Monitoring & Evaluation Plan Transboundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Project in the Kagera Basin : Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania Prepared by Janie Rioux, Natural Resources/M&E Consultant Final Version Technically Cleared by the RPC and the LTU December 2011
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Transboundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Project in the Kagera Basin : Rwanda, Burundi,
Uganda and Tanzania
Prepared by Janie Rioux, Natural Resources/M&E Consultant
Final Version Technically Cleared by the RPC and the LTU December 2011
2
Table of Contents
1. M&E PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT ....................................................................................................................... 13
BASELINE DATA AND METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Budgetary allocations from Governments to transboundary coordination and collaboration in the Kagera Basin
increased by 10 % increased by 10 %
Coordination between countries, and regional projects (NBI, NELSAP, LVEMP, etc.)
MoU developed
Recommendations to harmonise policies, laws and regulations and address transboundary issues in the river basin
mechanisms developed in 21 districts
mechanisms implemented in 21 districts
Developed 4-6 districts
Implemented 4-6 districts
20
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
Transboundary SLM action plans in development with budget allocations and institutional support (The action plans might not be in place as between countries collaboration might require high political decision making, but these action plans and agreed mechanisms would have been developed through the project and submitted for national and regional decision making .)
5 transboundary SLM action plans between : Uganda-Tanzania Uganda-Rwanda
Tanzania-Rwanda
Rwanda-Burundi Burundi-Tanzania On different TB issues : - Erosion &
sedimentation
monitoring - Burning - Wetland - Livestock Movement
& pasture management
- Crop & Livestock
Diseases - Agrobiodiversity
Kagera Monitoring and Information system
System Developed ad data available
National GIS centre providing targeted support to at least 1 district/country for capacity building on use of GIS and mapping
1 pilot GIS/country
Community information centers
Centers set up
2. Enabling Policy, Planning and Legislations
Priority policy, legal and transboundary issues identified and agreed for SLaM
community (68) district (21)
17 communities 4-6 districts
Policy recommendations developed 8 2
21
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
that support national policy decisions and regulatory mechanisms
Policy recommendation that support bye-laws at district/community-level
4 1
SLaM considerations/actions integrated in annual district development plans and budgets
21 districts 4-6 districts
Project indicators used to monitor how SLM practices/ approaches contribute to agricultural production, food security, livelihoods and to NAPs and NBSAPs, and also NAMAS and NAPAS to link how the project can contribute to inform these national strategies
4 by convention 1 by convention
Locally adapted by laws developed and agreed at community level
24 cases/ country (1-2/community)
Locally adapted by laws implemented at community level
24 cases/ country
National and local government staff trained in land use planning
42 at district level 64 at community level
11 district level 16 community level
Land use policy (through the SLM plan and interventions) being effectively applied/ enforced and exchange of best practices between countries
68 communities 17 communities
Participatory strategies and action plans developed for SLaM
21 districts 4-6 districts
- Improved pasture and rangelands management
15 areas 7,500ha
4 areas 1,875 ha
- Transboundary livestock 5 borders 1 R-B
22
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
movements 1 R-T 1 R-U 1 U-T 1 B-T
- Conservation and sustainable use of wetlands
9 areas 6,000 ha
2-3 areas
1,500 ha
- Conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity
68 communities 17 communities
- Sustained energy supply
68 communities 17 communities
3. Capacity and Knowledge Development
Trained technical staff and policy makers
21 districts 4-6 districts
Farmers members trained and adopting SLM (FFS members and farmers in catchment and community)
136 groups x 25 members = 3400
3400 x 3= 10200
34 groups x 25 members= 850
farmers
850 x 3 = 2550
(Check with the FFS master trainer if these numbers are realistic)
