Project Title: Community-based Integrated Natural Resource Management

FAO Project symbol: GCP /FIJ/007/GFF(entity no. 639009)

GEF Project ID: 9880

Recipient Country(ies): Fiji

Executing Entity / Operational Partner: Ministry of iTaukei Affairs

Expected EOD (Starting Date): October 2019

Expected NTE (End Date): September 2023

Contribution to FAO’s Strategic Framework:(Indicate as appropriate)

Strategic program/Organizational Output:Strategic Programme 2 – Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainableOutput 2.1.2 - Capacities of institutions are strengthened to promote the adoption of more integrated and cross-sectoral practices that sustainably increase productivity and production, address climate change and environmental degradation Country Programming Framework (CPF) Outputs:Fiji CPF (2018 – 2022) Output 2: Sustainable and climate-smart practices promoted to help build resilient agriculture, fisheries and forestry production systemsCorporate Output 2.1.1 and 2.1.2

Contribution to GEF TF Focal Area Strategic Objectives and Programs:

LD3 Program 4 Scaling-up sustainable land management through the Landscape ApproachCCM2 Program 4

Environmental and Social Risk Classification low risk moderate risk X high risk Gender Marker1 G0 G1 G2a G2b

Financing Plan:GEF allocation:

Co-financing:

Sub-total co-financing:Total budget:

GEFTF: USD 2,119,425

Ministry of Forests: USD 7,010,000 Ministry of Agriculture: USD 21,690,000Ministry of iTauki Affairs: USD 1,677,215FAO FLR: USD 500,000

USD 30,877,215USD 32,996,640

Executive Summary

Fiji is a large archipelago with diverse landscapes and climate. More than 332 islands are scattered over 1.3 million square kilometers of the South Pacific Ocean. With around 60% of Fiji’s land area consisting of forest cover (amounting to approximately 1 million ha), Fiji’s forests play an important role in providing valuable ecosystem services and the maintenance of forested landscapes are capable of reducing some of the likely impacts of climate change. Indeed Fiji is increasingly stricken by devastating climate events.

Deforestation and land degradation in forests and peripheries of forest frontiers are key environmental problems faced

1 See Guidance Note on ‘Gender Mainstreaming in project identification and formulation’ . http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6854e.pdf1

FAO/GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYPROJECT DOCUMENT

by Fiji. The rate of degradation in the forest peripheries, in this context, also refers to loss of vegetation cover in agroecosystems (including rangelands), and the continued loss of productivity in agricultural lands, impacting local livelihoods significantly. Poor agricultural land practices have contributed to degradation of agricultural lands and their productivity, and the vicious cycle of resource depletion and land degradation.

The development objective of the project is to address the negative impacts of unsustainable management forests and land driven by economic development as well as poverty and livelihood demands of local communities. The project aims to achieve this by establishing and pursuing a landscape-based approach to comprehensive planning and management that harmonizes socio-economic development, sustainable management of natural resources and conservation biodiversity. The project’s interventions will ensure that an enabling environment such capacitated communities and proper restoration strategies and financing are put in place so that degraded forests and lands are rehabilitated and existing protected areas and high conservation value forests are protected.

The project objective is to promote community-based integrated natural resource management at landscape level to reduce land degradation, enhance carbon stocks and strengthen local livelihoods in Ra and Tailevu provinces.The main targets for the projects are:

47,719 ha are under Land Use Plans integrating Integrated Natural Resource Management at District level 18,799 ha are under CBINRM thanks to the development and implementation of Community Based Integrated

Natural Resource Management (CBINRM) plans 3,500 people have a more diversified income source and livelihood 328,225 tCO2eq emissions are mitigated through project activities over a 20-year period (direct). Note: the

project has an indirect impact potential after the end of the project of an additional 1,756,286 tCO2eq

In order to reach these objectives, the projects will undertake the following activities.

Component 1: Strengthening local level capacities for Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)

Activities under this component will build on on-going/planned community level awareness raising (MoFo, MoFi & MoA), institutional capacity building activities for SLM/SFM and forest restoration (MTA/FAO AAD) and demonstration activities (MoFo, MoFi & MoA) under the baseline and co-financing initiatives. GEF incremental resources will be utilized to improve the coordination of current capacity building activities, expand the capacity building to the community level in a streamlined manner and ensure that local communities have the adequate capacity to implement INRM plans at the village level.

The main outcomes expected from this component are: 17 target sites where the Capacity Building scores are improved 4 demonstration sites running and maintained by community members, showing efficient capacity building

Component 2: Community-based Integrated Natural Resource Management

Activities under this component will support improved stakeholder coordination in planning and INRM activities implementation. The Yaubula Management Support Committee (YMST) at district and local levels are key elements of this exercise to ensure local empowerment.

First, the planning process for CBINRM will be strengthened over 47,719ha through: 3 improved district level Land Use Plans (LUP) integrating INRM 30 CBINRM plans for land units

Then, once the CBINRM plans have been developed and linked to sustainable business plans, the project will support their implementation through supporting coordination mechanisms and fundraising/support seeking for the activities.The main expected results are:

17 YMST committees following up the implementation of the CBINRM plans 18,799ha brought under community-based integrated natural resource management 4 enterprises linked to CBINRM support generating benefits

Outcome 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

This component will ensure that project results and achievements will be disseminated for replicability and scaling up and that project’s progress is tracked and periodic evaluations are conducted for adaptive management. Under this component, the main expected results are:

5,000 key stakeholders in Government agencies, CSO and communities with increased awareness of the potential of INRM

2

10 good practices systemized and shared through the online platform and the Community of Practice 8 of communities involved in CBINRM monitoring A M&E system put in place to ensure adaptive management

3

ACRONYMS

AAD Action Against DesertificationAPEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBINRM Community Based Integrated Natural Resources ManagementCCM Climate Change MitigationCSA Climate Smart AgricultureCSO Civil Society OrganizationFDB Fiji Development BankFFS Farmer Field SchoolsFFTC Fiji Forest Training Centre FLMA Fiji Locally Managed Area FNU Fiji National University GCF Green Climate FundGGF Green Growth FrameworkGoF Government of FijiIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIHRDP Integrated Human Resource Development ProgramINDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions iTLTB iTaukei Land Trust BoardMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoFi Ministry of FisheriesMoFo Ministry of Forests MTA Ministry of iTaukei Affairs NCCP National Climate Change Policy MCSMED National Centre for Small and Micro Enterprises DevelopmentPHAMA Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market AccessPMU Program Management UnitPPG Project Preparation GrantRLUP Rural Land Use Policy SIDS Small Islands Developing StatesSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSPC The Pacific CommunityTLTB iTauki Land Trust Board UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSP University of South PacificYMST Yaubula Management Support Teams

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS................................................................................................................ 4TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. 1SECTION 1 – PROJECT RATIONALE...............................................................................31.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT CONTEXT...........................................................................................3

1.1.1 NATIONAL CONTEXT...............................................................................................................................31.1.2 CONTEXT IN INTERVENTION AREAS...........................................................................................................15

1.2 THE CURRENT SITUATION............................................................................................................18

1.2.1 MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS............................................................................................................181.2.2 BASELINE INITIATIVES............................................................................................................................201.2.3 REMAINING BARRIERS TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS................................................................23

1.3. THE GEF ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................24

1.3.1 THEORY OF CHANGE & INCREMENTALITY..................................................................................................241.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE, PROJECT OBJECTIVE, OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS.....................................................271.3.3 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................................451.3.4 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT......................................................................................46

1.4. LESSONS LEARNED......................................................................................................................48

1.5. ALIGNMENT AND STRATEGIC FIT................................................................................................51

SECTION 2 – INNOVATIVENESS, POTENTIAL FOR SCALING UP AND SUSTAINABILITY. 542.1 INNOVATIVENESS........................................................................................................................54

2.2 POTENTIAL FOR SCALING UP........................................................................................................54

2.3 SUSTAINABILITY...........................................................................................................................54

2.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY............................................................................................................542.3.2 EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS...........................................................................................552.3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND SUSTAINABILITY.......................................................................................552.3.4 GENDER EQUALITY................................................................................................................................552.3.5 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.............................................................................................................................582.3.6 HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACHES (HRBA)..........................................................................................58

2.4 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................59

SECTION 3 – INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS....................593.1 INSTITUTIONAL & IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS...............................................................59

3.1.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MAIN INSTITUTIONS..................................................................................593.1.2 COORDINATION WITH OTHER INITIATIVES..................................................................................................62

3.2 RISK MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................66

3.2.1 POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE PROJECT...........................................................................................................663.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISKS.........................................................................................................673.2.3 ANALYSIS OF FIDUCIARY RISK AND MITIGATION MEASURES...........................................................................67

3.3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................................67

3.3.1 FINANCIAL PLANNING............................................................................................................................67

1

3.3.2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING...............................................................................................67SECTION 4 – MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION......................................684.1. OVERSIGHT.................................................................................................................................68

4.2 MONITORING..............................................................................................................................68

4.3 REPORTING..................................................................................................................................68

4.4 EVALUATION...............................................................................................................................70

4.5 M&E PLAN....................................................................................................................................70

4.6 COMMUNICATION.......................................................................................................................71

ANNEX 1: RESULTS MATRIX......................................................................................................................72ANNEX 2: WORKPLAN...............................................................................................................................75ANNEX 3: BUDGET....................................................................................................................................78ANNEX 4: THE PROJECT RISK LOG.............................................................................................................83ANNEX 5: RISK CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATION FORM...........................................................................86ANNEX 6: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT STAFF............................................................87ANNEX 7: MAPS OF THE SELECTED DISTRICTS..........................................................................................92ANNEX 8: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY RA AND TAILEVU.........................................................................94ANNEX 9: COURSES ON INRM RELATED TOPICS OFFERED IN FIJI........................................................................114ANNEX 10: CAPACITY NEED ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................117ANNEX 11: STAKEHOLDER MAPPING AND ANALYSIS.........................................................................................131ANNEX 12: THE PARTICIPATORY LAND USE PLANNING GUIDELINES......................................................................140ANNEX 13: EXACT METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF CARBON BENEFITS QUANTIFICATION........................146ANNEX 14: THE MATAQALI WITH OVER 400 HA IN THE 3 SELECTED DISTRICTS....................................................148

ANNEX 15. ANALYSIS OF FIDUCIARY RISK AND MITIGATION MEASURES..........................................................149

ANNEX 16: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................152

2

SECTION 1 – PROJECT RATIONALE

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1.1 National Context

Fiji is a large archipelago with diverse landscapes and climate. More than 332 islands are scattered over 1.3 million square kilometers of the South Pacific Ocean, lying between latitudes of 15 degrees and 22 degrees Southand between longitude 175 degrees East and 178 degrees West. The two largest islands are Viti Levu, where most of the population resides, and Vanua Levu to the North. Together, they comprise 87 per cent of the totalland area. The islands are characterized by diverse ecosystems including significant areas of natural forest. Wide ranges of coastal and marine ecosystems exist, ranging from extensive areas of mangroves to various coralformations.

It has a total population of 884,8870 making it one of the most populated island in the South Pacific0. Fiji is governed by a single chamber, 50 member parliament under Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s Fiji First party0. Fiji is described as a middle income country and one of the more developed of Pacific island economies with a largely subsistence agriculture sector. Nearly half of its population lives in rural/remote areas with a high dependence on subsistence agriculture and fisheries.

GDP per capita is FJ$7,686 (around USD 3,6420), with GDP growth expected to reach 3.5% in 20180. Tourism remains the most significant sector with a contribution of around 38% to Fiji’s GDP however, despite making up only 10% of GDP, the Agriculture sector accounts for more than 70% of employment 0. Fiji’s economy continues to recover from Tropical Cyclone Winston, which struck in 2016 impacting both its agriculture and forestry sectors significantly. Fiji’s Ministry of Agriculture estimated around FJ$208 million (around USD 98.5 million) in Agricultural losses, with 44,500 farmers affected by Tropical Cyclone Winston.

Figure 1. Map of the Republic of Fiji: administrative Divisions

0 Fiji Bureau of Statistics Population and Housing Census 20170 https://www.conservation.org/where/Pages/Fiji.aspx0 http://dfat.gov.au/geo/fiji/Pages/fiji-country-brief.asp0 Exchange rate as of 14/01/20190 http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/0 International Monetary Fund (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2018/02/08/Republic-of-Fiji-2017-Article-IV-Consultation-Press-Release-Staff-Report-and-Statement-by-45616)3

Biophysical context

Climate Change

Fiji has a mild tropical climate with plentiful rain under prevailing conditions. It is, however, subject to potentially catastrophic climate events such as cyclones, flooding and multiple landslips that can have a major impact on theeconomy and infrastructure. While not a major contributor to climate change, Fiji, like other small island countries, is at the frontline of its impacts. The predicted climate change and sea level rise could have profound consequences for some urban centres, agriculture and coastal development.

Fiji is especially vulnerable to floods and tropical cyclones, which already have significant impacts on the economy and population of the country. The Western Division suffers frequently from droughts and cyclones, such as the most recent Winston (Feb. 2016). Exacerbated by the loss of forests and riparian vegetation, surface flows of water are having less natural impediments, and flash floods and soil erosion on riverbanks and on agricultural lands are expected to increase in frequency and intensity.

Climate change is having a widespread impact, affecting all sectors of the economy from health, infrastructure, water resources, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The average asset losses due to tropical cyclones and floods are estimated at more than F$500 million per year, representing more than 5 percent of Fiji’s GDP. Much larger losses are experienced after rarer events; for instance, a 100-year fluvial flood could cause asset losses in excess of F$2 billion. Asset losses are particularly large for the transport sector and for buildings (46 percent and 44 percent of the total respectively, excluding agricultural asset losses). Other natural hazards—such as drought and landslides have been difficult to quantify however the economic losses caused by Fiji’s 1998 drought were estimated at between F$275 million and F$300 million. The burden of this impact is being shouldered more by the rural population because of their dependence on vulnerable sectors such as agriculture and tourism, for their livelihood.

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a comprehensive review of climate model projections for different regions. By 2030 the average rise in temperature is projected to be in the range of 0.7°C and wet season rainfall will slightly increase, according to Fiji’s Second National Communication to UNFCC Report (Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation/GEF/UNEP, 2014). By 2090, ocean and land temperatures will increase within the range of 1.9-4.0°C (high emissions scenario) and 0.3-1.1°C (very low emissions scenario).

The Government of Fiji is now focused on five specific areas of intervention to address climate vulnerability 0. These are:

Capturing the window of opportunity to design economically vibrant, inclusive, and resilient towns and cities.

Improving infrastructure services to achieve universal access while boosting resilience. Supporting agriculture and fisheries development that is smart for the climate, the environment, and

the economy. Conserving ecosystems and the local environment to protect valuable development assets. Building socioeconomic resilience, by taking care of the poor and keeping economic growth inclusive,

and through actions on early warning and preparedness, social protection, and health care.

Fiji’s comprehensive National Climate Change Policy 2012 serves as an implementation tool for various strategies including:

Environmental protection, sustainable management and utilization of natural resources; Strengthening institutional capacity for environmental management; and Strengthening food security.

Specific climate change strategies relevant to this project include: Mitigation measures focused on maintaining forest carbon stocks and increasing sequestration of

carbon through forest conservation, reforestation, afforestation and enrichment planting to contribute to biodiversity conservation, improved watershed management, improved food security and improved waterway conditions;

Conservation and sustainable management of mangroves to protect a large carbon sink and reservoir, while providing physical foreshore protection, marine breeding grounds and healthy coral reef systems.

0 Fiji Climate Vulnerability Assessment – World Bank4

Forests

With around 60% of Fiji’s land area consisting of forest cover (amounting to approximately 1 million ha), Fiji’s forests play an important role in providing valuable ecosystem services and the maintenance of forested landscapes are capable of reducing some of the likely impacts of climate change0.

Forest cover in Fiji amounts to about 1 million ha, this is about 60% of the total land area. Almost 90% of total forest area is considered iTaukei land (owned by Fiji’s indigenous peoples)0.This includes primary forests0 amounting to 411, 412 ha and other naturally regenerated forests0 amounting to 451, 613 ha. Forest ecosystems play an important role in rural livelihoods/subsistence through provision of timber (construction materials), fuelwood and Non-Timber Forest Products (food, medicine, etc.), generally coming from the natural forests. Forests also provide a sustainable source of rural energy. Formal forestry sector, through exports, contributes about an average of 6.8% to the national GDP since 2014. The export items include sawn timber, woodchips, plywood, veneer, etc. More than 90% of the exported timber comes from processed exotic plantations (pine and mahogany) - pine plantations and hardwood plantations together amount to about 150,000 ha. The native species processed for export are Dakua makadre0(Agathis macrophylla), Dakua Salusalu (Retrophyllum vitiense), Kaudamu (Myristica buchneriana)and Sandalwood (Santalum paniculatum). Combined they amount to only 6% of the forest sector export revenue. These species are extracted generally through selective logging in the natural forests. In terms of ownership, 90% of natural forests are communally owned through traditional Fijian communal landowning units.

Most softwood and hardwood plantations are grown on iTaukei land and thus require leases. Under these arrangements, the companies own the trees, but the iTaukei retain ownership of the land. Moreover, the Government owns a 90 percent share in mahogany plantations and over 98 percent in pine plantations, and the remaining 12 percent is owned by indigenous landowners (i.e. iTaukei mataqali). Some long-term forestry leases have been challenged by customary landowners regarding the vagueness of leasing procedures and agreements. Landowners have at times also rejected continuation of leases. These land tenure arrangements are often perceived by the private sector as impediments to forest sector development. Competition for land is expected to increase even further, as foreign investors are increasingly interested in Fiji’s natural resource sectors, most notably hydropower and mining.In the dry conditions (mainly in the western Division), prolonged droughts magnify the spread of wild fires destroying especially pine forests and risking lives in the local communities. Prolonged dry spells have led to more incidences of fire outbreaks, especially in woodlands and grasslands, greatly affecting their biodiversity and regeneration ability, particularly for species that are less fire resistant. Many softwood plantations have been destroyed by fires, which are now more devastating due poor local fire management and inefficient first response. Loss of forest plantations to fire has resulted in economic losses for private commercial tree growers and has affected the effective rate of reforestation/afforestation.

Water

Fiji’s islands have considerable differences in their water resources0. The larger mountainous islands have significant differences in permanent surface water sources. Lower islands have little or no permanent surface water and rely on groundwater and rainwater.

The total renewable surface water resources are estimated at 28 550 million m3/year. The renewable groundwater resources are estimated at about 5 273 million m3/year, which are considered to be drained entirely by the surface water network (overlap). The total annual renewable water resources in the country are thus estimated at 28 550 million m3 as illustrated in the table below:

0 http://www.parliament.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-2018_Budget_Supplement.pdf 0 Fiji REDD+ Policy0 International Labour Organisation0 Naturally regenerated forest of native species where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed.0 or Pacific Kauri in english0 http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/FJI/5

There are no important natural lakes in Fiji. Total dam capacity in the country was estimated at 133million m 3 in 2015.

The most important dam in the country, constructed to produce hydroelectric power, is the Monasavu dam on the Nanuku river. It was completed in 1983 with a total capacity of 133 million m 3. It is located just above the Monasavu Falls. Water from the dam is diverted through nearly 5.4 km of tunnels to the Wailoa Hydro Power Station on the Wailoa river, which supplies up to 60 percent of the country’s energy needs.

The Nadarivatu dam, also known as the Korolevu dam, is located on the upper reaches of the Sigatoka river and has a total capacity of 36 000 m3. The dam diverts water from the Sigatoka river through a 3 225 m long tunnel to a power station along the Ba river to the southwest. The power station was commissioned in 2012.The Vaturu dam, in the drier west of Viti Levu, has some small hydroelectric energy generation benefits.

Unfortunately Inadequate legislation, a lack of detailed policy, a lack of coordination and a serious deficit of technical and scientifically qualified staff are a barrier for the implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM) in Fiji (SOPAC, 2007).Some conflicts have occurred between different water sectors in some basins, such as the Sigatoka basin. The conflicts arise in part because there is no coordinating mechanism to ensure water use for the different sectors, and especially the agriculture and irrigation sector. Coordinating between the different sectors should be improved, including measures for dealing with low flow and drought conditions, where priorities need to be allocated among various conflicting water users (SOPAC, 2007).

Land – soils

The soils of Fiji are separated into uplands and lowlands reflecting the different soil temperature regimes above and below 600m altitude. Soil temperature has a major influence on plant growth. Similarly soil moisture regimes further influence land use and crop options and are used as primary criteria for differentiating soils between the dry, wet and very moist zones. Soils are further subdivided into the general type of genetic process that produced them and their resultant soil profile.

Young, very sandy soils from various coastal deposits are found on or near the shores of the islands. Soil of the regularly inundated coastal flats, at or near the mean tide level, fringe significant areas of the main islands and for the most part support mangrove forest marsh. Free-draining soils derived from river deposits occupy valley floors. These are generally fertile, deep and agriculturally valuable. Soils with high water tables and impeded internal drainage occupy low-lying depressions in valleys and on terraces and peneplains. Often some of the most developed soil profiles are found on near flat, stable remnants of old peneplain surfaces and very old river terraces. With the exception of recent soils derived from alluvium, Fiji soils are rated as moderately to severely erodible, especially on the slopes0.

Fiji experiences the effect of land degradation. Losses of topsoil have resulted from pressure on the land particularly marginal land. While over 60% of total land area is suited to some form of agricultural activity, only about 16% is suitable for sustained arable farming. Competition and pressure on the land is increasing due to a fast growing population. This competition and pressure on the land increases land shortage due to expansion of cash cropping and grazing on flatter lands. Size of land holdings have also declined. The small size of farms, mostly less than 3 hectares; force farmers into intensive cultivation often mono cropping for high output/short term production without fallow periods. In Fiji, more people have turned to the land for living and there is a problem of agricultural expansion onto marginal hilly land, which is prone to high soil erosion and subsequent soil degradation.

0 Capacity Building and Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management in Fiji – GEF/UNDP joint project6

Soil erosion (average of 50-80 tonnes/hectare/year) has already reached a level surpassing the acceptable soil loss rate in the tropics of 13.5 tonnes/ha/year. Existing research conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture indicates the use of hedgerows as sustainable land management practice for sloping lands have directly trapped up to 86 tonnes of soil per hectare per year.

Biodiversity

Fiji is included in the Micronesia-Polynesia biodiversity hotspot – considered to be one of the most threatened of earth’s 34 biodiversity hotspots0 – and many Fijian plant species are unique. Fiji harbours a broad range of ecosystems ranging from reefs, mangroves, coastal zones, to a gradually elevating topography from fertile lowlands to grasslands, rocky hills and volcanic mountains topped with unique Pacific rainforests. Fiji contains globally significant biodiversity on both land and sea and much of Fiji’s flora and fauna are species found nowhere else in the world.

Being a relatively remote archipelago Fiji’s terrestrial flora and fauna is characterized by high endemicity. Of the 1628 species of vascular plants approximately 50% are found only in Fiji, and many of these are single-island endemics with restricted ranges. Forest ecosystems present in Fiji include lowland rainforest, upland rainforest, cloud forest, tropical dry forest, talasiga (shrub grassland), mangroves, coastal strand forest and man-made agroforests. Fiji also has its own endemic family of flowering trees, the Degeneraceae, distantly related to magnolias. This ancient plant family evolved about 100 million years ago and is now only represented by two Degeneria species in Fiji: unusual characteristics include the spiral arrangement of its flower parts and its seed leaves which are typically borne in threes (rather than the usual one for monocotyledons and two for dicotyledons). Degeneria is the Fiji Botanic Gardens’ emblem.Fiji has six other unique/endemic plant genera: four of these, Gillespiea, Hedstromia, Readea and Squamellaria, are in the rose family Rubiaceae, while Amaroria is in the quassia family Simaroubaceae and Neoveitchia is in the palm family Arecaceae.0

The vertebrate fauna is relatively low in diversity, yet high in endemism: over one third of Fiji’s birds and reptiles are endemic, as well as 17% of its mammals. The study of terrestrial invertebrates is still in its early stages, but preliminary findings indicate similarly high levels of endemism0. Many species appears in the endangered IUCN list such as the Fiji Blossom Bat (Notopteris macdonaldi), the Fijian flying fox (Mirimiri acrodonta), Fiji tree frog (Platymantis vitiensis), Fijian ground frog (Platymantis vitianus), Red-throated lorikeet (Charmosyna amabilis), etc.In spite of this globally significant biodiversity, no comprehensive system of Protected Areas (PAs) exists in the country and PA legislation – which dates from colonial times – is inadequate. Fiji’s network of protected areas currently covers less than 3% of Fiji’s land area, and the PAs have not been selected on the basis of any ecological or biodiversity significance. There is a need for a policy and legal framework that would allow for innovative, community-based management of PAs and empower local people to participate and benefit from PA management.

Given that the State owns foreshore, which is between the mean high water and the mean low water marks, the Government of Fiji also own the majority of mangrove forest in Fiji (although fishing rights within mangrove ecosystems belong to the respective qoliqoli). Protection of mangrove ecosystems need to be considered in all project activities relating to mangrove rehabilitation.

An increase in human population, commercialization, monetization and globalization coupled with the erosion of traditional knowledge about resource management have made the Polynesia-Micronesia Biodiversity Hotspot one of the most highly threatened in the world. The biggest threats are0:

Invasive species: Invasive species (both native and non-native) are arguably the major threat to the hotspot's biodiversity. The major challenge is not only to control populations of existing invasive species, but also to prevent new introductions.

Habitat alteration and loss: Three quarters of threatened species in the hotspot are affected by habitat alteration and loss. The primary activity that leads to this threat is the conversion of native ecosystems

0 https://www.conservation.org/How/Pages/Hotspots.aspx 0 http://botanicalgardensfiji.com/flora/ 0 H. Waqa-Sakiti: Overview of the Forestry Sector and Forest Management in Fiji, 20170 https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/polynesia-micronesia/threats 7

to non-native ecosystems for economic activities such as agriculture and logging. Examples include the use of bulldozers to clear land and dredge sand or dynamite and poisons to catch fish. Hunting is a threat to some species on some islands such as coconut crabs (Birgus latro), fruit bats (mostly Pteropus spp.), pigeons (mostly Ducula and Ptilinopus spp.) and other large birds that are traditional food sources in many parts of the hotspot. Some plant species are also in serious decline due to harvesting at an unsustainable level. An example is Intsia bijuga a highly valued timber tree in many countries of the hotspot. This formerly widespread tree is threatened because the wood is highly valued for carving, and is made into kava bowls in Samoa and Fiji.

Natural phenomena: which are increasing as a result of climate change while the available areas of refuge are being reduced.

