunflower Oil & Cowpea Incentive Component incentives for Agriculture, 2021 Project’ is important for the Northern Region of Namibia, especially for 2 sunflower oil seed Water and impoverished communal areas within the project sites. The Incentive and cowpeas. Land Reform Project will be implemented in the regions of Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango East and Kunene, in addition to others. The NPC5 states in the MTEF 2019/20 - 2021/22: “Sunflower and cowpeas are important and low input crops, particularly in areas where rainfall is marginal and/or where input costs such as fertilizers, seeds, herbicides, and insecticides are critical factors of production.” MAWLR’s focus on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) is motivated by its food security and nitrogen fixating properties, including in intercropping systems in drylands, if the correct techniques are used. As for the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), it is perennial cash crop, but based on an exotic species with tendencies to become invasive in non-controlled monoculture systems. The interest from MAWLR in incentivizing production comes from promising experiences from South Africa, where is has been proven as important and versatile oilseed crop and, quite importantly, a drought-tolerant crop, which makes it an attractive option for producers in dryland production regions. Demand for oil seed and cake from pressed sunflower seeds is in the increase. With the right processing facility nearby and controlled on- farm conditions, the potential for farmers to maintain sunflower fields as an ‘investment perennial’ for harsh times should be explored. 4 Establishment of Ministry of 2018- The facility in Outapi is particularly relevant for the VC Outcomes in Sub- Component Agro-Processing Agriculture, 2030 basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai). The Government’s investment will create value 2 Facilities Water and addition, business development and it is bound attracting private sector Land Reform investment to the rural communities in Outapi. Although Outapi town is technically located outside the Kunene-Cuvelai Landscape 1, it is very near its eastern limit and located along a major road. Outapi is therefore a market hub for drylands value chains from Site 1. It is also not too far from Sub-basin 2 (Etosha). Finally, the program of establishing agro-processing facilities is a long-term one, currently benefitting Mariental and Outapi. In the future, dryland products’ processing and aggregation hubs in other project landscapes may be selected and the collaboration expanded.

106

# Title Institution Period Lessons learned, synergies, proposed and collaboration Link with the GEF project 5 Cereal Value Chain Ministry of 2021- The potential collaboration with the project with respect to VC Outcomes Component Development Agriculture, 2030 is obvious, in particular because pearl millet is considered a Neglected and 2 Scheme Water and Underused Crop Species (NUS) and strategies to promote NUS in drylands Land Reform across the globe are part of the DSL approach. Activities concerning NUS will be pursued in the Namibia’s Child Project, where opportunities present themselves, and more specifically in relevant constituencies within the regions of Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango East and Kunene, where the project will be implemented in Namibia. 6 Development of Ministry of 1988- Two of the proposed locations for the livestock infrastructures in Component livestock breeding Agriculture, 2025 MAWLR’s program indicate a potential for collaboration within Sub-basin 2 and marketing Water and 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) of the project, more specifically in Tsandi and Opuwo infrastructure in Land Reform Rural constituencies. The former is located within the boundaries of the communal areas sub-basin’s landscape and the latter slightly outside. Both can be considered a local market aggregation sites for livestock and are important locations with respect to livestock VC activities, which will be pursued in the Namibia’s Child Project, where opportunities present themselves. 7 Water resource Ministry of 2008- Although the governmental funding allocated to the program appears Component management Agriculture, 2021 limited, if adequately combined with project resources at the level of all 2 Water and three selected sub-basins that are the project’s targeted landscapes (see Land Reform ‘Project Sites’ section for details), there is potential for a greater synergy and mutual generation of benefits. More specifically, the project will promote integrated water and land(use) management (IWLM) within the mentioned sites, using spatial planning and other relevant tools: • Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) • Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) • Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) The above sites are nested within the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango River Basin in this order. Refer in particular to Output 2.1.2, which prescribes the preparation of integrated land management plans (ILMPs) for the above-mentioned sub-basins and how this will involve a review and revision of existing Integrated Regional Land-use plans for the basins or simply the inclusion of nested plans for the targeted sub-basins. The mainstreaming of LND considerations into this review (or nested plan development) and, more importantly, the implementation of integrated plans is of note. The work foreseen in the mentioned output and in others co-related will be done in close collaboration with the respective basin management committees and by always tapping into capacity development opportunities and synergies with the basin committees’ own programs of work. 8 Seed System Ministry of 1996- Collaboration is specifically proposed on activities that relate to the Component Development Agriculture, 2030 establishment of community seed banks. Planning and coordinated s 1 and 2 Scheme. Water and collection and purchase of seeds are some of the activities that can be Land Reform pursued in synergy, in addition to various stakeholder capacity development initiatives linked to seeds’ management, a topic that FAO has much expertise into. 9 Integrated Forest Ministry of 1996- Collaboration is specifically proposed for activities that related to spatial Component Resource Agriculture, 2030 planning under Component 1 and activities that seek to protect forests in 1 and 2 Management Water and Component 2. The exact modalities of collaboration and the involvement Land Reform* of the EIF in similar activities that relate to the protection of forests in landscapes will be developed in due course. The government program on forests is a long-term one. 10 Cosmetic Sector Ministry of on- Herbal medicine value chains and nature-based cosmetics are of Component Industry Growth Trade and going particular interest for the DSL IP Namibia Child Project, to the extent that 2 Program Industry (MTI) sustainable value chains based on product that sustainable use indigenous plants from miombo and mopane woodlands as raw materials can help safeguard the flow of ecosystem services within the landscapes. The use of forests needs to be balanced, rational and non-degrading. Some of the promising drylands value chains in the DSL IP Namibia Child Project can potentially include those that MTI is supporting from a trade and industrialization points of view. Hence, a collaborative approach with MTI, while also implicating MAWLR and METF on the landscape management aspect of the value chains is what is being sought through the project. 11 The Namibia AfDB and 2018- The work that the NAMSIP project is developing on value chains and Component Agricultural Government of 2022 certification is of particular interest for the DSL IP Namibia Child Project. 1 and 2 Mechanization and Namibia One of the activities of NAMSIP includes the acquisition and facilitation of 107

# Title Institution Period Lessons learned, synergies, proposed and collaboration Link with the GEF project Seed Improvement certified seeds distribution to silos. Selected crops would include pearl Project millet, sorghum and cowpeas, but also maize, which would not be recommended as sustainable under drylands conditions, unless under specific circumstances. The window of opportunity for collaboration with NAMSIP is small, as the project will close in 2022. NAMSIP will be active in all 14 regions of Namibia, but the certified seed distribution scheme will be geographically limited, including among other Kavango East, Omusati and Oshikoto. Refer to Comp 1 description. Because of the capacity building component in NAMSIP, there is potential to collaborate under Component 1 as well. 12 The Climate GCF 2017- The CRAVE has a specific focus on subsistence farming. Since many Component Resilient 2022 community members who are potential beneficiaries of the Child project 2 Agriculture in fall into their category, while also being natural resource users, there is a three of the vast intersection to explore. Community or farmer based adaptive Vulnerable techniques and practices can be developed on the ground learning and Extreme northern piggybacking on the EDA and CRAVE lessons. There is a small window of crop-growing opportunity for collaboration, between these GCF funded project regions (CRAVE) managed by EIF, but it will be explored in full. 13 Empower to GCF 2017- Refer to box further up. The same collaboration and synergy proposals Component Adapt: creating 2022 referring to the CRAVE project also applies to the CBNRM EDA project. 2 Climate-Change Resilient Livelihoods through Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Namibia 14 Kavango-Zambezi KfW 2016- The KAZA has made important progress with the regional conservation Component Transfrontier on- agenda in the Okavango basin involving neighboring countries in a 2 Conservation Area going, collaborative approach to the consolidation of a protected area system. with Because there is strong competition for land in northern Namibia. A the conservation approach, if successful, is generally quite effective in the prospe safeguarding of ecosystem services, not just in the area under protection cts of a but also in the surrounding landscapes. Some of the areas proclaimed for new conservation or strengthened through the KAZA are near project sites, phase creating a positive externality in terms of landscape level management. *ex-MAWF, Division-Forestry, currently transferred to Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Forests (METF)

7. CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES

322. Namibia has enacted various laws and related policies and action plans aimed at developing the country while insuring the protection of its fragile environment. Land degradation related policies and strategies in Namibia have been thoroughly reviewed in “Desert Research Foundation, 2004; Rupel and Rupel-Schlichting (eds), 2013; Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2010”. The protection of land degradation in Namibia stretches from historic strategies such as the 1992 Green Plan up to the current National Action Program (NAP3, 2014-2024) to implement the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Key current land degradation strategies are outlined below. Vision 2030 323. Vision 2030 is an overarching national vision, originally drafted in 2004, that addresses LDN across the different sectors in the following ways: • Regarding water resources: Namibia’s freshwater resources are kept free of pollution and used to ensure social well-being, support economic development, and to maintain natural habitats; • Regarding land and agricultural production: Land is used appropriately and equitably, contributing significantly to food security at household and national levels, and supporting the sustainable and equitable growth of Namibia’s economy, whilst maintaining and improving land capability;

108

• Regarding forest resources: Namibia’s diverse natural woodlands, savannahs and the many resources they provide, are managed in a participatory and sustainable manner to help support rural livelihoods, enhance socio-economic development, and ensure environmental stability; • Regarding wildlife and tourism: the integrity of Namibia’s natural habitats and wildlife populations are maintained, whilst significantly supporting national socio-economic development through sustainable, low-impact, consumptive and non-consumptive tourism; • Regarding fisheries and marine resources: Namibia’s marine species and habitats significantly contribute to the economy without threatening biodiversity of the functioning of natural ecosystems, in a dynamic external environment; • Regarding non-renewable resources: Namibia’s mineral resources are strategically exploited and optimally beneficiated, providing equitable opportunities for all Namibians to participate in the industry, while ensuring that environmental impacts are minimized, and investments resulting from mining are made to develop other, sustainable industries and human capital for long-term national development; and • Regarding urban environments: despite high growth rates, Namibia’s urban areas will provide equitable access to safety, shelter, essential services and innovative employment opportunities within an efficiently managed, clean and aesthetically pleasing environment.

National Development Plan (NDP5) 324. The national development plan sets the government’s strategic direction over a five year planning period. Currently, for the period 2017/18 – 2021/22, NDP5 is focused on achieving “sustainability” across the following pillars: economic progression, social transformation, environmental and good governance. “The present NDP is focused on structural transformation and modernization. Over the next five years (2017-2022), Namibia will focus on attaining four high level goals: - Achieve an Inclusive, Sustainable and Equitable Economic Growth, - Build Capable and Healthy Human Resources; - Ensure Sustainable Environment and Enhance Resilience; and - Promote Good Governance through Effective Institutions The first goal entails growing the economy, creating employment, and reducing poverty and inequality while the second goal aims at creating a skilled and healthy work force. The third goal strives to ensure that both the current and future generation enjoys the benefits of the country’s natural resources sustainably. The fourth goal recognizes the pivotal role of creating a conducive environment for development and adherence to the rule of law.” The objectives for the environment pillar of NDP5 are “sustainable management and utilization of natural resources and sustainable management of the environment.” Third National Action Programme (NAP3, 2014-2024) for Namibia to implement UNCCD 325. This is the strategic document that Namibia has adopted to implement under the UNCCD during the period 2014 – 2024. In NAP3the causes of land degradation in Namibia are identified as (Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2014): • High poverty levels in the rural areas, • Population pressure, • Land reform and resettlement and land tenure, • Unsustainable use of water resources, • Inadequate systemic, institutional individual capacity, • Inadequate mechanism for multi-sector collaboration for sustainable land management, • Weak financing mechanisms for sustainable land management, • Inadequate application of technology for dry land production and • Climate change. The main manifestations of land degradation in Namibia are: overgrazing, bush encroachment, deforestation, soil degradation and decrease in water quantity and quality.

109

326. The NAP3 “lays out Namibia’s objectives and interventions (‘strategies’) to address these root causes and manifestations of land degradation. The objectives and desired outcomes of NAP3 also closely align with the strategic and operational objectives of the UNCCD.” The main objective of the NAP3 is to “prevent and reverse desertification and land degradation in affected areas and to mitigate the effects of drought in Namibia in support of poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.” The NAP3 has the following six desired outcomes: • By 2018 information on the risks Namibia faces and the need to combat desertification at a national scale is produced, made easily accessible and actually used by policy makers, land managers, research and educational institutions. • Policy and institutional frameworks are effectively implemented and strengthened to address desertification, land degradation and drought by 2014 • A functional Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought (DLDD) monitoring system in place by 2018 and supportive processes are in place by 2018 for Namibia to move towards land degradation neutrality • Desertification and land degradation processes in focal landscapes are halted and reversed by 2024, and affected communities and ecosystems strengthened to mitigate the impacts of drought. • Financial lending and grant making facilities are in place and supporting communities and small farmers to implement sustainable land management by 2017. • Research on aspects of sustainable land management and climate change science in support of adaptation and mitigation are mainstreamed in research and tertiary educational institutions and extension services by 2020. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) 2013 - 2022 327. The NBSAP presents Namibia’s strategy to maintain and enhance its biodiversity and the ecosystem services in order for Namibia to achieve sustainable development. The NBSAP has the following goals that are related to the achievement of LDN: • Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society • Reduce direct pressures on biodiversity and promote the sustainable use of biological resources • Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity • Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services • Enhance implementation of NBSAP2 through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building. National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan 328. Namibia’s Strategy and Action Plan concerns the country’s adaptation to climate change and mitigating actions to reduce its impacts on its general economy and especially on the rural population. The final document is being prepared. 329. Climate change effects can increase or decrease land degradation, depending on the expected and experienced change in comparison to the current climatic conditions. The climate change scenario for Namibia is that annual mean temperatures are predicted to increase, while rainfall will become more variable (Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2002). The proposed National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2009) focuses on four aspects: adaptation, mitigation, and cross-cutting issues. • Objectives under the adaptation aspect are to: - Assure food security and maintain a sustainable natural resource base - Assure sustainable water resources - Maintain human health and well being - Assure that infrastructures in the country become climate change resilient and new infrastructure are built to be resilient. • The objectives under mitigation aspects are to: 110

- Develop sustainable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions - Assure a reduction in carbon emission from the transport sector (through increasing efficiency, increase public transport systems etc.) • The objectives from the cross-cutting issues are to: - foster climate change related capacity building, training and institutional strengthening - improve climate change related research and information needs - increase public awareness, participation and access to climate change related information - improve disaster reduction and risk management systems - mobilize and manage financial resources for national climate change related actions - foster international cooperation and networking - promote mitigation and adaptation related technology development and transfer - review existing legislation and develop new policies to address emerging climate change issues. All these actions will contribute significantly to Namibia’s progression towards LDN. Forestry Strategic Plan 1996 330. This Strategic Plan has been used by the Directorate of Forestry to implement forestry legislation. Drafted under the Namibia Finland Forestry Programme (1990-2005), several internationally funded projects have been implemented under this plan, including the German government funded Community Forestry in North-Eastern Namibia project (2004-2006) and subsequent Community Forestry in Namibia project (2006-2011). A new Strategic Plan for 2015-2019 is currently under review. 331. In relation to LDN, the Strategic Plan focused on four major programs that are currently still pursued by the Directorate, as follows: Institutional Capacity Building, to increase the number of forestry professionals in the country to ensure effective forest resource management; , to improve forest resource protection/sustainability by empowering local communities who directly use these resources; Farm Forestry, to integrate forest management aspects into commercial farm management plans/strategies; and Environmental Forestry, to conserve specific forest resources for national and global ecosystem service benefits. National Drought Policy and Strategy 1997

332. Aimed at “… developing an efficient, equitable and sustainable approach to drought management” in Namibia, the strategy shifts “responsibility for managing drought risk from government to the farmer, with financial assistance and food security interventions only being considered in the event of an extreme or ‘disaster’ drought being declared”. It addresses LDN since reduction in drought risk vulnerability will reduce potential negative environmental impacts that can occur during drought periods, i.e. overgrazing of stressed habitats. The strategy includes two major measures that will have an effect on LDN: ● Promoting drought mitigation technologies and practices. This will focus on: - On-farm risk management - Diversifying income sources - Sustainable rangeland management - Water supply and demand management ● Creating an enabling policy environment. This will focus on: - Decentralization - Land user rights - Poverty reduction - Water pricing - Tax provisions - Agricultural research, extension, training and veterinary services - Agricultural finance and marketing - Improved information gathering, analysis and dissemination. Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of Renewable Energy Policy 2006

111

333. This plan is used to implement the White Paper on Energy Policy of 1998. Implementation of this strategy will contribute towards sustainable development, improving environmental protection and reducing land degradation towards achievement of LDN. The strategy has the following objectives: ● Enhance capacity of the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector, ● Improved renewable energy and energy efficiency knowledge base, ● Broadened awareness of renewable energy and energy efficiency, ● Equal playing field for renewable energy, ● Improved financing mechanisms for renewable energy technologies, ● Improved security of energy supply, ● Enhanced institutional coordination and integration, ● Improved access to energy, and ● Sustainable development. Regional and local legislation 334. Land-use planning by the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement: The Ministry of Lands Reform (MLR) is tasked with assisting regional councils to draft land-use plans for Namibian political regions. The task has been supported by the German government, through GIZ and implemented by MLR. 335. Regional land-use plans aim to deliver sustainable land management for Namibia and this can assist with achieving LDN. The most relevant for the project is 2015 Kavango East Regional Land-Use Plan (IRLUP) that proposes sectoral integration and stakeholder participation as an approach to land-use planning. IRLUPs for the other two regions supported by the project have yet to be developed. 336. Local and regional government base their administration on the provisions of this legislation: ● Local Authority Act 1992, amended 2000; ● Regional Councils Act 1992, amended 2010; ● Decentralization Enabling Act 2000 and the Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provision Act 2000; and the following with respect to land use/management: ● Communal Land Reform Act No. 5, 2002; and ● Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act 6, 1995. 337. Securing communal land rights in Namibia involves the following process: ● Identify the land with the local representative of the Traditional Authority (village head man/woman) ● Complete the appropriate application form and submit it to the Traditional Authority. Pay the required fee (N$ 25) ● Ministry of Land Reform verifies the application and map of the land. ● Application is displayed for 7 days at the Traditional Authority office for any objection. ● Communal Land Board meets and decides if the application is according to the Law. ● Certificate is printed and handed over to the Traditional Authority. ● Applicant is notified, s/he verifies that the certificate is in order and pays the document fee (N$50) Creating and enabling environment for LDN 338. Key to progressing the LDN agenda is creating the enabling environment, for which guidance is provided by UNCCD’s Science-Policy Interface. The four dimensions of this ‘enabling environment for LDN’ are reviewed alongside a set of criteria to assess the alignment of project interventions against these criteria. Table4 shows the extent to which these criteria are met under Component 1.

112

Table 14. Alignment of project’s enabling environment activities with LDN enabling criteria* Dimension of LDN enabling element or criteria Project alignment enabling environment

Institutional 1.1 National political commitment and agenda: high-level Addressed in Component 1 commitment; clear priorities and targets set; targets mainstreamed into NAP and National Development Plan 1.2 Coordination: lead national agency responsible for LDN and SLM Steering Committee strengthened integrated land-use planning; mechanisms in place for horizontal for performing this role, reinforced at and vertical coordination landscape level (Output 1.1.1). 1.3 Multi-stakeholder consultation: inclusion of civil society and Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans other stakeholders; participatory process designed for target landscapes, based on a national template (Output 1.1.1). 1.4 Institutional capacities: in planning, policy development, Included in Output 1.1.2 monitoring, enforcement Financial 2.1 Finance needs assessment or costings identified for LDN Addressed in Output 1.2.2 implementation (e.g. operational, monitoring, evaluation etc.) 2.2 Identified sources of finance: instruments, mechanisms Addressed in Output 1.0.3 described or identified; earmarked funds in budget; additional sources of finance Policy/ 3.1 Land tenure considered: user rights; access rights; control Addressed in Output 1.1.2 regulatory rights; transfer rights and tenure security 3.2 Integrated land-use planning system considered/mentioned ILUPs to be developed building on existing planning under 1.2.3 3.3 Neutrality mechanism to counterbalance losses and gains Addressed in C1 discussed or proposed; consideration of avoid, reduce, reverse hierarchy 3.4 Regulations and rules around LDN considered: policies, Addressed in Output 1.1.2 procedures, incentives 3.5 Policy coherence: policy alignment; consideration of synergies/ Policy revisions for ensuring alignment in trade-offs (e.g. synergistic policies operationalized at the same Output 1.1.2. time by different ministries) Science-policy 4.1 Effectiveness of data and monitoring systems considered: Addressed in Output 1.2.2 interface consideration of 3 global indicators 4.2 Consideration of technical capacities in the country for LDN Addressed in C1 target setting and implementation 4.3 Consideration of information on causes/effects of land Addressed in C1 degradation and LDN - ecological, social, economic (or information to conduct preparatory assessments) 4.4 Information on multiple benefits of SLM and LDN considered Addressed in C1 (e.g. biodiversity, climate, livelihoods etc.) *Source: adapted from ANNEX 2: Background Paper on the Enabling Environment for LDN and its Potential Contribution to Enhancing Well- being, Livelihoods and the Environment of UNCCD Report of the Science-Policy Interface Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality

8. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

339. In line with GEF Knowledge Management Guidelines69, knowledge generation and management will be an essential component of the project. The child project’s framework is closely aligned with the DSL IP’s global framework, as well as harmonized with that of the other Miombo-Mopane child projects. This will facilitate the sharing of evidence-based good practices across initiatives, which will be done through the relevant global (e.g. working groups on drylands) and regional (SADC GGWI) knowledge and exchange structures. The Namibia child project will actively “feed” and share knowledge to the global and regional platforms, while benefiting from recent scientific knowledge and global best practices provided by the platforms in return. Moreover, the child project will use part of the DSL IP incentive to “access” additional

69 See GEF Approach on Knowledge Management https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting- documents/EN_GEF.C.48.07.Rev_.01_KM_Approach_Paper.pdf 113

services that are provided by the global project on demand and adaptive basis (possibly through SADC GGWI) in order to support the child project in achieving the anticipated impact at wider (transboundary ecosystem) scale. 340. The Global Coordination Project of the Dryland Program will promote coherence among the multiple initiatives operating across the Miombo-Mopane dryland ecoregion by (i) establishing mechanisms for coordinating and prioritizing initiatives and investments across countries; (ii) channeling global knowledge and expertise in relation to sustainable dryland management by linking the project to relevant global initiatives and platforms; (iii) managing and capitalizing on knowledge on dryland management experiences; and (iv) introducing M&E systems at project and programmatic levels supporting learning and adaptive management. Project Component 3 will build knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation, harmonizing M&A tools, and approaches from a regional perspective through SADC/GGWI, and with the assistance of the global network. 341. Improvement of the policy and governance system at multiple levels (national, region, local authority, community) and the development of knowledge management and monitoring schemes embedded in the wider regional framework spearheaded by the GEF-7 initiative will have a positive impact beyond the target landscapes, developing capacity among a broad range of stakeholders. Implementation of integrated management plans will have a long-term impact on the target landscapes, inspiring similar future exercises in other parts of the country. The linkage with GGWI/SADC and other transboundary frameworks such as the river basin committees (OKACOM, CUVECOM) will ensure an impact at a larger ecosystem level through effective knowledge management. 342. The Namibia Child Project will in particular build on the baseline established by the Mashare Climate Resilient Agriculture Centre of Excellence (MCRACE) through its GCF-funded CRAVE project (Climate Resilient Agriculture in three of the Vulnerable Extreme northern crop growing regions in Namibia), one of the regions being Kavango East to ensure the incorporation of updated downscaling analysis of climate change impacts to the identification of vulnerabilities and selection of resilient land uses and practices in the participatory transboundary landscape planning process, and to the selection of suitable technologies to be upscaled through the baseline MAMSIP and MAWF’s Dryland Crop Production Programme. Multi-stakeholder coordination and cooperation mechanisms will be established (or consolidated) through functional programs in the targeted dryland landscapes in view of adopting LDN- sustainability frameworks and ensuring the interlinking of activities to the policy guidance from steering structures. 343. The project will also ensure harmonization of landscape planning and management approaches with the child projects in Angola and Botswana, and will share experiences, knowhow, and best practices, both through the DSL IP’s global framework and REM, and the regional hub (SADC GGWI). 344. Implementation of outputs and activities under Component 3 will result in effective knowledge management and coordination, monitoring and evaluation, as well as south-south cooperation enhanced through the REM. More specifically, Output 3.2.1 is focused on the development of a Knowledge Management and Communications Strategy (KMCS), supported by a project web-based knowledge management portal and innovative information-sharing program, all of which will underpin knowledge sharing and the collection and dissemination of evidence-based best practices. Moreover, activities such as the project’s inception and final workshop and a strong communication strategy will be used as opportunities to engage with key experts and stakeholders in order to disseminate lessons learned and results from similar projects and initiatives. 345. Additionally, to highlight the importance of documenting change management approaches and innovative solutions, and to help show results and impact, FAO’s South-South and Triangular Cooperation Division and its partners are documenting the baseline status of the targeted landscapes in every country, using a participatory video approach. This interactive, dynamic and powerful monitoring tool includes local communities and different stakeholders. Moreover, it provides a wholesome view of the project’s progress at every stage, including changes within local communities, local governments and other stakeholders that may occur throughout the project’s implementation. Through this in-depth observation, the initiative aims 114

to point out what impact these changes may have on dryland management and degradation. Once the baseline is established, each country will continue this monitoring process until best practices are identified and each project reaches its completion. The final product will then be translated and disseminated among the 11 countries involved, cross pollinating and sharing the identified best practices, supporting knowledge and the lessons learned. Dissemination will occur through various international and regional mechanisms by leveraging on the convening power of the Working Group on Dryland Forests and Agrosilvopastoral Systems. In the long term, this participatory approach will feed into a digital library containing an array of different contexts and paths, serving as a pragmatic learning platform for contributing partners and members achieving the objective of making every voice count for adaptive management, at every level.

