Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Transboundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Project in the Kagera Basin : Rwanda, Burundi,

Uganda and Tanzania

Prepared by Janie Rioux, Natural Resources/M&E Consultant

Final Version Technically Cleared by the RPC and the LTU December 2011

2

Table of Contents

1. M&E PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. M&E OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................. 8

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ............................................................................................................................ 8

INDICATORS ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

3. M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT ....................................................................................................................... 13

BASELINE DATA AND METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 13

IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 15

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................................ 17

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 17

ANNEX 1: REVIEW OF TARGET INDICATORS BY PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................................................................... 19

ANNEX 2: M&E MATRIX .............................................................................................................................................. 26

ANNEX 3 : TARGET INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................... 41

ANNEX 4 : IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND THEMATIC STUDIES ................................................................................................... 44

ANNEX 5 : CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CATCHMENT AND SLM ACTION PLAN- REPORT TEMPLATE .......................................... 46

ANNEX 6: M&E REPORTING TEMPLATES ........................................................................................................................... 49

3

1. M&E PLAN

The M&E plan for the Kagera Transboundary Agroecosystem Management Project (KAGERA

TAMP) has been developed by the consultant in close collaboration with the Regional Project

Coordinator (RPC) and the four National Project Managers (NPMs) during collaborative and

participatory work sessions in Kigali (RPC and NPMs of Rwanda and Burundi), and in Bukoba

(NPMs of Tanzania and Uganda) during September 2011. Guidance and technical comments

were provided by the Lead Technical Officer and budget holder of the Kagera TAMP at NRL,

and will be provided if necessary by the GEF unit in TCI.

The M&E plan includes two components addressing the target indicators in the project log-

frame:

- M&E of Project Performance

Monitoring focuses on the management and supervision of project activities, seeking to

improve efficiency and overall effectiveness of project implementation. It is a continuous

process to collect information on actual implementation of project activities compared to

those scheduled in the annual work plans, including the delivery of quality outputs in a

timely manner, to identify problems and constraints (technical, human resource, and

financial), to make clear recommendations for corrective actions, and identify lessons

learned and best practices for scaling up, etc. Performance evaluation will assess the

project’s success in achieving its objectives. The project will be monitored closely by FAO

(LTU and GEF Unit) and by the Project Steering Committees through semi-annual reports,

quarterly implementation reviews, technical reports, and regular technical supervision

missions fielded as required to enhance success.

- M&E of project impact

Evaluation of the project’s success in achieving its outcomes will be monitored continuously

throughout the project. The key indicators can be found in the logical framework. The

indicators have been further reviewed/refined during the development of this M&E Plan, and

tools and methods and indicators for measuring impact have been be determined and

agreed to ensure that a standardized framework is shared by the four participating

countries.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The project’s long term environmental and development goal is to support the adoption of

integrated land resources management in the Kagera Basin to generate local, national and

global environmental and socio-economic benefits including : restoration of degraded

lands, carbon sequestration, climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, improved

agricultural production, and thereby, protection of international waters and improved food

security and rural livelihoods.

The project aims to reach this goal through four main components:

1. Transboundary coordination and information sharing to promote sustainable,

productive agro-ecosystems and restoration of degraded lands.

4

2. Enabling policy, planning and legislative conditions to support and facilitate the

sustainable management of agro-ecosystems and the restoration of degraded land.

3. Capacity and knowledge development at all levels to promote and support

sustainable management of land and agro-ecosystems in the basin.

4. Implementation of improved land and agro-ecosystem management practices

benefiting land users.

The transboundary issues on which the project focus are :

1. Control of soil erosion and sedimentation

2. Water management through rainwater harvesting and soil moisture management

3. Reduced pressures on wetlands and fragile lands

4. Control of bush fires and reduction of biomass burning and as a result reduced

Phosphorus deposition in Lake Victoria

5. Conservation of agro-biodiversity

6. Management of cross-border livestock movements and plant and animal diseases

7. Land use change and impacts on resources (including policy)

Transboundary (TB) issues are being addressed with stakeholders in the four countries and

through collaboration with large regional programs (NBI, LVEMP, VI-agroforestry,etc.). The

Kagera TAMP will not specifically address the following TB issues that were identified during

project development, notably: control of water hyacinth will be addressed by LVEMP-II ;

wildlife management and control through protected areas intervention ; and effects of water

quality on health by health and water sectors. Links with the wider TerrAfrica/SIP

programme will allow to share lessons learned.

The project participants and partners are located at different levels : local, national, regional

and global.

Table 1 : Project participants and partners at all levels

Levels Participants/Partners

Local - Farmers mainly subsistence farmers, but also intensive perennial banana-

coffee based farmers

- Pastoralists/Herders

- Households practicing a combination of farming or herding with fishing or

forestry activities

- Women and vulnerable groups

- Farmers groups and associations

- Local level leaders and decision makers

- District authorities and government bodies

National - National and international NGOs

- Researchers from national institutions

- The private sector

- The donor community and related projects

- FAO country offices

5

Regional - Nile Basin Initiative (NBI)

o Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme (NELSAP)

o Kagera Transboundary Integrated water resources management

project (TIWRMP)

- Lake Victoria Environmental Management Programme (LVEMP-II)

- Other regional programmes such as VI-Agroforestry (called VI-Life in

Rwanda), Africa 2000, IFDC, UNECA, ICRAF, CIAT etc.

Global - FAO (Land and Water Division-NRL, FAO-GEF Unit, Technical Cooperation

Department -TCI)*

- GEF (Global Environmental Facility)

FAO Country offices are directly involved in and provide support for project implementation

(workshops, LOAs, travel, budget allocations, etc.) Information is shared with FAO Sub-

regional Offices in Addis Ababa (responsible for Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda) and Harare

(responsible for Tanzania) through FPMIS (reports, delivery, etc), website and communications

with the regional land and water officers.

Kagera TAMP is funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) under its Land

Degradation focal area and Strategic Program (SP) for GEF-4. In line with SP1- Supporting

Sustainable Agriculture and Rangeland Management, and SP3- Investing in New and

Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Land Management the project focus is on restoration

of the health and functioning of the different agro-ecosystems in the Kagera basin through

promoting SLM at a catchment/community territory and wider transboundary levels. Land

degradation and SLM will be assessed and mapped across the Kagera basin to identify and

target measures to address soil erosion, loss of fertility, reduce runoff and sedimentation,

increase productivity of crop and grazing lands and improve forest/energy management, as

well as to improve well-being and livelihoods of land users.

Consistent with Strategic Objective-1 (SO-1) to develop an enabling environment for SLM

the project is working with communities and districts to demonstrate successful SLM

practices for crop, grazing and forest lands that can be integrated into relevant policies and

strategies. The planning and tenure situation as well as opportunities to incentivate SLM

through PES are being reviewed for carbon sequestration and water supply and plans will be

developed. Capacity development on SLM is being provided i) to farmers through setting up

FFS in the selected catchments and developing and implementing SLM action plans for

community territories; and ii) to district and national institutions to develop cross-sectoral

interventions and apply an integrated ecosystem approach and mainstream SLM in district

plans and budgets and national programmes. Agrobiodiversity management and climate

change adaptation and mitigation are being integrated into the work at farm and catchment

levels.

Consistent with SO-2 on demonstrating and up-scaling successful, innovative and cost-

effective SLM practices and investments the project is assessing and documenting SLM best

practices in the basin using rigorous technical methods to generate knowledge on cost-

benefits and impacts. Diverse types of incentive systems are being identified and it is

6

expected to promote SLM adoption through piloting PES for water, biodiversity and carbon

sequestration in suitable (demand-driven) identified scenarios. Links between security of

tenure and SLM are being identified and will be considered in a watershed/landscape

approach. The impacts of SLM interventions will be monitored to assess costs and benefits

in terms of reducing degradation and deforestation, enhancing productivity, increasing

resilience to and mitigating climate change and generation of livelihood benefits for land

users. Moreover, SLM techniques will be evaluated for their carbon sequestration capacity in

soils and biomass and scaled up through collaboration with Vi-agroforestry and others.

Reduction in erosion and sedimentation will be monitored in selected catchments. Capacity

building is being promoted through the farmer field school approach for adaptive

management of SLM practices and through community land use planning.

The GEF has prepared a land degradation tracking tool for the GEF-5 projects, which can be

used as guidance (http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/4403).

PURPOSE

The monitoring and evaluation plan for the Kagera TAMP will serve two functions: first,

periodic assessment of project implementation and performance of activities (M&E of Project

Performance), and second, evaluation of their results in terms of relevance, effectiveness

and impact in promoting the adoption of sustainable land and agro-ecosystem management

(SLaM) (M&E of Project Impact). The M&E system of the project will provide answers on the

progress and impact made by the RPC, the NPMs and their partners in achieving the

project’s outputs and outcomes.

