UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

PROJECT DOCUMENT

SECTION 1 - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Title of Sub-Programme	Environmental Science and Research

1.2 Title of Project				Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa

1.3 Geographical Scope	Regional, Africa – Botswana, Kenya, Mali

	External
1.4 Implementation	Regional: University of Oslo, Norway
National: execution through UNDP:
Ministry of Agriculture (Botswana)
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Kenya)
Ministry of Environment (Mali)

1.5 Duration of the Project	5 years
	Commencing: March 2001
	Completion: March 2006

1.6 Cost of the Project  (Expressed in million US dollars)
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Total	% of Total	
Cost to the GEF Trust Fund	2.482	1.637	1.555	1.513	1.477	8.664	71	
Co-financing								
     NORAD (in-cash)	0.230	0.230	0.230	0.230	0.230	1.150	9	
     GTZ (in-cash)	0.250	-	-	-	-	0.250	2	
     Botswana (in-kind)	0.220	0.220	0.220	0.220	0.220	1.100	9	
     Kenya (in-kind)	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.550	5	
     Mali (in-kind)	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.500	4	
TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT	3.392	2.297	2.215	2.173	2.137	12.214	100	

1.7 Project Summary

This project is a demonstration programme for biodiversity conservation and dryland ecosystem restoration in arid and semi-arid zones of Africa. The project will combine community based indigenous knowledge, the findings of scientific research and past practical experience to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and conserve biodiversity by developing sustainable natural resource management systems. A major goal of the project is to facilitate an exchange of knowledge and experience between three comparable but different situations and develop models, which can be transferred elsewhere within the continent. Technology transfer and supporting research will be a vital part of the project. This will be achieved by (i) strengthening appropriate indigenous management systems; (ii) developing integrated bio-socio-economic data systems; (iii) rehabilitating indigenous vegetation and degraded land; (iv) improving the effectiveness of livestock production and marketing and developing of alternative livelihood systems. Implementation of the project is based on a firm partnership with African arid-zone pastoralists and on close technical co-operation between the collaborating countries. 

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

PROJECT DOCUMENT

SECTION 1 - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Title of Sub-Programme	Environmental Science and Research

1.2 Title of Project				Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa

1.3 Geographical Scope	Regional, Africa – Botswana, Kenya, Mali

	External
1.4 Implementation	Regional: University of Oslo, Norway
National: execution through UNDP:
Ministry of Agriculture (Botswana)
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Kenya)
Ministry of Environment (Mali)

1.5 Duration of the Project	5 years
	Commencing: March 2001
	Completion: March 2006

1.6 Cost of the Project  (Expressed in million US dollars)
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Total	% of Total	
Cost to the GEF Trust Fund	2.482	1.637	1.555	1.513	1.477	8.664	71	
Co-financing								
     NORAD (in-cash)	0.230	0.230	0.230	0.230	0.230	1.150	9	
     GTZ (in-cash)	0.250	-	-	-	-	0.250	2	
     Botswana (in-kind)	0.220	0.220	0.220	0.220	0.220	1.100	9	
     Kenya (in-kind)	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.110	0.550	5	
     Mali (in-kind)	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.500	4	
TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT	3.392	2.297	2.215	2.173	2.137	12.214	100	

SIGNATURES

For University of Oslo:		For UNEP:

___________________________________		_________________________
Prof. Nils Christian Stenseth
Dept. of Biology	Mr. E. Ortega
Chief, Budget and Funds Management Services

Date:___________________________		Date:__________________

For Government of Botswana

_______________________________
Nchunga, Mushanana
Executive Secretary
National Conservation Strategy Coordinating Agency

Date:___________________________

For Government of Kenya

_______________________________
K´Omudho, Benard O.
Director
National Environment Secretariat
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources

Date:___________________________

For Government of Mali

________________________________
Kone, Abdoulaye
Chef de la Division
Convention sur les Eaux Internationales
Normes et Reglementations D.N.H.

Date:____________________________

For UNDP

________________________________
Rafael Asenjo
Executive Coordinator
GEF Coordination Office

Date:____________________________

FULL PROJECT BRIEF 
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 

1. IDENTIFIERS
Project Number:	GF/1300-97-04
Project Name:		Botswana, Kenya, Mali: Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa
Duration: 		5 years
Implementing Agency: 	UNEP and UNDP
Executing Agency:	
National Projects:	Ministry of Agriculture (Botswana), Ministry of Environmental Conservation (Kenya), Ministry of Environment (Mali).
Regional Project:	Regional Coordination Unit
Requesting Countries:	Botswana, Kenya, Mali.
Eligibility:		Conventions signed: 	Botswana	 Kenya 		 Mali 						Biological Diversity	12.9.94		26.07.94		29.03.95
 			Climate Change		27.01.94		30.08.94		28.12.94
Desertification		29.12.96		26.12.96		26.12.96
GEF focal Area:	Biodiversity/ Land Degradation (with components in climate change and international waters).
GEF Programming Framework:	OP#1: Arid and Semi-arid Zone Ecosystems.
                                                                                                                                                                                                       
2. SUMMARY
This project is a demonstration programme for biodiversity conservation and dryland ecosystem restoration in the arid and semi-arid zones of Africa. The project will combine community based indigenous knowledge, the findings of scientific research and past practical experience to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and conserve biodiversity by developing sustainable natural resource management systems. A major goal of the project is to facilitate an exchange of knowledge and experience between three comparable but different situations and develop models, which can be transferred elsewhere within the continent. Technology transfer and supporting research will be a vital part of the project. This will be achieved by (i) strengthening appropriate indigenous management systems; (ii) developing integrated bio-socio-economic data systems; (iii) rehabilitating indigenous vegetation and degraded land; (iv) improving the effectiveness of livestock production and marketing and developing of alternative livelihood systems. Implementation of the project is based on a firm partnership with African arid-zone pastoralists and on close technical co-operation between the collaborating countries. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                       
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION US$)
GEF: 			Project:							US$ 7.79 
           			PDF - B: 						US$ 0.33 
			Project Appraisal:					US$ 0.06
			Monitoring and Evaluation:				US$ 0.14
Project Administration:					US$ 0.734
Subtotal GEF:						US$ 9.054
Co-financing:		The University of Oslo:					US$ 1.680 
Others:				 	 		US$ 0.500
Government contributions:				US$ 2.150 
Total Project Cost:								US$13.384

4. ASSOCIATED FINANCING (MILLIONS US$): N/A
5. OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENTS:
Name: Mr. S. S.G.  Tumelo				Title: Permanent Secretary
Organization: Ministry of Agriculture 			Date: 30 April 1998 	(Botswana)
Name: B.O. K’Omudho 							Title: Director
Organization: National Environment Secretariat (NES)	Date: 14 May 1998	(Kenya)
Name: H.E. Mohamed Ag Erlaf				Title: Minister of Environment
Organization: Government of Mali				Date: 7 May 1998	(Mali)

6. IA Contact:
Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Coordinator, GEF Co-ordination Office, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 
Fax No: (254) 2 623140 Tel. (254) 2 624166

Mr. Rafael Asenjo, Executive Coordinator, GEF/UNDP, New York, USA
Fax no: (1 212) 906 6690 Tel. (1 212) 906 5408

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVATIONS USED

BRIMP: Botswana Range Inventory and Monitoring Project
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
DMI: Desert Margins Initiative
GEF: Global Environment Facility
GIS: Geographic Information System
GOB: Government of Botswana
GOK: Government of Kenya
GOM: Government of Mali
GTX: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
IGN: Institut Geographique National
IPAL: Integrated Project in Arid Lands
IUCN: World Conservation Union
NEAP: National Environment Action Plan
NES: National Environment Secretariat (Kenya)
NORAD: Norwegian Agency for Development Coorporation
NPL: National Project Leader
NPU: National Project Unit
OFP: Operational Focal Point
PLEC: People, Land Management and Environmental Change
PNAE: Plan National d'Action Environmentale
RCU: Regional Coordination Unit
RPSC: Regional Policy Steering Committee
SADC: South African Development Community
STAP: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TAC: Technical Advisory Committee
TREMU: Turkana Resources Evaluation and Monitoring Unit
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
SECTION 2 - BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

1.	The arid/semi-arid zones of Africa cover 60% of Africa and a major part of Botswana (80%), Kenya (80%) and Mali (70%). These arid and support more than 70% of the livestock, and 90% of wildlife species in Botswana; 50% of the livestock and 75% of the wildlife in Kenya, and 60% of the national livestock herd in Mali. 60 % of the continent is covered by arid and semi-arid lands.

2.	The indigenous vegetation of the dryland ecosystems consists of grasses and herbaceous and woody species, which are highly adapted and endemic to arid and semi-arid zones. Together they form a unique ecological association of globally significant biodiversity and geological, climatic and human components, which have evolved over a very long time period. One of the greatest values of indigenous vegetation of the arid zones of Africa is its ability to maintain resilience, through the evolution of special adaptative features to droughts, “normal” variability, and other stressful events. It also plays a crucial role in soil stabilization and protection, CO2 sequestration, and the creation of micro- habitats for soil microorganisms, which are important in ecological processes in general and especially in nutrient turnover. The indigenous vegetation of arid Africa has evolved specific characteristics that make it distinct, and unique, in relation to other arid lands of the earth. Indigenous vegetation is also a primary resource of the pastoral and agropastoral economy, accounting for a great proportion of livestock feed, materials for construction, fuelwood, shelter, medicines and pharmaceutical products. They are also centers of speciation for various agriculturally important plants, for instance fonio (wild rice), durra, sorghum and the fodder crop Brachyaria.

3.	The indigenous vegetation that characterizes the arid/semi-arid zone of Africa has evolved specialized adaptations over millions of years, thus making it uniquely adapted to the environment characterized by recurring drought. The flora and fauna of the arid/semi-arid zone of Africa is not characterized by a high degree of species diversity. Environmental conditions tend to be uniform over vast geographic areas and most species occur over broad geographic ranges.  Since species and gene pools that are well adapted to drier areas are few in number, the relative loss of biodiversity in arid zone environments is particularly great.  This is occurring within and around the three African deserts of the Kalahari-Namib (Botswana), the Somali-Chalbi (Kenya) and Sahara (Mali) as pressure on the resource continues to mount, and land continues to suffer more and more severe levels of degradation.

4.	Proper management of indigenous vegetation is crucial to the survival of livestock husbandry and farming, and therefore the rural people. Notwithstanding this, many important vegetation associations, such as Acacia tortilis, Acacia senegal and Acacia galpinii being lost. Threats to these associations are increasing. This loss of natural vegetation through increased anthropic pressure, has resulted in biodiversity loss and localised loss of vegetation cover around settlements, reducing the resilience of the arid zone ecosystems to recurrent droughts, and at the same time reducing their ability to function as resource bases for the local communities. The problem is exacerbated by drought, which in turn leaves the inhabitants no alternatives but to adopt practices that have degraded natural resources and by extension biological diversity.

5.	A key factor for sustainable management of arid zones is the ability to use indigenous institutions in order to maintain biodiversity and full resource access rights. Maintaining the diversity within species of living organisms, between species and between ecosystems form important elements in rational management strategies. Traditional management systems have an inherent interest in conserving biodiversity because their diverse traditional economic base (different animal species, occasional use of medicinal plants and wild food) requires a diverse feed and resource supply, and a diverse set of habitats. The role of the pastoral communities in management of indigenous vegetation is considered crucial since they have developed numerous methods that need institutional strengthening for continued sustainability. 

GEF Programming Context

6.	The project falls within the GEF priority area of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems, Operational Programme 1. This operational programme stresses sustainable use of biodiversity through strengthening the involvement of local and indigenous institutions of natural resource management, capacity-building, human resources development and strengthening both indigenous and formal legal institutional systems as important elements. GEF will also facilitate international and regional co-operation, scientific assessments, conservation of representative habitats, as well as conservation and sustainable use of endemic flora and fauna.

7.	This project fits in with the priorities of the COP of the CBD on the sustainable use and conservation of arid- zone ecosystems. It is also in conformity with the GEF Operational Strategy, as well as the Framework for GEF Activities concerning Land Degradation as a cross cutting theme with links to climate change and international waters. Re-vegetation of degraded land is important for soil conservation, restoration of degraded areas, natural resources management emphasising integrated resource use, energy conservation using alternative energy sources to conserve the indigenous vegetation and increasing biodiversity.  The main elements of the project correspond with linkages between land degradation and the GEF focal areas, as identified by the STAP Workshop on Land Degradation. The project addresses land-tenure problems, resource access rights, collects and analyses data, puts strong emphasis on stakeholder participation, indigenous knowledge utilisation and involves institutions at regional and national levels to reverse land degradation and helps develop sustainable management systems.

Justification for GEF financing

8.	The proposed project aims at conserving and rehabilitating globally significant biodiversity in the three African dryland areas through halting land degradation and developing sustainable management systems. Indigenous vegetation and the biodiversity of the arid/semi-arid zone of Africa is of global significance because it is composed of plants and animals that are truly adapted to this vast geographic area.  It is critical that sustainable-range management/land -use systems be developed for the indigenous vegetation of this zone.  This can best be done by empowering the resource users to control and manage the resources.  By creating and testing model approaches in this project we lay the basis for extension of these same approaches to other parts of the world.

9.	Building upon IPAL research in Northern Kenya and the experiences gained from practical management of indigenous vegetation from the Kalahari-Namib and the Sudano-Sahel zones, the project will also identify, synthesise and apply the state-of-the-art methods and approaches to demonstrate how globally significant biodiversity can be restored and protected through halting land degradation and the development of sustainable management systems. A major contribution of the project to the control of desertification will be in the development of a model for replication throughout the arid/semi-arid zones, particularly in Africa. Project demonstration sites in the three countries offer important regional perspectives because of the relative, comparative advantages of each country. Botswana has many years of experience with community management systems and a strong baseline. Kenya offers insight and guidelines on appropriate technologies through the work of IPAL, and Mali bring experiences with decentralization.

10.	Although these ecosystems are inherently resilient to long-term changes, a combination of factors can lead these ecosystems beyond a sustainable thresholds where they become highly sensitive to changes in management practices. This project will develop innovative and integrated management systems, which incorporate indigenous knowledge, traditional management systems and modern scientific findings.  The underlying causes of land degradation will be addressed in order to create a more sustainable and long-term approach to rangeland management.  The rehabilitation and re-vegetation of degraded rangelands in the long term will also increase carbon fixation primarily through the increase of woody cover, and a reduction of soil erosion will have positive impacts on international waterbodies of Niger River and Lake Turkana.  This project will develop participatory, community-based sustainable range-management systems in key demonstration sites representative of the three major arid/semi-arid zones of Africa. 

11.	Research and experimental management in arid/semi-arid zones have provided a wealth of bio-physical and socio-economic data on land-use.  This will be the basis of establishing a programme of community-based natural resource management.  Research on indigenous vegetation by the UNEP/UNESCO-Integrated Project in Arid Lands (IPAL) and the NORAD funded TREMU among others brought to light the nature of vegetation degradation as one aspect of land degradation.  It showed that land degradation occurs where human and livestock pressure on vegetation is intense, particularly around settlement areas, particularly around settlement areas. The IPAL Management Guidelines and recommendations on indigenous vegetation rehabilitation have implications for other arid zones of Africa.  The guidelines are aimed at arresting degradation of natural resources, and using rational management systems.  

12.	Indigenous vegetation and management systems and practices are not homogenous in all the sites, but the proximate causes of land degradation and biodiversity loss are comparable. Therefore, a comparative research should bring to light useful results. There is a need for regional exchange of experiences, testing of different tools and methodology. In addition the project should be viewed within the broader perspective of activities for improving productivity of arid lands and rehabilitation of the degraded areas. The project will establish links with various studies and management activities that are being undertaken and planned by governments, NGOs and other international and regional organisations.

13.	Although this project is undertaken in the three arid zones of Africa, there is no doubt that the experience to be gained, and the practical applications of that experience, particularly in indigenous knowledge-based vegetation management, will make a valuable contribution to the conservation of biodiversity throughout the arid zones of the world. The support being sought from GEF to cover the incremental costs will facilitate the testing of the full range of resource management systems through combating land degradation to use the results for demonstration and training for arid-zone resource managers across Africa and other arid zones of the world. 

Linkages of the project with country priorities

14.	Given the importance of the arid and semi-arid zones to the participating countries, the Governments of Botswana, Kenya and Mali have undertaken several initiatives to address the issue of land degradation and the extensive loss of indigenous vegetation. Combating land degradation is a major issue of the participating countries as stated explicitly in a number of programmes and initiatives (See Baseline).

15.	In the case of Botswana, these concerns are expressed in the UNEP/SADC Kalahari-Namib Project, the Agricultural Development Programme; the Forestry Sector Development Policies and the National Conservation Strategy Action Plans; and the Land and Environmental Development Strategies under SADC. The Government of Botswana is currently undertaking a Range Inventory and Monitoring Project (BRIMP), which is being implemented with other Government agencies. The Government of Botswana has allocated 28% of its National Development Budget to the protection and conservation of natural resources. These are captured in the projects and programmes such as soil conservation, land resources inventory and monitoring and sustainable utilisation of natural resources, based on community based natural resource management strategies. Currently the Government of Botswana is strengthening its natural resources regulations, policies and acts to comply with the agreed international conventions and treaties. 

16.	In Kenya, the project falls within the National Development Policy that aims at integrating arid and semi-arid lands into the mainstream of the national economy and social development in an environmentally sustainable manner. The project also falls within the recommendations of the NEAP that was adopted by the Government of Kenya in 1996. Furthermore, the Government of Kenya has developed a national policy bill on Environment Coordination and Management, which has specific policies addressing the conservation of biodiversity within the arid and semi-arid land ecosystems. The bill is currently awaiting the parliamentary approval and once enacted into a law it will provide an enabling environment for this project. In addition, Kenya is in the process of preparing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan with GEF financing, and one of the elements of this strategy will focus on dryland biodiversity. 

17.	In Mali, the concerns are expressed in the National Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, the North-East Stock Raising and Land Rehabilitation Project, along with the National Plan for Action on the Environment (PNAE), which has now been finalized. Mali is also developing a national biodiversity strategy with GEF financing. The project will also benefit from the current decentralisation process (e.g. changes in land-tenure systems) being undertaken by the Government to make individuals and community more responsible for land management. This will provide an enabling environment for this project. In addition, significant sections of Mali have already been covered by the UNEP/IGN study, which utilised remote sensing techniques to evaluate land degradation trends as a basis for planning alternative management strategies. This information will be used to an advantage by this regional project.

System Boundaries, Regionality and Criteria for Site Selection

18.	Regional sites were situated so as to be comparable and complementary. These sites then serve as representative samples of the various arid zones of Africa, and provide a sound basis for demonstrating different indigenous knowledge management approaches to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Criteria for site selection include representativeness of the globally significant biodiversity in the area, presence of viable indigenous management structures and supportive Government structures, community commitment to the project and comparable eco-climatic features. Given the objective of developing a replicable model in Africa, this project has a regional scope. The different management systems operate in comparable contexts, allowing the project to demonstrate general management elements for sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. The majority of the project activities are at the local level, however there will be many linkages to national programmes and policies.

19.	Seven areas have been selected as demonstration sites for the project; Rakops, Lephephe and Bokspits in the Kalahari-Namib zone, Marsabit and Turkana in the Somali-Chalbi and South Azaouad and Nara in the Sudano-Sahel. The demonstration sites in the Kalahari-Namib zone cover about 3500 km2 in the case of Rakops, 970 km2 for Lephephe and 2000km2 for Bokspits-Struizendam. The stakeholder communities of the Kalahari-Namib demonstration sites include different ethnic groups, such as Bayei, Hereoes, Bushmen, (Basarwa), Bakalanga, Banajwa, Batawana, Bakjgalagadi and Coloureds. The project sites are Khumaga, Tsoe, Sukwane, Rakops, Mmadikola, Kedia (total population 10,000), Lephephe, Boatlaname, Sojwe (total population 2,600) Bokspits-Struizendam, (total population 15,000), where the economy is based on livestock husbandry and subsistence farming. The total population in the project areas amounts to approximately 37,000. These areas receive 150-400mm annual rainfall. 

20.	The indigenous vegetation of the demonstration sites in the Kalahari-Namib zone comprise Kalahari Acacia wooded grassland, deciduous bushland and Zambesian woodland, with extensive wetlands in the Okavango delta and halophytic vegetation in the Makgadikgadi pan, which are also important centres of endemism. About 17 endemic plant species are known to exist in this zone of Botswana. In Rakops, there has been a die-off of riverine woodlands, affecting many species such as Acacia galpinii, Combretum imberbe, Ziziphus mucronata, Acacia karroo, Grewia spp., Ximenia spp. and Phoenix reclinata. These species have important uses such as fodder, medicines, dyes and household materials. Among the Graminae, Urochloa  mossambicensis, Eragrostis spp., and Odyssea pancinervis, are disappearing. In the riverine habitats, Phragmites communis, Cyperus spp., and Nymphaea caerula (waterlily), which are an important source of food and construction materials have disappeared. Lephepe has lost much of its woody and herbaceous vegetation cover. Browsing by goats on regenerating Acacia is heavy. The woody species lost from the site include Peltophorum africanum and Spirostachys africanum. The loss of Graminae is comparable to the Rakops site. The Bokspitz-Struizendam demonstration site is sparsely vegetated. Woody vegetation occurs on the banks of fossil drainage lines and on the crests of stable fossil sand dunes.

21.	In the Kalahari-Namib zone of Botswana, yearly rainfall for the past 60 years averaged 150-400 mm. Rainfall variability is reflected by highly variable indigenous vegetation cover. About 70% of the land is categorised as communal land, 20% is state-land and the remaining 10% leasehold and freehold. Botswana is a beef producing country, most of which is produced by the pastoralists.  The pastoralists’ grazing lands have been demarcated by cordon fences to separate livestock and wildlife areas. These cordon fences have altered the traditional seasonal grazing movements. Within the enclosed areas, conflicts between pastoral land use and arable land on one hand and between pastoralists, agriculturalists and wildlife on the other have contributed to the overall degradation of indigenous vegetation. Biodiversity surveys of the country have confirmed that a number of species of plants and animals are being threatened.