Demonstration sites/communities and FFS study plots esablished (the scale up will happen at farm and landscape level through the community and watershed action plan) *NPMs need to clarify their process for upscaling
68 sites/communities 136 FFS study plots
FFS study plots scaled-up x 3 = 408 FFS study plots
17 sites/communities
34 FFS study groups/plots
FFS study plots
scaled up by 3 = 102 In communities
and catchments
Training in PLAR (participatory-learning-action-research)/FFS approaches and best practices for SlaM
FFS facilitators/ extensionists (150) district staff (4 x 21)
38 FFS facilitators 4 x 4-6 district staff (16-24 district staff) 38 community leaders
23
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
community leaders (150) partner NGO staff (42) trained
11 NGOs staff trained
Training to support SLaM planning and implementation
4. Implementation of improved Land Management Practices
SLM practices implemented by pilot communities
68 200 17 50
Check if scale up by 3 is realistic for SLM
implementation
SLM practices 45,000 ha of land 11,250 ha
Effective control of soil erosion in all target sites
no new visual signs
4 target catchments identified and sediment loads monitored
(1 by country)
Vegetation cover and alternatives to slash and burn
30% increase on 23,000 ha arable and 7,500 ha pasture lands
30% increase on 5,750 ha arable and 1,875 ha
pasture lands
Soil carbon stores 20% increase on 30,500 ha of land
20% increase on 7,625ha of land
Production (crop; livestock; other goods)
10% increase by trained farmers/ herders
10% increase by trained farmers/
24
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
herders
Participatory land use plans and action plans developed and implemented at community level/catchment (included the SLM catchment/community action plan, and other plans developed for pasture, forest, buffer zone/wetland management)
100 (at least 68) The number shall be 68 SLM action plans to match the number of microcatchment/communities.
200 (at least 136)
25 (at least 17)
50 (at least 34) Capacity building
will be provided for
land use planning Check if scaling up by 2 realistic
Capacity building for implementing and monitoring catchment/community SLM action plans, through a set of agreed indicators : - reduced degradation (burning,
- Enhance crop and livestock productivity and livelihoods ;
- increased awareness, information, expertise and institutional support for SLM
136 communities
Shall be 68 communities
34 communities
Shall be 17 communities
Communities in the catchments and watersheds aware/sensitize to SlaM
136 (68 x2)
34 (17 x 2)
Wide adoption of improved agricultural systems and management practices by different land users (farmers, herders, foresters) in the target catchments
46 catchments
10-12 catchments
25
Indicators (OVI) Basin
Country
Target Y3
Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5
Farmers trained and adopting /upscaling SLM through FFS approaches
1,800 farmers 3,600 (replicated by 2) 450 farmers
900 (34 groups x 25 members = 850
farmers)
Local-level indicators of benefits of SLaM (income, household food security, reduced risk) confirmed by all target farmer groups and a sample of community members
136 FFS groups + 72 farmer/herder groups =208
52 farmer groups
Incentives and benefit sharing mechanisms identified and supporting adoption of SLaM (income generating activities, PES and district budget allocated to SLM)
34 communities 8-9 communities
Incentive/ support mechanisms reaching vulnerable groups (women, poor, etc.)
15% of target population In the communities involved
15%
ANNEX 2: M&E MATRIX
The baseline and assessment method sections were completed during the revision process and development of the M&E plan with the RPC,
and the 4 NPMs in September 2011.
Objectives and Outcomes Key Indicators Baseline Assessment Method
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES (GOALS)
The environmental objective is to
address the causes of land
degradation and restore ecosystem
health and functions in the Kagera
basin through the introduction of
adapted agro-ecosystem
management approaches.
The development objective is to
improve the livelihood
opportunities, resilience and food
security of rural communities (men,
women and children) in the Kagera
Basin through adoption of more
productive and sustainable resource
management practices that are
technically feasible and socio-
economically viable.
Improved land use systems/
management practices for the range of
agro-ecological zones in the basin being
tested and adapted (by end PY3) for
arable and pastoral systems including
measures for reducing pressures on
wetlands, riverbanks, forest and
protected areas.