Project Performance : Performance evaluation will assess the project’s success in

achieving the outputs with the inputs provided and activities conducted. The project will be

monitored closely by FAO (LTU and FAO-GEF Unit), and by the Project Steering Committee

through semi-annual reports, annual reports, and technical reports. Moreover, regular

technical supervision missions and Back to Office Reports will be provided as required to

enhance success, and well as guidance notes and feedbacks on reports.

Project Impact : Evaluation of the project’s success in achieving its outcomes will be

monitored continuously throughout the project. The key indicators found in the logical

framework, and in the revised M&E matrix will guide the evaluation of the project results

and impacts. To do so, reliable baseline data will be collected at start of the project

activities, and impact data will be collected when appropriate during the project

implementation.

7

Diagram 1 : M&E of project performance and project impact

Both project performance and impact M&E will contribute to improve decision making and

management, by keeping the project on track towards achieving the outcomes and

environmental and development objectives and by integrating lessons learnt into planning.

Project achievements will be evaluated after two years of project execution during the mid-

term evaluation (planned in November 2012), and at the end of the project through an

independent final evaluation.

PlanPlan

Act

Monitor

Evaluate Act

Monitor

Evaluate

Diagram 2 : M&E as part of project management and planning

Outputs

Activities

Inputs

Impact

Outcomes

Outputs

Monitoring Project Impact

(Assess whether outputs produce the

expected results)

Monitoring Project Performance

(Assess how are inputs are used to

produce outputs)

8

The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards achievement of

outcomes and will provide constructive recommendations to address key problems

identified. It will:

review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation;

analyze effectiveness of implementation and partnership arrangements;

identify issues requiring decisions and remedial actions;

identify lessons learned about project design, implementation and management;

highlight technical achievements and lessons learned;

analyze whether the project is on track with respect to achieving the expected

results; and

propose any mid-course corrections and/or adjustments to the Work Plan as

necessary.

Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to completion of the project and will

focus on the same issues as the Mid-Term Evaluation. In addition, the final evaluation will

review project impact, analyze sustainability of results and whether the project has

achieved the outcomes and the development and environmental objectives.

2. M&E OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE

The M&E of project performance focuses on the record of information related to the project

implementation process (inputs), activities and outputs. A minimum data collection is

required to enable the project management and stakeholders:

i) to track at regular time intervals the activities achieved (compare planned/versus

achieved) and assess effects of both external factors and internal project operations;

ii) to assess results (outputs), lessons learnt, and solutions to keep project on track.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

Kagera TAMP will follow two main phases of implementation. Initial activity (years 1-2) will

be to establish the transboundary mechanisms of coordination, map the land use systems

for each country, assess land degradation and sustainable land management for all land use

systems in the selected districts, assess SLM technologies and approaches at local level

(country wide), establish the FFS groups and develop training curriculum and train

facilitators, establish the baseline in the target catchments and communities using the LADA

methodology which uses biophysical measures and participatory diagnostic appraisal tools,

and set up SLM community action plans and start to implement them with identified

partners in these selected catchments and communities through FFS study plots and

community level demonstration sites and priority actions. As from year 3 of the project, the

SLM activities in the selected catchments will be expanded/scaled up from the

9

demonstration sites and study plots through the FFS approach (farmers adopting the

practices on their farms), and other training and support for SLM adoption across

catchments and community territories through collaborations with partners in the selected

catchments.

Each FFS group will start with at least one study plot (a common land area or a member

farmers’ plot, although these will be upscaled through the adoption of the SLM measures by

many of the FFS members (around 20-30 farmers/group). The FFS process is central to the

community learning-by-doing process on how to integrate SLM practices at farm-household

level. Moroever many more community members would be encouraged to adopt the SLM

measures demonstrated by the FFS, and on demonstration sites in the catchment including

crop, pasture, forest and wetlands.

The project document states that at project level, the activities will take place in 21

districts, 46 catchments, 68 communities/sites, and 136 FFS study/farmer plots. Thus, each

of the four countries has to plan their activities in 4-6 districts, 11 targetcatchments, 17

communities/sites, and 34 FFS study/farmer plots. This will be done through a phased

process. By year 2 (Y2), each country has selected 75%of their catchments and

communties, and they will select the remaining catchments and communities in Y3. In some

cases, the catchments initially selected were rather parts of catchments and it was proposed

during the training on catchment characterisation and baseline development (February

2012) that the target areas should be complete catchments and their position in the wider

watershed clearly assessed with a view to effective scaling up in years 3 and 4 so as to

generate wider livelihood and environmental benefits.

Moreover, all four countries have set up a strategy and approach to implement the field

activities through district project facilitators, extension officers, service providers, and FFS

facilitators. In Y2 training of 3 master trainers on conservation agriculture has been

conducted in Arusha and over 40 facilitators/extensionists have been trained in FFS-SLM.

Trainings have also been provided to project managers: on climate change (RPC

participated in FAO-HQ climate change days among some 40 project staff June 2010),on

carbon monitoring (NPM-Tanzania participated in a training on carbon monitoring with Vi

agroforestry/World Bank date?) and on monitoring and control of banana wilt – a serious

crop disease in the region (NPM-Uganda participated in a workshop with an FAO partner

regional project date?). NPMs Tanzania and Burundi will participate in land and water days

(May 2012) among some 50 project staff in FAO-HQ aimed at improving land and water

project performance and impact.

The selection of the districts has been decided in collaboration with the government based

on their priorities and policies issues. The catchments and communities have been

selected by the NPMs based on a set of 9 criteria:

10

1. Opportunities to contribute to at least 1 of the 4 project outcomes (transboundary

cooperation for SLM, enabling policy and planning, capacity building for SLM adoption

and scaling up, and SLM implementation) and to project targets (reducing land

degradation, sequestering carbon, reducing phosphorus emissions, conservation and

sustainable use of agrobiodiversity and improved livelihoods- income, nutrition, reduced

risk/vulnerability, etc.)

2. Presence of other relevant projects and partners for synergy and scaling up

3. Degree and type of degradation and causes in specific land use systems and impacts

of land degradation on ecosystem services

4. In accordance with district/provincial priorities and plans

5. Presence of SLM types on the ground with options for improving efficiency and

scaling up

6. Probability of success- good relationship with community

7. Readily accessible and visible for policy makers and farmers (market, main road)

8. In accordance with national plans, strategies and priorities

9. Selected catchments agreed upon by a range of stakeholders

Each catchment shall be characterized as part of the baseline, and the rational for its

selection documented including strategy for expansion/scaling up to wider communities/

watershed.

INDICATORS

Indicators provide parameters against which to assess project performance and

achievement in terms of quantity (how many/how much?), time (when?), target group

(who?) and quality (how good?). Indicators can be quantitative, (number of people, number

of ha, % of adoption), semi-quantitative (scale, ranking), or qualitative (perceptions,

opinions, categories).

The table of objectively verificable indicators (OVI) at basin and country levels is

in Annex 1

DATA COLLECTION

The local level M&E focal points who should be in charge of collecting and providing

information on project activities and implementation to the NPM are the district project

facilitators, service providers at district level, local extension officers, and FFS facilitators at

catchment and community level. These resource people can use the proposed project

recording forms (in the M&E tools folder) and if necessary can be trained in data collection

and participatory M&E. Futhermore, the NPMs shall synthesise the information for the

project area (all selected catchments, communities and districts) and similarly the RPC shall

11

compile it at regional level for reporting to the Lead Technical unit (LTU)- the Land and

Water Division, FAO HQ, and in turn to GEF through the annual Performance

Implementation Reports (PIR).

The M&E tools provided with this plan are composed of a set of forms to collect and compile

the information at each level:

- Microcatchment/community level M&E form for the local extension officers, and NGOs

- District level M&E form for the District project facilitators

- National level M&E form for the NPMs, and excel table

The templates are a way of standardising the way data is recorded and stored, aggregating

data, and informing project management about progress.

Table 4: M&E Stakeholders and Responsabilities

Stakeholders M&E Responsabilities

LTU-FAO Review the progress and result reports and propose adjustments Send progress reports and budget to GEF/TCI

RPC Prepare the progress report (6 months, and annual) Submit workplan and budget on time Share minutes meetings of RPSC

M&E consultant (when needed)

Review/update the M&E plan, develop the M&E forms Provide support in participatory M&E and for the design of impact assessments

NPM Prepare annual work plan and targets Prepare the progress report and send it to RPC Share minutes meetings of NPSC

DPF- district project facilitator

Provide information to NPM on activities carried out, problems encountered, etc at district level

Extension officer, NGO, service provider

Provide information to DPF and NPM on activities carried out, problems encountered, etc at catchment/community level

FFS facilitator Provide information to DPF and NPM on activities carried out, problems encountered, etc at FFS level

REPORTING

Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the National

Project Managers and the Regional Project Coordinator based on the project’s annual

workplan and outputs’ indicators. The RPC will advise the FAO LTU of any delays or

difficulties faced during implementation so that appropriate support or corrective measures

can be adopted in a timely and appropriate manner.

