PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK



Project Logical Framework

Kagera Transboundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Project (Kagera TAMP)

Overall goal: Adoption of an integrated ecosystems approach for the management of land resources in the Kagera Basin will generate local, national and global benefits including: restoration of degraded lands, carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation, agro-biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, protection of international waters and improved agricultural production, leading to increased food security and improved rural livelihoods.

|Summary |Indicators (OVIs) |Means of Verification |Hypotheses / critical assumptions and risks |

|Environment and development objectives |Improved land use systems/ management practices for the | | |

|The environmental objective is to address the causes|range of agro-ecological zones in the basin being tested |River basin and micro-catchment assessments of |Strong commitment to address land degradation within|

|of land degradation and restore ecosystem health and|and adapted (by end PY3) for arable and pastoral systems |land degradation and ecosystem functions. |the context of sustainable development and poverty |

|functions in the Kagera basin through the |including measures for reducing pressures on wetlands, |District development and economic reports |alleviation programmes in all four beneficiary |

|introduction of adapted agro-ecosystem management |riverbanks, forest and protected areas. |Field surveys |countries. |

|approaches. |Transformation of 43,700 ha of land by PY3 and 100,000 ha| |District offices commit staff and other necessary |

|The development objective is to improve the |by PY5 towards more productive and sustainable | |resources to TAMP implementation |

|livelihood opportunities, resilience and food |agricultural ecosystems | |Absence of serious environmental events (drought |

|security of rural communities (men, women and |6 % of today’s basin population (1,035,200) reached | |leading to food shortage, flooding), crop and |

|children) in the Kagera Basin through adoption of |through project activities in target communities, | |livestock (pests and diseases) shocks in project |

|more productive and sustainable resource management |micro-catchments, agro-ecological units and 30% of the | |countries. |

|practices that are technically feasible and |basin population (5-6million) indirectly benefiting. | | |

|socio-economically viable. | | | |

|Outcomes | | | |

|1. Transboundary coordination, information sharing |Transboundary agro-ecosystem management programme to |Reports and decisions of district, national, |Participating countries and institutions continue to|

|and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms operational|reverse land degradation being implemented and monitored |river basin policy and planning mechanisms |prioritise project goal to mitigate the causes and |

|and effective in promoting sustainable, productive |by the 4 riverine countries in 21 districts, reviewed by |Project steering committee reports |negative impacts of land degradation and need for |

|agro-ecosystems and restoration of degraded lands. |national and regional PSCs and project activities and |Technical reports and project progress reports |inter-country and inter-sectoral processes for the |

| |achievements widely shared and available (PY5). |Field surveys |river basin |

| |Best practices for addressing transboundary land-related |National and district financial accounts |National and district institutions and partners |

| |constraints through integrated ecosystems and | |agree to mainstream sustainable land management into|

| |inter-sectoral approaches mainstreamed in planning and | |their programmes and activities by adopting |

| |development processes, including NAPs, and pilot actions | |integrated and inter-sectoral policies and |

| |implemented to address transboundary issues in 68 | |approaches. |

| |communities (PY3) and replicated in 21 districts (PY5). | |Communication and exchange of information unhindered|

| |Regular budgetary allocations from Governments to | |between district, national central and river basin |

| |transboundary coordination and collaboration in the | |levels |

| |Kagera Basin increased by 10 % (PY5) | |Regional collaboration unhindered |

| | | | |

|2 Enabling policy, planning and legislative |Priority policy, legal and transboundary issues |Action plan for the establishment of a |Incentive mechanisms and regulatory actions exist |

|conditions are in place to support and facilitate |identified and agreed at community (68), district (21) |supporting policy and legal framework for SLaM |National and local governments agree to shift focus |

|the sustainable management of agro-ecosystems and |and river basin levels for SLaM (end PY2) and resulting |across the basin. |from enforcement to provision of an enabling |

|the restoration of degraded land. |in supporting policy decisions, regulatory mechanisms and|National and regional workshop reports |/supportive environment |