Over-exploitation of natural resources and destructive harvest techniques

Socio-economic context

Population

It has a total population of 884,8870. Most of Fiji’s population is indigenous Fijian or iTaukei. Over 56% of Fiji’s population is iTaukei with 37% made up of Fijians of Indian descent (2007 census) 0.

The median age of the population recorded in the 2017 census is 27.5, indicating that half of Fiji’s population are youth aged below that. Fiji’s literacy rate is 93.7%. Fiji’s unemployment rate is 6.1% with the youth unemployment rate at 18.76%, a majority being those who are university educated.

The Median Age for Males is 27.2 compared to 27.8 for Females. Males accounted for slightly over a half (50.7%) of the population with the sex ratio of 102, that is 102 Males for every 100 Females. The total labour force is estimated at 366,800 composed of 65% male and 35% female 0. There is a notable gap in women’s earnings, amounting to a third less than those recorded for males. The ILO also records evidence of the gender gap worsening with more women likely to enter informal work and subsistence activities.

Livelihoods

With over 70% of its population employed in the Agriculture sector, the sector is the main source of livelihoods for most Fijians.

AgricultureThe Agriculture sector contributes to around 7% of GDP0. Traditionally, subsistence agriculture and sugarcane production have been the two pillars of Fiji’s agriculture sector. In 2017, the sugar industry remained significant, employing around 200,000 people. Due to changes in trade conditions, natural disaster and various other factors; the performance of the sugar industry has been in decline. Though subsistence agriculture still takes a central role in the sector, there has been an increased transformation to semi-commercial farming, as evidenced by increased share of other crops subsector. Other crops subsector are primarily driven by root crops and horticulture industry. The livestock sector has generally been dominated by beef and dairy production, but both the industries are in decline. The industry currently relies on imports to meet domestic demand. Whereas, pork, poultry and goat production has been growing consistently. The other crops and livestock subsectors together contribute to about 6.8 % of the national GDP. The project will primarily target both subsistence and community-driven semi-commercial farming for introducing climate smart agriculture and agroforestry practices.

Low agricultural productivity hampers food security in Fiji0. This has a serious implication on the country’s ability to produce enough food and thus leads into food imports. Government recognizes the need for a demand driven approach both for maintaining the country competitive in exports and enabling substitution of imports. This will require greater commercialization of small farmers, strengthening of industry organizations and agri-business value chains and promotion of young farmer training. Current policy prioritizes invigorating exports and effective implementation of import substitution to increase self-reliance. Key targets are to increase non-sugar agriculture

0 Fiji Bureau of Statistics Population and Housing Census 20170 http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/0https://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/census-2017/census-2017-release-10 http://www.investmentfiji.org.fj/ 0 FAO CPF Document 2013-20178

exports and to reduce the value of fruit and vegetable imports (Agriculture Strategic Development Plan ASDP, 2010-2012).

Sugar caneSubsistence farming and sugar cane production still dominate the agricultural sector. The sugar sector used to be the backbone of Fiji’s economy; however, production had declined by around 34% from a total of 3,380,000 tons in 1991 to 2,197,950 tons in 2009. The total area under sugarcane has also decreased from 112,192 hectares in 1991 to 57,177 hectares in 2009 (Agriculture Census, 2009).

A major contributing factor in the reduction in area has been the insecurity of land tenure. Assistance is required in land reforms.

Negative impacts on the sugar sector (including those relating to natural disasters) have manifested in increased amounts of un-harvested cane, and expiring land leases which resulted in an increase in the number of farmers leaving the industry. Turbulent commodity markets led into Fiji’s loss of preferential access to higher priced markets in the EU.

CoconutThe main products coming from coconuts are the oil and the copra0. Coconut is an important ro Fiji consumption and exportation. Coconuts are mainly along the coastlines and could be a good revenue stream for local communities.

Fruits and horticultureWhile the traditional commodity sectors are struggling, horticultural exports have begun to perform better. This segment is entirely small farm-based, and it includes ginger, tropical fruit, root crops and vegetables. The core market opportunities for these products are provided by (i) exporting to the Indo-Fijian, Asian and Pacific Island communities in Australasia; (ii) enhancing household self-sufficiency; and (iii) supplying the expanding urban and tourism markets. These are readily obtainable markets for which a marketing structure and channels are already in place. The Chinese Aid projects in commercial agriculture are on the increase.

Pawpaw, pineapple, and banana are the major fruits in Fiji. The higher demand for pineapple in the local market has been influenced by the hotel industry, diversification of crops and favourable market prices. The area planted with banana increased as a result of high local demand, especially from the local hotel sector, and from the exports (Agriculture Census).

Despite the successes in horticultural sector, evidence points to life becoming more difficult for some rural communities as food resources become scarcer with declining soil fertility, soil erosion, the encroachment of pests and diseases and the impacts of natural disasters.

Agriculture & Climate changeClimate change affects agricultural production in a complex manner. Erratic rain seasons have been observed in the past few years. This has led to crop failures and affected food production, leading to food insecurity in some rural communities. Floods lead to waterlogged fields or washing away of crops.

Climate variables control the geographical distribution of pests and diseases, and may potentially expand their migration to new areas. Climate change can escalate epidemics of pests and diseases across many districts in both livestock and crops, leading to lowered productivity and food insecurity.

The most vulnerable crops to rising temperatures and increased dry season rainfall are coffee, rice, maize, bananas and beans, according to USAID.

FisheriesFiji has a large and diverse fisheries sector, encompassing many different resources and with significant on-shore processing and value-adding. Consequently fish and fishing are extremely important to the economy of Fiji. A large number of people are employed in the fisheries sector and fish makes an important contribution to the diet of local population. In relative terms, fisheries is the third largest food commodity resource, behind sugar and

0 the dried meat, or dried kernel, of thecoconut used to extract coconut oil9

‘other crops’ segment. The fisheries sector also has important linkages with Fiji’s substantial tourism industry both for food and amenity value. Fish, both local and imported, is an important element of food security in Fiji.

TourismTourism has overtaken agriculture as the major foreign exchange earner; Fiji recently topped the world in being the most preferred favourite holiday destination for global travellers in 2016. The sector also provides a source of income and livelihoods for many Fijians both in rural and urban centres.

Indigenous Peoples and Land Tenure

Land ownership in Fiji is dominated by customary lands governed by traditional laws and relatively limited state and private lands.

Around 1.52 million hectares, or 83% of the land is communally owned through traditional landowning units called mataqali, whilst the remainder is private (freehold) and state owned land. A significant development in the Fijian land tenure system was the establishment of the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB) in 1940 to act on behalf of landowning mataqali to secure, protect and manage land ownership rights and facilitate commercial transaction for its use. The local governance system in Fiji is based on landowning units with subsets of clans, village (community), tikina (district) and yasana (province).

Institutional context

The islands of Fiji are divided into provinces, themselves divided into district. The project will focus on the main island Viti Levu which is divided into eight of Fiji's fourteen Provinces. The Provinces of Ba, Nadroga-Navosa, and Ra comprise the Western Division, while Naitasiri, Namosi, Rewa, Serua, and Tailevu form the Central Division.Each province is further divided into districts which comprises communities.

As explained in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) document of 20140, In Fiji, sub-national level governmental and administrative activities are undertaken through four distinct systems:

1) The government administration: the country is divided into four Divisions: Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western. Within these divisions are 14 Provinces and 17 Districts. Divisional Commissioners, Provincial Administrators and District Officers head the divisions, provinces and districts respectively. Their main function is to supervise and coordinate all governmental services and development activities in their area of responsibility. These offices come under the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management.

2) The municipal administration: The major urban centres proclaimed as a City or Town under the Local Government Act (Cap. 125) are administered by councils elected by the eligible population residing within proclaimed boundaries. Special Administrators (formerly mayors) head the town/city councils. The municipal government comes under the Ministry of Local Government, Housing and the Environment has overall responsibility over municipal government.

3) Rural local authorities: All areas outside the jurisdiction of proclaimed cities, towns and Fijian villages come under the purview of the rural local authorities, which are public health authorities constituted under the Public Health Act (Cap. 111). Their primary responsibility is to control public health, building construction and other matters governed by The Public Health Act. The Central Board of Health, constituted by the Minister for Health, maintains overall coordination of the activities of the rural local authorities.

4) The iTaukei administration: The iTaukei Affairs Board, constituted under the iTaukei Affairs Act (Cap. 120) governs all matters concerning the administration of iTaukei affairs, including iTaukei custom services. A province (Yasana) is made up of a group of sub-units called Tikina (akin to district level). The Tikina comprises of several villages. The Tikina and Yasana boundaries were drawn up during the colonial era, largely for administrative purposes. However, most of these clusters are based on traditional socio-political ties. Fiji has fourteen iTaukei provinces and Rotuma. Each of the 14 provinces are governed by a Provincial Council headed by a Roko Tui. The functions of the Provincial Councils are: "to promote the health, welfare and good government of iTaukei residents in the province and to carry out such other duties and

0 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/February/Fiji_R-PP_rev_2014_01_22.pdf10

functions which the Minister or the iTaukei Affairs Board may see fit to delegate to such council". The iTaukei Affairs Board approves the appointment of the Roko Tui and approves all rates and by-laws applied by the Provincial Councils.

Figure: The iTauki administration

Within this framework, the main institutions, commissions and decision makers involved in natural resources management at the different levels are the following:

National Institutions involved in NR management

The Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (MTA) develops, controls and provides awareness on policies that will provide for the continued good governance and wellbeing of the iTaukei (indigenous peoples of Fiji). Their role as lead implementing agency reflects the ‘community based’ focus of the project and outcomes relevant to Fiji’s indigenous peoples.

11

The iTaukei Land Trust Board are the custodians of iTaukei land in the country. Almost 90% of land in Fiji is customary owned. The Board provides guidance on the use of iTaukei land and represents the interests of iTaukei landowners on land dealings.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) includes the Land Use Planning unit and Extension and Research services. The Ministry has a presence in all communities included in the project sites, with a mandate focused on the development of the agriculture sector (particularly crops and livestock to support both domestic and international export) and to support the use of sustainable farming techniques.

Fiji’s Ministry of Forest (MoFo) oversees the conservation, protection, management and utilization of Fiji’s forest resources and its biodiversity. The productive capacity of Fiji’s forests is essential and conservation is covered under Fiji’s Forest Policy with a focus on natural forests and mangroves. This is carried out by engaging mataqali (land owning units).

Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi) oversees the conservation, protection, management and utilization of Fiji’s forest resources and its biodiversity. The productive capacity of Fiji’s forests is essential and conservation is covered under Fiji’s Forest Policy with a focus on natural forests and mangroves. This is carried out by engaging mataqali (land owning units).

The Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Environment includes the Department of Environment. IN addition to land use, local government, fire and squatter resettlement; the Department of Environment leads on all Government environmental planning, policy and legislation. It is also the GEF-designated national authority and Chair of the National Environment Council.

The Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development oversees the socio-economic development of rural communities and is a key facilitating agency at the community level.

The Ministry of Economy’s Climate Change division oversees key policy related decisions relating to Fiji’s international climate related commitments and is responsible for their translation into national policy.

The Ministry of Women, Children & Poverty Alleviation 's services cuts across all the socio economic sectors in Fiji, which includes supporting families without income support, children at risk, the ultimate need to empower women for greater value adding to mankind; and to improve services to both disabled and older persons.

National level commissions on NR

REDD+ working group involves the PS, high level engagement, and relevant line Ministries. LandCare consist of the Divisional commissioners (West includes RA) and relevant stakeholders involved

in land development programs. They meet bi-annual. They encourage, drive the programs linked to land management (SFM, SLM). Should be working directly with the land owing units.

Provincial & District level

Rokotui Office, provincial office of the Ministry of Itauki Affairs. The office is housing district representatives/conservation officers at Provincial level. The conservation officers are in charge of NRM and planning and taking care of the YMST.

District Development Committee, coordination body with line ministries and other stakeholders. District Representatives are selected by the District Development Committee to be members of the Provincial council to discuss development programs. Coordination

Village & Land Unit level

Village Head, usually a Chief, is the one making decisions at the village level. He is the traditional leader and is role is hereditary.

Turaga Ni Koro, police of the village, rules & regulations, works for the Ministry of iTauki Affairs. Turaga Ni Mataqali, head of the landowning unit. It is a traditional function. Development Committee at village level, oversee and plan development programs within the village

itself. All villages are supposed to prepare a development plan, including NR management (though the YMST). According to the gender mainstreaming target provided at the provincial level women should represent 30% in all types of community committees/groups. For the groups supported by the project, a particular attention will be made that this ratio is respected.

Note: usually one village includes different land owning units, called Mataqali, (in Tailevu several villages can share the land unit, but it is an exception). YMST is at the village level (not the land unit one).

12

The Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST) is a community-based institution developed at either village, district and/or provincial level. It is a co-management structure that operates to support government extension and conservation officers at the district and provincial level to work with community leaders and chiefs. The primary focus of the YMTS has been to support marine management. Yet because many communities are moving to a more holistic ridge to reef management framework, YMSTs are now including the strengthening of terrestrial management. The Ministry of iTaukei (Indigenous) Affairs has made the YMST model a prerequisite for all provinces in Fiji to enhance engagement with communities to strengthen natural resource ownership. The work of the YMST has significantly contributed to Fiji’s commitment to achieve 100% of inshore management by 2020 and has a strong potential to strengthen terrestrial management. The YMSTs also functions as liaisons between community interests and the Fiji Locally Managed Area (FLMA) network and provide information, tools and motivation to sites to implement local resource management.

Legal and policy context

International commitments

Fiji is a signatory to the three Rio Conventions (1992): the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

CBD contains 130 specific actions to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity at the national level (Diversity, 2012). It sets up the Aichi target including Aichi Target 15 to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. Fiji is also a signatory to other key conventions and protocols that are geared towards addressing loss of biodiversity resources such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Nagoya Protocol, Wetlands Convention and Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

UNFCCC is the parent of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), which has been adopted by 192 parties including Fiji, and binds developed countries to report and stabilize their emissions. The New York Declaration on Forests is upheld as one of the most important voluntary agreements designed to protect forests, and has been signed by many governments, NGO’s, and private sector actors. Conserving forests and mitigating GHG emissions is not only an international priority, and consistent with the priorities of the, but is also incorporated into the priorities and plans of Fiji. The Government of Fiji (GoF) has further illustrated their commitment to addressing the cause and effects of climate change, as the first country in the world to ratify the new climate change accord that was adopted at the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015. Fiji has also made a pledge under the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) for an unconditional 10% emissions cut by 2030, compared to business as usual levels, or a conditional 30% reduction with international support. From the 30% emission reduction target, 10% will be achieved through the implementation of the Green Growth Framework.

UNCCD is the only legally binding agreement to link environment and development with sustainable land management. The implementation of UNCCD is committed to a bottom-up approach, which pays attention to the involvement of communities and indigenous/local people in combatting desertification and land degradation, an approach that the project is directly supporting. The Rio+20 land degradation neutral goal, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15.2 is to restore degraded forest and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation, and SDG 15.3 focuses on land degradation neutrality. The Bonn Challenge of 2011 aims to restore 150 million hectares of the world’s deforested and degraded lands by 2020.

Regional Commitments

In the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) with 21 member economies adopted in 2007 an aspirational goal of increasing forest cover by at least 20 million hectares of all types of forests by 2020.Fiji his also committed to the development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as outlined in the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway. This required a broad alliance of people, governments, civil society and the private sector all working together in order to achieve sustainable development objectives by promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth. This aims to create greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion and promoting the integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems.

13

All these major conventions and other international and regional instruments/sustainable development goals have direct implications on the national policy context in Fiji.

National Commitments and Policies

The Government of Fiji (GoF) recognizes that ameliorating the effects of climate change requires coordinated efforts across sectors that support actions through policy interventions and building and enabling environment for increased productivity across agricultural and forestry lands. Through the INDC the GoF has committed to undergo essential sectoral policy and institutional reform that involves the review and update of existing legislation and policies. The focus of the reform is to ensure sustainable economic and social development to improve the livelihoods of all communities in Fiji.

Climate changeFiji signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and ratified it in 1993 and Fiji’s commitments to this Convention are outlined in the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) of 2012. The NCCP serves as an implementing tool for many of the strategies outlined in Fiji’s People’s Charter for Change defined in its implementation through the Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-economic Development 2009-2014 its successor national development document as well as the Green Growth Framework from 2016. The Policy emphasizes on mitigation measures focused on forest conservation, reforestation, afforestation and enrichment planting in contributing towards biodiversity and conservation, improved watershed and waterway management, and improved food security. The great conservation and sustainable management potential of mangrove systems is noted. Mangroves ensure the protection of a larger relative carbon sink than tropical natural forest, together with coast protection, marine breeding grounds and healthy reef systems.

Land Restoration, Forestry and REDD+The Rural Land Use Policy (RLUP) is the overarching framework for forest policy with regard to forest land use planning and sustainable use of forest resources. It stresses the need for a sound forest land use classification, derived from comprehensive national forest programme and appropriate legislation, and proposes a National Forest Inventory (NFI) and the designation of a permanent forest area that also provides for forest conservation. The RLUP makes specific reference to protection, rehabilitation and sustainable management of natural forests as well as the sustainable use of forest plantations with regard to maintaining site quality. It links sound forest land use to prevention of land degradation, along with soil and watershed conservation. The RLUP guides the operations of the Ministry of Forestry.

The strategic vision that Fiji has for its forest sector is perhaps best described in its National Action Plan 2017-2021 for the Ministry of Forests of the Fiji Republic. The NAP describes the countries six policy goals and associated strategies which are listed below. It suggests that Fiji has a great potential to create semi-industrial forest-based value chains that create benefits both to industry and rural populations (the land owning communities) who are directly involved in sustainable forest management.

- Goal 1: To improve Fiji’s social, environmental and economic quality of forest management through the provision of forest policies, regulations, incentives, including market access to forest managers

- Goal 2: To promote maximum participation by forest owners, emerging small-scale growers in production of wood and other forest products, within acceptable social and environmental conditions

- Goal 3: To identify and tap into all financing sources for implementing SFM to maximize the potential of natural forest in providing cash and non-cash income generating jobs and economic opportunities for forest-dependent citizen in Fiji

- Goal 4: Implementation of measures which support the creation of an enabling environment for sustainable community forestry development for all stakeholders in rural Fijian communities

- Goal 5: To strengthen, develop and implement cross-sectoral opportunities nationally, with government, non-governmental and private sector through integrated holistic management approaches for Sustainable Forest Management

- Goal 6: To comprehensively analyze the quality of forest governance and identify areas of weakness, devising and implementing suitable responses, monitoring results, continuing adapting and learning to ensure progress

Fiji’s national REDD+ programme began in 2009, guided by the National REDD+ Policy, the 2012 National Climate Change Policy and the National REDD+ Strategy. Fiji has made excellent progress with its REDD+ strategy and this augurs well for documenting the increase in forest carbon stocks due to R2R project and being able to secure

14

REDD+ payments for landowners and/or Fiji Government including through the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.

AgricultureThe National Agriculture Policy (NAP, 2013) mission is to transform subsistence farming to sustainable commercial agriculture utilising more effective and efficient technologies. This is turn will be crucial for decoupling deforestation from agriculture by making the use of existing agricultural lands more productive.

BiodiversityEnvironment Impact Assessment (EIA) is one of the most common tools used in Fiji for mainstreaming biodiversity issues. Its utilization is rendered obligatory under the Environment Management Act 2005 which requires that all development will undergo an EIA prior to any development of an area or site. Inclusion of environmental and biodiversity in Fiji’s national and line policies has furthermore seen a number of government agencies working together in conservation programs or on the sustainable use of natural resources. The Departments of Fisheries, Forestry, Agriculture, Tourism and Town Planning along with non-government agencies have collaborated in programs and initiatives.

1.1.2 Context in intervention areas

The Project Identification Form indicated that the project will focus on 2 Provinces: Ra and Tailevu. Indeed, the rate of degradation has been quite high in these provinces. The project sites will be across the Navauvadra and Tomaniivi-wabu forest reserves down along the upper Rewa River and into Tailevu province towards the lowlands including mangrove zones. The forests are categorized as tropical dry forest across the Ra province and turns increasingly moist in the lower regions of Tailevu province.

Biophysical context

The Province of Ra is located at the northern tip of Viti Levu and is one of eight provinces found on the main island, with a total land area of approximately 1,341 square kilometres. The 2007 national census estimates that Ra province has a population of 29,464 (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007) with the majority consisting of Indigenous Fijians, followed by Fijians of Indian descent, dispersed across 19 districts, including Nakorotubu district, and 93 villages. The Ra Province uniquely hosts two mountain ranges, Nakauvadra and Nakorotubu, which are surrounded by large tracks of grass lands.

The province of Tailevu is also one of eight provinces based in Viti Levu, its 755 square kilometers occupy the south-eastern fringe of the island, along with some central areas. According to the 2017 census, it had a population of 64,552, the fifth largest among the Provinces. The main urban area of Tailevu is Nausori. Tailevu includes the Bau District, the seat of the Kubuna Confederacy, one of three traditional chiefly hierarchies in Fiji. Kubuna's Paramount Chief, called the Vunivalu of Bau, is considered the most senior chief in Fiji.

15

Map of Viti Levu, Fiji’s main island, with the Ra and Tailevu Provinces highlighted

Natural resources context

One of the largest tracts of forest in the country is found in the Nakorotubu mountain range, connecting crucial ecosystems and providing valuable services for the people of Nakorotubu (Bergen, 2010). The range is an important forest refuge for Fiji's native flora and fauna and runs along the eastern side of Viti Levu from the Tailevu province in the south up to the province of Ra in the north. It connects the lowland tropical rainforests of southern and central Viti Levu and the dry forests of northern Viti Levu. Much of the mountainous interior area is covered with primary forest, but the vegetation of many other areas comprises secondary forest, agroforest, and village land.

On the Nakorotubu range alone, two vegetation types are found (Mueller-Dombois & Fosberg, 1998) . They are the Lowland Vegetation Type and the Upland Vegetation Type. Within these vegetation types, four main plant communities or forest types were distinguished—(1) Secondary Forest, (2) Primary Forest, (3) Freshwater Swampland and (4) Karst or Limestone Forest. The flora of the Nakorotubu Range is described from a rapid biodiversity assessment survey conducted in 2008. A total of 425 plant taxa (including 32 undetermined species) were recorded on Nakorotubu Range, representing 118 families. This comprises 75 dicot families, 19 monocots, 2 gymnosperms and 21 fern and fern allies families. Two of the largest families include Orchidaceae with 20 genera and 26 species; followed by Poaceae with 19 genera and 20 species. Of the 393-species identified in a study, 78% (307 species) are native with 35% (132) endemic species. The 307 native species comprise about 17% of the entire native flora for Fiji. The Angiosperms and Gymnosperms recorded during the survey added up to 337 species. Of these, 75% (251) are native species and of this native species, 53% (132 species) are endemic. A total of 64 exotic plant species were recorded during the survey of which six species are internationally recognized invasive species.

The vegetation of western Viti Levu is dominated by talasiga grasslands – meaning “sun burnt land” in Fijian—which refers to the fire-modified or fire-degraded grasslands and fern-lands found on the lower fringes where native flora and fauna is absent. Talasiga grasslands cover much of the dry side of the larger Fijian islands (Parham 1972, Smith 1979). Adverse impacts of slash and burn agriculture and frequent fires, many of which are deliberately lit (Drysdale, 2013), have prevented the successful re-establishment of native tree species across the western district. Talasiga covers about a third of the area of the two main Fijian islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, mostly in the poorer, eroded areas of the western dry zone.

The remaining intact forests in the western side are located in three large forest patches: the Koroyanitu Range in the Ba Province, and the Nakauvadra and Nakorotubu Ranges in Ra Province, comprising of lowland rainforest, upland rainforest and cloud forest (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg, 1998). The results of the RAP survey of Nakauvadra and Nakorotubu conducted in 2018 caused the designation of these two ranges as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) thus further proposing them as National Priority Sites for Conservation. One of the highlight of the surveys were the discovery of endangered and critically endangered species including the Fijian Ground Frog (Platymantis vitianus), currently listed as Endangered, which was found in the Nakauvadra Range and was previously thought to have been extirpated from Viti Levu. Another significant discovery was the sighting of the endemic Podocarp species (Acmopyle sahniana), a Critically Endangered species, in the Nakorotubu Range. Other globally threatened species found included two rare endemic stick insects (Nisyrus spinulosus and Phasmotaenia inermis), the Fiji long-legged warbler (Trichocichla rufa), the Black-faced shrikebill (Clytorhynchus nigrogularis) and the Friendly ground dove (Gallicolumba stairii).

Pine plantation estate in the Ra Province is estimated at 2,890ha of fully stocked P. caribaea which is equivalent to 4% of the total pine estate in Fiji (Oliver, 1999). There are many small pine woodlots in communal and private lands in Ra Province. Pine woodlots range in size from 25ha to 100ha. These were planted through the Fiji Pine Extension Program of the Department of Forest and were aimed at establishing privately owned pine plantations among rural communities to generate economic returns and supplement Fiji Pine Limited wood resources (Von Maybel, 1998).Future Forest Fiji was established in 2005 by a group of local and overseas investors mainly to specialize in growing teak (Tectona grandis) for timber production and export. At the end of 2012 a total of 200 ha were planted (Future Forest Fiji, 2012). As of 2014, the company owns 239 ha of teak plantation under pre-commercial stages with the oldest planted in 2006 and an estimated 60% ranging from 2 to 5 years old (Future Forest, 2015). A majority of the teak plantations are located in Ra and the rest in the Nadroga Province.

Socio-economic context

16

During the project preparation phase, a socio-economic baseline study was led (cf Annex 8 for complete report). It looked at a high number of indicators ranging both:

sociologic: number of households, household size, gender and youth repartition, level of education economic: level of income, source of income, safety net distribution, source of food

It confirmed the high level of poverty, mainly in Ra as out of 200 respondents to surveys conducted in Ra, only one respondent confirmed their average household income was between 200-400FJD. All other respondents came from households with an average income of only 0-200FJD per week. No respondents had average household incomes above 400FJD per week. Tailevu in comparison shows a slightly higher proportion of households in the 200-400FJD average income per week category, with a small handful earning above 400 FJD a week. This may be consistent with more fulltime workers/casual workers who earn an income outside of the traditional subsistence categories. The average income for majority of households in Tailevu however, still falls within the 0-200FJD a week range. Their source of income and food is mostly coming from agriculture and fisheries (in Ra). An interesting element is the reliance for safety net on government assistance as well as relatives and friends outside of the village. The project will work on income diversification in order to widen the safety net.