22.	In the Somali-Chalbi zone, the demonstration sites are Marsabit and Turkana. The Marsabit field-sites of Korr-Ngurnit cover 3,000 km2 and have a total population of 4,000 people, while the Hurri Hills Field-site covers 2,190 km2 and has a total population of 3,500. The Turkana demonstration site has three field-sites comprising Turkwell, Central and Katilu, which covers 15,000 km2 and contains a population of 50,000. In the Somali-Chalbi Zone rainfall varies between less than 150 to 600 mm per year. The stakeholder pastoralist communities of the Somali-Chalbi zone are the Gabbra, the Booran, the Rendille, the Samburu and the Turkana pastoralists. The pastoral population manages sheep, cattle, goats and camels. Land use is characterised by movements between wet season and dry season rangelands. Traditional land use began to break down during the previous decades. Following sedentarisation of the majority of the pastoralists, over-exploitation of indigenous woody vegetation and overgrazing of the herbaceous vegetation layer have become intensive. This has resulted in localised loss of vegetation cover around settlements.

23.	The vegetation of the Somali-Chalbi zone is predominately dry bushland with pockets of montane forests and inselbergs, which are hot spots of endemism.  IPAL research has listed more than 300 indigenous plant species, of which some are endemic.  Acacia seyal subsp. marsabitiensis is endemic to the Marsabit demonstration site. Commiphora africana, Acacia tortilis, Aloe sp. and several species of grasses and dwarf shrubs are threatened by degradation. In the Turkana demonstration sites, Acacia tortilis and Hyphaenae compressa are the chief sources of livestock forage as well as human food. These valuable tree species are managed and conserved using indigenous woodland management systems ("ekwar"). The main threat is the effect of the dam on the Turkwell River, which has changed flood patterns and threatened fauna habitats. Poaching has reduced the population of reticulated giraffe, while South Turkana harbours an endangered population of elephants. 

24.	In the Sudano-Sahel zone, the demonstration sites selected were South Azaouad and Nara inhabited by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists who are mainly Tuaregs, Fulanis and Arabs. The South Azaouad represents the arid-zone ecosystems (150 mm/ yr) of the Sahelo-Saharan steppes north of Timbuktou to north of Bourem, covering 4000 km2. The Nara site in the North-West Sahel represents the semi-arid zone ecosystems (300-400 mm/ yr) and covers 3100 km2. In the Sudano-Sahel zone, the shift of rainfall isohyets southwards and the drying conditions of the northern Sahel-Sahara zone has forced the northern pastoralists populations to move southwards. This has concentrated the population within the Niger valley, where competition between farmers and pastoralists is increasing. Traditionally, the transhumance grazing cycle takes the pastoralists to northern Sahel during the rainy season. During the dry season, pastoralists move southwards towards the Niger valley.  Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists established reciprocal arrangements of resource use in the Niger valley, which were strengthened by tribal conventions. Presently, transhumance from different West African countries is putting additional pressure on the indigenous vegetation.

25.	The vegetation of Sudano-Sahel zone of Mali is dry open savannah with rich diversity in the Niger delta valley. About 11 endemic plant species have been recorded.  The drought of the 1970s and 1980s caused dynamic changes in the indigenous vegetation structure and composistion. Acacia raddiana was dominant in the northern Sahel before the drought, but has since regressed, and has been replaced by Balanites aegyptica. Also B. aegyptica has been replaced by Leptadenia pyrotechnica with an increased dominance of Chizophira brochwana. In the northeast of the Sudano-Sahel zone of Mali, Maerua crassifolia has been replaced by Boscia senegalensis, which maintains dominance on clay soils within dune depressions. A. raddiana, which had disappeared from the drier northern Sahel zone, is regenerating on the banks of the Niger River.  Changes have also occurred in the herbaceous vegetation. For the Sudano-Sahel zone demonstration sites overall, Acacia senegal has disappeared, while several other woody species are either disappearing or threatened. In the Nara demonstration site, Commiphora africana, Pterocarpus lucens, Dalbergia melanoxylon, Prosopis africana and Lanea velutina are threatened, disappearing or have recently disappeared. In the South Azaouad demonstration site, Hyphaene thebaica and Diospiros mespiliphormis are threatened with over-exploitation. Among the Graminae, Andropogon gayana and Panicum anabasistum are disappearing. Panicum augidum is also disappearing, while Schoenfeldia gracilis is threatened. Cencrus biflorus is disappearing in the Houssa area because of overharvesting, overgrazing and drought. Retrogression of indigenous vegetation has also had an adverse impact on fauna habitats, leading to the disappearance of several wildlife species. 

26.	In all project areas, rainfall is highly variable and unpredictable, with recurrent droughts and pronounced dry seasons.  In the Kalahari-Namib zone, droughts lasting up to 7 years are expected every 20 years, and in the Somali-Chalbi zone, major droughts occur every 10 years.  In the Sudano-Sahel zone, the rainfall isohyets have shifted southwards during the last decades. The climatic conditions are reflected in the indigenous vegetation cover, which varies greatly from year to year.  Traditionally, the pastoralist communities moved between wet season and dry season grazing lands, and in the Sudano-Sahel zone, transhumance grazing patterns have evolved.  These systems are now put under pressure from increased sedentarization (Somali-Chalbi), cordon fences for animal disease control (Kalahari-Namib), competition between agriculturists and pastoralists (Sudano-Sahel), and general over-exploitation of the natural vegetation resources, throughout the region.

The Baseline Situation, threats to biodiversity and land degradation

27.	The baseline situation of the demonstration sites is typical of nearly all the arid/semi-arid zones of Africa. It is characterized by ongoing, increasingly severe land degradation, especially around settlements, and particularly of the indigenous vegetation.  In the most severely degraded sites, nearly all biodiversity has been lost. Previously stable fossil dunes have become live dunes. On heavier soils the vegetation cover has been lost, the topsoil eroded away, and the subsoil has formed a nearly impermeable crust that further accelerates runoff that makes restoration especially difficult. Wind and water erosion is widespread and severe. Shallow, stony soils become even more shallow, permanently reducing their potential productivity. Soil organic matter decreases and with it, infiltration rates decline, water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil declines as does its soils microbial diversity.

28.	The baseline situation is characterised by a lack of effective community-level control over range resources. Many of the rangelands are characterized by open access with few effective management structures. Traditionally, the rangelands and water points were locally controlled and managed. Pastoralists and their herds were highly mobile moving with the seasons and with the rains and the pastures. This situation has changed with the imposition of centralized ownership and control over land and resources. Although there have been recent high-level policy movements towards decentralization and local empowerment, this has not yet been fully applied to the local level. 

29.	The “normal” condition is one of partial, but continuing, degradation of vegetative cover. Regeneration of the natural vegetation becomes more and more problematic. Vegetation biomass and cover declines and with it, the amount of carbon sequestered. Table 2.1 Annex IV presents a synthesised analysis of the intermediate, proximate and ultimate root causes of biodiversity loss and land degradation in the three countries. GEF funding is sought for activities that directly address the intermediate and proximate causes, while relying on the baseline’s ongoing programs and projects to address the ultimate causes.

30.	The proximate causes of land degradation and biodiversity loss in the arid and semi-arid zone are similar and comparable among the three countries and can be listed as follows:

•	The breakdown/loss of traditional management systems has contributed to weakening of indigenous management systems.  Local pastoral communities are not empowered to manage their rangeland and to apply traditional range management systems/techniques where this local knowledge still exists.  Centralised management of range resources has been proven to be ineffective. The most basic prerequisite for sustainable management of any type of renewable natural resource is to have clearly defined resource access rights in the hands of a recognized body that has the means and the motivation to manage the resources.  It is the local pastoral communities who depend on the range resource that have the principal motivation to manage the resource sustainably.
•	Shifting agriculture, and over-harvesting for fuel and construction needs are leading to ongoing high rates of deforestation particularly in a widening radius around settlements and urban areas. 
•	However, indigenous systems are not able to cope with recent external pressures in particular range compression due to changes in settlement patterns, agricultural encroachment, land use conflicts, and cordon fences in Botswana for National Parks and sanitary control. More and more of dry season pasture and water resources have been taken over by agriculturalists. Rainfed agriculture is being extended into lower and lower rainfall zones into former dry-season pastures, often leading to accelerated, severe land degradation.
•	Freedom of movement and mobility of pastoralists is increasingly reduced. Government policies favor sedentarization of pastoralists and there are restrictions on movement across national borders. Access to dry-season water points becomes more and more restricted, as the water and the surrounding lands are utilised or occupied by farmers. In addition, more and more farmers that used to allow pastoralists to use their crop residues for their livestock are now using all the residues for their own smallstock. Mobility was a key element of most traditional grazing systems.  Mobility is ecologically desirable in arid/semi-arid rangelands because it allows pastoralists to move their herds to where the rains have fallen and to where the forage is most abundant (this is desirable when not combined with open unmanaged access to the resource). 
•	Lack of ready access to livestock markets with financially attractive producer prices leads to diminished sales of livestock and, consequently, lower income opportunities.  This is especially a problem in Kenya where livestock producers are only allowed to sell their livestock in restricted markets in Nairobi.
•	Pressure for survival push individual land users to overexploit other range resources (medical plants etc.) There is a lack of economic incentives that link income generation to the sustainable management and conservation of rangeland resources;
•	Because of continuing “top-down” approaches, there continues to be a lack of integration of scientific and indigenous knowledge systems, for the development of successful and sustainable models of local level natural resource management. Resource managers and planners lack access to relevant data on indigenous production and management by local communities.

31.	The baseline situation is in general very supportive of the project, and provides a sound basis for the identification of incremental costs. The baseline includes indigenous managemen knowledge and institutions, local and national level NGO’s and their activities, local government capabilities, and national level policies and programmes. The baseline activities and programs address ultimate causes of biodiversity loss, but need strengthening to be brought to an effective level of operation. Table 2.2 Annex IV provides the logical link between threats, root causes and components that have been designed to address the threats.

32.	Despite the considerable investment that has been made in research on arid and semi-arid areas of Africa, e.g. the findings from IPAL, in researching various dimensions of the pastoral economy, including the role of indigenous vegetation, the biodiversity significance as well as its role in the maintenance of dryland ecosystems, the resulting information has not been adequately applied to ecosystem management in arid/semi-arid zones of Africa. Building upon this and other baseline investments, this project seeks to highlight the utilisation and application of that knowledge through demonstration, model building and replication to achieve global environmental benefits.

SECTION 3 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Global Environment and Development Objectives

33.	The global benefit is the conservation of biodiversity by developing an appropriate system of natural resource management, which reverses the present trend of degradation by establishing sustained production systems within the agro-pastoral and pastoral economy of the arid zones. A regional comparative approach will be taken, based on a number of demonstration sites in the Kalahari-Namib region, the Somali-Chalbi region, and the Sudano-Sahelian region. The project will therefore develop models to reinforce in situ conservation of biodiversity of plants and animals through halting of land degradation. The knowledge gained from these three demonstration areas will be available for replication in order to help sustain this unique ecosystem. Global benefits will be assured by selecting sites that are representative of the different habitats and ecozones in arid and semi-arid Africa, and are sites that have a higher probability of success in developing replicable models. A secondary global benefit is to increase plant biomass, both above- and below-ground, which improves resilience to drought, and potentially produces benefits in climate change. 

34.	The domestic benefits of the project accrue from rehabilitated lands and sustainable management systems in the 7 sites, plus development of models applicable to the other arid zones of the countries. In addition, there will be an improvement in the standard of living of the communities by demonstrating and adopting appropriate natural resource management systems that incorporate the use of indigenous knowledge. The local communities will also be assisted in utilising local renewable resources, e.g. water and fuelwood, to diversify their economic base, including the development and marketing of range products, to reduce overexploitation of the indigenous vegetation and erosion of soil.

35.	The project activities will be achieved by carrying out a carefully co-ordinated demonstration program of development and sustainable use of land, water and vegetation resources, based on a synthesis of the value-added by the IPAL guidelines and other approaches. The project advocates improved animal husbandry by integrating  indigenous traditional knowledge and modern science, including regulation of livestock distribution and improvement of marketing. The project will also rely upon the positive experiences acquired in its demonstration sites in the management and rehabilitation of the arid lands, as well as incorporating a high degree of flexibility to ensure sustainability of the indigenous natural resource management system by creating strong partnerships with the local pastoral communities.

36.	An integral complementary part of the project will be a targeted research component, mainly funded by cofinancing, aimed at solving major issues of land degradation in the arid lands. The principal task of the targeted research will be to train local personnel, design monitoring activities, conduct the analysis and synthesis of existing data and collect additional data on indigenous vegetation of arid lands in direct relation to the project components. Closely related to this will be regional mechanisms to ensure that research findings are communicated to stakeholders and policymakers in the three countries. The mechanisms will address issues relating to use of indigenous knowledge management systems and the use of models to communicate scientific findings to local populations. 

37.	The logical framework annex (annex II) identifies verifiable performance indicators and milestones that were developed in consultation with all partners and which will enable the measurement of progress towards projected outcomes. 

38.	The project is integrated into national programs and plans, since it addresses the baselines programs and policies in each country relating to the improved management of arid and semi-arid lands. GEF funding is sought to take advantage of the comparative strengths of each country’s knowledge base, to bear on a regional synthesis of experiences in arid and semi-arid lands. Past approaches to improved management of arid and semi-arid lands have tended to be individual country oriented without the benefit of lessons learned in other countries and to pay only token attention to participatory development and the integration of indigenous knowledge. In the past, less attention has been given to the needs of mobile pastoral communities.

Linkage of GEF Programming Approach to Problems

39.	The project activities are designed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Operational Programme 1: Arid and Semi-arid Zone Ecosystems of the biodiversity focal area. The framework offered by the follow-up to the STAP Workshop on Land Degradation, approved by the GEF Council in May ’97, provides the background to project activities as they relate to this cross-cutting theme. Beneficial results are also expected to indirectly address the focal areas of climate change and international waters. 

40.	The analysis of direct and indirect causes of biodiversity loss and land degradation has identified a number of barriers that must be overcome before biodiversity conservation can be sustained on rehabilitated lands (See Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in Annex IV on Root causes to Biodiversity loss and Land Degradation, and Threats and Root Causes).

SECTION 4 - PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND EXPECTED RESULTS

Relationship between components

41.	All the components are closely interrelated and are critical for the management of indigenous vegetation in arid/semi-arid ecosystems. The project design has taken into consideration activities that facilitate the integration of project components between demonstration sites. Component 1 focuses on the establishment and/or strengthening of appropriate indigenous management systems and is strongly linked to Component 3, which seek to rehabilitate degraded lands with indigenous vegetation species and develop rational management and sustainable use of biodiversity through community participation.  Component 2 seeks to establish a regional arid zone biodatabase to facilitate better management of dryland resources. Component 4 addresses improved livestock production and marketing and the provision of alternative livelihoods.  Component 5 and 6 focus on technology transfer and applied research and will support the other Components. Component 6 is very closely linked to all the other components in that the activities of this component build on the needs and outputs emanating from them. Detailed explanation of the activities and anticipated results are presented in the logical framework in Annex III.

Component 1: Establishment and Strengthening of appropriate indigenous management systems.

42.	The project will facilitate the creation and strengthening of community-based representative management committees in the demonstration sites to take full responsibility of managing the indigenous vegetation. Already existing societal management structures acknowledged by the communities and the states should be the basis for creating indigenous management authorities. The role of women in these decision-making structures will be clearly considered as they are the principal users. In addition, the project will recognise that most local communities are not homogenous, and therefore will ensure effective participation by all stakeholders using state-of-the-art methods in participatory planning (e.g. Participatory Learning and Action). 

43.	Special attention will be paid to strengthening the capacity of indigenous range managers (herdboys, scouts, trackers, elder councils etc.) There will be a need to establish a partnership between the communities, the Governments and the project. The communities will then be helped to develop management master plans that would accommodate the need to conserve and rehabilitate vegetation, develop land-use plans and resolve conflicts within and between communities. Since these types of plans are dynamic they need to be continuously revised and updated. The plans should where necessary incorporate traditional conventions which have existed before the initiation of the project. The project will strengthen protocols on grazing, sharing water points and fodder reserves The master plans provide authority to the communities of the demonstration sites to regulate and control access to home range key resources. In Botswana and Mali the policies to define the authority of local communities to take responsibility for the local land use are part of the Baseline, while in Kenya the legal framework is being revised to deal with these issues. In the case of Mali and Kenya, the special needs of mobile pastoral communities will be addressed. 

44.	Indigenous methods of conservation will be identified for each resource and the communities helped to develop conservation measures. In situ conservation would also apply to rare plant and animal species, which are being threatened with overexploitation. The basis will be development of community biodiversity registers that identifies all plant and animal species within each demonstration zone, which the communities consider as being threatened. The community biodiversity registers will contribute to building of biodiversity database for each area. The registers will identify each plant and animal species, describe their habitats, types of uses, the socio-cultural values and form of management necessary for conserving them. As part of the community education, important plant specimens will be collected to establish community herbaria. Local incentives for conserving biodiversity will be built into the project design through participatory assessment of the perceived values of biodiversity and economic benefits from a diverse genetic base, and documentation of indigenous technical knowledge for the benefit of the younger generations.

Component 2: Establishment of a Regional Arid zone Biodatabase.

45.	The project will establish a participatory process of information collection, analysis and use, leading to a regional Arid Zone Database. This will facilitate the collation and recovery of considerable investments in relevant data on indigenous production and management systems, which is currently trapped as raw data. This will be supplemented by baseline data on the socio-economic situation of the demonstration areas, analysed through existing (Kenya and Botswana) and installed (Mali) GIS systems. This component will compare the different methods in participatory planning in order to develop a method for local, participatory collection and analysis of data, applicable to the three countries. This includes an assessment of the extent and trends of land degradation through interpretation of aerial photos, satellite imagery and ground surveys. These data will contribute significantly to the integrated management of land, water and biodiversity. They include mapping of key resources; herd migration routes; patterns of settlements; understanding relationships between different pastoral and agro-pastoral groups of the demonstration sites; the distribution of water points, traditional rules and regulations for controlling access to pasture and water; delimitation of the territorial boundaries of the participating communities (or groups): and the definition of the demonstration site boundaries.

Component 3: Rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation and degraded lands.

46.	The most effective way of rehabilitating land and vegetation is through the reduction of overgrazing and over-exploitation of natural vegetation around settlements in the demonstration sites as a result of the establishment of appropriate management systems. In each of the demonstration zones a range of measures may need to be used. The participatory assessment exercise (Component 2) involving the local communities, will contribute to the formulation of management master plans. Decisions to protect some over- utilized grasslands and woodlands to allow regeneration or decisions to re-seed some localities, or to plant trees, should be carefully balanced. Different tree planting methods and ways to enhance germination and survival if indigenous species will be tested, including natural regeneration and protection of natural seedlings, local, communal or private nurseries etc.  Wherever possible, ecosystem rehabilitation through sound management of natural regeneration should be the goal. However, in some cases there may be a need to stabilise soils to prevent further erosion, involving the utilization of indigenous knowledge and community participation. Water harvesting techniques could be utilised, wind breaks constructed and sand dunes stabilised. Where appropriate, water points may need to be established to promote optimum use of rangelands. Vegetation rehabilitation will be carried out in Mali by the use of demonstration enclosures around settlements where optimum integrated management of soil, water and vegetation will test the possibilities for the area. These plots will be compared with similar areas under continuous traditional use with non-fencing management in the other countries. A close monitoring of the results of these activities will be necessary in order that the communities involved may identify the most effective measures for general use. This component may also include the establishment of fire management measures in Botswana. 

Component 4: Improved livestock production and marketing, and provision of alternative livelihoods.

47.	The activities under this output are aimed at increasing economic diversification and alternative livelihoods for the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. The project will provide alternative means of livelihood by diversifying the economic base for rural communities, e.g. through bee keeping, honey production and handicrafts in the demonstration sites. This will be done through development of investment programs and establishment of self-help funds and community-based services. The project will demonstrate the possibility of improving the access to information and the infrastructure for marketing live animals. An additional role of the project is to facilitate policy reforms on livestock production and marketing of range products.

48.	This component will work on increasing income from traditional herds by improving the feed resources for animals selected for the market, including dairy production. This will be done through, for example, irrigated fodder banks and establishment of fodder reserves that are linked to traditional drought reserves. In Mali, irrigated fodder may be tested around boreholes. Already, pastoralists in the Niger River Valley depend on crop residues from irrigated plots as a major source of dry season fodder supplement for their livestock. Building on existing knowledge, the project will also demonstrate growing of fodder using irrigation. Suitable grass species including wild cereals, (e.g., Fonio (Panicum laetum), which is popular with pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the Sudano-Sahel zone) will be selected and tested in order to identify their potential for multiple use. The residues will then be used as livestock feed. Lessons learnt from the establishment of revolving funds in the last decade will be incorporating into the design of these funds. Discussions will be held through the Appraisal phase of the project to determine the possibility of obtaining cost-sharing from the local communities for the self-help funds.

Component 5: Technology Transfer, Training and Regional Comparative Learning.

49.	An important part of this project is the testing of management systems. As the range and indigenous management systems are developed on a representative community basis there will be a need for training, the articulation of lessons learned and the sharing of experience within and across the various demonstration sites to ensure regional comparative learning. Community-based natural resource management committees will be given direction and specialised training for their new tasks and roles. Seminars and workshops will provide additional skills necessary to implement the planned activities. Exchange visit and joint workshops will allow institutional arrangements, tools and technologies to be shared between communities.

50.	The project will demonstrate appropriate energy saving technologies to conserve woody vegetation from being overexploited for fuel. Woodlots, preferably composed of quick growing bushy woodland for providing fuel wood and construction materials will be established, and energy saving devices will be developed and adapted to local conditions and needs. This activity will ensure maximum biomass recycling in cultivated and non-cultivated rangelands.

51.	This component will also focus on fostering exchange of experience and comparative learning at the regional level, including workshops, seminars, exchange visits and documentation.

52.	Schools in the project sites will be involved in Environmental Competitions focusing on halting land degradation where the best school gets a trophy.  Young Environmental Clubs will be set up focusing on halting land degradation using projects results. Environmental Management Committees comprising different villages will also compete for Environmental Conservation trophies and other incentives accruing as a result of application of project results.  Project’s results will be translated into local languages for wider applications.  Mass media that will involve the use of photography, dailies, newsletters, videos, television, radio, slides, documentary films and posters will be intensively used to deliver messages on land degradation and how it can be halted.  Field days that include tree planting, Environment day, Water day, Workshops, Seminars, field tours will be further used to disseminate land degradation information.