Transformation of 43,700 ha of land by
PY3 and 100,000 ha by PY5 towards
more productive and sustainable
agricultural ecosystems (11,000 ha/
country Y3, and 25,000ha/country Y5)
Potentially 6 percent of today’s basin
population (some 1 million people)
aware of project activities in target
communities, catchments, agro-
ecological units through demonstrations
and outreach. (250,000 people by
country)
PDF baseline
Land use systems (LUS) map
LD/SLM assessment (QM)
Catchment/community baselines
and pictures
Baseline data on specific
biophysical indicators e.g. to
show the environmental benefits
(carbon, biodiversity, tree
density, pasture vegetation
cover, water quality and
quantity).
Baseline data from household
survey on livelihoods and food
security
District development and
economic reports
SLaM interventions monitored and
mapped by target districts and
communities
M&E and progress reports from
project interventions and partners
Field surveys to assess changes in
environmental benefits (carbon,
biodiversity, tree density, pasture
vegetation cover, water quality and
quantity).
Outreach assessment
PRA to assess changes in livelihoods,
resilience, and food security
27
Improved livelihoods, resilience and
food security.
Outcomes
1. Transboundary coordination,
information sharing and monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms
operational and effective in
promoting sustainable, productive
agro-ecosystems and restoration of
degraded lands.
Transboundary agro-ecosystem management programme to reverse land degradation being implemented and monitored in 21 districts and reviewed by national and regional PSCs and project activities and achievements widely shared and available (PY5).
Best practices for addressing transboundary land-related constraints through integrated ecosystems and inter-sectoral approaches mainstreamed in planning and development processes, including NAPs. Y3
e.g. movement of livestock and pasture management, burning, etc.
and pilot actions implemented to address transboundary issues in 68 communities (PY3) and replicated in 21 districts (PY5).
(Regular) budgetary allocations from Governments to transboundary coordination and collaboration in the
Transboundary SLM programmes/actions mainstreamed in development documents place before the project
Identify and discuss the transboundary best practices in districts and communities
Districts: secondary data and disucssion with district agriculture officers.
Communities: primary data from characterisation/PRA
At start what is the amount (in cash and also in kind) dedicated
Progress and technical reports, decisions of districts, district development plan
Technical document on the TB issues at district level, BP and constraints, and agreed BP and mechanisms to mainstream in districts from both countries or districts, and provided to policy makers for integration in devt. and planning processes and NAPs.
Reports and decisions of district, national, river basin policy and planning mechanisms
Project steering committee reports
Technical reports and project progress reports
Field observations
National and district financial accounts
28
Kagera Basin increased by 10 % (PY5) to the project for collaboration?
2 Enabling policy, planning and legislative conditions are in place to support and facilitate the sustainable management of agro-ecosystems and the restoration of degraded land.
Priority policy, legal and transboundary issues identified and agreed at community (68), district (21) and river basin levels for SLaM (end PY2)
and resulting in supporting policy decisions, regulatory mechanisms and community bye-laws for improved harmonization and application (PY5).
At least 2 policy recommendations per country developed that support national policy decisions and regulatory mechanisms, and 1 per country that support bye-laws, etc. at district/ community-level.
Workshop on land planning tenure and policy gaps at basin level with national policy makers and partners. PY2 Aug 2011
Validation of the reports on policy review related to transboundary land issues at district level (with community participation). PY2/3
Action plan for the establishment of a supporting policy and legal framework for SLaM across the basin.
=Action plan for the implementation of the harmonised policies
National and regional workshop reports
Review national policies and regulatory mechanisms, and identify the gaps. Based on these you draft 2 policy recommendations.
= document/workshop
Review the bye-laws at district/community level, and idenfity the gaps, and draft 1 policy recommendation per country.