9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

346. The project’s monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken throughout project implementation through different measures that include oversight, reporting and close monitoring, which will be carried out by different actors involved in the project development. Moreover, the project will ensure transparency in the preparation, conduct, reporting and evaluation of its activities. This will include full disclosure of all non-confidential information, and consultation with major groups and representatives of local communities. The disclosure of information shall be ensured through posting on websites and dissemination of findings through knowledge products and events. Project reports will be broadly and freely shared, and findings and lessons learned made available. Project oversight will be carried out by the Project Steering Committee (PSC), the FAO GEF Coordination Unit and relevant Technical Units in HQ. They will overview GEF financed activities, outputs and outcomes largely through the annual Project Implementation Reports (PIRs), periodic backstopping and supervision missions. Oversight will ensure that: (i) project outputs are produced in accordance with the project results framework and leading to the achievement of project outcomes; (ii) project outcomes are leading to the achievement of the project objective; (iii) risks are continuously identified and monitored and appropriate mitigation strategies are applied; and (iv) agreed project global environmental benefits/adaptation benefits are being delivered. 347. Project monitoring will be carried out by the Project Coordination Unit (PMU) and the FAO budget holder. Project performance will be monitored using the project results matrix, including indicators (baseline and targets) and annual work plans and budgets. At inception the results matrix will be reviewed to finalize identification of: i) outputs ii) indicators; and iii) missing baseline information and targets. A detailed M&E plan, which builds on the results matrix and defines specific requirements for each indicator (data collection methods, frequency, responsibilities for data collection and analysis, etc.) will also be developed during project inception by the M&E specialist. 348. The project reports developed during its implementation will include: • Project Inception Report. It is recommended that the PMU prepare a draft project inception report in consultation with the LTO, BH and other project partners. Elements of this report should be discussed during the Project Inception Workshop and the report subsequently finalized. The report will include a narrative on the institutional roles and responsibilities and coordinating action of project partners, progress to date on project establishment and start- up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation. It will also include a detailed first year AWP/B, a detailed project monitoring plan. The draft inception report will be circulated to the PSC for review and comments before its finalization, no later than one month after project start-up. The report should be cleared by the FAO BH, LTO and the FAO GEF Coordination Unit and uploaded in FPMIS by the BH. • Results-based Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B). The draft of the first AWP/B will be prepared by the PMU in consultation with the FAO Project Task Force and reviewed at the project Inception Workshop. The Inception Workshop (IW) inputs will be incorporated and the PMU will submit a final draft AWP/B within two weeks of the IW to the BH. For subsequent

115

AWP/B, the PMU will organize a project progress review and planning meeting for its review. Once comments have been incorporated, the BH will circulate the AWP/B to the LTO and the FAO GEF Coordination Unit for comments/clearance prior to uploading in FPMIS by the BH. The AWP/B must be linked to the project’s Results Framework indicators so that the project’s work is contributing to the achievement of the indicators. The AWP/B should include detailed activities to be implemented to achieve the project outputs and output targets and divided into monthly timeframes and targets and milestone dates for output indicators to be achieved during the year. A detailed project budget for the activities to be implemented during the year should also be included together with all monitoring and supervision activities required during the year. The AWP/B should be approved by the Project Steering Committee and uploaded on the FPMIS by the BH. • Project Progress Reports (PPR). PPRs will be prepared by the PMU based on the systematic monitoring of output and outcome indicators identified in the project’s Results Framework (Appendix I). The purpose of the PPR is to identify constraints, problems or bottlenecks that impede timely implementation and to take appropriate remedial action in a timely manner. They will also report on projects risks and implementation of the risk mitigation plan. The Budget Holder has the responsibility to coordinate the preparation and finalization of the PPR, in consultation with the PMU, LTO and the FLO. After LTO, BH and FLO clearance, the FLO will ensure that project progress reports are uploaded in FPMIS in a timely manner. • Annual Project Implementation Review (PIR). The BH (in collaboration with the PMU and the LTO) will prepare an annual PIR covering the period July (the previous year) through June (current year) to be submitted to the FAO GEF Coordination Unit Funding Liaison Officer (FLO) for review and approval no later than (check each year with GEF Unit but roughly end June/early July each year). The FAO GEF Coordination Unit will submit the PIR to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Evaluation Office as part of the Annual Monitoring Review report of the FAO-GEF portfolio. PIRs will be uploaded on the FPMIS by the FAO GEF Coordination Unit. • Technical Reports: Technical reports will be prepared by national, international consultants (partner organizations under LOAs) as part of project outputs and to document and share project outcomes and lessons learned. The drafts of any technical reports must be submitted by the PMU to the BH who will share it with the LTO. The LTO will be responsible for ensuring appropriate technical review and clearance of said report. The BH will upload the final cleared reports onto the FPMIS. Copies of the technical reports will be distributed to project partners and the Project Steering Committee as appropriate. • Co-financing Reports: The BH, with support from the PMU, will be responsible for collecting the required information and reporting on co-financing as indicated in the Project Document/CEO Request. The PMU will compile the information received from the executing partners and transmit it in a timely manner to the LTO and BH. The report, which covers the period 1 July through 30 June, is to be submitted on or before 31 July and will be incorporated into the annual PIR. The format and tables to report on co-financing can be found in the PIR. • Terminal Report: Within two months before the end date of the project, and one month before the Final Evaluation, the PMU will submit to the BH and LTO a draft Terminal Report. The main purpose of the Terminal Report is to give guidance at ministerial or senior government level on the policy decisions required for the follow-up of the project, and to provide the donor with information on how the funds were utilized. The Terminal Report is accordingly a concise account of the main products, results, conclusions, and recommendations of the project, without unnecessary background, narrative or technical details. The target readership consists of persons who are not necessarily technical specialists but who need to understand the policy implications of technical findings and needs for insuring sustainability of project results. • It is also best practice to draft a Project Exit Strategy 3-6 months prior to the end of the project to guide closure and ensure post-project continuity of activities, mechanisms and processes that 116

need to be sustained, institutionalized, replicated and mainstreamed. This Strategy can accompany the Terminal Report but it should be drafted well in advance to ensure preparations are completed. 349. Table 15 provides a summary of the main M&E reports, responsible parties, and timeframes, with costs estimated for inclusion in the budget.

Table 15. Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Activities and Budget Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Estimate of costs (USD) Inception Workshop PMU, supported by LTO, BH, and Within two months $ 10,000 (IW) GEF Coordination Unit (GCU) of project start up Project Inception PMU, cleared by FAO LTO, HQ Immediately after No extra cost Report Officer(s), BH, and the GCU Inception Workshop. Supervision visits and PMU; FAO (FAO Namibia, LTO). Annual or as required LTO and GCU visits paid by GEF rating of progress in FAO-GCU may participate in the agency fee. NPC and CTA visits paid PPRs and PIRs visits if needed. from project travel budget. Project Progress BH with support from PMU, with Semi-annual, or as M&E Training Workshop $ 14,350 Reports key stakeholder inputs required M&E Expert S 43,200 M&E tools/equipment $ 10,000 Project Implementation BH (in collaboration with PMU Annual Paid by GEF agency fee Review report and LTO), Drafted by NPC, with supervision of LTO and BH. Approved and submitted to GEF by FAO-GCU Co-financing Reports BH with support from PMU and Annual Completed by NPC and CTA NPC and input from other co- financiers Technical reports PMU, BH, LTO and participating As appropriate No extra cost Units Mid-term Review MTR: FAO Namibia, External At mid-point of USD 40,000 (MTR) consultant, in consultation with project the project team, including the implementation FAO-GEF Coordination Unit and others Final evaluation Under the responsibility of FAO At end of project USD 46,550 (including Terminal Office of Evaluation in implementation Report) consultation with the project team including the GCU and other partners Total Budget USD 164,100

10. BENEFITS

350. The project will work towards the implementation and mainstreaming of sustainable and integrated approaches to the management of dryland landscapes and decision-making regarding land use in selected landscapes in Namibia. By scaling-up SLM and SFM best practices in priority landscapes in the north of the country, the project will also have a transboundary impact (Kunene basin) complementing existing in-country and neighbouring country interventions, which will in turn contribute to the achievement of both the project and the Impact Program main objectives. The strengthened national policy and capacity on LDN and the empowerment of stakeholders in SLM/SFM/IWRM planning and implementation, in combination with the establishment/strengthening of inclusive dryland commodity value chains, will have a positive impact beyond the target landscapes. 351. Global benefits from the project’s successful implementation highlighted in Table 9 and elaborated in Section (8). In summary, they comprise:

117

• 360,200 ha of production systems, located within three target landscapes that cover 1,455,049 ha of Miombo-Mopane Woodlands, under improved management practices as a result of applying LDN response hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and restoration. [Refer to Tables 5 and 6, respectively, for disaggregated data and descriptions of the interventions.] • Carbon benefits totalling 1,301,476 tCO2e, based on sequestration of carbon arising from the above improvements in production systems and avoidance of emissions in the AFOLU sector. 352. Local benefits from the project’s successful implementation will include: • SFM/SLM practices mainstreamed across the country: Principles and evidence-based best practices of SFM/SLM will be disseminated among project beneficiaries, including local communities and national institutions. By implementing activities related to it, the project will be able to reduce key policy barriers currently challenging the country’s enforcement to prevent causes of land degradation and will bring a positive long-term impact on a part of Namibia where land degradation is the most critical issue. • Increased local capacity: Different project activities will focus on enhance key stakeholders’ capacity for handling spatial data, develop strategic partnerships, mobilize finance, and conceive projects, all related to SFM/SLM practices, creating the conditions for a collaborative landscape management. The project expects to train approximately 300+ land managers in multiple locations across the landscapes of northern Namibia (targeting at least 30% are women) with focus on skills development for SLM/SFM/LR/IWRM policies and practice • Co-benefit of GEF investment: At least 10,000 beneficiaries (40% women) from the three target landscapes (Kunene-Cuvelai: 5,500; Etosha: 2,500; Okavango: 2,000). • Value chain development: The project foresees the strengthening of viable and sustainable promising value chains identified during the PPG process. Producer organizations will be able to participate in capacity building activities, as well as have access to finance and market mechanisms, which will allow their business to develop. Thus, it is also foreseen that by contributing to the productivity and sustainability of agricultural practices and green value chain development, the project, has the potential to indirectly contribute to long-lasting improvement of livelihoods and food security, particularly in direct beneficiary communities of the demonstration landscapes.

118

PART III: ANNEXES

ANNEX A1: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions

Project Objective: (01) Area of managed production ILAM/ILUP reports NA ======system landscapes where ‘LDN Project Implementation To initiate a response hierarchy’ is applied to Reports 70 transformational shift target intervention areas: Prototype LMUs database towards sustainable, (1a) AVOID: (01a) 0 ha (01a) 40,000 ha (01a) 85,000 ha targeted by Project, to integrated (1b) REDUCE: (01b) 0 ha (01b) 135,000 ha (01b) 275,000 ha develop into a GIS. management of multi- (1c) REVERSE: (01c) 0 ha (01c) 100 ha (01c) 200 ha MTR and TE reports use dryland landscapes in northern Namibia, Convention reporting to building on Land UNCCD and UNFCCC Degradation Neutrality PRODOC Annex F: GEF TF / principles LDCF/ SCCF Core Indicator Worksheet (02) Number of people directly (02) 0 people (02) 5,000 people, of which (02) 10,000 people, of ILAM/ILUP reports NA benefiting from improved land 40 % women which 40 % women72 Project Implementation management practices in project Reports landscapes [at least 40 % of which SHARP Assessment (reapply 71 are women] during implementation) Population Census MTR and TE reports (03) Number of GHG emissions (03) Potential carbon (03) Potential carbon (03) Potential carbon Application of ExACT Tool NA sequestered or avoided directly benefit for landscapes benefit for landscapes benefit for landscapes ILAM/ILUP reports 2 2 2 attributed to project interventions Sub-basin 1 zero tCO e Sub-basin 1; 150,000 tCO e Sub-basin 1; 521,753 tCO e Project Implementation 2- 2 2 2 using Ex-ACT tool (tCO equivalent Sub-basin 2 zero tCO e Sub-basin 2; 130,000 tCO e Sub-basin 2; 456,103 tCO e Reports sequestrated over 20 years)73 Sub-basin 3 zero tCO2e Sub-basin 3; 100,000 tCO2e Sub-basin 3; 323,400 tCO2e MTR and TE report

70 Direct contribution to national LDN target. Note the total of 1a and 1b equates to GEF Core indicator 4 (area of landscapes under improved practices); 1c (reversal of land degradation) equates to Core Indicator 3 (area of land restored). 71 Note that this indicator tracks GEF Core Indicator 11 (number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF investment). Direct beneficiaries to be defined during project inception phase. 72 This is an estimate – to be refined during project inceptions, following confirmation of final boundaries of target intervention areas. 73 Corresponds to GEF Core Indicator 6 (greenhouse gas emissions mitigated). 119

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions

COMPONENT 1 – Developing enabling frameworks for applying LDN at national and landscape scales Outcome 1.1) (04) Number of revised policy, (04) 0 (04) To be refined during (04) To be refined during Project Implementation [A.1] No major changes are LDN policy, regulatory regulatory and planning project inception project inception Reports made in the government that and participatory frameworks into which LDN MTR and TE reports could result in decreased planning frameworks principles are mainstreamed UNCCD and UNFCCC political will to engage, developed or convention reporting collaborate and ensure strengthened and successful project PRODOC Annex F: GEF TF / harmonized. implementation and program LDCF/ SCCF Core Indicator coordination. Worksheet (05) Number of bylaws developed (05) 0 bylaws (05) 3-4 bylaws (05) X bylaws (5-6) National Gazette in support of implementation of ILUPs in target areas Outputs under Outcome 1.1) 1.1.1) LDN stakeholder participatory structures and processes strengthened/ established at national level, with vertical integration to multi-sectoral Landscape Management Committees in the sub-basins. 1.1.2) National and landscape level policy, regulatory and participatory planning frameworks for effectively upscaling SLM/SFM interventions reviewed and revised Outcome 1.2) (06) Gender-responsive, (06) No ILUPs in place, (06) ILUP gender- (06) ILUP gender- Project Implementation [A.2] Local institutions are Integrated land-use coordinated and harmonized IRLUP in Sub-Basin 3 responsive plans developed responsive plans developed Reports committed to improve their planning for LDN Integrated Landscape Use Plans and under implementation MTR and TE reports capacity to engage and applied to landscapes (ILUP) developed and under in three project landscapes implement sustainable and implementation integrated management of (07) Existing landscape plans in (07) To be refined during (07) To be refined during (07) To be refined during LDN Checklist as applied at multi-use dryland landscapes target areas incorporating the LDN project inception project inception project inception Mid-Term and End-of-Project in the country response hierarchy MTR and TE reports Outputs under Outcome 1.2) 1.2.1 Gender sensitive SLM/SFM practices appropriate for target areas identified/developed. 1.2.2) Organizational structures and knowledge among land and resource users/managers improved to enhance SLM/SFM practices COMPONENT 2 - Strengthening implementation and enabling scaling out of SLM/SFM Outcome 2.1) (08) Number of households74 (08) 150 households (08) 500 households (08) At least 1,000 LMU prototype database [A.3] Local communities are SLM/SFM practices actively involved in sustainable involved in sustainable land involved in sustainable land households involved in tracks LUS and households willing to engage with project aligned with ILUP land management practices aligned management practices in management practices in sustainable land team to implement project priorities and with landscape ILUPs the landscapes, of which the landscapes, of which management practices in activities and adopt SLM/SFM 35% are women-led75 40% are women—led

74 Average household size for rural population is 5,1 according to 2011 Census. 75 Based on PPG estimates. The exact number to be refined during project inception. 120

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions demonstrated in target the landscapes, of which practices at the project target landscapes 45% are women-led landscapes. (09) Sustainable forest and land (09) Limited scope of (09) To be refined during (09) Sustainable forest Project Implementation [A.4] Government allocates management practices applied in existing sustainable forest project inception management practices in Reports sufficient budget to field project’s productive landscapes, management practices 130,000 ha of forest Prototype LMUs database offices to ensure their aligned with ILUPs targeted by Project, to involvement in the develop into a GIS. implementation of landscape MTR and TE reports level activities. Outputs under Outcome 2.1) [A.5] Project solutions are 2.1.1) Gender sensitive SLM/SFM practices appropriate for target areas identified/developed considered more attractive 2.1.2) Organizational structures and knowledge among land and resource users/managers improved to enhance SLM/SFM practices financially, environmentally, sustainably and socially by Outcome 2.2 (10) Increased promotion of SLM (10) To be refined during (10) To be refined during (10) Production systems in (10) To be refined during land users than destructive Strengthening and SFM compliant products by project inception project inception target landscapes project inception ‘business as usual’ land and implementation and project supported by 6 dryland natural resource use enabling scaling out of GVCs [total confirmed practices. SLM/SFM during project inception] [A.6] Private sector is willing (11) Increased percentage of (11) Limited numbers of (11) 15% increase over (11) 30% increase in ILAM/ILUP reports to invest in SLM/SFM/LDN farmers (at least 40% women) farmers engaged in GVCs: baseline in farmers farmers involvement in Project Implementation activities, encouraged by a engaged in green value chains 89% did not manage to sell involvement in GVCs GVCs (at least 15% women) Reports supportive regulatory and (GVCs) in markets, main barrier SHARP Assessment financial environment. being low production rates. (reapplied during Only 12% of farmers implementation) transform crops after Population Census harvesting and agricultural certification schemes are MTR and TE reports absent [exact communities to be defined during the inception when target areas fully agreed] (12) Number of partnerships/ (12) 0 (12) At least one new (12) At least one new MTR and TE reports enterprises developed by project partnership/enterprise partnership/enterprise per Project Implementation to support SLM/SFM under development per target landscape supported Reports target landscape by project Outputs under Outcome 2.2) 2.2.1) Community-based initiatives and Forest and Farm Producer Organizations supported through tools, facilities and other resources to adopt and promote improved SLM/SFM practices 2.2.2) Green Value Chains strengthened or developed. COMPONENT 3 - Strengthening knowledge, learning and collaboration to support progress towards achieving national LDN targets 121

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions

Outcome 3.1) (13) Publicly accessible web-based (13) National LDN platform (13) Each child project (13) National LDN platform Usage tracking data from LDN information framework National land national LDN platform hosting not established/fully design team to complete reporting on LDN targets platform continues to be used and information framework information on SLM/SFM/LDN functional expected progress by mid- and feeding information Interviews with target supported across sectors. strengthened to inform operational and reporting on term into national LDN reporting stakeholders on use of Buy-in and engagement from LDN-related policy, progress towards LDN targets platform information national, regional (sub- planning and Policy, planning and national) and local management at management documents authorities in monitoring and landscape, national and referring to LDN platform assessing LDN. global levels. National UNCCD reports Institutional framework and LDN national reports capacity to carry out LDN (14) % LDN indicators (defined (14) 0% (14) Set of LDN indicators (14) At least 80% of agreed Revised national strategies, assessment, monitoring and under national LDN framework) (LDN indicators not defined, validated, and LDN indicators plans and programmes with reporting ensured by incorporated into agriculture, incorporated into sector process started for their incorporated into LDN indicators continuing in-country forestry and biodiversity development plans or their incorporation into targeted respective agriculture, Reports, publications, on-line political stability. conservation sector development equivalents) agriculture , forestry and forestry and biodiversity information of monitored In face of full lockdown plans (or equivalent strategies, biodiversity conservation conservation sector LDN indicators under revised Covid-19 pandemic plans and programmes) sector development development plans (or national strategies, plans and restrictions, project and DSL- strategies, plans and equivalent strategies, plans programs IP able to apply effective programs and programs National UNCCD reports rapid response strategy, LDN national reports including stakeholders having access to virtual assistance, (15). Number of participatory (15) Zero (15) Participatory LDN- (15) X participatory LDN- Participatory landscape meetings and training tools. landscape monitoring action plans No monitoring plans exist LMAPs under development LMAPs approved and under monitoring action plans (LMAPs) with LDN indicators for project target implementation (within the Project progress reports (PIR, (defined under the national LDN landscapes (within the framework of their ILMP FAO PPR) framework) operational framework of their ILMP implementation) Local authority reports implementation) Outputs under Outcome 3.1) 3.1.1) National and sub-national LDN assessment, monitoring and reporting systems and tools, including LDN knowledge, developed and operational, with relevant reporting to global level. 3.1.2) Capacity development program designed and delivered to support national LDN reporting by improving assessment, monitoring and analysis among key stakeholders at national and sub-national levels. Outcome 3.2) (16) Number of project knowledge (16) Zero (16) Each child project (16) Each child project Annual report of national Existing regional and global Knowledge and products (lessons learned/best Project is yet to begin. design team to complete design team to complete LDN platform with statistics knowledge hubs focused on awareness enhanced to practices, policy briefs, guidelines, on downloads of project dryland ecosystems continue support progress etc.) accessible through: Information sharing is knowledge documents to function and are utilized towards achieving (a) National (LDN) platform mainly happening face-to- Project progress reports (PIR, by decision-makers. national LDN targets. (b) Regional and global platforms face between sectors at FAO PPR) national level, and the data

122

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions

available on regional and National actors are receptive global platforms only to project outreach and covers part of the communication products. experience held in the Willingness of project target countries. Such stakeholders (particularly information is not visible government authorities) to and accessible enough to engage with adaptive many government and non- management processes and government stakeholders. make changes based on (17) Child project knowledge (17) Each child project (17) Each child project (17) Each child project Policy and planning lesson learned and best products (policy briefs, guidelines, design team to complete design team to complete design team to complete documents practices for LDN identified best practice recommendations, Minutes of meetings of by project and DSL-IP. etc.) referenced/cited in national relevant decision-making In face of full lockdown LDN-related policy and planning forums Covid-19 pandemic forums and decision documents Institutional (public and restrictions, project and DSL- and by stakeholder publications private) press releases, IP able to apply effective (including government and private reports, etc. rapid response strategy, sector, CSO/NGO community) Reports on events e.g. including stakeholders having commodity value chain access to virtual assistance, events meetings and training tools. (18) Project M&E system status (18) Zero (18) M&E system (18) Project M&E and MTR and TE reports and progress in reporting project No M&E system operational, with capacity reporting on project Annual PIR and 6-monthly contributions to GEF-7, LDN and established as project not to report on results contributions to GEF-7, LDN FAO PPR SDG targets yet operational framework targets for Mid- and SDG indicator targets Project communication term Review documents and briefs Outputs under Outcome 3.2) 3.2.1) Project knowledge management, communication and dissemination framework and strategy developed and implemented. 3.2.2) Project M&E framework, supporting lesson learning and guiding adaptive management, developed and operational from national through to community levels. Outcome 3.3) (19) Number of inter-government (19) 0 (19) Discussions held on (19) At least 1 international Letters of Agreement National authorities and Collaboration and policy related agreements (e.g. potential international initiative designed to between countries other key international exchange at Miombo- joint declarations) designed to initiatives designed to facilitate joint action on Joint project proposals stakeholders willing and able Mopane Ecoregion and facilitate common action on facilitate joint action on SLM/SFM and LDN across Documents detailing joint to engage in trans-boundary global levels enhanced SLM/SFM and LDN across Miombo- SLM/SFM and LDN across the Miombo-Mopane management activities collaboration and to support national and Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion the Miombo-Mopane Woodlands Ecoregion coordination Woodlands Ecoregion

123

Result Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-Term Milestone End of Project Targets Means of verification Assumptions sub-national efforts to (20) Number of new transboundary (20) N/A (20) REM assessment of (20) At least one Market assessments Good collaboration deliver LDN. /regional or global business REM not established market analysis and transboundary /regional Strategic documents framework between project initiatives (e.g. public-private opportunities for GVC initiative involving Minutes of meetings and and national authorities can partnerships, agreements, promoting SLM/SFM Namibia workshops be developed and maintained contracts), focusing on SLM/SFM products through GVCs Business proposals Private sector businesses and green value chains developed Private sector company producers have capacity and reports willingness to collaborate (21) Number of regional and global (21) N/A (21) Each child project (21) Each child project Minutes of global meetings In face of full lockdown Covid-19 pandemic LDN policy dialogue platforms design team to complete design team to complete Project implementation restrictions, project and DSL- (SADC, GGWI-S, AFR100, other reports/back to office reports IP able to apply effective multi-stakeholder dialogues) to References to project results which Namibia contributes its child rapid response strategy, (lessons learned, models, including stakeholders having project results – recommendations best practice, etc.) in policy (lessons learned, best practice etc.) access to virtual assistance, dialogue documents meetings and training tools. 3.3.1) Actions and investments identified to address transboundary land and environmental degradation priorities in Miombo-Mopane Ecoregion and bi-/multi-lateral initiatives strengthened/ established to progress towards LDN. 3.3.2) Collaborative actions undertaken to support business and market development for SLM/SFM products across Miombo-Mopane region. 3.3.3) Opportunities for national and landscape-level stakeholders to exchange knowledge, experiences and lessons learnt at regional and global levels identified, developed and supported.