| |community bye-laws for improved harmonization and | | |

| |application (PY5). | | |

| |At least 2 policy recommendations per country developed | | |

| |that support policy-decisions and regulatory mechanisms | | |

| |at national level, and 1 per country that support | | |

| |bye-laws, etc. at district/ community level. | | |

|3. Capacity and knowledge are enhanced at all levels|300 staff (15/district) trained to support their district|Project progress reports |Local institutions and partners willing |

|for the promotion of – and technical support for – |and communities for SLaM decision making and |Reports of staff and other stakeholder training|to mainstream SLaM into their programmes and |

|sustainable management of land and agro-ecosystems |implementation and using TAMP information resources (PY5)|workshops |activities |

|in the basin. |120,000 persons trained at all levels in agro-ecosystems | |to upgrade the capacity of their staff in |

| |assessment and management (PYs 1-5) for pastoral, arable,| |sustainable land management. |

| |mixed systems and their on- and off-site impacts | |persons trained available for follow up support |

|4. Improved land and agro-ecosystem management |10% reduction in soil erosion from 45,000 ha of land of |LAMIS data (RS/GIS)including field monitoring |Involvement of local stakeholders and communities |

|practices are implemented and benefiting land users |pilot communities (PY5) |of target areas |unrestricted |

|for the range of agro-ecosystems in the basin. |10% reduction in sediment loads from 4 target |Ad hoc surveys of land degradation, |District planning and development offices and |

| |micro-catchments (PY5) |agro-ecological systems analysis and |mainstream agriculture and environment programmes |

| |20% increase in soil carbon stores on farmer study plots |agro-biodiversity |supporting TAMP activities (financial and technical)|

| |and sample sites in target arable and pasture lands (PY5)|Community/district surveys (poverty reduction; |as outlined in co-financing plan |

| |30% increase in vegetation cover (above and below ground |health; food security) |Absence of civil strife, major refugee movements or |

| |biomass) on pilot 23,000 ha arable and 7,500 ha pasture | |serious environmental events (drought leading to |

| |lands (PY5) | |food shortage, flooding), crop and livestock (pests |

| |120,000 farmers successfully implementing and benefiting | |and diseases) shocks in project countries. |

| |from agro-ecosystem management practices and sustainable | | |

| |use of biodiversity in target communities (PY5) | | |

| |10% increase in production (crop; livestock; fuelwood; | | |

| |biodiverse products) contributing to poverty reduction | | |

| |and food security, from SLaM activities in target | | |

| |communities (68 communities by PY3 and a further 200 by | | |

| |PY5) | | |

|Outputs | | | |

|1.1A basin-wide coordination mechanism is |Sustainable coordination mechanism for SLaM agreed upon |Report on options for basin wide coordination |Good cooperation among national and local government|

|established to facilitate trans-boundary dialogue, |among the 4 countries (eventually as part of wider NBI |of SLaM |and river basin institutions and among sectors |

|basin-level planning, policy harmonisation and |and EAC mechanisms) and reflected in an intercountry MOU |National policies and action plans reflect |(water, land, agriculture, environment and forestry,|

|coordination of national/sub-national actions. |and partnership arrangements with LVEMP and NBI-NELSAP. |regional collaboration |community development) |

| |Recommendations to harmonise policies, laws and |Reports of RPSC meetings include results of |Interest by existing river/lake basin processes to |

| |regulations and address transboundary issues in the river|coordination with NBI-NELSAP and LVEMP |collaborate with land and agriculture |

| |basin developed by an ad-hoc basin-wide task force with |processes. | |

| |stakeholders (PY3) and mechanisms in place for their |Project progress reports | |

| |implementation in 21 districts (by PY5). |MOU/other collaboration mechanisms with LVEMP | |

| | |and NBI-NELSAP | |

| | |Relevant river and lake basin reports (LVEMP, | |

| | |NBI) reflecting collaboration with TAMP | |

|1.2 An efficient basin-wide knowledge management |TAMP knowledge management system established and |EMIS, pilot district GIS and community |Countries willing to collaborate in integrated |

|system is established to support information |functioning at all levels (PY2) including: |information centre outputs (regularly updated) |information systems and sharing data on regional |

|requirements and decision-making processes at all |Kagera environmental monitoring and information system |Project M & E system |basis |