- consultation/document
3. Capacity and knowledge are Trained technical staff and policy Presence or absence of trained Project progress reports and M&E
29
enhanced at all levels for the
promotion of – and technical
support for – sustainable
management of land and agro-
ecosystems in the basin.
makers in 21 districts - supporting SLaM planning and implementation and using project information resources in their district and communities (PY5) Community members/local decision makers sensitized on SLaM techniques for pastoral, arable, mixed systems and their on- and off-site impacts and benefits (PYs 1-5) FFS members trained and % adopting SLM and promoting upscaling on community territory Training materials on best practices /approaches widely available and SLM demonstrations in place.
staff on SLM, and of SLM techniques at community level, and bylaws and regulations put in place.
reports (targets being monitored by the project and districts) Reports of staff and other stakeholder training workshops, and curriculum developed. Districts’ and policy makers’ plan and budget influenced by project information resources. Progress project reports and M&E reports Field visits of FFS study plots by policy makers and technical staff. Training reports Field survey Project progress reports, and training materials produced, and SLM demo sites in place. QA/QT training (20 people by country) QA/QT results
4. Improved land and agro-ecosystem management practices are implemented and benefiting land users for the range of agro-ecosystems in the basin.
SLM practices implemented by pilot communities (68 by PY3; 200 by PY5) (by country 17, and 33, so total of 50) in demonstrations (SLM interventions) and farmer plots covering a total of 45,000
Demonstration sites in number of hectares (project and also from partner NGOs, research agencies)
FFS farmers adoption of SLM
30
ha of land (by PY5) and showing: (11 250ha by country, around 2000ha by district in Rwanda)
- Effective control of soil erosion (no new visual signs) in all target sites;
- 4 target catchments (1 by country) (PY5) identified an sediment loads monitored (subject to identifying sites where SLM interventions can be applied on a significant area of the catchment and hydrological monitoring can be supported by partner Kagera IWRM, NBI-NELSAP and LVEMP projects);
- 30 percent increase in vegetation cover (above and below ground biomass) on pilot 23,000 ha arable and 7,500 ha pasture lands where alternatives to slash and burn are applied (PY5) incentives to stop burning
-20 percent increase in soil carbon stores (above and below ground biomass) on farmer study plots and sample arable and pasture lands (PY5) inferred on 30,500 ha of land where SLM is practiced/planned.
Biophysical baseline:
Visual signs of soil erosion
Sediment loads in 1 micro catchment by country
Vegetation cover in selected arable and pasture lands
Carbon in soil
Socio-economic and livelihoods survey
practices (ha of lands)
Project progress reports, and M&E reports
Including also FFS outside selected catchments
Monitoring of sediment loads in between two points where intervention are done in between.
More sense to do the monitoring on a subcatchment where impact can be generated, and not on the Kagera river per se
Hydrological monitoring by LVEMP or NBIMonitor (before and after)
Sample surveys of land degradation,and agro-ecological systems analysis in target areas includinf LADA-local visual indicators
soil properties and erosion backed up by soil C sampling;
vegetation/litter cover/bare soil/
31
- 10 percent increase in production (crop; livestock; other goods) by trained farmers/ herders contributing to livelihoods (income; food security; reduced vulnerability)
extent and effect of burning;
water resources and drought
inter and intra-species and habitat diversity
land productivity under different land use types (inputs/ yields/ other NR products e.g fuel)
LAMIS data (RS/GIS) including field monitoring of target areas
FFS farmers survey on productivity after SLM adoption (Control for rainfall differences between seasons and years)
Household surveys in target communities ( analysis of production trend, reduced poverty, food security, reduced vulnerability)
5. Project management structures operational and effective
Project activities executed and outputs delivered in line with workplan and budget
Regional PSC and TAC meetings held and guidance given
Support visits executed by FAO and Government institutions and PSC/TAC members
Project progress reports
Project M&E system
Mid term and final evaluations
Workshop reports
32
Outputs
1.1A basin-wide coordination mechanism is established to facilitate trans-boundary dialogue, basin-level planning, policy harmonisation and coordination of national/sub-national actions.
Sustainable coordination mechanism for SLaM agreed upon among the 4 countries (eventually as part of wider NBI and EAC mechanisms) and reflected in a memorandum of understanding.
Recommendations to harmonise policies, laws and regulations and address transboundary issues in the river basin developed by an ad-hoc basin-wide task force with stakeholders (PY3) and mechanisms in place for their implementation in 21 districts (by PY5).