124

ANNEX A2: PROJECT BUDGET

125

ANNEX B: RESPONSE TO PROJECT REVIEWS

1) Comments at IP Approval Stage

1a Applicable STAP Comments at the IP Approval Stage and FAO’s response

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11BRZ-5juZkbZc8Z3SjwaKseKU3LLDipL/view?usp=sharing

1b GEF Council Comments at PIF Stage and FAO’s response

Not applicable

2) Comments at PRODOC for CEO Endorsement Stage

[if and when applicable]

126

ANNEX C: STATUS OF UTILIZATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION GRANT (PPG)

If at CEO Endorsement, the PPG activities have not been completed and there is a balance of unspent fund, Agencies can continue to undertake exclusively preparation activities (including workshops and finalization of baseline, when needed) up to one year of CEO Endorsement/approval date. No later than one year from CEO endorsement/approval date. Agencies should report closing of PPG to Trustee in its Quarterly Report.

GETF/LDCF/SCCF Amount ($)

Project Preparation Activities Implemented Budgeted Amount Spent Amount Amount Committed To date

(5013) Consultants 107,424 137,620 (30,196)

(5014) Contracts 3,750 - 3,750

(5020) Locally Contracted Labour 5,828 246 5,582

(5021) Travel 48,524 43,601 4,923

(5023) Training 25,000 153 24,847

(5024) Expendable Procurement 4,500 1,048 3,452

(5025) Non Expendable Procurement - 2,504 (2,504)

(5028) General Operating Expenses 4,974 9,825 (4,851)

Total 200,000 194,997 5,003

ANNEX D: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS (IF NON-GRANT INSTRUMENT IS USED)

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF Trust Funds or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)

Not applicable

127

ANNEX E: PROJECT MAP(S) AND COORDINATES

Location of project sites (Link to map)

Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai) Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) Coordinates: -17.699667, 14.620011 Coordinates: -18.350310, 16.56231 Coordinates: -18.029228, 20.998244

128

Details of Project Intervention Areas

129

Project Landscapes Figure 8. Project Landscape Locations

Box 3. Project landscape summary profiles > Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) | 602,797.03 hectares

130

Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai) location

This sub-basin one is located in the north-western part of the Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai): Site Features & Land Use Change country and straddles three different administrative regions of The area is characterized by flat lands and slow-moving water patterns. It encompasses an important transboundary water Namibia: Kunene, Omusati and Oshana. The area is well supply scheme that brings water from the Kunene river basin to the region. The canal is used for irrigation and domestic supply connected with road networks linking the main cities in the to thousands of people in Namibia, before being diverted back into Angola to supply also the city of Ondjiva. Small-holds of 5-10 region. The sub-basin drains North-west to south-east into the ha are the norm in cropland areas, but in locations near Rucana (a town of some 2,700 in its urban area), on the northwestern Ekuma River and into the Etosha Pan. edge of the landscape a large Government backed irrigation scheme (Etunda farm) maintains food production commercial farms in some 450ha Population density is high, on the account of small urban areas, but stable. Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai) Population change** Notes on land-use change • Year Density (people per Total The predominant land uses in Sub-basin 1 are grassland (45%), followed by cropland (38%), while only 10% of the surface is tree-covered. The Collect Earth Remote Sensing Assessment showed that land use appears relatively stable within the sub- km²) Population basin, with very limited conversion of areas covered with trees to other uses. It also showed that the site remained largely 1975 8.17 49,236 unaffected by fires, except for in the occasionally burned forest/shrubland in southwestern part of the sub-basin. 1990 12.4 74,736 • The two most tangible changes in land use between 1995 and 2018 were: (i) a 10% increase in the surface of water bodies, is 2000 15.99 96,393 likely due to the tardive effects in water storage linked to the completion in 1990 of the Olushandja Dam on the Etaka River 2015 18.87 113,749 near Oshakati; and (ii) the loss of some 8,200 ha of grasslands, mostly through conversion to cropland. • The Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) is more prone to land degradation than the other sites because of its relative aridity -- Population density is twice as a high as the average for Omsati average rainfall is 200-300mm, while it is 600mm in Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) – and the land’s susceptibility to water erosion region, yet lower than for Oshana region. because of the large transboundary water supply scheme between Namibia and Angola. The participatory Land Degradation Assessment confirmed this (see Box 7) Project Landscapes Figure 8. Project Landscape Locations

131

Box 3. Project landscape summary profiles > Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) | 561,332.24 hectares

132

Sub-basin 2 – (Etosha)– Location

This sub-basin one located in North part of the country, entirely within the Oshikoto region. It includes a portion of the Etosha National Park (the area in green). Private ranges and conservancies are found in the Park’s surroundings. Sub-basin 2 – (Etosha): Site Features & Land Use Change Sub-basin 2 – (Etosha) Population change** The sub-basin drains into the Etosha Pan, where water naturally collects. The region displays abundant wildlife in close association with the flow of the water cycles. Private game ranges and conservancies are found in the Park’s surroundings and Year Density (people per km²) Total Population maintain conservation-oriented businesses, mostly based on tourism. Farms that combine crop fields with cattle ranching in 1975 3.18 17,864 plots common. In these, fencing is done with collected wood or other natural hedges. These demarcated areas are often 1990 5.39 30,251 surrounded by forest land. Paths can be seen between the small holds and are used for human and animal movement. Typical plots are between 2-5 ha in size and use slash and burn field rotation techniques. Population is dense than in other sites. 2000 7.54 42,316 Notes on land-use change 2015 9.92 55,661 • The predominant land uses in Sub-basin 2 are cropland (40%), followed by grassland (38%), while only 10% of the surface is tree-covered. The Collect Earth Remote Sensing Assessment showed that tree-covered areas have increased by 5.7% In the period 2000-2015 population increased by 3.1% per between 1995 and 2018, though this can be attributed to bush encroachment. year in average – the highest rate among all three sites, • In turn, the cropland surface increased by 29.4% and that of grassland decreased by 23.2%. Parts of the site have been but at the same time, displaying the lowest density among affected by fires and other parts preserved. Fire is not an annual phenomenon. them. Yet, population density is twice as a high as the • A large area with more than 100,000 ha (i.e. one fifth of the total area of the sub-basin) is classified as “water bodies”. It average for Oshikoto region. corresponds s to the Etosha salt pan, which does contain water, but not usable because of its very high salt content. In addition, it is located within the Etosha National park, an area of non-consumption of resources.

133

Project Landscapes Figure 8. Project Landscape Locations

Box 3. Project landscape summary profiles > Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) | 295,598.21 hectares

134

Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango) – Location

The sub-basin one is located in the north-eastern part of the country, located along the Okavango river basin. It is included in Kavango East region of Namibia and shares borders with Angola to the north. The region also contains the western half of the Caprivi Strip, a highly touristic area. The sub-basin straddles mostly across Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango): Site Features & Land Use Change two constituencies in Kavango East (Ndyona and Ndonga Linena) and a small The climatic conditions in Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango) milder than in the two other sites: average rainfall is above 600mm and milder average portion of Rundu in the west. Part of the Bwabwata National Park is included in temperatures. The area has a considerable agricultural potential for a variety of crops and organized forestry and agro-forestry schemes. the eastern tip of the landscape. The Government has e.g. stimulated furniture making and other related forest-based industries. Agricultural settlements are mainly situated along the road that follows the river in an east-west axe. Tenure is organized through local conservancies and at least three large Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango) Population change ** irrigation schemes are found within the site – one of which was object of a comprehensive FAO study in 201414F76. Two community Year Density (people per km²) Total Population forests are located just south from the site (Muduva Nyagana and George Mukoya). Settlements are also found within these forest reserves. Agricultural is communal and practiced in communal (shared with some degree of self-governance), but in well-defined family 1975 7.77 22,980 plots of 2-4 ha in size, spatially displayed in a dense and tightly accommodated and organic pattern. Slash and burn techniques, with 1990 11.64 34,394 limited field rotation are a commonly used practice in cropland. Pastoral activities exist (intensified, mostly small livestock and poultry) 2000 14.35 42,417 the activity is not dominant. Access to communal forests has only a few restrictions and light management planning. Notes on land-use change 2015 15.66 46,278 • Predominant are grassland (49%), followed by tree-covered area (24%) and cropland (22%). The Collect Earth Remote Sensing Sub-basin 3 has one of the highest population density of all three sites. The area Assessment showed that land use is less intensive in Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango) than in the other two landscapes. At least 18% of tree- of settlements (artificial surfaces) increased by 55% between 1995 and 2018. This covered area was lost between 1995 and 2018 for croplands, while cropland expanded by 12% and grassland by 4.1%. can be explained by a rapid population growth between 1975 and 2015, when the • The landscape is highly affected by fire, with fires breaking out every year. In peak years of fire in Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) the burned number of inhabitants more than doubled. Growth rate has slowed down, area reached 100,000 ha to 120,000 ha p.a. in a total area of slightly less than 300,000 ha. indicating a more stable resident population, Yet, population density is almost 3.5 • Community forests are used by resident population practically without restrictions. SHARP+ indicated that dwellers have often to pay times as a high as the average for Kavango East and Kavango West regions. a forest use right. it will be important to also monitor the evolution of tree-cover in forest reserve areas just south of the sub-basin.

76 Small-scale irrigation farming system situational analysis in Namibia. Case study from Ndonga Linena Green Scheme, Kavango West Region (http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/327980/, access 18/04/20)

135

SHARP results are summarized in Box 4. The full report is filed separately in Additional Annex X-8, available on-line. Box 4. SHARP+ Results for Omusati, Oshikoto and Kavango East • Location: Omusati (Sub-basin 1), Oshikoto (Sub-basin 2), Kavango East (Sub-basin 3) • No. of HH interviewed: 316 (34% women and 66% non-women led) • Main agricultural activities: Crop production (97%); livestock production (80%) mostly for household consumption. • Crop production: Millet, maize and cowpeas are the dominant crops; 42% of HH do not grow perennials. 56% of farmers have produced their own local seeds and 20% in Omusati depend on government support (mainly millet). Only 12% of farmers transform crops after harvest to increase their market value. • Livestock production: Goats, poultry and cattle are the main species. Droughts have significantly affected the herd sizes. • Tribes: Vassequele and Himba • Access to markets: 89% does not sell any agricultural produce; main barrier being low production rates. Agricultural certification schemes are absent. • Trees: 92% has trees on farmland and 63% of HH claim a decline of farm trees and productivity due to severe droughts. 67% has access to forests. 81% mentioned forests are degraded. • Main use of forest trees: Charcoal extraction (76%), timber for construction (65%), food (21%), feed (13%). • Energy sources: Fuelwood (97% for HH) which is extracted without any regulation in 95% of the cases. Diesel and Animal power (42% and 61% for agriculture). • Shocks: Droughts (85%) and strong winds (17%). 69% of HH did not use any coping strategy. 86% of farmers were severely affected by pests; only 49% took any measure to manage these. • Main impacts: productivity loss, food insecurity and dead of livestock. • Community-based groups: 73% of HH, do not have access to CBOs (particularly in Omusati and Oshikoto). 6% of farmers are part of FFS and 3% of watershed management groups. • Access to information: 50% of HH have access to weather info; 65% on extreme events; 11% on pest outbreaks; and 34% on adaptation practices. 85% of farmers are not aware about ongoing policies related to CCA and sustainable agriculture. Forest management initiatives were recognized by 25% of HH. • Nutrition: low HDDS in 85% of HH (1 to 3 food items consumed in the last 24 hrs). 83% of women and 86% of men. Diets are predominantly based on cereals/grains. • Cereal banks (community): 1% of HH with access • Granaries (HH): 75% of HH with granaries, 3% stocks food throughout the year

Aspects with low resilience levels to highlight:

• Low diversification of income sources, including non-farm income • Limited access to markets • Exposure to shocks and low capacity to respond and adapt • Low diet diversification (HDDS) • Strong dependence on charcoal as main energy source • Limited use of SLM to respond to declining soil/land quality and fertility • Limited adoption of water conservation practices • Absence of CBOs aiming to improve resource management and bargaining power

136

Box 5. Land Degradation Assessment Overview Baseline Site (1) Omusati (14,500 ha) | Land Degradation Assessment Summary

[PROFILE:] Types of land degradation from the same groups as soil erosion apply, namely by water and wind, as well as biological degradation – all of which were identified in both LUS (Cropland-Forest and Forest Cropland—the assessment does not apply to water bodies). In both LUSs it was specified that prolonged standing water has led to trees dying. However, relatively small proportions of the areas seem to be considered affected by degradation (10-20 %) and in the forest-cropland LUS degradation is considered to be stable. This may imply that this area could be a land degradation bright spot with potentially large areas where degradation could be avoided through the implementation of appropriate SLM/SFM practices, while simultaneously reducing existing degradation. This corresponds well with UNCCD land degradation change map, which indicates that only a small proportion of Phase 1 area has active degradation. [CONSERVATION MEASURES:] Few SLM/SFM practices currently implemented in the area. Conservation agriculture is implemented but its effectiveness not specified. Storm water/road runoff control was indicated to occur in t forest-cropland LUS, but with very poor effectiveness. Cropland-forest Forest-cropland Land degradation - Soil erosion by water, especially loss of topsoil - Soil erosion by water: gully erosion types and status - Soil erosion by wind - Soil erosion by wind - Biological degradation: water standing for a long - Biological degradation: trees dying due to standing time caused trees to die water; small bushes dying due to low water table Degradation rate - Active - Stable Causes of land DIRECT CAUSES DIRECT CAUSES degradation - [Same as for forest-cropland] - Over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic or industrial use - Natural causes - Overgrazing INDIRECT CAUSES INDIRECT - Inputs and infrastructure No indirect causes were identified - Population pressure, Poverty/wealth - Education, awareness, access to knowledge and support services SLM/SFM practices - Conservation agriculture / mulching (CA): - Storm water control, road runoff (SC): currently - No removal of crop residue by digging out mahangu - A temporary canal was dug to transport water from implemented straw by some people (only a few people do not dig the land to the Olushandja dam. out the mahangu straw) - People relocated from flooded area to dry land area

137

Baseline Site (2) Oshikoto (32,500 ha) | Land Degradation Assessment Summary

[PROFILE:] Land degradation is more extensive in Oshikoto with 30-80% of LUSs affected by various types of degradation. The most extensive land degradation types are bush encroachment in the cattle-forest LUS (60%), soil erosion by wind in croplands (70%), and biological degradation resulting from firewood collection and cutting trees for fodder in the forest LUS (80%). All degradation is considered to be currently active and moderate to strong, except in the forest LUS where the biological degradation is considered extreme. As a result, the Oshikoto area is considered a hotspot for the reduction of land degradation through appropriate SLM/SFM practices. The perception amongst stakeholders of active land degradation is higher than what is projected from the UNCCD LD change analysis [CONSERVATION MEASURES:] A core focus for this site should be on forests, followed by cropland. For forest, efforts should be avoiding wild-fires. The proximity to the Etosha National Part strengthen some of these measures. The area selected as baseline site is located outside of the boudaries of Etosha National Park, but within its buffer zone, hence covered by the the Park’s management Plan. The proposal for establishing community conservancies should be encoraged, if land tenure hurdles can be overcome. Cropland Cattle-forest Forest Land - Soil erosion by water, - Soil erosion by water, - Soil erosion by water: gully degradation especially gully erosion especially loss of topsoil erosion types and - Soil erosion by wind - Soil erosion by wind - Soil erosion by wind status - Physical soil deterioration: - Biological degradation: - Biological degradation: compaction water standing for a long Trees dying due to standing - Biological degradation: Pests time caused trees to die water; Small bushes are like crickets have increased dying due to the low (deep) - Water degradation water table Degradation - Active - Active - Active rate

138

Causes of land DIRECT CAUSES DIRECT CAUSES DIRECT CAUSES degradation - Improper soil management - Overgrazing - Overgrazing - Inappropriate crop and rangeland - Inappropriate crop and - Urbanization and management rangeland management: Mainly infrastructure development - Cutting of vegetation grazers in farmland (u): People being pushed off of their areas because of town development (the town is expanding, so people cut trees around the town and they can’t farm there anymore. Farmers are forced to create new agricultural homesteads since their old homesteads are now in town. INDIRECT CAUSES INDIRECT CAUSES INDIRECT CAUSES - Lack of rain - Lack of supervision by farm - Land tenure: lack of - Shortage of food (people tend to owners employment eat their reserve seeds) - Lack of veld fire due to - Population pressure overgrazing (Not enough fires (controlled fires) to control the bushes as livestock are being kept in the area) SLM/SFM Nothing is currently done to address Conservation agriculture / Conservation of natural practices bush encroachment mulching (CA): biodiversity (CO): currently - Ripping – MAWLR provides - Awareness implemented rippers to farmers - Establishment of the - Cover crop roots after weed conservancy in a larger project removal area - Collecting soil from water - Law enforcement points to place in fields – the soil contains a lot of manure which acts as fertilizer.

Site 2 Ohsikoto -- Notes from the field: Concerning the “lack of supervision by farm owners”, the main reason could be:

- Livestock owners are “weekend farmers”, keeping the animals for potential additional income and traditional/cultural values. - The herd owners do not see the need to make major investments in the herd management as the livestock is are not a major income generator - Unqualified staff are therefore used to manage cattle herds. The herders do not have the grazing land management knowledge or the authority to discuss/decide on land degradation related actions with herd owners. - What can the project do? - Note: actions mentioned below have been included/suggested as activities in the project document. - Land degradation awareness creation: produce maps indicating different types of land degradation assessment for the administrative regions. Present and discuss these maps with the Regional Council, Traditional Authorities, MEFT, MALWR and any relevant stakeholders. - Establish local units in the project related regional councils to produce periodic land degradation assessment maps (i.e. using Collect Earth software).

139

Baseline Site (3) Kavango East (8,500 ha) | Land Deg Assessment Summary*

[*] A slightly different method from that of Collect Earth was used here, building on national land use data from 2016. [PROFILE:] Biological degradation, specifically the loss of habitats, bush densification and encroachment, occurs in 50% of the area. The loss of vegetation due to cultivation fields expansion over utilization of vegetation for domestic use is clearly visible in the project site. The areas where cultivation fields occur have the highest decrease in land productivity (vegetation productivity over time in these areas). There are also soil water erosion, especially due to poor soil management, occurring along the river. Large scale vegetation loss is the most active form of land degradation happening in the area requiring urgent action to reduce and eventually halt it. Cropland Forest Mixed Land degradation - Biological degradation: a) Loss of habitats, b) Bush densification, c) Bush encroachment types and status - Physical soil deterioration: a) Compaction, b) Loss of bio-productive function due to sand mining - Soil erosion by water: a) Loss of topsoil, b) Gully erosion, c) Riverbank erosion Degradation rate - Biological degradation = Active - Physical soil deterioration = Stable - Soil erosion by water = Stable Causes of land DIRECT CAUSES degradation - Biological degradation: a) Deforestation and removal of natural vegetation, b) Over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use - Physical soil deterioration: a) Urbanization and infrastructure development, b) Natural causes, such as floods and droughts - Soil erosion by water: a) Soil management – Poor, b) Crop and Rangeland management - Poor INDIRECT CAUSES - Biological degradation: a) Land tenure, b) Population pressure - Physical soil deterioration: a) Poverty, b) Labour availability - Soil erosion by water: a) Poverty, b) Inputs and infrastructure SLM/SFM practices - Waste water management: Sewage water management currently - Water quality improvement: Water pipes from lodges, Water from NamWater implemented - Manuring/composting/nutrient 140

Maps for Intervention Areas in Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai)

A1) Forest and Woodlands - Ruacana Community Forest + Uukolonkadhi Community Forest

B1) Cropland – Uukolonkadhi Communal Conservancy

141

Maps for Intervention Areas in Sub-basin 2 – (Etosha)

B2) Cropland - Omuthiya peri-urban croplands

C1) Rangeland/Grazing Land - Rangeland area North from Etosha (B1 road)

142

Maps for Intervention Areas in Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango)

A2) Forest and Woodlands - George Mukoya and Muduva Nyangana Community Forests

B1) Cropland – Uukolonkadhi Communal Conservancy

143

Table 1 Priority Project Interventions in Target Landscapes Note: Interventions are listed by land use system (LUS) for each target landscape and their extent can be compared with what was originally proposed in the IP GCP concept (last column). Their locations are shown in the above set of maps included in this Annex. A summary of this Table 1 is provided in the main text of the Project Document under Outcome 2.1 (Table 5), preceded in Table 4 by statistics on the total areas of interventions by land-use system for each landscape. # Sub-basin Focused Land Context Metrics (t0) Decisions/interventions Metrics (t1) Gains vs Losses IP Global Child Project Land Use Use Systems Concept Sub-basin 1 – (Kunene-Cuvelai) 1 Forest and A1. Ruacana area Land area: Land cover: Forest Active forest management and forest protection in Land cover: Forest Gain 85,000 ha in SFM Contribution to country LDN Woodlands (mixed) + 85,000 ha and sparse Uukolonkhadhi Community Forest and forests around and sparse target: by 2030.improve Uukolonkadhi vegetation Ruacana Village. vegetation Gain 85,000 ha in productivity of 414,300ha of Community Use: Community Assisted natural regeneration in 40,000 ha improved land forest currently showing Forest Productivity: Productivity: Stable management early signs of declining forest Sustainable charcoal production in 10,000 ha Declining productivity Improving existing plans of forest conservancies and Status: Declining in Gain 85,000 ha under IP GCP concept target: productivity, crop (NPP: 1923 enforcing it to reclaim irregular cropland. 85,000 ha under improved kg*C/m^2 ) improved land-use plans encroachment. Improved LU plans for 85,000 ha practices.

2 Cropland B1. Uukolonkadhi Land area: Land cover: Cropland intensification: Land cover: Rainfed Gain 50,000 ha planted Contribution to LDN target: Communal 105,000 ha cropland, - Sustainable intensification of agriculture by crop cropland (minimum with improved seeds by 2035 improve Conservancy and (cropland in grassland and diversification (link to CSB). tillage, organic Gain 70,000 ha of crops productivity of 1,484,900 ha Ruacana area Conservancy and fragmented forest - Diversification: Marula Value Chain – preserves trees fertilizer, improved enhanced with trees for of cropland.

(mixed) Ruacana area) Productivity: Early - 50,000 ha receiving improved seeds seeds, crop rotation) multi-purpose IP GCP concept target: - 70,000 ha planted with NUS resistant to drought signs of decline Productivity: Stable 105,000 ha of improved Use: Community Land area: Gain 20,000 ha of green Conservancy (NPP: XX kg*C/m^2) fencing system practices (excluding XXX seedlings of tree species distributed. protected areas) Status: productivity implemented on farms. declining, bush encroachment 3 Rangeland/ C2. Land area: Land cover: Sustainable grazing management introduced to 5,000 ha Land cover: Gain 5,000 ha in Contribution to country LDN Grazing Land Ruacana area 5,000 ha (approx.) cropland, cropland, grassland improved land target: by 2040 improve (mixed) used for grazing grassland and and fragmented management productivity of 10,401,300 fragmented forest forest ha Productivity: Early Productivity: stable Gain 5,000 ha in avoided signs of decline forest conversion into grazing lands and croplands.

144

Sub-basin 2 – (Etosha) 4 Cropland B2. Omuthiya Land area: Land cover: Cropland intensification: Land cover: Rainfed Gain 40,000 ha planted Contribution to country LDN peri-urban 40,000 ha Rainfed cropland - Sustainable intensification of agriculture by e.g. crop cropland (minimum with improved seeds target: by 2035 improve croplands (no fertilizer, ) diversification (link to CSB). tillage, organic productivity of 1,484,900 ha - Avoid any further expansion of croplands in the Etosha fertilizer, improved Gain 10,000 ha of crops of cropland. Productivity: Early Park’s buffer Zone by a tighter regulation and seeds, crop rotation) enhanced with trees for IP GCP concept target: signs of decline enforcement against irregular settlements in King multi-purpose 40,000 ha under improved Nehele Communal Conservancy Productivity: Stable practices (excluding (NPP: XX 40,000 ha receiving improved seeds Gain 30,000 ha of green protected areas) kg*C/m^2 ) 30,000 ha planted with NUS resistant to drought (NPP: XX kg*C/m^2) fencing implemented on farms.