Component 6: Targeted Research 

53.	Targeted research will be an important and integrated part of all the project components, and will be carried out in collaboration with the communities, local universities and research institutions as well as with universities outside the three countries involved. The University of Oslo will be playing a coordinating and fund-raising role in this connection. A combination of scientific and indigenous knowledge is needed to implement the various activities specified in components 1-5. Applied research is needed in the following fields: indigenous resource management (e.g. develop participatory planning methods, develop community biodiversity registers and community herbaria); range habilitation (e.g. testing suitable indigenous plants for range rehabilitation, water harvesting techniques, soil stabilisation, ecological economic evaluation); energy saving technologies (e.g. develop alternative technology transfer); livestock marketing alternatives (e.g. marketing information, policy formulation, irrigated fodder crops) and technology transfer (e.g. training seminars, conferences or workshops). In addition, component 2 (Establishment of arid/semiarid zone database and GIS) will be strengthened by co-financing and through the establishment of a database on natural and socio-economic aspects (for which GIS will be an important tool). This can be used as a basis for comparative analysis with a regional as well as a local focus, which together will serve as a platform for further monitoring of the system. Personnel (including students) may visit institutions in as well as outside Africa, as part of the training component of the project. Annex VI provides an overview of examples of topics that could be taken up and how the Targeted Research component links up to the other components of the project.

SECTION 5- RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Risks

54.	The project does not face any major risk, which might prevent it from being carried out.  However, there may be negative externalities, which could handicap the achievements of the project’s objectives.  Some natural resource management activities might be at risk if severe long-term drought and other natural disasters were to occur.  The project will attempt to address this issue with many activities that directly and indirectly enhance the local population’s ability to buffer the impact of droughts and other natural disasters, such as indigenous vegetation rehabilitation, sustainable manangement systems, improved income generation and alternative livelihoods. 

55.	Elements of community participation, which are important for the project, include respect of land rights of the participating communities; proper management of the production systems introduced, as well as the willingness to implement new ideas and adopt new technologies. The communities must respect the agreements/protocols undertaken by the project. 

56.	As the project will be carried out through a highly participatory approach, involving relevant major stakeholders, communities in all of the project sites have been involved in consultations, and are very interested in co-operating and participating in the project.  The project has been designed in such a way as to ensure that all major stakeholders have a role in the decision-making processes. In particular there will be gender sensitivity in the decision-making processes. 

Sustainability

57.	Assuming that the timeframe of the project is, in relation to the biological and socioeconomic processes, sufficient to ensure measurable results in most components after five years, the project activities will be sustained after project completion. The presence of substantial Government contributions (in kind as well as in cash) confirms Government commitment to financial sustainability of the project in these countries. Government willingness to promote and provide an enabling environment for the project (e.g. civil security, tax exemptions for the project and disbursement of financial commitments) is important for the success of the project. In addition, the timely and flexible disbursement of committed funds will be critical in ensuring success. 

58.	The goal is to mobilise indigenous knowledge and provide technology and understanding to address land degradation problems and restore biodiversity in the demonstration areas as a basis for expanding these activities to other parts of arid and semi-arid lands of Africa. If the project is successful, it will provide the basis for replication both within the countries and elsewhere in arid Africa. Given the severity of land degradation in this zone, and if the project is successful, it will provide the basis for ongoing sustainable land and biodiversity management. Initial consultations with the communities in the project sites have revealed that the communities are well aware of the natural resource management problems that contribute to land degradation. It is assumed that the national counterpart institutions (Government as well as scientific) have the necessary capacity and resources to absorb and sustain the project results after the finalisation of the project.

59.	There is also ample evidence that when communities are given a clear mandate to manage resources, the objectives are achievable. Therefore, this project will give communities autonomy to determine activities that can halt land degradation and thereby contribute positively to their economic well -being. Since in most project sites there are viable, traditional institutions, it is clear that communities can be grouped into management committees representing communities which decide on the wise management of biophysical and socio-economic resources, utilising indigenous knowledge.  Some relevant policies and legal frameworks are now in place, but specific local use, marketing and other policies, which can further empower local communities to gain ownership of resources need to be in place to ensure sustanability of the project. Improved returns from livestock sales can further enhance the ability of local communities to sustain the successful results of the project. Finally, capacity-building of the local communities in environmental conservation blending it with indigenous knowledge through field days, workshops and seminars, is a critical avenue of popularizing the concept of indigenous resource management.

SECTION 6 - STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Stakeholder Participation

60.	The project is based upon a participatory approach to improve indigenous vegetation management, involving the active participation of different stakeholders in all aspects of project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

61.	In the participating countries, a wide variety of stakeholders have interests in natural resources use including the sustainable utilization of indigenous vegetation, biological resources, water resources, and the global environmental impacts of rangeland use, including climate impacts.  These stakeholders include farmers and agrosilvo-pastoralists, who practice subsistence agriculture; sedentary livestock owners and transhumance pastoralists; community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), government technical administration at both the central, district and community level.  Global interests in biological diversity and climate change are held by international organisations, including the United Nations. Annex V provides a detailed analysis of stakeholder participation.

62.	Direct beneficiaries of the project will include the rural population – women, men and youth living in the project areas.  The project has been designed with their direct inputs.  Most of the project activities will be implemented directly by the direct beneficiaries of the project.

63.	Overall, it is estimated that the project will directly impact on over 180,000 persons in the project demonstration sites. In Mali, the total population affected directly is 100,000 people, 50% of which are transhumants. In Kenya, a total of 60,000 people, of which 50 % are transhumants are affected, and in Botswana the total population directly targeted is 20,000, none of which are transhumants. The local stakeholders living in these communities, including women, will benefit from increased control over their natural resources as well as training, technology transfer, development of skills.  Opportunities will also be provided for the local stakeholder to benefit from techniques and methodologies being employed in various parts of Africa which can be applied in their own local situations.  These activities will lead to improved rangeland and indigenous vegetation management, building of local organisational capacities and biodiversity conservation.

64.	Secondary beneficiaries will include rural residents, beyond the target communities. In addition, long-term benefits will accrue to stakeholders in other parts of the arid/semi-arid zones of Africa once the project results are replicated.

65.	Project preparation, which has taken place over a period of 14 months, has involved consultations and site visits with technical, district and local government officials, with local indigenous leader and chiefdoms in the various project areas, a wide cross-section of community groups including women and youth and community-group organisations, village elders/leaders, representatives of village committees, NGOs as well as the research community, led by the University of Oslo. The project document has been prepared by the three participating countries, supported by national and international consultants, the University of Oslo, UNEP and UNDP. In Botswana, the Range Ecology Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture has been responsible for programme development, whereas in Kenya and Mali, the National Environment Secretariat (NES) of the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and the Ministry of Environment, respectively, assumed responsibility for programme development.

66.	Throughout project implementation, working relations and collaborations will be maintained with local and International NGO’s and bilateral agencies operating in the demonstration zones dealing with environmental conservation and community-based indigenous vegetation management. The local stakeholders will be encouraged to form community management structures for decision making and implementation at site levels, for negotiation and dialogue with other Stakeholders. These committees are the repositories of environmental matters of the pastoral communities. The rural communities and NGO’s will be further involved in a self-monitoring and evaluation exercise in order to contribute to overall project decision-making.

Implementation and execution arrangements

67.	The project will be implemented jointly by UNEP and UNDP. Detailed implementation arrangements will be finalised during project appraisal. The division of responsibilities between the two Agencies will also be determined during the appraisal phase. The administrative arrangements for joint implementatiosn of projects are currently being worked out between the two agencies.

68.	A Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will be established, directed by a Regional Coordinator, recruited from one of the participating countries in collaboration with UNEP and UNDP, the University of Oslo, the collaborating regional secretariats and the participating countries, with an assisting expert The Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will be located at the site of one of the National Executing Units and will have as some of its main functions inter alia the day to day management and overall co-ordination and administration of the regional project activities; serving as a link with other international and regional projects; and serve as the secretariat for both the Regional Policy Steering Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. It will be in permanent electronic communication with the three National Project Units (NPUs) and the University of Oslo.

69.	The RCU will be supported by a Regional Policy Steering Committee (RPSC), which will provide overall policy guidance, comprising of the Ministers of the Ministry of Agriculture in Botswana, the Ministry of Environment in Mali, and the Ministry of Environmental Conservation in Kenya, plus a representative from the University of Oslo, a community representative from each of the participating countries, a representative from the Regional Secretariat collaborating with the Project and a representative of UNEP. The RPSC will be chaired in turn by the relevant Ministers from the participating countries. The Regional Coordination Unit, along with the GEF operational focal points of the participating countries, will serve as the Secretariat for the RPSC. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of selected experts from the scientific, research and training community under the chairmanship of the University of Oslo, will provide advice to the RPSC on particular issues. The RPSC will meet annually, to evaluate the results obtained, and approve the annual work programme and budget of the Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) and National Project Units (NPUs); to provide guidance and take the decisions necessary for the proper operation of the project, in conformity with its objectives and approach. The TAC meetings will take place annually and otherwise as often as necessary, in order to evaluate the project status and to make adjustments for the appropriate technical implementation of the project.  The RCU will prepare the documents for the RPSC meetings. All coordination bodies will constitute an integral part of existing entities in the countries, so as to ensure maximum national participation.

70.	The RPSC will also co-ordinate the research component whereas the University of Oslo will be the lead agency for networking collaborating with other research institutions and universities within and outside the region. Furthermore, training of higher education will be organised through the University of Oslo. This link is considered important for the co-financing of the research component and training.

71.	Each country will set up a National Project Unit (NPU) for the project, comprising of a National Project Leader (NPL), a Financial and administrative assistant, a Secretary, a driver and a clerk. The NPUs will be responsible for facilitating and coordinating project execution at the national level, in collaboration with RCU. The NPU will be supported by extension staff in all the specific project sites. The NPL will be responsible for the overall co-ordination and implementation of country-level activities and supervision of the project and support services at the national office. Other responsibilities of NPL are to maintain linkage between the national and the regional office and the research component and organisations, to organise the national committee meetings and training (e. g. seminars and workshops) and to produce and disseminate the project reports. 

72.	At the national level, two meetings will be held every year. During these meetings, project progress, implementation procedures and strategies will be discussed and communicated to various stakeholders. Those attending the meetings will include: NPL, field managers, representatives of community groups and NGO’s and the regional coordinator who is to attend at least one of the national meetings in each country every year. At field sites level, quarterly meetings are to be held and attended by project staff and the community stakeholders.

73.	National Advisory groups for project implementation will be established in each participating country to assist and advice the NPU. The project is designed to be executed by local community groups and NGO’s where they exist, with the support from Government technical services. The project staff and the Technical Advisory Committee will develop specific criteria for the final selection of communities and NGO’s to participate in the project. Once this is done and the specific community groups and NGO’s are selected, participatory project launch workshops will be held at the local level to determine the nature and involvement of the communities.

74.	Project resources will be allocated to organise and consolidate community structures. This will include an enhancement and revitalisation of indigenous knowledge, with a view to develop the capacities required for the sustainable management of natural resources in general and more specifically indigenous vegetation, on the contractual basis of support contributed by the project and the technical framework supplied by the public services.

75.	Guidelines will be drawn for contracting NGO’s, local research and training institutions in order to provide support to rural communities.  Representatives of local communities and NGO’s will be co-opted in the Technical Advisory Committee. In Regional and Local Committees, representatives of local communities and NGO’s will be present. Finally, elected members of National Assemblies and elected local leaders will be co-opted in order to strengthen the grass-root support. 

76.	In the demonstration zones, community participation will build upon existing indigenous structures, which vary from highly egalitarian social structure of Chiefdoms of the Botswana and the Malian societies to the government administration structure of the Kenyan communities. Project implementation will be the mandate of the project staff, the rural population and NGO’s with support from government officials.

77.	In addition, working relations will be established between research institutes and universities, in the three countries in collaboration with the University of Oslo. Links are also established with relevant and GEF-related programs undertaken by consortia of national and international organizations such as Desert Margins Initiative (DMI), with ICRISAT as the lead agency, and People, Land Management and Environmental Change (PLEC), which are utilising some of the recommendations of the IPAL Resource Management Guidelines.

78.	The communities will participate in the implementation of activities related to rehabilitation of both woody and herbaceous vegetation, soil erosion control, crust breaking and construction of water harvesting structures, building of project infrastructures, (e.g. housing, offices, wells, etc.). They will also contribute to grazing management and controls and protection of wildlife habitats, provide animal transport and make their land available for demonstration activities. These contributions will mainly be in kind, and the modalities of participation will be defined in Action Plans prepared with the communities and approved by them. Community participation has been evaluated and incorporated in the budget by demonstration sites, and the physical outputs of the project will become the property of the communities.

SECTION 7 - INCREMENTAL COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING

Incremental Costs

79.	Incrementality of the project is based on the fact that the three countries are faced with constraints and will need additional assistance to be able to take advantage of synergies and lessons from other countries to develop sustainable models for indigenous vegetation rehabilitation. Therefore, the incremental costs will be able to ensure the development of appropriate and sustainable models that would eventually generate more global benefits in biodiversity conservation.

Project Financing

80.	Project financing is projected to come from a number of sources, namely host country support; through the University of Oslo, Norway and the GEF incremental cost financing.  Additional resources are being solicited from a number of potential donors who have expressed interest in co-financing the project. The total project costs, excluding PDF-B, is $13.054 million of which $8.724 million is GEF increment, US$2.150 million is governments’ contribution, $1.680 million is University of Oslo co-financing and $0.5 million other co-financing. Table A outlines the project cost by component.

Table A: Summary of Total Cost by Project Components – US$ millions

Component	Government Contributions	GEF Increment	University of Oslo co-financing	Other co-financing	TOTAL	
1	0.575	1.500			2.075	
2	0.250	0.600			0.850	
3	0.125	2.550			2.675	
4	0.300	1.190			1.490	
5	0.700	1.650			2.350	
6	0.200	0.300	1.680	0.500	2.680	
Appraisal Mission	-	0.060			0.060	
Monitoring and Evaluation	-	0.140			0.140	
Support Cost	-	0.734			0.734	
TOTAL*	2.150	8.724	1.680	0.500	13.054	
*Does not include PDF-B costs.

A detailed budget in UNEP format is found in Annex 1.

SECTION 8 – INSITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION

8.1.Project Implementation Institutional Arrangements

The overall organizational structure of the project is shown in Annex 2. The Regional Policy Steering Committee (RPSC) will be the highest body in the project hierarchy with the responsibility of providing overall policy guidance to both Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).  Its specific Terms of Reference are to:

a.	Review project progress with respect to objectives, strategies and workplans.  Advise on how to capitalize upon successes, how to overcome constraints and how to modify strategies and activities as appropriate;
b.	Review, modify as appropriate and approve the annual work programs of the RCU, TAC and NPUs and their respective budgets;
c.	coordinate with the Secretariat of the African Ministers’ Conference on the Environment (AMCEN, especially the Desert and Islands Committee), CILSS, IGAD, SADC and the Regional Unit at the African Development Bank (ADB) that is responsible for the implementation of CCD in Africa;
d.	advise the RCU and the NPUs on how best to mobilize resources to complement project resources, including, eventually for the timely replication of successful models from the pilot zones within the three participating countries and for providing needed follow-on at specific sites;
e.	advise on adequate institutional and legal frameworks for empowering the beneficiary communities in the seven sites of the project, so as to effectively manage natural resources in their respective areas;
f.	liaise with any other relevant bodies for the benefit of the project;
g.	elaborate guidelines involving intellectual property rights (digitized topographic maps, indigenous knowledge systems, publication and dissemination of research findings generated by the project, etc); 
h.	ensure integration of gender concerns and issues into the operations of the project activities at all levels;
i.	monitor compliance of the NPUs and RCU adherence to the GEF implementing agencies' administrative procedures for project execution, and monitor the timely conduct of financial audits of the use of IA's funds by the project structures;
j.	monitor and ensure the timely and adequate flow of funds from UNDP, UNEP and University of Oslo, and from Governments to the NPUs and RCU for the smooth execution of project activities. 

The Composition of the RPSC

a)	Representatives of the Governments of Botswana, Kenya and Mali:
b)	UNEP/GEF and UNDP/GEF;
c)	University of Oslo
d)	One Community Representative from each pilot zone
e)	Representatives of UNDP country missions as needed (They should all participate at the first meeting. At subsequent meetings their presence will depend on whether administrative or financial issues concerning their country will be discussed). 
f)	Ad hoc specialist advisors from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

The Regional Coordinator and the National Project Leaders will be non-voting members. The Regional Coordinator will act as Secretary to the RPSC.

The Regional Coordinator in close consultation with the TAC and NPUs will prepare the core agenda for RPSC meetings.  The Chairman of the RPSC will be a government representative on a yearly rotation from each of the participating countries in alphabetical order.  The annual meeting will be held in the country chairing the RPSC.

Regional Coordination Unit (RCU)

The principal role of the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will be to advance the state-of-the-art community based management systems of indigenous vegetation/range resources in African drylands, in close collaboration with the national governments.  It will have the overall responsibility of coordinating the activities of the National Project Units (NPUs) charged with the implementation of the project in the three countries. It will also serve as the secretariat for both the Regional Policy Steering Committee (RPSC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).  The RCU will be hosted by the Government of Botswana. The specific Terms of Reference (TOR) of RCU are given below.

Technical Functions are to:

a)	Define key issues, harmonize research objectives and methodologies, and develop guidelines for the development of replicable models and demonstration trials for sustainable, community-based management of indigenous vegetation;
b)	review, summarize and disseminate to the NPUs relevant experience and documentation from other projects/programs working on the development of sustainable management systems for African drylands;
c)	provide technical backstopping to NPUs;
d)	organize workshops/seminars for exchange of experience and transfer of technology within the overall framework of the objectives of the project;
e)	arrange study tours and exchange visits for land users and land authorities;
f)	disseminate technical information, including published articles in scientific journals on the research findings from the project; 
g)	remain in constant contact with all NPUs and the University of Oslo.

Management and Financial Functions are to:

a)	assist the participating countries in the mobilization of complementary resources available at regional and global scales as needed and for the eventual replication of successful components of the pilot projects;
b)	implement and administer regional activities (regional workshops, seminars, reviews, studies, regional research, etc) in consultation with the NPUs, and report annually on their progress to RPSC;
c)	monitor and compile quarterly and annual progress reports made by the NPUs for submission to RPSC, including the notification of administrative and technical issues for the consideration of the RPSC;
d)	guide and facilitate the database, including protocols, research and training components and the development of replicable models;
e)	act as secretariat to both the RPSC and TAC.

Policy Formulation Functions are to:

a)	assist NPUs in the integration of lessons learned from the pilot projects into development of improved policy frameworks for community-based management of indigenous vegetation/natural resources.  These policies should become an integral part of sustainable development strategies.
b)	organize seminars/workshops/exchange visits to sites for the project principal stakeholders to exchange views and recommend appropriate policies for achievement of the goals and objectives of the project;
c)	provide guidelines to the NPUs on the strategies and policy/legal measures for empowering the beneficiary pastoral communities to sustainably manage natural resources.

The Composition of the RCU:

a)	Regional Coordinator; and
b)	Regional Technical Expert 
c)	Support staff as needed depending on where the RCU is housed.
Admin Assistant/Secretary
Driver/Messenger

Terms of Reference for RCU Staff

a)	The Regional Coordinator will have the overall responsibility for the day–to–day management of the RCU and coordination of project activities.  S/he will have the following specific duties:

•	Be responsible for the timely coordination of the execution of  the technical, policy formulation and management and financial functions of the RCU as given in sections (i) – (iii) above;
•	Prepare the annual meetings of the RPSC and TAC, synthesis of National Project Unit reports and of issues/concerns for consideration of the RPSC, and ensure that their decisions are implemented accordingly;
•	Prepare the agenda for the annual RPSC meeting in full consultation with the TAC;
•	Prepare the annual workplan of RCU and its budget;
•	Act as the secretary to both the RPSC and TAC;
•	Manage the RCU staff;
•	Represent the RCU in meetings and conferences to which RCU is invited to attend;
•	Ensure proper management of the properties of the RCU.

Qualifications of the Regional Coordinator:

The minimum requirements for the position of a Regional Coordinator are 10 years of technical and managerial experience dealing with development issues.  The RC should have at least an MSc and preferably higher degree in biological or environmental sciences (e.g., wildlife management, natural resource management, rangeland science and management) with a background in research and with considerable training and experience in biodiversity and soil/land management in arid lands, have a good command of both English and French; and be creative and sensitive to the demands of all the principal stakeholders, including the Governments of the three participating countries.

b)	Regional Technical Expert will provide both technical and administrative backup to the Regional Coordinator.  S/he will have the following specific duties:

•	Act as the Regional Coordinator in his/her absence;
•	Provide technical backstopping to the NPUs;
•	Assist in the coordination of the targeted research component of the project coordinated by the University of Oslo;
•	Participate in the identification of priority areas for targeted research and in the development of conceptual frameworks and models of community-based rehabilitation and management of indigenous vegetation that can be replicated once tested and found to be successful;
•	Help in design of databases and in development of methodologies for community-based rangeland monitoring and inventory programmes.

The Regional Technical Expert is envisaged to be a scientist with a minimum of 10 years of practical experience with applied research and model development in the general areas of range management and ecology.  S/he will have a doctorate or equivalent high degree in range management or related disciplines.  S/he will preferably have published in professional journals. English proficiency required; French proficiency preferred. Training and experience in soil and biodiversity conservation in arid lands will be an asset.