Transboundary SLM action plans in development/ in place with budget allocations and institutional support.
Mechanisms for SLM coordination:
- sustainable development of lake victoria basin
NBI 2009
Kagera transboundary IWRM project in 2003
Check project document (partners)
No recommendations to harmonise policies, and no task force
No transboundary actions plans on SLM.
MoU with differents partners (nelsap/nib, lvamp, etc.) finalized by PY3.
Participation to meetings and workshops, exchange of data and information, and collaboration on field activities.
Relevant river basin/district reports reflecting collaboration across borders and among KAGERA TAMP and partner projects (NBI-NELSAP, LVEMP).
Reports of RPSC meetings
Project progress reports
Recommendations developed and agreed during regional workshops
SLM teams or other task forces to review and harmonized the policies related to transboundary issues.
National policies and action plans reflect regional collaboration
Report on options for basin wide coordination of SLaM
Reports of RPSC meetings
1.2 An efficient basin-wide knowledge management system is established to support information
KAGERA TAMP knowledge management system established and functioning at all
LUS, QM with LD-SLM data, QT and QA, best practices case studies, catchment/community situation
33
requirements and decision-making processes at all levels.
levels (PY2) including:
o Kagera environmental monitoring and information system (EMIS) supported by a GIS and RS tools and linked with LVEMP and NBI databases as appropriate (PY1-5).
o Pilot district level GISs developed and operational - 1/country (by PY3). [not feasible GIS center at district]
o Community information centres set up (for SLM and good practices) and servicing stakeholders in target communities (PY2).
o Membership of networks and selected experts from networks supporting KAGERA TAMP (IW LEARN, WOCAT, ASARECA).
GIS data from NELSAP available
No GIS at district level
No community information centres on SLM and transboundary issues.
Agricultural extension officers at district level.
analysis.
Project website
Project M & E system
Project progress reports
Trained land planners at district level in GIS, and GPS provided.
KAGERA TAMP membership to different networks (frequent email exchanges, participation to conferences, meetings, seminars).
1.3 Project monitoring and evaluation systems supporting KAGERA TAMP implementation and decision making.
M & E system established and functioning
Project management and district partners trained in data collection and participatory M&E (best end of PY2)
District partners have capacity for data collection and participatory M&E.
M&E plan developed
M&E reports (monthly or quaterly) from local partners and district facilitators and information captured inside project progress reports (6 months, and annual)
Mid-term (PY3) and final (PY5) evaluation reports
Trainings and data collection recording sheets provided to district and local partners on the M&E for good project implementation
34
2.1 Sustainable management of land and agro-ecosystems (SLAM) mainstreamed in national development policies and programmes, enhancing synergy among sector strategies and across the river basin
SLaM considerations/actions integrated in annual district development plans and budgets (21),
- SLM practices/ approaches mainstreamed into river basin and national agriculture and NR sector action plans (e.g. biennial) and a set of results based indicators used to monitor how they contribute to NAPs (4) and NBSAPs (4) (by PY4-5).
Successful and diverse experiences of inter-sectoral processes and systems approaches for SLaM documented annually in 21 districts,
and the river basin reports and case studies/findings made available for decision making by PSC members (PY4-5)
Successful experiences of SLM implementation in the 21 districts documented annually, and available for decision making in the basin level (PY5)
District development plans of 2008-2012, and annual workplan and budget.
Review of national agriculture and NR actions plans, and to NAPs and NBSAPs.
District development plans
National plans reflect SLaM considerations (NAPs, NBSAPs)
River basin reports (Kagera, Nile, LVEMP
SLM success stories are highlighted in the annual reports and plans of the districts, and Ministry of Agriculture/Livestock
SLM case studies presented to the NPSC and RPSC workshops for consideration in decision making and recommendations
2.2 Regulatory actions developed and used to promote - or remove existing barriers to - sustainable land and agro-ecosystem management
Locally adapted by laws developed and agreed at community level (24 cases/ country) (PY3) and implemented (PY5)
Best practices for effective policy and legal application/enforcement disseminated in the basin (PY 2-5).