5 Rangeland/ C1. Rangeland Land area: Land cover: Range Management (Kavango East 2015 IRLUP): Land cover: Gain 10,000 ha in Contribution to country LDN Grazing Land area North from 10,000 ha Grasslands and - Establish “buffer zones” on Small Scale Commercial Farms Grasslands and improved land target: by 2040 improve Etosha (B1 road) Fragmented forest (SSCF) surrounding National Park by creation of Fragmented forest management productivity of 10,401,300 conservancies and wildlife-based activities. Farmers to Productivity: Stable Gain 1,000 ha in avoided ha of shrubs, grasslands and Productivity: Early work collectively: manage land for wildlife (NPP: XX kg*C/m^2) forest conversion into sparsely vegetated areas signs of decline - Holistic range management programs within SSCF grazing lands and currently showing signs of surrounding national parks croplands. declining productivity. (NPP: XX - Rotation grazing and overstocking prevention measures in Gain 3,000 in land-use IP GCP concept target: kg*C/m^2 ) collaboration with MAWLR’s Beef Value Chain 10,000 ha under improved Development in Northern Communal Areas plans focused on grazing rotation practices (excluding Sustainable grazing management introduced to 5,000 ha protected areas). 1,000 ha of set aside pastureland Sub-basin 3 – (Okavango) 6 Forest and A2. George Land area: 115,200 Grassland, Improving existing plans of the forest conservancies and Grassland, Gain 80,000 ha in SFM Contribution to country LDN Woodlands Mukoya and ha fragmented forest enforcing them through protection and SFM. The area will fragmented forest target: Improve productivity Muduva Productivity: include a strip near Katere Village. Productivity: stable Gain 115,000 ha in of 414,300 ha of forest by Nyangana declining Improved land-use plans for 115,000 ha improved land 2030. Currently showing Community (NPP: XX kg*C/m^2) management early signs of declining (NPP: XX Forest Management and forest protection: Forests - Small Scale Farms within the Muduva Nyangana Gain 115,000 ha under productivity. kg*C/m^2 ) Conservancy and George Mukoya Conservancy improved LU plans PIF Project target: 115,000 - Farms are to be de-gazetted ha under improved - Farms not to fall within the Muduva Nyangana practices Conservancy Small Scale Commercial Farms IP GCP concept target: 200 Assisted natural regeneration in 80,000 ha ha of land restored: Forest restoration: - Near riverbanks in the Okavango basin: Interim targets for restoration could sum up 200 ha within various fragments of land (mostly on farm) in areas around Nyondo, Nyangana and Ndiyondo localities.

145

Further details about priority project interventions in target landscapes The generation of global environmental benefits (GEBs) by the Project will be achieved through the sustainable management of drylands landscapes in a direct and indirect manner. The indirect management will be delivered through the management of the entire landscapes / sub-basins: Table 2. Breakdown of project intervention targets (area and beneficiaries) per project landscape Areas and their break down Surface Project intervention Potential population of (per RS assessment) levels direct project beneficiaries* (estimates) 5,500 people (at least 40% Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) 602,797 ha women) Refer to Component 2 2,500 people (at least 40% Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) 561,332 ha interventions on the women) ground 2,000 people (at least 40% Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) 295,598 ha women) 1,459,727 ha Target for zoning and // [a] TOTAL land in all land integrated planning at classes and LUS the wider landscape level [b] Of which, land classified as: 106,855 ha Areas outside the // ‘Water bodies’, ‘Other land’, targeted productive land ‘Artificial surfaces’ and uses within the ‘Wetlands’ landscapes [c] Of which lad classified as Bwabwata National Park // Areas outside the Protected Areas (PAs), or non- (Kavango): 35,125 ha targeted productive land production parts of the Etosha RAMSAR site and uses within the landscapes (community National Park (Etosha): landscapes conservancies and forests) 119,400 ha77 Target for macro [a – b - c] TOTAL (production integrated planning for 10,000 people (at least 1,198,347 ha systems landscapes) production systems 40% women) landscapes** [*] The potential beneficiary population has been estimated as corresponding to 5% of the total population, which is referred to in Project Landscapes, Baseline Sites and Intervention Areas (Box 3), extrapolated to 2020). Figures are consistent with SHARP+ results. The indirect population is approximately 240,000 ha across all Sub-basins. [**] Micro-integrated planning would take place in a smaller area, which is presented in Table . Productive land under different Land-use systems (LUS) will come under direct improved management within targeted landscapes through the adoption of SLM and SFM techniques and by embracing LDN as a long-term goal. A detailed breakdown of target area per SLM/SFM intervention is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Area of land under improved management per LUS LUS & hectarage TOTAL land under indicatively improved management = 210,200 ha (for the GEF TF Core Indicator) Break-down: LUS: FOREST / WOODLAND = 200,200 ha of forest under improved management FOREST / WOODLAND SFM: The project will contribute to improved productivity of production forests in at least under SFM: 200,200 ha, in particular within existing community forests that showing decline in the sub- (a+b+c+d+e) = 200,200 ha basins. A possible break-down for forest will be as follows: Active forest Active forest management: improved productivity of forests will apply to approx. 130,000 management target ha, which can indicatively be achieved in: (a) Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) – 80,000 ha, within (a + b) = 130,000 ha the Community Forests of Hans Kanyinga and Muduva Nyangana and the Communal Conservancy George Mukoya, which still harbor a relatively intact forest patches; and (b) Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) this will include 50,000 ha in Uukolonkadhi Community Forest;

77 These numbers refer to parts of the PAs located within the project landscapes NOT their entire area. 146

LUS & hectarage TOTAL land under indicatively improved management = 210,200 ha (for the GEF TF Core Indicator) Break-down: Forest protection target Avoiding conversion of tree covered areas through community-based enforcement of (c + d) = 70,000 ha protective land use (improved LU plans for the entire area of the conservancies): in some 70,000 ha, which can indicatively be achieved in: (c) Sub-basin 3 (Kavango) through enforcing improved LU plans and conserving selected parts of the Hans Kanyinga and Muduva Nyangana community forests ; and (d) in Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai), by focusing on better conservation of selected parts of the Uukolonkadhi Community Forest. In both cases this will involve fire suppression and improved control of tenure by land-use planners and land management authorities. Forest restoration target Reforestation: Fine scale land-use planning across all sub-basins will help identify (e) = 200 ha opportunities for cost-effective reforestation. For now, the best opportunities for ecosystem restoration seem to be (e) near riverbanks in the Okavango basin. Interim targets for restoration could sum up 200 ha within various fragments of land (mostly on farm) in areas around Nyondo, Nyangana and Ndiyondo localities within Sub-basin 3 (Okavango). LUS CROPLAND = 145,000 ha under improved management CSA = 145,000 ha Cropland areas applying SLM / climate smart agriculture techniques (CSA): An area of approximately 140,000 ha (divided across Kunene-Cuvelai (105,000 ha) and Etosha sub- basins (40,000 ha)) will be indicatively targeted for improved management and productivity. GRASSLAND = 15,000 ha under improved management SLM in pastoral systems = Rangeland areas applying SLM: Approx. 15,000 ha of primarily grasslands used for pasture, 15,000 ha and where land and resources are showing decline due to overgrazing will count on improved management. At least 15,000 ha of this area will be divided between Sub-basin 2 (Etosha – 10,000 ha) and Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai (5,000 ha)). In Sub-basin 1, pastoral land is part of a mixed land uses in Ruacana Village area, while in Etosha, the 10,000 ha is a strip of land at the Northern border of Etosha National Park.

147

ANNEX F: GEF TF / LDCF/ SCCF CORE INDICATOR WORKSHEET

Core Terrestrial protected areas created or under improved management for (Hectares) Indicator 1 conservation and sustainable use Hectares (1.1+1.2) Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Terrestrial protected areas newly created 1.1 Name of Hectares WDPA Protected IUCN category Expected Achieved ID Area PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) Sum Indicator Terrestrial protected areas under improved management effectiveness 1.2 Name of METT Score WDPA IUCN Protected Hectares Baseline Achieved ID category Area Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) Sum Core Marine protected areas created or under improved management for (Hectares) Indicator 2 conservation and sustainable use Hectares (2.1+2.2) Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Marine protected areas newly created 2.1 Name of Hectares WDPA Protected IUCN category Expected Achieved ID Area PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) Sum Indicator Marine protected areas under improved management effectiveness 2.2 Name of METT Score WDPA IUCN Protected Hectares Baseline Achieved ID category Area PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) Sum Core Area of land restored (Hectares) Indicator 3 Hectares (3.1+3.2+3.3+3.4) Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 42,760ha 9,288ha Indicator Area of degraded agricultural land restored 3.1 Hectares 148

Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 4,900ha

Indicator Area of forest and forest land restored 3.2 Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 42,760ha 4388ha

Indicator Area of natural grass and shrublands restored 3.3 Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Area of wetlands (including estuaries, mangroves) restored 3.4 Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Core Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding (Hectares) Indicator 4 protected areas) Hectares (4.1+4.2+4.3+4.4) Expected Expected PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 80,000ha 623,782ha Indicator Area of landscapes under improved management to benefit biodiversity 4.1 Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 0

Indicator Area of landscapes that meet national or international third-party certification 4.2 that incorporates biodiversity considerations Third party certification(s): Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Area of landscapes under sustainable land management in production systems 4.3 Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 80,000ha 623,782ha

Indicator Area of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) loss avoided 4.4 Include documentation that justifies HCVF Hectares Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE 149

Core Area of marine habitat under improved practices to benefit biodiversity (Hectares) Indicator 5 Indicator Number of fisheries that meet national or international third-party certification 5.1 that incorporates biodiversity considerations Third party certification(s): Number Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Number of large marine ecosystems (LMEs) with reduced pollution and 5.2 hypoxial Number Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Amount of Marine Litter Avoided 5.3 Metric Tons Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Core Greenhouse gas emission mitigated (Metric tons Indicator 6 of CO₂e ) Expected metric tons of CO₂e (6.1+6.2) PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE Expected CO2e (direct) 5,700,000 1,301,476 Expected CO2e (indirect) Indicator Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided in the AFOLU sector 6.1 Expected metric tons of CO₂e PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE Expected CO2e (direct) Expected CO2e (indirect) Anticipated start year of accounting Duration of accounting Indicator Emissions avoided Outside AFOLU 6.2 Expected metric tons of CO₂e Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE Expected CO2e (direct) Expected CO2e (indirect) Anticipated start year of accounting Duration of accounting Indicator Energy saved 6.3 MJ Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

150

Indicator Increase in installed renewable energy capacity per technology 6.4 Capacity (MW) Technology Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) Core Number of shared water ecosystems (fresh or marine) under new or (Number) Indicator 7 improved cooperative management Indicator Level of Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Program 7.1 (TDA/SAP) formulation and implementation Shared water Rating (scale 1-4) ecosystem PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Level of Regional Legal Agreements and Regional Management Institutions to 7.2 support its implementation Shared water Rating (scale 1-4) ecosystem PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Level of National/Local reforms and active participation of Inter-Ministerial 7.3 Committees Shared water Rating (scale 1-4) ecosystem PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Level of engagement in IWLEARN through participation and delivery of key 7.4 products Rating (scale 1-4) Shared water Rating Rating ecosystem PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Core Globally over-exploited fisheries Moved to more sustainable levels (Metric Indicator 8 Tons) Fishery Details Metric Tons PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Core Reduction, disposal/destruction, phase out, elimination and avoidance of (Metric Indicator 9 chemicals of global concern and their waste in the environment and in Tons) processes, materials and products Metric Tons (9.1+9.2+9.3) Expected Achieved PIF stage PIF stage MTR TE

Indicator Solid and liquid Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) removed or disposed 9.1 (POPs type) Metric Tons POPs type Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) Indicator Quantity of mercury reduced 9.2 Metric Tons Expected Achieved 151

PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFC) Reduced/Phased out 9.3 Metric Tons Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Number of countries with legislation and policy implemented to control 9.4 chemicals and waste Number of Countries Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Number of low-chemical/non-chemical systems implemented particularly in 9.5 food production, manufacturing and cities Number Technology Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Quantity of POPs/Mercury containing materials and products directly avoided 9.6 Metric Tons Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement PIF stage Endorsement

Core Reduction, avoidance of emissions of POPs to air from point and non-point (grams of Indicator sources toxic 10 equivalent gTEQ) Indicator Number of countries with legislation and policy implemented to control 10.1 emissions of POPs to air Number of Countries Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Indicator Number of emission control technologies/practices implemented 10.2 Number Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE

Core Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of (Number) Indicator GEF investment 11 Number Expected Achieved PIF stage Endorsement MTR TE Female 4,000 4,000 Male 6,000 6,000 Total 10,000 10,000

152

ANNEX G: GEF PROJECT TAXONOMY WORKSHEET

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Influencing models Transform policy and regulatory environments Strengthen institutional capacity and decision- making Convene multi- stakeholder alliances Demonstrate innovative approaches Deploy innovative financial instruments Stakeholders Indigenous Peoples Private Sector Capital providers Financial intermediaries and market facilitators Large corporations SMEs Individuals/Entrepreneurs Non-Grant Pilot Project Reflow Beneficiaries Local Communities Civil Society Community Based Organization Non-Governmental Organization Academia Trade Unions and Workers Unions Type of Engagement Information Dissemination Partnership Consultation Participation Communications Awareness Raising Education Public Campaigns Behavior Change Capacity, Knowledge and Research Enabling Activities Capacity Development Knowledge Generation and Exchange Targeted Research Learning Theory of Change Adaptive Management Indicators to Measure Change Innovation Knowledge and Learning Knowledge Management Innovation Capacity Development Learning Stakeholder Engagement Plan

153

Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Beneficiaries Women groups Sex-disaggregated indicators Gender-sensitive indicators Gender results areas Access and control over natural resources Participation and leadership Access to benefits and services Capacity development Awareness raising Knowledge generation Focal Areas/Theme Integrated Programs Commodity Supply Chains ( 78 Good Growth Partnership) Sustainable Commodities Production Deforestation-free Sourcing Financial Screening Tools High Conservation Value Forests High Carbon Stocks Forests Soybean Supply Chain Oil Palm Supply Chain Beef Supply Chain Smallholder Farmers Adaptive Management Food Security in Sub-Sahara Africa Resilience (climate and shocks) Sustainable Production Systems Agroecosystems Land and Soil Health Diversified Farming Integrated Land and Water Management Smallholder Farming Small and Medium Enterprises Crop Genetic Diversity Food Value Chains Gender Dimensions Multi-stakeholder Platforms Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Sustainable Food Systems Landscape Restoration Sustainable Commodity Production Comprehensive Land Use Planning Integrated Landscapes Food Value Chains Deforestation-free Sourcing Smallholder Farmers Sustainable Cities Integrated urban planning Urban sustainability framework Transport and Mobility Buildings Municipal waste management Green space Urban Biodiversity Urban Food Systems Energy efficiency

154

Municipal Financing Global Platform for Sustainable Cities Urban Resilience Biodiversity Protected Areas and Landscapes Terrestrial Protected Areas Coastal and Marine Protected Areas Productive Landscapes Productive Seascapes Community Based Natural Resource Management Mainstreaming Extractive Industries (oil, gas, mining) Forestry (Including HCVF and REDD+) Tourism Agriculture & agrobiodiversity Fisheries Infrastructure Certification (National Standards) Certification (International Standards) Species Illegal Wildlife Trade Threatened Species Wildlife for Sustainable Development Crop Wild Relatives Plant Genetic Resources Animal Genetic Resources Livestock Wild Relatives Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Biomes Mangroves Coral Reefs Sea Grasses Wetlands Rivers Lakes Tropical Rain Forests Tropical Dry Forests Temperate Forests Grasslands Paramo Desert Financial and Accounting Payment for Ecosystem Services Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting Conservation Trust Funds Conservation Finance Supplementary Protocol to the CBD Biosafety Access to Genetic Resources Benefit Sharing Forests Forest and Landscape Restoration REDD/REDD+ Forest Amazon Congo Drylands Land Degradation Sustainable Land Management Restoration and Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands Ecosystem Approach Integrated and Cross-sectoral approach Community-Based NRM Sustainable Livelihoods Income Generating Activities

155

Sustainable Agriculture Sustainable Pasture Management Sustainable Forest/Woodland Management Improved Soil and Water Management Techniques Sustainable Fire Management Drought Mitigation/Early Warning Land Degradation Neutrality Land Productivity Land Cover and Land cover change Carbon stocks above or below ground Food Security International Waters Ship Coastal Freshwater Aquifer River Basin Lake Basin Learning Fisheries Persistent toxic substances SIDS : Small Island Dev States Targeted Research Pollution Persistent toxic substances Plastics Nutrient pollution from all sectors except wastewater Nutrient pollution from Wastewater Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Plan preparation Strategic Action Plan Implementation Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Large Marine Ecosystems Private Sector Aquaculture Marine Protected Area Biomes Mangrove Coral Reefs Seagrasses Polar Ecosystems Constructed Wetlands Chemicals and Waste Mercury Artisanal and Scale Gold Mining Coal Fired Power Plants Coal Fired Industrial Boilers Cement Non-Ferrous Metals Production Ozone Persistent Organic Pollutants Unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutants Sound Management of chemicals and Waste Waste Management Hazardous Waste Management Industrial Waste e-Waste Emissions Disposal New Persistent Organic Pollutants Polychlorinated Biphenyls Plastics Eco-Efficiency 156

Pesticides DDT - Vector Management DDT - Other Industrial Emissions Open Burning Best Available Technology / Best Environmental Practices Green Chemistry Climate Change Climate Change Adaptation Climate Finance Least Developed Countries Small Island Developing States Disaster Risk Management Sea-level rise Climate Resilience Climate information Ecosystem-based Adaptation Adaptation Tech Transfer National Adaptation Programme of Action National Adaptation Plan Mainstreaming Adaptation Private Sector Innovation Complementarity Community-based Adaptation Livelihoods Climate Change Mitigation Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Use Energy Efficiency Sustainable Urban Systems and Transport Technology Transfer Renewable Energy Financing Enabling Activities Technology Transfer Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer Climate Technology Centre & Network (CTCN) Endogenous technology Technology Needs Assessment Adaptation Tech Transfer United Nations Framework on Climate Change Nationally Determined Contribution

157

ANNEX H: WORK PLAN (INDICATIVE)

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Activities Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Outcome 1.1) Strengthened and harmonized policy, regulatory and planning frameworks for LDN Output # 1.1.1) A Spatial Planning Lab is established within MINAMB’s GABAC with a core mandate for developing and managing a decision-support system that focuses on landscape level planning for LDN Logistical support to SLM Committee: funding provision - communication, software, transportation, venues, catering Logistical support to SLM Committee: technical inputs into meeting agenda, preparation of materials Stakeholder workshops: monitoring at PY1, mid-term, closing Land Management Committees/working groups revival: short study on status of Land Management Committees in project landscapes Land Management Committees/working groups revival: stakeholder consultations for procurement of members of LMCs. The consultations will include conservancies Land Management Committees/working groups revival: inception meetings Land Management Committees/working groups revival: provision of funding for support of the operations Output # 1.1.2) A participatory and technically oriented spatial planning exercise is conducted for selected Land Management Units (LMUs) that are targeted by the Project at two different scales with the aim of incorporating sustainability criteria into land-use management: (a) at the level of Micro-Sites; and (b) at the level of the Wider Landscapes Multi-stakeholder (land users, government, legislators, policy advisors and local groups) consultations for frameworks identification (PY1) Revision of relevant frameworks with the focus on selected landscapes for LDN mainstreaming Stakeholder workshop: validation of the updated frameworks Recruitment of a consultancy frim - conflict resolution advisory to communities (land tenure issues) at PY1, mid-term and closing Data collection and producing of an assessment report on existing tenure and rights including common accessed resources Training program for targeted communitites and institutions on land tenure matters including adaptation, planning, risk management, negotiation skills, gender inclusion Rolling negotiations support through project duration Support ot the development of community environmental management plans for community land governance Revision of local bylaws for mainstreaming of SLM and SFM in a participatory manner and in alignment with national policy revision Stakeholder consultations for validation of revised bylaws and community environmental management plans in the communities Outcome 1.2) Cross-sectoral integrated landscape-level land use planning for LDN applied Output # 1.2.1) The functions and technical capacities of the LDN Committee will be strengthened for an improved cross-sectoral, intra- and inter-institutional coordination, including herein the capacity of its individual members Updated baseline study: LD assessment Updated sites selection assessment Regional stakeholder workshop: ILAM refinement and stakeholder validation of updated ILAM toolbox assessments (part of this workshop will be validation of gender mainstreaming methods into selected practices - foundational activity (iii)) Stakeholder consultations every three months during PY1 and every six months in PY2,3,4 and 5 for monitoring and validation Developing action plan on ILAM mainstreaming into national frameworks and processes Output # 1.2.2) Local organizational structures within both the Wider Landscapes and in Micro-Sites will be strengthened in view of improve land use management on sites A set of sectoral surveys identifying potential partnerships Finance access gaps-specific CNA in the landscapes Recruitment of a company for conducting a training program on finance access at landscape level (to be specified as a result of the CNA)

158

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Output # 1.2.3) Under the supervision of the LDN Committee, an exercise of landscape zoning for the two Wider Landscapes as distinct LMUs will be conducted, in view of simultaneously defining priorities for management and for the project’s upscaling targets Harmonized ILUP development planning (desk-based studies of existing IRLUPS, applicable results of ILAM, stakeholders mapping etc.) Participatory development of harmonized ILUPs for the landscapes Developing action plans for each landscape integrating planning with its implementation Stakeholder validation workshops in the landscapes Stakeholder workshops at mid-term and closing: monitoring implementation of the ILUPs Travel for PMU members "On the job" training program for tergeted stakeholders (incl. SLM Committee members) covering using remote sensing for supporting the sustainable management planning including elements of ILAM toolbox and decision-support products of MRU at UNAM Travel Budget for International consultants Outcome 2.1) Wide uptake and application of SLM/SFM practices in target landscapes following priorities actions of the ILUPs Output # 2.1.1) FFSs, FFF and CSB programs are rolled out in project sites with FAO support in view of enhancing land productivity, generating GEBs and other co-benefits through specialized and tailored agronomic know-how regarding SLM, SFM and CSA practices, and fostering innovation and gender equality within communities and at farm level. Development of proposals of gender sensitive SLM/SFM practices in collaboration with relevant women working groups and associations Stakeholder workshop mid-term and closing - monitoring of results of gender mainstreaming, updating gender sensitive practices - if necessary Basket SFM Activity on the ground - sustainable forest management: Sub-activity (i): SFM training program targeting relevant stakeholders in Sub-basin 1 and Sub-basin 3 Sub-activity (ii): Assisted forest regeneration in Sub-basin 1 and Sub-basin 3 Sub-activity (iii): Forest restoration in 200 ha in Sub-basin 3 Sub-activity (iv): Technical support/provision of funding to sustainable charcoal production Rolling sub-activity (i): negotiations support aimed at removing of irregular cropland Basket SLM Activity on the ground - sustainable cropland intensification (crop diversification, rotation, distribution of drought-resistant seeds): Sub-activity (i): SLM training program targeting relevant stakeholders in Sub-basin 1 and Sub-basin 2 Sub-activity (ii): agroforestry interventions in Sub-basin 1 and Sub-basin 2 Basket Sustainabe Rangeland Management Activity on the ground - range management: Sub-activity (i): Sustainable Rangeland and Grazing Management training program targeting relevant stakeholders in Sub-basin 2 Sub-activity (ii): Rotational grazing interventions in Sub-basin 1 (mixed area) and Sub-basin 2 Support to basket Activities: Logistical support to Basket activities on the ground (e.g. transportation, communication, workshops etc.) Support to Basket Activities: progress monitoring workshops at PY1,2,3,4,5. Recruitment of a consulting company– improving existing LU plans in conservancies Stakeholder workshop: validation of improved LU plans Output # 2.1.2) A training program aimed at improving skills in SLM, SFM and CSA practices is rolled out using and tailoring the tools for FFS, FFF and CSB, in view of national ownership and the program’s sustainability Applying the Miombo Cluster Assessments as a part of ILAM toolbox at mid-term and project end to the baseline sites. Stakeholder workshop in selected landscapes (1 per landscape) Identifying two (02) landscapes suitable for replication of project activities and application of ILAM Landscapes visits (2 per landscape): identifying landscape level stakeholders for establishing Local Landscape Management Committees and planning interventions during the scale-up phase, ensuring gender balance and inclusion of marginalized communities. Stakeholder validation workshop: validation of selected activities Applying the Miombo Cluster standard methodological approach, (refined ILAM toolbox) in the selected landscapes (in PY3-6) Selected SLM/SFM interventions applied (to be defined as a result of ILUPs development) 159

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Procurement of legal experts for support of drafting of amendments Travel for PMU members National CSB/Nursery Consultancy - LoA: overall coordination of and training on CSB and nursery related activities in close consultation with PMU team (FFS, Value chain expert) and the IC CSB – starting with the identification of eligible communities for setting up the CSP (overlap with communities engaged in FFS and value chain development to ensure integration of interventions). Note: The consultant may be drawn from government institutions such as lead executing partner or extension agencies. The project may cover part or the entire salary of the agents, or to pay an additional amount as an incentive. International FFS Specialist - overall coordination of and training on FFS activities in close consultation with PMU members (CBS, value chain expert) and the with IC FFS Outcome 2.2) Market-based and other incentive mechanisms support uptake of SLM/SFM practices in target areas Output # 2.2.1) The issue sustainability in charcoal value chains across the landscapes is addressed in consultation with key stakeholders Identifying relevant forest and farm producer groups departing from proposed site level selection and initial intervention areas, including also the water user associations at landscape level Review of prior attempts at forest enterprise development and consolidate FFPO knowledge of production options based on woodland Hire a consultancy company for undertaking landscape-level marketing of the project (in the local language) with a view to enhancing project buy-in by the wider stakeholders Technical support to women, youth and men from FFPOs to select suitable climate-resilient production options for diversified tree and woodland products Train forest and farm producers in each landscape in raising communities' awareness on the benefits of forming a producer organization (around many different potential products) and in methods of formalizing those groups with management structures, roles, responsibilities and negotiated by-laws together with benefit distribution mechanisms Train producers, targeting at least 30% women, in Market Analysis and Development to build entrepreneurial ability to assess markets and financial profitability, technologies (for quality, aggregation, processing, and packaging), sustain the natural resource supply-base, undertake legal registration of FFPOs and arrange social benefit sharing Support FFPOs to develop group savings and loan structures (from the profits of their existing value chains) with a view to investing in alternative environmentally friendly forest-base Participatory validation of the selection of new and appropriate SLM/SFM interventions sites for starting up the FFS/APFS, ensuring effective participation of target land users/beneficiaries including women to support eventual ownership of practices during implementation Rolling out the SLM/SFM training and support in implementation of SLM and SFM through the FFS/APFS, noting that the FAO model is novelty in Namibia, but it can build on a long and solid tradition of governmental extension services, which currently require support National Specialist in LDN with GIS experience Seed Bank Expert [proposed shared with Angola project 50:50, noting that the monthly costs are indicatively 50% of the total proforma cost] International Green VC Specialist Agriculture and NTFP National Green VC Expert Agriculture and NTFP International Agroecology Expert National Livestock Specialist National Conservation Agriculture Specialist International Forest Management and Restoration Expert National Forest Management and Restoration Expert National (x3) Site Levels Managers for Omusati, Oshikoto and Kavango East Community Engagement (gender and Indigenous) experience International FFF and Small Enterprise Development (incl. focus on market studies and business planning development) International Sustainable Woodfuel Expert Output # 2.2.2) Community seed banks and nurseries established to materially support crop diversification and landscape restoration efforts. Stakeholder consultations - NBRI, NAB and NCRST: verifying the applicability of the identified drought-resistant plants, assessing national skills gaps for the management of these plant species.