The Technical Advisory Committee

The technical advisory committee will consist of a group of high-level specialists who will provide technical advice to all project structures, in particular to the RCU and the NPUs.  TAC will provide written copies to RPSC of all minutes and all written advice they provide to any project structures.  It should guide the development of the research program and will oversee the development of the model(s) for community-based rehabilitation and management of indigenous vegetation. TAC should also be responsible for dissemination of technical information from the project and from similar initiatives in other countries. TAC will meet at least once per year just prior to the RPSC meeting, and on a rotating basis in each participating country.  They should develop mechanisms for addressing issues and making decisions between meetings.

i	Functions are to:

a)	Shortly after project startup, the TAC will assist the RCU and NPUs to conduct an assessment of each project site to define specific key issues that will need to be addressed in the development of sustainable models for the management of indigenous vegetation;
b)	Assist RCU and NPUs to recommend an appropriate mechanism to ensure the networking among the three national databases and investigate the opportunities of establishing links with the databases of CILSS, IGAD and SADC;
c)	Help RCU and NPUs define the data needs for the database development and the methodologies for their collection;
d)	Along with RCU and NPUs, Provide technical backstopping to collaborating national institutions in the combination of community-based indigenous knowledge with the finding of scientific research and practical experiences from African drylands in the development of sustainable models;
e)	Help RCU and NPUs define the applied research needs and help develop a five-year research program in consultation with collaborating national research institutions to address community priorities as identified by the project ;
f)	Help RCU and NPUs define the monitoring and evaluation methodologies and indicators;
g)	In collaboration with RCU and NPUs, establish networking with relevant institutions and programs (for example: WOCAT, Desert Research Center in Namibia, African Institute of Natural Resources, etc.);
h)	Assist the Regional Coordinator in the preparation of the core agenda for the RPSC meetings.

ii.	Composition:  TAC will have a total membership of five (5) renowned scientists.  Three will represent the participating countries (one each), and should be selected by the RPSC in consultation with the African Academy of Sciences (located in Nairobi).  A fourth member will be from the University of Oslo and the fifth member will be an international scientist.  Both will be selected by the RPSC upon nomination from the African Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences (located in Trieste, Italy).  The composition of the TAC should reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the project.  The Regional Coordinator will be a non-voting member of the TAC in his/her capacity as its secretary.

The National Project Unit (NPU)

The overall function of the NPU is to ensure that the project is developed at the national level in accordance with the objectives and strategies of the project document.  In particular, the NPU will ensure that communities are empowered to manage their indigenous vegetation resources.  Furthermore, they will ensure that the indigenous vegetation management systems to be developed are based on traditional systems that may be modified as appropriate by modern/improved techniques as selected by the communities.  Specific Functions are given below.

Technical Functions:

a)	Define technical issues to be addressed in the development of models for the sustainable, community-based management of indigenous vegetation;
b)	Provide technical support to the Community Support Units (CSUs);
c)	In consultation with the target communities, identify and prioritize research and training needs in support of these communities and of project objectives.  Develop a training plan;
d)	Organize training activities in accordance with the training plan;
e)	Advise the RPSC and RCU of problems and constraints for which assistance is needed;
f)	Review existing national initiatives in community based natural resource and biodiversity management.

Managerial and Financial Functions:

a)	Ensure that all NPU resources are used efficiently in support of the project objectives and in support of the CSU for the target communities;
b)	Manage funds in conformity with the administrative and financial procedures of UNDP or UNEP as appropriate;
c)	Ensure that funds are advanced by UNDP or UNEP in a timely fashion that does not hinder the work of the CSUs;
d)	Prepare budgeted annual work plans in lines with the guidelines provided by the  RCU;
e)	Prepare quarterly and annual technical reports in line with RCU guidelines and quarterly financial reports in line with UNDP guidelines for national execution ;
f)	Work with the CSUs to develop a set of criteria/guidelines for the procurement of services, equipment and materials in support of the target communities;
g)	Prepare TOR, advertise and competitively award contracts for the supply of services, equipment and materials to the project and the CSUs;
h)	Ensure that materials, technical assistance and services are provided to the CSU in an efficient and timely fashion;
i)	Ensure that after-project sustainability concerns are addressed in the choice of technologies and in the procurement of equipment and materials;
j)	In close consultation with the Government, seek additional funds/resources from other donors and institutions in complement to the identified project resources; 
k)	Coordination of project activities with government, non-government and donor organizations;
l)	Represent the project at relevant meetings/conferences/advisory boards. Attendance at meetings that have little relevance to the furtherance of project objectives will be minimized;
m)	Facilitate the research program, help identify candidates for training and help obtain needed permits for research.

Policy

a)	Help determine the need for a formal legal status for the target communities as appropriate;
b)	Identify policy constraints to the achievement of project objectives and bring them to the attention of the Regional Coordinator and the appropriate local, regional and national government bodies ;
c)	Propose policy reform options as appropriate ;
d)	In consultation with the CSUs, analyze the advantages and disadvantages of proposed policy changes coming from the RPSC;
e)	Ensure the formulation/application of policies to address gender concerns and the rights of marginalized groups.
.

The Composition of the NPU

a)	National Project Leader
b)	Financial and Administrative Assistant
c)	Secretary
d)	Driver/Clerk/Messenger

Terms of Reference for Project Core Staff

a)	The National Project Leader (NPL) will have the overall responsibility of the day-to-day management of project activities, including the smooth implementation of the functions of NPU as specified in sections (4- i through 4- iii).  S/he will have the following specific duties:

•	Provide strategic guidance to the CSUs in the management of their respective units;
•	Prepare the annual meetings of the principal stakeholders and prepare them to participate effectively at the RPSC meetings;
•	Prepare the annual workplan of the NPU and its budget;
•	Prepare quarterly progress reports on the status of the implementation of project activities, including technical, financial and policy matters, for the consideration of the national advisory committee, RCU, UNDP/GEF, UNDP Country Offices, and UNEP/GEF;
•	Evaluate the performance of the project staff;
•	Represent the NPU in meetings and conferences to which NPU is invited to attend;
•	Ensure proper management of the properties of the project:
•	At the end of the fourth year, develop a plan for the appropriate follow-on to the project.  This may be full take-over of all relevant activities by the target communities themselves, or it may involve the planning for a subsequent phase.

Qualifications of the National Project Leader:

The minimum requirements for the position of a National Project Leader (NPL) are 10 years of technical and managerial experience dealing with rural/community development issues.  The NPL should have at least an MSc or its equivalent in environmental sciences or related disciplines; good command of English or French (or a national language); and be creative and sensitive to the demands of all the principal stakeholders at the project sites as well as relevant institutions of government; and knowledgeable about GEF, UNDP and UNEP procedures.

b)	Financial/Administrative Assistant/Secretary will assist the NPL in the management of NPU.  S/he will ensure that proper financial and administrative procedures are absolutely adhered to by all the project staff, including NPL and executing agencies at the national and local levels (e.g. NGOs, CBOs and private and public sector agencies).  S/he will supervise the support staff (drivers, messengers and clerks).  S/he will have experience in office management including financial management and accounting, word processing, Microsoft excel and lotus.

c)	Driver/Clerk/Messenger will be responsible for the proper and routine maintenance of the project vehicle (s).  He will ensure the timely delivery and collection of the messages of the project.

The Community Support Units (CSU)

The CSUs will be project field units whose primary purpose will be to assist the community to access the services that they need to rehabilitate and manage their native vegetation and to implement/achieve related activities/objectives.

Functions of the Community Support Units (CSU)

i. Technical

a)	Ensure that the indigenous vegetation management systems to be developed are based on traditional systems with modern/improved methods as selected by the communities ;
b)	Identification and prioritization of research and training needs in consultation, and in support of, the target communities ;
c)	Coordination of CSU activities with other communities, government agencies, NGOs, other donor projects, private sector interests and other bodies that are involved with the project area ;
d)	Outreach and awareness raising to neighboring communities to make them aware of the possibility of the future replication of the project approach if this pilot phase proves successful.

ii. Administrative & Financial

a)	Ensure that all the resources of the CSU are used to support the pastoral communities targeted by the project in the development of sustainable resource use systems and livelihoods ;
b)	Prepare annual work plans and budget in lines with the guidelines prepared by the RCU; ;
c)	Prepare quarterly progress reports ;
d)	Manage CSU funds in conformity with the UNDP guidelines for national execution of projects;
e)	Actively involve the communities in the development of the TOR and in the recruitment and procurement of all staff, services and equipment in support of the communities ;
f)	Work with the communities and the NPU to develop a set of criteria/guidelines for the procurement of services in support of the target communities ;
g)	Ensure that CSU resources are used as efficiently as possible to maximize the results obtained ;
h)	Ensure that after-project sustainability concerns are addressed in the choice of technologies and in the procurement of equipment and materials.

iii. Policy

a)	Monitor the realization of the government’s obligation to formally recognize and protect the rights of the target communities to control access to their rangelands including their right to exclude outsiders as needed to ensure range rehabilitation and proper management.  Advise the NPU as needed if there are problems.;
b)	 Help determine the need for a formal legal status for the target communities ;
c)	Identify policy constraints to the achievement of project objectives and bring them to the attention of local government and the NPU ;
d)	Propose policy reform options as appropriate to the NPU and/or to local government ;
e)	In consultation with the communities and local government, analyze the advantages and disadvantages of proposed policy changes coming from higher levels of the national and regional project bodies.

iv. Composition of the CSU

Mali
a)	CSU Manager
b)	Range manager
c)	Agronomist 
d)	Secretary/Administrative assistant
e)	Driver/mechanic/clerk/messenger
f)	Guide/interpreter
g)	Consultants as needed

Kenya
a)	CSU Manager
b)	Rangeland ecologist?
c)	Secretary/Administrative assistant
d)	Driver/Mechanic
e)	Consultants as needed

Botswana
a)	CSU Manager
b)	Rangeland Ecologist
c)	Secretary/Administrative Assistant
d)	Driver/mechanic/clerk/messenger
e)	Consultants as needed

v.	Generic Terms of Reference for CSU Managers

The manager of CSU will have the overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Community Support Unit.  S/he will ensure the proper and timely implementation of its functions as stated in sections 5- i – through 5-iii above.  S/he will also be responsible for identifying traditional management systems to be included in the project, and for the day-to-day relations with the University of Oslo. S/he will have 10 – 12 years of practical experience with community development with a strong background in participatory techniques and community-based approaches to development.  The manager will have managerial and leadership qualities and a minimum of MSc/MA in community development, sociology, development economics or environmental sciences.

Role of the University of Oslo
The University of Oslo will have overall responsibility for the Regional Coordination Unit and for the research and training component of the project.  The research and training component will be implemented in collaboration with research and training institutions in the three countries under signed agreements between the University of Oslo and these institutions.  The RCU will be located at a field research facility at one of the seven project sites.  The University of Oslo will contract with one of their collaborators or with another institution yet to be identified (preferably an international institution with a conservation/sustainable development mandate), to manage the RCU.

Technical Functions:

•	Be responsible for the development of  the models for sustainable, community-based management of indigenous vegetation in the three countries;
•	Coordinate and facilitate the research and training component.  Ensure that research done for Masters, PhD and post-doctoral programs will be done in the target areas on research needs identified jointly be the project working with the pastoral communities.

Administrative and Financial Functions:

•	Be responsible to UNEP for the administration of GEF funds for the RCU;
•	Be responsible to NORAD and/or other donors for the administration of co-financing funds.

8.2 Roles of the GEF Implementing Agencies During Implementation

UNEP has been the lead GEF implementing agency during the project design.  The later stages of project design were done jointly with UNDP.  The project will be implemented jointly by UNEP and UNDP at the technical and policy levels. 

At the technical and policy levels, both UNEP/GEF and UNDP/GEF will backstop and support the overall project (independent of relative responsibilities for the administration of GEF funds.)  The principal technical and policy involvement of the two agencies will be through routine backstopping and as members of the Regional Policy Steering Committee. 

At the administrative and financial level, UNEP will have responsibility for the GEF funding for the RCU.  UNDP country missions will be responsible for the administration of GEF funds for the NPU and CSU country components.  The administrative and financial procedures for each implementing agency, respectively, will apply.  UNDP National Execution (NEX) Guidelines will apply to the funding for the country components.

The total GEF funding will be split between  UNEP headquarters and UNDP headquarters based on the totals for the RCU and for the country components, respectively.  UNEP will disburse to the University of Oslo and UNDP headquarters will disburse to the three UNDP country missions (See attached budget). 

Role of UNEP

UNEP was the lead GEF implementing agency for the design of this project.  During project implementation, their functions will be:
 
Technical

Since this is a pilot project, UNEP/GEF should seek to play a leading role in the implementation of the project, specially with respect to :

•	Routine backstopping by a UNEP Task Manager, supervised by the Programme Officer for Land Degradation;
•	Contribution of experiences and lessons learned from other UNEP/GEF projects.

Administrative and Financial

The full amount of disbursement and administrative and financial oversight for the funding for the RCU.

Policy

Active member of the Regional Policy Steering Committee

Role of UNDP

	Technical

UNDP/GEF will play a greater role in the translation of lessons learnt from the pilot project into development strategies and programs, and will therefore participate in:

•	Routine backstopping by UNDP/GEF (approx. 15 days/yr. of technical and administrative support by an Africa-based, GEF Task Manager).  Selected site visits will be included;
•	Contribution of experiences and lessons learned from other UNDP/GEF projects.

Administrative and Financial

•	Disbursement and administrative and financial oversight by UNDP country missions for the funding for the national components (NPUs and CSUs) in Botswana, Mali and Kenya;
•	Routine backstopping by a designated GEF specialist (see Technical above).

Policy

Active member of the RPSC

8.3 Correspondence

All correspondence regarding substantive and technical matters shall be addressed to:

At UNEP:

Dr. Anna Tengberg
Programme Officer
Biodiversity/Land Degradation
GEF Coordination Office
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (+254) 2 624147
Fax: (+254) 2 624041

With copies to:

Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf
Executive Coordinator
GEF Coordination Office
UNEP
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (+254) 2 624166
Fax: (+254) 2 624041

At UNDP

Dr. Maryam Niamir-Fuller
UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator for Africa for
Biodiversity and International Waters
1 UN Plaza, DC-1, Rm 2386, New York, NY, 10017, USA
tel. (1 212) 906 6076
fax. (1 212) 906 6362

With copies to:

Mr. Rafael Asenjo
Executive Coordinator
GEF Coordination Office
UNDP
East 45th Street. (FF 1086). New York. NY 10017. USA
Tel.  (1 212) 906-5044
Fax: (1 212) 906 6998

All correspondence regarding financial and administrative matters should be addressed to:

Mr. Christopher Taylor
Fund Management Officer
GEF Coordination Office
UNEP
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (+254) 2 624034
Fax: (+254) 2 623162
With a copy to:

Mr. E. F. Ortega
Chief, Budget and Funds Management Service, UNON
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (+254) 2 623637
Fax. (+254) 2 623755

SECTION 9 - MONITORING, EVALUATION, DISSEMINATION AND LESSONS LEARNT

9.1 Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination

81.	A monitoring and evaluation programme will be an integral part of the project, in that it will allow regular and in some cases continuous feedback on each activity and allow adjustments to be made as needed. Three types of monitoring and evaluation will be used, formal, informal and scientific. An initial Participatory Rural Assessment to identify the main leaders from key stakeholders, a mid term formal evaluation, at the beginning of the third year of the project and an end of project review will be key components of the formal review.

82.	Scientific monitoring and evaluation will also be a critical element of the overall project and evaluation programme. It is envisaged that through implementation of the activities, measures of achievement will be indicated by environmental accounting of biodiversity through increased restoration of degraded soils, improvements in soil nutrient contents, increase in vegetation cover, increase in biomass of range vegetation, increased forage production by irrigation and increased soil water after the five years.  The return surveys of project sites to be carried out after 5 and 10 years will be compared with surveys undertaken during the project phase.  The national and regional reports will provide means for verifying the information.  

83.	Through periodic evaluation reports, numbers of established and active community institutions and improved services for the communities will be assessed. Adoption of new production methods and household industries together with alternative economic activities introduced in the project areas will provide a basis for project performance assessment.

84.	The community-based action plans and master plans prepared for each demonstration site and periodic monitoring of their implementation will be the measure of achievement.  Training courses held and training materials developed will indicate levels of enhanced capacity of local communities in natural-resource management.

85.	The verifiable indicators of project achievement identified in the logical framework will guide the type of reporting required. Six monthly reports will be prepared by each National Team Leader on the feedback and direct observations in the field and transmitted to the Regional Coordinator for review and comments.  The reports will address progress and obstacles and identify necessary adjustments and timetable for the next six months period.  The reports will also form part of the Regional Coordinators progress report to the Regional Project Steering Committee.

86.	Project monitoring will be undertaken by the project staff through the use of the project logical framework and the established project management systems at stipulated periods. Monitoring will also be part of the research component.

87.	The economic benefits achieved in reducing soil loss, increasing soil water infiltration, improved crop residue production and applying livestock manure to improve soil nutrients can be estimated (see incremental cost arrangements). Moreover, an improvement of the resilience to drought results in greater secondary productivity and an increase in the monetary values of livestock. By the suggested methods economic gains achieved per unit area for increasing livestock forage can be determined. By the same token, drought loss of livestock and its financial implications can be projected. Project performance indicators will be used to evaluate project progress based on project reports, review missions and stipulated project implementation phases. Project results will be disseminated through technical reports, newsletters, seminars, workshops and media as outlined in the project document.

88.	The results of the project will be disseminated through environmental educational activities, and mass media campaigns, public competitions and field days. All stakeholders, including Communities, Project Staff, Government Ministries and Departments, NGOs, Research Communities and Donors will also disseminate land degradation results through detailed technical reports and briefs of the project. 

9.2	Lessons Learnt

89.	The first lesson from past, present and ongoing projects is that stakeholders must be fully involved from the design, implementation and subsequent evaluation and monitoring phases of the project. The “Bottom-Up" approach, where projects emanate from the communities rather than from national capitals, appear to be successful.  Involvement of all gender members of the communities is a must for projects.  Incentives should be provided to local communities even if it is on food for work basis so that they can have interests in the projects. The current thinking in non-equilibrium models of managing rangelands coupled with indigenous knowledge should be revisited. In view of the sedentarized nature of the current pastoralist communities, earlier recommendations of water distribution points should be reviewed.  Due consideration must be given to reviewing and changing policies related to land tenure, land-use plans, livestock production and marketing, alternative livelihoods, and alternative energy sources. 

90.	The project document has been reviewed by a STAP Roster Expert (Annex III); who agrees that the project is scientifically and technically sound, in that: it is based on sound consideration of existing scientific information; land degradation research components and problem solving is integrated; the testing of natural resource management systems is an integrated part of the project; the objectives, indicators and means of verification in the logical framework matrix makes it possible to monitor and evaluate project activities and results; the Project Advisory Committee will provide the project with the necessary advise. 

91.	The reviewer also identifies the replication potential of the project as an advantage as well as the stakeholder participation and the participatory approach, which is central to the project.  The latter will contribute to the sustainability of the project as indigenous knowledge constitutes the basis of the solution to land degradation problems in Africa. 

SECTION 10 – MONITORING AND REPORTING, OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

10.1 Management Reports

10.1.1 Progress Reports

Within 30 days of the end of each reporting period, University of Oslo will submit to UNEP with a copy to Fund Programme Management Branch, a progress report as at 30 June and 31 December, for each year of project implementation, using the format in annex 5. The Task Manager of the project shall submit to the UNEP GEF Coordination Unit, using the format given in Appendix 6, quarterly reports on the progress in project execution.

10.1.1 Terminal Reports

Within 60 days of the completion of the project, University of Oslo will submit to UNEP, with a copy to Chief, Budget and Funds Management Service, UNON, a terminal report using the format given in Annex 7.

10.2 Substantive Reports

University of Oslo will submit to UNEP three copies in draft of any substantive and technical report(s) produced under the project for clearance prior to their publication in final form. UNEP’s views on the report(s) and any suggestions for amendments of wording will be conveyed expeditiously to University of Oslo with an indication of any disclaimer or recognition which UNEP might wish to see appear in the publication.

Both the cover and the title page of all substantive reports will carry the logo of UNEP (if they are issued as publications) and the title “United Nations Environment Programme”, together with that of the supporting agency publishing the report. An acknowledgment of the financial assistance received from the GEF will be made for those publications where GEF contribution will have been used.

10.3 Financial Reports

10.3.1. Project expenditure accounts:

i) Details of project expenditures, will be reported by University of Oslo, in line with project budget codes as set out in Annex 4, as at 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December. All expenditure accounts will be dispatched to UNEP within 30 days after the end of the quarter to which they refer, certified by a duly authorized official of University of Oslo.

ii) The expenditure accounts as at 31 December, certified by a duly authorized official, should be dispatched to UNEP within 30 days, as for the other quarters, but, in addition, UNEP requires that the end of  year project expenditure account be reported in an opinion by a recognized firm of public accountants, at which shall be dispatched to UNEP latest 31 March . In particular, the auditors should be asked to report whether, in their opinion:

•	proper books of account and records have been maintained ;
•	all project expenditures are supported by vouchers and adequate documentation;
•	expenditure have been incurred in accordance with the objectives outlined in the project document. 

iii) Within 90 days of the completion of the project, University of Oslo will supply UNEP with a final statement of account in the same format as the quarterly statement, certified by a recognized firm of public accountants. If requested, University of Oslo shall facilitate an audit (by the United Nations Board of Auditors and /or the Audit Service) of the accounts of the project.

Any portion of the cash advances remaining unspent or uncommitted by the University of Oslo on completion of the project will be reimbursed to the UNEP within one month of the presentation of the final statement of accounts. In the event that there is any delay in such disbursement, University of Oslo will be financially responsible for any adverse movement in the exchange rates.

10.3.2 Cash advance accounts:

A statement of advances of cash provided by UNEP should be submitted by University of Oslo quarterly with the project expenditure accounts in the format shown in annex 3. 

10.4	 Terms and Conditions

10.4.1 Non-expendable equipment

University of Oslo will maintain records of non - expandable equipment (items costing $1,500 or  more) and will submit an inventory of all such equipment to UNEP (following the format at Annex 8 and attached to the expenditure report) once a year as at 31 December indicating description, serial number (if any), date of purchase, cost and present condition of each item. 

Within 60 days of the completion of the project, University of Oslo will submit to UNEP a final inventory of all the non-expandable equipment purchased under the project indicating description, serial number (if  any) , date of purchase, cost and present  condition, together with University of Oslo proposal for the disposal of the equipment. Non-expandable equipment purchased with the funds administered by UNEP remains the property of UNEP until its disposal is authorized by UNEP, in consultation with University of Oslo. University of Oslo shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to the equipment purchased with UNEP funds. The proceeds of the sale of the equipment (duly authorized by UNEP) shall be accredited to the accounts of UNEP, or of the appropriate trust fund or counter part fund.

10.4.2 Responsibility for cost overruns

The Executive Coordinator is authorized to enter into commitments or to incur above the annual amount foreseen in the project budget under any sub-budget line, provided the total cost of the UNEP annual contribution to the project is not exceeded. This may be done without prior authorization, but once the need for these additional funds becomes apparent, Task Manager shall inform, within thirty days, the Chief, Budget and Funds Management Services, about shifts made and these have to be reflected in a revision to the project document, not later than three months after the shifts have been made.