Current regulatory actions and by laws at catchment/community level and existing barriers
Compendium of byelaws and regulations (report of consultant) PY3
Reports of stakeholder consultations PY3
Project progress reports PY5
Regional and national workshops on the best practices for effective policy and legal application (regulatory
35
actions working well already identified by the consultant, and the ones agreed by the communities).
2.3 A coherent strategic and planning framework developed and implemented (from river basin to district/provincial and community levels) to support SLM efforts by rural communities.
National and local government staff trained in land use planning (for SLM) (at least 42 at district level; 64 at community level) (PY1-5)
Land use policy (through the SLM plan and interventions) being effectively applied/ enforced in 68 communities by PY5.
Participatory strategies and action plans developed for SLaM in 21 districts across the basin (PY1-3)
o improved pasture and rangelands management (at least 15 areas; 7,500ha)
o transboundary livestock movements (5 borders)
o conservation and sustainable use of wetlands (at least 9 areas; 6,000 ha),
o conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity (68 communities)
o sustained energy supply (68 communities)
Current application of the land use policy at community level
District development plans include land use, agroforestry, etc. but not participatory.
Check QM results for improved pasture and wetlands
Wetland- IMCE report (Rwanda)
Secondary data information: Check Ministry of agriculture reports if information available for the 21 districts.
Primary information from catchment/community baseline
Reports of workshops/trainings
Training Curriculum
SLM plan : District and community action plans
Project progress reports and M&E recording sheets.
Survey at community level and field observations
maps, analyses and reports
3.1 Methods and approaches to promote the adoption of SLM
Demonstration sites/communities (68) and FFS study plots (136) (34 study plots
0 Project progress and technical
36
practices and agro-ecosystems (pastoral and cropping) are identified, developed and validated through participatory action-research.
by country) identified and agreed upon (end PY2), established (end PY2/Y3) and FFS study plots scaled-up x 3(102 FFS study plots by country, extra 68 study plots depend on co-founding) (PY4-5)
Training materials developed and used in training in 21 districts
Advocacy and training materials disseminated and used in 21 districts and 68 communities (PY3), available from community information centres and districts as and when required in the basin (PY 5)
Community info center= FFS gathering place, government office
reports
Extra resources allocated for scaling up of FFS study plots
Training reports
Documentary, educational & training material produced (video films technical and advocacy leaflets, maps, etc.) available at community and district levels.
3.2 The quality of services provided to rural communities enhanced, particularly through intersectoral approaches that build on local knowledge and innovations for improved agro-ecosystems management
FFS facilitators/extensionists (150); district staff (4 x 21), community leaders (150/68= 2-3 leaders by community) and partner NGO staff (42) trained in PLAR (participatory-learning-action-research)/FFS approaches (PY 2+) and best practices for SLaM.
Target communities (68) benefiting from improved access to service providers competent in SLaM (planning; intersectoral/ systems approaches) and SLM support
- 300 technical staff and 200-250 policy makers (15/districts) trained to support SLaM planning and implementation and using project information resources in
Training workshop reports
Project progress reports
FGD to assess the quality of services provided
Training workshop reports (by district)
District and community reports
Radio, newspapers, TV coverage on the project’s success
37
their district and communities (PY5)
120,000 community members/local decision makers (6000 people/district/country) sensitized on SLaM techniques for pastoral, arable, mixed systems and their on- and off-site impacts and benefits (PY1-5)
stories/activities
Attendance at field day visit of SLM demonstration sites
4.1 Participatory land management plans are developed and implemented in targeted communities, catchments and wider land units.
100 participatory land use plans and action plans developed (end PY2) and being implemented (PY2-4) and replicated x 2 (PY5) (action plans feasible in 2 years) (replication has started with partners, and neighbouring communities, maybe not x 2)
o SLM mainstreamed in district development plans (21)
o community action plans (68)
o catchments (46);
o pasture/ range areas (15);
o target wetlands (10);
o riverbanks (1000km) 250km/country
25 land use plans/actions plans by country.