160

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 CNA among various stakeholders (incl. communities in project sites, producers, local market stakeholders, relevant regulating agenciees etc.) on the identified drought-resistant plants for capacity building on value chain development Recruitment of a company for implementation of trainings as result of CNA Capacity building program targeting the communities aimed at scaling up the value chain development: Tailored training program based on CNA Market access analysis & recommendations Capacity building program targeting value chains producers, producer associations, local market stakeholders, the export partners and relevant regulating agencies: Tailored training program based on CNA incl. Best strategies for the sustainable production of the products, market requirements, local and international regulations and standards etc. Expenses related to project operations: furniture, supplies, fuel and maintenance of vehicles and other items under Output 2.2.2. Provision of technical assistance and funding to support for value chain development in Kavango East region for Thatching Grass, Devils claw, Kalahari Mellon, Lablab, Mucuna & processing, storage & marketing facilities and Beef production1 value chain development Provision of technical assistance and funding for value chain development in Omusati region for poultry, cowpea, Kalahari Mellon, Marula production & processing, storage & marketing facilities Provision of technical assistance and funding for value chain development in Oshikoto region for Cowpea, Marula, Kalahari Mellon, Lablab, Mucuna & processing, storage & marketing facilities and Beef production value chain development Provision of technical assistance and funding to support to the National Hydroponic based Fodder production project based at the NNFU to contribute to fodder production in project sites Rolling activity PY2-PY5 - support to research activities in prioritized indigenous plant resources for potential commercialization Review of operational objectives and activities of relevant public institutions (METF and MAWLR extension services, MITSMED, NAB, NBRI etc.), NGOs and Private NTFP national, regional and local management and organization structures in relation to the prioritized value chains identified A brief study on recommendations for operational amendments to improve productive capacity of local NTFP collectors and processors analyzing institutions Stakeholder workshop: presenting recommendations identified in the study to the involved stakeholders Output # 2.2.3) NTFPs value chains established and/or strengthened (focus on honey, ethnoveterinary plants and Fruit tree, use of indigenous Miombo species cultivated on-farm) – Cuchi and Cahama-Tchipelongo sites Review of regulations concerning CSBs in Namibia including their current status at different administrative levels, existing supportive mechanisms, requirements for establishment etc. Stakeholder workshop: presenting current status for CSBs in Namibia, multi-level stakeholder consultations aimed at obtaining feedback regarding preferable location of CSBs, planned interventions etc. Identification of locations for CSBs, field visits by experts to identify a suitable type of seed banks and governance modality to be established in the landscapes CNA (aimed at identifying infrastructural and skills gaps) and stakeholder consultations at location level Training program on setup and running of the CSBs (in relation to seed collection, administration, use of farmer’s varieties, seed exchange etc.). The exact agenda will be proposed as a result of the CAN Stakeholder workshop - validation of the location, type and governance mechanism of projected CSBs. Provision of technical assistance and funding related to establishing CSBs in selected locations (support to operations and setup) Developing/updating of community protocols for ABS Provision of technical assistance and funding to support to operations of established CSBs in relation to seed collection, administration, use of farmer’s varieties, seed exchange etc (PY2,3,4,5) Stakeholder workshops - monitoring of progress of activities under Output 2.1.3 at mid-term and project closing. Establishing small-scale seed enterprises in the communities LoA - Budget reserved for consultancy on Policy (Policy Experts team) Budget for ILAM + ILUP consultancy - LoA for 25 months

161

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Chief Technical Advisor Travel Budget for International consultants Travel for OPs (UNAM) Travel Budget for National consultants 4x4 vehicles Recruitment of 3 drivers (part time) Outcome 3.1) National Neutrality Mechanism developed/strengthened for scaling up LDN and monitoring goal achievement Output # 3.1.1) A knowledge exchange network of FFSs in the targeted landscapes is established and supported for linking up to the global and sub-regional FFS knowledge-sharing networks. Signing data-sharing agreements with respect to the indicators that compose the three global LDN indicators Travel for PMU members Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA) for Monitoring and Reporting Unit (MRU) at UNAM GIS Training program for LDN decision-support for government staff and MRU at UNAM Provision of technical assistance and funding to support to MRU in line with results of the CNA Hardware and software needs (to be verfied by the CNA) Additional training (to be verified by the CNA) WebGIS DSS user validation workshop Travel Budget for International consultants Travel Budget for OPs (NACSO, NBRI) 3.2: Strategies and tools for ILM/SFM/SLM/LR/IWRM applicable to the Miombo/Mopane landscapes shared, tested and validated. Output # 3.2.1) Knowledge sharing strategy developed and in place. LoA - Budget reserve for consultancy on Tenure (National Tenuere Expert team) M&E M&E expert Contract for an Independent mid-term review Contract for an Independent final evaluation Inception Workshop M&E training workshop SHARP mid-term and final surveys M&E tools and equipment PMC Team Coordinator with GIS Management experience Project's own Operational Management - Auditing PSC meetings IT and office equipment for the PMU Miscellaneous, including transaction costs, insurance, utilities (only where and when needed) plus unforeseen expenses Spot checks for 2 Ops

162

ANNEX I1: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK CERTIFICATION; CLIMATE RISK ASSESSMENT

Title of the project: Integrated landscape management to reduce, reverse and avoid further degradation and support the sustainable use of natural resources in the Mopane-Miombo belt of Northern Namibia, project entity no 658840.

Section B: Environmental and Social risks from the project – ESM Plan The project is reclassified from low to moderate risk, mostly due to the fact that although the foreseen environmental and social impacts of project are likely to be positive considering the nature of the interventions, the project includes the following risks factors under the Environmental and Social Risk Identification Screening Checklist: (i) ESS 1 - Natural resources management: The project will work to improve land tenure security and access rights through policy dialogue and multi-stakeholder policy and support implementation of participatory land use planning. This may result in changes to existing tenure rights (formal and informal) of individuals, communities or others to land, fishery and forest resources which triggers ESS 1. (ii) ESS 3 - Plant and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: The project interventions on crop diversification and community seed banks will involve the provision and transfer of seeds and planting material for cultivation which triggers ESS 3. (iii) ESS 9 – Indigenous People: The project interventions will be in sites where some indigenous groups reside, which triggers ESS 3. The identified risks are mostly temporal, localized and reversible. Considering the impact, appropriate mitigation measures have been developed to address and mitigate the identified risks above. The developed risk management plan in the table below will allow managing risks by monitoring mitigation actions throughout implementation. The risks to the project have been identified and analyzed during the project preparation phase and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design (see Table 1 below). With the support and oversight of FAO, the Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be responsible for managing these risks as well as the effective implementation of mitigation measures. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system will serve to monitor outcome and output indicators, risks to the project and mitigation measures. The PSC will also be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures and adjusting mitigation strategies accordingly, as well as identifying and managing any new risks that have not been identified during Project preparation, in collaboration with Project partners. The six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPR) are the main tool for risk monitoring and management. The PPRs include a section covering the systematic monitoring of risks and mitigation actions that were identified in the previous PPRs. The PPRs also include a section for the identification of possible new risks or risks that still need to be addressed, risk rating and mitigation actions, as well as those responsible for monitoring such actions and estimated timeframes. FAO will closely monitor project risk management and will support the adjustment and implementation of mitigation strategies. The preparation of risk monitoring reports and their rating will also be part of the Annual Project Implementation Review Report (PIR) prepared by FAO and submitted to the GEF Secretariat. NOTE: Refer to Additional Annex X-4: Report on the implementation of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Process for further details on marginalized and indigenous communities.

163

Table 1: Environment and Social Risks management plan

Risk identified Risk Mitigation Action (s) Indicators Progress on Classification mitigation action ESS 1 Moderate During implementation, the project activities will address tenure rights by applying an # of beneficiaries trained on the N/A Natural integrated landscape/territorial approach resolving insecure or inequitable tenure (right to use implementation of the VGGT Resources and benefits of ecosystem services), weak common property regimes, and natural resources Level of influence and engagement with Management management institutions. Conflict resolution measures to address land conflicts and boundary government around the principles disputes will be applied as part of an inclusive engagement of all relevant stakeholders in this enshrined in the VGGT Tenure process. For this purpose, the project will follow the stakeholder engagement plan (Annex I2) as well as core elements of the Integrated Landscape Assessment and Management # of land use plans in place and regulations Methodology (ILAM) (Outcome 1.2), in particular the multi-stakeholder workshop approach effectively implemented which was successfully applied during the project’s preparation. # of communities with secure tenure The project will apply and adhere to the principles/framework of the Voluntary Guidelines on rights to land, with legally recognized the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National documentation(CCROs) and who perceive Food Security (VGGT) and stakeholders will be trained in its use. their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure # of land based conflicts resolved and # of people that have actively participated in the conflict resolution activities (disaggregated by gender) ESS 3 Moderate As part of the integrated landscape management approach the project will promote sustainable # of smallholder farming households who N/A Plant and agricultural intensification through the diversification of the agricultural production. The focus are applying sustainable agricultural Genetic will be on drought tolerant, nitrogen fixing and soil stabilizing pulses (and other neglected and intensification and diversifying their Resources for underutilized species/NUS) to increase resilience and productivity, strengthening sustainable production. Food and local food systems and mitigating the negative effects of land degradation and climate change. # of farmers involved in CSB activities and Agriculture Community Seed Banks (CSB) will serve as hubs where local communities can conserve and benefiting in resources exchange seeds that can be used for diversifying the agricultural systems locally. The selected # of crops and varieties per crops seeds and planting material will be largely derived from locally adapted crops and varieties and conserved and exchanged through the will be suitable to local conditions and preferences of farmers and consumers. CSB. The CSB and associated trainings will enable the targeted farmers and their families to conserve # of training beneficiaries (management of local varieties of their preference, multiply seeds, and distribute them within across farming CSB and seed conservation, Participatory communities. The CSB management will ensure that the seeds and planting materials are free Plant Breeding (PPB), small-scale seed from pests and diseases according to agreed norms, especially the IPPC. The transfer of seeds production and climate change adaptation across borders will take place, if needed, following international regulations on plant health strategies) (IPPC) and access and benefit-sharing, for example through a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA). National level analysis and recommendations produced on policy and

164

The project (with support of the Regional Exchange Mechanism) will further support legal environment in relation to access and communities’ increased access to genetic diversity and greater knowledge of their own national benefit-sharing, conservation, use and programs, other countries and international organizations. exchange of germplasm. The project includes national level analysis on the policy and legal environment of target # of training beneficiaries on the mutual countries in relation to access, benefit-sharing, conservation, use and exchange of seeds in implementation of ITPGRFA and Nagoya order to ensure that CSBs activities complement, and operate within the regulatory context of Protocol and national implementation of target countries. As such, guidance will be provided within the context of the ITPGRFA and Farmers’ Rights) capacity development activities on Farmers’ Rights are key planned activities. ESS9 Moderate During the PPG, the presence of indigenous peoples was confirmed within the targeted wider Stakeholder engagement plan FPIC being Indigenous project landscape. The process of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) was initiated with its # of beneficiaries belonging to indigenous conducted People first 3 steps being put into practice according to the procedures outlined in the FAO FPIC Manual peoples during PPG for project practitioners. The identified community groups are represented in the Kunene (steps 1 to 3) Cuvelai basin (Sub-basin 1) area, while the San and disabled people communities also occur in # of consultations sessions held with the Etosha and the Kavango basin areas. Consultations were carried out by the PPG Capacity indigenous peoples’ communities Institutions and Policy consultant with assistance from local officials at each project site in order # of FPIC agreements endorsed by the to: a) collect relevant demographic and geographic information; b) disclose project information concerned communities in a transparent way through participatory communication and c) document indigenous peoples’ needs in relation to the proposed project.

165

Climate risks summary - Dryland Sustainable Landscape Impact Program (DSL IP)

Climate baseline:

The child projects of the Dryland Sustainable Landscape Impact Program will be implemented in East and Southern African countries (Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe). The climate of Southern Africa varies from arid to humid subtropical regions. It is influenced by topography and large-scale seasonal atmospheric patterns, such as sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic Ocean. Rainfall is driven mainly by the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The majority of the region’s rainfall comes during the summer months (November–March). Temperatures vary significantly, with the highest temperatures recorded in the Kalahari Desert (>40°C). The lowest temperatures are found in the Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe highlands. Rainfall is highly variable across the region, with a clear east- to-west gradient ranging from very dry conditions along the western Namibian coast to much higher rainfall in the coast of Mozambique. This dynamic is highly variable from wet to dry years. Longer-term variability is closely associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon, with El Niño events linked to warmer and drier conditions and La Niña events linked to cooler and wetter conditions (USAID, 2016). Past and future climate trends: temperature and precipitation: Historical temperature trends across the region since the 1960s indicate increased mean, maximum and minimum temperatures, with more rapid increases in minimum temperatures (1–1.5°C on average). Past temperature trends since the 1960s show reduced late summer precipitation (November–March) in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, increased summer rainfall in Namibia and increased rainfall variability in Angola. In Tanzania, precipitation has remained relatively constant annually with a slight decrease from March to June (USAID, 2016; USAID 2018). Climate trends also show changes in the onset, duration, and intensity of rainfall, including increased frequency of dry spells and an increase in number of warm days/nights and subsequent decreases in cold days/nights across the region (USAID, 2016). Climate change projections in the region estimate that temperatures could rise in Southern Africa between 2°C and 5°C by 2050 with more pronounced increases in the summer (November–March) (UNECA, 2012). Rainfall is expected to be slightly drier on average, particularly from April to September. The frequency of intense rainfall events, droughts and dry spells is expected to increase. (USAID, 2016). At the national level, temperature projections by 2050 in the RCP 8.5 scenario indicate an increase in mean annual temperature of 2.04°C in Angola, 2.47°C in Botswana, 1.99°C in Malawi, 2.14°C in Namibia, 1.85°C in Tanzania and 2.16°C in Zimbabwe. Rainfall projections indicate a decrease of 13.69mm in Angola, 63.92mm in Botswana, 63.59mm in Malawi, 40.85mm in Namibia and 61.68mm in Zimbabwe. On the other hand, a slight increase of 3.63mm is expected in Tanzania by 2050 in the RCP 8.5 scenario (WBCKP, 2020). Natural hazards, exposure, and vulnerability: The countries where the DSL IP child projects will be implemented are highly exposed and vulnerable to climate change. The region is vulnerable to a wide range of natural disasters including floods, droughts and cyclones (USAID, 2016). There are signs that drought is becoming more common and more prolonged in the dry lands of Southern Africa and drought incidence is expected to increase as a result of higher temperatures and reduced rainfall (IFAD, 2011). Southern African countries were struck by multiple major droughts in the past decades (UNECA, 2012). Since 2012, the region has only seen two favorable agriculture seasons, with many areas yet to fully recover from the devastating impact of the 2015/16 El Niño event. The 2018-2019 drought also had significant impacts on the affected farming households and communities in the region and seriously eroded their capacity to produce in the 2019/20 season. Poor harvests due to drought and plant pests and diseases led to production deficits throughout the region. The greatest deficits were seen in Botswana and Namibia, with outputs estimated to have fallen by 50 percent on a yearly basis, and Zimbabwe where the maize harvest was around 40 percent lower than the five-year average. Cereal production is estimated to be about 7 percent below 2018 levels, which were already below the five-year regional average. Livestock have also been impacted by limited water availability and increases in transboundary animal diseases, particularly foot and mouth disease (FAO, 2019). The DSL IP cluster will follow the same approach and recommendations in addressing identified climate risks: The Dryland Sustainable Landscape Impact Program seeks to avoid, reduce, and reverse further degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in drylands, through the sustainable management of

166

production landscapes. The child projects will support countries in the implementation of their Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Strategies under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and promote and scale up SLM and SFM good practices. In order to integrate adaptation and mitigation actions into the DSL IP, child projects will follow a programmatic approach that takes into account climate risks, vulnerabilities and corresponding management actions. Component 1: Climate risks will be systematically incorporated in the integrated land use planning process to anticipate future extreme weather events and plan positive actions of sustainable land management. This joint planning process will benefit from climate change related assessments conducted during the PPG (SHARP) as well as available climate change analysis (e.g. IFAD/ACDI climate analysis) and other available data sets. The National Meteorological Authorities (NMA) and other institutions leading the collection, analysis and use of climate data should be engaged in the development and implementation of LDN strategies. Trainings and capacity building of relevant stakeholders should include activities on the use of climate information for informing strategies and planning, certain activities can be led by the NMAs. Component 2: The selection of evidence-based climate smart SLM/SFM practices will follow the results of the joint planning process (component 1) to ensure they are adapted to local contexts and supported by scientific evidence of project climate conditions. The identified practices should be integrated in the forest and farm producers’ training manuals and be part of the Famers Field Schools curricula. The newly developed global note for FFS facilitators on integrating climate change adaptation into farmer field schools can inform this process as well as lessons learned from participatory engagement approaches such a PICSA. Climate field schools can link to demonstration plots of sustainable intensification practices and resilience measures post-harvest. The selection of dryland value chains should also consider climate related risks. Their selection should be based on (i) their viability under climate change in the mid to long term; (ii) their contribution to drivers of climate- related impacts; and (iii) their ability to increase the resilience of the most vulnerable populations. Development of green value chains, including appropriate infrastructure or technologies to climate proof food value chains, should be based on results of climate impact assessments. Planning around drying, storage and transport can be informed by climate impacts at each stage.

Supporting documents:

FAO (2019). Southern Africa – Emergency Response Plan 2019-2020. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6741en/ca6741en.pdf IFAD (2011). Climate-smart smallholder agriculture: What’s different? IFAD Occasional Paper No. 3. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.ifad.org/pub/op/3.pdf IFAD (2020). Climate Risk Analysis in East and Southern Africa. Available at: https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/publication/asset/42164786 National Communications Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/non-annex-I-NCs UNECA (2012). Climate Change and the Rural Economy in Southern Africa: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities. Available at: https://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/climate-change-and-the-rural-economy-in-southern- africa.pdf USAID (2016). Climate Change Risk Profile – Southern Africa. Available at: https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/2016%20CRM%20Fact%20Sheet%20- %20Southern%20Africa.pdf USAID. (2018). Climate risk profile: Tanzania. Available at: https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/20180629_USAID-ATLAS_Climate-Risk-Profile- Tanzania.pdf World Bank Climate Knowledge Portal: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/

167

ANNEX I2: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MATRIX AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM

Stakeholder Engagement Matrices

1) Stakeholder consultation during project formulation79 Table 1 documents the engagement with stakeholder organizations during the project’s preparatory process and highlights their interests in its implementation. Table 1. List of stakeholder organizations consulted during the PPG process with findings, including present and future engagement in the project Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Consultation Consultation Findings Consult. Engagement in project preparations and/or Type Profile Methodology Dates implementation Ministry of Partner (Veto National • Joint Planning • Main project initiator June • Main project partner; lead the planning and Environment, Stakeholders – Government Meetings and • Key role in LDN-related policy frameworks 2019 to implementation of the project Forestry and Tourism Government) Institution workshops that will play a key role in the GEF project June • Trainers of local partners • Questionnaire implementation 2020 • Beneficiaries training – Community Forests & /interview • UNCCD national custodian ministry Conservancies • National chair of the national Sustainable • Production of education and technical materials Land Management Committee Ministry of Partner (Key National • Joint Planning • Main project initiator June • Main project partner; lead the planning and Agriculture, Water Stakeholders – Government Meetings and • Has extension officers in all project sites 2019 to implementation of the project and Land Reform veto power Institution workshops • Manages communal area: seed & farm June • Trainers of local partners Government) • Questionnaire implement distribution; water provision to 2020 • Beneficiaries of training: Farmer to Farmer training /interview communities opportunities • Support village committees on their • Production of education and technical materials effective functioning and planning, on project formulation, fundraising, TA, training, M&E. • Key role in LDN-related policy frameworks that will play a key role in the GEF project implementation

79 See FAO Operational Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement t

168

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Consultation Consultation Findings Consult. Engagement in project preparations and/or Type Profile Methodology Dates implementation Office of the Vice Partner National • Joint Planning • Have data on marginalized communities August • Support projects that targets marginalized communities President (Primary Government Meetings and • Gender balance promotion 2019 to • Coordinate marginalized community data provision and Stakeholder) Institution workshops • Implement projects to support October consultation • Questionnaire marginalized communities 2019 • Coordinate gender balance promotion in national and /interview private sectors • Beneficiaries training Environmental Partner National • Joint Planning • Obtain funding from international donor August • Support project activity implementation related to Investment Fund (Secondary Government Meetings agencies active in environment protection 2019 to environment management & protection Stakeholder) Institution - • Funds environment management related January • Coordinate international support for environment Parastatal projects in Namibia 2020 management activities in Namibia • Training of local partners • Production of education and technical materials Ministry of Partner National • Meetings • Support local industrial development August • Support project activity implementation related to value Industrialization and (Primary Government • Questionnaire • Encourage and support the development 2019 to chain development Trade Stakeholder) Institution /interview of natural plant products value chains such March • Training of local partners as cosmetic products 2020 • Production of education and technical materials • Implement activities that can support project sub-activities National Botanical Partner (Key National • Meetings • Seed data base for indigenous plants June • Coordinate seed collection and management of national Research Institute Stakeholder) Government • Questionnaire • National seed bank of indigenous plants 2019 to seed banks Institution /interview • Research on indigenous plants and related March • Reproduce genetically desired plant material: drought plant-based resources 2020 resistant indigenous plants with high yield, useful crops • Support research on indigenous plants National Commission Partner (Key National • Joint Planning • Research data on indigenous plants in June • Coordinate collection of indigenous plant resources data on Research Science Stakeholder) Government Meetings and Namibia 2019 to • Technical and financial support for research projects and Technology Institution workshops • National coordination of research on June benefitting implementation of project activities indigenous plant resources 2020 Food and Agricultural Partner (Key International • Joint Planning • Involved in projects directly or indirectly June • Main project partner; lead the planning and Organization Stakeholder) Development Meetings and related to the GEF Child Project 2019 to implementation of the project organization workshops • Coordinate technical & financial support June • Trainers of local partners • Questionnaire from international funding agencies 2020 • Beneficiaries training – Community Forests and /interview Conservancies • Production of education and technical materials Centre for Research Partner (Key National non- • Meetings • Organizes community organizations to: August • Support (Technical & Financial) business activities in Information Action in Stakeholder) timber natural source natural plant oil resources from 2019 to natural resource value chain: Natural Plant Oils 169

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Consultation Consultation Findings Consult. Engagement in project preparations and/or Type Profile Methodology Dates implementation Africa South African resource communities; process resources into semi- March • Support (Technical & Financial) the development of Development and trading process product for export 2020 industrial machinery to process plant based natural Consulting (CRIAA) organization: • Is a local liaison organization between resources Natural oils international buyers and local suppliers Namibia Association Partner (Key NGO • Meetings • Coordinate environment management August • Major project partner of CBNRM Support Stakeholder) organization for local community resource 2019 to • Support (Technical & Financial) natural resource Organizations management March management activities (NACSO) • Is a local liaison organization between 2020 • Provide technical support to natural resource national and international natural management organizations in Namibia resource management organizations and community based natural resource management organizations KfW Development Partner German • Joint Planning • Promotes and support programs and July to • Major project partner Bank, Windhoek (Secondary development Meetings and projects – including in the Natural October • Support sister projects that can help the project to Stakeholder – Bank workshops Resource Management Sector 2019 achieve its objectives Private sector) Institution • Questionnaire • Sustainable resource management is a key • Directly support sub-project activities related to projects /interview requirement in all projects supported already being supported by the organization The permanent Partner (Key SADC level sub- • Consultations • Management of the Cuvelai and Okavango August • Coordination of basin impacting management activities Okavango river Basin Stakeholders) regional (telephonic, watersheds/basins 2019 to in the basin areas Water Commission & Institutions e-mail) • Coordinate regional actions by countries March • Communication with impacted communities Cuvelai Watercourse impacted by these watersheds 2020 • Implementation of specific projects to improve Commission sustainable basin management Regional councils: Partner (Veto Regional/local • Joint Planning • Regional/Local government representation June • Major project partner Omusati region, Stakeholders – government Meetings and of the national government 2019 to • Coordinate project interaction with different Oshikoto region, veto power Institution workshops • Overall coordination of development June stakeholders in the regions/project areas Kavango east region Government) • Questionnaire actions in the regions 2020 • Trainers of local partners /interview • Key role in LDN-related policy frameworks • Assist with consultation and integration of marginalized that will play a key role in the GEF project communities in project activities implementation • Key stakeholder in raising awareness and mobilizing local community members around project interventions Traditional Partner & Local • Joint Planning • Represent community interests at regional June • Members of the Traditional Authority council have link Authorities in Direct traditional workshops and national governmental levels 2019 to to the regional government and are key actors in the Omusati Region: beneficiaries authority, • Interview • Support village committees on their June development, implementation and monitoring of 1. Uukolonkhadhi (Primary Omusati region • Questioner effective functioning and planning, on 2020 Integrated Land Management Plans and Village Traditional Authority project formulation, fundraising Development Plans.