10.5 Claims by third parties against UNEP.

University of Oslo shall be responsible for dealing with any claims which may be brought against UNEP and its staff, and shall be indemnify UNEP and its staff non-liable in case of any claims or liabilities  resulting from operation carried out by University of Oslo under this project document , except  where it is agreed by University of Oslo and UNEP that such claims or reliabilities arise from gross negligence or wistful misconduct by the staff of UNEP. 

ANNEXES

I	Incremental Cost Annex
II	Logical Framework Matrix
III	STAP Roster Technical Review
IV	Root Cause Annex
V	Public Involvement Plan Summary
VI	Targeted Research Annex

1.	Budget in UNEP format
2.	Project organigramme
3.	Format for cash advance statements
4.	Format of quarterly project expenditure accounts for supporting organizations
5.	Format of Progress Report to UNEP
6.	Format of Progress Report to GEF
7.	Format for terminal report
8.	Format for inventory of non-expendable equipment
9.	Sub-contracts with UNDP: budgets in UNDP format
10.	Letter of intent from NORAD
11.	Letter of intent from NORAD

ANNEX I. INCREMENTAL COSTS

1.	The overall goal of this project is to develop sustainable methods of combating land degradation in order to conserve biodiversity, which in turn will boost the local pastoral economy of the project areas.

Global environmental objectives.

2.	The eventual replication of successful and sustainable models towards control of land degradation, will contribute to restoring soil fertility and the indigenous vegetation, will provide local as well as global benefits and thereby contribute positively to the fulfilment of the international conventions on biodiversity, climate change, desertification and international waters,.

Baseline.

3.	The arid and semi-arid zone of Africa is characterised by low-diverse but unique flora and fauna. Environmental conditions tend to be uniform over vast geographic areas and most species occur over broad geographic ranges. Since species and gene pools that are well adapted to drier areas are few in number, the relative loss of biodiversity in arid zone environments is particularly great. The species in this ecosystem have unique morphological, physiological and genetic characteristics that are specific to arid and semi-arid Africa, and unique in the world.

4.	The baseline situation in all project areas as in the arid and semi-arid areas zone as a whole, is that there is pervasive land degradation and consequent loss of biodiversity. Given the high percentage of arid and semi-arid lands in the countries, each of the countries has over a long period developed policies and programmes directed to these ecosystems. Activities in the demonstration areas include Government programmes, national and local policies, NGO programmes and donor supported projects (Table B). The analysis, based on available information, shows that Government and other donor expenditures in the project areas are over US$11 million a year of which US$ 9 million is in Botswana and over US$ 1 million a year in Mali and Kenya. However, much of this expenditure is in nation- or region-wide programmes and are generally poorly integrated across sectors, and not focussed on a comprehensive approach to community planning and action.

Table B: Annual Baseline Expenditures, estimates, US $ 1000’s.

	Component 1
	Component 2	Component 3	Component 4	Component 5	Component 6	TOTAL	
Botswana*	3000
	300	1000	5005	30	100	9445	
Kenya#	170
	100	200	490	50	27	1037	
Mali¤	300
	20	300	600	50	20	1290	
5.	= Based on project data for Botswana and Government expenditures in the project areas.
6.	# = Represents approximately 70% of project activities in the area.
7.	¤ = Estimated, based on available data.

8.	Baseline policies in Botswana center around the agricultural policy (Agricultural Development Policy, Policy on the Development of agricultural associations, Water Development Policy and Settlement Policy, on the use of agricultural resources and Alternative Livelihood Strategies, and on livestock marketing and agricultural products). Other policies relevant to the project relate to droughts (Drought Management Policies and Strategies), to land tenure (Tribal Grazing Land Policy), to forestry (Forestry Development Policy) and to wildlife management (Policy on Wildlife Utilization). Finally, the policy on science and technology defines the framework for scientific exchange.

9.	At the local and national levels, several NGOs in Botswana have activities relevant to the project in terms of awareness raising, and applied research and monitoring such as the Kalahari Conservation Society, Forum for Sustainable Development, Forestry Association of Botswana, Thusano Lefatsheng/Terra Aid Botswana, Environment Watch Botswana, Veld Products Research and Botswana Society.

10.	In Kenya, government policies and activities related to the project are framed through the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, the National Environment Action Plan and the bill before parliament on Environment, Management and Coordination  Policy. The Forestry Water Resources Master Plans also provide guidelines towards relevant components. These national investment includes the seven year Integrated Project on Arid land (IPAL) in north east Kenya, the findings of which provide the basis of this project, representing GOK/GTZ investment of some US$ 7m. Some of these findings have been implemented in the GTZ project in Marsabit and by NORAD in Turkana with investments of US$3m in land degradation, forestry research and community training. The GOK has ongoing activities in the two region valued at US$ 17,000 a year. Several NGOs in Kenya have field level activities that will be directly relevant to the project, including Pastoral Shelter, Farm Africa and Food for the Hungry International. Two national level NGOs can also provide support in terms of awareness raising and training, Natural Resources Management Forum and Pastoral Integrated Programme.

11.	In Mali the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification and the National Action Plan for the Environment provide the environmental framework for land degradation in drylands. In addition, several sectoral policies provide frameworks that address ultimate causes such as the National Plan for Rural Development, Domestic Energy Strategy, National Programme for Agricultural Extension and the Structural Adjustment Programme. In Mali the World Bank/GOM project on natural resources protection represent a $5m investment and the project “Mali  Nord-Est de Development de l’Elevage” is a multi-donor investment of $14m. Several national and international NGOs are active in related issues such as pastoral livelihoods, and social services (e.g. IUCN, Care Mali and ACOR). The CNRST (National Centre for Scientific and Technical Research) is an umbrella organisation that groups all the research institutions in Mali. 

12.	From the foregoing analysis it is evident that the participating governments are committed to a number of baseline activities, such as policy reforms (e.g. decentralization process in Mali, the proposed Environmental Coordination and  Management Bill in Kenya, and the Agricultural Development Policy and Tribal Grazing Lands Law in Botswana), rural development, research, etc. These baseline investments are deemed cost-effective in achieving domestic benefits, and provide the basis for the GEF incremental costs which provide the mechanisms for translating this investment into a mechanism which allows a cross-national approach to the problem of land degradation and loss of biodiversity in African arid and semi arid lands.

13.	The GEF grant will provide incremental funding to complement the activities undertaken by the participating governments through the identification, synthesis and application of state-of-the-art knowledge in different approaches to demonstrate how globally sigtnificant biodiversity can be restored and protected through halting land degradation and the development of sustainable management systems, thus contributing to the achievement of additional global benefits.

The proposed alternative.

14.	The alternative involves rehabilitation of the degraded lands, using indigenous species and knowledge in order to develop successful models for conserving the globally important biodiversity of the arid zone demonstration sites in a participatory, community based approach. Because of substantial and ongoing biodiversity and land resources loss in arid lands, the project will focus on halting and reversing the loss, rather than specifically focusing on enhancing additional gains from biodiversity conservation during its lifetime. The project endeavors to fill gaps in previous approaches so that biodiversity conservation is achieved through viable and sustainable policies and activities enacted by the local communities and their respective governments. The activities generate additional domestic benefits by boosting the livestock based economies of these regions and creating possibilities for alternative livelihoods as well. The outcomes and experiences of the project can be used as a model for rehabilitation of similar areas in the countries involved, as well as other arid zones of Africa.

Scope of analysis.

15.	The scope of analysis covers and identifies the strength of local traditional local institutional, the weakness in coping with the threats to biodiversity and pressures that lead to land degradation. The different projects related to the project zones are identified, and the proportion that directly impact the project sites are costed. In-kind and cash government contributions are considered as part of the baseline, because they would still be disbursed by the governments even without the project. The policies of the different governments, ongoing research by national level organs and work by NGO’s are also considered part of the baseline. Although the baseline is cost-effective in achieving domestic benefits under present policy and institutional conditions, there are, institutional factors (constraints at the national level), and inadequate levels of capitalization at the local level which can be considered as barriers to the development of sustainable management models. Incremental costs are sought for removing these barriers and strengthening the baseline. The majority of project activities are substitutional rather than complementary, however, there are no discernable domestic costs associated with the project. On the contrary, there will be additional domestic benefits to be gained.

Country situations

16.	In all three participating countries, land degradation and the consequent loss of biodiversity has been going on for a long period of time. During the last three decades, the areas have experienced several prolonged drought periods, coinciding with rapid population growth, which increases food and fuel demands and hence contributes to range and woodland degradation. Traditional management systems have been disrupted, and in many cases this has led to accelerated land degradation and biodiversity loss.

17.	In all three demonstration areas, increased sedentarization of the nomadic population has led to severe land degradation in the perimeters of the settlements. In Botswana, the livestock grazing areas have furthermore been significantly compressed by cordon fences, resulting in over-exploitation of the remaining accessible vegetation. The increased pressure on the vegetation also means that regeneration after recurrent droughts is hampered. Combined with uncontrolled bush fires, this results in an acceleration of the loss of globally significant biodiversity. The arid areas in the three countries are the habitats of dryland species and gene pools of great importance for the livelihood of the local populations, who are completely dependent on the indigenous vegetation for their livelihoods, as well as for the global community. 

18.	There is a general tendency to consider the degradation of arid lands as an inevitable process, and this project aims at demonstrating that an integration of modern science and traditional management systems can arrest the current degradation trends and facilitate rehabilitation of degraded rangelands and their biodiversity. The project will benefit from the current decentralization process in Mali, and the increased interest in all three countries in combating land degradation.

Table 1.1. Total budget by year and component (GEF Increment and other, Government Contribution – US$ million)

Component	Total	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	
1. Establishment of appropriate Indigenous Management systems, and in-situ biodiversity conservation.	2.075	0.300	0.675	0.650	0.350	0.100	
2. Establishment of Arid Zone Biodatabase and GIS	0.850	0.150	0.250	0.300	0.100	0.050	
3.Rehabilitation of Indigenous Vegetation	2.675	0.500	0.800	0.700	0.400	0.275	
4. Improvement of livestock production and marketing, and provision of alternative livelihoods.	1.490	0.150	0.300	0.500	0.400	0.140	
5. Technology Transfer & Training.	2.350	0.265	0.535	0.600	0.550	0.400	
6. Targeted Research	0.500	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.100	
7. Monitoring & Evaluation	0.140	0.040	0.040	0.020	0.020	0.040	
8. Administration	0.734	0.150	0.146	0.146	0.146	0.146	
9. Appraisal	0.060	0.060					
10. University of Oslo contribution.	1.680						
TOTAL (US$ millions)	12.554	1.695	2.846	3.016	2.066	1.251	

Table 1.2: Country budget by Component (GEF Increment and Other Contributions in US$ millions)

Component	Botswana	Kenya	Mali	Total	

	Increment 	Govt contrib	Increment	Govt contrib	Increment	Govt and other* contrib	Increment	Govt contrib	Increment + Govt contrib	
1. Establishment of appropriate indigenous management systems and in situ biodiversity conservation.
	1.500	0.350	0.500	0.075	0.500	0.150	1.500	0.575	2.075	
2. Establishment of arid zone biodatabase and GIS.
	0.150	0.100	0.150	0.100	0.500	0.050	0.600	0.250	0.850	
3. Rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation.
	0.825	0.050	0.900	0.075	0.825	0.00	2.550	0.125	2.675	
4. Improvement of livestock production and marketing, and provision of alternative livelihoods.
	0.375	0.100	0.375	0.100	0.440	0.100	1.190	0.300	1.490	
5. Technology Transfer & Training.
	0.500	0.400	0.500	0.150	0.600	0.150	1.650	0.700	2.350	
6. Targeted Research	0.100	0.100	0.100	0.050	0.100	0.050	0.300	0.200	0.500	
7. Monitoring and Evaluation.							0.140	0	0.140	
8. Administration. 							0.734	0	0.734	
9. Appraisal.							0.060	0	0.060	
10. University of Oslo contribution.							0	1.680	1.680	
TOTAL	2.450	1.100	2.575	0.550	2.765	0.500	8.724	3.830	12.554	
* Note that an additional US$0.5 million “other” co-financing will be budgeted when it has been confirmed.

Table 1.3. Baseline, Alternative and Incremental Cost (US$ million) (GEF and Government contributions and co-financing)

Benefit	Baseline	Alternative	Increment	
1. Establishment of appropriate indigenous management systems	
Global Environmental Benefits	•	Improved domestic management systems able to contribute to models replicable within each country.
•	Indigenous knowledge of local biodiversity available.
•	Preservation of indigenous vegetation and biodiversity of vital interest and benefit to local populations.	•	Development of a replicable model, based on a regional comparative analysis of results, leading to more sustainable use and management of biodiversity and natural resources in arid zones of Africa.
•	Increased knowledge of globally significant resources and ecosystem processes.
•	Through replication, contribution to the in-situ conservation of globally significant biodiversity.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Viable indigenous management systems constitute an important basis for integration with scientific methods to develop sustainable management systems.
•	Success of baseline activities constrained by institutional barriers, such as inappropriate laws and policies.	•	Additional benefits accrued from lessons learnt in developing sustainable management systems for biodiversity and natural resources in arid and semi-arid lands, from regional comparative analysis, including better models for replication and sustainable management systems.
•	Contribution to the removal of upstream barriers to the development of models.		
Costs	15.850	17.925	2.075

2. Establishment of Arid Zone Biodatabase and GIS.	
Global Environmental Benefits		•	Systematic collection, analysis and application of information on biodiversity, indigenous knowledge and sustainable management on a country- and regional basis leading to a globally significant database.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Collection and storage of some data on biodiversity, indigenous knowledge and sustainable management within the countries.	•	Participatory and strategic compilation and assessment of locally generated information in the region, applicable within the countries.		
Costs	0.200	1.050	0.850

3. Rehabilitation of Indigenous Vegetation	
Global Environmental Benefits	•	Some localised global biodiversity benefits from indigenous techniques for rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation.	•	Improved and appropriate technologies for the rehabilitation of degraded vegetation and lands assessed and evaluated in different situations, leading to the development of widely replicable methods.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Rehabilitated vegetation and lands for local populations.	•	Rehabilitated vegetation and lands sustained in project sites and with demonstration value for neighbouring communities.		
Costs	5.955	8.630	2.675

4.  Improvement of  Livestock Production and Marketing and Provision of Alternative Livelihoods	
Global Environmental Benefits	•	Viable traditional methods of fodder production available.	•	Fodder production techniques appropriate to drylands tested and synthesised into widely replicable methods.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Marketing structures and policies available.
•	Traditional levels of income generated through marketing of livestock and its products, and other range product based industries.
•	Traditional socio-economic networks and savings available.	•	Improved marketing policy reforms facilitated.
•	Additional economic opportunities and income possibilities developed.
•	Self-help and revolving funds assisted in capitalization and capacity building.		
Costs	27.475	28.965	1.490

5.  Technology Transfer and Training	
Global Environmental Benefits		•	Transfer of technologies, information and models between the three countries, leading to a synthesis of appropriate models and technologies for wider application.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Extension services geared towards technology transfer.	•	Enhanced capacity of local community stakeholders and indigenous range managers in technical and institutional aspects for sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources.		
Costs	0.400	2.750	2.350

6. Targeted Research	
Global Environmental Benefits		•	Systematic, scientifically documented and sustainable management tools applicable in other arid and semi-arid lands developed.		
Domestic Benefits	•	Institutions and human resources available for conducting applied research in sustainable management of biodiversity.	•	Enhanced scientific knowledge base and increased capacity of national research institutions.		
Costs	4.459	6.639	2.188

TOTAL	54.339	65.959	11.620

Table 1.4. Detailed Budget by Activity
* Government contribution has been broken down by component, but not by activity.
** Does not include US $ 0.5 million identified from “other” sources.

Components	Outputs	Activities	GEF Increment	Government* and other** contribution 	Total	
Outcome 1. Establishment of appropriate indigenous management systems for sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources.
	1.1. Appropriate indigenous
Management systems identified, developed, established and strengthened.

1.2.Indigenous conservation methods strengthened.

1.3 Overexploitation of specific plant and animal species reduced.	1.1.1. Establishment of effective community based management committees, based on indigenous institutions.

1.1.2. Preparation of management plans for the rehabilitation of rangelands and sustainable development in the project zones.

1.1.3. Development of partnership conventions between the communities, the project and the Governments.

1.1.4 Facilitation of land-use planning and of the resolution of Land-Tenure rights and conflicts.

1.2.1 Identification, documentation, systematisation and strengthening of indigenous conservation methods.

1.2.2 Development of community biodiversity registers.

1.3.1 Development of local incentives for biodiversity conservation.

----------------------------------
Subtotal	0.200

0.450

0.100

0.300

0.200

0.050

0.200

-------------
1.500    	

0.575
-----------
0.575	0.200

0.450

0.100

0.300

0.200

0.050

0.200

0.615
---------
2.075	
Outcome 2. Establishment of arid/semi arid zone BioDatabase and GIS.
.	2.1 Historical and current knowledge of biodiversity and land degradation in the demonstration areas assessed in a participatory process.

2.2 Regional perspective established, on biodiversity and land degradation issues.	2.1.1. Inventories of natural resources and interpretations of the situation over the past 40 years.

2.1.2. Participatory socio-economic and needs assessment.

2.1.3. Compilation of base data with the participation of local communities for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

2.2.1. Aerial photographic surveys, soil and vegetation cover mapping of all sites and regional analysis

2.2.2. GIS equipment and support in Mali, linked to existing structures in Kenya and Botswana.

----------------------------------
Subtotal	0.200

0.100

0.050

0.100

0.150

-------------
0.600	

0.250
-----------
0.250	0.200

0.100

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.250
---------
0.850	
Outcome 3. Rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation.
	3.1 Degraded rangelands/community territories in the project zones revegetated.

3.2 Fire management measures instituted.

3.3 Water management improved.	3.1.1. Community based management of spontaneous regeneration of plants, and tree planting, using indigenous species.

3.1.2. Establishment of community and individual nurseries.

3.1.3. Creation of enclosures in Mali and monitoring.

3.1.4. Implementation of measures to control grazing including rotational grazing and using indigenous management techniques.

3.1.5. Soil rehabilitation and reseeding with indigenous species.

3.2.1. Establishment of fire management measures, based on indigenous and modern techniques.

3.3.1. Improvements in water harvesting techniques, including water point improvement to assist grazing management and water spreading.

----------------------------------
Sub-total	0.800

0.200

0.200

0.200

0.300

0.150

0.700

-------------
2.55	

0.125
-----------
0.125	0.800

0.200

0.200

0.200

0.300

0.150

0.700

0.125
---------
2.675	
Outcome 4. Provision of alternative livelihoods and improvement of livestock marketing and fodder resources.	4.1 Improved market outlets for livestock, and income generation.

4.2 Fodder production improved.

4.3 Economic base of the communities diversified and substantially widened.	4.1.1 Development of economic opportunities in the marketing of livestock.

4.1.2 Facilitation of marketing policy reforms.

4.2.1 Small-scale production of irrigated fodder for fodder banks and reserves.

4.3.1 Establishment of marketing outlets for range product based industries (multiple-use plants, hides, honey etc).

4.3.2 Establishment of community revolving funds in the communities.

----------------------------------
Subtotal	0.400

0.150

0.300

0.040

0.300

-------------
1.190	

0.300
-----------
0.300	0.400

0.150

0.300

0.040

0.300

0.300
---------
1.490	
Outcome 5. Technology transfer, training and regional comparative learning.
	5.1 Appropriate technologies transferred between countries.

5.2 Capacity of local communities enhanced in technical and institutional aspects.

5.3 Dissemination of results at local and national levels.	5.1.1 Documentation, workshops and seminars at the regional level.

5.2.1 Transfer of technologies for planting of individual and communal woodlots for fuelwood and construction timber, using indigenous species.

5.2.2 Transfer of energy saving mechanisms.

5.2.3 Introduction of technologies for general recycling of biomass.

5.2.4 Workshops and training seminars for community stakeholders.

5.3.1 Environmental education through school programmes and competitions etc.

5.3.2 Mass-media campaigns.

----------------------------------
Subtotal	0.450

0.200

0.100

0.100

0.350

0.200

0.250

-------------
1.650	

0.700
-----------
0.700	0.450

0.200

0.100

0.100

0.350

0.200

0.250

0.700
--------
2.350	
6. Targeted Research.	6.1 Development of rational, scientifically documented 
and sustainable tools appli-
cable to these and other arid 
and semi-arid areas.	6.1.1 Research in indigenous management systems.

6.1.2 Research in problems of 
range rehabilitation.

6.1.3 Application of energy-
saving devises to arid and semi-
arid lands.

6.1.4 Feasibility studies of
 improving livestock marketing
 in the demonstration areas

6.1.5 Development of methods to communicate research findings to affected communities.

University of Oslo contribution
--------------------------------------
Subtotal	0.200

0.050

0.050

--------------
0.300	

0.200

1.680
-----------------
1.880	0.200

0.050

0.050

0.200

1.680
---------
2.180	
7. Monitoring and Evaluation.			0.140		0.140	
8. Administration.			0.734		0.734	
9. Appraisal			0.060	0	0.060	
GRAND TOTAL			8.724	3.830	12.554	

ANNEX II. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX.

	Summary	Objectively verifiable indicators	Means of verification	Critical assumptions and risks	
Objectives	To develop models for the conservation of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded rangelands, and to develop sustainable management systems using indigenous knowledge.	Substantive recovery of indigenous vegetation in project sites. Functional local natural resource management systems in place.	Surveys and reports at the commencement and after finalisation of the pilot project.
Local community perceptions and feedback.	No major negative changes in drought patterns. No major political perturbations in the participating countries.

Outcomes (project impacts)	1. Establishment of Appropriate indigenous management systems.

	Local satisfaction demonstrated.
Participatory process assured.
Management plans meaningful and developed through consensus.
Policy recommendations. developed.	Project progress reports.
Local community feedback.	Continued incentive for the participation of the communities.
Communal respect of management plans by local community and neighbors.
Successful methods for integration of indigenous management with modern systems available.
	
	2. Regional and national data availability on indigenous production and management systems significantly enhanced.	Availability, quality and accessibility of databases.
Data collection and storage capacity enhanced.
	Databases.	Data made available from various agencies and communities	
	3. Indigenous vegetation in degraded rangelands rehabilitated, through reducing pressure on the vegetation resources.
	Number of hectares rehabilitated. Bio-mass production per hectare.
Qualitative improvement in vegetation and soils.
	Project progress reports.
	Communities provided incentives for participating in land rehabilitation.	
	4. Provision of alternative livelihoods, and improved livestock markets and feed resources in other arid areas.
	Number and weight of animals sold per year. Availability of honey etc. on the market at reasonable prices.
Policy recommendations developed. 
Increased income per household.
Hectares of fodder production.
	Project progress reports. Government statistics.	Governments co-operative in revising marketing policies. Alternative livelihoods acceptable to communities.
Continued community willingness to participate. Co-operation from Governments.	
	5. Transfer of technology and information.	Number of workshops and training seminars conducted at local level. Activities of community institutions and individuals showing follow-up.
Amount and quality of information transferred between countries.
	Project progress reports.		
	6. Targeted research in the project areas used for developing methods for replicating the project findings in other arid areas.	Technical and scientific reports on sustainable management methods available.
Number of trained researchers.
	Reports, scientific journals.	Project findings replicable in other areas	
Results (project outputs)	1.1 Management systems controlled by the communities.
	Committees and management structures established. Management guidelines implemented.	Project progress reports, local perceptions.
	No major political changes during the pilot project implementation.
Co-operation from governments and other authority.
	
	1.2 Indigenous conservation methods strengthened.	Biodiversity registers and herbaria.
Documented indigenous methods. 
Education of youth and community at large.
	Progress reports and local perceptions.
Assessments.	Indigenous conservation methods still viable.	
	1.3 Over-exploitation of specific plant and animal species reduced.	Incentives developed for local communities to manage their resources on a sustainable basis.	Project progress reports. District surveys.	No negative interference from external agents, and undue market influences.	
	2.1 Assessment of indigenous knowledge of degradation in the pilot areas.
	Database created and made accessible to all stakeholders.
Successful participatory assessments integrated in master plans.
	Project progress reports. Special reports on historical knowledge.
	Availability of data.	
	2.2 Regional perspective established on biodiversity and land degradation issues.	Aerial photo and remote sensing analyses completed. GIS systems established and linked between countries.
	Project reports and analytical documents.	Government willingness to co-operate on international sharing of info.	
	3.1 Degraded rangelands/community territories in the project pilot zones revegetated.	Number of ha revegetated in the pilot zones. Bio-mass production increased by number of kg/ha. Soil erosion reduced. Dunes stabilised.
	Project progress reports.
Monitoring surveys.	No negative changes in drought patterns.	
	3.2 Appropriate fire management measures established.	Number and extent of wildfires significantly under control and management.
	Project progress reports. District surveys.	Government investment on fire fighting and control measures	
	3.3 Water management improved.	Number of water structures created and functioning.	Project progress reports and local evaluation.
	No negative changes in drought patterns.	
	4.1 Improved market outlets for livestock and income generation.	Sales and turnover figures increased.	Project progress reports. District surveys. Government statistics.
	Co-operation from Governments and other authorities on marketing policies.	
	4.2 Fodder production improved.	Labour allocation patterns.
Amount of fodder produced.
Number of hectares under production.
	Project progress reports. 	No breakdown of boreholes in Mali.
No negative changes in drought patterns.	
	4.3 Substantial widening and diversification of the economic base of the communities.	Diversity of income possibilities in the communities.	Project progress reports. District surveys. Government statistics.	Alternative livelihoods acceptable by communities.
No negative environmental impacts attending the operations of range product industries.	
	5.1 Appropriate technologies transferred between countries.
	Successful meetings and documentation.	Project progress reports. District surveys.		
	5.2 Capacity of local communities enhanced.	Practical application of knowledge.	Project progress reports. District surveys.

	No alternative opportunity costs to local population.	
	6.1 Development of rational, scientifically documented and sustainable management tools applicable in other arid zones.
	Scientific documentation available.	Project progress reports.
Scientific reports.		
Components/activities	Component 1: 
Establishment of appropriate indigenous management systems.				
	1.1.1 Establishing of effective community based management committees.	Committees operational and active.	Project progress reports. Community consultations. District surveys.
	Co-operation from local authorities.	
	1.1.2 Preparation of master plans for the rehabilitation of rangelands and sustainable development in the project pilot zones.
	Master plans created and available.	Project progress reports. District and Government reports.

	Community consensus obtainable.	
	1.1.3 Development of partnership conventions between the communities, the project and the Governments.
	Conventions approved and operationalised.	Project progress reports. District surveys. Government reports.
	Co-operation from all partners.	
	1.1.4 Facilitate land use planning and resolving of land tenure rights and conflicts.	Land tenure conflicts less constraining for the communities. Land use plans available.
	Project progress reports. Community surveys.	No major conflicts.
Consensus reached among stakeholders.	
	1.2.1 Identify, document, systematize and strengthen indigenous conservation methods.	Information catalogued and made usable by the new and old generation.	Project progress reports. District archives. Local perceptions.
	Strong local interest.	
	1.2.2 Developing community biodiversity registers.
	Biodiversity registers available and in use.	Progress reports.	Strong local interest and local archives.	
	Component 2: Establishment of arid zones Database and GIS.				
	2.1.1 Inventories and interpretations of the situation over the past 40 years.
	Inventories prepared and accessible.

	Project progress reports. District archives.	Data available and accessible.	
	2.1.2 Participatory socio-economic and needs assessments.
	Self-discovered and real assessments.	Local perceptions reports.	All stakeholders are able to participate.	
	2.1.3 Compilation of baseline data with the participation of local communities.
	Baseline data compiled in accessible reports.	Project progress reports. District archives.	All stakeholders are able to participate.	
	2.2.1 Aerial photographic surveys, soil and vegetation cover mapping.
	Soil and vegetation cover maps available and generated.	Reports and analyses.
District and Government archives.
	Surveys used for production of community management systems.	
	2.2.2 Establish GIS equipment and support in Mali.	Established unit
Inter-country linkages functional.
	Progress reports.	No major constraints to inter-country communication.	
	Component 3: Rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation.				
	3.1.1 	Assisting spontaneous regeneration and tree planting using indigenous species on a community basis.
	Number of trees planted, and survival rates.	Project progress reports. District surveys.
Government statistics.	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	3.1.2 Establishing nurseries.	Number of nurseries established and operational.	Project progress reports.

	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	3.1.3 Creation of enclosures for experimental management in Mali.	Number and area of enclosures established.
Land degradation reduced and biodiversity conservation increased in enclosures.
	Project progress reports.
	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	3.1.4 Implementing measures to control grazing.	Significant improvement in land and vegetation stability.	Project progress reports. District surveys. Government statistics.
	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	3.1.5 Rehabilitate soil and vegetation reseeding.	Ha rehabilitated.
Survival rates.	Project progress reports.
	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	3.2.1 Establish fire management measures.	Indigenous methods identified and catalogued.
Institutions (structures and regulations) for fire management.
Infrastructure for fire management.
	Progress reports and local perceptions.		
	3.3.1 Improving water harvesting techniques.	Availability of water for irrigation, watering and household purposes.
Ground water surveys.	Project progress reports. Community consultations. District surveys. 
	No negative change in drought patterns.	
	Component 4: Improvement of livestock production and marketing, and provision of alternative livelihoods.				
	4.1.1 Developing economic opportunities in marketing livestock.	Access to marketing information.
Infrastructure established and functioning.
	Progress report.
Local perceptions.		
	4.1.2 Facilitate marketing policy reforms.	Marketing policy impacts evaluated.	Project progress reports. Government archives.
		
	4.2.1 	Developing small-scale irrigated fodder from indigenous plants, fodder banks and fodder reserves.
	Fodder production increased. 
Number of ha. fodder reserves.	Project progress reports. District surveys and statistics.		
	4.3.1 Establishment of 
marketing outlets for range product based industries (plants, hides, honey etc).	Increased availability of range products on the market. Increased income per household.
	Project progress reports. District and Government statistics.		
	4.3.2 Establish self-help revolving funds in the communities.	Self-help revolving funds established and capitalized. Number of new businesses established.
	Project progress reports. District and Government statistics.		
	4.4.1 Testing of appropriate biomass recycling techniques.	Increase in soil organic matter content.	Progress report.
Local perceptions.		
	Component 5: 
Technology Transfer, Training and Regional Comparative Learning				
	5.1.1 Documentation workshops and seminars at the regional level.	Success of knowledge transfers.
Number of meetings and visits.
	Project progress reports.		
	5.2.1 Planting of woodlots for fuel-wood and construction timber.
	Number of ha planted. Production figures.
	Project progress reports.		
	5.2.2 Transferring energy saving devices and technologies.	Number of energy saving devices in use. Firewood requirements per household decreased.
	Project progress reports. District and Government statistics.		
	5.2.3 Introducing technologies for general recycling of bio-mass.	Tons of dung used as fertiliser 
Tons of bio-mass recycled. Pressure on range resources reduced.
	Project progress reports. District surveys.		
	5.2.4 Workshops and training seminars for community stakeholders.	Number of training seminars and workshops held.
Quality of training.
	Project progress reports. District statistics.
Local perceptions.		
	5.3.1 Environmental education through school programs and competition
	Quality of training.	Local perceptions.		
	5.3.2 Mass-media campaign	Production of programs.	Local perceptions.
		
	Component 6: Targeted Research and Regional Training				
	6.1.1 Research in indigenous management systems.	Number of trained candidates and reportable research results.
	Project progress reports.		
	6.1.2 Research in problems of range rehabilitation.
	Number of trained candidates and reportable research results.
	Project progress reports.		
	6.1.3 Application of energy-
saving devises to arid and semi-arid lands	Number of trained candidates and reportable research results.
	Project progress reports.		
	6.1.4 Feasibility studies of
 improving livestock marketing in the pilot areas.
	Number of trained candidates and reportable research results.	Project progress reports.		
	6.1.5 Development of methods to communicate research findings to affected communities.	Number of trained candidates and reportable research results.
	Project progress reports.		

ANNEX III. STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW

By: Dr. Assefa Mebrate, Assistant Professor of Systematics and Ecology, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

After a careful review of the proposal and other related materials provided by UNEP, I am convinced that, if successfully implemented, the project is appropriate, scientifically and technically sound, sustainable, and replicable with valuable global environmental benefits. The fact that it is a regional project also provides the opportunity for joint and concerted effort to address a regional problem and exchange experiences. However, the benefits to be drawn from the joint effort have not come out clearly. The regional execution and implementation arrangements also need more clarification. The following is a summary of my opinion on each of the criteria I used in my evaluation of the project.

I. The project in view of the goals, operational strategies and program priorities of GEF and council guidance and the provisions of the relevant conventions.

The proposed project

1.	addresses issues of land degradation that are related to biodiversity, climate change and international waters, which are GEF's focal areas of concern. It sets out to establish or strengthen systems of sustainable use of the flora and fauna of the project areas while conserving biodiversity. As a result, the implementation of the project helps achieve global environmental objectives in more than one area.

2.	is in agreement with the follow-up actions and recommendations to the STAP workshop on land degradation in that:

a)	it addresses problems in selected warm arid zones of Africa, with one of the five main biomes covered by Operational Program 1 of GEF;
b)	it includes the following three activities all of which are called for by the Operational Program 1:

•	soil conservation and restoration of degraded arid areas to conserve biodiversity and a few important endemic plant species;
•	natural resource management emphasising integrated resource use with conservation and development; and
•	energy conservation emphasising conservation of trees and alternative energy sources to conserve the natural vegetation.

3.	falls within operational Program 9 since it also addresses the problem of rehabilitation of damaged catchments, adoption of sustainable management practices both of which are priorities of transboundary and ecologically important multiple country dry land, sustainable land-use and conservation systems.

4.	falls within GEF's priority area of Operational Program 1 since:

•	It is a pilot project that will demonstrate the conservation and sustainable utilization of the biodiversity of seven sites, in three arid zones of Africa;
•	It addresses the problem of biodiversity loss in the context of pastoralist patterns of land use and conservation related to arid and semi-arid ecosystems management, integrated resource management approach to the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and management of carbon sequestration and water resources in these arid pastoral lands of Africa;
•	Its activities include development and application of basic computerized data processing and management decision support system, GIS, in relation to integrated land, water and biodiversity use in arid areas that are affected by land degradation;
•	It also includes activities which adresses technologies which can assist people in developing sustainable use of dry land through fuel wood use efficiency and fuel substitution.

II. Regional context

The project is a regional project involving three African countries (Mali, Botswana and Kenya). The project areas include three important arid zones: the Sudano-Sahel, the Somali-Chalbi, and the Kalahari-Namib. It involves several tribal groups of three African countries that have varied indigenous knowledge on the conservation and wise utilization of biodiversity.

Research and academic institutions of a few African and European countries also collaborate and play an active role in the activities of the project.

III. Global environmental benefits

This pilot project has global environmental benefits in that the;

1.	successful outcomes and the experiences and learning gained through the implementation of the pilot project in three African countries and three different arid zones can serve as a model to be adapted and replicated elsewhere in other arid areas of Africa and the rest of the world;

2.	successful implementation of the project results in conserving and rehabilitating biodiversity that has global significance;

3.	successful implementation of the project, through the resulting increased vegetation cover and reduction of soil erosion contributes positively to international bodies of water such as the Niger River and Lake Turkana, as well as carbondioxide sequestration;

4.	the experience and learning's gained from the several tribes of the project area that have varied indigenous knowledge of biodiversity conservation, could be of great global importance in addressing biodiversity conservation issues in other similar arid areas of Africa and the rest of the world.

IV. Scientific and technical soundness

The following are indications of the scientific and technical soundness of the project.

•	The project is proposed based on sound consideration of existing scientific information and data on bilogical and other resources of the project areas;
•	It integrates applied land degradation research components aimed at solving major problems in arid lands;
•	The testing of natural resource management systems in a number of pilot areas is also an important part of the project;
•	As it is presented in the logical framework matrix, the objectives, variable indicators and the means of verification and the critical assumptions and risks make it possible to monitor project activities and evaluate the results.
•	The project will be provided with the necessary advice on pertinent technical issues from the Project Advisory Committee which shall be composed of selected experts from the scientific, research and training community under the chairmanship of a prominent university.

V. Replicability

The successful implementation of the project in areas representing three different arid zones of Africa, with several tribal groups that have varied experience and knowledge in biodiversity conservation, will produce outputs that can be adopted and replicated in other areas of Africa and the rest of the world.

VI. Sustainability

There are three major factors that suggest the sustainability of the project;

1.	The stakeholder participation in general and the participatory approach of the project that involves local communities in every activity of the project in particular.

2.	The origin to the solution of the problem is indigenous knowledge of the communities and as a result its implementation will not encounter resistance and the project will be sustainable.

3.	The firm commitment of the governments involved in the project to address problems of arid and semi-arid zones is a major contributing factor for sustainability. This is demonstrated by the initiatives they have taken so far to address the issues of land degradation and loss of indigenous vegetation and their present commitment and willingness to involve themselves in the project. 

VII. Strength

The following are the major strengths of the project:

1.	It involves seven sites from three different arid zones of Africa with several tribal groups that have varied indigenous knowledge in the conservation of biodiversity.

2.	It involves the concerted effort of three African countries that not only see arid and semi-arid zones as important priority areas of development but have also undertaken initiatives to address the issues of land degradation and loss of indigenous vegetation in these areas.

3.	The project makes use of biophysical and socio-econimic data on land use that have been made available as a result of research and experimental management from the three arid/semi-arid zones as well as information on indigenous vegetation that is made available as a result of the Integrated Project in Arid Lands (IPAL) in northern Kenya.

4.	The project involves stakeholder participation in all activities of the project in general and community participatory approach utilizing indigenous knowledge to ward natural resource management in particular.

VIII. Weaknesses

In my opinion, the major weakness of the project document is the fact that it does not clearly state the benefits to be drawn from the regional effort (which is one of the strong points of the project) by each of the participating countries. The implementation and execution management arrangement at the regional level does not also clearly state the role of the Regional Coordination Unit or Office. The following are the major points that need to be reexamined.

1.	Links between the project activities in the three countries involved and the RCU.

2.	The nature of collaboration between UNOPS and the concerned local ministries in project execution. The role of the various ministries and the UNOPS are not clearly stated.

3.	Duties and responsibilities the national steering committee (even though the members are not listed) are not clear. In addition to the NSC, there is also the Regional Steering Committee. It is not clear as to how policy guidelines and supervision of national projects can be performed by a regional body. Is this an agreement ministers can make?

4.	At the community level, there are project staff, community based organizations, extension staff, project manager etc; the roles of each and their links are not also clear.

May 8, 1998

IA response:

The concerns expressed by the STAP roster reviewer have been addressed in the revision of the document in the following way:

1.	The framework for the links between the project activities and the RCU has been specified in the Implementation Arrangements section. The details will be addressed and worked out during the appraisal phase.

2.	UNOPS is not the executing agency. An agreement between UNEP and UNDP on the modalities for joint implementation of projects in Land Degradation is on the way, and the detailed implementation/execution arrangements will be finalised during the appraisal phase.

3.	The regional bodies (Regional Coordination Unit and Regional Policy Steering Committee) will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the regional activities and provide the national project units with advice and overall guidance. The inclusion of Ministers in the regional bodies will ensure the maximum coherence between national and regional activities.

4.	The project staff at community level will execute the physical components of the project (e.g. construction works, nurseries, crust breaking etc) and the training, supported by the community organisations and extension staff. The detailed arrangements will be worked out in the appraisal phase.

5.	In general, the benefits to be drawn from the regional efforts have been more clearly spelled out, emphasising the regional learning aspects and particularly drawing attention to the fact that the root causes of land degradation in arid zones are very similar in the three countries, which offers a unique opportunity to develop widely replicable models for rehabilitating degraded rangelands.

(Second review after revision of document):

Thank you for sending me the revised version of the project document on "Management of Indigenous Vegetation for Rehabilitation of Degraded land in the Arid Zone of Africa", project number GF/1300-97-04.

Please be informed that I am satisfied with the changes made and as I have stated in my technical review, the project is technically sound, sustainable and replicable with valuable global environmental benefits.

August 16, 1998.

ANNEX IV. ROOT CAUSES

Table 2.1. Intermediate, proximate and ultimate causes of biodiversity loss and land degradation.

	Botswana	Kenya
	Mali	
Intermediate	•	overgrazing
•	wildlife poaching
•	drying up of Okavango delta
•	wildfires
•	deforestation
•	soil and vegetation degradation
•	overharvesting of medicinal plants and natural products
•	reduction of underground aquifers	•	overgrazing
•	soil degradation
•	deforestation for charcoal and fuelwood	•	changing forms of shifting agriculture
•	reduction of fallow periods
•	overgrazing
•	late wildfires
•	deforestation
•	transhumance patterns shifting southwards leading to conflicts	
Proximate	•	range compression
•	land tenure conflicts
•	high fuelwood demand
•	water development
•	livestock production policies	•	sedentarisation
•	high fuelwood demand
•	land tenure conflicts
•	marketing policies
•	inadequate dryland policies	•	high fuelwood demand
•	land tenure insecurity
•	unbalanced policies
•	inadequate human and financial resources	
Ultimate	•	poverty
•	drought
•	population growth	•	poverty
•	droughts
•	population growth	•	poverty
•	drought 
•	population growth	

Table 2.2: Threats and root causes.

Threats	Root causes
	Specific components and outputs	
High grazing pressure around settlements	Range compression and loss of dry season pastures	Component 1 (Outputs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3)
Component 4 (Output 4.2)
Component 5
Component 6	
Uncontrolled over-exploitation of natural resources	Breakdown/loss of traditional management systems and inadequate land tenure policies	Component 1 (Outputs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3)
Component 5
Component 6	
High grazing pressure around settlements	Reduced mobility of pastoralists and lack of adequate water points	Component 1 (Output 1.1)
Component 3 (Output 3.3)
Component 5
Component 6	
Deforestation for fuel wood	Shortage of energy supplies, and wood for construction	Component 3 (Output 3.1)
Component 5 (Output 5.1)
Component 6	
Uncontrolled wildfires	Lack of effective management controls at local level	Component 3 (Output 3.2)
Component 6	
Continuing degradation of vegetation and soils	Lack of appropriate vegetation and soil rehabilitation technologies for large scale rehabilitation	Component 3 (Output 3.1) 
Component 1 (Output 1.1)
Component 5 (Outputs 5.1and 5.2)
Component 6 (Output 6.1)	
Over-exploitation of natural resources	Lack of economic incentives for conservation and inadequate marketing policies	Component 4 (Outputs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3)
Component 5
Component 6	
Inappropriate and destructive sustainable use models	Lack of integration of scientific and indigenous knowledge and unavailability of and lack of access to relevant data	Component 2 (Outputs 2.1, 2.2)
Component 5 (Outputs 5.1, 5.2)
Component 6 (Output 6.1)	

ANNEX V: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY

Stakeholder Participation (Matrix and Analysis)

1.	In the participating countries, a wide variety of stakeholders have an interest in natural resources use including the sustainable utilization of indigenous vegetation, biological resources, water resources, and the global environmental impacts of rangeland use, including climate impacts.  These stakeholders include farmers, made up of pastoralists and agrosilvo-pastoralists who practice subsistence agriculture; sedentary livestock owners and transhumance pastoralists; community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and government technical administration at both the central, district and community level. Global interests in biological diversity and climate change are held by international organisations, including the United Nations.

2.	The project is based upon a participatory approach to improve indigenous vegetation management, involving the active participation of different stakeholders in all aspects of project design implementation, monitoring and evaluation.  A matrix summarising the degree of interest and potential involvement of different stakeholder groups are show in Table 3.1. 

3.	Various stakeholders will be involved in the project implementation activities as presented in the main project document and the logical framework.  Essentially project implementation will be carried out by local communities, their organisations and NGOs, with the support of government technicians and research and training institutions. A participatory monitoring and evaluation system will be put in place, to ensure that the local communities and NGOs are involved in self-monitoring and evaluation.

Project Preparation

4.	Consultations were held with the three participating governments and GEF-OFPs to determine the broad scope of the project and modalities for co-operation between the three countries. To support this process, co-ordination meetings among various stakeholder groups were held at the regional level between the three participating countries and the University of Oslo; at the national level and at the regional and project site level.  National and international consultants as well as a team from the University of Oslo assisted with the project preparation.  The project preparation process included:

•	Four Technical Co-ordination meetings between the participating countries and the University of Oslo, including site visits;
•	Community consultations and site visits;
•	Stakeholder workshops;
•	Preparation of a draft project document, based on inputs from the national reports;
•	Review of the draft project document by stakeholder in the project sites and incorporation of  their views and comments;
•	Review of the project document by an independent team of international consultants;
•	Joint UNEP/UNDP review and finalization of the project documents.

5.	An integral part of the project preparation was the convening of a number of Technical Co-ordination Meetings. A meeting was convened in each of the participating countries and involved visits to the project sites as well as consultations with a wide cross section of stakeholders, including local community leaders, government officials, NGOs and regional and international organisations.  One of the technical meetings was convened by the University of Oslo to facilitate the preparation of the draft project document based upon national inputs.  The OFPs of the participating countries as well as their national consultants participated in all the Technical Co-ordination Meetings.

6.	In Botswana, the project was prepared under the auspices of the Range Ecology Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, with the support from the GEF/OFP.  Steps in the process, which commenced in September 1997, included (1) selection of potential sites the basis of PRA results analysis and discussions held with technical services; (2) co-ordination of a Technical Co-ordination Meeting which included site visits and consultations; (3) site visits, information and awareness-raising meetings conducted with stakeholders to get their ideas, priorities, and constraints for project formulation and implementation; (4) preparation of a draft country proposal; (5) convening of stakeholder workshops, with representatives of the local communities, decision makers and technicians to validate the project document; and (6) participation in the Review Meeting and finalisation of the project document.

7.	In Kenya, the process began with joint site visits by the national consultant and the National Environment Secretariat (NES) of the Ministry of Environmental Conservation technical staff.  Consultations were held with a wide cross-section of stakeholders including government stakeholder Ministries and departments and local NGOs.  Consultations took place at the site level and involved village elders/leaders, representatives of village committees and villages, including women and youth.  They provided detailed information on land degradation and its impact on their livelihoods, as well as specific information on physical factors (water, rainfall, soils) biological factors (plants, animal destocking etc.) and socio-economic factors (infrastructure, marketing, transport security) impacting upon their ability to manage the range and in particular indigenous vegetation.  In Marsabit the community consultations were carried out in collaboration with GTZ/Marsabit Development Programme and utilize the existing extensive community structure of environmental committees.

8.	The Kenya project document was prepared under the supervision of the GEF focal point and consolidated with inputs from government and NGO technicians. It was also reviewed by the Government of Kenyas Biodiversity and Desertification Committees. Like in Botswana and Mali, a Technical Co-ordination Meeting was convened in Kenya, as well as site-visits, information and awareness meeting and stakeholder workshops in order to validate the project document. A country document was prepared.

9.	In Mali, the project was prepared under the guidance of the Ministry of Environment with support from the GEF/OFP and a wide-cross section of community based organisations undertaking activities in the demonstration sites.  The steps in the process were similar to those undertaken in Botswana and included: (1) selection of the potential sites on the basis of PRA results analysis and discussion with local NGOs and technical services; (2) co-ordination of a Technical Co-ordination Meeting including site visits and consultations; (3) site visits, information and awareness-raising meetings; (4) preparation of a draft country project proposal; (5) convening of stakeholder workshops; and (6) participation in the project review process.

10.	Initial consultations were also held with research institutions and universities in the participating countries with respect to their participation in the project, particularly with respect to component 6. The University of Oslo in collaboration with the OFPs of the participating countries will build upon these consultations by establishing formal links with these institutions as part of project implementation.

11.	To elaborate elements of the project and to review it for its scientific and technical soundness as well as cost effectiveness, a review meeting was convened by the University of Oslo in collaboration with the OFPs of the participating countries. The review meeting was attended by a small team of international experts, as well as the OFPs of the participating countries. In addition, a joint UNEP/UNDP review of the project was undertaken in August 1998 to facilitate the joint implementation of the project. In addition to UNEP and UNDP, the OFP from the participating countries and the University of Oslo participated in the review session.

Stakeholder profile

12.	Diverse stakeholders have been identified in the project demonstration sites.  Their differing roles and use of natural resources have a variety of impacts on natural resource management, loss of biological diversity including indigenous vegetation, land degradation and possibilities for land rehabilitation and biodiversity conservation.

13.	Among the rural populations in the participating countries, two important resource groups can be distinguished – pastoralists and agro-pastoralists (farmers).  These people were originally nomads (transhumants), but in recent years many have become sedentarized.  They practice subsistence agriculture on small scale.  In all of the participating countries the men’s livestock consists of cattle but include sheep and goats, which are often the responsibility of women.  The pastoralists face the following major constraints: pasture resource depletion, due to overgrazing, loss of indigenous vegetation and decreasing access to watering points, as ponds have dried up due to the drought and the existing boreholes are inadequate, with frequent maintenance problems.  Where such boreholes do exist, animal and human populations tend to be concentrated, resulting in severe loss of biological diversity including indigenous vegetation and land and resource degradation.  In many areas, wildlife populations have declined.  Where natural ponds are used, the water quality is deteriorated due to animal use, resulting in poor quality of water for human consumption.  The pastoralists also experience degradation of rangeland due to decreased mobility of livestock, the lack of adequate marketing opportunities for stock off-take; and the breakdown/loss of traditional management systems and issues relating to land tenure.

14.	In contrast to the pastoralists, the farmers combine crop production with livestock husbandry.  Their land use is localised and resource use is intense around the farms.  They use crop residues as livestock feed and benefit from fertilising the farms by livestock manure.  The restricted mobility and high human density has forced the farmers to practise intensive land use strategies, as opposed to pastoralists.  Given that the resources and the land used by the farmers were formerly part of the grazing resources by the long distance transhumant pastoralists, conflicts over resource access are currently on the increase.  Loss of the key grazing resources to the farmers is sparking off confrontation between the two production systems.  Furthermore, the traditional regulative processes of utilizing crop residues by the livestock of the pastoralists and the mutual use of the resource have broken down.  This has accelerated land degradation and loss of biodiversity.  Reversing land degradation and conserving biodiversity requires reduced land use conflicts.  The different categories of stakeholders will participate in establishing amicable mechanisms of resource use and promoting conservation of biodiversity.  The communities are interested in rational use of the land for grazing and farming. 

15.	From an institutional and organisational point of view, diverse community-based groups and associations, such as co-operatives, women’s groups, youth groups, and herders’ associations, have interests in ensuring more sustainable use and management of natural resources. Many NGOs work closely with these community-based organisations (CBOs).  The NGOs have considerable experience in various domains related to natural resource management, awareness-raising and extension, training, participatory rural appraisal and planning, and monitoring and evaluation, which will be very useful for the project.

Stakeholders and the Decision-Making Process

16.	The local communities and the NGOs will be involved in the decision-making processes of the project at various levels.  The project will have representatives of these stakeholders on the Regional Project Steering Committee (RPSC) (one community representative from each of the participating countries). The RPSC will be responsible for providing overall policy guidance for the implementation of project activities in all the project sites. Community representatives and NGOs will also play important roles in the National Advisory Group, which will be established in each of the participating countries. This mechanism will review and advice on implementation procedures and strategies and project progress. 

17.	Project implementation on the ground will be the mandate of the project staff, the rural population and NGOs with support from government officials. The rural communities and NGOs will be further involved in a self-monitoring and evaluation exercise in order to contribute to overall project decision making.  Guidelines will be drawn for contracting NGOs, and local Research and Training Institutions in order to provide support to rural Communities.  Local interests will be further reinforced by the participation of elected members of National Assemblies and elected local leaders. 

18.	At the community level stakeholder participation and the decision-making process will build on existing indigenous structures.  This will necessitate the strengthening of community based representative committees and Community Environment Management Committees where they exist.  These mechanisms will take full responsibility for managing the implementation of specific elements of the project (i.e rehabilitating degraded areas of indigenous vegetation).  A participatory approach, utilizing indigenous knowledge and geared towards improved natural resource management will be the main means for achieving biodiversity conservation and halting land degradation.  There will be active participation of different stakeholders in all aspects of the project appraisal, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Social Issues and Impact on Beneficiaries

19.	The project will have a positive impact on different categories of beneficiaries, such as through the strengthening of indigenous management systems and structures, upgrading of their technical and management capacities, improvement of the natural resource management systems, generation of alternative livelihood options, and improvement of livestock production and marketing.  The project will also facilitate the exchange and assimilation of resource management techniques between different regions of Africa.

20.	Project implementation will, however, need to be cognate of potential conflicts between different resource users, such as sedentary farmers vs. transhumant herders, or the displacement of resource users through agreements to protect certain sites through an exclusion of use. The project is designed in such a way to overcome such potential conflict through negotiation mechanisms and the development of partnership conventions between the communities, user groups and/or governments. 

21.	Direct beneficiaries of the project will include the rural population – women, men and youth living in the project areas. Particular emphasis will be placed on the role of women as “agricultural keepers” – maintaining subsistence and/or commercial fields More specifically, it is estimated that the project will directly impact on over 180 000 persons in the project demonstration sites. In Mali, the total population affected directly is 100,000 people, 50% of which are transhumants. In Kenya, a total of 60,000 people, of which 50% are transhumants, are affected, and in Botswana the total population directly targeted is 20,000, none of which are transhumants. The project will work with these communities with the view of strengthening indigenous management systems, and developing land use/resource-management activities. The local stakeholders living in these communities will benefit from increased control over their natural resources as well as training, technology transfer, and development of skills.  Opportunities will also be provided for the local stakeholders to benefit from techniques and methodologies being employed in various other parts of Africa, which can be applied in their own local situations.  These activities will lead to improved rangeland and indigenous vegetation management, building of local organisational capacities and biodiversity conservation.  In addition, long-term benefits will accrue to stakeholders in other parts of the arid/semi-arid zones of Africa once the project results are replicated.

22.	Secondary groups of beneficiaries can be identified beyond the target communities. Other rural communities in the adjacent areas will also benefit, as the project plans to diffuse information and lessons learnt on a broader scale, through the mass media involving the use of photography, newsletters, videos, television, radio and the use of demonstration sites and various types of competitions. The technical staff of relevant government agencies, NGOs, and other development partners in the project areas, will benefit from training, equipment and logistical support, so that they can better assist the populations and facilitate natural resource management efforts.  The three governments will benefit from increased collaboration, sharing of information, experiences and technology transfer. In addition, long-term benefits will accrue to stakeholders in other parts of the arid/semi-arid zones of Africa once the project results are replicated.  The technical staff of relevant government agencies, NGOs and other development partners in the project areas, will benefit from training, equipment and logistical support, so that they can better assist the populations and facilitate natural resource management efforts. The three governments will benefit from increased collaboration, sharing of information, experiences and technology transfer.

23.	In addition, in the research institutes and universities, such as the universities of Moi and Nairobi in Kenya, Egerton, University of Botswana, University of Oslo, Agriculture University of Norway and Higher education institutions in Mali will benefit from enhanced collaboration in scientific work.  This enhanced collaboration between these institutions will also create a number of opportunities for students in the participating countries to benefit from student exchanges and training at various levels through the University of Oslo.  The collaboration between these institutions will also facilitate collaborative research with direct community involvement and will therefore provide a strong basis for integrating modern scientific approaches with traditional ones.

Table 3.1: Stakeholder involvement in different phases of the project.

PROJECT INVOLVEMENT	
Local Population	
Admin	
NGOs	
Comm.
Groups	
Co-ops/
EIG	
Projects	
Tech. Services	
Research & Training Institutions	
Private Sector	

F	
SP	
T	
W	
Y	
FU	
CL	

	

	

PREPARATION	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
++	
+	
++	
+++	
+	
+	
++	
++	
+	

IMPLEMENTATION (by component)	

	

	

	

	

	

1. ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE INDIGENOUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND IN-SITU BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+++	
	
++	
+++	
++	
	
+	
	
+	

2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARID ZONE DATABASE AND GIS	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
++	
+	
++	

++	
+	
+	

3. REHABILITATION
OF INDIGENOUS VEGETATION	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+
+	
	
+++	
++++	
+++	
	
++	
++	
++	

4. IMPROVED LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND MARKETING, AND PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS	
+	
+
+
+	
+
+
+	
+
+
+	
+	
+	
+
+
+	
	
++	
+++	
+++	
	
+++	
+	
+	

5. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TRAINING	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
++	
++	
+++	
+++	
++	
	
++	
+++	
++	

6. TARGETED RESEARCH	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
+	
++	
++	
+++	
++	
+	
++	
++++
 +	

EVALUATION	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+
+	
+++	
++	
++	
++	
	
++	
+++	

Legend: F=Farmers, SP=Sedentary Pastoralists, T= Transhumants, FU=Forest Users, CL= Community Users, W=Women, 	Y=Youth, Co-op= Co-operatives, EIG=Economic Interest Groups.

Note: The number of + indicates the intensity of intervention by each stakeholder group.
ANNEX VI. TARGETED RESEARCH OVERVIEW (examples of topics that might be worked on)

Components
	Targeted Research Outputs 	Targeted Research Activities	
			
1. Establishment of appropriate indigenous management systems, and in-sity biodiversity conservation.	Management of indigenous vegetation strengthened and community capacity building achieved. 

Capacity for self reliance and project evaluation developed at the community level.
	•	Develop participatory planning methods. 
•	Develop community participatory action plans.
•	Develop community biodiversity registers.
•	Develop community herbaria.
•	Develop community assessment methods.	
2. Establishment of arid/semi-arid zone biodatabase and GIS.	Information made available for different stakeholder participants and for comparative regional replications.

Community capacity for decision making strengthened and technological transfers achieved.	•	Establish database on natural resource management.
•	Develop capacity within country on transfer of GIS technology.
•	Evaluate use of GIS for Technological transfer to the local communities.
•	Co-ordinate analysis and write up of raw data existing in local archives/ synthesize  information for management of natural resources.	
3. Rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation	Rehabilitation of degraded indigenous vegetation achieved.

Community participation increased.

Scientific and indigenous knowledge systems integrated to improve management of indigenous vegetation.

Soil loss reduced and mobile dunes fixed.

Threats of wildfires reduced.	•	Demonstrate management of degraded indigenous vegetation using:
•	natural regeneration;
•	re-seeding;
•	water harvesting techniques for tree planting;
•	development of soil stabilisation methods.

•	Conduct monitoring.
•	Establish fire management techniques.	
4. Improvement of livestock production and marketing, and provision of alternative livelihoods.	Participation in alternative livelihood technologies increased.

Information on marketing made accessible to the communities.

Development of livestock marketing policies facilitated.

Economics of fodder grown by irrigation demonstrated.

Improved wild cereal breeds selected.	•	Demonstrate alternative livelihoods for agro-pastoralists.
•	Provide information on marketing of goods and services from demonstration sites.
•	Develop livestock and range products marketing policy.
•	Demonstrate growing of fodder by irrigation on trial basis.
•	Select suitable forage plants and wild cereals for improved breeding.
	
5. Technology transfer, training and comparative learning 	Establishment of information exchange systems.

Comparative information promotes replication of the project results elsewhere in the arid zones of Africa.

Communities provided with new skills, which increases the sustainability of the project.

Learning exchanged by community participants.

Information on regional project improved.

Local scientists provided with opportunities to compare experiences with other scientists elsewhere.

Manpower development achieved and continuity of the project guaranteed.	•	Sharing of experiences between demonstration sites on outcomes of management practices.
•	Synthesis of information for purposes of regional comparisons.
•	Provide community stakeholders with  skills regarding improved management of natural resources.
•	Conduct workshops, study visits, talks and participatory demonstrations. 
•	Conduct annual scientific seminars.
•	Facilitate visits to local and international Universities by researchers from the countries.
•	Organise training at M.Sc. and PhD levels through the University of Oslo.	

ANNEX 1. Budget in UNEP format
UNEP BUDGET FOR THE REGIONAL COORDINATION UNIT, SUB-CONTRACTS 			
WITH UNDP COUNTRY OFFICES AND UNEP PARTICIPATION COST				
							
10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	      Total	
							
1100 Project Personnel	        $	        $	        $	        $	        $	        $	
1101 Regional Coordinator	36,000	36360	39996	43995.6	48395.16	204,747	
1102 Technical Expert	36,000	36360	39996	43995.6	48395.16	204,747	
1199 Total	72,000	72,720	79,992	87,991	96,790	409,494	
1200 Consultants							
1201 Land management	10,000	5,000	10,000	5,000	5,000	35,000	
1202 Water reosurces management	10,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	30,000	
1204 Methods of dissemination	0	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	20,000	
1220 Consultants	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	10,000	
1299 Total	22,000	17,000	22,000	17,000	17,000	95,000	
1300 Administrative support							
1301 Admin/Secretary	18,000	18180	19998	21997.8	24197.58	102,373	
1302 Driver	6,000	6060	6666	7332.6	8065.86	34,124	
1320 Overtime	1,200	1,200	1,200	1,200	1,200	6,000	
1321 Temporary assistance	500	500	500	500	500	2,500	
1322 Conference Services	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	25,000	
1399 Total	30,700	30,940	33,364	36,030	38,963	169,998	
1600 Travel on official business							
1601 Mission to Oslo	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	25,000	
1602 Mission to sites	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	50,000	
1699 Total	15,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	75,000	
1999 Component total	139,700	135,660	150,356	156,022	167,754	749,491	
							
20 SUB CONTRACT COMPONENT							
							
2100 Sub-contracts  (MoU's/LA's for UN cooperating agencies)					
2101 Sub-contract with UNDP/Botswana*	446,971	461,071	472,599	472,501	433,449	2,286,591	
2102 Sub-contract with UNDP/Kenya*	427,152	405,328	496,330	517,171	505,580	2,351,561	
2103 Sub-contract with UNDP/Mali*	1,264,593	540,968	325,596	262,125	239,965	2,633,247	
2199 Total	2,138,716	1,407,367	1,294,525	1,251,797	1,178,994	7,271,399	
2200 Sub-contracts (MoU's/LA's for non-profit supporting organizations)				
2201 Transfer of technologies	10,000	5,000	10,000	5,000	10,000	40,000	
2202 Tranfer of energy savings 	0	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	20,000	
2203 Recy. of biomass techno	0	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	20,000	
2204 Mass-media campaigns	10,000	5,653	5,653	5,653	10,000	36,959	
2205 Environmental education	20,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	15,000	65,000	
2299 Total	40,000	30,653	35,653	30,653	45,000	181,959	
2999 Component total	2,178,716	1,438,020	1,330,178	1,282,450	1,223,994	7,453,358	
							
30 Research and Training Component (co-financed by University of Oslo)				
							
3100 Scientific assessments, monitoring and evaluation						
3101 RCU, University of Oslo and UNEP	30,000	20,000	30,000	30,000	40,000	150,000	
3199 Total	30,000	20,000	30,000	30,000	40,000	150,000	
3301 RPSC Meetings	20,000	20,000	20,000	20,000	20,000	100,000	
3999 Component Total	30,000	20,000	30,000	30,000	40,000	250,000	
							
40 Equipment & Premises Component							
4100 Expendable Equipment							
4101 Vehicle operation and maintenance	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	25000	
4199 Total	5000	5000	5000	5000	5000	25000	
4200 Non-expendable equipment							
4201 Computers (3)	6,000					6000	
4202 Office equipment	20,000					20000	
4203 Video equipments	15,000					15000	
4220 Vehicles (2)	40,000					40000	
4299 Total	81,000					81000	
4300 Premises							
4301 Office rental including meeting room	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	50,000	
4302 Maintenance	100	200	500	500	500	1800	
4399 Total	10,100	10,200	10,500	10,500	10,500	51800	
4999 Component Total	96,100	15,200	15,500	15,500	15,500	157,800	
							
50 Miscellaneous Component							
5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment						
5101Computers	0	0	500	500	500	1500	
5102 Photocopy equipments	0	0	250	250	250	750	
5199 Total	0	0	750	750	750	2250	
5200 Reporting							
5201 Publication of newsletter	1,500	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	9,500	
5202 Printing of thematic maps	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	5,000	
5299 Total	2,500	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	14,500	
5300 Sundry							
5301 Communications 	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	30,000	
5302 Postage & pouch 	500	500	500	500	500	2,500	
5303 Freight & port clearance	10,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	14,000	
5304 Other							
5399 Total	16,500	7,500	7,500	7,500	7,500	46,500	
5400 Hospitality & entertainment							
5401 Hospitality reception	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500	12,500	
5499 Total	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500	12,500	
5999 Component total	21,500	13,000	13,750	13,750	13,750	75,750	
							
6000 UNEP PARTICIPATION COST							
6100 Project personnel (L4-post 18% of time)	10,520	10,520	10,520	10,520	10,520	52,600	
6160 Travel on official missions to sites	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	25,000	
6999 Total UNEP Participating Cost	15,520	15,520	15,520	15,520	15,520	77,600	
							
99 GRAND TOTAL	2,481,536	1,637,400	1,555,304	1,513,242	1,476,518	8,664,000	
* Later to be developed into sub-projects (see Annex 9 for country budgets)			

ANNEX 2

Organigram of the structure of the project

National Project Unit (NPU)
Mali

Regional Policy Steering Committee (RPSC)

Regional Coordination Unit (RCU)

National Project Unit (NPU)
Kenya

Marsabit Community Support Unit
(CSU)
0	

Turkana
Community Support Unit
(CSU)

Bamba Community Support Unit
(CSU)

Nara Community Support Unit
(CSU)

Bokspitz
Community Support Unit
(CSU)

Rakops
Community Support Unit (CSU)

National Project Unit (NPU)
Botswana

Lephephe
Community Support Unit
(CSU)

Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC)

ANNEX 3: FORMAT FOR CASH ADVANCE STATEMENT
0	cash advance statement
Statement of cash advance as at ..............................................................................
And cash requirements for the quarter of ..................................................................