11 communities land use plans Y2, and implementation by Y3
11 communities land use plans Y3, and
Existing communities land use plans
Community/district land use plans and management reports about the implementation
Technical reports
GIS / RS outputs
Project progress reports
A set of agreed indicators for monitoring SLM action plans e.g.
- reduced degradation (burning, erosion, etc.)
- improved vegetation cover, soil, water and range quality, resilience to drought
- enhanced crop and livestock productivity and effects on
38
implementation by Y4
Capacity built for implementation and monitoring of community action plans (PY1-5) in 136 communities (68 x 2).
livelihoods
- increased awareness, information, expertise and institutional support for SLM
4.2 Improved land use and agro-ecosystem management practices are successfully adopted by farmers and herders in targeted communities and replicated in other areas.
136 communities implementing SLaM (PY5)
Wide adoption of improved agricultural systems and management practices including biodiversity conservation by members of 72 farmer/herder groups (18 by country, 3 by district) (PY3) and replicated x 3 (PY5) (54 groups by country) on av 25-30 members ina group
1,800 farmers trained and adopting /upscaling SLM through FFS approaches (PY3) and a further 1,800 farmers by PY5
(total of 3,600 farmers)
450 farmers by country, so divide by 17 communities, means one FFS group by community with 25 members.
Local-level indicators of benefits of SLaM (income, household food security, reduced risk) confirmed by all target farmer groups (136)
and a sample 10 % of the target
Baseline data on SLM in place FFS records
Field survey
Project progress reports
Training reports
Land user survey
GIS / RS maps, analyses and reports
Socio-economic/livelihoods survey through farmer interview (consultant)
39
population (100,000 persons) (by PY5) (4000 by district or 2,500 by catchment)
50 000 people for income, food security, etc.
4.3 Market opportunities and other incentive/ benefit sharing mechanisms for the provision of environmental services identified, demonstrated and promoted among land users.
Incentive and benefit sharing mechanisms (monetary; non-monetary) identified and supporting adoption of SLaM and biodiversity conservation, including payments for environmental services (PES), products added-value and marketing in 34 communities (PY 1-5)
(8-9 communities by country in which PES/MBI/incentives mechanisms are identified and implemented.)
- tourism
- tree planting incentives from district
- water quality, wetlands
- bamboo (add. benefits)
- beekeeping in buffer zone
Incentive/ support mechanisms reaching vulnerable groups (tenant farmers, youth, HIV/AIDS widows/orphans; female headed households) 15% of target population (PY5)
Baseline data during community characterization and PRA
Secondary information at district/province or sector/commune level
Assess sustainability of incentive/benefit sharing measures and options for SLM investments
Project progress reports and M&E reports
Technical Reports
Field survey
Output 5.1: Project management, institutional and administrative
Regional project coordinator and national project managers in place in
Project progress reports
40
structures in place and linked to national and regional decision making structures
offices provided by host government and supported by FAO (HQ, Country reps and regional offices)
Activities and products monitored in terms of timeliness, cost effectiveness and sustainability
Regional PSC and TAC operational, linkages made to other national processes and guidance provided
Backstopping missions by FAO and Government institutions
Mid term evaluation conducted and recommendations implemented
Adequate co-funding and human resources to execute project activities
Midterm and final evaluation reports
Regional TAC in place: 2 national experts by country, and 2 international experts
National Technical Committee = National SLM team in place ?
Also informal district/province level technical advisory committee
RPSC reports showing linkages between RPSC and NPSCs (as national representatives attend regional committee)
BTO reports of FAO-LTU officers
Workplan revised after mid-term review
Partners and co-funding
Output 5.2: Project M&E system and reporting supporting project management and execution.
Continuous monitoring and reporting on project performance
Project management and performance review included as part of mid term and final evaluation
Project progress reports
M&E plan and recording sheets
M&E praticipatory training
Impact assessment reports
Midterm and final evaluation report
ANNEX 3 : TARGET INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT