sally bunning fao with anne woodfine and domitille vallée - lead consultants with gef national...
TRANSCRIPT
Sally Bunning FAO with Anne Woodfine and Domitille Vallée - lead consultants
with GEF national consultants in 5 selected countries
Review of Lessons Learned from Experiences of the GEF Strategic
Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land Management
(SLM) in Sub-Saharan Africa under the NEPAD - TerrAfrica Partnership
TerAfrica/SIP Portfolio - GEF 4 land degradation focal area projects in sub-
Saharan Africa
36 projects 26 countries GEF 150USD leveraging
800M USD co-financing Started 2007 - some
projects not yet completed
Implementation: 1 FAO, 5 UNEP (regional) 11 WB, 12 UNDP, 1 joint 5 IFAD, 1 with AfDB
Too many overlapping and scattered programmes and missions with conflicting objectives
A lack of joint work programming by donors and governments to achieve cohesive results.
Land degradation considered too large a problem for a single institution to address alone
Narrow approaches have had a limited and unsustainable impact
Poor knowledge management
Why TerrAfrica/SIP? Context 2007
A vehicle for implementing land related strategies of UN Conventions and NEPAD CAADP Pillar 1 and Environment Initiative 1. Coalition2. Knowledge Building3. Investments 16 multi-sector country platforms Analytics and Tools informing cross- sector investments + programmes2 Key documents • C0untry support tool for scaling
up SLM July FAO/WB 2009• SLM in practice Guidelines and
Best Practices WOCAT/FAO
TerrAfrica Program-
http://www.wocat.nethttp://blengrafix.com/terrAfrica/wp-content/uploads/files/CountrySupportTool.pdf
The Lessons Learning Process with Governments, GEF
Implementing agencies and project partners
Guidance of a Steering Committee - World Bank, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, NEPAD and FAO
Online surveys - in English and French Desk review of available project documents Interviews with informants on regional projects – skype
& telephone 5 detailed “country” studies supported by
Bancy Mati with consultants in Ethiopia, Kenya & Uganda Domitille Vallée with Abdoulaye S. Soumaila in Niger and
Taibou Ba in Senegal
Main report plus 5 country reports and case studies: Guidance for future engagement/investments in the context of recent AU Declarations on agriculture, NEPAD, GEF, TerrAfrica, other donors
Areas of Focus1. Support activities on the ground for SLM
scaling up2. Create and enabling environment for SLM at
all levels – cross-sector + policy development3. Strengthen advisory services for SLM4. Support knowledge generation, management
and sharing and M&E
27 Country projects
4 Regional Transboundary UNEP Kalahari- Namib Enhancing Decision making through Learning
and Action Molop-Nossob RB (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa) WB Eastern Nile TB Watershed management (Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan) WB LVEMP II (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda) FAO Kagera TAMP- agroecosystem management Kagera river basin
5 thematic multi-country UNEP Equatorial Africa Deposition Network (Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana,
Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda) Institutional support to NEPAD and Regional Economic Communities
(RECs) in Africa Stimulating Community Initiatives in Sustainable Land Management -
Ghana, Morocco, Uganda, South Africa
Not considered UNDP Integrating WH and SLM (Djibouti) and WB Monitoring carbon and co-benefits of BioCF (Madagascar, Niger)
NO SINGLE UMBRELLA PROJECT!