12

There are a series of reports to monitor project performance:

Monthly Progress Reports

Monthly activities and milestones (by NPMs to RPC to facilitate timely supervision/support)

Quarterly Progress Reports

FAO internal monitoring tool to compare approved work plan with actual performance and

identify constraints and recommended remedial actions as required. (NPMs/RPC to LTU)

Semi-Annual Project Implementation Reports

RPC with inputs from NPMs’ quaterly project progress reports will provide :

a) an account of actual implementation of project activities compared to those

scheduled in the annual workplan, and the achievement of outputs and

progress towards achieving the project outcomes, based on the indicators as

contained in the Project Logical Framework and as further defined in the M&E

matrix in Annex 1;

b) an identification of any problems and constraints (technical, human, financial,

etc.) encountered in project implementation and the reasons for these

constraints;

c) clear recommendations for corrective actions in addressing key problems

resulting in lack of progress in achieving results;

d) lessons learned; and

e) a detailed work plan for the next reporting period.

Annual Progress Reports

An annual results report shall be prepared by each NPMs (with the help of an M&E

consultant if necessary) to assess the outputs and outcomes indicators ; the most

significant changes that have occured as a result of the project ; the challenges and

constraints ; and recommendations for the following year. This can be done through field

visits, participatory workshops, key informant interviews, household interviews, and focus

group discussions with project stakeholders (beneficiaries and partners).

Regional Annual Project Implementation Review- PIR

The Project Implementation Review (PIR) is an annual monitoring process mandated by the

GEF. The PIR is an essential management and monitoring tool and will be an important

medium for extracting lessons learned. The GEF project year begins on July 1 and ends on

June 30. The PIR should be discussed with the LTU and the Regional and National Project

Steering Committees and submitted to the TCI/GEF unit for review and onward submission

to GEF-Secretariat.

Technical and Field Reports

The RPC and NPMs will commission technical studies and reports to complete the various

project activities.

13

3. M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT

The Project Logical Framework (in the project document) provides performance and impact

indicators for guiding project implementation. Through a process of working with the

Regional Project Coordinator and the National Project Managers over a two week iterative

process (September 2011), these indicators have been reviewed and revised and their

means of verification (assessment methods) specified to complete the M&E matrix. The

resulting M&E matrix is in Annex 2.

BASELINE DATA AND METHODS

Baseline information such as baseline problem tree/situational analysis, characterization and

evaluation of land management practices and their implication was collected during the

project development (PDF-B) in Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda through several transects

and PRA processes conducted in a range of agro-ecological zones and contexts by an

interdisciplinary team of experts with community representatives. However, the districts and

catchments for project implementation were selected during year 1 of the project, so more

detailed baselines in those catchments/communities are needed for the characterization of

the project sites as well as for impact assessment. Indeed baseline data is needed to picture

the situation before the project and for monitoring project progress and impacts. An

inventory of pertinent studies on soil erosion, extent of burning, soil fertility, productivity,

SLM costs and impacts/benefits, etc. shall be gathered and reviewed to inform and

complement the baseline.

14

Table 5: Existing baseline data at all project levels:

River basin level National level District level Catchment level

- GIS data

from NBI-

NELSAP

- Data and

reports from

Nile basin

Initiative

(NBI-

NELSAP)

- GIS data,

maps and

many

thematic

studies from

FAO Nile

basin water

resources

information

project

- Data and

thematic

studies from

LVEMP-I

- National statistics

- Planning and

development

documents in

2008-2009-2010

- National agriculture

and NR actions

plans, NAPs and

NBSAPs

- Inventory of

transboundary

land-related

constraints

- Land use systems

map (LUS)-

Rwanda and

Burundi

-

- Secondary data

from Ministry of

Agriculture and

discussion with

district agriculture

officers.

- District

development plans

of 2008-2012, and

annual workplan

and budget

- Land use systems

map (LUS)-

Uganda and

Tanzania

- Land degradation

and SLM

assessment (QM)

in the project

districts (and

whole country for

RW and BU)

- Inventory of SLM

technologies and

approaches

(QA;QT)

- Biophysical

measurements and

observations and

socio-economic

data from

district/agricultural

statistics and

specific technical

reports on land

uses, land

management,

status of land and

water resources,

land degradation

types and extent,

extent of burning,

crop, livestock and

forest productivity,

livelihoods,

vulnerability, etc.

Baseline at Catchment/Community level

The baseline is composed of two main components : characterization of the area and

biophysical and socio-economic data collection. It is done through participatory rural

appraisal, transect walk, field observations and measurements, visual scoring and

household and land users interviews (using the LADA Local methodology).

It is suggested to conduct the baseline assessment in two steps in order to allow the project

to progress with the planning and implementation of the SLM activities on the ground in at

least some selected communities. The selected multi-disciplinary team will conduct the

baseline in collaboration with district or local extension officers knowledgeable of the area

and community.

Step 1 : Characterization of the microcatchment/community through participatory situation

analysis composed of a land degradation and sustainable land management assessment

15

using PRA tools (focus group discussions, farmer interviews, etc.) and transect walk. From

this, a initial catchment/community SLM action plan can be developed.

Step 2 : Biophysical and socio-economic data collection on soil, water, vegetation,

biodiversity, and livelihoods. This information should complete the analysis and contribute

to the selection of further SLM actions and capacity development and planning.

The methodology suggested to conduct the baseline assessment (step 1 and 2) is the LADA

Local methodology for participatory and integrated land resources assessment using the

DPSIR and sustainable livelihoods and ecosystem services frameworks. The full details of

the methodology can be found on the FAO/LADA website (add link).

The characterization of the microcatchment/community (step 1) will allow the selection of

the demo sites for SLM interventions, as well as the concerned land user groups (small/

medium/larger farmers, livestock owners/herders, forest users/managers etc.).

Furthermore, the subsequent biophysical and socio-economic data collection (step 2) will be

more precise as the measurements will be taken at the sites of the planned interventions,

and household survey will be done with the concerned community members. The baseline

will also capture the information on the current regulations and by laws related to natural

resources access and management at catchment/community level and the existing barriers

of SLM adoption, and identify the vulnerable groups within the area.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS

Indicators of project impact will be applied at the regional, national, district and

catchment/community levels. Major areas identified for impact assessment include:

Status of land, natural resources and ecosystems, their conservation and capacity

for production of goods and services;

Evidence of positive changes in the management and use of biodiversity and natural

resources ;

Improvement in achievement of environmental and livelihood goals – reversing land

degradation, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and enhancing crop and

livestock productivity, reducing poverty, reducing food insecurity and vulnerability;

Strengthened capacities for integrated sustainable land and agro-ecosystem

management (SLaM) at different levels

The assessment of project impact will be based on 4 specific and complementary activities :

(1) Stakeholder discussion groups and PRA at catchment/community levels around project

components and outputs. These will help to analyse information, identify lessons

learnt, and make recommendations about project implementation, and to assess the

changes brought up by the project;

At mid-term review and towards the end of the project (Y2-Y3)

16

Example: Focus group discussion with the project participants to assess the quality of

services provided (information, expertise and institutional support)

(2) Household and farm survey with randomly selected FFS members and non members

to assess livelihoods, agricultural production, resilience and food security;

Towards the end of the project (Y3-4)

Example: Survey with farmers in FFS to identify their % of adoption and extent (ha)

for each SLM practice, and benefits of SLaM.

(3) Field survey to assess changes in environmental benefits (carbon, biodiversity, tree

density, pasture vegetation cover, water quality and quantity) from SLM interventions;

Towards the end of the project (Y3-4)

Example: Field monitoring protocole and land user survey on land

degradation/improvement through LADA local indicators, such as : soil properties, soil

erosion, soil carbon sampling, vegetation cover and extent of burning, water resources

conditions and availability, habitat diversity, species/varietal diversity, pest & disease

incidence, trends in land/livestock productivity under different land use types and

management practices (controlling for yearly rainfall difference), livelihoods : income,

food security and vulnerability.

(4) Thematic studies undertaken to provide further information on important issues

Throughout the project (Y1-Y4)

Examples: SLM technologies and approaches, fire risk analysis, monitoring of

sediment loads before/after SLM actions, and monitor how SLM practices/approaches

contribute to NAPs and NBSAPs

The different impact assessments shall be done before the mid-term review, and also at the

end of the project before the final evaluation. Doing so, the results and recommendations of

the impact assessment can feed the mid or final evaluations, and be taken into

consideration in the project implementation or any follow up action.