Sites selection process

From the two targeted Provinces: Ra and Tailevu, three districts were selected: Namena and Dawasamu districts in Tailevu and Nakorotubu district in the Ra Province. The three districts were selected due to:

their geography set up as their lie adjacent along each other, as the project works at landscape level it doesn’t make sense to have scattered sites.

the high level of poverty in these Districts (cf World Bank report0) which has only been increase by the devastating effect of cyclone Winston.

the high degradation of these areas with extended grassland regularly burnt and the disappearance of indigenous trees due to logging

the complementarity with existing projects already supporting the Northern part of Ra (FAO GEF 4 and Conservation International programs)

the possibility to lay the ground work, making sure communities are involved, for the upcoming Green Climate Fund project which is due to make investments in the area.

Namena and Dawasamu district are located on the northeast side of Viti Levu in Tailevu Province. The districts are largely undeveloped in terms of infrastructure (electricity, piped water, paved roads) and receives minimal tourism attraction. The 18 traditional villages have between 35 and 55 households each and a total population of over 3,500 people that live largely subsistence livelihoods. Their main sources of income include fisheries (particularly beche-de-mer), small-scale agriculture (mostly root crops and fruits), and some land-owning clans receive income from forestry activities and lease income on their land. There are two small backpacker lodges at the Dawasamu district, operated by the local community of the coastal villages.

The district of Nakorotubu is located on the southeast portion of the Ra Province. It covers an area of around 513 km2 stretching from Namatadamu village in Bureivanua to Nayavuira village. Minimum monthly temperatures range between 20.2-23.5°C while maximum monthly temperatures range between 27.1-20.1°C. There are 15 villages in Nakorotubu district with over 5,500 residents.

Usually one village includes different land owning units, called Mataqali. Each Mataqali should have its own Land Use Plan. In Tailevu, several villages can share the land unit (it is an exception) so one mataqali could have several Land Use plans as for each village/Mataqali portion. Within these sites, the project decided to focus on large Mataqali (over 400 ha in Nokorotubu and Namena and 300 ha in Dawasamu) to ensure that the land size will be significant enough to welcome land use planning.

The table below describes the total available lands from the different land owning unit (mataqali) that have a large land mass.

0 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/495351468253761196/pdf/635680ESW0P1150IC0disclosed02070120.pdf17

DistrictsTotal land area (ha)

Total number of villages in the District Population Total number of Mataqali

Total number of villages with large Mataqali

No.LUPs in the large Mataqali

Number of ha available for CBINRM in the selected mataqali

Namena 8,089 9 2,307 85 5 6 2,551 Dawasamu 5,806 9 1,301 49 7 10 2,367 Nakorotubu 33,823 15 5,595 274 5 5 13,881 Total 47,719 33 9,203 408 17 21 18,799

The land available in the selected Mataqali for Community Based Integrated Natural Resources Management is 18,799 ha. It is estimated that 3,500 people populate the selected mataqalis. This available land is distributed as follows:

Province Districts TotalAerable lands (Climate Smart Agriculture)

Non- Arable lands (agroforestry,SLM,Rangelands)

Class VII (Sustainable Forest Management/Restoration of degraded forest)

Class V (Rangelands/Agroforestry)

Namena 363 1,448 656 84 2,551 Dawasamu 163 1,546 656 1 2,367

Ra Nakorotubu 2,173 5,387 6,231 91 13,881 Total 2,699 8,380 7,543 176 18,799

Landscapes and Available Hactares in the selected Mataqali

Tailevu

1.2 THE CURRENT SITUATION

1.2.1 Main environmental threats

Deforestation and land degradation linked to agriculture expansion and logging

Deforestation and land degradation in forests and peripheries of forest frontiers are key environmental problems faced by Fiji. The rate of degradation in the forest peripheries, in this context, also refers to loss of vegetation cover in agroecosystems (including rangelands), and the continued loss of productivity in agricultural lands, impacting local livelihoods significantly. Poor agricultural land practices have contributed to degradation of agricultural lands and their productivity, and the vicious cycle of resource depletion and land degradation. Some of these practices are:

Subsistence and commercial agriculture; agriculture is identified as the main driver of deforestation in Fiji. This is due to the extensive use of clear cutting methods for shifting cultivation. The need to move from one piece of land to another is mainly caused by poor soil conservation and other agricultural practices (e.g. intensive slope land agriculture, mono-cropping). This is the primary cause of forest clearing at the forest frontiers, and for continued degradation of agricultural lands. One of the key contributors to deforestation is indiscriminate clearing of forest, especially around watershed areas for semi-commercial and commercial agriculture, predominantly for taro and kava cultivation. While taro market prices have been stable, increasing market demand and price for kava have made it the most popular semi-commercial and commercial alternative for many rural land owners. Kava cultivators are predominantly iTaukei subsistence farmers who are transitioning to semi-commercial operation 0. There have been different strategies proposed to address both the above drivers, this includes sustainable farming practices/techniques to maximize production without degrading the land, diversifying crops, agroforestry, and overall better land-use planning. But these strategies have not yet been implemented adequately due to the barriers described below.

Pastoral practices; dairy farming and livestock production (including goats) with free roaming cattle and goats have caused heavy forest degradation mainly due to the effects of browsing on natural regeneration. Indeed Fiji with over 258 0000 goats in 2014, Fiji has much more livestock than any other Pacific island. The Lack of suitable rangeland management practices has resulted in the cattle moving on further and further into forests for pasture. Improved rangeland practices and agro-silvo-pastoral systems would be the key to addressing this driver.

Illegal and unregulated logging; this is a major cause of forest degradation. This is due to two different reasons; i) licensed forest projects/leasings’ transgressing the agreed boundaries; ii) communities harvesting timber for local use (e.g. construction) using practices that cause considerable damage to the

0 Emission reduction program Document (ER-PD) FCPF Carbon Fund, December 20180 https://fr.actualitix.com/pays/wld/elevage-de-ovins-et-caprins.php18

forests. The former can be addressed through training of community wardens and adopting community-driven forest protection measures. The latter can be addressed through improved forest management practices at community level.

Unsustainable extraction of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs); as mentioned above, local communities depend on NTFPs for various different reasons. Communities collect medicinal plants, wild crops, edible ferns, fruit, nuts, pandanus leaves (for weaving mats), sago palm leaves (for roof thatching), and wild pigs in the forest. However, there is a lack of quantifiable information on the impact of such extraction to substantiate the impact of traditional practices. Excessive and poor NTFPs extraction practices can be a driver of forest degradation in Fiji. For example, using fire for clearing the area in order to access the NTFP is a traditional practice which severely damages the ecosystem. Improved extraction practices and sustainable production of high value multiple purpose species would be an ideal strategy to address this driver.

Poorly planned infrastructure development0. Several types of forest conversion to infrastructure are identified at the national level. In the context of deforestation, infrastructure development includes construction of roads, hydro dams and electricity; urban development and resettlement; tourism development. Fiji does not have a national land use plan, which is a major constraint to resource allocation and management in the rural sector and is of critical importance to ensure rationalised infrastructure development that considers impacts on all land-based resources such as forest, agriculture, minerals, rivers and streams (GoF, 2015a).

The current deforestation rate in Fiji is relatively modest and at face value, cannot be considered alarming (forest cover losses per year is less than 0.1% per year, source: SOPAC, 2012), but these calculations take into account exotic plantations and do not directly reflect the loss of natural forests (from carbon losses perspective, it is also important to note that higher level of carbon is sequestered in the natural forests).

Looking at the Forest Resources Assessment from 2014 and its projection, cf table below0, it is clear that closed forest (natural forest) lost ground to Open Forest.

National class (1000 ha) 2000 2005 2010 2015Closed Forest 639 602 562 524Open Forest 302 344 415 484Pine plantations 77 92 78 84Hardwood plantations 53 61 63 70Total area 1071 1099 1118 1162

There has been a loss of natural forests due to the drivers listed above having disastrous consequences for the unique biodiversity of Fiji. In terms of forest degradation in natural forests, there has been a substantial level of forest degradation in the country, as Fiji’s second communication to the UNFCCC and other related reports (FRA 2010, SOPAC 2012) confirm, more than deforestation, forest degradation remains the most important source of emissions from the forest sector in Fiji.

There has been work done to improve harvesting regimes focusing on improved engineering standards (road and crossing construction) and tree felling regimes as well as techniques to reduce the impact of logging on the residual vegetation allowing regeneration and growth of the understory trees and vegetation. Despite these improvements in harvesting regimes, forest degradation is rife and about 40% of native forests are degraded due to logging (mainly planned but not always controlled), clearance for agriculture or timber extraction, collection of firewood, and the growth of invasive vine and tree species. Mangroves face similar pressures, and they have declined in area by 25% between 2003 and 2013. Increasing risk of droughts, fires and landslides due to changing rainfall patterns and intensity along with cyclones are increasing the vulnerability of native forests and mangroves. Approximately 2.7% of native forests are currently protected, and there are plans to protect an additional 14%.0

0 Emission reduction program Document (ER-PD) FCPF Carbon Fund, December 20180 http://120.52.51.13/www.fao.org/3/a-az212e.pdf 0 Emission reduction program Document (ER-PD) FCPF Carbon Fund, December 201819

Burning and Grassland fire

Deliberate and uncontrolled burning is a rampant problem, especially during the dry season and on sugarcane plantations. In the project areas, the majority of the land consists of talasiga grassland that is continuously exposed to fires, thus decreasing surrounding soil quality and increasing difficulties associated with management of exotic species. The expanded grass land increases the threat of the encroachment of exotic species into the higher elevation pristine areas of the Nakauvadra and Nakorotubu range. A study of the water and nutrient dynamics of pine forest on former grass land soils in south west Viti Levu (Waterloo 1994) concluded that fires should not be used between pine crop rotation as subsequent crop yield will decline significantly. This decline is attributed to massive surge in nutrients released to streams with the first rain after the burn-off. Pine forests are harvested on a 20-24-year cycle while sugarcane fields are harvested annually.

Historically, grassland fires in the project zone have occurred on an annual basis, largely due to pig hunting, careless behaviour, and stray fires from sugarcane burning. In 2014 a total area of 169 ha was destroyed by fire compared to 19 ha in 2011 and 2013. This was due mainly to the extreme dry conditions. Several fire prevention measures such as mixed species to help contain fires, fire prevention and educational campaigns, or fire breaks including fire-retardant plants such as pineapples, coconuts and citrus trees have been planted. Planting fruit crops in the firebreaks means that communities will take a more active interest in monitoring for fires near the reforestation sites, whilst also providing additional food security and income generation.

Vicious circle of land degradation and climate vulnerability exacerbating extreme weather events’ impact

Ecosystem degradation also has significant implications in terms of vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters. Deforestation of mountain watersheds undermines the roles of forests in buffering variations in hydrological regimes and river flows, which are likely to become increasingly pronounced under conditions of climate change and during extreme storm events and to pose increasing risks to populations living downstream. The degradation and loss of riparian, aquatic and coastal vegetation similarly increases the vulnerability of local populations to climate change and variability and to natural disasters, given the importance of these vegetation types for ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA).

The project areas are already prone to droughts exacerbated by seasonal El Nino weather pattern. Since 1989, a series of droughts have significantly impacted Ra and Tailevu, the most extreme of which occurred in 1992, 1997-98, 2003, 2010 and 2015. The 2010 event lasted 16 months resulting in water rationing and dispersal of emergency water supplies to many communities. These droughts impact subsistence and commercial farming as well as survival rates of livestock as food stocks becomes increasingly depleted.Tropical Cyclone Winston, the strongest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, devastated huge areas of vegetation and coral reef in the Ra Province.

Flooding is another extreme weather event that greatly impacts the Province and affects livelihoods and wellbeing of communities, which is usually associated with tropical depressions and cyclones. Flooding in the area is further exacerbated by reduced vegetation on the catchment and gravel extraction, which increases stream-flow during extreme rainfall events.

1.2.2 Baseline initiatives

The activities carried out by the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, Ministry of Forestry and Ministry of Agriculture form the main baseline for this GEF project. Indeed this project build on the Strategic Development Plan of each of these Ministries as well as the Annual Operational Plans.

Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (MTA)

The Ministry is responsible for the preservation of Fijian culture and for the economic and social development of indigenous Fijians. The Ministry works at all levels; national (MTA), divisional (iTaukei Land & Trust Board), provincial (iTaukei Affairs Board/ Roko Tui or provincial commissioners), District (Mata ni Tikina or Tikina Administrator), and Village (Turaganikoro or Village Administrator). Following the national discourse and policy directions advocating sustainable management of natural resources by the resource owners themselves, the Ministry is gradually establishing Yaubula Management Support Teams (YMSTs) at the village, district and provincial levels. These are community-based institutions and are co-management structures that better facilitate the efforts of government extension officers and conservation officers to work with community leaders and chiefs. The MTA has made this YMST model a prerequisite for all villages in Fiji (via the Village Bylaw) to

20

enhance engagement with communities to strengthen natural resource stewardship. The YMST feeds into the National Resource Owners Committee, which feeds into the provincial councils, which feeds into the Ministry, which feeds into the national multiagency committees via the Permanent Secretary of iTaukei Affairs. These activities form the central baseline for the project’s engagement with the local communities. The in-kind contribution of MTA amounts to USD 1,677,215 for the project period.

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)

MoA’s work through the Division of Land Resources Planning and Development, the Division of Crop Extension and the Division of Animal Health and Production will form the baseline for activities on climate-smart agriculture, rangeland management and agroforestry. MoA’s in-kind and grant contribution will amount to USD 21,690,000 for the project period. These activities are part of the Ministry’s regular programme.

Division of Land Resources Planning and Development: The division has established demonstration farms for different agroforestry systems, this includes contour farming and alley cropping on slopes, and silvopastoral systems on rangelands. Based on these farms, the department has initiated capacity building activities in agroforestry.

Division of Crop Extension: The division has 20 crop programmes focusing on increasing production. In addition to a programme to increase availability of extension assistance to women. Other key baseline activities carried out by the division include provision of agro-inputs and assistance to prepare land to introduce climate-smart agriculture practices (through land preparation facility).

Division of Animal Health and Production: The division’s activities related to provision of housing and fencing materials and fodder crop seeds (including legumes) would form the baseline for implementing improved rangeland management practices.

Ministry of Forests (MoFo)

MoFo’s baseline activities amount to 7,010,000 USD in kind. The baseline activities include the following:Awareness raising- community-level awareness raising, including engagement with school and women groups to increase awareness on SFM related issues; institutional training- refresher training for staff at national and provincial level, especially on integrated forest management; extension services related to silviculture prescriptions, selective low impact logging and establishment of agroforestry farms; providing seeds and seedlings; establishment of community nurseries for forest rehabilitation; establishment of model sites that demonstrate rehabilitation of degraded coastal and mangrove wetlands and publication of guidelines for restoring degraded coastal and mangrove wetlands.

MoFo is very active on forest restoration and sustainable management. It has the Reforestation of Degraded Forest (RDF) and recently (January 2019) launched the 4 Million trees in 4 years initiative. It is part of Government’s renewed effort to continue the fight against climate change and to protect Fiji’s environment and rich biodiversity. It will also reduce soil erosion and siltation while offsetting some of the Nation’s carbon output.

MoFo is also hosting the REDD+ team who will be an important partner for this project.

In addition, the following activities supported by FAO would form the co-financing for this GEF project:

Action Against Desertification (AAD) project funded by the EU runs from 2015-2019. Action Against Desertification aims to build the resilience and increase the productivity of forest landscapes in Fiji, while improving the livelihoods of the local population through the restoration of degraded land and the sustainable management of natural resources. The AAD project is a great source of learning for this project on LUP planning and implementation.

The main activities are: Land Restoration for small-scale farming on 2 000 hectares of communal lands in 64 local communities.

About 8 000 kg of seeds and over 1 000 000 seedlings of native species are being produced in village nurseries for direct sowing and planting to restore degraded forests and rehabilitate agro-forestry and agro-ecology farmland.

Promotion of non-timber forest products to help 2 000 farmers, of whom half are women, increase their income. Activities include bee farming for honey production and crop pollination, sandalwood and wild ginger production, nutritional gardens, and the production and marketing of handicraft made of forest materials.

21

Capacity Development of communities and village technicians involving around 240 farmers and 540 members of 64 communities. Subjects include forest seed collection and handling, nursery and restoration techniques, sustainable land and forest management practices and market analysis and development. Around 150 government staff are being trained in specialised fields, such as tree breeding, farm soil testing, land use planning and resource mapping, GIS and remote sensing.

The Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism (FLR Mechanism): The FLRM was launched in 2014 which is helping countries to achieve their commitments towards the Bonn Challenge, Aichi Targets and related goals by supporting the implementation as well as monitoring and reporting of FLR. The FLR Mechanism is providing specific country support in the Fiji to : 1) facilitate multi-stakeholder processes to defining needs and opportunities for FLR resulting in a national FLR plan; and 2) establishing pilot projects that leverage new large-scale projects and programmes with national, bilateral and multilateral donors and the private sector.

Two projects of the FLR are of particular interest for this project: The Restoration Initiative (supported by the GEF cf section 3.1.2) and The Paris Agreement in action: upscaling forest and landscape restoration to achieve nationally determined contributions supported by IKI and to be launched in early 2019.

As recognized in the Paris Agreement, forest based options are key to achieve NDCs through joint mitigation and adaptation approaches providing both carbon benefits and non-carbon-benefits (REDD+). The effective implementation of the Bonn Challenge, through several regional initiatives, represents an opportunity to scale up FLR efforts and contribute to several NDCs. Three regions with diverse landscapes and high potential for increasing both forest carbon stocks and the provision of non-carbon benefits through large scale FLR programmes are targeted: the Pacific Islands (Philippines + Fiji), the GGWSSI region (Ethiopia + Niger) and the Mediterranean (Lebanon and Morocco). To turn NDC and FLR pledges into action in the three targeted regions and building on the global movement led by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR), the project will support:

(i) existing regional platforms for a better integration of FLR options in NDCs with a strong focus on knowledge sharing, capacity development, mobilization of innovative financing & investments options (including private sector investments and climate finance including the Green Climate Fund) and FLR monitoring guidance for an efficient reporting of FLR impacts to UNFCCC in the context of the Paris Agreement

(ii) implementation of existing national FLR action plans/programmes with a multidimensional approach. Specifically in Fiji, the project will focus on:

An enabling environment is created for the implementation of national FLR programs and scale up through inter sectoral coordination and relevant policy - Development of FLR policy/strategy well integrated with current national initiatives and other existing policy frameworks in Fiji and capacity building at national level on key FLR and land use planning approaches

Restoration approaches are implemented in selected sites with a high potential for FLR providing both carbon and non-carbon benefits through participatory and gender-responsive planning, community driven FLR investments and sustainable economic alternatives provided at landscape level - Participatory planning and implementation of pilot landscape plans on Mamanuca and Yasawa in Fiji and set up the conditions for effective FLR (local coordination, nurseries, capacity building and development of economic alternatives).

The monitoring capacity is enhanced and both socio-economic and environmental benefits are monitored with a minimum set of indicators well adapted to both national and regional contexts - Build capacity on FLR monitoring in Fiji by promoting guidance documents developed by FAO and GPFLR members and use the tools in restored areas of Mamanuca and Yasawa (e.g. FAO/WRI guidelines - Collect Earth Open Foris)

1.2.3 Remaining barriers to address the environmental threats

As described in the Main environmental threats section, deforestation and land degradation in Fiji is caused by a myriad of drivers. The programs lead by the governments mentioned above are trying to address these drivers. But, in spite of them, some barriers have not yet been adequately addressed:

Inadequate knowledge and capacity at ground level for the formulation and implementation of effective, attractive and sustainable INRM approaches

22

A country cannot mitigate or adapt to climate change without first having the capacity to do so. That is why capacity-building has been part of the UNFCCC negotiating process since its inception two decades ago. Capacity-building has long been recognized in the Convention's work on such issues as national communications, greenhouse gas inventories, technology transfer and adaptation. It is the same thing with the UNCCD and the fight against land degradation.

Since 2001, capacity-building activities in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition have been guided by two frameworks, described in more detail below.

Lack of capacity is one of the major impediments for project implementation. A set of strategies is needed to mitigate this issue which could contribute to some improvements to make it easier for follow up initiatives and programs.

The Land Resource and Planning Division of MOA, The Ministry of Forest together with other civil society organizations and NGO’S, WWF, USP to name a few had jointly carried out trainings and awareness throughout Fiji on Land Degradation, SLM, SFM and other related technologies. That initiative leads to the formation of the so-called Land Care Groups in different Communities, who were delegated the responsibilities of overseeing and managing their own natural resources.

The different line ministries and NGOs use different modes of getting that message down to the targeted groups, including resource owners/community members. The approach towards dissemination can be through:

1. Direct Training Programs2. Workshops3. Establishment of demonstration farms4. Field trips5. Group discussions etc.

The rural communities in Fiji have been exposed to different levels and models of rural extension approaches over the years with varying success. The most common and the still effective category is the a) Individual method (one to one) and b) the group method of approaching the communities.Current extension concepts include; participation, facilitation, partnerships, and sustainability. With increasing emphasis on communities, themselves and community-based extension, newly introduced approaches in Fiji include Farmer Field Schools and Demand-Driven Extension programs.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Forestry and Fisheries continue to be the main drivers of extension service for the resourced based sectors. Civil Society and NGOs continue to assist and facilitate in community-based capacity building approaches; however, they depend on and are driven by funded projects/programs.

Despite the extensive extension programmes undertaken by the departments under the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Forestry, at the community level, there is still a significant gap in capacities related to sustainable and climate-smart agriculture practices, rangeland management and sustainable forest management measures (including sustainable harvesting of NTFPs). This is a significant barrier considering the fact that majority of land is communally owned and managed. This is due to both the lack of follow up after the trainings and the lack of incentives for the communities to keep engaging in the new methodologies.

Also the fact that each training happens in silo can be confusing for the communities failing to see the integrated part of the natural resources management. To increase efficiency the trainings have to be programmed in synergy.

INRM landscape planning not yet achieved

As highlighted above, the majority of land is communally owned and managed, but there is little integrated land-use planning that takes place either at district or village level. At the district level, several plans already exist each focused on a particular topic: costal management, agriculture development, forest protection, business development etc. Indeed, very often each Ministry has plans, at least at district level such as Land Use plans prepared by MOA, the Forest map done by MoFo, Community Development Plans from the Ministry of Water, TLTB Land Trust Board) District Plans by the Ministry of Planning, etc. but there isn’t a global view of all the plans and how they can support sustainable natural resources management and livelihoods for the community. The YMST committee at district level are instrumental in bringing the different plans together in an integrated way.

23

This has exacerbated the ongoing unsustainable resource utilization practices and has prevented any coordinated efforts to change the utilization/management patterns. Participatory Land Use Planning guidelines have been developed and it is important to utilize the guidelines to initiate integrated landuse planning at local level.

Landscape planning is closely linked to improved capacity building planning which is needed to improve implementation and sustainability.

Low commitment from communities to INRM due lack of incentives and opportunities for market-oriented sustainable/alternative livelihoods linked to the INRM plans

One of the major barriers in ensuring sustainable resource management at community level is the lack of adequate business planning linked to INRM planning. This often leads to INRM plans not being implemented. Time and again, it has been demonstrated around the world that with adequate economic incentives local communities would be willing to participate and engage in sustainable management of natural resources. Implementing a business plan attached to the INRM plan will allow enterprises to develop and communities to benefit from and sustain the plan. The main resource based livelihoods in the project sites is related to agriculture (subsistence and semi-commercial) and forest resource extraction, but there are not enough value chain focused efforts to diversity and improve livelihoods, this severely limits the economic benefits that can be derived by the local communities. The local community-based enterprises that exist requires further strengthening, especially in the area of market access and value-addition (primary and secondary processing).

1.3. THE GEF ALTERNATIVEProject activities have been designed in order to complement or build on the existing baseline projects, and to address the remaining barriers mentioned above.

1.3.1 Theory of change & Incrementality

Under the baseline scenario, the activities of the different Ministries will keep happening in isolation lacking the long-term vision of their contribution to a broader plan supporting sustainable natural resources management. Capacities will be built but the communities will not necessarily have the means to effectively put their new skills into practice and keep sustainable practices over the long term. Therefore, land will keep being degraded accelerating the vicious circle of climate change and lack of resilience for the poorest communities.

Thanks to the GEF resources, long term planning for integrated natural management will be supported at the district and the community level, building on the existing activities from the line Ministries. The plans will integrate all the activities happening at the community level: agriculture, pastoralism, Non Timber Forest Products collection, forest management and utilisation etc. These plans will not only be a joint effort between the communities and the line ministries but they will be linked to business plans to ensure that they can be implemented on the short and long terms. The project will also link up the community with appropriate public and private investors to make sure the plans are being implemented.

The project will closely collaborate with the line ministries to ensure that the capacities are built at the local level in a coordinated way and a monitoring system for capacity building will be developed to ensure that communities have the right skill sets to implement the plans.Finally, community ownership will be supported all along the project implementation and community based monitoring will be developed to allow the communities to gather for themselves the successes and lessons learnt from this process.

This project will also pave the way for an upcoming large Green Climate Fund (GCF) project focused on restoration. Lessons learnt from this project will allow for the GCF project to be more effective.

The table below summarizes the desired outcomes and shows the importance of the GEF supported activities to improve the baseline scenario for Community Based Integrated Natural Resources Management (CBINRM) in Fiji.

Outcome Baseline Scenario GEF Alternative ScenarioOutcome 1: Enhanced local level capacities for integrated natural

Activities will build on currently led initiatives on community level awareness raising (MoFo, MoFi, MoA), institutional

The proposed project will support the improvement of capacity building programs for Integrated Natural

24

resource management

capacity building for SLM/SFM and forest restoration (MTA & FAO AAD) and demonstration activities (MoFo, MoFi, MoA). Despite the extension programmes undertaken by the different Ministries at community level, there is still a significant gap in capacities related to sustainable and climate-smart agriculture practices, rangeland management and sustainable forest management measures (including sustainable harvesting of NTFPs). This is a significant barrier considering the fact that the majority of land is communally owned and managed.

There is a lack of a planning to coordinate the capacity building efforts led by the different ministries and projects. The programs are happening in isolation and with little follow up. This prevents the integration part of the “Community Based Integrated Natural Resources Management-CBINRM” to happen.

It is also difficult to have a clear picture of the level of capacities built in Fiji up to now, as there has not been a unified monitoring system.

Resources Management (INRM) by

supporting INRM capacity building platforms coordinating all the different capacity building activities already existing or planned by the different Ministries at the Provincial level (triggering then down at the district and community level)

developing a joint capacity building monitoring system

developing Farmers Field Schools to provide hands on training on climate smart agriculture practices, Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Mitigation

collaborating with the Forest Training Centre to improve capacity on Sustainable Forest Management, Mangrove Management, INRM and Biodiversity Management

Without GEF resources, capacity gaps for implementation of INRM at the community level will remain.