|levels. |(EMIS) supported by a GIS and RS tools (PY1-5) and linked|Project progress reports |Good communication, information exchange among |

| |with LVEMP and NELSAP databases. |Extensive roster of experts in the region |countries and partner institutions |

| |Pilot district level GISs developed and operational - |through networks |District offices commit staff and other necessary |

| |1/country (by PY3). |Membership by district/technical resource |resources to house / maintain pilot GISs (one in |

| |Community information centres set up and servicing |persons of networks e.g. IW Learn, WOCAT et al.|each country) |

| |stakeholders in target communities (PY2). | |Local stakeholders willing to participate in |

| |Membership of networks and selected experts from networks| |community information centres |

| |supporting TAMP activities especially capacity building | | |

| |(IW LEARN, WOCAT, ASARECA). | | |

|1.3 Project monitoring and evaluation systems |M & E system established and functioning |M&E reports issues in a timely manner |Communication and exchange of information unhindered|

|supporting TAMP implementation and decision making. |Project management and district partners trained in data |Steering committee reports | |

| |collection and participatory M&E (by end PY 1) |Project progress reports | |

| | |Mid-term (PY3) and final (PY5) evaluation | |

| | |reports | |

|1.4 Kagera TAMP project management structures are |Project management structures established (PY1) |Reports of PSC meetings and communications with|Concerned ministries of the riparian states continue|

|operational and effective. |Project staff recruited (PY1) |TAC members |to cooperate in project implementation |

| |Adequate premises, equipment and support services |Project progress reports |Committee members are committed and supportive |

| |provided (PY1). |Co-financing reports |Local government co-operation effective |

| |Resource mobilisation strategy and co-funding plan | | |

| |regularly updated and shared with partners, in accordance| | |

| |with GEF land degradation requirements (PY1- 5). | | |

|2.1 Sustainable management of land and |SLaM considerations integrated in district development |District development plans |National and local governments and institutions and |

|agro-ecosystems (SLAM) mainstreamed in national |plans (21), NAPs (4) and NBSAPs (4), river basin and |National plans reflect SLaM considerations |partners agree to: |

|development policies and programmes, enhancing |other relevant plans (PY3-5) |(NAPs, NBSAPs) |mainstream SLaM into their programmes and activities|

|synergy among sector strategies and across the river|Successful and diverse experiences of inter-sectoral |River basin reports (Kagera, Nile, LVEMP |including NAP/ NBSAP implementation |

|basin |processes and systems approaches for SLaM in 21 districts| |adopt integrated and inter-sectoral policies and |

| |and the river basin (PY4-5). | |approaches |

| | | |provide technical and financial support |

|2.2 Regulatory actions developed and used to promote|Locally adapted by laws developed and agreed at |Compendium of byelaws and regulations |Districts agree to/support stakeholder consultations|

|- or remove existing barriers to - sustainable land |community level (24 cases/ country) (PY3) and implemented|Reports of stakeholder consultations |to identify policy and legal constraints and |

|and agro-ecosystem management |(PY5) |Project progress reports |opportunities |

| |Best practices for effective policy and legal | | |

| |application/enforcement disseminated in the basin (PY | | |

| |2-5). | | |

|2.3 A coherent strategic and planning framework |National and local government staff trained in land use |Reports of workshops |National and district level planning authorities |

|developed and implemented (from river basin to |planning (at least 42 district level; 64 community level)|Reviews of status and trends and |recognize the benefits of SLM strategies |

|district/provincial and community levels) to support|(PY1-5) |opportunities/options for SLaM and documented |District planners agree to improve implementation |

|SLM efforts by rural communities. |Land use policy being effectively applied/ enforced in 68|use of relevant LVEMP and NBI-NELSAP studies |and monitoring of land use plans for SLaM |

| |communities by PY5. |and experts. |Local government are willing to embrace SLM and to |

| |Participatory strategies and action plans developed for |EMIS maps, analyses and reports |support improved management for common property |

| |SLaM in 21 districts across the basin (PY1-3) |District and community action plans |resources |

| |improved pasture and rangelands management (at least 15 |Project progress reports | |