17

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

A simple check list has been developed to help in assessing the project sustainability during

implementation and at the end of the project:

National

Best practices for transboundary contraints are mainstreamed in development

processes, and government budgets are allocated

SLM information and knowledge generated by the project is available

SLM practices and approaches are mainstreamed in national agriculture and natural

resources action plans

District

SLM action plans are mainstreamed in district development plans, and district funds are

alocated

Partnership and collaboration continue at district level between different stakeholders

Catchments/Communities

SLM interventions are maintained by local communities and land owners

SLM technologies promoted are upscaled by land users and communities

FFS

FFS and cooperatives created/supported by the project have opened bank accounts and

are formaly registered

FFS and cooperatives remain active

FFS and cooperatives have diversifed their activities and are generating income

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The project M&E is based on the project document and indicators in the log-frame. It has

two main components : project performance, and project impact. Project performance

requires the monitoring of activities and outputs, and his closely related with project

execution and planned activities versus achieved (and budget). Project impact is assessed

through the impact and outcome indicators and through specific and timely assessments,

including baseline studies. The information required for the project baseline will serve as a

basis for monitoring and eventually for impact assessment at project mid-term and closure.

18

i) Some target indicators have been queried for further discussion with the LTU and project

management, and shall be further considered during the mid-term review.

ii) It is recommended that the NPMs provide a clear description of the rational behind the

selection of the first round of catchments, through a ranking of the selection criteria. The

main criteria behind the selection of each catchment will inform the baseline and community

action plan. It will also highlight any critical issues that have not been tackled so far, and

can consequently orient the selection of the next round of catchments (e.g. in regard to the

target indicators, and PES). The NPMs shall have a clear strategy for organizing the work in the

different districts, catchments and communities (in how many and which catchments and communities

are they starting in Y2, Y3, etc.), and their approach for scaling up.

iii) It is recommended to conduct the baseline assessment in two phases, one phase to

caracterise each target catchment and community using PRA tools and transect walk (to

develop the community action plan), and the second one to conduct a detailed biophysical

and socio-economic assessment on sites where SLM actions will be implemented. This way,

the project activities in the communities could be planned and started before the full

baseline assessment is finalized. This is considering the need to rapidly start the field

activities in order not to miss this initial 2012 rainy season.

iv) The NPMs shall establish M&E focal points at each level of activities, especially at field

level (catchment/community) and district level. Templates for data collection are provided in

annexes, and punctual support for planning and assessment shall be provided by the LTU, the RPC

and the M&E consultant. NPMs shall integrate the lessons learnt into their planning, and document

these in their progress reports. Moreover, it is suggested that a M&E training on data collection

and participatory impact monitoring shall later be organized to build capacities of the M&E

focal points in regard to M&E.

v) Considering the project needs partners and co-funding, it would benefit from developing

a clear communication strategy. It is proposed that NPMs a nd ROC should be proactive in

providng information for preparation and dissemination of a newsletter every three months

to update partners on project activities (each newsletter would have a theme e.g.: selection

of the catchments, start up of field activities). Moreover, the NPMs shall be pro-active on

proposing specific outputs on which to developpartnership for SLM implementation and co-

funding. It would be important to highlight the linkages between SLM and climate change

adaptation and mitigation, as this can also generate further funding and partnership.

ANNEX 1: REVIEW OF TARGET INDICATORS BY PROJECT COMPONENTS

The underlined indicators were modified or questioned during the revision process and development of the M&E plan with the RPC, and the 4

NPMs in September 2011.

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

Objectives- Goals

Transformation of land towards more productive and sustainable agricultural ecosystems

43,700 ha 100,000 ha 11 000ha 25 000ha

Basin population aware of project activities (based on a communication strategy, communication person in each country, newsletter by theme)

6 percent of today’s basin population (some 1 million people)

250 000 people

1. Transboundary Coordination

Programme to reverse land degradation being implemented and monitored

21 districts 4-6 districts

Pilot actions implemented to address transboundary issues

68 communities 21 districts 17 communities 4-6 districts

Budgetary allocations from Governments to transboundary coordination and collaboration in the Kagera Basin

increased by 10 % increased by 10 %

Coordination between countries, and regional projects (NBI, NELSAP, LVEMP, etc.)

MoU developed

Recommendations to harmonise policies, laws and regulations and address transboundary issues in the river basin

mechanisms developed in 21 districts

mechanisms implemented in 21 districts

Developed 4-6 districts

Implemented 4-6 districts

20

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

Transboundary SLM action plans in development with budget allocations and institutional support (The action plans might not be in place as between countries collaboration might require high political decision making, but these action plans and agreed mechanisms would have been developed through the project and submitted for national and regional decision making .)

5 transboundary SLM action plans between : Uganda-Tanzania Uganda-Rwanda

Tanzania-Rwanda

Rwanda-Burundi Burundi-Tanzania On different TB issues : - Erosion &

sedimentation

monitoring - Burning - Wetland - Livestock Movement

& pasture management

- Crop & Livestock

Diseases - Agrobiodiversity

Kagera Monitoring and Information system

System Developed ad data available

National GIS centre providing targeted support to at least 1 district/country for capacity building on use of GIS and mapping

1 pilot GIS/country

Community information centers

Centers set up

2. Enabling Policy, Planning and Legislations

Priority policy, legal and transboundary issues identified and agreed for SLaM

community (68) district (21)

17 communities 4-6 districts

Policy recommendations developed 8 2

21

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

that support national policy decisions and regulatory mechanisms

Policy recommendation that support bye-laws at district/community-level

4 1

SLaM considerations/actions integrated in annual district development plans and budgets

21 districts 4-6 districts

Project indicators used to monitor how SLM practices/ approaches contribute to agricultural production, food security, livelihoods and to NAPs and NBSAPs, and also NAMAS and NAPAS to link how the project can contribute to inform these national strategies

4 by convention 1 by convention

Locally adapted by laws developed and agreed at community level

24 cases/ country (1-2/community)

Locally adapted by laws implemented at community level

24 cases/ country

National and local government staff trained in land use planning

42 at district level 64 at community level

11 district level 16 community level

Land use policy (through the SLM plan and interventions) being effectively applied/ enforced and exchange of best practices between countries

68 communities 17 communities

Participatory strategies and action plans developed for SLaM

21 districts 4-6 districts

- Improved pasture and rangelands management

15 areas 7,500ha

4 areas 1,875 ha

- Transboundary livestock 5 borders 1 R-B

22

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

movements 1 R-T 1 R-U 1 U-T 1 B-T

- Conservation and sustainable use of wetlands

9 areas 6,000 ha

2-3 areas

1,500 ha

- Conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity

68 communities 17 communities

- Sustained energy supply

68 communities 17 communities

3. Capacity and Knowledge Development

Trained technical staff and policy makers

21 districts 4-6 districts

Farmers members trained and adopting SLM (FFS members and farmers in catchment and community)

136 groups x 25 members = 3400

3400 x 3= 10200

34 groups x 25 members= 850

farmers

850 x 3 = 2550

(Check with the FFS master trainer if these numbers are realistic)

Demonstration sites/communities and FFS study plots esablished (the scale up will happen at farm and landscape level through the community and watershed action plan) *NPMs need to clarify their process for upscaling

68 sites/communities 136 FFS study plots

FFS study plots scaled-up x 3 = 408 FFS study plots

17 sites/communities

34 FFS study groups/plots

FFS study plots

scaled up by 3 = 102 In communities

and catchments

Training in PLAR (participatory-learning-action-research)/FFS approaches and best practices for SlaM

FFS facilitators/ extensionists (150) district staff (4 x 21)

38 FFS facilitators 4 x 4-6 district staff (16-24 district staff) 38 community leaders

23

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

community leaders (150) partner NGO staff (42) trained

11 NGOs staff trained

Training to support SLaM planning and implementation

300 technical staff 200-250 policy makers (15/districts) trained

75 technical staff 50 policy makers (9-12/district)

Communities sensitized on SLaM techniques

120,000 community members/local decision makers

30 000 people/country 5000-7500 people/ district

4. Implementation of improved Land Management Practices

SLM practices implemented by pilot communities

68 200 17 50

Check if scale up by 3 is realistic for SLM

implementation

SLM practices 45,000 ha of land 11,250 ha

Effective control of soil erosion in all target sites

no new visual signs

4 target catchments identified and sediment loads monitored

(1 by country)

Vegetation cover and alternatives to slash and burn

30% increase on 23,000 ha arable and 7,500 ha pasture lands

30% increase on 5,750 ha arable and 1,875 ha

pasture lands

Soil carbon stores 20% increase on 30,500 ha of land

20% increase on 7,625ha of land

Production (crop; livestock; other goods)

10% increase by trained farmers/ herders

10% increase by trained farmers/

24

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

herders

Participatory land use plans and action plans developed and implemented at community level/catchment (included the SLM catchment/community action plan, and other plans developed for pasture, forest, buffer zone/wetland management)

100 (at least 68) The number shall be 68 SLM action plans to match the number of microcatchment/communities.

200 (at least 136)

25 (at least 17)

50 (at least 34) Capacity building

will be provided for

land use planning Check if scaling up by 2 realistic

Capacity building for implementing and monitoring catchment/community SLM action plans, through a set of agreed indicators : - reduced degradation (burning,

erosion, etc.) ; - improved vegetation cover, soil,

water and range quality, resilience to drought ;

- Enhance crop and livestock productivity and livelihoods ;

- increased awareness, information, expertise and institutional support for SLM

136 communities

Shall be 68 communities

34 communities

Shall be 17 communities

Communities in the catchments and watersheds aware/sensitize to SlaM

136 (68 x2)

34 (17 x 2)

Wide adoption of improved agricultural systems and management practices by different land users (farmers, herders, foresters) in the target catchments

46 catchments

10-12 catchments

25

Indicators (OVI) Basin

Country

Target Y3

Target Y5 Target Y3 Target Y5

Farmers trained and adopting /upscaling SLM through FFS approaches

1,800 farmers 3,600 (replicated by 2) 450 farmers

900 (34 groups x 25 members = 850

farmers)

Local-level indicators of benefits of SLaM (income, household food security, reduced risk) confirmed by all target farmer groups and a sample of community members

136 FFS groups + 72 farmer/herder groups =208

52 farmer groups

Incentives and benefit sharing mechanisms identified and supporting adoption of SLaM (income generating activities, PES and district budget allocated to SLM)

34 communities 8-9 communities

Incentive/ support mechanisms reaching vulnerable groups (women, poor, etc.)

15% of target population In the communities involved

15%

ANNEX 2: M&E MATRIX

The baseline and assessment method sections were completed during the revision process and development of the M&E plan with the RPC,

and the 4 NPMs in September 2011.

Objectives and Outcomes Key Indicators Baseline Assessment Method

ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIVES (GOALS)

The environmental objective is to

address the causes of land

degradation and restore ecosystem

health and functions in the Kagera

basin through the introduction of

adapted agro-ecosystem

management approaches.

The development objective is to

improve the livelihood

opportunities, resilience and food

security of rural communities (men,

women and children) in the Kagera

Basin through adoption of more

productive and sustainable resource

management practices that are

technically feasible and socio-

economically viable.

Improved land use systems/

management practices for the range of

agro-ecological zones in the basin being

tested and adapted (by end PY3) for

arable and pastoral systems including

measures for reducing pressures on

wetlands, riverbanks, forest and

protected areas.

Transformation of 43,700 ha of land by

PY3 and 100,000 ha by PY5 towards

more productive and sustainable

agricultural ecosystems (11,000 ha/

country Y3, and 25,000ha/country Y5)

Potentially 6 percent of today’s basin

population (some 1 million people)

aware of project activities in target

communities, catchments, agro-

ecological units through demonstrations

and outreach. (250,000 people by

country)

PDF baseline

Land use systems (LUS) map

LD/SLM assessment (QM)

Catchment/community baselines

and pictures

Baseline data on specific

biophysical indicators e.g. to

show the environmental benefits

(carbon, biodiversity, tree

density, pasture vegetation

cover, water quality and

quantity).

Baseline data from household

survey on livelihoods and food

security

District development and

economic reports

SLaM interventions monitored and

mapped by target districts and

communities

M&E and progress reports from

project interventions and partners

Field surveys to assess changes in

environmental benefits (carbon,

biodiversity, tree density, pasture

vegetation cover, water quality and

quantity).

Outreach assessment

PRA to assess changes in livelihoods,

resilience, and food security

27

Improved livelihoods, resilience and

food security.

Outcomes

1. Transboundary coordination,

information sharing and monitoring

and evaluation mechanisms

operational and effective in

promoting sustainable, productive

agro-ecosystems and restoration of

degraded lands.

Transboundary agro-ecosystem management programme to reverse land degradation being implemented and monitored in 21 districts and reviewed by national and regional PSCs and project activities and achievements widely shared and available (PY5).

Best practices for addressing transboundary land-related constraints through integrated ecosystems and inter-sectoral approaches mainstreamed in planning and development processes, including NAPs. Y3

e.g. movement of livestock and pasture management, burning, etc.

and pilot actions implemented to address transboundary issues in 68 communities (PY3) and replicated in 21 districts (PY5).

(Regular) budgetary allocations from Governments to transboundary coordination and collaboration in the

Transboundary SLM programmes/actions mainstreamed in development documents place before the project

Identify and discuss the transboundary best practices in districts and communities

Districts: secondary data and disucssion with district agriculture officers.

Communities: primary data from characterisation/PRA

At start what is the amount (in cash and also in kind) dedicated

Progress and technical reports, decisions of districts, district development plan

Technical document on the TB issues at district level, BP and constraints, and agreed BP and mechanisms to mainstream in districts from both countries or districts, and provided to policy makers for integration in devt. and planning processes and NAPs.

Reports and decisions of district, national, river basin policy and planning mechanisms

Project steering committee reports

Technical reports and project progress reports

Field observations

National and district financial accounts

28

Kagera Basin increased by 10 % (PY5) to the project for collaboration?

2 Enabling policy, planning and legislative conditions are in place to support and facilitate the sustainable management of agro-ecosystems and the restoration of degraded land.

Priority policy, legal and transboundary issues identified and agreed at community (68), district (21) and river basin levels for SLaM (end PY2)

and resulting in supporting policy decisions, regulatory mechanisms and community bye-laws for improved harmonization and application (PY5).

At least 2 policy recommendations per country developed that support national policy decisions and regulatory mechanisms, and 1 per country that support bye-laws, etc. at district/ community-level.

Workshop on land planning tenure and policy gaps at basin level with national policy makers and partners. PY2 Aug 2011

Validation of the reports on policy review related to transboundary land issues at district level (with community participation). PY2/3

Action plan for the establishment of a supporting policy and legal framework for SLaM across the basin.

=Action plan for the implementation of the harmonised policies

National and regional workshop reports

Review national policies and regulatory mechanisms, and identify the gaps. Based on these you draft 2 policy recommendations.

= document/workshop

Review the bye-laws at district/community level, and idenfity the gaps, and draft 1 policy recommendation per country.

- consultation/document

3. Capacity and knowledge are Trained technical staff and policy Presence or absence of trained Project progress reports and M&E

29

enhanced at all levels for the

promotion of – and technical

support for – sustainable

management of land and agro-

ecosystems in the basin.

makers in 21 districts - supporting SLaM planning and implementation and using project information resources in their district and communities (PY5) Community members/local decision makers sensitized on SLaM techniques for pastoral, arable, mixed systems and their on- and off-site impacts and benefits (PYs 1-5) FFS members trained and % adopting SLM and promoting upscaling on community territory Training materials on best practices /approaches widely available and SLM demonstrations in place.

staff on SLM, and of SLM techniques at community level, and bylaws and regulations put in place.

reports (targets being monitored by the project and districts) Reports of staff and other stakeholder training workshops, and curriculum developed. Districts’ and policy makers’ plan and budget influenced by project information resources. Progress project reports and M&E reports Field visits of FFS study plots by policy makers and technical staff. Training reports Field survey Project progress reports, and training materials produced, and SLM demo sites in place. QA/QT training (20 people by country) QA/QT results

4. Improved land and agro-ecosystem management practices are implemented and benefiting land users for the range of agro-ecosystems in the basin.

SLM practices implemented by pilot communities (68 by PY3; 200 by PY5) (by country 17, and 33, so total of 50) in demonstrations (SLM interventions) and farmer plots covering a total of 45,000

Demonstration sites in number of hectares (project and also from partner NGOs, research agencies)

FFS farmers adoption of SLM

30

ha of land (by PY5) and showing: (11 250ha by country, around 2000ha by district in Rwanda)

- Effective control of soil erosion (no new visual signs) in all target sites;

- 4 target catchments (1 by country) (PY5) identified an sediment loads monitored (subject to identifying sites where SLM interventions can be applied on a significant area of the catchment and hydrological monitoring can be supported by partner Kagera IWRM, NBI-NELSAP and LVEMP projects);

- 30 percent increase in vegetation cover (above and below ground biomass) on pilot 23,000 ha arable and 7,500 ha pasture lands where alternatives to slash and burn are applied (PY5) incentives to stop burning

-20 percent increase in soil carbon stores (above and below ground biomass) on farmer study plots and sample arable and pasture lands (PY5) inferred on 30,500 ha of land where SLM is practiced/planned.

Biophysical baseline:

Visual signs of soil erosion

Sediment loads in 1 micro catchment by country

Vegetation cover in selected arable and pasture lands

Carbon in soil

Socio-economic and livelihoods survey

practices (ha of lands)

Project progress reports, and M&E reports

Including also FFS outside selected catchments

Monitoring of sediment loads in between two points where intervention are done in between.

More sense to do the monitoring on a subcatchment where impact can be generated, and not on the Kagera river per se

Hydrological monitoring by LVEMP or NBIMonitor (before and after)

Pasture: vegetation transects

Arable: no-tillage, agro-forestry, perennial crops

Carbon: forest, woodlots, agro-forestry, no-tillage

Sample surveys of land degradation,and agro-ecological systems analysis in target areas includinf LADA-local visual indicators

soil properties and erosion backed up by soil C sampling;

vegetation/litter cover/bare soil/

31

- 10 percent increase in production (crop; livestock; other goods) by trained farmers/ herders contributing to livelihoods (income; food security; reduced vulnerability)

extent and effect of burning;

water resources and drought

inter and intra-species and habitat diversity

land productivity under different land use types (inputs/ yields/ other NR products e.g fuel)

LAMIS data (RS/GIS) including field monitoring of target areas

FFS farmers survey on productivity after SLM adoption (Control for rainfall differences between seasons and years)

Household surveys in target communities ( analysis of production trend, reduced poverty, food security, reduced vulnerability)

5. Project management structures operational and effective

Project activities executed and outputs delivered in line with workplan and budget

Regional PSC and TAC meetings held and guidance given

Support visits executed by FAO and Government institutions and PSC/TAC members

Project progress reports

Project M&E system

Mid term and final evaluations

Workshop reports

32

Outputs

1.1A basin-wide coordination mechanism is established to facilitate trans-boundary dialogue, basin-level planning, policy harmonisation and coordination of national/sub-national actions.

Sustainable coordination mechanism for SLaM agreed upon among the 4 countries (eventually as part of wider NBI and EAC mechanisms) and reflected in a memorandum of understanding.

Recommendations to harmonise policies, laws and regulations and address transboundary issues in the river basin developed by an ad-hoc basin-wide task force with stakeholders (PY3) and mechanisms in place for their implementation in 21 districts (by PY5).

Transboundary SLM action plans in development/ in place with budget allocations and institutional support.

Mechanisms for SLM coordination:

- sustainable development of lake victoria basin

NBI 2009

Kagera transboundary IWRM project in 2003

Check project document (partners)

No recommendations to harmonise policies, and no task force

No transboundary actions plans on SLM.

MoU with differents partners (nelsap/nib, lvamp, etc.) finalized by PY3.

Participation to meetings and workshops, exchange of data and information, and collaboration on field activities.

Relevant river basin/district reports reflecting collaboration across borders and among KAGERA TAMP and partner projects (NBI-NELSAP, LVEMP).

Reports of RPSC meetings

Project progress reports

Recommendations developed and agreed during regional workshops

SLM teams or other task forces to review and harmonized the policies related to transboundary issues.

National policies and action plans reflect regional collaboration

Report on options for basin wide coordination of SLaM

Reports of RPSC meetings

1.2 An efficient basin-wide knowledge management system is established to support information

KAGERA TAMP knowledge management system established and functioning at all

LUS, QM with LD-SLM data, QT and QA, best practices case studies, catchment/community situation

33

requirements and decision-making processes at all levels.

levels (PY2) including:

o Kagera environmental monitoring and information system (EMIS) supported by a GIS and RS tools and linked with LVEMP and NBI databases as appropriate (PY1-5).

o Pilot district level GISs developed and operational - 1/country (by PY3). [not feasible GIS center at district]

o Community information centres set up (for SLM and good practices) and servicing stakeholders in target communities (PY2).

o Membership of networks and selected experts from networks supporting KAGERA TAMP (IW LEARN, WOCAT, ASARECA).

GIS data from NELSAP available

No GIS at district level

No community information centres on SLM and transboundary issues.

Agricultural extension officers at district level.

analysis.

Project website

Project M & E system

Project progress reports

Trained land planners at district level in GIS, and GPS provided.

KAGERA TAMP membership to different networks (frequent email exchanges, participation to conferences, meetings, seminars).

1.3 Project monitoring and evaluation systems supporting KAGERA TAMP implementation and decision making.

M & E system established and functioning

Project management and district partners trained in data collection and participatory M&E (best end of PY2)

District partners have capacity for data collection and participatory M&E.

M&E plan developed

M&E reports (monthly or quaterly) from local partners and district facilitators and information captured inside project progress reports (6 months, and annual)

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

Trainings and data collection recording sheets provided to district and local partners on the M&E for good project implementation

34

2.1 Sustainable management of land and agro-ecosystems (SLAM) mainstreamed in national development policies and programmes, enhancing synergy among sector strategies and across the river basin

SLaM considerations/actions integrated in annual district development plans and budgets (21),

- SLM practices/ approaches mainstreamed into river basin and national agriculture and NR sector action plans (e.g. biennial) and a set of results based indicators used to monitor how they contribute to NAPs (4) and NBSAPs (4) (by PY4-5).

Successful and diverse experiences of inter-sectoral processes and systems approaches for SLaM documented annually in 21 districts,

and the river basin reports and case studies/findings made available for decision making by PSC members (PY4-5)

Successful experiences of SLM implementation in the 21 districts documented annually, and available for decision making in the basin level (PY5)

District development plans of 2008-2012, and annual workplan and budget.

Review of national agriculture and NR actions plans, and to NAPs and NBSAPs.

District development plans

National plans reflect SLaM considerations (NAPs, NBSAPs)

River basin reports (Kagera, Nile, LVEMP

SLM success stories are highlighted in the annual reports and plans of the districts, and Ministry of Agriculture/Livestock

SLM case studies presented to the NPSC and RPSC workshops for consideration in decision making and recommendations

2.2 Regulatory actions developed and used to promote - or remove existing barriers to - sustainable land and agro-ecosystem management

Locally adapted by laws developed and agreed at community level (24 cases/ country) (PY3) and implemented (PY5)

Best practices for effective policy and legal application/enforcement disseminated in the basin (PY 2-5).

Current regulatory actions and by laws at catchment/community level and existing barriers

Compendium of byelaws and regulations (report of consultant) PY3

Reports of stakeholder consultations PY3

Project progress reports PY5

Regional and national workshops on the best practices for effective policy and legal application (regulatory

35

actions working well already identified by the consultant, and the ones agreed by the communities).

2.3 A coherent strategic and planning framework developed and implemented (from river basin to district/provincial and community levels) to support SLM efforts by rural communities.

National and local government staff trained in land use planning (for SLM) (at least 42 at district level; 64 at community level) (PY1-5)

Land use policy (through the SLM plan and interventions) being effectively applied/ enforced in 68 communities by PY5.

Participatory strategies and action plans developed for SLaM in 21 districts across the basin (PY1-3)

o improved pasture and rangelands management (at least 15 areas; 7,500ha)

o transboundary livestock movements (5 borders)

o conservation and sustainable use of wetlands (at least 9 areas; 6,000 ha),

o conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity (68 communities)

o sustained energy supply (68 communities)

Current application of the land use policy at community level

District development plans include land use, agroforestry, etc. but not participatory.

Check QM results for improved pasture and wetlands

Wetland- IMCE report (Rwanda)

Secondary data information: Check Ministry of agriculture reports if information available for the 21 districts.

Primary information from catchment/community baseline

Reports of workshops/trainings

Training Curriculum

SLM plan : District and community action plans

Project progress reports and M&E recording sheets.

Survey at community level and field observations

maps, analyses and reports

3.1 Methods and approaches to promote the adoption of SLM

Demonstration sites/communities (68) and FFS study plots (136) (34 study plots

0 Project progress and technical

36

practices and agro-ecosystems (pastoral and cropping) are identified, developed and validated through participatory action-research.

by country) identified and agreed upon (end PY2), established (end PY2/Y3) and FFS study plots scaled-up x 3(102 FFS study plots by country, extra 68 study plots depend on co-founding) (PY4-5)

Training materials developed and used in training in 21 districts

Advocacy and training materials disseminated and used in 21 districts and 68 communities (PY3), available from community information centres and districts as and when required in the basin (PY 5)

Community info center= FFS gathering place, government office

reports

Extra resources allocated for scaling up of FFS study plots

Training reports

Documentary, educational & training material produced (video films technical and advocacy leaflets, maps, etc.) available at community and district levels.

3.2 The quality of services provided to rural communities enhanced, particularly through intersectoral approaches that build on local knowledge and innovations for improved agro-ecosystems management

FFS facilitators/extensionists (150); district staff (4 x 21), community leaders (150/68= 2-3 leaders by community) and partner NGO staff (42) trained in PLAR (participatory-learning-action-research)/FFS approaches (PY 2+) and best practices for SLaM.

Target communities (68) benefiting from improved access to service providers competent in SLaM (planning; intersectoral/ systems approaches) and SLM support

- 300 technical staff and 200-250 policy makers (15/districts) trained to support SLaM planning and implementation and using project information resources in

Training workshop reports

Project progress reports

FGD to assess the quality of services provided

Training workshop reports (by district)

District and community reports

Radio, newspapers, TV coverage on the project’s success

37

their district and communities (PY5)

120,000 community members/local decision makers (6000 people/district/country) sensitized on SLaM techniques for pastoral, arable, mixed systems and their on- and off-site impacts and benefits (PY1-5)

stories/activities

Attendance at field day visit of SLM demonstration sites

4.1 Participatory land management plans are developed and implemented in targeted communities, catchments and wider land units.

100 participatory land use plans and action plans developed (end PY2) and being implemented (PY2-4) and replicated x 2 (PY5) (action plans feasible in 2 years) (replication has started with partners, and neighbouring communities, maybe not x 2)

o SLM mainstreamed in district development plans (21)

o community action plans (68)

o catchments (46);

o pasture/ range areas (15);

o target wetlands (10);

o riverbanks (1000km) 250km/country

25 land use plans/actions plans by country.

11 communities land use plans Y2, and implementation by Y3

11 communities land use plans Y3, and

Existing communities land use plans

Community/district land use plans and management reports about the implementation

Technical reports

GIS / RS outputs

Project progress reports

A set of agreed indicators for monitoring SLM action plans e.g.

- reduced degradation (burning, erosion, etc.)

- improved vegetation cover, soil, water and range quality, resilience to drought

- enhanced crop and livestock productivity and effects on

38

implementation by Y4

Capacity built for implementation and monitoring of community action plans (PY1-5) in 136 communities (68 x 2).

livelihoods

- increased awareness, information, expertise and institutional support for SLM

4.2 Improved land use and agro-ecosystem management practices are successfully adopted by farmers and herders in targeted communities and replicated in other areas.

136 communities implementing SLaM (PY5)

Wide adoption of improved agricultural systems and management practices including biodiversity conservation by members of 72 farmer/herder groups (18 by country, 3 by district) (PY3) and replicated x 3 (PY5) (54 groups by country) on av 25-30 members ina group

1,800 farmers trained and adopting /upscaling SLM through FFS approaches (PY3) and a further 1,800 farmers by PY5

(total of 3,600 farmers)

450 farmers by country, so divide by 17 communities, means one FFS group by community with 25 members.

Local-level indicators of benefits of SLaM (income, household food security, reduced risk) confirmed by all target farmer groups (136)

and a sample 10 % of the target

Baseline data on SLM in place FFS records

Field survey

Project progress reports

Training reports

Land user survey

GIS / RS maps, analyses and reports

Socio-economic/livelihoods survey through farmer interview (consultant)

39

population (100,000 persons) (by PY5) (4000 by district or 2,500 by catchment)

50 000 people for income, food security, etc.

4.3 Market opportunities and other incentive/ benefit sharing mechanisms for the provision of environmental services identified, demonstrated and promoted among land users.

Incentive and benefit sharing mechanisms (monetary; non-monetary) identified and supporting adoption of SLaM and biodiversity conservation, including payments for environmental services (PES), products added-value and marketing in 34 communities (PY 1-5)

(8-9 communities by country in which PES/MBI/incentives mechanisms are identified and implemented.)

- tourism

- tree planting incentives from district

- water quality, wetlands

- bamboo (add. benefits)

- beekeeping in buffer zone

Incentive/ support mechanisms reaching vulnerable groups (tenant farmers, youth, HIV/AIDS widows/orphans; female headed households) 15% of target population (PY5)

Baseline data during community characterization and PRA

Secondary information at district/province or sector/commune level

Assess sustainability of incentive/benefit sharing measures and options for SLM investments

Project progress reports and M&E reports

Technical Reports

Field survey

Output 5.1: Project management, institutional and administrative

Regional project coordinator and national project managers in place in

Project progress reports

40

structures in place and linked to national and regional decision making structures

offices provided by host government and supported by FAO (HQ, Country reps and regional offices)

Activities and products monitored in terms of timeliness, cost effectiveness and sustainability

Regional PSC and TAC operational, linkages made to other national processes and guidance provided

Backstopping missions by FAO and Government institutions

Mid term evaluation conducted and recommendations implemented

Adequate co-funding and human resources to execute project activities

Midterm and final evaluation reports

Regional TAC in place: 2 national experts by country, and 2 international experts

National Technical Committee = National SLM team in place ?

Also informal district/province level technical advisory committee

RPSC reports showing linkages between RPSC and NPSCs (as national representatives attend regional committee)

BTO reports of FAO-LTU officers

Workplan revised after mid-term review

Partners and co-funding

Output 5.2: Project M&E system and reporting supporting project management and execution.

Continuous monitoring and reporting on project performance

Project management and performance review included as part of mid term and final evaluation

Project progress reports

M&E plan and recording sheets

M&E praticipatory training

Impact assessment reports

Midterm and final evaluation report

ANNEX 3 : TARGET INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT

PERFORMANCE

Burundi Rwanda Tanzania Uganda Total

Admin level 5 Provinces

- Muramvya

- Mwaro

- Karuzi

- Gitega

- Kirundo

6 Districts

- Nyagatare

- Kayonza

- Kirehe

- Bugesera

- Kamonyi

- Rulindo

4 Districts

- Bukoba

- Karagwe

- Ngara

- Missenye

6 Districts

- Kabale

- Ntungamo

- Isingiro

- Rakai

- Mbarara

x

21 districts

Admin level 10 communes 24/90

Secteurs

x_ Wards 12 Sub-

counties

Target Catchments*

Adjust number for catchments, and

not micro-catchments

10 -12 10-12 10-12 10-12 46 catchments

Community*/SLM action plans 17 sous

collines

17 villages

(Mudugudu)

17 sub-

villages

17 (LC1) 68

communities

Demonstration sites 1/sous-colline 1/village 1/sub-village 1/LCI 68

demonstration

sites

FFS groups 34 (2 per

community)

34 (2 per

community)

34 (2 per

community)

34 (2 per

community)

136 FFS (3400

farmers)

FFS Facilitators 38 (1 / FFS) 38 (1 / FFS) 38 (1 / FFS) 38 (1 / FFS) 150

District staff trained in

FFS/PLAR

5 x 4= 20 6 x 4 = 24

4 x 4 = 16 6 x 4 = 24 21 x 4 (84)

NGO staff trained on FFS/PLAR 10 12 8 12 42

Community leaders trained on

FFS/PLAR

38 (2 per

community)

38 (2 per

community)

38 (2 per

community)

38 (2 per

community)

150

42

Burundi Rwanda Tanzania Uganda Total

Technical staff (overall) trained

on FFS/PLAR

75 75 75 75 300

(15/district)

Policy Makers trained on

FFS/PLAR

10/province 8/district 13/district 8/district 200-250

District/province facilitators 5 4 4 6 21

Policy recommendation at

national level

2 2 2 2 8

Policy recommendation at

district or community level

1 1 1 1 4

Locally adapted by laws at

community level

24 24 24 24 96

National and local government

staff trained in land use

planning

11 district

level

16 community

level

11 district

level

16 community

level

11 district

level

16 community

level

11 district level

16 community

level

44 at district

level

64 at

community

level

Participatory strategies and

action plans developed for SLaM

5 4 4 6 21

Pasture/rangelands 4 areas

2,000ha

4 areas

2,000ha

4 areas

2,000ha

4 areas

2,000ha

15 areas

7,500ha

Wetlands, buffer zones 2-3 areas

1,500ha

2-3 areas

1,500ha

2-3 areas

1,500ha

2-3 areas

1,500ha

10 areas

6,000ha

River banks

250km 250km 250km 250km 1000 km

SLM practices 11,250 ha 11,250 ha 11,250 ha 11,250 ha 45,000 ha of

land

Target catchments identified

and sediment loads monitored

1 1 1 1 4

Vegetation cover and

alternatives to slash and burn

30% increase

on 5,750 ha

30% increase

on 23,000 ha

30% increase

on 23,000 ha

30% increase

on 23,000 ha

43

Burundi Rwanda Tanzania Uganda Total

arable and

1,875 ha

pasture lands

arable and

7,500 ha

pasture lands

arable and

7,500 ha

pasture lands

arable and

7,500 ha

pasture lands

Soil carbon stores 20% increase

on 7,625ha of

land

20% increase

on 30,500 ha

of land

20% increase

on 30,500 ha

of land

20% increase

on 30,500 ha of

land

Production (crop; livestock;

other goods)

10% increase

by trained

farmers/

herders

10% increase

by trained

farmers/

herders

10% increase

by trained

farmers/

herders

10% increase

by trained

farmers/

herders

Participatory land use plans and

action plans at community

catchment level

25 25 25 25 100

Adoption of improved practices

by farmer/herder groups

18 farmer

groups

18 farmer

groups

18 farmer

groups

18 farmer

groups

72

farmer/herder

groups

Incentives and mechanisms

supporting adoption of SLaM

(income generating activities,

PES, district budget allocation

on SLM)

8-9

communities

8-9

communities

8-9

communities

8-9

communities

34

*Definitions:

Catchment: Is an extent of land where water from precipitation drains into a larger watershed

Community: A group of people living in the same locality

ANNEX 4 : IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND THEMATIC STUDIES

Impact Assessments:

1. Assessment of SLM technologies and approaches QA/QT and case-studies

- inventory

- selection of technologies and approaches to assess

- case studies (book on SLM)

1. Assess how SLM practices/ approaches contribute to NAPs –UNCCD and NBSAPs –CBD

and NAPAs and NAMAs – UNFCCC through a set of results based indicators

2. Assessment of environmental benefits through a set of project indicators (and capacity

building for monitoring catchment/community SLM action plans and benefits of SLaM*):

- Effective erosion control

- Diminution of sediment (and nutrient) loads in water supply, improved water quality

- Improved vegetation cover and reduction in fire use and phosphorus emissions

- Increase in soil carbon store (sequestration) (proxy indicators such as increase

organic matter, or increase productivity can be used, or exact measure of labile

carbon)

- Increase agrobiodiversity: crops and crop species, livestock and livestock breeds,

and trees and tree species

- Enhance crop and livestock productivity and livelihoods (income sources and

activities)

- Increased awareness, information, expertise and institutional support for SLM

- Resilience: resilience to recent shocks (climatic, market, food prices, etc.)