170

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Consultation Consultation Findings Consult. Engagement in project preparations and/or Type Profile Methodology Dates implementation 2. Ongandjera stakeholder, • Guide and Implement Traditional/local • Support coordination of Farmer Field Schools and Forest Traditional Authority Veto power) Cultural Laws Management, Conservancy & Business Learning Groups 3. Ombandja • Key stakeholder in raising awareness and mobilizing Traditional Authority local community members around project interventions. 4. Ombalantu • Support local bylaw formulation Traditional Authority • Assist with consultation and integration of marginalized 5. Uukwaluundhi communities in project activities Traditional Authority Traditional Partner & Local • Joint Planning • Represent community interests at regional June • Members of the Traditional Authority council have link Authorities in Direct traditional workshops and national governmental levels 2019 to to the regional government and are key actors in the Oshikoto region: beneficiaries authority, • Interview • Support village committees on their June development, implementation and monitoring of (Primary Oshikoto • Questioner effective functioning and planning, on 2020 Integrated Land Management Plans and Village Ondonga Traditional stakeholder, region project formulation, fundraising Development Plans. Authority Veto power) • Guide and Implement Traditional/local • Support coordination of Farmer Field Schools and Forest Cultural Laws Management, Conservancy & Business Learning Groups • Key stakeholder in raising awareness and mobilizing local community members around project interventions. • Support local bylaw formulation • Assist with consultation and integration of marginalized communities in project activities Traditional Partner & Local • Joint Planning • Represent community interests at regional June • Members of the Traditional Authority council have link Authorities in Direct traditional workshops and national governmental levels 2019 to to the regional government and are key actors in the Omusati region: beneficiaries authority, • Interview • Support village committees on their June development, implementation and monitoring of (Primary Omusati region • Questioner effective functioning and planning, on 2020 Integrated Land Management Plans and Village 1.Gciriku Traditional stakeholder, project formulation, fundraising Development Plans. Authority Veto power) • Guide and Implement Traditional/local • Support coordination of Farmer Field Schools and Forest 2.Sambyu Traditional Cultural Laws Management, Conservancy & Business Learning Groups Authority • Key stakeholder in raising awareness and mobilizing local community members around project interventions. • Support local bylaw formulation • Assist with consultation and integration of marginalized communities in project activities

171

2) Stakeholder mapping and analysis during project formulation 1. A comprehensive collation of stakeholders at national and landscape levels identified as having interests of relevance to the project was subject to a ‘mapping’ analysis, using an FAO tool described in Section 2 (Figure 9), in order to differentiate them according to categories of interest/influence with respect to project implementation. The results of this stakeholder categorization are presented below in Table 2, together with details of their potential role in the project.

Table 2. Project stakeholders and their potential role in project implementation Stakeholder Role in the Project Category Group INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Cuvelai Watercourse Commission for the These transboundary organizations will give support to the Secondary Cross-Sectoral management of the Cuvelai River Basin project, as they already implement several projects in the stakeholders (CuveCom) watersheds of Cuvelai and Okavango, that we can highlight, The Permanent Okavango River Basin Climate Resilient Infrastructure Development Facility (CRIDF); Water Commission (OKACOM) Environmental monitoring and Future of Okavango. Other important thing to refer is the transboundary project Okavango- Zambezi (KAZA) that can strength the project. Southern African Science Service Centre SASCAL maintains the Miombo Network (see e.g. Secondary Cross-Sectoral for Climate Change and Adaptive Land www.sasscal.org/miombo-network/). Part of the project’s stakeholder Management (SASCAL) efforts under the Regional Exchange Mechanism (REM) will be reach out to like-minded initiatives and seek collaboration. SASCAL falls under this category. The dialogue will build from results of previous consultations and on the complementarity among the Miombo-Mopane conservation, land use and climate related initiatives. NATIONAL LEVEL Ministry of Environment Forestry and The MEFT will be the OP, responsible for project coordination Veto Payer, Government Tourism (MEFT) incl: and hosting. It will support the project with institutional and Operational Partner - Division of Multilateral Environmental legislative frameworks. Implementation of project activities and co-financier Agreements under all project components. - Department of Environmental Affairs - The DEA plays a key role in land use planning and will (DEA) therefore have a prominent role in this and related aspects - Directorate of Forestry of the project. - Directorate of Scientific Services - The DF is very important for setting standards and monitoring with respect to forest management. The Department and will therefore have a prominent role in this and related aspects of the project. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land The MAWLR will be the OP, responsible for project coordination, Veto Player, Government Reform (MAWLR) implementation of project activities, particularly under C2. Operational Partner and co-financier Office of the Vice President The Office of the Vice-President will support the management of Key Stakeholder Government - Marginalized Communities the marginalized communities who utilize value chain products Division identified by the project. National Commission on Research Science The NCRST has played a prominent role during the PPG, Secondary Government and Technology (NCRST) providing data and information related to land use planning and Stakeholder monitoring (Component 1), as well as relevant initiatives that can enhance the value chain aspects of the project (Component 2). It is expected to continue to do so during implementation. Several studies foreseen in the mentioned Components and potentially also by supporting scientific networks and initiatives concerned with LDN implementation and monitoring. - Other Ministries and governmental These governmental institutions and ministries play important Secondary Government organizations: roles for the project as they handle a variety of issues that are Stakeholder - Ministry of Poverty Eradication touched upon by the project or that are present in project areas - Ministry of Industrialization, Trade such as rural development, mining activities in project areas, and SME Development Disaster Risk Management, poverty in project areas etc. - Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare E.g. The Ministry of Rural and Urban Development holds legal - Ministry of Urban and Rural governance of regional councils and Traditional authorities and Development is the main governmental body responsible for capacity 172

Stakeholder Role in the Project Category Group - Ministry of Finance development. As such, the Ministry will support capacity - Ministry of Mines and Industry building activities foreseen under this project. - Office of the Prime Minister - Office of the President: National The Ministry of Industrialization, Trade and SME Development Planning Commission will support VC management activities and the Ministry of - Namibia Water Corporation Ltd Gender Equality and Child Welfare will help ensuring gender balance of the project. National Sustainable Land Management The SLM Committee will be strengthened by the Project. At the Primary Various Committee (National SLM Committee), same time will facilitate implementation of project activities stakeholders institutions Chaired by the MEFT under C1. University of Namibia (UNAM) The University of Namibia will be one of the Project Executing Key stakeholder – Academia Entities develop and implement technical training program in executing entity relation to GIS LDN monitoring. The Entity will also lead data collection and processing. National Botanical Research Institute The National Botanical Research Institute will one of the Project Key stakeholder – Academia (NBRI) Executing Entities. The Institute will be responsible for executing entity implementation of project activities in relation with outcomes 2.1 and 2.2 and particularly in connection with CSBs development. Namibia University of Science and The Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) will Secondary Academia Technology (NUST) develop LDN assessment technical training program. stakeholder Other Civil Society organizations incl: These civil society entities will support project implementation Secondary Civil Society - Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) including through stakeholder consultations. stakeholders - Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) - Centre for Research Information Action in Africa South African Development and Consulting (CRIAA) - Legal Assistance Centre-Namibia (LAC) Namibia Association of CBNRM Support The Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations will Key stakeholder – Civil Society Organizations (NACSO) be one of the Project Executing Entities. The NACSO will support Executing entity implementation of project activities in relation with outcome 1.2, bylaws revision and improvement of LU plans. The Food and Agriculture Organization of Project management and support Veto stakeholder Civil Society the United Nations (FAO) The Global Environmental Fund (GEF) Project funding Veto stakeholder Civil Society Namibia Chamber of Commerce and Support to implementation of project activities. Inputs through Secondary Private Sector Industry (NCCI) participation in consultations. stakeholder Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) The NNF will support implementation of project activities. Secondary NGO stakeholder Environmental Investment Fund (EIF) The EIF will be one of the project partners. Through it several Key stakeholder Government relevant projects are being implemented. The EIF will provide and co-financier co-financing. Namibia Development Trust The Namibia Development Trust will be consulted throughout Secondary Civil Society the project and involved in implementation of project activities. stakeholder The World Vision The World Vision will help executing project activities through a Key stakeholder NGO LOA. Private Sector organizations: Private sector organizations will be consulted throughout the Secondary Private sector - Commercial Banks project and involved in implementation of project activities. stakeholders - Development Banks e.g. AfDB - Agri Bank - Market agencies - International University of Management (IUM) - ArgiBusDev - AMTA Producers organizations e.g. Eudafano Producers organizations will be consulted throughout the Private sector Private sector Woman’s cooperation (EWC), Non-timber projects. They will provide valuable feedback to be included in products trading organizations, various the project. producer associations, cooperatives and

173

Stakeholder Role in the Project Category Group local successful businesspeople (e.g. relating to Devil’s claw trading etc.) LOCAL LEVEL Regional and Provincial Governments incl. Project coordination and implementation at landscape level Key stakeholders Government Regional Councils Municipal Governments incl. Town Project coordination and implementation at landscape level Key stakeholders Government Councils Community Conservancies and Community Project coordination and implementation at landscape level Key stakeholders Government Forests management Committees Traditional Authorities Traditional Authorities present in project areas will facilitate Key stakeholders Civil Society implementation of project activities on the ground and ensure the sustainability of project’s interventions. Rural Communities Rural communities in project areas will be the direct Primary Civil Society beneficiaries of the project’s activities on the ground (C2). stakeholders Marginalized groups The marginalized groups will benefit from project activities as Primary Civil Society they utilize value chains identified by the project. stakeholders Women organizations incl. Woman Action Involvement in implementation of project activities incl. through Secondary Civil society for Development participation in stakeholder consultations and contribution to stakeholders execution of the activities on the ground. UNAM Ogongo Agricultural Campus The UNAM agricultural Campus will support project Key stakeholders Academia implementation through contribution to execution of training and activities on the ground. Fruit and Vegetable markets The markets will support to implementation of project activities. Secondary Private Sector Inputs through participation in consultations. stakeholders Other governmental organizations: Support to implementation of project activities. Inputs through Secondary Government - Agro-Marketing & Trade Agency participation in consultations. stakeholders Namibia - Tomato Processing Plant - Hammer Mill Project - NORED Electricity Ltd - NUST - Namibia Agronomic Board - Namibia Chambers of Commerce and Industry - Ministry of Fisheries - Namibia Statistics Agency - NAMCOL - TRANSNAMIB - Roads Authority - NamPower *Stakeholder categories (roles) are defined in Section 2 (Error! Reference source not found.) of this Project Document.

174

3) Stakeholder Engagement Plan 2. The stakeholder mapping exercise resulted in listing and categorizing stakeholders relevant to the project. Below is the summary of stakeholder per categories according to the scale of their involvement in the Project: • Stakeholders affected directly or indirectly by the project – Primary stakeholders • Stakeholders participating in project implementation – Veto and Key stakeholders • Stakeholders with peripheral interests and able to influence project implementation – Secondary stakeholders Table 3. Summary of project stakeholders per category Stakeholders to be affected, directly Stakeholders that participate in the Stakeholders able to influence and or indirectly, by Project – Project implementation – decide on Project implementation – PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS VETO, KEY STAKEHOLDERS SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS At the national level: The entire Government of Namibia (primarily Other entities at transboundary population of Namibia is expected to Project OPs: MEFT, MAWLR) (OKACOM, CUVECOM), national indirectly benefit from the project. Project’s Executing Entities (UNAM, (various governmental bodies, civil SLM Committee is expected to benefit NBRI, NACSO) society and private sector) and local from the project as it will be reinforced. (e.g. vegetable markets, governmental FAO bodies in project landscapes) levels. At the landscape level: rural GEF Secretariat communities, marginalized groups, PMU Other entities that will directly participate in the implementation of the Project

Stakeholder Concern Analysis 3. The stakeholder analysis conducted during the PPG aimed at identifying the expectations and concerns of the main stakeholders. The project will propose a set of recommendations that will help addressing those expectations and concerns. This in turn, will contribute to ensuring the involvement of all relevant stakeholders throughout the Project, build Project ownership among stakeholders and contribute to its sustainability.

Table 4. Key expectations, concerns and recommendations per stakeholder group Stakeholder Key expectations Key concerns Recommendation group Government of Successful coordination of the Land degradation in the The PMU will budget for relevant Namibia (OPs) Project at the national level. country activities

Implementation according to Budgetary constraints The Project will conduct CNAs and the timeline provide necessary training Gaps in capacity for LDN capacity of entities implementation of the The Project will be implemented involved in project existing frameworks according to the workplan which will be implementation is improved adjusted during Project implementation Local Successful coordination of Land degradation The project will conduct CNAs and governments project activities at landscape provide necessary training level Capacity gaps The PMU will budget for relevant Budgetary constraints activities

Rural communities’ The communities will be empowered empowerment through stakeholder engagement activities and training Project Implementation according to Budgetary constraints The PMU will budget for relevant Executing the timeline activities Entities (UNAM, Capacity gaps NBRI, NACSO) Data is effectively gathered

175

Stakeholder Key expectations Key concerns Recommendation group Data constraints The project will conduct CNAs and Successful coordination of provide necessary training relevant project activities Rural Full involvement in relevant Impacts of the Project on the Rural Communities will be involved in all communities project activities livelihoods of the relevant activities and duly informed communities about project activities and progress Benefits coming from the implementation off the Project Involvement of the communities in the Project Marginalized Recognition and full Impacts of the Project on the Marginalized groups including women groups, women involvement in relevant project livelihoods of the groups and youth will be involved in all relevant and youth activities. (particularly in relation to activities and duly informed about GVCs) project activities and progress Benefits coming from the implementation off the Project Involvement of the communities in the Project Civil society Human capacity is improved in Whether the project will The Project will ensure that the including NGOs the project landscapes benefit the landscapes and information about the Project is and CBOs the communities as expected disseminated on regular basis and LDN and SLM is implemented in reaches all relevant stakeholders the project landscapes Whether the processes will including civil society entities be inclusive, participatory and transparent Other The positive impact of project Whether the project will Information about Project progress will governmental activities on capacity and work bring on the expected change be disseminated among all relevant bodies of the institutions stakeholders. Private sector Involvement in project Whether the project will The Project will ensure that the activities in a way that would consult and sufficiently information about the Project is ensure the continuity of the involve the private sector disseminated on regular basis and business reaches all relevant stakeholders Whether project activities including private sector won’t negatively impact their business The Project will be implemented in a participatory manner and the consultations will involve all relevant stakeholders including private sector PMU Implementation of the Project Whether the Project will be The Project will be implemented according to the timeframe effectively and timely according to the workplan which will be implemented adjusted during Project implementation

Monitoring and Reporting 353. Monitoring of Project’s progress is an integrated part of every GEF project, as it allows improved, data-based project management. The following reporting formats are foreseen by the Project:

Parameter Monitoring and reporting Reporting period responsibility Number of stakeholders of the main stakeholder categories that have PMU Annual basis been involved in project implementation phase Number of households that have been involved in project PMU Annual basis implementation phase Number of marginalized groups including women and youth that were PMU Annual basis consulted during the implementation Number of stakeholders that were effectively informed about how the PMU Annual basis grievances (if any) were handled % of stakeholders who are satisfied with their level on involvement in External Consultant Mid-term review project implementation % of stakeholders who think their concerns were sufficiently External Consultant Mid-term review incorporated into the Project implementation

176

Stakeholder Engagement Program 4. Table below describes how the stakeholders will be engaged, the frequency of the engagement, who will be responsible for engaging each group of stakeholders and what will the general scope of the engagement throughout the Project duration. The latter can be further specified and adjusted during implementation.

Table 5. Stakeholder engagement program with scope and frequency of stakeholder engagement Stakeholders Means of engagement Frequency Responsible person Scope group Government of Face-to-face meetings, On weekly- Project Coordinate project Namibia (OPs) reporting, exchange of monthly basis Management Team implementation correspondence Local Face-to-face meetings, On weekly- Project Coordinate project governments reporting, exchange of monthly basis Management Team implementation correspondence Project Executing Face-to-face meetings, Every 3 months, Project OPs, Project Training activities, data Entities (UNAM, workshops, reporting, more frequent management Team collection and analysis, consult NBRI, NACSO) exchange of correspondence if needed opinions and gather comments, inform about project progress, discuss timelines for implementation of Project’s activities. Rural Workshops, face-to-face Every 3 months, Project OPs, Project Implementing activities on the communities consultations, project, more frequent management Team ground, informing about project dissemination of marketing if needed progress and timelines for materials activities, gathering feedback. Marginalized Workshops, face-to-face Every 3 months, Project OPs, Project Implementing project activities, groups, women consultations, dissemination more frequent management Team informing about project progress and youth of marketing materials if needed and timelines for activities, gathering feedback. Civil society incl. Workshops, face-to-face Every 3 months, Project OPs, Project Informing about project progress NGOs and CBOs consultations, exchange of more frequent management Team and timelines, consult opinions correspondence, marketing if needed and gather comments. materials website entries, reporting Other Workshops, face-to-face Every 6 months, Project OPs, Project Training activities, data governmental consultations, website more frequent management Team collection and analysis, consult bodies entries, reporting, exchange if needed opinions and gather comments, of correspondence inform about project progress and timelines for activities. Private sector Workshops, face-to-face Every 6 months, Project OPs, Project Informing about project progress consultations, website more frequent management Team and timelines, consult opinions entries, dissemination of if needed and gather comments. marketing materials, exchange of correspondence

4) Stakeholder consultation in project Implementation 5. Below is a draft template for planning stakeholder consultations during project implementation. It will also be important to ensure that information on numbers of stakeholders and gender is captured throughout all participatory processes.

6. Likewise, identification and consultations of disadvantage and vulnerable groups/individuals should be aligned with the GEF policy on Stakeholder Engagement and GEF Environmental and Social Safeguard.

177

5) Stakeholder Engagement Process Plan for Landscape Planning (SEPP-LP) 7. More detailed Stakeholder Engagement Process Plans (SEPP) will be prepared and tailored specifically to each of the three target landscapes and their respective community, local authority and regional stakeholders. They will be prepared during project inception and adopted during the planning of the ILUPs for the respective landscapes. Further details are provided under Output 1.1.1.

6) Stakeholder Capacity Needs Assessment 8. A detailed analysis of stakeholder capacity needs is reported in Annex X-5: Stakeholder Capacity Needs Assessment.

Grievance Redress Mechanism

Grievance Mechanism

Focal Point Information FAO Country Representative - Namibia Contact Details [email protected] Through consultation meetings (i.e the Project Inception Workshop), Explain how the grievance project engagement structures (e.g. Project Steering Committee, mechanism will be/ has been trainings, workshops etc.) and the FAO Disclosure Portal (amongst communicated to stakeholders others).

1. FAO is committed to ensuring that its programs are implemented in accordance with the Organization’s environmental and social obligations. In order to better achieve these goals, and to ensure that beneficiaries of FAO programs have access to an effective and timely mechanism to address their concerns about non-compliance with these obligations, the Organization, in order to supplement measures for receiving, reviewing and acting as appropriate on these concerns at the program management level, has entrusted the Office of the Inspector-General with the mandate to independently review the complaints that cannot be resolved at that level.

2. FAO will facilitate the resolution of concerns of beneficiaries of FAO programs regarding alleged or potential violations of FAO’s social and environmental commitments. For this purpose, concerns may be communicated in accordance with the eligibility criteria of the Guidelines for Compliance Reviews Following Complaints Related to the Organization’s Environmental and Social Standards80, which applies to all FAO programs and projects. 3. Concerns must be addressed at the closest appropriate level, i.e. at the project management/technical level, and if necessary at the Regional Office level. If a concern or grievance cannot be resolved through consultations and measures at the project management level, a complaint requesting a Compliance Review may be filed with the Office of the Inspector-General (OIG) in accordance with the Guidelines. Program and project managers will have the responsibility to address concerns brought to the attention of the focal point.

4. The principles to be followed during the complaint resolution process include: impartiality, respect for human rights, including those pertaining to indigenous peoples, compliance of national norms, coherence with the norms, equality, transparency, honesty, and mutual respect.

80 Compliance Reviews following complaints related to the Organization’s environmental and social standards: http://www.fao.org/aud/42564-03173af392b352dc16b6cec72fa7ab27f.pdf

178

Project-level grievance mechanism

5. The project will establish a grievance mechanism at field level to file complaints during project inception phase. Contact information and information on the process to file a complaint will be disclosed in all meetings, workshops and other related events throughout the life of the project. In addition, it is expected that all awareness raising material to be distributed will include the necessary information regarding the contacts and the process for filing grievances. 6. The project will also be responsible for documenting and reporting as part of the safeguards performance monitoring on any grievances received and how they were addressed. 7. The mechanism includes the following stages:

● In the instance in which the claimant has the means to directly file the claim, he/she has the right to do so, presenting it directly to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The process of filing a complaint will duly consider anonymity as well as any existing traditional or indigenous dispute resolution mechanisms and it will not interfere with the community’s self-governance system. ● The complainant files a complaint through one of the channels of the grievance mechanism. This will be sent to the Project Coordinator (PC) to assess whether the complaint is eligible. The confidentiality of the complaint must be preserved during the process. ● The PGC will be responsible for recording the grievance and how it has been addressed if a resolution was agreed. ● If the situation is too complex, or the complainer does not accept the resolution, the complaint must be sent to a higher level, until a solution or acceptance is reached. ● For every complaint received, a written proof will be sent within ten (10) working days; afterwards, a resolution proposal will be made within thirty (30) working days. ● In compliance with the resolution, the person in charge of dealing with the complaint, may interact with the complainant, or may call for interviews and meetings, to better understand the reasons. ● All complaint received, its response and resolutions, must be duly registered.

Internal process

LEVEL 1) Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The complaint could come in writing or orally to the PCU directly. At this level, received complaints will be registered, investigated and solved by the PCU. LEVEL 2) If the complaint has not been solved and could not be solve in level 1, then the Project Coordinator (PC) elevates it to the FAO Representative of Namibia. LEVEL 3) Project Steering Committee (PSC). The assistance of the PSC is requested if a resolution was not agreed in levels 1 and 2. LEVEL 4) FAO Regional Office for Africa. FAO Representative will request if necessary the advice of the Regional Office to resolve a grievance, or will transfer the resolution of the grievance entirely to the regional office, if the problem is highly complex. LEVEL 5) FAO Regional Representative will request only in very specific situations or complex problems the assistance of the FAO Inspector General who pursues their own procedures to solve the problem.

Resolution Upon acceptance a solution by the complainer, a document with the agreement should be signed with the agreement.

179

Project Coordination Must respond within 5 working days. Unit (PCU) FAO Representation in Anyone in the FAO Representation may receive a complaint Namibia and must request proof of receipt. If the case is accepted, the FAO Representative must respond within 5 working days in consultation with FAO's Representation and Project Team. FAO Representative: Namibia e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 264 61 2046291 Project Steering If the case cannot be dealt by the FAO Representative, he/she Committee (PSC) must send the information to all PSC members and call for a meeting to find a solution. The response must be sent within 5 working days after the meeting of the PSC. FAO Regional Office for Must respond within 5 working days in consultation with Africa FAO's Representation. FAO Regional Representative: Africa e-mail:[email protected] Tel: 23 3 302 610930 Office of the Inspector To report possible fraud and bad behavior by fax, confidential: General (OIG) (+39) 06 570 55550 By e-mail: [email protected] By confidential hotline: (+ 39) 06 570 52333

180

ANNEX J: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Table Screening for the need of FPIC during PPG and project implementation # Modified screening questions concerning Indigenous People [*] Screening 1 Are there indigenous peoples in the country? [Note 1] Yes 2 Based on the stakeholder analysis, and considering possible Yes existing agreements acknowledging their presence: Do indigenous peoples inhabit the project area(s)? [Y / N] 2a • If yes, include disaggregated data by indigenous group and - Kunene-Cuvelai (Sub-basin 1) – Omusati geographical location. Region – the following groups: Ovahimba, Ovatue, Ovazemba, Ovatjimba (2.8%–1307 households) and San (0.1% 29 households) - Etosha (Sub-basin 2) - Oshikoto region – San (1.6 %–599 households) - Okavango basin (Sub-basin 3) - Kavango East: San (0.4 % –147 households)81. 2b • If not, explain whether project activities may impact (even NA indirectly) other territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. 3 If applicable, has project design identified interventions which Yes, see chapter 2.2.3 of FPIC Report respond to the needs and priorities expressed by the indigenous communities involved and which build upon their knowledge, cultural systems and institutions. 4 Has a plan to include indigenous peoples in the consultative See chapter 2.2.2 of FPIC Report process has been developed to ensure representatives of indigenous communities are present at all stages of the project cycle (including participation in the implementation of the project)? 5 How has the information related to the project been disclosed? Yes, see chapters 2.2.2 and 2.2.5 of FPIC Report Has been in accordance with Indigenous Peoples’ customs and traditions and whether material has been distributed in the local language? 6 As per international standards [Note 2], describe the process and See chapter 2.2.1 of FPIC Report current status of on-going/completed, legitimate consultations to obtain [Note 3] Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) with the indigenous communities [Note 4]. 1. Table Notes [*] The questions above were derived from FAO's PRODOC template. [1] Including ILO Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989), UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues. [2] ILO Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989), UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), FAO policy on Indigenous and tribal Peoples. [3] Art 6 ILO Convention 169. “Legitimate consultation measures ensure that activities or actions planned respond to indigenous peoples’ concerns and interests, thereby allowing a self-determined development process”, p 5 FAO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. [4] If and when needed, the FAO Officers supporting the project will guide the Project Implementation Team in the processes concerning FPIC. In the publication titled FAO (2016) mentioned further down, refer to its Annex I (“Suggested steps in the process of respecting FPIC”).

Considerations Refer to Additional Annex X-4: Report on the implementation of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Process for further details.

Indigenous Peoples Plan Outline Refer to Additional Annex X-4: Report on the implementation of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Process for further details.

81 Numbers for entire region.

181

ANNEX K: FAO’S ROLES IN INTERNAL ORGANIZATION

1. FAO will be the GEF Implementing Agency of the project. As such, FAO has the project assurance role and will supervise and provide technical guidance for the overall implementation of the project, including: a) Monitor and oversee OP’s compliance with the OPA and project implementation in accordance with the project document, work plans, budgets, agreements with co-financiers and the rules and procedures of FAO and GEF; b) Commence and completing the responsibilities allocated to it in the Project Document in a timely manner, provided that all necessary reports and other documents are available; c) Making transfers of funds, supplies and equipment, as applicable, in accordance with the provisions of the OPA; d) Administrate the portion of project GEF funds that has been agreed with the OP to remain for FAO direct implementation. These funds will be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures of FAO; e) organizing and completing monitoring, assessment, assurance activities and evaluation of the Project; f) Review, discuss with the OP and approve the project progress and financial reports, as detailed in the OPA and its annexes. undertaking and completing monitoring, assessment, assurance activities, evaluation and oversight of the project; g) Liaising on an ongoing basis, as needed, with the Government (as applicable), other members of the United Nations Country Team, Resource Partner, and other stakeholders; h) Providing overall guidance, oversight, technical assistance and leadership, as appropriate, for the Project; i) Provide financial and audit services to the project including budget release, budget revisions and administration of funds from GEF in accordance with rules and procedures of FAO; j) oversee financial expenditures against project budgets; k) ensure that all activities, including procurement and financial services are carried out in strict compliance with FAO and GEF relevant procedures and agreements; l) Initiating joint review meetings with the OP to agree on the resolution of findings and to document the lessons learned; m) Report to the GEF Secretariat and Evaluation Office, through the annual Project Implementation Review, on project progress and provide consolidated financial reports to the GEF Trustee; n) Conduct at least one supervision mission per year o) Lead the Mid-Term Review and Final Evaluation; p) Monitor implementation of the plan for social and environmental safeguards, in accordance with the FAO Environmental and Social Safeguards. q) trigger additional reviews, audits and/or evaluations, as necessary; 2. In collaboration with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and under the overall guidance of the Project Steering Committee, FAO will participate in the planning of contracting and technical selection processes. FAO will process fund transfers to the OP as per provisions, terms and conditions of the signed OPA.

3. The FAO Representative in Namibia will be the Budget Holder (BH) and will be responsible for timely operational, and financial management of GEF resources implemented -. The budget holder will be also responsible for i) managing OPIM for results, including monitoring of risks and overall compliance with the OPA provisions; ii)review and clear financial and progress reports received from the OP and certify request for funds iii) review and clear budget revisions and annual work plan and budgets; iv) ensure implementation of the Risk Mitigation and Assurance Plan v) follow up and ensure that the OP implements all actions and recommendations agreed upon during Assurance Activities. 182

4. As a first step in the implementation of the project, the FAO Representation will establish an interdisciplinary Project Task Force (PTF) within FAO, to guide the implementation of the project. The PTF is a management and consultative body that integrate the necessary technical qualifications from the FAO relevant units to support the project. The PTF is composed of a Budget Holder, a Lead Technical Officer (LTO), the Funding Liaison Officer (FLO) and one or more technical officers based on FAO Headquarters (HQ Technical Officer).

The FAO Representative, in accordance with the PTF, will give its non-objection to the AWP/Bs submitted by the PCU as well as the Project Progress Reports (PPRs). PPRs may be commented by the PTF and should be approved by the LTO before being uploaded by the BH in FPMIS. 5. The Lead Technical Officer (LTO) for the project will be Edward Kilawe, SFS. The role of the LTO is central to FAO’s comparative advantage for projects. The LTO will oversee and carry out technical backstopping to the project implementation. The LTO will support the BH in the implementation and monitoring of the AWP/Bs, including work plan and budget revisions. The LTO is responsible and accountable for providing or obtaining technical clearance of technical inputs and services procured by the Organization.

6. In addition, the LTO will provide technical backstopping to the PMU to ensure the delivery of quality technical outputs. The LTO will coordinate the provision of appropriate technical support from PTF to respond to requests from the PSC. The LTO will be responsible for: a) Assess the technical expertise required for project implementation and identify the need for technical support and capacity development of the OP. b) Provide technical guidance to the OP on technical aspects and implementation. c) Review and give no-objection to TORs for consultancies and contracts to be performed under the project, and to CVs and technical proposals short-listed by the PCU for key project positions and services to be financed by GEF resources; d) Review and give clearance for the OP’s procurement plans; e) Supported by the FAO Representation, review and clear final technical products delivered by consultants and contract holders financed by GEF resources; f) Assist with review and provision of technical comments to draft technical products/reports during project implementation; g) Review and approve project progress reports submitted by the National Program Director (NPD), in cooperation with the BH; h) Support the FAO Representative in examining, reviewing and giving no-objection to AWP/B submitted by the NPD, for their approval by the Project Steering Committee; i) Ensure the technical quality of the six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs). The PPRs will be prepared by the NPD, with inputs from the PCU. The BH will submit the PPR to the FAO/GEF Coordination Unit for comments, and the LTO for technical clearance. The PPRs will be submitted to the PSC for approval twice a year. The FLO will upload the approved PPR to FPMIS. j) Supervise the preparation and ensure the technical quality of the annual PIR. The PIR will be drafted by the NPD, with inputs from the PT. The PIR will be submitted to the BH and the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit for approval and finalization. The FAO/GEF Coordination Unit will submit the PIRs to the GEF Secretariat and the GEF Evaluation Office, as part of the Annual Monitoring Review report of the FAO-GEF portfolio. The LTO must ensure that the NPD and the PCU have provided information on the co-financing provided during the year for inclusion in the PIR; k) Conduct annual supervision missions; l) Provide comments to the TORs for the mid-term and final evaluation; provide information and share all relevant background documentation with the evaluation team; participate in the mid- term workshop with all key project stakeholders, development of an eventual agreed adjustment plan in project execution approach, and supervise its implementation; participate in the final workshop with all key project stakeholders, as relevant. Contribute to the follow-up to

183

recommendations on how to insure sustainability of project outputs and results after the end of the project. m) Monitor implementation of the Risk Mitigation Plan, in accordance with the FAO Environmental and Social Safeguards. 7. The HQ Technical Officer is a member of the PTF, as a mandatory requirement of the FAO Guide to the Project Cycle. The HQ Technical Officer has most relevant technical expertise - within FAO technical departments - related to the thematic of the project. The HQ Technical Officer will provide effective functional advice to the LTO to ensure adherence to FAO corporate technical standards during project implementation, in particular: a) Supports the LTO in monitoring and reporting on implementation of environmental and social commitment plans for moderate risk projects. In this project, the HQ officer will support the LTO in monitoring and reporting the identified risks and mitigation measures (Appendix H2) in close coordination with the OP. b) Provides technical backstopping for the project work plan. c) Clears technical reports, contributes to and oversees the quality of Project Progress Report(s). d) May be requested to support the LTO and PTF for implementation and monitoring. e) Contribute to the overall ToR of the Mid-term and Final Evaluation, review the composition of the evaluation team and support the evaluation function. 8. The FAO-GEF Coordination Unit will provide Funding Liaison Officer (FLO) functions. This FAO/GEF Coordination Unit will review and provide a rating in the annual PIR(s) and will undertake supervision missions as necessary. The PIRs will be included in the FAO GEF Annual Monitoring Review submitted to GEF by the FAO GEF Coordination Unit. The FAO GEF Coordination Unit may also participate or lead the mid-term evaluation, and in the development of corrective actions in the project implementation strategy if needed to mitigate eventual risks affecting the timely and effective implementation of the project. The FAO GEF Coordination Unit will in collaboration with the FAO Finance Division to request transfer of project funds from the GEF Trustee based on six-monthly projections of funds needed. 9. The FAO Financial Division will provide annual Financial Reports to the GEF Trustee and, in collaboration with the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit, request project funds on a six-monthly basis to the GEF Trustee.

Financial management 10. Financial management in relation to the GEF resources directly managed by FAO will be carried out in accordance with FAO’s rules and procedures as outlined below. The OP is accountable to FAO for achieving the agreed project results and for the effective use of resources made available by FAO. Financial management and reporting for the funds transferred to the OP will be done by the OP in accordance with terms, conditions, formats and requirements of FAO and the provisions of the signed Operational Partners Agreement (OPA). The administration by the OP of the funds received from FAO shall be carried out under its own financial regulations, rules and procedures, which shall provide adequate controls to ensure that the funds received, are properly administered and expended. The Operational Partner shall maintain the account in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards.

11. Financial Records. FAO shall maintain a separate account in United States dollars for the project’s GEF resources showing all income and expenditures. FAO shall administer the project in accordance with its regulations, rules and directives. The OP shall maintain books and records that are accurate, complete and up-to-date. The OP’s books and records will clearly identify all Fund Transfers received by the OP as well as disbursements made by the OP under the OPA, including the amount of any unspent funds and interest accrued.

184

12. Financial Reports. The BH shall prepare quarterly project expenditure accounts and final accounts for the project, showing amount budgeted for the year, amount expended since the beginning of the year, and separately, the un-liquidated obligations as follows: i) Details of project expenditures on outcome-by- outcome basis, reported in line with Project Budget as at 30 June and 31 December each year; ii) Final accounts on completion of the Project on a component-by-component and outcome-by-outcome basis, reported in line with the Project Budget; iii) A final statement of account in line with FAO Oracle Project budget codes, reflecting actual final expenditures under the Project, when all obligations have been liquidated.

13. The OP will prepare the financial reports in accordance with terms, conditions, formats and requirements of FAO and the provisions of the signed OPA. The BH will review and approve request for funds and financial reports of the OP. The subsequent instalments can be released only based on the BH confirmation that all expenditures are eligible and all OPA requirements are fulfilled to the satisfaction of FAO. The BH will withhold any payment due to the OP in case of non-compliance with the reporting obligations detailed in the OPA.

14. Financial reports for submission to the donor (GEF) will include both FAO- and OP-managed resources, will be prepared in accordance with the provisions in the GEF Financial Procedures Agreement and submitted by the FAO Finance Division.

15. Responsibility for Cost Overruns. As regards resources directly managed by FAO, the BH shall utilize the GEF project funds in strict compliance with the Project Budget (Appendix A2) and the approved AWP/Bs. The BH can make variations provided that the total allocated for each budgeted project component is not exceeded and the reallocation of funds does not impact the achievement of any project output as per the project Results Framework (Appendix A1). At least once a year, the BH will submit a budget revision for approval of the LTO and the FAO/GEF Coordination Unit through FPMIS. Cost overruns shall be the sole responsibility of the BH.

16. As regards resources managed by the OP, the OP shall utilize the funds received from FAO in strict compliance with provisions of the signed OPA and its Annexes, including approved work plan and budget. The OP can make variations not exceeding 10 percent on any budget heading. Any variations above 10 percent on any budget heading that may be necessary will be subject to prior consultations with and approval by FAO.

17. Under no circumstances can expenditures exceed the approved total project budget or be approved beyond the NTE date of the OPA and/or the project. Any over-expenditure is the responsibility of the BH.

Audit. The project shall be subject to the internal and external auditing procedures provided for in FAO financial regulations, rules and directives and in keeping with the Financial Procedures Agreement between the GEF Trustee and FAO. 18. The audit regime at FAO consists of an external audit provided by the Auditor-General (or persons exercising an equivalent function) of a member nation appointed by the Governing Bodies of the Organization and reporting directly to them, and an internal audit function headed by the FAO Inspector- General who reports directly to the Director-General. This function operates as an integral part of the Organization under policies established by senior management, and furthermore has a reporting line to the governing bodies. Both functions are required under the Basic Texts of FAO which establish a framework for the terms of reference of each. Internal audits of imprest accounts, records, bank reconciliation and asset verification take place at FAO field and liaison offices on a cyclical basis. Specific provision for auditing the OP managed funds are included in the signed Operational Partners Agreement (OPA). During implementation, assurance activities are organized by FAO to determine whether the progress has been made and whether funds transferred to Operational Partners were used for their intended purpose, in accordance with the work plan and relevant rules and regulations. This may include, but is not limited to, monitoring missions, spot checks, quarterly progress and annual implementation reviews, and audits on the resources received from FAO. 185

19. Procurement. Careful procurement planning is necessary for securing goods, services and works in a timely manner, on a “Best Value for Money” basis. It requires analysis of needs and constraints, including forecast of the reasonable timeframe required to execute the procurement process. Procurement and delivery of inputs in technical cooperation projects will follow FAO’s rules and regulations for the procurement of supplies, equipment and services (i.e. Manual Sections 502 and 507). Manual Section 502: “Procurement of Goods, Works and Services” establishes the principles and procedures that apply to procurement of all goods, works and services on behalf of the Organization, in all offices and in all locations, with the exception of the procurement actions described in Procurement Not Governed by Manual Section 502. Manual Section 507 establishes the principles and rules that govern the use of Letters of Agreement (LoA) by FAO for the timely acquisition of services from eligible entities in a transparent and impartial manner, taking into consideration economy and efficiency to achieve an optimum combination of expected whole life costs and benefits. As per the guidance in FAO’s Project Cycle Guide, the BH will draw up an annual procurement plan for major items, which will be the basis of requests for procurement actions during implementation. The first procurement plan will be prepared at the time of project start-up, if not sooner, in close consultation with the NPC and LTO. The plan will include a description of the goods, works, or services to be procured, estimated budget and source of funding, schedule of procurement activities and proposed method of procurement. In situations where exact information is not yet available, the procurement plan should at least contain reasonable projections that will be corrected as information becomes available.

20. (Applicable if OP undertakes procurement activities) Procurement will follow OP rules and regulations for the procurement of supplies, equipment and services. The OP will draw up a procurement plan as part of the supporting documentation to each request for funds submitted to FAO. The plan will include a description of the goods, works, or services to be procured, estimated budget and source of funding, schedule of procurement activities and proposed method of procurement. In situations where exact information is not yet available, the procurement plan should at least contain reasonable projections that will be corrected as information becomes available.

21. The procurement plan shall be updated every quarter and submitted to FAO BH and LTO for clearance.

186

ANNEX L: FAO AND GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS

(a) This Annex sets out the basic conditions under which FAO will assist the Government in the implementation of the Project described in the attached Project Document. (b) The achievement of the objectives set by the Project shall be the joint responsibility of the Government and FAO.

FAO Obligations 1. FAO will be responsible for the provision, with due diligence and efficiency, of assistance as provided in the Project Document. FAO and the Government will consult closely with respect to all aspects of the Project. 2. Assistance under the Project will be made available to the Government, or to such entity as provided in the Project, and will be furnished and received (i) in accordance with relevant decisions of the Governing Bodies of FAO, and with its constitutional and budgetary provisions, and (ii) subject to the receipt by FAO of the necessary contribution from the Resource Partner. FAO will disburse the funds received from the Resource Partner in accordance with its regulations, rules and policies. All financial accounts and statements will be expressed in United States Dollars and will be subject exclusively to the internal and external auditing procedures laid down in the financial regulations, rules and directives of FAO. 3. FAO’s responsibilities regarding financial management and execution of the Project will be as stipulated in the Project Document. FAO may, in consultation with the Government, implement Project components through partners identified in accordance with FAO procedures. Such partners will have primary responsibility for delivering specific project outputs and activities to the Project in accordance with the partner’s rules and regulations, and subject to monitoring and oversight, including audit, by FAO. 4. Assistance under the Project provided directly by FAO, including technical assistance services and/or oversight and monitoring services, will be carried out in accordance with FAO regulations, rules and policies, including on recruitment, travel, salaries, and emoluments of national and international personnel recruited by FAO, procurement of services, supplies and equipment, and subcontracting. The candidacies of senior international technical staff for recruitment by FAO will be submitted to the Government for clearance following FAO procedures. 5. Equipment procured by FAO will remain the property of FAO for the duration of the Project. The Government will provide safe custody of such equipment, which is entrusted to it prior to the end of the Project. The ultimate destination of equipment procured under this Project will be decided by FAO in consultation with the Government and the Resource Partner.

Government Obligations

6. With a view to the rapid and efficient execution of the Project, the Government shall grant to FAO, its staff, and all other persons performing services on behalf of FAO, the necessary facilities including: i) the prompt issuance, free of charge, of any visas or permits required; ii) any permits necessary for the importation and, where appropriate, the subsequent exportation, of equipment, materials and supplies required for use in connection with the Project and exemption from the payment of all customs duties or other levies or charges relating to such importation or exportation; iii) exemption from the payment of any sales or other tax on local purchases of equipment, materials and supplies for use in connection with the project; iv) any permits necessary for the importation of property belonging to and intended for the personal use of FAO staff or of other persons performing services on behalf of FAO, and for the subsequent exportation of such property; v) prompt customs clearance of the equipment, materials, supplies and property referred to in subparagraphs (ii) and (iv) above. 7. The Government will apply to FAO, its property, funds and assets, its officials and all the persons performing services on its behalf in connection with the Project: (i) the provisions of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies; and (ii) the United Nations currency exchange rate. The persons

187

performing services on behalf of FAO will include any organization, firm or other entity, which FAO may designate to take part in the execution of the Project. 8. The Government will be responsible for dealing with any claims which may be brought by third parties against FAO, its personnel or other persons performing services on its behalf, in connection with the Project, and will hold them harmless in respect to any claim or liability arising in connection with the Project, except when it is agreed by FAO and the Government that such claims arise from gross negligence or willful misconduct of such persons.

9. The Government will be responsible for the recruitment, salaries, emoluments and social security measures of its own national staff assigned to the project. The Government will also provide, as and when required for the Project, the facilities and supplies indicated in the Project Document. The Government will grant FAO staff, the Resource Partner and persons acting on their behalf, access to the Project offices and sites and to any material or documentation relating to the Project, and will provide any relevant information to such staff or persons.

Reporting and Evaluation 10. FAO will report to the Government (and to the Resource Partner) as scheduled in the Project Document.

11. The Government will agree to the dissemination by FAO of information such as Project descriptions and objectives and results, for the purpose of informing or educating the public. Patent rights, copyright, and any other intellectual property rights over any material or discoveries resulting from FAO assistance under this Project will belong to FAO. FAO hereby grants to the Government a non-exclusive royalty-free license to use, publish, translate and distribute, privately or publicly, any such material or discoveries within the country for non-commercial purposes. In accordance with requirements of some Resource Partners, FAO reserves the right to place information and reports in the public domain.

12. The Project will be subject to independent evaluation according to the arrangements agreed between the Government, the Resource Partner and FAO. The evaluation report will be publicly accessible, in accordance with the applicable policies, along with the Management Response. FAO is authorized to prepare a brief summary of the report for the purpose of broad dissemination of its main findings, issues, lessons and recommendations as well as to make judicious use of the report as an input to evaluation synthesis studies.

Final Provisions

13. Any dispute or controversy arising out of or in connection with the Project or this Agreement will be amicably settled through consultations, or through such other means as agreed between the Government and FAO.

14. Nothing in or related to any provision in this Agreement or document or activity of the Project shall be deemed (i) a waiver of the privileges and immunities of FAO; (ii) the acceptance by FAO of the applicability of the laws of any country to FAO, and: (iii) the acceptance by FAO of the jurisdiction of the courts of any country over disputes arising from assistance activities under the Project. 15. This Agreement may be amended or terminated by mutual written consent. Termination will take effect sixty days after receipt by either party of written notice from the other party. In the event of termination, the obligations assumed by the parties under this Agreement will survive its termination to the extent necessary to permit the orderly conclusion of activities, and the withdrawal of personnel, funds and property of FAO.

16. This Agreement will enter into force upon signature by the duly authorized representatives of both parties.

END OF MANDATORY ANNEXES [A TO L]

188

PART IV: DLS GCP-SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL ANNEXES (X-1 to X-10)

ADDITIONAL ANNEXES – LIST AND LINKS These additional annexes, comprising a series of assessment reports produced for the PPG, are listed in the Table below. Additional Annexes X-1A, X-1B and X-1C are included in this Project Document. Additional Annexes X-2 to X-10 are accessible on-line via the links provided in the Table below.