Outcome 2.1: Planning process for INRM strengthened over 47,719ha

Outcome 2.2:At least 18,799ha brought under community-based integrated natural resource management (CBINRM) (including 2,100 ha of direct investment)

The key Ministries engaged in natural resources management have active extension activities (MoA, MoFi, MoFo), and inputs programs (MoA), nurseries (MoFo, FAO AAD), and mangrove rehabilitation activities (MoFo) carried out under the baseline and co-financing initiatives. But there is little integrated land-use planning that takes place either at district or village level. Too often, each Ministry has plans, at least at district level, but there is not a global view of all the plans and how they can support sustainable natural resources management and livelihoods for the community. This has exacerbated the ongoing unsustainable resource utilization practices and has prevented any coordinated efforts to change the utilization/management patterns.

One of the major barriers in ensuring sustainable resource management at community level is the lack of adequate business planning linked to INRM planning. This often leads to INRM plans not being implemented. It has already been demonstrated around the world that with adequate economic incentives

In order to support Community Based INRM (CBINRM) the proposed project will:

Support the different layers of planning at district and community level on INRM: i) integrating the plans already existing in each level (district/community), ii) ensuring synergies between the district and the community level planning efforts and iii) developing business plan for short and long term implementation of the plans.At community level, the plans will be managed by the communities, giving them full ownership over planning and implementation of their own natural resources. Their engagement from the initial stages of planning and implementation is important to ensure the sustainability of the program. Lessons learned from other projects highlight the significance of community buy-in at all stages.

Support the implementation of the CBINRM plans through:

direct investments

25

local communities would be willing to participate and engage in sustainable management of natural resources. Implementing a business plan attached to the INRM plan will allow enterprises to develop and communities to benefit from and sustain the plan. The main resource based livelihoods in the project sites is related to agriculture (subsistence and semi-commercial) and forest resource extraction, but there are not enough value chain focused efforts to diversity and improve livelihoods, this severely limits the economic benefits that can be derived by the local communities. The local community-based enterprises that exist requires further strengthening, especially in the area of market access and value-addition (primary and secondary processing).

Two elements have been recently developed and need support to expend: Participatory Land Use Planning

guidelines have been developed (SPC/GIZ) and it is important to utilize the guidelines to initiate integrated natural resources management land use planning at local level.

The Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST) developed by the MTA to support the planning/governance structure for community based natural resource management.

supporting investments of other partners (such as the GCF or existing governmental support programs).

supporting the development of community-based enterprises for the provision of improved/alternative livelihoods

Work with the MTA to re-enforce the YMST0 system, to make them effective INRM planning and implementation bodies.

Without GEF incremental resources, 47,719 ha in the two project provinces (3 target districts) will remain under the threat of continuous degradation (without any management plans), resulting in the loss of vital ecosystem services and good (affecting the livelihoods and wellbeing of the local communities) and in carbon emissions.

Outcome 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

Some experience of community based monitoring have been made through the AAD project (cf baseline projects). These experiences need to be tested at a larger scale to empower communities.

A Knowledge Management working group exists under REDD+ Fiji which captures all key stakeholders relevant to this project.

In order to support Community Based INRM (CBINRM) the proposed project will: Support Community Based Monitoring

implementation Ensure regular monitoring for adaptive

management Develop a Knowledge Management

system to promote CBINRM

Learning from Fiji CBINRM will be systemized to be shared to the wider community

1.3.2 Development objective, project objective, outcomes and outputs

The development objective of the project is to address the negative impacts of unsustainable management forests and land driven by economic development as well as poverty and livelihood demands of local communities. The project aims to achieve this by establishing and pursuing a landscape-based approach to

0 The Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST) is a community-based institution developed at either village, district and/or provincial level. It is a co-management structure that operates to support government extension and conservation officers at the district and provincial level to work with community leaders and chiefs. CF section 1.1.1 Institutional context

26

comprehensive planning and management that harmonizes socio-economic development, sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation. The project’s interventions will ensure that proper restoration strategies and financing are put in place so that degraded forests and lands are rehabilitated and existing protected areas and high conservation value forests are protected by communities having received adapted capacity building support.

The project objective is to promote community-based integrated natural resource management at landscape level to reduce land degradation, enhance carbon stocks and strengthen local livelihoods in Ra and Tailevu provinces.

The main targets for the projects are: 47,719 ha are under Land Use Plans integrating Integrated Natural Resource Management at District

level 18,799 ha are under CBINRM thanks to the development and implementation of CBINRM plans 3,500 people have a more diversified income source and livelihood 328,225 tCO2eq emissions are mitigated through project activities over a 20-year period (direct). Note:

the project has an indirect impact potential after the end of the project of an additional 1,756,286 tCO2eq

In order to reach these objectives, the projects will undertake the following activities.

Component 1: Local level capacities strengthened for integrated natural resource management

Outcome 1: Strengthening local level capacities for integrated natural resource management

In Fiji, people face obstacles in building the required capacities, skills sets, and enabling environment to effectively respond to evolving challenges of conserving natural resources and in meeting their various multilateral environment agreement targets. Local capacity needs assessment point to the fundamental need for strengthening capacity across the region, if the full potential is to be realised for restoring and protecting areas to contribute to sustainable livelihoods, biodiversity, ecosystem protection and community resilience in the face of global warming. The lessons learned from other projects and programs implemented can contribute substantial insight with respect to capacity building and awareness raising

The significance of capacity building to the rural communities cannot be overemphasized. It is the core activity in changing the current mind set of resource owners to become more committed and responsible towards managing their own resources. Communities need to be supported to take action by themselves. Engaging communities from the onset is the best way forward to establishing their commitment and ownership towards the intervention.

As indicated in the Theory of Change, activities under this component will build on on-going/planned community level awareness raising (MoFo, MoFi & MoA), institutional capacity building activities for Sustainable Land and Forest Management/Restoration (MTA/FAO AAD) and demonstration activities (MoFo, MoFi & MoA) under the baseline and co-financing initiatives. GEF incremental resources will be utilized to improve the coordination of current capacity building activities, expand the capacity building to the community level in a streamlined manner and ensure that local communities have the adequate capacity to implement INRM plans at the village level.

The main outcomes expected from this component are: 17 target communities where the Capacity Building scores are improved 4 demonstration sites effectively running and maintained by community members, showing efficient

capacity building

Output 1.1. INRM coordination platforms linking all the different trainings already existing by the different Ministries are supported for improved CB implementation and monitoring

In order to understand the variety of the capacity building offer and how coordination could be improved, during the project preparation phase, a review has been done of all the different trainings implemented by the different Ministries and other institutions.

Ministries

27

All the line Ministries (MAT, MoA, MoFo, MoFi) have strategies clearly stating the importance of conservation, sustainability and development of the natural resources. The strategies includes annual targets and budgetary provision for capacity building. Each Ministry focuses on its area of expertise.

The line ministries use different modalities to build the capacity of the targeted groups, including resource owners/community members. The approach towards dissemination is through:

Direct Training Program Workshops Establishment of demonstration farms Field trips Group discussions etc.

Under the MoFo, The Fiji Forest Training Centre (FFTC) carries out direct capacity building programs. It is offering trainings on sustainable forest management (cf Annex 9a), biodiversity conservation and protected area management. The institution, through its innovative drive towards capacity development, started the “Tailored Short Term Training” program for Fijians and other. The tailored training targets different types of organizations and groups at all levels: government agencies, non-government organizations, private sector, resource owner organizations, community organizations and community groups and leaders. Topics on environmental management and biodiversity conservation include: Biodiversity types and values; participation; practical communication skills; introduction to protected areas; linkages between livelihoods, wellbeing and biodiversity conservation; integrating local knowledge; governance; and climate change. The philosophy of the tailored training program is to equip people, organizations and groups with knowledge and skills to better contribute to environmental management in the Pacific Islands. In doing so, it promotes a culture of continuous adult learning that stimulates students to further acquire and use knowledge. The course content, duration and location of delivery is tailored towards the client’s specific needs and runs for a period of one to two weeks. The GEF 4 supported such trainings for biodiversity conservation and protected area management.

The course content, duration and location of delivery can be tailored to any client’s specific needs and is envisaged for periods between one to two weeks (including a field-excursion). It is aimed at groups from 12-20 students to allow a dynamic adult learning environment.

The Government has been in the frontline in ensuring that some Climate Change Curriculum, resource-based sector management and community-based empowerment programs are introduced at different levels. Indeed, the Fijian government is playing a lead role in trying to develop programs addressing challenges related to sustainable natural resources management.

OthersThe University of the South Pacific (USP), the Fiji National University (FNU) and University of Fiji are the leading institutions that facilitate the strengthening of skills and knowledge of the Fijian people. Specific programs have been developed to support natural resources development (cf Annex 9b).Several projects such as the FAO-Pro Resilience project, the Action Against Desertification project, and organization such the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and others are also carrying out a number of capacity building programs. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) ran successful agroforestry programs for example as part of the “Agroforestry for Sloping Lands in Fiji” project.

Despite the high number of capacity building initiatives, the majority of the capacity development undertaken in communities is done in isolation. Government Ministries and other agencies carryout capacity development without coordinated effort. This weakness came out prominently during the community consultation in the project areas. Not only, this has strong negative impact on the sustainability of the projects, communities being pulled in many directions and not being able to follow up after the training is over, but it also prevents the communities to grasp the integrated part of the INRM. Indeed, each training tends to be focused on one part of the system: agriculture, livestock management, forestry ect. and not the way these systems interact with/ complement each other which is the basis of INRM. To ensure CBINRM, capacity development needs to be approached a more coordinated mode to ensure consolidation.

The project will support such coordination at the provincial level triggering better integration at the district and community levels (see 1.1.1 Institutional context). It will also monitor capacity building specifically to ensure that progress are made.

28

1.1.1. Support the Provincial meetings with a focus on capacity building linking all the different trainings already existing developed by the different Ministries and other stakeholders

The project will build on the positive experience of the Land Care groups, where the Land Resource and Planning Division of MOA and the Ministry of Forest together with other civil society organizations and NGO’S, WWF, USP, etc. have jointly carried out trainings and awareness throughout Fiji on Land Degradation, SLM, SFM and other related technologies. That initiative led to the formation of the Land Care Groups in different communities, who were delegated the responsibilities of overseeing and managing their own natural resources.

Following this approach of working jointly, the project will support Provincial meetings in Ra and Tailevu with a focus on capacity building coordination. As these meetings also include district representatives, they will then bring back the information at the district and the community level through the YMST or Land Care groups.

It will be key to ensure that all the key Ministries but also the other stakeholders involved in capacity building are invited to participate in these meetings. The meetings will be held twice a year in the Provincial office and will be facilitated by the capacity building expert and the provincial coordinators. The outputs will be clear Capacity Building plans at the provincial level (with an impact on the district and community level plans).

1.1.2 Set up a monitoring system for capacity building based on score card methodology

During the filed assessments, it came out clearly that many trainings are not followed by successful activity implementation. This can be linked to a lack of ownership or technical/financial means. Considering the considerable amount of resources invested in capacity building, it is important to develop a monitoring system, going beyond the number of people trained, to understand the successes and failures of the current capacity building system. A system of CB scorecard could be used. This can lead to adaptive management in the current capacity building system at all levels (national, provincial, district and community levels).

A Monitoring and Evaluation expert will be hired to develop this system in close collaboration with the different Ministries as well as the provincial, district and community stakeholders. The system will then be validated through workshops and field tested in 5 communities.

Output 1.2 Training programs on climate smart agriculture practices, sustainable land management and forest and landscape restoration implemented through Demonstration Farms/Farmer Field Schools (FFS) across 17 villages in the project areas

Despite the broad extension programmes undertaken by the different departments under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forestry, at the community level, there is still a significant gap in capacities related to sustainable and climate-smart agriculture practices, rangeland and sustainable forest management measures (including sustainable harvesting of Non Timber Forest Products) as well as forest and landscape restoration. This is a significant barrier to CBINRM as the majority of land is communally owned and managed.

A detailed Capacity Need Assessment was carried out by the Action Against Decertification (AAD) project through a capacity assessment workshop that was carried out from the 25 th to 26th November 2015 (see Annex 10).

During the project preparation, after field discussions and key stakeholder interviews, it appeared that the detailed results of the Capacity Need Assessment are still relevant (results presented in 1.2.3 below). It was decided to not repeat the complete assessment but ensure that gaps are addressed during project implementation. Nevertheless, additional information will have to be added for coastal communities who are also management freshwater and marine natural resources.

In order to increase the project ownership by the local communities, the trainings will be done through Demonstration Farms using the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach (see 1.2.2 below). The communities will benefit from targeted trainings effective climate-smart agricultural technologies, forest and soil restoration and conservation practices (see 1.2.3) which can be used to enrich the Demonstration Farm experience. These trainings will be completed by trainings more focused on forest and biodiversity management done by FTC (cf output 1.1.3).

1.2.1. Community consultations and CBINRM awareness raising

29

Awareness raising campaigns will happen in 17 villages within the 3 selected districts. The selected villages are the ones where the CBINRM Land Use Planning exercise will happen in some of the largest of their Mataqali. Community consultations will be organized to present the project and the CBINRM approach as well as the proposed capacity building initiatives through the INRM Demonstration Farms. These consultations will be critical to fine tune the capacity need assessment and ensure the alignment of the capacity building programs with the field realities.

1.2.2. Demonstration Farms set up and run

The Demonstration Farms will become models for Integrated Natural Resources Management using the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. FFS is based on people-centred learning. Participatory methods create an environment conducive to learning: the participants can exchange knowledge and experience in a risk-free setting. Practical field exercises using direct observation, discussion and decision making encourage learning by-doing. The field is the space where local knowledge and outside scientific insights are tested, validated and integrated, in the context of local ecosystem and socio-economic settings. Community based problem analysis is the entry point for the FFS groups to develop a specific curriculum adapted to local specificities of communities supported. The practices proposed in the Demonstration farms will be closely linked to the needs identified by the communities when defining their CBINRM Land Use Plans (Component 2 below) as well as to the gaps identified during the Capacity Need Assessment. As much as possible the training will be linked to existing curriculum from the line ministries and other programs.The Demonstration farms will be set up by motivated community members, local extension staff and NGOs that will be trained, to enable them to effectively and efficiently engage in training other community members. The training of Trainers methodology will be used.

In total 4 Demonstration Farms will be conducted to cover the 3 Districts. In order to reach the maximum number of people, they should be located in:i) Namenaii) Dawasamuiii) Naocobauiv) Nasau

In order to set up a Demonstration Farm/Farmer Field School (FFS) the following steps need to be considered:

1. Conduct Ground working activities: Develop solutions to identified problems Establish farmers’ practices development need (cf Capacity Need Assessment above +

activities in the CBINRM plans (see Component 2)) Identify field school participants Identify field school sites

2. Training of Facilitators on: Field guides on how to effectively deliver crop/livestock/Forest production & soil and forest

restoration/protection topics using non-formal education methods (NFE) Participatory technology development (PTD) with emphasis on the approaches and developing

guidelines on conducting PTD Non-formal education methods with emphasis on what, when and how to use NFE in FFS Crop/livestock/Forest production and protection technologies Group dynamics Special topics to be addressed at diverse stages of training.

3. Establishment and Running FFS With the guidance of facilitators, the group meets regularly throughout the project phase, and

carries out production and restoration activities as part of the CBINRM plan. Implement Best Practices (Test and Validate)

4. Evaluating Participatory technology development (PTDs) Data analysis for group Monitoring & Evaluation of the progress

30

Group discussion on the technics testing and special topics

5. Field days During the period of running the FFS, field days will be organized where the rest of the farming

community is invited to share what the group has learned in the FFS. 1 or 2 per year depending on stages of growth and experiences in eth Demonstration Farm Farmers themselves facilitate during this day

6. Graduations Marks the end of the annual long FFS. Farmers are awarded certificates

7. Farmer run FFS FFS farmer graduates now have the knowledge and confidence to run their own FFS.

8. Follow up by facilitators Occasionally the core facilitators will follow-up on farmers that have graduated preferably on a

quarterly basis. The core facilitators also backstop on-going farmer run FFS.

The activity will be conducted by the Capacity Building/ Farmer Field School Coordinator with the support from the MoA and MoFo and MoFi extension officers in the field. For this activity, the project should build on the SPC/GIZ “Coping with climate change in Pacific Island Regions” experience which collaborated on the community-based trainings on resilience by the Ministry of Youth, as well as other trainings via the Technical Colleges and Fiji National University. The CCPIR trained extension officers in the Ministry so that they have the right knowledge to train others, these officers have also been involved in the Action Against degradation project. The project should identify the staff who have been trained and understand if they need additional training before training others.

1.2.3. Focused Technical Trainings

In order to support the implementation of the Demonstration Farms and the CBINRM approach integrating the different landscape elements in a synergetic way, specialized trainings will be given on the sustainable and climate smart land management as well as forest and landscape restoration (cf box below for the definitions). The training needs highlighted below mostly come from the Capacity Assessment Needs done by AAD (see Annex 10) which have been validated by the project preparation team through interview and discussion with communities. At the beginning of the project, during the discussions with communities and the definition of the CBINRM plans, the specific themes for the focused trainings will be defined. The main results of the AAD assessment are highlighted the following priority themes for community capacity building:31

General knowledge on INRMPossible themes:

Land use planning Integrated farming/ Integrated homestead farming to produce nutrient-rich foods(e.g. fruits, vegetables,

eggs, meat and milk) Land tenure. For this, awareness-raising on the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of

Tenure of Land, Forests, and Fisheries0 would be a good option.

Forest and Landscape Restoration activities including nursery techniquesPossible themes:

Species selection and timing Using of local material in building nursery Developing improved processing and germination testing methods and procedures Forest and landscape restoration techniques adapted to the local context

Soil conservation and management techniques (erosion control, shelterbelts)Possible themes:

Integrated soil fertility and nutrient management, adoption of SLM Concepts using different practices Contour cropping Soil capability evaluation Advance training on soil conservation & management techniques

Integrated farming systems such as row cropping, multiple cropping, alley cropping, zero tillage, agro-forestry, and other techniques building resilience to climate change (Climate Smart Agriculture)Possible themes:

Right crop mix in multi cropping Crop selection depending on soil type Selection of climate resilience crop variety (heat and drought tolerant) Agroforestry technics Conservation agriculture/minimum tillage; Integrated crop and livestock farming systems Integrated pest and disease management (IPM);

Water use, including water harvesting, hydropower and water-saving irrigation techniques (Climate Smart Agriculture)Possible themes:

Proper use of existing water source –fish pond Water source protection and management Capacity development on irrigation technique and appropriate technology (e.g. Water-saving irrigation

techniques)

Sustainable biodiversity conservation and use, including management of native flora/fauna, management of invasive speciesPossible themes:

Conservation status strengthening, Registration of conserved site with TLTB Baseline Assessment & monitoring of Potential Site Setup community base site support group Potential use and eradication of invasive species

Creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities (including development of value chains from production to marketing and agroforestry)Possible themes:

Quality control to meet market standard Value adding & improving supply chains Enhancing marketing system & market connexion

0 http://www.fao.org/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/32

The themes will be reviewed at the beginning of the project with the target communities so they can chose the most relevant creating linkages with the needs identified when defining the CBINRM Land Use Plans (Component 2 below). Coastal management and fisheries will be included as key thematic for coastal communities.

While developing and implementing the capacity building activities/programs, it is important to keep in mind:

Gender approach : Women farmers (as for men) adopt climate-smart techniques and practices in agriculture when women’s awareness, knowledge, and access to information about such practices is available. Fundamentally, a host of other factors can influence women producers’ adoption of climate-smart approaches, including legal or sociocultural constraints on women’s accumulation and control of assets and resources, constraints on women’s designated role in the communities, as well as the likely effects of climate-smart agriculture practices on women’s time and labour commitments or share of the benefits. Analysing how men’s and women’s constraints and opportunities may differ is the first step in understanding the range of issues that must be considered in the design of the capacity building activities/programs to make agricultural systems more climate-smart and gender-responsive. Experts in Fiji report that women usually have more control over the income produced by home gardens, small livestock farming, herbaceous legumes, and improved grasses, which require different amounts of time to yield benefits. As for the other activities, the

33

Key options under Integration Natural Resources Management

Sustainable Land Management (SLM): The main land uses which need to be improved to achieve sustainable land management are agriculture, livestock, forestry etc. in an integrated manner. Sustainable rangeland and forestry activities are known to improve ecosystem services delivery having a positive impact on livelihoods. Agricultural intensification is often necessary to achieve more sustainable systems. This requires shifts to higher value production, or higher yields with more inputs per unit of production and higher standards of management (more knowledge intensive). However, sustainable agriculture must work within the bounds of nature not against them. Many yield improvements can be achieved by optimizing efficiency of external inputs rather than trying to maximize yields. A more ecologically balanced land management can achieve both economic and environmental benefits, and this must be the foundation for further rural interventions.

Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR): FLR, defined as a process to regain ecological functionality and enhance human well-being across deforested or degraded landscapes, has emerged as an increasingly pressing and viable solution for addressing land degradation, complementing other strategies to reduce and halt deforestation and degradation. A range of restorative techniques have been shown to be effective at reducing and in many cases substantially reversing degradation impacts on cropland, rangeland, forest, and wetlands, including impacts to carbon storage and sequestration functionality. Moreover, if properly planned and managed, restoration can decrease the demand for agricultural expansion by bringing degraded agricultural lands back into production and enabling improvements in production from degraded land. In this way, restoration can provide an important means for managing conflicts with land conservation goals and efforts to avoid deforestation, and support the achievement of low-carbon development pathways.

Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA): Climate-smart agriculture comprises of three pillars: i) increase in productivity and income growth in agriculture; ii) support adaptation to expected climatic changes and build resilience; and iii) reduce where possible Greenhouse Gas emissions. Diversification and sustainable intensification of food production have the potential to improve the availability, affordability, stability and consumption of diverse foods and to promote healthy, nutritional and sustainable diets, while simultaneously increasing climate resilience to impacts of El Nino and enhancing the provision of ecosystem services. Diversification at farm level will offer a seasonal coping strategy in contexts where income streams and availability of nutritious foods vary due to the impacts of climate change.CSA also includes Climate Smart Fisheries and Coastal Management, which will be included in this project.

Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation (CCMA) has better results through the combined application of appropriate CSA, FLR and SLM practices such as integrated farming and agroforestry where the selection of crops, livestock, plants, and trees used can be according to their ability to contribute to CCMA. For example, trees in agroforestry provide shade to livestock, helps buffer impact of extreme heat and heavy rain on soil surface, moderates soil erosion and contributes to food and ecological system. CSA, SLM and FLR practices

capacity building activity will be implemented taking into consideration that extension methods are such that women and vulnerable groups can also participate (in terms of sex of the extension agent, timing and geographic location of the extension events, childcare, separate men, women and vulnerable groups or mixed groups, and other considerations). The aims is to enable men and women farmers to become more productive and more knowledgeable and to develop greater adaptive capacity, and hence to develop farming systems that will be more resilient to climate variability and change.

Traditional Knowledge: Negligence of communities to consider and continue to acquire traditional knowledge and skills from elders on systems of environmental conservation has largely contributed to their ignorance and lack of awareness in collective Natural Resource Management as a community group. The introduction of resilient crops and indigenous species of timber trees and fruit trees that are tolerant to the impacts of climate change is something that needs to be seriously considered.The CBINRM approach will reintroduce these traditional knowledge and skills through capacity building using locally available resources.

The activity will be implemented by the Capacity Building/ Farmer Field School Coordinator with the support from the MoA and MoFo and MoFi extension officers in the field. The trainings are also part of the Annual Workplan of the line Ministries. The project will act as a catalyst for these trainings making sure they are happening in an integrated way to support livelihoods development and that they support the CBINRM plans developed in Component 2. The project will support 3 specialized trainings in each of the 4 demonstration farms.

Output 1.1.3 Training programs on agroforestry, forest protection and improved management measures implemented through the Forest Training Centre (FTC) covering 17 villages in the project areas

As described above, the FTC offers tailor made trainings which will complement the trainings already offered by the MoA, MoFo and MoFi. They will focused mostly on biodiversity and sustainable forest management.Depending on the needs, the trainings will happen at the FTC in Suva or the Demonstration Farms.

The activity will be coordinated by the by the Capacity Building/ Farmer Field School Coordinator and implemented though a Letter of Agreement with FTC.

Component 2: Community-based Integrated Natural Resource Management

As indicated in the Theory of Change, activities under this component will support improved i) stakeholder coordination in CBINRM planning at district and community level and ii) CBINRM activities implementation. The YMST at district and local levels are key elements of this exercise to ensure local empowerment.

The activities under this component will be guided by the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests, and Fisheries0, specifically on a) Land Recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties and b) Administration of tenure.

In order to comprehend the planning and implementation process around natural resources management, it is important to understand the Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST) structure. As indicated in the institutional context (see 1.1.1), the (YMST) is a community-based institution developed at either village, district and/or provincial level. It is a co-management structure that operates to support government extension and conservation officers at the district and provincial level to work with community leaders and chiefs. The Ministry of iTtaukei (Indigenous) Affairs has made the YMST model a prerequisite for all provinces in Fiji to enhance engagement with communities to strengthen natural resource ownership.

0 http://www.fao.org/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/34

In order to support Community Based INRM (CBINRM) under this component the project will:

Support the different layers of planning at district and community level on INRM: i) integrating the plans already existing in each level (district/community), ii) ensuring synergies between the district and the community level planning efforts and iii) developing business plan for short and long term implementation of the plans.

Support the implementation of the CBINRM plans through:direct investments supporting investments of other partners (such as the GCF or existing governmental support programs).supporting the development of community-based enterprises for the provision of improved/alternative

livelihoods

35

The Ra Yaubula Management Support team (YMST)

In order to explain the different layers of planning, we will use the example of Ra Province where the YMST system is quite advanced.

The Ra Yaubula Management Support Committee or Ra YMST is set up at the Provincial level that is housed at the Provincial Office and coordinated by the Roko Tui’s office (Provincial Administrator). It was formally recognised in 2012. Members of this committee include provincial level government, NGOs, communities and the private sector. Their key role is to make management decision on natural resource use/protection within the province of Ra. The Ra YMST has two working group/sub committees – marine and terrestrial, to address issues, risks, threats relating to the two types of ecosystems within the province. They are in charge of developing provincial level plans.

Below the Provincial level YMST is the tikina/district level YMST in which villager leaders participate representing their respective village level YMSTs. Their role is to review and update the tikina/district the Provincial level strategic action plans based on the implementation of the village action plans. The smallest management unit is the village-based YMST. This unit holds the most important role, being the implementer of the management plans developed at the district and village levels.