SIP Portfolio (survey)
Multi-SLM approach multi-stakeholder partnershipsmulti-sectoral and multi-disciplinarymulti-scale efforts (natural, administrative and decision-
making units) Specific approaches “landscape/ecosystem management”
and “development” of relevance to SLMNO UNIVERSAL BLUEPRINTResponsive advisory + support services + partnerships
Social/people-centred management neededgender and cultural sensitivitycommunity based participatory planning +technology devt.people centred learning attention to vulnerable households
TerrAfrica/SIP Theory of Change
Impacts of TerrAfrica/SIP for SLM in sub-Saharan Africa
1. Created momentum on financing (GEF & co-funding)
2. Catalytic role in promoting country-regional partnerships (human & financial resources for SLM)
3. Understanding of importance of addressing LD and commitment to promoting SLM new country investments, SAWAP-100M$, IAP FS-106M$ by GEF
4. Useful platform for testing, developing and applying SLM technologies to restore ecosystem services, soil functioning and improve crop yields (NB In some cases decisions on technology choice top-down not enough farmer innovation, information on options & conditions for success)
Positive Lessons – Capacities Developed for SLM
Many projects anticipated to have sustained impacts Developed capacities at various levels – approaches & skills
targeted to stakeholders (farmers , pastoralists, gender, poor) Use of farmer field schools -FFS, land users “learning by doing” Service providers -technical /extension, CSOs , local networks
Bottom-up participatory planning of SLM for range of landscape units (community territory, watershed, river basin) administrative units (village, district, region)
Enhanced inclusion of local/traditional knowledge combined with scientific /technical advances across range of land use systems
Exchange visits by land users and policy makers in country /region and wider (India, Brazil)
Independent evaluations informed adaptive management
1. SLM practices (Land, water, vegetation)
Approaches TechnologiesLand use regimes
Agronomic /vegetative
Structural measures
* Watershed plans* Community
land use plans* Grazing
agreements, closures, etc.* Soil and water
conservation zones* Vegetation
corridors* Other
* Inter-cropping * Natural regeneration* Agro-forestry * Af- and Re-
forestation/ * No tillage* Mulching & crop
residue * Conservation
agriculture* Crop rotation* Compost/green
manure * Integrated pest
mgmt.* Vegetative
strip/contours* Rangeland
revegetation * Crop-livestock
systems* Woodlots; Live
fencing* Alternatives to
woodfuel* Sand dune
stabilization
* Terraces earth/stone bunds* Flood control & drainage* Water harvesting, runoff
management, and small-scale irrigation* Gully control measures * Other
2. Integrated landscape/ecosystem approaches for resilience and multiple
benefits• Bring together FFS, catchment planning & management and bye laws/ local governance • Knowledge management SLM / watershed management experiences worldwide WOCAT Knowledge base• Environmental and livelihood impacts at farm/HH and landscape scale and in short and long term (resilience)• Productivity, • Climate adaptation + Mitigation• Agro-biodiversity (genetic resources, species
and habitats- pollination, pest control etc.) • Nutrition and Food security (access, availabiity)• Ecosystem services (carbon, nutrients, water,
flood & drought management)
Positive Lessons- Tools, Knowledge, Innovative options
Inter-sectoral approaches working- on-the-ground & guided by PSCs/ boards
Explored innovative options for SLM financing- some “CSIFs” for cross-sector planning, coordination
Some good communications for range of audiences- materials in local language, technical guides, websites, twitter,…)
Some use of WOCAT tools, database and “SLM in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for SSA (Kagera)
Many tools produced that could be used by future projects / programs
Limited mainstreaming
Not systematic
Inadequate outreach/ communication strategies
Limited knowledge /training in such tools
Hard to access. Need to compile, target & disseminate
Rural radio dedicated program
Books/printed materials: Specialized knowledge (I.e WOCAT books)
Internet Access (with good bandwith)
Technical Fairs (regular access)
Demonstrations (regular)
Documentation in local languages
Mobile phone messaging
Other (specify)
0
20
40
Access to information and knowledge exist and is satisfac-tory
a) Existing information / knowledge access of extension agents in project areas and b) Tools used to engage stakeholders (regional projects)
Broad multistakeholder consultationTargeted consultations (expert groups)
Face to face meetings
Focus group discussions (communities)
Online consultation or Survey
Field level surveys
Participatory M&EConferences and presentations
Outreach activities: television, radio, newspapers article
Farmer field schools
Open days/field visits
Exposure visit to project sites
small group thematic visits and meetings (Learning route)
0
5
10
Local/ Sub-national
National
regional (group of countries)
guidance provided by regional coordination unit
Local/sub nationalNationalRegionalBy RCU
a
b
Less positive Lessons - Design + Implementation
Delays in project start-up + 3 projects cancelled Most projects of too short duration (4 -5 years) to
demonstrate significant impacts and sustainability Few projects integrated specific “components” on:
capacity development communications
Products/lessons not accessible “hid their lights under a bushel”
Baselines often inadequate for effective impact monitoring
Reinventing the wheel–some projects spent time testing proven SLM technologies instead of focusing on capacities and dissemination for scaling up
Less positive Lessons - Scaling up & Sustainability
Policy impact limited - Bye laws tested /operational in a few communities but not applied across wider territories; draft policies prepared but not enacted
Very limited exchange between projects (specific funds/ mechanisms not in place ; some informants were not aware their project was part of a wider program.
SIP website – “could do better” Knowledge exchange across countries- updated but past information seems to be lost and no sharing of products.
Exit strategy often inadequate for post-project sustainability
Less positive Lessons - Design + Implementation (2)
A cross program M&E system (TerrAfrica/SIP) was planned- but document prepared only in 2014, still a draft - too late for SIP, too long /complex, few people know it exists.
Many project M&E plans were not realistic –too complex to be effective
Impact assessment not systematic or comprehensive (socio-economic + environmental benefits local to landscape scales)
Useful Reference: Landscape People food and nature LPFN website Buck, L. et al (2014) A Landscape Perspective on M&E for Sustainable Land Management. Trainers’ Manual (148pp). EcoAgriculture Partners http://www.ecoagriculture.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=676
Some Key Lessons Learned for program level impact
Communication strategy, mechanisms and tools are fundamental – at all levels and for all target groups
Knowledge management and sharing is vital with other projects in country and at program level
Project design and implementation teams should be familiar with and provided with key SLM tools and guidelines –technologies, approaches, strategies, mechanisms for scaling + mainstreaming
Win-win benefits of SLM should be assessed, analysed, shared with local actors and policy makers at all levels and
Impact findings should be more effectively used to influence local land planning and sector and cross-sector policies
Win-win solutions for livelihoods, ecosystems and productivity
(Liniger et al 2011)
Donors/investor
Development agencies
regional organizations
national Policy makers
implementers (technical experts etc.)learning/teaching organizations (universities etc)
research organizations (universities etc)
communities and land users
Media
a) Stakeholder engagement in the projects and b) What Stakeholder groups were
trained
Land users (crop farmers, herders, fisher folks, forest users)
Extension staff
Technical services
Private sector service providers : private companies, NGO
Local politicians
Decision makers / Institutional capacity building for SLM
Researchers/ academics
Other
0
10
20
TRAINEDMixed groups with good represen-tation of womenMany trained (in a given stakeholder group)
Some Key Lessons Learned for impact & sustainability
SLM projects should be planned and phased over at least 6 years to be able to scale up and mainstream successes
SLM projects should be monitored effectively Use of standard monitoring tools that feed into data/statistics
e.g. EX-ACT; hydrology, sampling for livelihood surveys, Demonstrate and assess impacts on livelihoods (income, food
and nutrition, wellbeing) as well as GEBs (biodiversity and ecosystem services – carbon , hydrology, soil biological functions)
Better linkages needed with research & education institutes A limited, relevant set of indices should be selected and used
for monitoring all SLM projects (e.g. areas under SLM, causes of yield increases, constraints to adoption) effectiveness + national trends
M & E process should be participatory, to extent possible involving beneficiary communities/actors
Sustainability planning - exit strategy - should be initiated from start of project, involving beneficiary communities
Conclusions The SIP created a momentum and helped increase the
total resources planned for SLM but the potential for scaling up and for sustainability remains challenging
Farmer organizations and stakeholder platforms are key at local level for wide adoption (more attention is needed to sustainable pastoralism and impacts on women)
More is needed to involve and share results with national policy and decision makers (finance ;cross-sector
dialogue ; need to break down territorial issues by ministries) other development agencies and competent regional
organizations educational organizations media
The SIP is anchored in NEPAD framework but much is needed to articulate better with decision makers in NEPAD CAADP
Thank to all those who contributed to the survey and review process
Thanks to the team of consultants
FAO and other members of the Steering committee look forward to your feedback and recommendations
to Guide future engagement/ investments