| |areas; 7,500ha) | | |

| |transboundary livestock movements (5 borders) | | |

| |conservation and sustainable use of wetlands (at least 9 | | |

| |areas; 6,000 ha), | | |

| |conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity (68| | |

| |communities) | | |

| |sustained energy supply (68 communities) | | |

|3.1 Methods and approaches to promote the adoption |Demonstration sites (68) and FFS study plots (136) |Documentary, educational & training material |Local governments agree to participatory extension |

|of SLM practices and agro-ecosystems (pastoral and |identified and agreed upon (end PY1), established (end |produced (video films technical and advocacy |approaches |

|cropping) are identified, developed and validated |PY2) and FFS study plots scaled-up x 3 (PY4-5) |leaflets, maps, etc.) | |

|through participatory action-research. |Training materials developed and used in training in 21 |Training reports | |

| |districts |Project progress and technical reports | |

| |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) | | |

|3.2 The quality of services provided to rural |FFS facilitators/extensionists (150); district staff (4 x|Field surveys and interviews |Service providers interested and available to |

|communities enhanced, particularly through |21), community leaders (150) and partner NGO staff (42) |Training workshop reports |support the programme and to benefit from targeted |

|intersectoral approaches that build on local |trained in PLAR approaches (PY 2+) and best practices for|District and community reports |training |

|knowledge and innovations for improved |SLaM. |Project progress reports | |

|agro-ecosystems management |Target communities (68) benefiting from improved access | | |

| |to service providers competent in SLaM (planning; | | |

| |intersectoral/ systems approaches) | | |

|4.1 Participatory land management plans are |100 participatory land use plans and action plans |Community / district land use plans and |Communities and districts agree to develop and |

|developed and implemented in targeted communities, |developed (PY2) and being implemented (PY2-4) and |management reports |implement improved action plans for SLaM and |

|micro-catchments and wider land units. |replicated x 2 (PY5) |Technical reports |integrated them with other planning processes |

| |community action plans (68) |GIS / RS outputs | |

| |micro-catchments (46); |Project progress reports | |

| |pasture/ range areas (15); | | |

| |target wetlands (10); | | |

| |riverbanks (1000km) | | |

| |Capacity built for implementation and monitoring of | | |

| |community action plans (PY1-5) in 136 communities. | | |

|4.2 Improved land use and agro-ecosystem management |136 communities implementing SLaM (PY5) |Training reports |Farmers available to participate in training and |

|practices are successfully adopted by farmers and |Wide adoption of improved agricultural systems, |FFS records |interested in applying SLaM |

|herders in targeted communities and replicated in |management practices including biodiversity conservation |GIS / RS maps, analyses and reports | |

|other areas. |by members of 72 farmer/herder groups (PY3) and |Project progress reports | |

| |replicated x 3 (PY5) | | |

| |1,800 farmers trained through FFS approaches (PY3) and a | | |

| |further 3,600 farmers by PY5 | | |

| |Local-level indicators of benefits of SLaM (income, | | |

| |household food security, reduced risk) confirmed by all | | |

| |target farmer groups and a sample 10 % of the target | | |

| |population (100,000 persons) (by PY5) | | |

|4.3 Market opportunities and other incentive/ |Incentive and benefit sharing mechanisms (monetary; |Technical Reports |Incentives (e.g. competitions, access to grants etc)|

|benefit sharing mechanisms for the provision of |non-monetary) identified and supporting adoption of SLaM | |encourage farmers to implement SLaM |

|environmental services identified, demonstrated and |and biodiversity conservation, including payments for |Reviews of incentive/benefit sharing measures |District agriculture programmes and NGOs support |

|promoted among land users. |environmental services (PES), products added-value and |and options |diversification and marketing |

| |marketing in 34 communities (PY 1-5) | |PES (including carbon offset credits) available to |

| |Incentive/ support mechanisms reaching vulnerable groups |Local surveys on poverty, health, income, |Kagera farmers |

| |(tenant farmers, youth, HIV/AIDS widows/orphans; female |vulnerability etc |Lack of major price fluctuations (inputs/ products),|

| |headed households) 15% of target population (PY5) |Project progress reports |inflation, market failures |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download