Ra YMST Structure:

The YMSTs support decision making processes for the sustainable management of production landscapes - agricultural, agroforestry, plantation forests, multiple use native forests etc. This, in turn, contributes to maintenance of ecosystem services important for the global environment and also for peoples’ livelihoods.

Work with the MTA to re-enforce the YMST system, to make them effective INRM planning and implementation bodies.

Outcome 2.1: Planning process for CBINRM strengthened over 47,719ha

The main results expected under this outcome are: improved district level Land Use Plans (LUP) integrating INRM over 47,719 ha 18,799 ha under CBINRM plans (covering 21 land use units)

Output 2.1.1 Utilizing the recently developed Participatory Land Use (PLU) planning guidelines, district level Participatory Land Use Plans (PLUPs) are improved/developed

At the district level, several plans already exist each focused on a particular topic: costal management, agriculture development, forest protection, business development etc.

The project preparation team highlighted the fact that despite the numbers of plans and information available, no integrated plans currently existed. The YMST committee at district level are instrumental in bringing the different plans together in an integrated way.

To support improved Land Use Planning, participatory land use planning guidelines have been developed. These Guidelines will be used to develop Participatory Land Use Plans in our 3 target districts: Namena and DAwasamuDawasamu (Tailevu) and Nokorotubu (Ra).

The Annex 12 presents in more details the participatory land use planning guidelines but their key points are that when undertaking land use planning the following should be observed:

1. Promote Integration – involvement of all sectors and disciplines. 2. Promote the active participation of local communities – the PLUP approach will encourage resource

owners to be actively involved in all phases of planning. 3. Be ecosystem conscious – the planning approach will promote an ecosystem-management mentality. 4. Be supported by institutional frameworks at all levels – to ensure inter-sectoral support, an established

National Body (e.g. Land Conservation Board via the LandCare Committee) will be mandated with supporting land use planning initiatives.

5. Be supported by an effective and reliable information management system – through supportive institutional structures and formal agreements between agencies, all types of data and information on a targeted area should be readily available and accessible to the land use planning team.

6. Promote Community-Based Adaptive Management - the PLUP approach will encourage capacity development of communities to identify and effectively respond to factors (both internal and external) that affect land use or resource management regimes.

7. Be supported by relevant national plans, polices, and legislations – land use planning is cross-cutting amongst all land-related policies such as the National Rural Land Use Policy (umbrella policy for all land-related policies) , the National Forest Policy, the Environment Management Act, etc.

8. Be supported to meet international commitments – the development of land use plans to ensure the sustainable utilisation of land resources contributes towards meeting the objectives of the 3 Rio conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification.

9. Schedule of land use values is to be guided by land capability guidelines to determine rental assessments and new lease considerations

10. Ensure gender-responsive planning11. Ensure transparency and open information sharing amongst all agencies12. Capacity building of land use planning teams and institutions 13. Support the development of skilled land use planners from local communities ...(to be part of the land

use planning team)

Considering all these elements, and building on existing planning documents (Land Use plans prepared by MOA, the Forest map done by MoFo, Community Development Plans from the Ministry of Water, OTLTB District Plans by the Ministry of Planning, etc.) the project will support development or revision of the LUP in the 3 target districts (47,719ha). In Nakorotombo there is a YMST plan which needs to be revised and turned into a PLUP while in Namena and Dawasamu, there aren’t any plans yet.

36

To facilitate the planning process, a GIS expert will support the mapping and the regional coordinators in the PMU will facilitate the gathering of documents and the workshops organisation (2 per district). This work will be done in support of the YMST and the line Ministries. It will be important that District level planning informs community level planning and vice versa.

Output 2.1.2 Community Based Integrated Natural Resources Management Participatory Land Use Plans are developed at Land Use Units level

At a much more localised level, the same planning process will be implemented in the 21 targeted Mataqali (land owning units) covering 18,799 ha. As explained in the site selection process, the project decided to focus on the larger Mataqali (over 400 ha in Nokorotubu and Namena and 300 ha in Dawasamu) within the districts in order to have the biggest impact possible.

DistrictsTotal land area (ha)

Total number of villages in the District Population Total number of Mataqali

Total number of villages with large Mataqali

No.LUPs in the large Mataqali

Number of ha available for CBINRM in the selected mataqali

Namena 8,089 9 2,307 85 5 6 2,551 Dawasamu 5,806 9 1,301 49 7 10 2,367 Nakorotubu 33,823 15 5,595 274 5 5 13,881 Total 47,719 33 9,203 408 17 21 18,799

In Tailevu, several villages can share the land unit (it is an exception) so one mataqali could have several land use plans as for each village/Mataqali portion. The planning needs to happen at the land use unit which is the unit responsible for the land management. Each land use unit depends on a community where YMST systems will be supported.

In order to support CBINRM Land Use Planning, and in close collaboration with the local YMST and line Ministries, the project will support the following activities:

2.1.2.1 Awareness raising to initiate CBINRM land use plans

Meetings will be organized in each of the 21 Land Use Units to present the project and consult the stakeholders on their expectations. The expected result of these meetings are a general agreement to engage with the CBINRM land use planning process.

2.1.2.2 Biophysical surveys of community lands

As described in the land use planning process at the district level, having good maps and understand of the different land units is key to sound INRM planning. In order to get these maps, the project can build on the AAD project, which trained GIS staff on using Collect Earth Open Foris, using satellite images from SPC and REDD+. The department of Land Use of the MoA will assist in the biophysical survey.

Collect Earth is a tool that enables data collection through Google Earth. In conjunction with Google Earth, Bing Maps and Google Earth Engine, users can analyze high and very high resolution satellite imagery for a wide variety of purposes, including:

Support multi-phase National Forest Inventories Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) assessments Monitoring agricultural land and urban areas Validation of existing maps Collection of spatially explicit socio-economic data Quantifying deforestation, reforestation and desertification

Its user friendliness and smooth learning curve make it a perfect tool for performing fast, accurate and cost-effective assessments. It is highly customizable for the specific data collection needs and methodologies.The data gathered through Collect Earth0 is exportable to commonly used formats and can also be exported to Saiku0, a tool that facilitates data analysis.

0 http://www.openforis.org/tools/collect-earth/tutorials/saiku.html0 Saiku Server is a web-based open source software that facilitates data visualization and data querying. Although a version of the software is freely available on the Saiku website, a special version has been customized for greater compatibility with Collect Earth. Saiku Server is included in the Collect Earth installer.37

The data collected via satellite images will also be field proofed by ground surveys. This methodology will also be used for the monitoring of CBINRMLUP implementation.

2.1.2.3 Development of participatory land use plans including a long-term business plan

The CBINRM Land Use Plans (CBINRMLUP) will be developed following the same steps and rules as described in 2.1.1. (and Annex 12) but the innovation at the local level in Fiji is the development of business plans attached to the CBINRM plans. Indeed, during the community discussions, it was clear that the communities were tired of planning and having trainings but no long-term plans attached to it.

CBINRM should always be implemented with consideration of the accomplishment of multiple benefits: ecological and social. Indeed, a plan with only sustainable natural resources management activities and no clear benefits to the communities has fewer chances to be implemented and sustained than one that includes activities from which communities can gather benefits in the short and long term (i.e., agro-forestry, activities linked to payment for ecosystem services, etc.).

In the selected sites, communities will be supported to review or develop CBINRMLUP responding to the need of the areas as well as the need for long-term sustainability of the efforts. Such plans must: 1) address the INRM needs of the area, 2) be consistent with the landscape or broader plan developed in Output 2.1; and, 3) include a short and long-term financial/incentive plan that provides for long term benefits of the local communities drawn from the gains of implementing the restoration plans over a period of 10 to 15 years.This plans will also build on available technical solutions, coming from previous projects or government support, for which they have already been trained or will be trained (through component 1). For example, in the plans, when Climate Smart Agriculture is envisaged, climate-resilient root crops identified by SPC/GIZ, “Coping with climate change in Pacific Island regions” (CCCPIR) should be considered.

The financial/incentive plan (or package) should include different forms of incentives available in the short to long term including:

Direct subsidies from the public and private sector (cf 2.2.2.1) Project grants (cf 2.2.2.1) Economic revenue from community enterprises linked to restoration (cf 2.2.2.3) or PES schemes Etc.

The CBINRMLUP should be fully comprehensive including infrastructure development need which could be supported by the Ministry of Agriculture currently working on improving infrastructure for value chain development with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

The PMU provincial coordinators, which will be LUP experts, will lead the activities under 2.1.2. in close collaboration with the YMSTs and the line Ministries, which will participate in all missions to the communities to develop the LUP. For the financial/business part of the plans, a partner specialized in such plans at the community level will be contracted. For these activities close collaboration with the AAD and the REDD+ program will be sought as they also have community LUP experience this project could benefit from.

2.1.2.4 Two yearly review of INRM LUPs

The plans will be reviewed after 2 years to make sure that they are still relevant answering both to the INRM and the livelihoods development objective. This will allow for adaptive management of the plans when needed.

Outcome 2.2: At least 18,799ha brought under Community-Based Integrated Natural Resource Management (CBINRM)

Once the CBINRM plans have been developed and linked to sustainable business plans, the project will support their implementation through supporting coordination mechanisms and fundraising/support seeking for the activities.

The main expected results under this outcome are: 17 YMST committees following up the implementation of the CBINRM plans

38

18,799 ha brought under community-based integrated natural resource management (including 2,100 ha through direct investment)

4 enterprises linked to CBINRM support generating benefits

Output 2.2.1 The capacity of communities for CBINRM plans implementation is enhanced

The YMST system development and implementation isn’t at the same level in each province, district and community. For example, while it is quite developed in Ra, it is much less present in Tailevu. Based on other projects experiences, such as the ADD project one, the YMST are key players in the implementation of the LUP.

The project will therefore support the Ministry of iTauki Affairs in developing YMST to manage natural resources at the community level in the communities from which the 21 land use units (under 2.1) pertain. The project will support regular meetings for the 17 local YMST facilitated by the project provincial coordinators. It will be important to make sure that the entire community is represented in the YMST, including women (at least 30%) and youth. YMST people should also be the target of the capacity building activities in component 1.

As indicated above, CBINRM plans will be developed at the Land Owning Unit but the implementation will be supported by the YMSTs. These land units can also be considered as pilot unit of interest to the entire community which might decide to extend the experience to all the Mataqali of the community.

Output 2.2.2 CBINRM plans implementation is supported through direct investments, investments of other partners and providing incentives to communities

In order to ensure that the CBINRMLUP plans are implemented, communities will be supported in the implementation of their business plans through 3 different activities:

- Support to the investments of other partners in the CBINRM plans- Inputs providing program for the best community business plans (to support the CBINRM over 2,100 ha)- Community-based enterprises linked to the INRM plans strengthened

2.2.2.1. Support to the investments of other partners in the CBINRM plans

The Fiji government has a number of capacity building and technical support programs targeting community development and management of natural resources. According to the interviews led during the project preparation phase, the issue is that the communities aren’t empowered to reach out to the Ministries or Projects and request the support needed. An example of this is a recent EU project, which didn’t manage to reach its reforestation targets as not enough communities asked for restoration support. There is a major unbalance between the demand which seems low compared to the service offered.

Once the communities will have CBINRMLUP prepared and associated to business plans they will have a very clear picture of their needs in terms of capacity building, financial and technical support needed. The plans will have be prepared with the support of the line Ministries therefore they will already integrate activities that the Ministries can support.

In order to bring together the demand and the offer, annual fora will be organized every year starting from year 2 bringing together the YMST/Land Owning Groups, the line Ministries (including the Ministry of Trade, which do enterprise development or Ministries giving grants such as the Ministry of Youth, Ministry Woman & Culture, Ministry of Commerce) and other stakeholders such as the private sector, which could be interested in participating the implementation of the plans. Actors such as the National Centre for Small and Micro Enterprises Development (NCSMED), Fiji Development Bank (FDB) the Integrated Human Resource Development Program (IHRDP) would be important stakeholders.

As presented earlier, a major Green Climate Fund project (over 50 MUSD) is currently under preparation and will also target the Ra and Tailevu provinces. This project will want to invest in communities ready to directly implement climate smart activities.

These fora, organized by the national coordinator will run over 2 days and involve around 50 people presenting what they need and what they offer. The format of the forum could mix plenary presentation and one to one discussions.

39

2.2.2.2. Inputs providing program for the best community business plans

To start up right away the implementation of the CBINRMLUP, grants for INRM implementation will be attributed to the most promising CNINRMLUP and their associated business plans. A committee composed of the Project Management Unit (PMU), government officials at the district and provincial level as well as the line Ministries will be selecting the appropriate candidates.

Considering both the land and the financial resources available, it has been estimated that through direct support, 2,100 ha of land can be restored/ under improved management: 500 ha of climate smart agriculture technologies, 550 ha agroforestry, 50 ha mangrove replanting, 450 ha SFM, 250 Forest plantation/ restoration, 300 ha improved rangeland management (see Annex 13 for details).

The type of activity supported are:

Climate smart agriculture (primarily related to agricultural crop production): improved soil management, crop nutrient management, and water management as well as improved crop variety (icl. Indigenous ones)

Agroforestry (as an interface between agricultural land and forest frontiers): contour farming, alley cropping, and agro-silvo-pastoral systems would be implemented

Rangeland management; controlling and influencing the movement of livestock (e.g. water development, fencing, stock trails, and herding) and improved feed crop management (closely related to agroforestry activities)

Sustainable Forest Management; forest protection measures (through patrolling by community wardens) to ensure that i) transgressions are not committed by leasings/concessions (specifically spillage from exotic plantations) and forest fires do not get started inadvertently or go uncontrolled (measures include creation and maintenance of fire lines, deployment of fire watchers, etc.), ii) sustainable extraction of timber (e.g. low impact logging, systematic and planned harvesting) and NTFPs. Sustainable extraction of NTFPs will be facilitated through ecological assessments (impacts of NTFPs harvest, dynamics under the impacts and management practices that can mitigate negative impacts and promote positive impacts) and market assessments (economic viability of products and potential for diversification).

Forest& Mangroves restoration: restoration of degraded forests will be carried out through planting (site suitable indigenous species) and assisted natural regeneration, forest cover in the terrestrial forests and mangroves will be increased by 10% and 12% respectively. Restoration will be geared towards preserving indigenous agrobiodiversity and at the same time providing multiple benefits (e.g. NTFPs, timber for construction) to local communities.

2.2.2.3 Community-based enterprises strengthened through value-addition activities for provision of improved/alternative livelihoods linked to the INRM plans

A number of productive options exist in the project areas, which have the potential to be strengthened through CSA, FLR, sustainable forest and land management, and to generate significant livelihood and commercial benefits for farmers.

Successive governments in Fiji are committed to revitalize the agricultural sector. The government is also committed to revitalize the non-sugar sub sector due to the decrease of sugar production as well as the need to improve the exports and food security. The policy goal is to “establish a diversified, economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture sector.” Its main focus is strengthening the linkages along agricultural value chains from production, distribution, storage, marketing and value-addition to improve efficiency for the sector to be a driver of economic growth. This will assist to lessen poverty, build food security and self-sufficiency and raise the level of exports. Programs and project are being developed to support mechanization, value addition, organic farming and build capacity within the sector.

During the field visits several small enterprises/cooperatives have been visited and could be strengthened in support of the CBINRM plans. They will be an important part of the business plans associated to the CBINRM plans.

In order to strengthen these enterprises different activities will be led:

40

1) Localized value chain analysis on promising products such as honey, vanilla, forest cocoa, mud crab, handicrafts, coco and kava (as the European market just opened for Kava). The value chain analysis will give recommendation how to improve existing enterprises.Some value chain analysis work has already been done such as the booklet on “Fiji Kava value Chain Analysis” launched by PHAMA and the Ministry of Agriculture in 2018. This will booklet will assist many of the kava producers for high productions. The MoFo and BAF have value chain procedures/ information on the top five agriculture products that are mainly exported. The information will improve the quality and consistency of produce.A review was done by Shepherd et.al (2012) on the short fall of value chains of agriculture commodities in the Pacific. The result is that the main shortfalls are linked to the locality of products, poor transport linkages and high costs, poor economies of scale, natural disasters, plant diseases and market access barriers. Despite this constraints, significant opportunities do exists to reduce failures and to expand successes through identifying ways to improve the value chains for agriculture products. Improvements are measured in terms of the sustainable increase in the income earned by those participating in the value chain.The project will use this existing material and go into more detailed value chain analysis for the most promising commodities in the target areas.

2) Assessment of existing enterprises in the target communities including recommendations for improvement. For this study a close collaboration with PHAMA, CI and Nature Fiji is recommended as they worked on value chain development and community enterprises (bee farming, aquaculture pounds, etc.)

3) Business Development Experts will provide direct coaching to entrepreneurs, including the development of simple business and financial plans. The 5 most promising enterprises will benefit from this coaching offer. Women and youth led enterprise will get a special attention from the project. The enterprise strengthening activities will focus on primary and secondary processing of the products, accessing market information and ensuring adequate market access. Learning from previous projects (such as the Drawa one cf section 1.4), clarification of roles and relationships between the enterprises and the communities will have to be defined very early on. The enterprises will be connected with the respective producer associations/councils (usually supported and subsidized by the government) (refer to the stakeholder table) as well as potential investors during the CBINRM fora (cf 2.2.2.1).

For this activity it is anticipated that the project will collaborate with the Integrated Human Resource Development Program (IHRDP), a key coordinating agency for all relevant stakeholders in a participatory approach to promote economic and social well-being for all communities. It does have experience in community based enterprises development.

In promoting enterprise development and employment, FAO, following the Decent Work Agenda (DWA) aims to promote productive work for women and men in conditions of freedom, equality, security and human dignity based on the four pillars: (1) promoting jobs; (2) guaranteeing rights at work; (3) extending social protection; and (4) promoting social dialogue.0 Each of the pillars will be taken into consideration while promoting enterprise development. A special focus will be made on women and youth led enterprises to support their empowerment.

Component 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

Outcome 3: Adaptive management ensured and key lessons shared

This component will ensure that project results and achievements will be disseminated for replicability and scaling up and that project’s progress is tracked and periodic evaluations are conducted for adaptive management. Under this component, the main expected results are:

5,000 key stakeholders in Government agencies, CSO and communities with increased awareness of the potential of INRM

10 good practices systemized and shared through the online platform and the Community of Practice 8 of communities involved in CBINRM monitoring A M&E system put in place to ensure adaptive management

0 http://120.52.51.16/www.fao.org/3/a-i5957e.pdf41

Output 3.1: Documentation and dissemination of lessons learned

3.1.1 FLR knowledge platform, linking to existing REDD+ knowledge platforms and communities of practices, established

For this activity, the project will closely collaborate with the REDD+ group. The REDD+ program has been in place since 2010. It has an active Steering Committee who meets on a quarterly basis with members coming from:

Ministry of Forestry (Secretariat/chair) Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture National Land Trust Board Private sector Fiji Pine NGO (International environmental NGO & Local community based NGO) Resource /land owner University of South Pacific/Fiji National University

As well as several Technical sub-committees focusing on particular themes such as: MRV, Safeguards, Governance & Finance, Knowledge Management (KM).

The KM activity of this project will be discussed within the KM sub-group to ensure alignment.

One of the foreseen activity, is to develop a light web-platform, as an add-on to the REDD+ one, to share the lessons learnt from other Natural Resources Management projects in Fiji, promote the CBINRM approach and share the lessons learnt from the project. This add on should be interactive one.

Given the level of social media (facebook use) ascertained during the baseline socio-economic survey; the project will also develop a social media presence to assist in knowledge sharing but also to facilitate e-discussions with community/stakeholders.

The person in charge of the platform and the social media presence is the National Coordinator (M&E and KM expert). He will also establish key knowledge partnership(s) to ensure effectively shared knowledge. Synergies should be established as much as possible to avoid duplication of knowledge and to promote knowledge sharing across all partners operating in project sites.

42

Fiji REDD+ Governance structure

The Fiji REDD+ Steering Committee is established by and reports to the Forestry Board. The REDD+ Steering Committee has a communication link to the National Environment Council. The REDD+ Steering Committee can establish Technical sub-committees as necessary. Including (if necessary) an executive group responsible fro undertaking certain tasks associated with the implementation of the national REDD+ Programme.

3.1.2 Systematisation of lessons learned, success stories and project results

The project, through its capacity building approach linked to experience, via the Demonstration Farms, will create a wide array of new knowledge to be captured and shared with the project stakeholders and beyond.

Systematization of experience is a method aimed at improving practice based on a critical reflection and interpretation of lessons learned from that practice. Within the context of the full-size project this involves a facilitated process of capturing, analyzing and structuring tacit knowledge on INRM, specifically, best practice and lessons learned, from the perspective of the major stakeholders, i.e., the communities, the local government, the line ministries. The methodology encompasses the identification, documentation and transfer of experiences and key lessons extracted from a project or an initiative, or group of projects or initiatives for the purpose of advocacy, learning and replication/scaling up. Local level systematization workshops will be conducted annually in the demonstration farms to capture, process and organize project generated INRM best practice and lessons learned. These lessons learned will then be shared through the web-platform, the social media and the CoP but also in paper form as it is appreciated by farmers.

The National Coordinator (M&E and KM expert) will be responsible to facilitate the systematization meetings, with the assistance of the Provincial Coordinators and produce factsheets on best practice and lessons learned. These lessons will then be shared in paper and electronic form with the project stakeholders and beyond.

3.1.3 Participate in key learning events and mechanisms for documenting and sharing learning

The team will participate in learning events such as the ones proposed by the IKI project on reaching the Paris agreement or in other events in INRM such as the one proposed by the CBD secretariat on Forest and Landscape restoration. This will be the occasion to share knowledge gathered by the project but also gather new experience to share and try in the project area.

Output 3.2: Project progress continually monitored and adaptive management actions taken

3.2.1. Ongoing monitoring of project results

Under this activity, a monitoring system will be developed to monitor the progress of the achievements of the results framework presented in Annex 1 with special attention to socio-economic and sex-disaggregated indicators. But the monitoring system should not only focus on the results of the project but also its impacts. For this purpose, the M&E expert will lead a participatory multi-stakeholder consultation, involving primarily the TWG, designed to generate meaningful indicators that will assess the impact of the project at broader scales and over a long-term time horizon. To do this, the M&E expert can gather information on current project working on M&E such as the upcoming IKI project on the Paris Agreement implementation or the work under the Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism on Monitoring for FLR.

In addition to monitoring the progress of the results framework, the M&E expert will also monitor the progress of the Workplan, specifically the accomplishments of the activities of each output as shown in Annex 2.

The National Coordinator, who will also be the M&E expert, should review existing monitoring systems in Fiji to see how to both build on them and support them with additional data. His main tasks will be to:

review current M&E system for the project and develop and set up the Project’s M&E system including data collection, analysis and means of verification for indicators and project output

Conduct field survey and site visits for collecting and analysing data needed for monitoring condition and progress of indicators and output. Manage the data collector team. For the biophysical monitoring, the data from Collect Earth Open Foris (cf LUP development) could be used.

3.2.2 Development and implementation of a community based monitoring

An effective way of boosting community ownership is to make them responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of their own activities. The AAD project has tested this approach through community champions having a strong interest in INRM implementation. Nature Fiji is also already implementing some community based monitoring focused on freshwater systems

43

These local champions, after being trained by the M&E expert on the reporting template and assessment methodologies, are responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of INRM activities (this includes ecological and social indicators). In order to incentivize them, grants will be made available for them to develop their activity related to INRM (such as nursery development etc.).It is proposed that this is conducted through the village headman’s quarterly report.

1.3.3 Project assumptions

Outcome AssumptionsOutcome 1: Strengthening local level capacities for integrated natural resource management

Stakeholders are open to INRM and working together on capacity building in a cohesive way

Mindset (including for gender related issues) can be changed through appropriate capacity building

Stakeholders are motivated to engage in capacity building activity

Outcome 2: Community-based Integrated Natural Resource Management

Stakeholders are ready to integrate Integrated Natural Resources Management in their district and local planning

Women will want and be able to actively participate in the project Concerned institutions and stakeholders are willing to collaborate together

in the development and implementation of CNINRMLUP Financial and technical external support do exist for communities having

CBINRM plans ready Economic activities linked to restoration are attractive to farmers/local

communities/ Markets for their products exist Activities respond to the real needs of local communities (including women

and vulnerable people)

Outcome 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

Stakeholders are interested in learning more on INRM Stakeholders provide consent for sharing information Accurate data is available to perform project M&E tasks

1.3.4 Stakeholder consultation and engagement

Key stakeholders and their involvement in the Project are elaborated in the stakeholder mapping and analysis annexed to this document (Annex 11). The stakeholder mapping and analysis provides detail on each stakeholder’s level of involvement, perceived influence, level of impact and priority for engagement. Details and definitions of these parameters are also included in the stakeholder mapping and analysis. The key groups of project stakeholders are:

1. Government agencies and statutory bodies: the project is to be executed by the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. The Ministry of Environment however, retains its role as GEF focal point in Fiji Government. Other project stakeholders at the Government level include the line Ministries as well as statutory bodies such as the iTaukei Land Trust Board (iTLTB).

2. Communities: this includes a diverse group of stakeholders, mainly represented by the Turaga iTaukei, Turaga ni koros and heads of respective mataqalis who are imperative in facilitating/providing consent and buy-in at the community level. Other important local groups include village women’s groups, village youth groups, farmer association, land care groups.

3. Non-Government Organizations and Civil Society Organisations: this lists various NGOs and CSOs who have varying degrees of involvement with the project, either directly or indirectly being impacted by the project/impacting on the project. These include NGOs/CSOs who are presently implementing projects in the project sites or those who have an interest either in the project ecosystem (through conservation/biodiversity related initiatives) or work closely with government agencies as partners for implementation at the community level.

44

4. Academic/Educational Institutions: mainly with a research focus, these stakeholders either have potential to support the development of baseline studies/or may be conducting more comprehensive baseline studies in the project area; or through previous research and technical capacity, may influence or contribute to training under the project.

5. Private sector: these include enterprise development partners who work in the area of market access/enhancing community livelihoods; they also include private sector stakeholders operating in the project area particularly in the forestry sector and stakeholders promoting rural access to finance/building or establishing small to medium enterprises.

6. International and regional organizations, donors: besides GEF and UN FAO, this includes other UN agencies operating in the project areas or who have coordinated key projects with significant lessons learned; donors who have funded projects in the project areas focused on development of natural resources; potential donors for significant co-financing opportunities.

Stakeholders consultations and engagement

During the project preparation phase, the team organized several comprehensive stakeholder engagement opportunities.