Name of cooperating agency/
Supporting organization	___________________________________________
Project No.	___________________________________________
Project title	___________________________________________

I.	Cash statement
1. Opening cash balance as at .........................	US$ __________________
2. Add: cash advances received:
	Date		                Amount
...............................................                        ............................................
...............................................                        ............................................
...............................................                       ............................................
...............................................                       ............................................
3. Total cash advanced to date		US$ __________________
4. Less: total cumulative expenditures incurred	US$ (_________________)
5. Closing cash balance as at ...........................		US$ __________________
II.	Cash requirements forecast
6. Estimated disbursements for quarter
	ending .........................................................		US$ __________________
7. Less: closing cash balance (see item 5, above)		US$ (_________________)
8. Total cash requirements for the ...................	
	quarter .........................................................		US$ __________________

Prepared by______________________      Request approved by_______________________
				Duly authorized official of 					cooperating agency/ supporting 				organization

ANNEX 4: FORMAT OF QUARTERLY PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Quarterly project statement of allocation (budget), expenditure and balance (Expressed in US$) covering the period
............................ to ..............................
Project No. .................................................	Supporting Organization ................................................................
Project title: .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Project commencing: ................................		Project ending: .....................................
                                                  (date)                                                                                                                          (date)
Object of expenditure by UNEP budget code	Project budget	Expenditure incurred	Unspent balance of budget	
	allocation for year.........	for the quarter .................	Cumulative expenditures this year ...................	allocation for year ............	
	m/m
(1)	Amount
(2)	m/m
(3)	Amount
(4)	m/m
(5)	Amount
(6)	m/m
(7)	Amount
(2)-(6)	
1100	Project personnel									
1200	Consultants									
1300	Administrative support									
1400	Volunteers									
1600	Travel									
2100	Sub-contracts									
2200	Sub-contracts									
2300	Sub-contracts									
3100	Fellowships									
3200	Group training									
3300	Fellowships									
4100	Expendable equipment									
4200	Non-expendable equipment									
4300	Premises									
5100	Operation									
5200	Reporting costs									
5300	Sundry									
5400	Hospitality									
99 GRAND TOTAL								
	Signed: _____________________________________________________
Duly authorized official of supporting organization		
NB: The expenditure should be reported in line with the specific object of expenditures as per project budget
ANNEX 5: Format of Six-Monthly Progress Report to UNEP

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT

SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1	Project Title: ________________________________________________________________________________

1.2	Project Number:   ____________________________________________________________________________

1.3	Responsible Office: (PAC/Unit/Branch)   _________________________________________________________

1.4	Coordinating Agency or  Supporting Organization (if relevant):
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.5	Reporting Period: (the six months covered by this report)   ___________________________________________

1.6	1.6	Relevant UNEP Programme of Work Component Number: (3 digits)   ___________________________

SECTION 2 - PROJECT STATUS

2.1	Status of the Implementation of the Activities and Outputs Listed Under the Workplan in the Project 	Document (check appropriate box)

		Project activities and outputs listed in the Project workplan for the reporting period have been materially  			completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on time (give 			reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).

		Project activities and outputs  listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altered 			(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at Section 3 			below).

		Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully 			completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section 3.1 and new 			completion date in Section 3.2 below).

		Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.

2.2	List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period:
				(please tick appropriate box)
	
(a)  MEETINGS (UNEP‑convened meetings only)
  Inter-governmental (IG) mtg	  Expert Group Mtg. 	   Training Seminar/Workshop
  Others
Title:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Venue and dates_____________________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ___________________________________   Organized by ________________________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________  Languages ________________  Dated _________________________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate:  No. of participants _____________  and attach annex giving names and nationalities of participants.

(b) PRINTED MATERIALS
  Report to IG Mtg.	  Technical Publication  	  Technical Report	  Others
Title:  _____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Author(s)/Editor(s)  __________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher   _________________________________________________________________________________________
Symbol (UN/UNEP/ISBN/ISSN)  _______________________________________________________________________
Date of publication  __________________________________________________________________________________
(When technical reports/publications have been distributed, attach distribution list)

(c)     TECHNICAL INFORMATION 		  PUBLIC INFORMATION
Description   ________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dates  ____________________________________________________________________________________________

(d) TECHNICAL COOPERATION
  Grants and Fellowships		  Advisory Services
  Staff Missions			  Others (describe)
Purpose  ___________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Place and duration   __________________________________________________________________________________
For Grants/Fellowships, please indicate:
Beneficiaries 	Countries/Nationalities 	Cost(in US$)
___________________	___________________	__________________
___________________	___________________	__________________
___________________	___________________	__________________
___________________	___________________	__________________

(e) SERVICES
Description   ________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________  Dates  _____________________

(f)  OTHER OUTPUTS
For example, Centre of excellence, Network, Environmental Academy, Convention, Protocol,
University chair, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 3 - PROJECT DELIVERY

3.1	Summary of the Problems Encountered in Project Delivery (if any)  
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2	Actions Taken or Required to Solve the Problems (identified in Section 3.1 above)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 6 – FORMAT OF QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL REPORT TO GEF

1.	IDENTIFIERS

Country:			-

Project Title:			
Focal Area:			

Implementing Agency:	
GEF Funding:			
Co-funding (cash):		

Co-funding (Core budget
		in-kind):	

Co-funding (off budget 
		in-kind):	 

2.	FINANCIAL STATUS

[Commitment and disbursement data as of the date of the report]

3.	IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

[Statement of progress of the project components in relation to agreements or plans. Assessment of Overall status. Report on the reasons, in the event of delays, cost over-run or positive deviations]

4.	ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

[Assessment of likelihood that project objectives will be achieved.]

5.	SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF FACTORS RELATING TO THE BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA.

ANNEX 7: FORMAT FOR TERMINAL REPORT

1.	Project Title: 

2.	Project Number: (include number of latest revision)

3.	UNEP Programme of Work Component Number: (3 digits)
	Include a statement of how effective the project has been in attaining this component and its contribution to overall Subprogramme implementation

4.	Performance Indicators:
	UNEP Programme of Work: {State the relevant Performance Indicators (with the Quantity figure) from the Programme of Work, and compare against actual results}

5.	Scope:

6.	Duration:
	(a)	Initial {(as indicated in the original project document)
		List day/month/year of start and end of project.
		List project duration in terms of total months}.
	(b)	Actual {(as indicated in the latest project revision)
		List day/month/year of start and end of the project.
		List project duration in terms of total months}.
	(c)	Reasons for the variance {When there is a difference between the initial and actual duration, list the consecutive project revisions (number and date of approval), and summarize justification for each revision}.

7.	Cost:
	(a)	Initial {(as indicated in the project document)
		List the total project cost (UNEP and "Others") and give breakdown by funding source.  Give actual figures and contribution in terms of percentages}.
	(b)	Actual {(as indicated in the latest project revision)
		List the total project cost (UNEP and "Others" and give breakdown by funding source.  Give actual figures and contribution in terms of percentages}.
	(c)	Reasons for the variance  {(When there is a difference between the initial and actual cost, list the consecutive project revisions (number and date of approval) involved in amending the project costs.  List any other reasons for discrepancy}.
	(d)	Relate expenditure to achievement of outputs (e.g. 100% expenditure and 82% output completion).

8.	Needs:
	(a)	Identified needs (as indicated in the original project document).
	(b)	Satisfied/realized needs (List needs fulfilled due to implementation of the project).

9.	Results:
	(a)	Expected Results (as indicated in the original project document).
	(b)	Actual Results (indicate actual results achieved/attained from project implementation).
	(c)	Reasons for the variance (state the reasons for the difference between expected and actual results).
	(d)	State corrective action(s) to be taken.

10.	Outputs:
	(a)	Expected Outputs (as indicated in the original project document).
	(b)	Actual Outputs (List actual outputs resulting from project implementation emphasizing activities undertaken.
	(c)	Reasons for the variance (state reasons for the difference between expected and actual outputs).
	(d)	State corrective action(s) to be taken.

11.	What are the catalytic effects of the project on other agencies or governments?
	(a)	intellectual:
	(b)	financial:

12.	Describe the problems encountered during project implementation:
Problems:	Causes:	Consequences:	
(a) Substantial/Programmatic
			
(b) Institutional
			
(c) Financial
			
13.	Lessons learned from the achievement and/or weaknesses of the project:

14	Recommendations:
	Make recommendations to:
	(a)	improve effect and impact of similar projects in the future;
	(b)	indicate what further action might be needed to meet the project needs/results.

15.	Further follow-up action required: 
(a) Action Required:		(b) Responsible unit(s):	(c) Schedule:

16.	Evaluated by:		
Name and position of Evaluator:

_______________________________
Date:___________________________

17. Approved by:

Name of Programme Manager/Regional Director:	Chief, Project Design and Evaluation Unit:
________________________________		__________________________________
Date:____________________________		Date:______________________________

ANNEX 8
UNEP
INVENTORY OF NON-EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT PURCHASED AGAINST UNEP PROJECTS
UNIT VALUE US$1,500 AND ABOVE AND ITEMS OF ATTRACTION
Period end date:

Project No.:  ________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Title:  _______________________________________________________________________________________

Implementing Agency:  _______________________________________________________________________________

Internal/SO/CA (UNEP use only)________________________________________________________________________

FPMO (UNEP) use only)  

Description	Serial No.	Date of Purchase	Original Price
(US$)	Present Condition	Location	Remarks/recommendation for disposal	

							

							

							
							
The physical verification of the items was done by:

Name:  __________________________				Signature:  ____________________________

Title:   ___________________________				Date:  ________________________________

ANNEX 9: Sub-contracts with UNDP
Country budgets in UNDP format

BOTSWANA BUDGET FOR INDIGENOUS VEGEGATION	
								
Description	I.A.	Total	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	
PROJECT PERSONNEL								
International Experts & Consultants						
Consultant - Indigenous Management	NEX	20,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
Consultant - Range Rehabilitation	NEX	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
Consultant - Livestock Marketing	NEX	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
Consultant - Dissemination	NEX	4,000		2,000	2,000			
Consultant - Short-term consultants	NEX	10,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
Line Total	----------	74,000	6,000	18,000	18,000	16,000	16,000	
Admin. Support Personnel								
Admin Secretary	NEX	68,248	12,000	12,120	13,332	14,665	16,131	
Driver  1	NEX	34,123	6,000	6,060	6,666	7,332	8,065	
Driver 2	NEX	34,123	6,000	6,060	6,666	7,332	8,065	
Driver 3	NEX	34,123	6,000	6,060	6,666	7,332	8,065	
Temporary Assistant	NEX	5,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
Line Total	----------	175,617	31,000	31,300	34,330	37,661	41,326	
Duty Travel								
Duty Travel	NEX	10,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
Line Total	----------	10,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
Mission Costs								
Missions to RCU	NEX	5,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
Int. Exchange Visits	NEX	20,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000		
Line Total	----------	25,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	1,000	
National Professionals								
National Project Leader	NEX	136,497	24,000	24,240	26,664	29,330	32,263	
CSU Manager 1	NEX	61,211	12,000	12,120	12,241	12,363	12,487	
CSU Manager 2	NEX	61,211	12,000	12,120	12,241	12,363	12,487	
CSU Manager 3	NEX	61,211	12,000	12,120	12,241	12,363	12,487	
Consultant - Evaluation	NEX	13,000			6,000		7,000	
Line Total	----------	333,130	60,000	60,600	69,387	66,419	76,724	
COMPONENT TOTAL	----------	617,747	105,000	117,900	129,717	128,080	137,050	
SUBCONTRACTS								
Subcontract A								
Transfer of Technologies	NEX	81,000	9,000	18,000	18,000	18,000	18,000	
Sub-contract B								
Transfer of Energy Savings	NEX	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
Sub-contract C								
Biomass technology	NEX	55,000		15,000	15,000	15,000	10,000	
Sub-contract D								
Mass Media Campaigns	NEX	20,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
Sub-contract E								
Environmental Education	NEX	20,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
Sub-contract F								
Indigenous Mgt Systems	NEX	256,972	44,000	60,000	56,000	60,000	36,972	
Sub-contract G								
Arid Zone Biodatabase	NEX	85,000	17,000	17,000	17,000	17,000	17,000	
Rehab. of Indigenous Veg.	NEX	510,000	90,000	110,000	110,000	110,000	90,000	
Livestock Prod. and Marketing	NEX	135,000	27,000	27,000	27,000	27,000	27,000	
COMPONENT TOTAL	----------	1,182,972	195,000	260,000	256,000	260,000	211,972	
TRAINING								
Group Training								
Seminars/Study Tours	NEX	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
Community Stakeholders	NEX	70,000	10,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	
Conferences & Meetings								
Community Policy Meetings	NEX	14,000	2,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	
Conferences & Meetings								
Technical Meetings	NEX	10,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
Conference Services	NEX	20,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
COMPONENT TOTAL	----------	134,000	18,000	29,000	29,000	29,000	29,000	
EQUIPMENT								
Local Procurement of Equipment							
Equipment	NEX	218,372	103,471	28,171	27,882	29,421	29,427	
COMPONENT TOTAL	----------	218,372	103,471	28,171	27,882	29,421	29,427	
MISCELLANEOUS								
Reporting Costs								
Reports including Audit	NEX	13,500	1,500	2,000	6,000	2,000	2,000	
Newsletter	NEX	10,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
Maps	NEX	5,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
Sundries	NEX	25,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
Support Services	NEX	80,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL	----------	133,500	25,500	26,000	30,000	26,000	26,000	
BUDGET TOTAL	----------	2,286,591	446,971	461,071	472,599	472,501	433,449	

	NATIONAL PROJECT BUDGET: KENYA (US$)				
								
B.L.	DESCRIPTION	TOTAL	 2001 	 2002 	 2003 	 2004 	 2005 	
10	PROJECT PERSONNEL							
11	International consultants							
 11-01	Range Rehabilitation	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
11_02	Livestock marketing	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
11_99	Sub Total	40,000		10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	
13	Adminstrative Support							
13_01	Admin/Secretaries(3)	68,249	12,000	12,120	13,332	14,665	16,132	
13_02	Driver(3)	62,645	10,800	10,808	11,999	14,519	14,519	
13_03	Overtime	2,500	500	500	500	500	500	
13_04	Temporary assistance	2,500	500	500	500	500	500	
13_05	Administrative Assistants	81,898	14,400	14,544	15,998	17,598	19,358	
13_99	Sub Total	217,792	38,200	38,472	42,329	47,782	51,009	
15	Monitoring and Evaluation							
15_01	Evaluation	18,000	1,000	2,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
15-99	Sub Total	18,000	1,000	2,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
16	Mission Costs							
16_01	Mission to RCU	25,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
16_02	Mission to sites	25,000	5,400	5,400	5,400	4,400	4,400	
16_99	 Sub Total	58,330	12,066	12,066	12,066	11,066	11,066	
17_00	 NationalProfessionals/Consultants						
17_01	National Progect Manager	136,497	24,000	24,240	26,664	29,330	32,263	
17_02	National Project Liaison Officer	95,548	16,800	16,968	18,665	20,531	22,584	
17_03	Field Officer(2)	136,497	24,000	24,240	26,664	29,330	32,263	
17_04	Indigenous Mgt.Systems	25,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
17_05	Methods of dissemination	4,000		2,000	2,000			
17-99	Sub-Total	397,542	69,800	72,448	78,993	84,191	92,110	
19	COMPONENT TOTAL	731,667	121,066	134,986	148,388	158,039	169,188	
20	CONTRACTS							
22	Sub Contracts							
 22_01	Transfer of technologies	53,000	3,000	8,000	10,000	14,000	18,000	
 22_02	Transfer of energy savings	18,000		4,500	4,500	4,500	4,500	
22_03	Recy.of biomass technology	45,000	0	13,000	13,000	15,000	4,000	
22_04	Mass media campaigns	15,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	
22_05	Environment Education	15,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	
22_06	Indigenous Mgt.systems	180,000	15,000	25,000	35,000	60,000	45,000	
22_07	Arid zone bio-database	70,000		18,000	28,000	12,000	12,000	
22_08	Rehab. Of Indigenous Veg.	450,000	20,000	70,000	120,000	120,000	120,000	
22_09	Livestock prod.& Marketing	210,000	35,000	40,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	
29	COMPONENT TOTAL	1,056,000	79,000	184,500	261,500	276,500	254,500	
30	Group Training							
32_01	Study tours/exchange visits	20,000		5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	
32_02	Participation/Extension services	70,000	10,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	
32_03	Workshop/Seminars	61,102	11,102	15,000	15,000	10,000	10,000	
32_04	Community policy meetings	14,000	2,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	
32_05	Multi-displinary team meetings	18,000	2,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
32-99	Sub-Total	183,102	25,102	42,000	42,000	37,000	37,000	
39	COMPONENT TOTAL	183,102	25,102	42,000	42,000	37,000	37,000	
40	Equipment and premises							
45	Equipment							
45_01	Office supplies	6,550	2,000	1,500	1,050	1,000	1,000	
45_02	 Library Acquisitions	2,500	500	500	500	500	500	
45_03	Computer software	4,000	1,000	500	500	1,000	1,000	
45_04	Office equipments	18,333	18,333					
45_05	Maintenance of premises	9,582	2,102	1,460	1,760	2,500	1,760	
45_06	Photocopying equipment	10,000	10,000					
45_07	Operations and Maintanance	2,250			750	750	750	
45_08	Fuel/Operations maintenanceof vehicles	46,910	9,382	9,382	9,382	9,382	9,382	
45_09	Computer (6)	18,000	18,000					
45_10	Video equipment	10,000	10,000					
45_11	Vehicles(3)	90,000	90,000					
49	COMPONENT TOTAL	218,125	161,317	13,342	13,942	15,132	14,392	
50	Miscellaneous Component							
52	Reporting							
52_01	Reporting including audit	9,500	1,500	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000	
52_02	Publication of newsletterss	20,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	
52-03	Printing of Thematic Maps	5,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
52-99	Sub-Total	34,500	6,500	7,000	7,000	7,000	7,000	
53-	Sundries							
53_01	Communications	30,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	
53_02	Postage and Pouch	2,500	500	500	500	500	500	
53_03	Freight and port clearance	24,000	20,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
54	Support Services	80,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	
53-99	Sub-Total	136,500	42,500	23,500	23,500	23,500	23,500	
59-	COMPONENT TOTAL	170,500	49,000	30,000	30,500	30,500	30,500	
99-	GRAND TOTAL	2,351,561	427,152	405,328	496,330	517,171	505,580	
								
100	Cost-sharing							
101	Government contribution							
101_01	Office Rental	110,000	22,000	22,000	22,000	22,000	22,000	
101_02	Tax exemption	40,000	40,000					
101_03	Technical Services at the districts	150,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	
101-04	Community Contibution	250,000	50,000	50,000	50,000	50,000	50,000	
 109 	COMPONENT TOTAL	550,000	142,000	102,000	102,000	102,000	102,000	
999	PROJECT TOTAL	2,901,561	569,152	507,328	598,330	619,171	607,580	

MALI	PROJECT NUMBER: 							
								
BL	DESCRIPTION	TOTAL	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	
								
10	PROJECT PERSONNEL							
11	International Experts							
11-01	International Consultant (8m/m)	0	0					
11-2	Water Resources (2m/m)	19,800	9,900	9,900				
11-03	Land Resources (2m/m)	9,900	9,900					
11-04	Energy Resources (2 m/m)	19,800		9,900	9,900			
11-05	Remote Sensing (1 m/m)	9,900	9,900					
11-05	GIS Data Base (1 m/m)	9,900		9,900				
11-06	Animal Feed, Veterinarian (2 m/m)	9,900		9,900				
11-07	Other Consultants (2 m/m)	19,800			9,900	9,900		
11-99	Sub-Total	99,000	29,700	39,600	19,800	9,900	0	
13	Administrative Support							
13-01	Administrative Support 	154,334	29,914	30,028	30,703	31,441	32,248	
13-02	Overtime	8,570	1,714	1,714	1,714	1,714	1,714	
13-99	Sub-Total	162,904	31,628	31,742	32,417	33,155	33,962	
15	Monitoring & Evaluation							
15-01	Mission to RCU	21,430	4,286	4,286	4,286	4,286	4,286	
15-02	Mission to and from sites	8,570	1,714	1,714	1,714	1,714	1,714	
15-99	Sub-Total	30,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	
16	Mission Costs							
16-01	Evaluation	17,142	1,714	2,571	5,143	2,571	5,143	
16-99	Sub-Total	17,142	1,714	2,571	5,143	2,571	5,143	
17	National Consultants							
17-01	National Project Leader	116,997	20,571	20,777	22,855	25,140	27,654	
17-02	CSU Manager Bamba	52,467	10,286	10,389	10,492	10,597	10,703	
17-03	CSU Manager Nara	52,467	10,286	10,389	10,492	10,597	10,703	
17-04	Field Officer	83,949	16,457	16,622	16,788	16,956	17,126	
17-05	Conference Services	10,715	2,143	2,143	2,143	2,143	2,143	
17-06	National Consultants	20,570	4,114	4,114	4,114	4,114	4,114	
17-99	Sub-Total	337,165	63,857	64,434	66,884	69,547	72,443	
19	COMPONENT TOTAL	646,211	132,899	144,347	130,244	121,173	117,548	
20	CONTRACTS							
21	Land Resources Management							
21-01	Rehabilitation with indigenous vegetation	176,207	89,480	22,242	22,243	42,242		
21-02	Establishment of folder banks	171,144	59,429	80,858	30,857			
21-03	Grazing and water points control	7,925	1,585	1,585	1,585	1,585	1,585	
22	Water Resources Management	446,492	333,599	112,893				
23	Aerial Surveys (2*2)	66,667	33,334				33,333	
24	Pilot sites surveys (topography etc…)	37,500	37,500					
25	Establishment of GIS	151,100	100,000	51,100				
21-99	Sub-Total	1,057,035	654,927	268,678	54,685	43,827		
29	COMPONENT TOTAL	1,057,035	654,927	268,678	54,685	43,827	34,918	
30	TRAINING							
32	Other Training							
32-01	Monitoring, Evaluation & Research							
	Funded by RCU Budget & NPU running costs						
	(p. m.)							
45	EQUIPMENT							
45-02	Non-Expendable Equipment							
45-02-01	Vehicles (1 station wagon, 2 pick-up, 1MB 4x4 	170,154	143,040		27,114			
	or Unimog, 2*2 motorcycles)							
45-02-02	Office Equipment	32,975	32,975					
45-02-03	Technical Equipment	199,500	164,072	19,000	16,428			
45-02-04	Transport and draught animals	10,431	10,431					
45-03	Operations (incl. Maintenance & communication)	363,134	91,742	73,443	66,125	66,125	65,699	
45-99	Sub-Total	776,194	442,260	92,443	109,667	66,125	65,699	
49	COMPONENT TOTAL	776,194	442,260	92,443	109,667	66,125	65,699	
50	MISCELLANEOUS							
51	Sundries	5,007	1,007	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
52	Reporting including Audit	4,500	500	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
52-01	Publication of newsletter	9,300	1,000	1,500	2,000	2,000	2,800	
52-02	Printing of thematic maps	5,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	
54	Support Services	80,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	
50-99	Sub-Total	9,507	1,507	2,000	2,000	2,000	1,000	
59	COMPONENT TOTAL	103,807	19,507	20,500	21,000	21,000	21,800	
70	Microcapital Grants (community revolving fund)	50,000	15,000	15,000	10,000	10,000		
99	GRAND TOTAL	2,633,247	1,264,593	540,968	325,596	262,125	239,965	
	2,633,247