Additional Assessment title / topic Annex X-1A Co-financing letters X-1B Co-financing partner profiles and calculus of their co-finance X-1C Regional Exchange Mechanism X-2 Value chains assessment at landscape scale

X-3 Policy, institutional and capacity needs assessment for LDN X-4 Indigenous Peoples –Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Assessment (when relevant)

X-5 Stakeholder Capacity Needs Assessment

X-6 Collect Earth Remote Sensing Assessment X-7 Participatory land degradation assessment

X-8 Household and Climate Resilience Assessment

X-9 Integrated Landscape Assessment Methodology (ILAM) X-10 International Experts: Terms of Reference

189

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1A: CO-FINANCING LETTERS

MAWLR.pdf Letter KfW Nov2020.pdf

MEFT GEF7 Cofinancing for the cofinance letter.pdf GEF 7 Dry Land Sustainbale Landscape Mnagagment Project 24 June 2020.docx

EIF GEF7 cofinance Ministry of letter.pdf Industrialization and Trade.pdf

190

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1B: CO-FINANCING PARTNERS AND CALCULUS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS

Co-financing amounts

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the cofinancing and how it has been calculated from the baseline funding. These cofinancing amounts are summarized in Table 3 of the ProDoc. Table 1 also provides details of the potential collaboration and role of cofinanciers within the project. Table 1. Co-financier profiles, baseline and proposed co-finance # Baseline Project / Objective / Focus Area / Relevance to the Project and Proposed Collaboration or Synergy Baseline Co-Financing Program / Other Calculus proposed Duration (US $M) from Project Component Baseline

1 NHSP National Nationally, the Program may leverage some 300 million NAD ($20M) in FY2020/21 and a $3.57 $3.57 Horticulture Support similar amount, if not higher, in the following FY. It also has close linkages to the Green Program and other Scheme Program under the Land Reform Department, now under MAWLR. The purpose of related initiatives, under the NHSP – and of other related initiatives, under the broad ‘Crop and Horticulture the Crop and Production Program’ – is to ensure sustainable access, availability and use of essential farm Horticulture Production inputs by small-scale horticulture producers. Both the programs Green Scheme Program Program, Ministry of ‘Crop and Horticulture Production Program’ are multi-sectoral and long-term and programs Agriculture, Water and that evolve with needs and shifting focus. The NHSP is more specific and it will in particular Land Reform, (MAWLR, enhance the availability and facilitate access by small-scale horticulture producers to ex. MAWF), appropriate farm mechanization, irrigation equipment, technological supplies and services; Government funded increase the contribution of small-scale horticulture producers to local supply of good quality and marketable produce; sustainably improve small-scale horticulture producers Duration: 2020-2025 technical skills and competencies through capacity building, research and development initiatives including related support services. The project has a budget of $714K for the Project Component: 2 2020/21 FY and a Total budget of $ 3.5M for the next 5 year period. (NPC5 code 20146) PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: The NHSP part of the broad set of national programs and is slated to be implemented in various regions, including in Kavango West, Omusati and Oshikoto. Therefore, the investment is relevant. Where land availability is scarce, intensification is important for ensuring a sustainable land use in croplands. NHSP and this The DSL Child Project Namibia will collaborate in defining ideal locations for investments by focusing on sites where agricultural intensification is most needed and most cost effective and has best chances of being sustainable. If practiced with adapted SLM, IWLM and CSA agricultural practices, horticulture is a proven and effective land-use sub- system under cropland which can significantly contribute to farmers’ food security and sustainable income generation. Horticulture tends also to be by default gender sensitive, given that women are those primarily engaged in it. In drylands, most horticultural practices depend on some level of irrigation, requiring an integrated approach to land and water management. With technical assistance provided by the project, cultivation techniques and practices within the targeted landscape will be located in the most suitable lands. Standards of SLM, IWRM and CSA will help with sustainability. By linking up it up with value chain development, horticulture can achieve scale in a relatively short period of time, while contributing at the same time to the achievement of Namibia’s LDN targets. 2 Beef & Dairy Value Two distinct, but correlated programs under the NPC5 are presented here as baseline and $21.4 $21.4 Chain Development in co-financing: The Northern • NPC CODE: 20207, Dairy value chain development Scheme (approx. $2.14M) Communal Areas (NCAs) • NPC CODE: 18743, Beef value chain development in northern communal areas - Ministry of Agriculture, ($19.26M) Water and Land Reform, TOTAL: $21.4 (based on project duration of 3.5 years for ease of calculation) (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), Government funded General objective for both programs: To create diversified marketing opportunities both in the domestic and export markets for meat originating in the Northern Communal Areas Duration: 2012-2025 (NCA) through the value chains.

Project Component: 2 DESCRIPTION for the Dairy VC Program (NPC5 code 20207): To create diversified marketing opportunities both in the domestic and export markets for meat originating in the NCAs through the value chain. The main objective of the Namibia rural dairy project is to establish a modern and self-sustaining dairy industry, to meet the country’s needs in milk and milk products. Specifically, the project will address the following: Linkages of rural milk producers to formal domestic markets including Offices Ministries and Agencies (OMAs), catering

191

# Baseline Project / Objective / Focus Area / Relevance to the Project and Proposed Collaboration or Synergy Baseline Co-Financing Program / Other Calculus proposed Duration (US $M) from Project Component Baseline

services and retailers; Ensure a year-round sustained milk supply at national and household levels; Develop a functional milk cold chain system from rural milking shed to the markets and Enhance the quality and safety of milk and milk product from rural dairy producers. The beneficiaries are the Dairy producers. DESCRIPTION for the Beef VC Program (NPC5 code 18743): The project aims at enhancing the cattle and beef value chain in the Northern Communal Areas (NCA). NCA cattle slaughter statistics suggest that this national resource is underutilized. The project has been carefully and holistically scoped to look at the entire value chain from trading with farmers, upgrading the slaughter capacity plus the hygiene and safety conditions of existing slaughtering facilities in Eenhana, Outapi and Opuwo over separate phases and include a centralized meat processing and cold room facility in the newly developed Fresh Produce Hub in Ongwediva to centrally process and refrigerate products up to a period of 21-days if products are required for export. The project will construct a medium sized meat processing, cold storage and abattoir (for cattle, sheep and goats) for Rundu, construct cold storage and meat processing plant in Zambezi region. PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Livestock products is one the value chains proposed by the project to be targeted in project site ‘Sub-basin 2 (Etosha)’. There an area covering 10,000 ha along the stretch of land between Omuthiya and Oshivelo is commonly used rangeland used for pastoral uses but where overgrazing and land degradation are becoming a problem due to overstocking. Working with MAWLR and other partners (GIZ e.g. which is also executing sustainable land management initiatives in the area together with Herero communities), the DSL Child Project can be instrumental in promoting a rational use of the rangeland and surrounding landscapes through rotation grazing and commercialization of surplus stock and of other livestock products. 3 Production incentives DESCRIPTION: Together with NHSP, ‘Sunflower Oil & Cowpea Incentive Project’ of MAWLR $0.7 $0.3 for sunflower oil seed is part of the broad program ‘Crop and Horticulture Production’. Project aims to assist and cowpeas. Ministry groups of farmers with the provision of production input subsidies, ploughing, planting, of Agriculture, Water harvesting and marketing services. Promotion of sunflower oil seed production will and Land Reform, eventually create constant supply of raw products to the sunflower processing plants, allow (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), diversification of production and spread farmers’ risks, improve soil fertility through crop Government funded rotation, employment creation which in turn will enhance income generation. The components of the project include provision of production input subsidies, provision of Duration: 2018-2021 ploughing, planting, and harvesting, provision of marketing services and provision of production input subsidies while the beneficiaries are farmers and the general public. The Project Component: 2 baseline calculus was estimated at $0.35M in average per year based on 2018-2021 amounts. A baseline amount for the FY2019/2020 and FY2020/2021 was considered. Because of future uncertainties, concerning the continuation of this government investment, only half of the amount is proposed as co-financing. (NPC5 code 20118). PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Although small, the Government’s ‘Sunflower Oil & Cowpea Incentive Project’ is important for the Northern Region of Namibia, especially for impoverished communal areas within the project sites. The Incentive Project will be implemented in the regions of Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango East and Kunene, in addition to others. The NPC5 states in the MTEF 2019/20 - 2021/22: “Sunflower and cowpeas are important and low input crops, particularly in areas where rainfall is marginal and/or where input costs such as fertilizers, seeds, herbicides, and insecticides are critical factors of production.” MAWLR’s focus on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) is motivated by its food security and nitrogen fixating properties, including in intercropping systems in drylands, if the correct techniques are used. As for the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), it is perennial cash crop, but based on an exotic species with tendencies to become invasive in non-controlled monoculture systems. The interest from MAWLR in incentivizing production comes from promising experiences from South Africa, where is has been proven as important and versatile oilseed crop and, quite importantly, a drought-tolerant crop, which makes it an attractive option for producers in dryland production regions. Demand for oil seed and cake from pressed sunflower seeds is in the increase. With the right processing facility nearby and controlled on-farm conditions, the potential for farmers to maintain sunflower fields as an ‘investment perennial’ for harsh times should be explored. 4 Establishment of Agro- DESCRIPTION: Construction of agro processing facilities at Mariental and Outapi. The agro- $2.9 $1.6 Processing Facilities, processing industry offers significant potential to increase value addition, create jobs,

192

Ministry of Agriculture, income and export opportunities as well as to enhance food security and reduce Water and Land Reform, dependence on imports. The project beneficiaries will be the agro-processors and agro- (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), industry as well as producers of producer of raw material as they will have a better value Government funded chain for their product. The calculus of baseline and co-financing is thus presented: for the Government funded FY2019/2020 = 1.3MUSD; FY2020/2021 = 1.6M USD. (NPC5 Code 20119)

Duration: 2018-2030 PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: The approximate investment amount for both facilities that were mentioned in the title was included in the baseline amount. Yet, only the Project Component: 2 Outapi facility would be of geographical relevance for the DSL IP Child Project Namibia, and only the corresponding amount was therefore considered as co-financing. The facility in Outapi is particularly relevant for the VC Outcomes in Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) (see project sites). The Government’s investment will create value addition, business development and it is bound attracting private sector investment to the rural communities in Outapi. Although Outapi town is technically located outside the Kunene-Cuvelai Landscape 1, it is very near its eastern limit and located along a major road. Outapi is therefore a market hub for drylands value chains from Site 1. It is also not too far from Sub- basin 2 (Etosha). Refer to Outcome XXX. Finally, the program of establishing agro-processing facilities is a long-term one, currently benefitting Mariental and Outapi. In the future, dryland products’ processing and aggregation hubs in other project landscapes may be selected and the collaboration expanded. 5 Cereal Value Chain DESCRIPTION: To provide market access for Namibian maize and mahangu (i.e. pearl millet $61.3 $13.7 Development Scheme - or Pennisetum glaucum) into Government Offices Ministries and Agencies (OMAs) –Through Ministry of Agriculture, government procurement, the scheme will: improve household income levels of maize and Water and Land Reform, mahangu small and medium scale agricultural producers and processors hence contribute (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), to food security; promote local production of maize and mahangu by providing assured Government funded stable and favorable prices and facilitate National Strategic Food Reserves system by providing ready market to justify continuous procurement from small and medium scale Duration: 2021-2030 agricultural producers and processors and recycling of sufficient volumes of grain in the silos, leading to price stability at national level. The beneficiaries of the project are farmers Project Component: 2 and agro-processors. Cost allocation is thus from 2018 to 2030: Considered as baseline (estimates): FY2020/2019 = US$2.29 M and budget of $13.7m for the period of five years. Only the latter can be presented as co-financing. (NPC5 code 20209) PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Potential collaboration of project with respect to VC Outcomes is obvious, in particular because pearl millet is considered a Neglected and Underused Crop Species (NUS) and strategies to promote NUS in drylands across the globe are part of the DSL approach. Activities concerning NUS will be pursued in the Namibia’s Child Project, where opportunities present themselves, and more specifically in relevant constituencies within the regions of Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango East and Kunene, where the project will be implemented in Namibia. (See project sites). 6 Development of DESCRIPTION: The program, which has been running for several years, a rolling with and $7.35 $1.6 livestock breeding and evolving priorities and in varied locations. It aims to develop and rehabilitate the necessary marketing infrastructure infrastructure to produce and market livestock in communal areas, including in the Norther in communal areas - Regions of Namibia and in this manner bringing livelihoods’ improvements to livestock Ministry of Agriculture, farmers. At its completion it will provide centers from where farmers can obtain the Water and Land Reform, improved livestock, as well as centers where the farmers can receive training in all aspects (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), related to animal husbandry, herd and animal health management, marketing and the Government funded processing of livestock products. The beneficiaries are the smallholder livestock farmers in the communal areas, who Duration: 1988-2025 will benefit from the improved livestock made available to them, resulting in the increased income derived from their livestock. The main components under this project include Project Component: 2 construction and rehabilitation of marketing facilities; training and support to farmers and farmer associations in management and maintenance, record keeping (sales at auction/ permits etc.), livestock marketing, farm management and farm economics. The baseline calculus considers duration 1998 to 2025, of which FY2019/2020 has US$200K and FY2020/2021 a similar amount, both together are considered as baseline and co-financing. By extrapolating till 2025, an approximate figure of US$0.7M is proposed. (NPC5 code 1385) PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Two of the proposed locations for the livestock infrastructures in MAWLR’s program indicate a potential for collaboration within Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) of the project, more specifically in Tsandi and Opuwo Rural

193

constituencies. The former is located within the boundaries of the sub-basin’s landscape and the latter slightly outside. Both can be considered a local market aggregation sites for livestock and are important locations with respect to livestock VC activities, which will be pursued in the Namibia’s Child Project, where opportunities present themselves. 7 Water resource DESCRIPTION: The project aims to achieve sustainable development, management and $9.96 $2.5 management - Ministry utilization of water resources through the implementation of appropriate policies, of Agriculture, Water agreements and water laws in order to contribute to socio-economic development. The and Land Reform main components of the project are: Establishment of basins management committees and (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), water resources plans, Development of flood mapping and flood management systems for Government funded northern Namibia, Joint Angola/Namibia water supply project with relevance for transfrontier matters. Baseline calculus considers duration 2008 to 2021, of which Duration: 2008-2021 US$592.7K is allocated to FY2019/2020 and US$500 to FY2020/2021 with a total of $2.5 over the next five year. The sum is presented as baseline and the latter part as co-financing. Project Component: 1, 2 (NPC5 code 8061) PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Although the governmental funding allocated to the program appears limited, if adequately combined with project resources at the level of all three selected sub-basins that are the project’s targeted landscapes (see ‘Project Sites’ section for details), there is potential for a greater synergy and mutual generation of benefits. More specifically, the project will promote integrated water and land(use) management (IWLM) within the mentioned sites, using spatial planning and other relevant tools: • Sub-basin 1 (Kunene-Cuvelai) • Sub-basin 2 (Etosha) • Sub-basin 3 (Okavango) The above sites are nested within the Kunene, Cuvelai and Okavango River Basin in this order. Refer in particular to Component 1 strategy which prescribes the preparation of integrated land management plans (ILMPs) for the above-mentioned sub-basins and how this will involve a review and revision of existing Integrated Regional Land-use plans for the basins or simply the inclusion of nested plans for the targeted sub-basins. The mainstreaming of LND considerations into this review (or nested plan development) and, more importantly, the implementation of integrated plans is of note. The work foreseen in the mentioned output and in others co-related will be done in close collaboration with the respective basin management committees and by tapping into capacity development opportunities and synergies with the basin committees’ own work programs. 8 Seed System DESCRIPTION: The objective of the project is to produce foundation seed and multiply $2.8 $2.8 Development Scheme. certified seeds. Baseline calculus considers a duration of 2014 to 2022, of which the Ministry of Agriculture, following can be presented as baseline and co-financing: 2019/2020= $1.770 M; Water and Land Reform, 2020/2021= US$0.530. By extrapolating till 2022, a figure of US$2.8M is obtained. (NPC5 (MAWLR, ex. MAWF), code 18846) Government funded PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Collaboration is specifically proposed on activities Duration: 2014-2022 that relate to the establishment of community seed banks. Planning and coordinated collection and purchase of seeds are some of the activities that can be pursued in synergy, Project Component: 1, 2 in addition to various stakeholder capacity development initiatives linked to seeds’ management, a topic in which FAO has much expertise. 9 Integrated Forest DESCRIPTION: The project aims to develop policies, strategies and programs for the $9.7 $9.7 Resource Management - protection and conservation of forest resources, conduct afforestation and reforestation, Ministry of Agriculture, and manage resources in order to combat deforestation and construct forestry Water and Land Reform infrastructure for the development and management of forest resources in a sustainable ex-MAWF, Division- manner. Baseline calculus considers duration 1996 to 2030, of which the following can be Forestry, currently presented as baseline and co-financing: FY2019/2020 = US$2.584 M; FY2020/2021 = transferred to Ministry US$2.333; FY2021/2022 = US$2.1M and FY2022/2023 = US$0.7M. Rounded off the of Environment, approximate figure of US$9.7M is proposed. (NPC5 code 240) Forestry and Tourism PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Collaboration is specifically proposed for activities (MEFT), Government that related to spatial planning under Component 1 and activities that seek to protect funded forests in Component 2. The exact modalities of collaboration and the involvement of the Duration: 1996-2030 EIF in similar activities that relate to the protection of forests in landscapes will be Project Component: 1, 2 developed in due course. The government program on forests is a long-term one.

194

10 Cosmetic Sector The objective of the Program is to support local value chain of product from indigenous $8.2 $8.2 Industry Growth plants (such as malura, ximenia, devil’s claw, manket, commiphora etc.) and Market access Program, Ministry of for end products. Within the current MTEF, it falls under a broad program titled Trade and Industry ‘Industrialization, Trade and SME Development’, which includes among other sector- (MTI), Government focused projects and initiatives, and – of relevance to the project -- an ‘Agro Processing funded Development’. Under it, the intervention titled ‘Cosmetic Sector Industry Growth Program’ of MTI is placed, and with the understanding that it includes Pharmaceuticals (including Duration: on-going herbal medicine) and nature-based cosmetics manufacturing. Project Component: 2 PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Herbal medicine value chains and nature-based cosmetics are of particular interest for the DSL IP Namibia Child Project, to the extent that sustainable value chains based on product that sustainable use indigenous plants from miombo and mopane woodlands as raw materials can help safeguard the flow of ecosystem services within the landscapes. The use of forests needs to be balanced, rational and non- degrading. Some of the promising drylands value chains in the DSL IP Namibia Child Project can potentially include those that MTI is supporting from a trade and industrialization points of view. Hence, a collaborative approach with MTI, while also implicating MAWLR and MEFT on the landscape management aspect of the value chains is what is being sought through the project. Refer to Output2.2.2. 11 AfDB-Government DESCRIPTION: Project designed to achieve Harambee Prosperity Plan´s (HPP) ambitious $81.43 $55.7 funded NAMSIP: The target by increasing agricultural production and productivity, in line with the MAWLR Namibia Agricultural Harambee Comprehensively Coordinated and Integrated Agricultural Development Project Mechanization and Seed (HACCIADEP: 2017). NAMSIP’s goal is to contribute to poverty reduction and economic Improvement Project growth. “The Project’s objectives are to improve household food security and nutrition, job (NAMSIP) creation, improved household incomes and lives of rural people through increased agricultural production and productivity. The Project has 2 components, namely: (a) Duration: 2018- 2022 Component 1 - Value Chain Improvement, with 2 sub-components, (i) Agricultural Mechanization and (ii) Certified Seed Systems Improvement; and (b) Component 2 - Project Component: 1, 2 Institutional Support, with 2 sub-components, (i) Capacity Building, and (ii) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation.” Link: https://projectsportal.afdb.org/dataportal/VProject/show/P-NA-AA0-005 PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: The work that the NAMSIP project is developing on value chains and certification is of particular interest for the DSL IP Namibia Child Project. One of the activities of NAMSIP includes the acquisition and facilitation of certified seeds distribution to silos. Selected crops would include pearl millet, sorghum and cowpeas, but also maize, which would not be recommended as sustainable under drylands conditions, unless under specific circumstances. The window of opportunity for collaboration with NAMSIP is small, as the project will close in 2022. NAMSIP will be active in all 14 regions of Namibia, but the certified seed distribution scheme will be geographically limited, including among other Kavango East, Omusati and Oshikoto. Refer to Comp 1 description. Because of the capacity building component in NAMSIP, there is potential to collaborate under Component 1 as well. 12 GCF funded project DESCRIPTION: The projects CBNRM EDA Empower to Adapt focuses on creating Climate- $10.00 $6.0 CBNRM EDA: Empower Change Resilient Livelihoods through Community-Based Natural Resource Management in to Adapt: creating Namibia (CBNRM EDA) Project. Under implementation with Green Climate Fund (GCF) Climate-Change resources and co-financing from multiple partners. It is implemented through the Resilient Livelihoods Environmental Investment Fund (EIF), a national and public interest trust fund of the through Community- Namibian Government linked to MEFT. Based Natural Resource PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY (applying to both the EDA and the CRAVE Management in projects): Both projects are a relevant financial baseline to the DSL IP Child Project Namibia Namibia. because they deal with communities and their ability to adapt on the basis of their Duration: 2017-2022 environment and conditions. The CRAVE has a specific focus on subsistence farming. Since many community members who are potential beneficiaries of the Child project fall into their Project Component: 2 category, while also being natural resource users, there is a vast intersection to explore. Community or farmer based adaptive techniques and practices can be developed on the ground learning and piggybacking on the EDA and CRAVE lessons. There is a small window of opportunity for collaboration, between these GCF funded project managed by EIF, but it will be explored in full.

195

13 GCF funded CRAVE DESCRIPTION: The CRAVE project aims to reduce rural human population’s vulnerability and $53.4 $10 Project: The Climate food insecurity to climate risks and threats while increasing the adaptive capacity, well- Resilient Agriculture in being and resilience of the vulnerable small-scale farming communities in crop production three of the Vulnerable landscapes that are threatened by climate variability and change.” Two sub-objectives: a) To Extreme northern crop- strengthen the adaptive capacity, scale up adoption of effective coping mechanisms and growing regions (CRAVE) measures, and implement on-the-ground adaptation actions and practices that assist is aimed at contributing vulnerable subsistence farmers to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change, erratic weather to the achievement of patterns, seasonal rainfall shifts, heat and drought. b) To provide rural crop male and female the Namibia farmers with alternative sustainable access to off-grid solar energy technologies (water Comprehensive pumping for small-scale micro horticultural systems, and refrigeration for harvested food) Conservation and reduce the dependency of increasingly expensive (and environmentally unfriendly) Agriculture Program imported fuels by promoting solar water pumping in the agricultural sector. Under (NCCAP) and the revised implementation with Green Climate Fund (GCF) resources and co-financing from multiple Namibia Agriculture partners. It is implemented through the Environmental Investment Fund (EIF), a national Policy and public interest trust fund of the Namibian Government linked to MEFT. The project is allocated with $1.35 for the 2020/21 FY and a budget of $3.4 for the remaining 3 years Duration: 2017-2022 including the project closure period. The project is co-funded by MAWLR and Global Climate Fund. Project Component: 2 PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: Refer to box further up. The same collaboration and synergy proposals referring to the CBNRM EDA project also applies to the CRAVE project. 14 KAZA - Kavango-Zambezi DESCRIPTION: With the support of the KfW Development Bank, which is funding the project $38.5 $35.0 Transfrontier with an amount of EUR 35 million, on behalf of the German Ministry for Economic Conservation Area (KfW Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism funded) implements an integrated park management concept in north-east Namibia. The goal of the Namibia National Parks Program (known in short as "Namparks" Program), is to efficiently Duration: 2016-on- protect the National Parks against use pressure, to preserve them as corridors for migrating going, with the wildlife as well as to keep them competitive as a tourist destination and thus also benefiting prospects of a new the local population economically. The Namibian Ministry of Environment, Forests and phase Tourism (ex-MET) has developed through its integrated park management an innovative approach, which involves the close collaboration of park staff with conservancies and Project Component: 2 neighboring residents in the planning, development and management of the parks and protected areas. The development of the National Parks in the north-east has been

implemented within the context of the regional transboundary conservation program, called the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Area (KAZA), which is also supported via German financial cooperation. PROPOSED COLLABORATION / SYNERGY: The KAZA has made important progress with the regional conservation agenda in the Okavango basin involving neighboring countries in a collaborative approach to the consolidation of a protected area system. Because there is strong competition for land in northern Namibia. A conservation approach, if successful, is generally quite effective in the safeguarding of ecosystem services, not just in the area under protection but also in the surrounding landscapes. Some of the areas proclaimed for conservation or strengthened through the KAZA are near project sites, creating a positive externality in terms of landscape level management. Totals (US $M) $311.0 $172.3

196

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-1C: REGIONAL EXCHANGE MECHANISM https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tT8LF45ccBXlnVc3t5ZG9lscQQcClPY9/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-2: VALUE CHAINS ASSESSMENT AT LANDSCAPE SCALE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvCTAUt34BZGUVQR8Rh5MmBbSvUjaO77/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-3: POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL AND CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR LDN https://drive.google.com/file/d/13usIS7lJ_YJ4P83I3MfwFgtKEKxiv6I2/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-4: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES - FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT ASSESSMENT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nh3LMIHndSL1yQZlm1NdHaoFvps1WtkP/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-5: STAKEHOLDER CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1apM7G7BWLPFK9DtvpOybntHO6jjXhyTa/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-6: COLLECT EARTH REMOTE SENSING ASSESSMENT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hY0U0MDInskD9JJBhyTokSR9x1sUyb2h/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-7: PARTICIPATORY LAND DEGRADATION ASSESSMENT https://drive.google.com/file/d/16t7IysOQG_n1XKg0Nh_Rmi5TxqJUzqCv/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-8: HOUSEHOLD AND CLIMATE RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT (SHARP+) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wbzm02A1eIw7RMeScrN9G_N2r_WQxuPi/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-9: INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (ILAM) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t2Wn8QnubYIgBuxAhQ44b__1uJFA9wqY/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-10: INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS - TERMS OF REFERENCE https://drive.google.com/file/d/11mBXUiWk1PmG0lzD0d-l1Z4hJvTxegDR/view?usp=sharing

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-11: JUSTIFICATION FOR TAILORED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMjm04v1P_2fAZBtRvxLz3Qi6YF0F26V/view?usp=sharing

197

ADDITIONAL ANNEX X-12: EX-ACT CALCULATIONS https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFe76JdspExyeOskCNKCZXNFOLb0HfaZ/view?usp=sharing

198