The first was the project inception workshop which brought together all key stakeholders to discuss on the project scope and proposed components of work; capture lessons learned and existing development projects coordinated by Government and partners in the identified provinces; as well as to hear any potential concerns, risks or impacts perceived from stakeholders. Stakeholders also had an initial opportunity to contribute to project design components including project site selection, targets and the selection of provinces.

While the formal feedback during the inception workshop were positively in support of the project, a further round of consultations was necessary during the PPG to directly engage stakeholders in order to reaffirm contributions to discussions during the Inception Workshop and to provide feedback specifically on the implementation and sustainability of the project as well as its co-financing components.

All key stakeholders, particularly those who warranted further consultation from the inception workshop, were engaged during the project preparation phase. Due to the focus on INRM at the community level, special attention was paid to community level consultations which included not just the relevant communities at the village level, but the facilitating authorities at the provincial and district levels – Provincial Administrators’ offices and Roko Tuis (through the provincial councils for Ra and Tailevu); the offices of the Commissioner Western and Commissioner Central; Senior Agriculture Officers and Forestry Officers and their respective staff.

Prior to the community consultations, a series of key consultations were held with relevant Government ministries and development partners who were identified as project co-financing partners. Meetings with permanent secretaries or highest representatives for each ministry were held to ensure they were well briefed and to facilitate access to staff and facilities of respective ministries.

Community consultations were conducted over two weeks in consideration of the cultural protocols of engagement (with consistent advice and involvement of the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs and the Ministry of Maritime and Rural Development and Natural Disaster). This was important to show unity of the project’s executing agency with the two key technical agencies (Forestry and Agriculture) who accompanied the consultation team throughout the period of community consultation. Community consultations were also led in a culturally sensitive manner, with regard to the use of local language and dialect where necessary, separation of women and youth from the main community groups to ensure there was opportunity for them to voice their concerns, ask questions and to share their experiences and needs that could be addressed to ensure their inclusive participation in project implementation and monitoring.

A technical Working Group was called in December 2018 by the Ministry of Environment with representatives from all the line Ministries and key partners (cf TWG composition in Institutional Settings in 3.1.1.). The TWG approved the key elements of the project (Theory of change, Results Matrix, Institutional Settings, etc.).

45

Finally, a validation workshop was held on January 24th 2019 to gather comments on the project document and insure that all concerned parties felt comfortable with the project.

During the implementation phase, this participatory approach to stakeholder engagement will be enhanced given the focus of the project on a community driven process. Project activities directly support this and contribute to the project’s ability to sustainably scale out lessons learned and best practices through:

Capacity building of champions to ensure effective contribution and engagement throughout the implementation/post-project evaluation phases.

Participatory learning opportunities through village to village knowledge exchanges and the involvement of youth in developing success stories;

Establishment of community based champions to report on socio-economic indicators (directly impacting the community itself).

A comprehensive stakeholder analysis and mapping has been conducted and is annexed (Annex 11) to this document.

Grievance Mechanism

In line with FAO’s corporate commitment under the Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) framework 0, it is important to ensure that communities in the project areas have an established mechanism for feedback and to address complaints. The project will ensure formalisation of a system of feedback and ensure that the community is aware of this. This will be solicited through the capacity building activities focused on community capacity for project implementation. This grievance mechanism will be in addition to the established grievance mechanism in place through the governance structure at the community level (from village to district, to provincial level who then address complaints on behalf of the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, unless they warrant further arbitration through the iTaukei Affairs Board (iTAB) or iTaukei Land Trust Board (iTLTB)).

A complaint or expression of dissatisfaction warrants an urgent need for action. Complaints may also provide important information to guide monitoring/adjustment of the project during its implementation phase. Complaints or feedback may constitute the following:

1. Feedback – observations or minor issues relating to implementation activities. Feedback is either positive or negative. Stakeholder feedback ensures Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) throughout project implementation, and should be acknowledged to this regard. All project staff and partners are expected to actively engage with communities to seek their feedback. A system of community based champions will be appointed and trained to facilitate the process of seeking community feedback on a regular basis. They will complement project monitoring through their contribution to community monitored indicators and to alert project personnel on lessons learned, observations or minor issues/positive experiences.

2. Complaint – these are specific grievances reflecting any negative experience as a result of the project. These may include but are not limited to poor quality of interventions; misappropriation of project resources; exploitation and abuse – including sexual exploitation and exploitation of children. Serious allegations will be handled at the level of the FAO Ethics Office or Office of Inspector General (OIG) in FAO HQ following specific procedures developed for highly sensitive and confidential cases.

To enable effective and efficient management of feedback and complaints, the Project Management Unit supported by FAO Fiji will:

1) Communicate accountability commitments to the affected population, including their rights to complain as and when needed- through resources (print) tailored to community preferred means of access to information – in local language; on social media sites; discussed as part of awareness activities and training.

2) Actively seek beneficiary feedback at all events, workshops, training and through dedicated community champions.

0 FAO has globally adopted seven AAP commitments, applicable in both emergency and development programmes: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/Guidance%20Note%20Accountability.pdf

46

3) Assess beneficiaries’ preference on feedback systems and adapt accordingly through formal and informal consultations (with attention paid to baseline report on socio-economic survey – preferred means of communication).

4) Train project staff on handling beneficiary feedback and complaints.

5) Systematically document all feedback and identify trends in beneficiary complaints, and establish a system to store knowledge relating to community feedback.

6) Create response mechanisms for complaints –including telephone number of assigned staff at FAO Fiji to receive complaints. If the beneficiaries wish, they can also contact FAO Regional Office – details to be provided; or the Ministry of Environment (GEF focal point in Fiji).

7) Report and take action on feedback, complaints and allegations received through the Compliance Unit, technical teams, and management, OIG or Ethics Office.

The timeframe for managing feedback including giving appropriate response to the complaints raised by beneficiaries will vary based on the nature and magnitude of the reported problem. Response may not be necessary for routine feedback, or in some cases can be given instantly. Feedback will always be reviewed and continuous efforts to improve program will be undertaken, including reduction or prevention of similar occurrences of negative events.

Disclosure

Disclosure of relevant project information helps stakeholders to effectively participate. FAO will disclose information concerning this global project on the disclosure portal 0 in order to allow stakeholder to have access to information before the launch of the project.

1.4. LESSONS LEARNED

When working on INRM Plans at community level we need to look at the successes and lessons learned from other projects.

The following projects are great repository of knowledge for this project:

Pacific Alliance for Sustainability supported project – GEF 4 – 2013-2017The GEF-PAS Forest and Protected Area Management in Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and Niue has been a five-year project implemented by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. The project’s environmental objective is to strengthen biodiversity conservation and reduce forest and land degradation. Its developmental objective is to enhance the sustainable livelihoods of local communities living in and around existing or potential protected areas. The project has worked at the interface of these two objectives in the four countries above with a range of activities structured within six technical components: 1) policy and legal reform; 2) extension and consolidation of the protected area network; 3) strengthening capacity for protected area and community-based conservation management; 4) developing mechanisms for sustainable protected areas financing; 5) sustainable use of biodiversity; and 6) sustainable land management in forest margins. The project has been designed with the objective to assist the countries achieving the Aichi targets of the Convention of Biodiversity and in particular to contribute to the Aichi target to protect at least 17 % of each countries’ terrestrial area.

This project did an entire publication on lessons learnt (http://www.fao.org/3/i7505en/I7505EN.pdf ) which are all useful for this project and should be an important reference document for the project management Team of this project.

The Drawa model area for community-based sustainable forest management (CBFM) – Secretariat of the Pacific Community0 (SPC) – GIZ - 1998-2008The project objectives were to institutionalise viable community-based sustainable forest management regimes for native forests in Fiji and contribute towards the mainstreaming of participatory rural land use planning in Fiji.

0 http://www.fao.org/environmental-social-standards/disclosure-portal/en/

0 Now known as the Pacific Community (SPC)47

This project drew important lessons learnt on Community Based enterprises and the need to clearly define the boundaries between the community and the community enterprise. The success of the Drawa project can be attributed to the 11 mataqali of the Drawa model area who have remain united and resolute in their commitment to sustainably manage their forest resources for almost 10 years now. The mataqali have remained so in the face of enticing offers from commercial loggers. Also to be commended is the collaborative management displayed by stakeholders who effectively work together in the decision-making and implementation processes.

The Emalu0 REDD+ Project- since 2011The Emalu project is the first national REDD+ pilot project in Fiji. The forest area is quite pristine and remains one of the primary indigenous forests in Fiji. The forest is under the ownership of the Mataqali Emalu, Yavusa Emalu who have given their consent in the implementation of REDD+ programme. This pilot site has been being used to test forest carbon stock assessment and forest stratification methodologies. The application of national FPIC guidelines and process have also being practiced on Emalu pilot site. Located on Viti Levu in Navosa province it covers an area of 7,347 ha of lowland, upland and cloud forest.Socio-economic surveys and discussions with local communities have revealed that there is a need to ensure REDD+ activities will provide not only long-term benefits but also help meet short-term needs such as cash income. This is one of the reasons why sustainable harvesting was selected as the preferred REDD+ project option. In order to meet short-term cash needs and address potential threats from agriculture expansion, which is moving closer to the forest boundaries, the project is investing in sustainable agriculture and livelihood opportunities for local communities. Lessons learnt on sustainable livelihood and training on sustainable forest management could be gathered from this project.

Partnership in High Value Agriculture: developing farming as a business – IFAD/ MoA– 2012-2015The main objective of the 5000,000 USD grant was to have the participating farmer households increase their returns by 20 per cent of the production of high value products, marketed under contracts with private sector buyers. The programme also aimed to pave the way for a future lending programme in Fiji by building on the experience of the IFAD-supported regional programme for Mainstreaming of Rural Innovations Programme (MORDI), scaling up its community development model, and piloting new approaches for the commercialisation of high-value fruits and vegetables. Implemented by the local NGO Partners in Community Development Fiji – PCDF (http://www.pcdf.org.fj/), the grant targeted poor communities living in three relatively remote upland districts in Viti Levu, which have good agricultural production potential due mainly to altitude, but lack effective market linkages to hotels, retail consumer markets and exporters.The main lessons learnt from this project are:

Farmers Grouping. It is more manageable and effective to work with small groups of farmers, in the range of 10-15 members, who should come from the same village/community.

Progressive (lead) farmers. These are effective as local mentors for young and emerging farmers. It is not easy to engage the women and specific approaches are required to increase women’s

participation. Recruiting more or higher number of female as facilitators may increase the participation of women farmers in the scaling up programme.

Farmers to receive full training package. This will give good opportunities for participating farmers to run his farm sustainably when the programme completed.

To access Loan Facilities, farmers (especially those being risk-averse) need encouragement, financial assistance and mentoring. The loan scheme should be closely monitor by project implementers to prevent risk of failure and losses of the farmer.

SMEs. Some progressive/lead farmers may want to take this opportunity and they should be supported by the project.

Strengthening of Market Linkages with vendors, middlemen and main town market. FAPP should facilitate contract market and ensure that farmers are connected with markets through contract arrangements.

Farmers profiling/data. It is critical to do farmers and community profiling at the beginning of the project. Data should be used to assess project outcomes, achievement and impact for individual, groups and communities.

Daily Farmers Record (Record Keeping). The project has developed a daily farm Record Book that was used by participating farmers.

0 https://theredddesk.org/countries/initiatives/emalu-redd-pilot-project 48

Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access (PHAMA)0 project - Australia & New Zealand - 2011–2018The Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Program (PHAMA), was a seven-year program of Australian and New Zealand assistance to six Pacific Island nations: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. The goal was to increase exports of fresh and value-added agricultural products, contributing to economic growth and improved rural livelihoods. There were three main expected outcomes: (i) increased export volumes; (ii) better farm gate prices; and (iii) protection of existing export markets. PHAMA transitioned to PHAMA Plus on 1st November 2018 and will run through to June 2022 (cf section on collaboration with on-going project 3.1.2).

PHAMA’s key achievements in Fiji were to support government and industry to utilise export opportunities for agricultural and other primary products, identify and develop new export opportunities for fresh and processed products, and strengthen contingency planning and surveillance for pests and diseases. The work focused on four sectors: kava, (known as yaqona in Fiji), root crops, sea urchins, and quarantine operations to improve exporters’ capacity to implement export protocols. The Program was instrumental in opening new export markets, maintaining and improving current export marketing pathways, and developing new products. PHAMA’s main contributions to these outcomes are summarized as follows:

Kava: PHAMA helped producers, exporters and government establish quality systems that demonstrated that Fiji’s kava exports are suitable for human consumption. This important work was part of rebuilding Fiji’s exports following Germany’s 2002 ban on kava imports and its subsequent overturning of the ban in 2014.

Taro: PHAMA provided targeted support to exporters and sector-wide support to government and industry to maintain and improve Fiji taro exports. This included support to six taro exporters to gain food safety (HACCP1) accreditation in order to obtain better prices in Australian and New Zealand supermarkets. PHAMA provided HACCP training to support the exporters through the audit and accreditation process. PHAMA also supported development of a biosecurity plan for protection and response to taro diseases.

Eggplant: PHAMA supported the reopening of Fiji’s eggplant pathway to New Zealand which had been closed following pest interceptions on treated product. New Zealand re-opened the pathway after conducting an external audit following Biosecurity Agency Fiji (BAF) remedial actions. Additionally, PHAMA reviewed and amended Standard Operating Procedures and export documentation in consultation with BAF.

Ginger: PHAMA assisted the Government of Fiji to obtain market access for fresh ginger to Australia. Exports of ginger have subsequently commenced.

Papaya: PHAMA helped reopen Fiji’s papaya export pathway to Australia, following voluntary closure by Fiji due to an exotic disease outbreak of quarantine concern. The Australian Government subsequently visited Fiji to review management of the outbreak, and the pathway was officially reopened.

Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Island Region (CCPIR) – BMZ / SPC – 2009-2019The objectives of the project were to enhance the skills and capabilities of the local population, national governmental authorities and regional organisations in order to cope with the effects of climate change and combat its causes. It targeted the Pacific Islands Region, including Fiji.The programme focused on terrestrial and marine resources, and on the education, energy and tourism sectors. In Fiji, the programme supported authorities and residents in forest conservation (REDD+ measures). Climate adaptation activities have also been carried out at community level in all countries. These adopt multidisciplinary and integrated approaches that involve several partners.

Of particular interest to this project, the CCCPIR supported: the development of the Participatory Land-Use Planning Guidelines which will be the basis of work in

Component 1 for the district level land-use planning process. the identification certain root crops that are climate-resilient, these crops will be integrated into the

agroforestry system implemented under Component 2.

MESCAL project IUCN project supported by BMU The Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation & Livelihood: to Increase climate change resilience and improve local livelihoods through selected capacity support in adaptive co-management and restoration of mangroves. This project learning will support the work on mangroves under this project.

0 Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Plus (PHAMA Plus) Program Country Strategy Note | Fiji | January 201949

1.5. ALIGNMENT AND STRATEGIC FIT Alignment with national development goals and policies

Fiji is strongly committed towards climate change mitigation, land degradation reduction and biodiversity conservation as its international commitments show through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and REDD+0 mechanism, the CBD (mostly Aichi targets 15) and the UNCCD. This is detailed in section 1.1 “Legal and Policy Context”, together with the set of policies deriving from these commitments.

This project is aligned with the strategies developed to reach the goals for sustainable development defined by Fiji at the international, regional and national levels. The strategies are under the overarching Green Growth Framework (GGF) launched in 2014 serves as the government’s blueprint for sustainable development in Fiji and to fulfilling the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. Thematic Area 3 of the Green Growth Framework, Sustainable Islands and Ocean is perfectly aligned with this project.

All Ministerial Annual Corporate Plan (ACP) are aligned to relevant outcomes identified in the Roadmap (RDSSED) and the Strategic Development Plan. These documents include: The Green Growth Frame Work, the 5 Year & 20 year National Development Plan, Climate Change Action Plan, Fiji Forestry Policy 2007, Fiji 2020 Agriculture Policy Agenda and line Ministerial Annual Cooperate Plans to name a few.

As outlined by the major UN conventions (UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD), a country needs the appropriate capacities to better manage its natural resources and reach the goals it committed to in terms of emissions, land degradation and biodiversity loss reductions. The frameworks under the UNFCC (enshrined in decisions 2/CP.7 and 3/CP.7.) provide a set of guiding principles and approaches to capacity-building, for example that it should be a country-driven process, involve learning by doing, and build on existing activities. They also contain a list of priority areas for action on capacity-building, including the specific needs of least developed countries and Small Island Developing States. They reaffirm that capacity-building is essential to enable these countries to implement the objective of the Conventions. The frameworks set out a way forward for capacity-building activities, such as developing and strengthening skills and knowledge, as well as providing opportunities for stakeholders and organizations to share their experiences and increasing their awareness to enable them to participate more fully in the sustainable natural resources management process. This project focuses an entire component (Component 1) on capacity Building.

Alignment with National action Plans on Biodiversity, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Combat Desertification

As described below the project is well aligned with all the major plans under the Rio convention and will participate to achieve their goals.

Climate ChangeAs described in 1.1, Fiji is very committed to climate change and made a pledge under the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) for an unconditional 10% emissions cut by 2030, compared to business as usual levels, or a conditional 30% reduction with international support. The second National Communication (NC) under UNFCC was presented in 2013. It highlights0 2 important points tackle by this project;

- Need to focus on local communities- Need for capacity building: “Fiji realizes the importance of national capacity building across all sectors

thus requires well-trained scientific, technical and managerial staff that will not only understand climate change but also be involved in responses to climate change that will create a need for a well-equipped institutional structure that will provide facilities and finances to support climate change programmes and activities.”

The Government of Fiji started a national REDD+ programme in 2009, and adopted a National REDD+ Strategy in 2011. REDD+ is seen as a long-term measure for tackling deforestation and forest degradation, ensuring sustainable forest management, and enhancing carbon stocks and forest biodiversity conservation, while also meeting the demands for energy and other forest products. The intended REDD+ Strategy options are being

0 REDD+ stands for countries’ efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

0 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/FJInc2.pdf 50

developed with a view to enhancing positive impacts, co-benefits and reducing any likely negative socio-economic and environmental effects on forest-dependent communities and the country as a whole.

In 2017, the GoF presented its National Adaptation Plan Framework0 to guide efforts to develop its National Adaptation Plan (NAPA) on an ongoing basis to comprehensively address climate change. The National Adaptation Plan will reinvigorate collaboration between the Climate Change and International Cooperation Division and the many stakeholders relevant to adaptation. Knowledge sharing and institutional learning are seen as fundamental ingredients of success.

Land DegradationIn 2007, Fiji published a report titled “National Action Plan to combat desertification/land degradation and mitigate against drought”0. It describes in details the causes of land degradation in Fiji as well as the past and current projects and outline a National Action program proposal. The Fiji government has not officially endorsed the National Action Plan (NAP). Although the Ministry of Agriculture started as its National Focal Point, the GEF operational and political focal point were moved to other ministries. At present the Ministry of Water Ways and Environment through the CB2/CCD Project is strengthening all existing multilateral and bilateral agreement that exist within government. Included in that is the revisit of the NAP.As part of the report, Fiji emphasised the importance of capacity building across all sectors as a cornerstone in the achievement of sustainable development through better education and training and creation of public awareness concerning sustainable development. It is a very important issue that needs to be addressed both at local and national level. The project is very well aligned with these priorities.

BiodiversityFiji’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) endorsed in 2003, translates Fiji’s commitment achieving its 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In terms of protected areas, the country already counts over 100 Locally Managed Marine Protected Areas (LMMAs). Fiji has identified its Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Important Bird Areas (IBAs), nationally significant wetland sites, fish aggregation and spawning sites. Ecosystem-based management is more and more used, notably in the Kubulau reserve, and quota systems have been introduced for marine and terrestrial export commodities, as prescribed by CITES and the Endangered and Protected Species Act (2002). Thriving programmes have been set that range from terrestrial ecosystems to marine ecosystems and for which positive outcomes have already been identified by communities. The Ministry of Education, through the Culture and Heritage Department, is conducting a survey and mapping of traditional knowledge to enhance indigenous peoples’ participation in biodiversity conservation. Cooperation with individual famers was also carried out to combat pests that are harmful to Fiji. In terms of environmental education, several programs have been carried out in schools, notably by the Mamanuca Environment Society (MES), in order to raise awareness of the environment amongst children. Fiji has also moved to enforce the Environment Management Act 2005.

Alignment with GEF focal areas

Fit with GEF Climate Change priorities: This project is under CC 2 program 4: “Promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks in forest, and other land use, and support climate smart agriculture”. The project through the development of the INRM plans and the capacity building programs will give the necessary tools for the implementation of climate smart agriculture, forestry and grassland management.

Fit with GEF Land Degradation priorities: This project is under LD 3 Program 4: “Scaling-up sustainable land management through the Landscape Approach” GEF will support efforts to scale-up policies, practices, and incentives for improving production landscapes with environmental benefits through this programmatic priority, and will encourage wider application of innovative tools and practices for natural resource management at scale. This includes innovations for improving soil health, water resource management, and vegetation cover in production landscapes systems to benefit land users most vulnerable to land degradation. Women are often the most vulnerable to such degradation, and also can offer local innovations for sustainability. Therefore the specific roles of men and women in these systems will be considered. Potential support activities include:(a) Institutional capacity development and institutional finance for sustainable land management;(b) Securing innovative market and financing mechanisms that provide incentives for reducing the pressures and competition between land use systems;

0 https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/NAP%20Framework%20Fiji.pdf 0 https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/fiji-eng2007.pdf 51

(c) Integrated watershed management, including wetlands, transboundary areas and mountainous regions where SLM interventions can improve hydrological functions and services for agro-ecosystem productivity;(d) Multi-stakeholder landscape planning involving both public and private sectors to inform decision-making on integrated management of ecosystem services;(e) Improving agricultural land management near protected areas, including through empowerment of local communities.

This project through district and local level CBINRM planning will support scaling up sustainable land management. It will also support the development of incentives and local enterprises to ensure the long term implementation of the plans.

Alignment with FAO Country Programming Framework and FAO Strategic Framework

FAO Strategic Framework

The alignment of the project with FAO Strategic Framework is as follows:Strategic Programme 2 – Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainableOutput 2.1.2 - Capacities of institutions are strengthened to promote the adoption of more integrated and cross-sectoral practices that sustainably increase productivity and production, address climate change and environmental degradation

FAO Country Programming Framework (2018-2022)

The project will support the Fiji Country Programming Framework (2018-2022), specifically: Output 2: Sustainable and climate-smart practices promoted to help build resilient agriculture, fisheries and forestry production systems

52

SECTION 2 – INNOVATIVENESS, POTENTIAL FOR SCALING UP AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 INNOVATIVENESS

The project has been designed to promote community based integrated natural resources management in Fiji. It promote a level on integration in terms of planning and field implementation, which is new in Fiji. The main innovations proposed by the project are the following:

Promoting in Fiji the integration of different land use plans in order to act in a coordinated way and integrated landscape-wide perspective to natural resources management. For the moment the different line Ministries plan and execute their activities in silo. This project will support coordination to maximise the synergies. This integration will also certainly be a good way to develop innovative INRM strategies and strengthen the collaboration between the different ministries to support communities while implementing their own plans. The participatory resource management planning will happen at multiple levels – both local and landscape. Traditionally, one of the bottlenecks in translating participatory village resource planning and management impacts to the larger landscape level lies in the individual villages operating in silos without any linkages. In this project, common district level PLUPs will be developed (involving all the villages effectively), within this overall framework the individual villages will prepare local level INRM plans, translating into wider landscape level benefits.

Building on the few experiences of FFS in Fiji to expand the concept and get it down to the community level.

Using the latest research in Fiji in terms of indigenous species and climate resilient/ smart species to upscale restoration. The demonstration farms are a good way to have these types of practices tested and adopted by the communities.

Strengthening the sense of community, which tends to be lost by having the demonstration farms where the community can debate and agree on the best way forward and test it.

Linking up local level planning with public support programs: linking the demand and the offer is both innovative and a way to ensure sustainability.

Introducing capacity building monitoring which would be important to better understand the progress towards improved skills for local communities

Creating a platform to widely share information on CBINRM in Fiji and support a Community of Practices discussing concrete field activities.

2.2 POTENTIAL FOR SCALING UPThe potential for scaling up is high for this project and it will lay the ground for large investment through:

Planning at district level, supporting the development of plans over a large area with clear linkages with village level planning, which will then be “investment ready”.

Support to local institutional structures in charge of natural resources management, such as the YMST. Capacity development through replicable models (i.e. FFS) and line the line ministry existing programs,

which will stay beyond the project time. Sustainability strategy put in place through the financial plans linked to the CBINRM plans. These plans

and the forum will bring untraditional partners to support communities engaged in INRM.

Major investments are already planned in Fiji through programs such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF). They will be able to build on the strong basis set up by this project and scale up.

2.3 SUSTAINABILITY

2.3.1 Environmental sustainability

The project promotes INRM at national, district and local levels to contribute to sustainable use of ecosystem services and the reduction of deforestation and land degradation. In this way, the project directly contributes to environmental sustainability. The project aims to improve INRM practices in Fiji to secure essential ecosystem services (including biodiversity and carbon benefits) as well as the production of commodities based on a sustainable and inclusive economy. The project will be implemented in areas under severe threat of degradation and in a particularly fragile environment, which is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This project

53

will intensify efforts to manage natural resources sustainably ensuring the flow of ecosystem services and supporting the diversification of the rural economy. Environmental sustainability will also be enhanced by the project’s emphasis on supporting strong local ownership of the project and developing short & long term financing plans linked to CBINRM plans.

The whole project strategy is built around environmental sustainability. CBINRM is anchored in an environmentally sustainable approach that aims to bring back the good functioning of ecosystems and the overall quality of the environment in the long term, while improving local communities’ livelihoods.In its first component, the project will seek to improve local capacities to plan and implement INRM plans.In its second component, the project will support district and community based planning ensuring that all activities (agriculture, forestry, livestock, fisheries, conservation zones, etc.) have their place to avoid conflict. It will ensure inclusive benefit sharing, NRM planning and initiatives that are demand driven, transparent, and involving all stakeholders, particularly local communities, women and youth. The activities will include the development of incentives and enterprises that will motivate land managers to continue sustainable management practices.The third component will focus on developing a stronger monitoring for environmental and social results of INRM and ensure proper adaptive management of the project. The Knowledge component part will also ensure that the good practices tested can be replicated in the Fiji and beyond.

These different measures will directly contribute to the environmental sustainability of project activities as it will improve efficiency in the use of forest resources while contributing to conserving, protecting and enhancing natural ecosystems.