- Food Security: production and yield of main crops cultivated, and duration of the

lean period

*District and field partners trained in data collection and participatory M&E (end of PY2)

Thematic Studies:

1. Best practices to address transboundary land related constraints mainstreamed in

planning and development processes:

- identify TB issues by NPMs and recruit consultants

- discuss best practices and constraints (draft reports by consultants and workshop)

45

- agree on mechanism to mainstream best practices in planning and development

processes in districts from both countries (final reports by consultants)

- inform policy makers from different sectors (agriculture, environment, land, water,

forestry foreign affairs, etc.) for integration in development and planning processes

and NAP

- Solicit co-funding from districts to address issues and develop pilot actions

2. Two policy recommendations per country that support national policy decisions and

regulatory mechanisms for SLM, and 1 policy recommendation per country that supports

bye-laws at district and community level

- Review national policies and regulatory mechanisms, and identify the gaps, and draft

2 policy recommendations (draft report consultant)

- Identify bye-laws and existing barriers at district and community level, and draft 1

policy recommendation (draft report consultant)

- Workshop to discuss and agree on policy recommendations

3. Identify incentive mechanisms (income generating activities, PES, etc.) (report by PES

focal points, and district facilitators based on baseline data and analysis)

- -Examples: tourism, tree planting with incentives from district, PES for water quality

and wetlands protection, bamboo (add. benefits), beekeeping in buffer zone

ANNEX 5 : CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CATCHMENT AND SLM

ACTION PLAN- REPORT TEMPLATE

Part 1: Overview of the Target Catchment

1.1 Basic Information- Catchment

o District and location within the district (map)

o Catchment area (size and dimensions) and position vis-à-vis larger watershed and

Kagera River Basin

o Number of communities/villages within target catchment

o Catchment population (number of households, average family size and total

population male and female)

1.2 Reasons for selection of the catchment: (using the project selection criteria, explain

the rational for the selection of each catchment)

o Opportunities to contribute to at least 1 of the 4 project outcomes (transboundary

cooperation for SLM, enabling policy and planning, capacity building for SLM adoption

and scaling up, and SLM implementation) with impacts on project targets (reducing

land degradation, sequestering carbon and reducing P emissions, conservation and

sustainable use of agrobiodiversity and improved livelihoods- income, nutrition,

reduced risk/vulnerability, etc.)

o Presence of other relevant projects and partners for synergy and scaling up

o Degree and type of degradation and causes in specific land use systems and impacts

of land degradation on ecosystem services and livelihoods

o In accordance with district/provincial priorities and plans

o Presence of various SLM measures on the ground with options for improving

efficiency and scaling up (local innovations and introduced)

o Probability of success- good relationship with community and local decision makers

o Readily accessible and visible for policy makers and farmers (market, main road)

o In accordance with national plans, strategies and priorities

o Selection agreed upon by a range of stakeholders

1.3 Transboundary Issues: (specify the TB issues which will be looked at in this

catchment, and provide details)

o Control of soil erosion and sedimentation

o Water management through rainwater harvesting and soil moisture management

o Reduced pressures on wetlands and fragile lands

o Control of bush fires and reduction of biomass burning (and reducing phosphorus

emissions into Lake Victoria)

o Conservation of agro-biodiversity

o Management of cross-border livestock movements and plant and animal diseases

o Land use change and impacts on resources (including policy)

Part 2: Characterization of the Target catchment (include pictures)

2.1 More detailed Information-

o Service providers operating or planning to operate in the area

o Catchment map/sketch drawing of the micro-catchment)

47

o Data on targeted land users: main areas of employment; poverty level (proportion

of vulnerable/poor people (if data available) and education level (proportion

educated at primary, secondary and tertiary levels)

o Community organizations and CSOs

2.2 Geography, Land and Water Availability and Use

o Maps available (soils, elevation, slope, topographic, NDVI, etc.)- specify scales,

o Main land use types (proportion of each and significant changes if available),

o Main farming systems and enterprises (crops, livestock, forestry, others) for

consumption and market average farm sizes and degree of fragmentation (hectares;

number of parcels/plots) for small, medium, large farms)

o Land tenure arrangement and level of security

o Water sources (distance, supply, management, quality, permanent or seasonal and

recent changes if available)

o Conflicts/competition over land and water resources

2.3 Land Degradation (mention and explain the land degradation problems in the

catchment, using results from QM and initial community discussions)

o Types (by land use types)

o Extent

o Severity

o Causes (hypothesis)

o Impacts (hypothesis)

2.4 SLM (mention and explain the measures and practices seen in the catchment-

inventory)

o Technologies/practices (local innovations and introduced)

o Approaches/process (for each Technology)

2.5 Policy and planning

Application of environmental and agricultural policies

Existence of district or local action plans and budgets (for agriculture, NAP-UNCCD,

NBSAP-CBD, NAPA, NAMA-UNFCCC, etc.)

Existence of local environmental and agricultural committees

Part 3: Catchment- Community SLM Action Plan

3.1 SLM interventions and activities proposed at community/catchment level

(based on the characterization and LADA baseline assessment, and agreed with the

community, extension officers, and service providers)

Demonstration sites (for improved pasture/rangelands, protection of wetland/buffer

zones, protection of river banks, erosion control, water management, reduced

burning, control diseases, agro-forestry, tree planting, etc.)

Activities (by whom, where, when, how -inputs and responsibilities)

3.2 Capacity Building

48

Farmer Field School

Number of FFS groups and plots in the Target catchment/communities

Number of FFS facilitators (trained by project, trained by others)

Number of farmers in FFS (Male and female and youth (what age?)

Number of poor in FFS (male and female) and access to land and water

Activities (SLM and income generation and other (nutrition, business management

etc)

Trainings

Training of trainers, technicians and policy makers

Trainings of land users on income generating activities

Trainings of land users on SLM at catchment/community level

3.3 Collaboration and Co-financing

Letters of agreement and MOUs (who with, what for and amounts)

Cofunding amount (in kind; cash) and proportion by Government, private sector,

projects, NGOs etc)

Other areas of collaboration (ongoing; in pipeline)

3.4 Upscaling process and sustainability (explain how activities will be upscaled and

sustained through partnership, income generating (including PES), and FFS)

ANNEX 6: M&E REPORTING TEMPLATES

Monthly Project Activity Report- Service Provider/NGO/CBO CATCHMENT/COMMUNITY LEVEL

District:

Catchment/Community :

Date:

Name of reporter :

No Activities Activity Progress Indicators

(precise the unit : ha, km2, km, number of trainings, number of people trained by sexe, etc.)

Remarks

1

2

3

4

Quaterly Project Activity Report- by District Facilitator DISTRICT LEVEL

District:

Catchments :

Date:

Name of reporter :

No Outputs- Activities Activity Progress Indicators (precise the unit : ha, km2, km, number of trainings, number of people trained by sexe, etc.)

Quarter : Remarks (explain reasons if low rate of achievement and mitigation

actions) Planned Achieved Rate of

achievement %

Output:

Output:

AREAS OF STRENGTH Cite the factors that facilitated the implementation and/or completion of activities.

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED Cite challenges encountered in the implementation/ completion of activities.

ACTIONS TAKEN Cite specific actions taken to address the challenges.

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS What were the common support requirements needed to accomplish the task?

LESSONS LEARNED What are the specific lessons learned in the implementation of the activities?

Output:

Add rows as necessary to report on all outputs and activities relevant for the quarter

Semi-Annual Project Activity Report- by NPM NATIONAL LEVEL

Country

Districts:

Date:

Name of reporter :

No Outputs Indicators Quarter Remarks

(explain reasons if low rate of achievement and mitigation

actions) Planned Achieved Rate of

achievement %

Outcome 1 :

Outcome 2 :

AREAS OF STRENGTH Cite the factors that facilitated the implementation and/or completion of activities.

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED Cite challenges encountered in the implementation/ completion of activities.

ACTIONS TAKEN Cite specific actions taken to address the challenges.

RESULTS OF ACTIONS TAKEN What were the results of the actions taken to address the challenges?

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS What were the common support requirements needed to accomplish the task?

LESSONS LEARNED What are the specific lessons learned in the implementation of the activities?

Outcome 3 :

Outcome 4 :