Projectdocagropastoralproduction-1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT (FSP) THE GEF TRUST FUND Date of Resubmission: 23 Sept 2010 PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION INDICATIVE CALENDAR GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3370 Milestones Expected Dates GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PIMS 3245 Work Program (for FSP) June 2007 COUNTRY: Kenya CEO Endorsement/Approval October 2010 PROJECT TITLE: Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management GEF Agency Approval November 2010 in Agropastoral Production Systems of Kenya Implementation Start February 2011 GEF AGENCY: UNDP Mid-term Review (if planned) Dec 2013 OTHER EXECUTING PARTNERS: GOK (MINISTRY Implementation Completion June 2015 AGRICULTURE AND RELEVANT DISTRICTS) GEF FOCAL AREAS: Land Degradation GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): LD SP 2 in TerrAfrica SIP A. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Objective: To provide land users and managers with the enabling policy environment, institutional, financial incentives and capacity for effective adoption of SLM in four Agropastoral districts Compone Ty Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs GEF Co-Fin Total nts ($) % ($) % Knowledg T Knowledge base for At least 50% of cultivators in the pilot 1,070,000 26 2,990,000 74 4,060,000 e based A landscape based land landscapes adopting 3-5 forms of land use U use planning in place: improved practices planning N Communities engaged At least 30% increase in soil fertility forms the in and benefiting from from baselines for land users basis for experiential learning consistently engaging in 3-5 improved improving for slm: practices drylands Technical staff At least 50% of the agriculturalists and sustainabl provided with skills pastoralists in the pilot landscapes e and other capacities taking decisions on the basis of the economic required in slm weather and drought early warning developm facilitation: information ent Particularly degraded At least 60% of land users and 75% of lands rehabilitated: technical officers requiring to up-date A participatory m&e skills have done so system designed and Lessons on improving land and used to provide resource tenure, range rehabilitation, information to link sustainable charcoaling, improving policy decisions to livestock mobility, and other important ecosystem health and project initiatives available for improvements in dissemination through the upscaling livelihoods: project; 1 Viability T Livestock trade At least 50% increase in agricultural 955,800 29 2,315,000 71 3,270,800 of the A improved: produce for key crops for those agropastor Access to markets for adopting 3-5 improved practices alism alternative sustainable consistently productio livelihood options At least a 20% increase in livestock n system increased: prices being obtained in markets increased Farmers and herders within the pilot landscapes due to through increase access to better marketing/trading conditions diversifica micro-finance and At least 25% increase in numbers tion credits: accessing micro-finance and credits increased Agricultural at least 40% increase in household access to productivity increased incomes for more than 50% of finance sustainably: participating households, for SLM Livestock mobility At least 50% of current mobile supported as an pastoralists still retain livestock adaptation technology: mobility by the end of the project Strategies for At least 50% reduction in incidents of upscaling best conflicts over land and resources in the practices in the region pilot districts formulated: The TA SLM policies At least 2 policies revised to 701,861 23 2,315,000 77 3,016,861 policy, reviewed in a mainstream SLM principles and so regulatory participatory provide a better policy environment and processes and for SLM; institution recommendations for At least 5 charcoal associations have al mainstreaming rules and regulations for sustainable arrangeme generated: charcoal and are actively enforcing nt support Implementation of them; mainstrea the new charcoal At least 5 groups with sustainable ming of rules tested on the charcoal production operations and sustainabl ground: earning money from carbon finance; e land Charcoal associations At least 80% of charcoal producers managem capacitated to engage ent in the in sustainable have received training on sustainable agropastor charcoal and improve charcoal al governance: Collection of revenue by Districts and productio Technologies for Revenue Authority from charcoal n system. improved processes increase by 25% conversions along the Number of charcoal producers using charcoaling chain improved kiln in carbonization in pilot provided landscapes increase by at least 30% Traditional institutions have revised by-rules that are integrated into national and district policies for resource management PMU Project managed efficiently and cost-effectively 303,073 23 1,040,000 77 1,343,073 Total costs 3,030,734 26 8,660,000 74 11,690,734 C. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($) Preparation Project Agency Fee Total GEF Grant 350,000 3,030,734 304,266 3,685,000 Co-financing 350,000 8,660,000 9,010,000 Total 700,000 11,690,734 304,266 12,695,000 D. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE ($) Co-financing Source Cash In-kind Total Government Contribution 3,660,000 3,660,000 UNDP CO 1,000,000 1,000,000 MDG Centre 1,000,000 1,000,000 2 ICRAF 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total co-financing 1,000,000 7,660,000 8,660,000 E - Table 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST1 Cost Items Estimated staff GEF amount ($) Co-financing ($) Project total ($) weeks Contractual services - individuals 250 80,000 132,000 212,000 Contractual services - companies 180 90,000 110,000 200,000 International consultants 0 80,000 80,000 Office facilities, equipment, 83,073 140,000 223,073 vehicles and communications Travel 50,000 90,100 140,100 Total 303,073 552,100 855,173 F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Component Estimated GEF Other Project staff ($) sources total weeks ($) ($) Local consultants 350 350,000 80,000 430,000 International consultants 100 100,000 115,000 215,000 Total 450 450000 195000 645,000 G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN: 1. A detailed project M&E plan and process is described in the UNDP Project Document; a summary is presented below. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework in Annex 2 provides indicators for project implementation, cross referenced to the SIP Results Framework as currently designed, along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project Monitoring and Evaluation System will be built. 2. Project start: A Project Inception Workshop will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders. The Inception Workshop will be crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. It will address a number of key issues including: assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project; detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) staff vis à vis the project team; discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms; share the terms of reference for project staff as needed. 3. The inception workshop will also provide a venue for finalizing the first annual work plan as well as reviewing and agreeing on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and rechecking assumptions and risks; providing a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements; confirming the monitoring and evaluation work plan and budgets and schedules; discussing financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for annual audit; planning and scheduling Project Board meetings; clarifying 1 In accordance with both UNDP and GEF policies no GEF project resources will be used to pay any government, agency, or NGO staff or personnel 3 roles and responsibilities of all project organization structures; and holding the first Project Board meeting. If the first board meeting is not held at the inception workshop, it will be held within the first 12 months following the inception workshop. 4. Quarterly: Project Progress will be monitored quarterly using the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. The risks identified at project design will be entered into ATLAS and monitored quarterly. The risks related to markets, micro-finance and conflicts are all rated critical under the Enhanced Results Based Management Platform on the basis of their innovative nature (high impact and uncertainty due to no previous experience justifies classification as critical), and the high incidents of conflicts in the ASALs. These will therefore be monitored very carefully and information used to adapt project management. Quarterly Project Progress Reports (PPR) will be generated in the Executive Snapshot, using the information recorded in Atlas. Other ATLAS logs will be used to monitor issues, lessons learned etc. The use of these functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive Balanced Scorecard. 5. Annually: Annual Project Progress