2.3.2 Expected global environmental benefits

The project will generate global environmental benefits (GEBs) as it is expected that it will contribute to: 1) having 47,179 hectares of land under restoration plans generating multiple benefits with a clear path to achieve restoration at the landscape/watershed scale; and2) 2,200 ha of land where innovative restoration alternatives/solutions to ensure long term commitment to restoration are tested and influencing restoration options at the landscape level. These objectives are intimately linked to livelihood improvement of local communities involved in restoration, the project aiming at directly benefiting 3,500 people.

The direct lifetime GHG emission mitigation potential from the project is estimated as 328,225 tCO2eq Note: the project has an indirect impact potential after the end of the project of an additional 1,756,286 tCO2eq (see Annex 13).

2.3.3 Socio-economic benefits and sustainability

The most efficient way to ensure a CBINRM project sustainability is have it strongly anchored in the field and ensure local community engagement in natural resources management. For this, local communities have to be trained and benefit from the activities on the short and long term. To ensure this, the project support the following

strong capacities development at the local level allowing communities to get the appropriate skills for INRM

strong YMST to follow up on the project activities to ensure their sustainability enterprise development and benefit generating activities linked to INRM bringing short and long term

benefits to local communities

Through this approach, local communities will have a direct interest in pursuing CBINRM as they will derive socio-economic benefits from it. It is expected that the project will allow communities to diversify their income source or livelihood allowing them to rely less on public support for safety net.

2.3.4 Gender equality

As reported by the government of Fiji to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), women play a critical and central role in farm practices, natural resource extraction and use at local level. They wrote in 2012: “Rural women are the major subsistence and semi subsistence agricultural producers. They grow food crops for the market where they sell their surplus produce. A survey conducted in the Sigatoka valley for the Fourth Fiji Islands Road Upgrading project found that Fijian women do more routine agricultural

54

work than men; their workloads included subsistence cultivation and market gardening”. Nevertheless, their perspectives and priorities are often not considered when determining management practices and approaches. The main way that gender issues have been incorporated into the project preparation process is through the adoption and use of participatory approaches in all important decisions and activities in preparing the document. The project design also ensures that effective representation of both genders is achieved in all project activities (especially considering the fact that women are key change agents in terms of adopting new practices). Indeed, most of the activities will be decided and implemented through community committees/groups, knowing that these groups will have to be aligned with the provincial target of 30% women representation in all community committees/groups. Also, for all the capacity building activities as well as for the knowledge management, the project team will ensure that at least 30% of women are involved in all the activities. Finally, the enterprise development part will have a particular focus on women to ensure that they also participate in the value addition and commercial part. Indeed, The 2010/2011 Employment and Unemployment Survey (EUS) analysis indicates that women in both urban and rural areas spend far more time on employment and housework than men. Women, who do 74 percent of all domestic work, spend 54.2 hours per week on unpaid employment, compared to 32.3 hours for men.

The project design follows the guidance on mainstreaming gender in the project cycle 0 developed by FAO. Reporting on project activities, outputs and outcomes will also be disaggregated by gender (where applicable), so that performance in this respect can be monitored.

The project seeks to pay special attention to women from the onset. The consideration of equal benefit to men and women through the project interventions, has taken into account traditional and culturally accepted roles of men and women in the community setting and through a well-established system of governance. It also takes into full account the national policy/regulatory approach to gender mainstreaming and equality which is formalised in the National Gender Policy.

During the PPG phase, the following activities were undertaken to ensure effective mainstreaming of women into all areas of consultations and project design:

1. Literature Review of national policies, FAO and GEF policies relating to gender mainstreaming. This included the National Gender Policy approved in 2014; review of country gender assessments conducted by UN Women and the Asian Development Bank; review of FAO Policy on Gender Equality: Attaining Food Security in Agriculture and Rural Development; and GEF’s Gender Mainstreaming Policy.

2. Inception & Validation Workshops – ensuring targeted interviews with women on their qualitative experiences as well as roles in facilitating projects relating to natural resource management in the project identified areas; ensuring there was at least 30% attendance by women from various stakeholder groups; workshop facilitation took into consideration traditional gender roles in Fiji and provided opportunities for women to express their views freely.

3. Community Engagement – Specific consideration was given to women, with targeted interviews and rapid gender analysis techniques incorporated into the scope of lead questions for focus group interviews targeting women. Where there was additional information to be gathered, one-on-one interviews were conducted with women in communities. Gender assessment methodologies complementing the baseline socio-economic survey focused on the following questions, which were also developed as a guide for all consultants in their interaction with women: What are the main roles of women in your community? What are the main roles of men in your community? What decision making do women engage in? What decision making is left to men? Who normally looks after food preparation and cooking? What are some of the methods you use to prepare food? What are some of the challenges you meet in eating fresh/nutritious food? What aspirations do women have for themselves if given more power/resources? How often do women travel to neighbouring villages? What are their interaction outside of the village?

0 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6854e.pdf55

The provincial council indicated that efforts are already in place to have 30% women in community development committees, however buy-in and changes in traditional mindsets are imperative in the execution of project targets relating to gender. The community willingness to adopt this approach is one of the key assumption of the project. The fact that the project will be supporting the local YMST, and therefore engage with women directly, will be one element to promote women empowerment together with the enterprise development activity. Also exchanges with other sites are expected to happen, these could be a great opportunity to showcase women leadership in these communities.

The status of women and men varied greatly from one community to another in project sites. Some key observations established through rapid gender assessment and focus groups as well as targeted interviews were that:

Villages where women played key leadership roles (mainly in Tailevu), were more proactive in village development, nutrition and support towards socio-economic advancement (an example being women led sports/physical fitness initiatives to combat NCDs);

While women acknowledged that they would appreciate more autonomy in decision making around planting, management of natural resources (execution of their traditional roles) however, during the women only discussions, women seemed to indicate that they would prefer to have men retain the ultimate positions of authority. This points to the need of analysing intra-household gender roles and dynamics so to get a better understanding of women and men’s position, autonomy and agency.

In regard to enhancing community livelihoods, it has been proven in other countries that gender equity is essential towards achieving sustainable commodity supply chains; improving household nutrition and access to food and efficiency as well as effectiveness of community development0. The participation of women in all aspects of project implementation is imperative to achieving this.

To inform project design and to ensure gender integration throughout the PPG and project implementation phases, key indicators have been established to ensure women’s participation in all components of project implementation. There is also a specific focus on women as recipients of opportunities relating to enterprise strengthening/development as well as participation in project monitoring as community based champions.

During the project implementation phase, special attention will be paid to women in the following ways to ensure gender mainstreaming throughout all levels of project implementation.

Component 1 – women will constitute at least 30% of participation in all capacity building and training activities.

Component 2 – women, together with youth, will be a key focus of awareness raising and enterprise strengthening and market access activities to enhance livelihoods.

Component 3 – women will be appointed as community based champions, empowered to contribute to ongoing monitoring of project socio-economic indicators at the community level and to contribute to feedback as well as capturing grievances/perceived negative impacts at the community level. They will be trained and a system that facilitates and supports their role as leaders in project implementation will be established.

During the project evaluation phase, women’s stories of success/experiences from the project are particularly encouraged.

The gender mainstreaming indicators are incorporated into the results matrix under the appropriate outcome indicators. Monitoring of gender related indicators as detailed above in Component 3, will be conducted at the community level and through progress reporting on capacity building/training initiatives. This will comprise sex-disaggregated data and gender sensitive monitoring indicators.

2.3.5 Indigenous People

In the project areas identified (i.e. where mataqali land has been established as constituting the total area site), all land is occupied and owned by indigenous peoples – the iTaukei. The project has been developed in close

0 https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000022433/download/56

consultations with indigenous peoples and is being executed by the Government agency responsible for indigenous affairs – the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. The annexed village profiles (Annex 8) provide a comprehensive breakdown of disaggregated population statistics of indigenous people in the project sites (by sex, age and village amongst other subsets of data).

The project will be implemented in accordance with the established governance system of the iTaukei people (working directly with communities at the mataqali level – the traditional unit of land ownership). This will ensure that where there is consent at the mataqali level, there is guaranteed buy-in and informed consent for all levels below that.

iTaukei communities are the targeted participants for the participatory land use planning process as well as for capacity building and other components of project implementation. They are also the main beneficiary group. Through the participatory approach and improved livelihoods through market access and enterprise development activities, indigenous people’s livelihoods and ability to capitalise on well managed natural resources will be enhanced. During the implementation of outputs such as the development of land use plans, communities will be consulted prior to implementation to ensure validation and the implementation of FPIC at all stages of the project.

During the PPG stage, steps 1 to 3 of FPIC0 were conducted. This included the development of printed material disclosing project information as well as proposed benefits to the community; which was translated into the local language and produced in consideration of the high literacy rate amongst Fiji’s indigenous communities (over 93%).

Step 4 of FPIC will be done during the validation workshop, where communities will have a further opportunity to contribute to the project implementation and also agree on and provide feedback on a complaints mechanism. Throughout the project (in reference to the knowledge management and monitoring/evaluation component of the project), there is participatory monitoring of community feedback and processes in place for handling grievances as well as documenting and sharing of lessons.

2.3.6 Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBA)

The project supports the Human Rights Based Approach in its contribution to improving community livelihoods, and through improved socio-economic conditions. Through its enterprise strengthening focus, the project will promote access to decent rural employment, as it will involve particularly women and youth (the most marginalised groups within project communities) in a participatory manner, to facilitate access to market and promote markets and capacities around micro/small enterprise development.

In promoting enterprise development and employment, FAO, following the Decent Work Agenda (DWA, ) aims to promote productive work for women and men in conditions of freedom, equality, security and human dignity based on the four pillars: (1) promoting jobs; (2) guaranteeing rights at work; (3) extending social protection; and (4) promoting social dialogue.0 Each of the pillars will be taken into consideration while promoting enterprise development.

The improvement of socio-economic conditions such as the enhanced participation of women, and improved livelihoods directly supports the ability for households to access better nutrition, sources of food. Women have been determined to play a central role in food preparation and planning in project communities.

Through the integrated approach to natural resource management, particularly in building capacities around climate smart agriculture and agroforestry, at the subsistence level; the project will contribute to better nutrition and access to food through improved management of food gardens, quality of crops and horticulture (for which surplus would be traded, contributing to general livelihoods). In this area of project outputs, there is also dedicated support to specific crops that are relevant to women’s enterprise (such as pandanus) and to youth driven enterprise initiatives such as kava and taro.

0 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6190e.pdf 0 http://120.52.51.16/www.fao.org/3/a-i5957e.pdf57

2.4 Capacity DevelopmentCapacity Development is one of the key approaches of the project to contribute to the sustainability of the project results through deepening country ownership and leadership of the development process. The project has an entire component, component 1, dedicated to Capacity Development.

The project will address all 3 capacity development dimensions: individual capacities (e.g. Knowledge, skills and competencies), organizational capacities (e.g. performance of organizations, cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder coordination / collaboration mechanisms) as well the enabling environment (e.g. sound regulatory and policy frameworks, institutional linkages and enhanced political commitment and will). To do so, capacity building activities will be implemented, and progress will be tracked through the project M&E framework.

The project is undertaking capacity building at the national, provincial, district, community and individual farmer levels. Examples of all three dimensions of capacity building in this project include the following:

Individual capacities: Individual capacities will be strengthened through a variety of trainings provided to a wide range of beneficiaries mainly from the local communities. The entire Component 1 is dedicated to provide training and develop demonstration farms to strengthening individual farmer’s capacities. In component 2 district level stakeholders will be trained on INRMLUP.

Institutional capacities: Supporting the coordination of multi-stakeholder bodies at community, district and national levels will support the planning and implementation of INRM good practices. It will also gather support for INRM.

Enabling environment: the above-mentioned capacities are ultimately aimed at strengthening the enabling environment to promote and replicate improved INRM approaches at all levels.

The strong component on Knowledge Management will support the capacity building at all levels by increasing awareness of the INRM issues and sharing good practices and lessons learnt.

SECTION 3 – INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

3.1 INSTITUTIONAL & IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

3.1.1 Roles and responsibilities of main institutions

The main institutions and their roles in the project are described in details in the Stakeholder matrix in Annex 11.

Institutional and management arrangements

The Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (MTA) will be the main government counterpart and will have the overall executing and technical responsibility for the project, with FAO providing technical oversight as GEF Agency. The MTA will coordinate all efforts to implement the project’s components, aligning with other initiatives and assuring that all deadlines are achieved and that the project’s results are discussed throughout all national and local institutions involved.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) will be the GEF Implementing Agency for the Project, providing project cycle management services as established in the GEF Policy. FAO, as GEF Implementing Agency, holds overall accountability and responsibility to the GEF for delivery of the results. FAO will provide oversight of project implementation and technical support to ensure that the project is being carried out in accordance with agreed standards and requirements. Technical support will be provided by FAO in coordination with government representatives participating in the Project Steering Committee.

FAO responsibilities, as GEF agency, will include: Administrate funds from GEF in accordance with the rules and procedures of FAO; Oversee project implementation in accordance with the project document, work plans, budgets,

agreements with co-financiers, Operational Partners Agreement(s)and other rules and procedures of FAO;

Provide technical guidance to ensure that appropriate technical quality is applied to all activities concerned;

Conduct at least one supervision mission per year; and

58

Report to the GEF Secretariat and Evaluation Office, through the annual Project Implementation Review, on project progress and provide financial reports to the GEF Trustee.

The MTA will be the Operational Partner (OP) for the project based on the standard Operational Partners Agreement to be signed between FAO and MTA. The OP will be responsible for the day-to-day management of project results entrusted to it in full compliance with all terms and conditions of the Operational Partners Agreement to be signed by the OP, and GEF relevant requirements.

As OP of the project the MTA is responsible and accountable to FAO for the timely and quality implementation of the agreed project results, operational oversight of implementation activities, timely reporting, and for effective use of GEF resources for intended purposes. The implementation of all agreed results and activities in full compliance with the OPA provisions and due diligence with regard to FAO Social and Environmental Quality Standards will be ensured by the OP.

The OP will bear full fiduciary and programmatic risk, and will be administratively and technically responsible to FAO for the implementation of the agreed results of the project, monitoring and financial management in accordance with the rules and procedures as established in the signed OPA. Such responsibility extends over all funds disbursed by the OP to any entity under contract with the Operational Partner.

The MTA will coordinate all efforts to implement the project’s components, aligning with other initiatives and assuring that all deadlines are achieved in a timely manner and that the project’s results are discussed with national and local institutions involved.

Other main institutions involved in the project are described in the stakeholders engagement table (cf Annex 11).FAO and the project partners will collaborate with the implementing agencies of other programs and projects to identify opportunities and facilitate synergies with other relevant GEF projects, as well as projects supported by other donors. This collaboration will include: (i) informal communications between GEF agencies and other partners in implementing programs and projects; and (ii) exchange of information and outreach materials between projects.

The project will develop mechanisms for collaboration with the following GEF initiatives (cf section below):

UNDP FSP “Implementing a Ridge to Reef to Preserve Ecosystem Services, Sequester Carbon, Improve Climate Resilience and Sustain Livelihoods in Fiji” (GEF ID 5398): To preserve biodiversity, ecosystem services, sequester carbon, improve climate resilience and sustain livelihoods through a ridge to reef management of priority catchments on the two main islands of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu.

IUCN/FAO/UNEP Program “The Restoration Initiative’ (GEF ID 9264): To contribute to the restoration and maintenance of critical landscapes to provide global environmental benefits and enhanced resilient economic development and livelihoods, in support of the Bonn Challenge.

The project organization structure is as follows:

59

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established, chaired by the PS Environment. It will be comprised of representatives from the Ministries of Forests, Fisheries, Agriculture and Economy (Climate Change Unit), and from FAO. The members of the PSC will each assure the role of a Focal Point for the project in their respective agencies. Hence, the project will have a Focal Point in each concerned institution.

The National Project Coordinator (see below) will be the Secretary to the PSC. The PSC will meet at least two times per year to ensure:

Oversight and assurance of technical quality of outputs; Close linkages between the project and other ongoing projects and programmes relevant to the project; Timely availability and effectiveness of co-financing support; Sustainability of key project outcomes, including up-scaling and replication; Effective coordination of government partner work under this project; Approval of the six-monthly Project Progress and Financial Reports, the Annual Work Plan and Budget

(AWPB); Making by consensus, management decisions when guidance is required by the National Project

Coordinator of the PMU

As Focal Points in their agency, the concerned PSC members will (i) technically oversee activities in their sector, (ii) ensure a fluid two-way exchange of information and knowledge between their agency and the project, (iii) facilitate coordination and links between the project activities and the work plan of their agency, and (iv)facilitate the provision of co-financing to the project.

The government will designate a National Project Director (NPD). The NPD will be a MTA staff and will be have the responsibility of supervising and guiding the Project Coordinator (see below) on the government policies and priorities. He/she will also be responsible for coordinating the activities with all the national bodies related to the different project components, as well as with the project partners. He/she will be responsible for requesting FAO the timely disbursement of GEF resources that will allow the execution of project activities, in strict accordance with the Project Results-Based Budget and the approved AWP/B for the current project year.

60

A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be funded by the GEF and established within the MTA at national level and the local Provincial offices. The main functions of the PMU, following the guidelines of the Project Steering Committee, are to ensure overall efficient management, coordination, implementation and monitoring of the project through the effective implementation of the annual work plans and budgets (AWP/Bs). The PMU, at national level, will be composed of a National Project Coordinator (NPC), specialized in M&E and Knowledge Management, and an Administrative/Finance Assistant. In each of the two target project areas, a full time provincial coordinator will be responsible for project implementation. These provincial coordinators will be Land Use experts to be able to bring their technical expertise to the project. A part time Chief Technical Advisor/CTA (60 days/year, 4 years) will technically support the project.

The National Project Coordinator (NPC) will be in charge of daily implementation, management, administration and technical supervision of the project, on behalf of the Operational partner and within the framework delineated by the PSC. S/he will be responsible, among others, for0: i) coordination with relevant initiatives; ii)ensuring a high level of collaboration among participating institutions and organizations at the national and local levels; iii) ensuring compliance with all OPA provisions during the implementation, including on timely reporting and financial management; iv) coordination and close monitoring of the implementation of project activities; v) tracking the project’s progress and ensuring timely delivery of inputs and outputs; vi) monitoring, providing technical support and assessing the outputs of the project national consultants, who will be hired with GEF funds, as well as the products generated in the implementation of the project, including products and activities carried out by project consultants; vii) approve and manage requests for provision of financial resources by FAO using FAO provided format in OPA annexes; viii) monitoring financial resources and accounting to ensure accuracy and reliability of financial reports; ix) ensuring timely preparation and submission of requests for funds, financial and progress reports to FAO as per OPA reporting requirements; x) maintaining documentation and evidence that describes the proper and prudent use project resources as per OPA provisions, including making available this supporting documentation to FAO and designated auditors when requested; xi) implementing and managing the project’s monitoring and communications plans; xii) organizing annual project workshops and meetings to monitor progress and preparing the Annual Budget and Work Plan; xiii) submitting the six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs) with the AWP/B to the PSC and FAO; xiv) preparing the first draft of the Project Implementation Review (PIR); xv) supporting the organization of the mid-term and final evaluations in close coordination with the FAO Budget Holder, FAO GEF Coordination Unit, and the FAO Independent Office of Evaluation (OED); xvi) submitting the OP six-monthly technical and financial reports to FAO and facilitate the information exchange between the OP and FAO, if needed; xvii) inform the PSC and FAO of any delays and difficulties as they arise during the implementation to ensure timely corrective measure and support. FAO will support the National Project Coordinator, as needed, including through annual supervision missions.

The draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the National Project Coordinator (PC) and Project Team (PT) are listed in Annex 6.

FAO assurance role will be provided by FAO Sub-regional Office for the Pacific (FAO SAP) and technical support provided by FAO SAP and HQ.

3.1.2 Coordination with other initiatives

Coordination with other relevant GEF financed and other initiatives:

National projects

Green Climate Fund Development of Climate Resilient Forests, Communities and Value Chains for the Green Growth Framework in Fiji - upcoming program - a total of 70M USDThe project will create a functional set of new and innovative forest ecosystem based measures for restoring the productive condition of forests for green growth. The project will harnesses the forest sector stakeholders into a concerted response to mitigate against, and improve the adaptation capacities of the people in Fiji to, the more frequent and severe impacts of climate change. Communities are empowered to generate multiple benefits from climate resilient and SFM based livelihoods, environmental services, and product value chains from forest ecosystems to markets. The foreseen project components are:

Improved inter-institution coordination of forest sector’s integration with Green Growth Framework, national development and land use planning.

0 Detailed National Project Coordinator Terms of Reference is available in AnnexAppendix 6 61

Shift to effective SFM mitigation & adaptation: a paradigm shift into sustainably managed forests (SFM) through public-private partnerships and investments in afforestation/ reforestation, restoration of degraded forests, agro-forestry, payments for forest ecosystem services (PFES), and green value chain development in higher value-added wood and non-wood forest products.

Wide-ranging Capacity Building to integrate mitigation and adaptation measures into forest sector planning and resource management.

Project Management.

This project will set the conditions for investments in land restoration/reforestation activities from the GCF projects. The GCF project will have INRM plans developed in a participatory way with the local communities to be implemented by the GCF project.

REDD+ ProgramThe REDD+ Program described in Component 3 will be a key partners for this project in terms of Knowledge Management but also of lessons to be learnt on Sustainable Forest Management and Land Use planning.

REDD+ Forest Conservation in Pacific Countries – 2015-2019 The project implemented by GIZ and funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), has as overall objective to have the Melanesian Island Countries enabled to meet all the requirements entitling them to participate in REDD+. It works at 3 interconnected levels: regional, national and local.

Regional level: At this broader level, the project supports the structures needed for forest and biomass inventories. Its specific focus is on providing a methodology for detecting forest degradation. Furthermore, the project develops and supports the exchange and management of knowledge and data within and beyond the region. While core activities focus on the four Melanesian countries, regional level activities essentially cover all 14 SPC member states that are party to the UNFCCC.

National level: Here the project assists the Melanesian Island Countries to conduct their readiness activities and develop national REDD+ strategies, including safeguards and safeguard information systems (SIS), measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems, reference emission levels and benefit sharing mechanisms for potential revenues from REDD+ activities.

Local level: At this level, the project supports the development and implementation of demonstration activities and pilot projects that will help to inform, verify and adapt REDD+ strategies developed at national level. The local level can also be used to test strategies, e.g. for tackling drivers of deforestation and forest degradation as well as for approaches to sustainable forest management or the restoration of degraded forest sites.

In Fiji, the project has been involved in carrying out forest trails over 300 ha in Nakavu, understanding how different forest management techniques/practices affect carbon stocks of forests in Fiji. Based on the trails, a Fiji Harvesting Code is being developed and will be released in the later part of 2018. Through coordination with this project, field forest management measures implemented through the proposed project will be most appropriate to the Fijian context.

Government funded project of Reforestation of Degraded Forest areas which was established in 2015. Since the inception of the RDF project in 2015 the project was granted $300,000 from the government of Fiji to start the project and in the fiscal year 2016 and 2016-2017 the project was provisioned with $500,000.

With the prevalent issue of forest degradation through deforestation the government decided to reinvest in the security of our future generation through reforestation. Therefore the project prioritizes areas that are commonly owned by local communities and needs to be reforested and develop the People Private Public Partners (PPPP) Concept. Its main focus areas are:

Support plantation development for future Socioeconomic needs, such as; Woodlots Food security Fuel wood/biofuel Employment Education

Restoration of degraded forest will enhance and improve environmental services;

62

Restoration of water catchment Clean and purify air and water Control soil erosion Carbon sequestration (CC mitigation) Bridging forest fragmentation.

The government also launched in 2019 the 4 Million Tree in 4 years initiative.

UNDP/GEF Project “Implementing a ‘Ridge to Reef’ Approach to Preserve Ecosystem Services, Sequester Carbon, Improve Climate Resilience and Sustain Livelihoods in Fiji (Fiji R2R)”- 2015-2018 - 7.39M USD from GEF + 30M USD co-finance The Fiji GEF 5 R2R project’s objective is to preserve biodiversity, ecosystem services, sequester carbon, improve climate resilience and sustain livelihoods through a ridge-to-reef management of priority water catchments on the two main islands of Fiji. The project’s targeted outcomes are:

Improved management of effectiveness of existing and new protected areas Improved financial sustainability for terrestrial and marine protected areas Carbon stocks restored and enhanced in priority catchments Sustainable forest management achieved through innovative market-based schemes Integrated catchment management plans covering conservation of biodiversity, forests, land and water

formulated & implemented in priority sites Strengthened governance for integrated natural resources (land, water, biodiversity, forests

management), Improved data and information systems on biodiversity; land, forests, coastal and marine management;

climate change and best practices.

EU Reforest Fiji - 2015-2019 – 6.8M USD (6M Euros) The project, funded by the European Union (EU), and implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) aims to establish 6,010 hectares of tree plantations of various models and designs. This project is implemented in the sugar cane belt and is linked to the EU’s Accompanying Measures for Sugar Protocol (AMSP) programme and aim to help strengthen rural sugar-income dependent communities in response to the EU’s Sugar Price Reform and the adverse conditions in the sugar industry. This includes on-farm plantations, which can provide certain insights to be utilized in agroforestry practices in the proposed GEF project.

EU/FAO Action Against Deforestation program – 2014-2019 – 22.6M USD (20M Euros) including all the countriesAction Against Desertification aims to build the resilience and increase the productivity of forest landscapes in Fiji, while improving the livelihoods of the local population through the restoration of degraded land and the sustainable management of natural resources.

The project is working on the following activities:

Land restoration: for small-scale farming on 2 000 hectares of communal lands in 64 local communities. About 8000 kg of seeds and over 1 000 000 seedlings of native species are being produced in village nurseries for direct sowing and planting to restore degraded forests and rehabilitate agro-forestry and agro-ecology farmland.

Promotion of non-timber: Forest products to help 2 000 farmers, of whom half are women, increase their income. Activities include bee farming for honey production and crop pollination, sandalwood and wild ginger production, nutritional gardens, and the production and marketing of handicraft made of forest materials.

Capacity development of communities and village: Technicians involving around 240 farmers and 540 members of 64 communities. Subjects include forest seed collection and handling, nursery and restoration techniques, sustainable land and forest management practices and market analysis and development. Around 150 government staff are being trained in specialized fields, such as tree breeding, farm soil testing, land use planning and resource mapping, GIS and remote sensing.

Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Plus (PHAMA Plus) Program 0 2019-2023

0 Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Plus (PHAMA Plus) Program Country Strategy Note | Fiji | January 201963

Following up on the successful PHAMA project (cf lessons learnt section), the following program is currently being defined. It could be a great support to the value chain work of the project.PHAMA Plus is supported by Australia and New Zealand and aims to contribute to improved economic growth and rural livelihoods for Pacific peoples through enhanced access to export markets in Australia, New Zealand and beyond. It is a commercially focused, export-oriented and inclusive initiative with three expected outcomes:

producers and exporters use maintained and new export market access for Pacific export products; women and men exporters, processors and producers adopt quality and productivity enhancing

innovations for their export products; and women and men staff of Pacific biosecurity authorities perform their market access facilitation functions

better.

The Program will support the participating countries and their producers and exporters to comply with export market protocols, especially biosecurity, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and ensure reliability of supply quality and quantity to give importers confidence in the supply chain. This is expected to contribute to improved economic growth and rural livelihoods in 200,000 households across the six PHAMA Plus countries as well as PACER Plus signatories. The Program will focus support on the most promising export sectors or commodities in each country. The prioritisation process includes consideration of the relevance, opportunity, and feasibility of successful intervention as well as alignment with national priorities. PHAMA Plus will focus its initial efforts on the Category A sectors comprising kava and root crops (mainly taro and cassava).

Fiji Agricultural Partnerships Project (FAPP) – 2015 - 2019

The Overall Goal of FAPP is to reduce hardship in remote rural communities, measured by improvements in the Household Dietary Diversity score and the Household Asset Ownership index. In pursuit of this goal, the Project Development Objective is stated as Small-scale producers are engaged in sustainable farming and business partnerships in remote areas, particularly the highlands. The main indicator of the extent to which this has been achieved will be the number of households in the highlands that are regularly marketing agricultural outputs to trading or processing enterprises.

FAPP is a sector-wide project in as much as the institution building for the public sector in agriculture and incentives for the development of traders and processors are designed for the benefit of all small scale farming households in the country. In addition, the project would have a geographic focus such that, from among the entire rural population, it would concentrate resources on relatively poor communities in the highlands of Viti Levu, comprising approximately 2,000 households.

FAPP comprises three complementary and mutually reinforcing sets of activities, grouped by type into components. These are implemented under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture by project implementation support staff embedded in the Ministry of Agriculture to coordinate and administer activities, including procurement, financial management, M&E and knowledge management.

Component 1: Public sector capacity to support agribusiness is concentrated on enhancing MoA capacity to promote private sector agribusiness in the context of the Ministry’s thorough ongoing modernization drive. An effective Agribusiness Development Unit would be established.

Component 2: Assistance to SMEs working with smallholders entails a scheme to provide incentives to existing agribusiness enterprises that are prepared to invest in expanding business with small scale farmers, particularly those in the highland target area. The ambition of

Component 3: Farming as a business for highland communities is the reorientation of about 2,000 highland farming households from subsistence to production for profit in responding to increased real demand and sustained structural improvements in agribusiness value chains in the country.

The Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Island Region (CCPIR) – BMZ / SPC – 2009-2019 has been presented in the lessons learnt section but it might be extended. The project should create close linkages with this project on training of trainers and community trainings.

International project

IUCN, FAO & UN Environment/GEF The Restoration Initiative (TRI) – 25M USD

64

This Program has been developed to make a significant global contribution to restoring ecosystem functioning and improving livelihoods through the restoration of priority degraded and deforested landscapes, in support of the Bonn Challenge, and in response to the expressed needs of countries. Through the GEF programmatic approach, the TRI will create synergies, provide a wider array of tools and resources to national projects, and leverage key partnerships to yield cost savings and realize greater impact than possible under a fragmented, project-by-project approach.

The Program consists of 11 national projects supported by a Global Learning, Financing, and Partnerships project to develop and disseminate best-practices and tools, catalyze investment in restoration, expand the scope of countries and actors engaged in forest and landscape restoration, and realize benefits at scale. The Restoration Initiative has been developed through collaboration between and will be steered by GEF Agencies IUCN, FAO, and UN Environment.

The program will be implemented in Africa and Asia initially, with Latin American countries as well as additional African and Asian countries and other Implementing Agencies wishing to align with the program at the next opportunity.

This project fits perfectly with the goals and activities of the other projects under the TRI. It can be considered as an add-on to the TRI to bring new experiences from Asia and receive knowledge and support from the TRI project around the world.

Furthermore, FAO will ensure that this project builds on best practices, methodologies and lessons from other GEF funded projects related to forest landscape restoration from around the world. FAO will ensure that the project has strong links with GEF funded The Restoration Initiative (TRI. FAO is one of the three GEF Implementing Agencies involved in its development and implementation). This project’s overall approach is consistent with the goals and results outlined in the TRI programme framework document. Lessons from this project will also be shared with TRI child projects globally through the programme’s communication channels as well.

3.2 RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk management is a coordinated set of activities to support managing for results through effective identification, management and mitigation of risks throughout the project cycle.

3.2.1 Potential risks to the project

The project presents low risks as its approach is anchored in community-based forest and ecosystem planning, management and reforestation, aiming to increase ownership of communities over the sustainable management and use of forest resources and services.

Among the risks facing the project that lie outside the project’s control to provide mitigation measures, are: The difficulties in collaboration between Ministries which may arise. This risk is believed to be low as the

line Ministries are already collaborating together. The climatic risk which has the potential to impact the restoration and agricultural activities. The project

will work on lowering this risk as much as possible by integrating climate smart activities.

Project risks were identified and analysed during its preparation and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project (see Project Risk Log in Annex 4). With the support and supervision of FAO, the Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be responsible for managing these risks as well as the effective implementation of mitigation measures. The Monitoring and Evaluation system (M&E) will be used to monitor indicators of outcomes and outputs, project risks and mitigation measures. The PSC shall also be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures and adjust mitigation strategies as needed, and to identify and manage any new risk that was not been identified during the preparation of the Project, in collaboration with the project partners.

The six-monthly Project Progress Report (PPR) (see section 4.3) is the main monitoring and risk management instrument. The PPR includes a section of systematic risk monitoring and mitigation actions that were identified in the previous PPR. The PPR also includes a section to identify any new risks or risks that have not been 65

addressed yet, rating and mitigation actions, as well as the staff responsible for monitoring such actions and estimated duration of the same. FAO will monitor the project risk management and the follow up as needed, providing support for adjusting and implementing mitigation strategies. The preparation of reports on risks monitoring and rating will also be part of the Annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) prepared by FAO and submitted to the GEF Secretariat (see Section 4.3).

3.2.2 Environmental and social risks

The main risk identified for the project is that the project will be active in areas where Indigenous People live. As described in detailed in section 2.3.3, the project has been developed in close consultations with indigenous peoples and is being executed by the Government agency responsible for indigenous affairs – the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. The annexed village profiles (Annex 8) provide a comprehensive breakdown of disaggregated population statistics of indigenous people in the project sites (by sex, age and village amongst other subsets of data). The project will be implemented in accordance with the established governance system of the iTaukei people (working directly with communities at the mataqali level – the traditional unit of land ownership). This will ensure that where there is consent at the mataqali level, there is guaranteed buy-in and informed consent for all levels below that.

3.2.3 Analysis of fiduciary risk and mitigation measures

Please see Annex 15.3.3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

3.3.1 Financial planning

The total cost of the project will be USD 32,996,640 of which USD 2,119,425 will be financed with a grant from the GEF and USD 30,377,215 will be in-kind co-financing from MTA, FoFo, MoA. FAO will contribute USD 500,000 in technical assistance.

Component GEF MTA MoFo MoA FAO Total Component 1: Strengthening Local Level Capacities for Integrated Natural Resource Management

306,802 314,229 470,000 6,940,000 150,000 8,181,031

Component 2: Planning and Implementation of Community based Integrated Natural Resource Management

1,536,200 1,362,986 4,810,000 13,720,000 0 21,429,186

Component 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

175,499 0 1,730,000 1,030,000 350,000 3,285,499

PMC 100,924 0 0 0 0 100,924Total 2,119,425 1,677,215 7,010,000 21,690,000 500,000 32,996,640

3.3.2 Financial management and reporting

Financial management of GEF resources will be carried out according to FAO rules and procedures. A detailed description of financial management provisions is included In Appendix 16.

Financial management of resources entrusted to the Operational partner will be carried out in line with the OP’s rules and regulations, as assessed by the Capacity Assessment and in strict compliance with all OPA provisions and other FAO and GEF requirements.

The BH will submit the financial reports (see Annex 16) for review and monitoring by the FAO GEF Coordination Unit. Financial reports for submission to the donor (GEF) will be prepared in accordance with the provisions in the GEF Financial Procedures Agreement and submitted by the FAO Finance Division (CSFE).

66

Budget Revisions. Semi-annual budget revisions will be prepared by the BH in accordance with FAO standard guidelines and procedures.

SECTION 4 – MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION

4.1. OVERSIGHTProject oversight will be carried out by the Project Steering Committee (PSC), the FAO GEF Coordination Unit and relevant Technical Units in HQ. Oversight will ensure that: (i) project outputs are produced in accordance with the project results framework and leading to the achievement of project outcomes; (ii) project outcomes are leading to the achievement of the project objective; (iii) risks are continuously identified and monitored and appropriate mitigation strategies are applied; and (iv) agreed project global environmental benefits/adaptation benefits are being delivered.

The FAO GEF Unit and HQ Technical Units will provide oversight of GEF financed activities, outputs and outcomes largely through the annual Project Implementation Reports (PIRs), periodic backstopping and supervision missions.

4.2 MONITORINGProject monitoring will be carried out by the Project Management Unit (PMU) and the Government of Fiji procedures. Project performance will be monitored using the project results matrix, including indicators (baseline and targets) and annual work plans and budgets. At inception the results matrix will be reviewed to finalize identification of: i) outputs ii) indicators; and iii) missing baseline information and targets. A detailed M&E plan, which builds on the results matrix and defines specific requirements for each indicator (data collection methods, frequency, responsibilities for data collection and analysis, etc.) will also be developed during project inception by the M&E specialist.

4.3 REPORTINGSpecific reports that will be prepared under the M&E program are: (i) Project inception report; (ii) Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B); (iii) Project Progress Reports (PPRs); (iv) annual Project Implementation Review (PIR); (v) Technical Reports; (vi) co-financing reports; and (vii) Terminal Report. In addition, assessment of the GEF Monitoring Evaluation Tracking Tools against the baseline (completed during project preparation) will be required at midterm and final project evaluation.

Project Inception Report. It is recommended that the PMU prepare a draft project inception report in consultation with the LTO, BH and other project partners. Elements of this report should be discussed during the Project Inception Workshop and the report subsequently finalized. The report will include a narrative on the institutional roles and responsibilities and coordinating action of project partners, progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation. It will also include a detailed first year AWP/B, a detailed project monitoring plan. The draft inception report will be circulated to the PSC for review and comments before its finalization, no later than one month after project start-up. The report should be cleared by the FAO BH, LTO and the FAO GEF Coordination Unit and uploaded in FPMIS by the BH.

Results-based Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B). The draft of the first AWP/B will be prepared by the PMU in consultation with the FAO Project Task Force and reviewed at the project Inception Workshop. The Inception Workshop (IW) inputs will be incorporated and the PMU will submit a final draft AWP/B within two weeks of the IW to the BH. For subsequent AWP/B, the PMU will organize a project progress review and planning meeting for its review. Once comments have been incorporated, the BH will circulate the AWP/B to the LTO and the GEF Coordination Unit for comments/clearance prior to uploading in FPMIS by the BH. The AWP/B must be linked to the project’s Results Framework indicators so that the project’s work is contributing to the achievement of the indicators. The AWP/B should include detailed activities to be implemented to achieve the project outputs and output targets and divided into monthly timeframes and targets and milestone dates for output indicators to be achieved during the year. A detailed project budget for the activities to be implemented during the year should also be included together with all monitoring and supervision activities required during the year. The AWP/B should be approved by the Project Steering Committee and uploaded on the FPMIS by the BH.

67

Half Yearly Project Progress Reports (PPR): PPRs will be prepared by the PMU based on the systematic monitoring of output and outcome indicators identified in the project’s Results Framework (Annex 1). The purpose of the PPR is to identify constraints, problems or bottlenecks that impede timely implementation and to take appropriate remedial action in a timely manner. They will also report on projects risks and implementation of the risk mitigation plan. The Budget Holder has the responsibility to coordinate the preparation and finalization of the PPR, in consultation with the PMU, LTO and the FLO. After LTO, BH and FLO clearance, the FLO will ensure that project progress reports are uploaded in FPMIS in a timely manner.

Annual Project Implementation Review (PIR ): The BH (in collaboration with the PMU and the LTO) will prepare an annual PIR covering the period July (the previous year) through June (current year) to be submitted to the TCI GEF Funding Liaison Officer (FLO) for review and approval no later than (check each year with GEF Unit but roughly end June/early July each year). The FAO GEF Coordination Unit will submit the PIR to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Evaluation Office as part of the Annual Monitoring Review report of the FAO-GEF portfolio. PIRs will be uploaded on the FPMIS by the TCI GEF Coordination Unit.

Key milestones for the PIR process: - Early July : the LTOs submit the draft PIRs (after consultations with BHs, project teams) to the GEF

Coordination Unit (faogef@fao.org , copying respective GEF Unit officer) for initial review;- Mid July : GEF Unit responsible officers review main elements of PIR and discuss with LTO as required;- Early/mid-August : GEF Coordination Unit prepares and finalizes the FAO Summary Tables and sends to

the GEF Secretariat by (date is communicated each year by the GEF Secretariat through the FAO GEF Unit;

- September/October : PIRs are finalized. PIRs carefully and thoroughly reviewed by the GEF Coordination Unit and discussed with the LTOs for final review and clearance;

- Mid November: (date to be confirmed by the GEF): the GEF Coordination Unit submits the final PIR reports cleared by the LTU and approved by the GEF Unit- to the GEF Secretariat and the GEF Independent Evaluation Office.

Technical Reports: Technical reports will be prepared by national, international consultants (partner organizations under LOAs) as part of project outputs and to document and share project outcomes and lessons learned. The drafts of any technical reports must be submitted by the PMU to the BH who will share it with the LTO. The LTO will be responsible for ensuring appropriate technical review and clearance of said report. The BH will upload the final cleared reports onto the FPMIS. Copies of the technical reports will be distributed to project partners and the Project Steering Committee as appropriate.

Co-financing Reports: The BH, with support from the PMU, will be responsible for collecting the required information and reporting on co-financing as indicated in the Project Document/CEO Request. The PMU will compile the information received from the executing partners and transmit it in a timely manner to the LTO and BH. The report, which covers the period 1 July through 30 June, is to be submitted on or before 31 July and will be incorporated into the annual PIR. The format and tables to report on co-financing can be found in the PIR.

GEF Core Indicators : Following the GEF policies and procedures, the relevant Core Indicators for full sized projects will be submitted.

Terminal Report: Within two months before the end date of the project, and one month before the Final Evaluation, the PMU will submit to the BH and LTO a draft Terminal Report. The main purpose of the Terminal Report is to give guidance at ministerial or senior government level on the policy decisions required for the follow-up of the project, and to provide the donor with information on how the funds were utilized. The Terminal Report is accordingly a concise account of the main products, results, conclusions and recommendations of the project, without unnecessary background, narrative or technical details. The target readership consists of persons who are not necessarily technical specialists but who need to understand the policy implications of technical findings and needs for insuring sustainability of project results.

4.4 EVALUATIONA Mid-Term Review/Evaluation will be undertaken at project mid-term to review progress and effectiveness of implementation in terms of achieving the project objectives, outcomes and outputs. Findings and recommendations of this review/evaluation will be instrumental for bringing improvement in the overall project

68

design and execution strategy for the remaining period of the project’s term. FAO will arrange for the mid-term review/evaluation in consultation with the OP and other project partners. The evaluation will, inter alia:

(i) review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation;(ii) analyze effectiveness of partnership arrangements;(iii) identify issues requiring decisions and remedial actions;(iv) propose any mid-course corrections and/or adjustments to the implementation strategy as

necessary; and(v) highlight technical achievements and lessons learned derived from project design, implementation

and management.An independent Final Evaluation (FE) wil be carried out three months prior to the terminal review meeting of the project partners. The FE will aim to identify the project impacts and sustainability of project results and the degree of achievement of long-term results. This evaluation will also have the purpose of indicating future actions needed to sustain project results and disseminate products and best-practices within the country and to neighbouring countries.

4.5 M&E PlanThe table below presents an overview of the M&E plan. This will be detailed during project inception.

Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Budget

Inception Workshop PMU, FAO Fiji January 2020 5,000 USD

Project Inception Report PMU January 2020 Included in PMU ToRs

Inception Workshop in Project Districts

PMU, FAO Fiji February 2020 6,000 USD

Field based impact monitoring

M&E expert Periodically - to be determined at inception workshop.

USD 50,000

Monitoring of indicators outlined in project results chain

M&E Expert (with community champions)

Bi-Annually

Supervision visits by FAO PMU, FAO Fiji, LTO Annually The visits of the LTO and FAO SAP will be paid by GEF agency fee. The visits of the PMU will be paid from the project travel budget.

Project Progress Reports PMU, with inputs from project partners

Semi-annually Covered by staff costs

Project Implementation Review report

PMU, with inputs from project partners as well as FAO PTM, LTO

Annually Covered by staff costs

Co-financing Reports BH with support from PMU with input from other co-financiers

Annually Completed by PMU

Mid-term Review/Evaluation

MTR: FAO Independent Evaluation Office, in consultation with the project task force , including the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit and others

At mid-point of project implementation

USD 30,000 for independent consultants and associated costs. In addition the agency fee will pay for expenditures of FAO staff time and travel

69

Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Budget

Final evaluation Under the responsibility of FAO Independent Office of Evaluation in consultation with the project team including the GCU and other partners

At the end of project implementation

USD 50,000 for external, independent consultants and associated costs. In addition the agency fee will pay for expenditures of FAO staff time and travel

Terminal Report PMU, LTO, TCSR Report Unit

At least two months before the end date of the Execution Agreement

USD 6,700

Total Budget USD 147,700

4.6 COMMUNICATIONThe capture and management of knowledge is fundamentally important to this project. Two thirds of Component 3 are dedicated to it. As detailed in Component 3, to capitalize and share existing knowledge on CBINRM approaches the project will systematize knowledge and share it in the most appropriate way. Its purpose is the sharing and reuse of project results, best practice and lessons learned internally and externally at the local, national and global levels. The users will be: project staff; project beneficiaries; decision makers; policy makers; the international forest restoration community of practice; and the general public (for success and human interest stories).

The project will ensure that stakeholders at all levels can both benefit from lessons learned and contribute to generation of new knowledge and good practices during the systemization workshops.

As detailed in Component 3, each group of stakeholders will have communication channels adapted to their needs.

The project’s technical team will be tasked with working to make certain best international principles and practices are reflected in all project activities and outcomes. The website will serve as a knowledge repository and function as an organic monitoring, assessment, and reporting tool. The website will provide stakeholders with information regarding best practices and the results of on-going/implemented project activity.

Effective communication is essential for achieving upscaling of project results to national level. Best practice, lessons learned, tools and new knowledge and awareness developed by the TRI project will inform and synergize with this work, and this will further broaden and strengthen the project. Importantly, this linkage will enhance local-global level dialogue and engagement of Fiji in CBINRM (with LD, BD, CCM co-benefits) at the country level.

70

ANNEX 1: RESULTS MATRIX

Results Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-term milestone Target

Means of Verification (MOV)

Assumptions

Project Objective: To promote community-based integrated natural resource management at landscape level to reduce land degradation, enhance carbon stocks and strengthen local livelihoods in Ra and Tailevu provinces

#ha of under Land Use Plans integrating Integrated Natural Resource Management at District level

0 47,179 ha (draft plans)

47,179 ha (final plans)

LUP at District level (3 target districts)

Stakeholders are ready to integrate Integrated Natural Resources Management in their district & community level planning

Stakeholders are getting the right skills to implement CBINRM Households are willing to diversify their safety and not rely as heavily on public support

#ha of under INRM thanks to the development and subsequent implementation of CBINRM plans

0 10,000 ha 18,799 ha CBINRM plans and field verification for implementation

# people with a diversified income source or livelihood (the women/men beneficiary ratio should be the same as in the general population)

0 1,500 3,500 Household surveys

# tCO2eq emissions mitigated through project activities over a 20-year period (direct)

0 328,225 tCO2eq Note: the project has an indirect impact potential after the end of the project of an additional 1,756,286 tCO2eq

EXACT

Component 1: Strengthening local level capacities for Integrated Natural Resource ManagementOutcome 1: Local level capacities strengthened for

# target communities where the Capacity Building scores are improved

0 10 17 CB report following the methodology

Stakeholders are open to INRM and working together on capacity building in a cohesive way

71

Results Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-term milestone Target

Means of Verification (MOV)

Assumptions

integrated natural resource management

developed in the Project Y1 Mindset can be changed through

appropriate capacity building

Stakeholders are motivated to engage in capacity building activity

# demonstration sites effectively running and maintained by community members (at least 30% women)

0 4 (in preparation) 4 (fully functioning)

CB Monitoring report

Output 1.1.1 Improved INRM coordination platforms, linking all the different trainings already existing by the different Ministries, for enhanced CB implementation and monitoring (meetings/ target province (2/year) + 1 CB monitoring system set up and tested in 5 villages)Output 1.1.2 Training programs on climate smart agriculture practices, sustainable land management and forest and landscape restoration implemented through Demonstration Farms/Farmer Field Schools (FFS) across 17 villages in the project areas (4 demonstration farms and 3 main trainings)Output 1.1.3 Training programs on agroforestry, forest protection and improved management measures implemented by the Forest Training Centre covering 17 villages in the project areas (4 different trainings done 4 times each)Component 2: Planning and Implementation of Community-Based Integrated Natural Resource Management (CBINRM)

Outcome 2.1: Planning process for INRM strengthened over 47,719ha

# improved district level LUP integrating INRM

0 3 3 LUP at District level (3 target districts)

Stakeholders are ready to integrate Integrated Natural Resources Management in their district and local planning

Concerned institutions and stakeholders are willing to collaborate together in the development and implementation of CNINRMLUP

# CBINRM plans for land use units 0 10 21 CBINRM plans for land units

Output 2.1.1 Improved capacity for District level Participatory Land Use Plans (PLUP) integrating Integrated Natural Resource ManagementOutput 2.1.2 Improved capacity for Community Based Integrated Natural Resource Management Participatory Land Use Plans

Outcome 2.2: At least 18,799ha brought under community-based integrated natural resource management

# YMST committees (with at least 30% women representation) following up the implementation of the CBINRM plans

0 10 17 YMST meetings reports

Financial and technical external support do exist for communities having CBINRM plans ready

Economic activities linked to restoration are attractive to farmers/local communities/ Markets for their products exist

Activities respond to the real needs of local communities

# ha brought under community-based integrated natural resource management (directly and indirectly)

0 11,000 ha 18,799 ha Project report, including CB monitoring

# enterprises, linked to CBINRM support, generating benefits (25 to 50% of enterprises will be women or

0 2 4 Enterprises reports

72

Results Chain Indicators Baseline Mid-term milestone Target

Means of Verification (MOV)

Assumptions

youth led) (including women and vulnerable people)

Output 2.2.1 Capacity of communities for CBINRM plans development and monitoring enhanced (17 YMST supported)Output 2.2.2 CBINRM plans implementation supported through direct investments, investments of other partners and providing incentives to communities (4 CBINRM forum, grants for business plans implementation for 18,799 ha & 4 enterprises linked to INRM supported) Component 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons dissemination

Outcome 3: Adaptive management ensured and key lessons shared

# key stakeholders in Government agencies, CSO and communities with increased awareness of the potential of INRM (including at least 30% of women)

0 2,500 (including at least 30% of women)

5,000 (including at least 30% of women)

Project M&E reports

Stakeholders are interested in learning more on INRM

Stakeholders provide consent for sharing information

Accurate data is available to perform project M&E tasks

# good practices from men and women systemized and shared

0 5 10 Systematization workshop minutes Technical factsheets on the good practices

# of communities involved in CBINRM monitoring (at least 30% of the monitoring champions will be women)

0 4 8 Project M&E reportsNational FLR monitoring system report

# M&E system put in place to ensure adaptive management

0 1 1 M&E system

Output 3.1: Lessons learned documented and disseminated ( 1 INRM knowledge platform, 10 lessons learned systemized)Output 3.2: Project progress continually monitored and adaptive management actions taken (CB monitoring developed and tested in 8 communities)

73

ANNEX 2: WORKPLAN

Output Activity Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Project Start Up

Recruit PMU members of PMU team

Orient PMU members

National Inception workshop

Local level inception workshops at landscape level

Undertake FPIC

OPIM agreement and /or LOA among participating agencies

Component 1: Strengthening local level capacities for integrated natural resource management

Outcome 1: Strengthening local level capacities for integrated natural resource management

Output 1.1. INRM coordination platforms linking all the different trainings already existing by the different Ministries are supported for improved CB implementation and monitoring

1.1.1 Support the Provincial meetings with a focus on CB linking all the different trainings already existing developed by the different Ministries and other stakeholders

1.1.2 Set up a monitoring system for CB building based on score card methodology

Output 1.2. Training programs on climate smart agriculture practices, sustainable land management and forest and landscape restoration implemented through Demonstration Farms/Farmer Field Schools (FFS) across 17 villages in the project areas

1.2.1. Community consultations and CBINRM awareness raising

1.2.2. Demonstration Farms set up and run

1.2.3. Focused Technical Trainings

Output 1.3 Training programs on agroforestry, forest protection and improved management measures implemented through the Forest Training Centre covering 17 villages in the project provinces

1.3.1 Choosing the appropriate courses with FTC according to the needs

1.3.2. Running the courses

Component 2: Community Based Integrated Natural Resource Management

Outcome 2.1 Planning process for INRM strengthened

74

Output 2.1.1 Utilizing the recently developed participatory land use planning guidelines, 3 district level PLUPS are improved/developed

2.1.1.1 Support the revision of the LUP in the 3 target districts (45,100ha)

Output 2.1.2 Community Based Participatory Land Use Plans are developed at Land Use units

2.1.2.1 Awareness raising to initiate community based land use plans

2.1.2.2 Biophysical survey of community lands (using Collect Earth Open Foris cf AAD work, GIS staff are already trained, images from SPC and REDD + because of clouds)

2.1.2.4 Development of participatory land use plans including a long term business plan

2.1.2.5 Two yearly review of INRM LUPs

Outcome 2.2: At least 28,000 ha are brought under CBINRM

Output 2.2.1 The capacity of communities for INRM plans development and monitoring is enhanced

2.2.1.1 Supporting the YMST development for RNM (icl. women and youth) management that with link up with the Mataqali for implementation

Output 2.2.2 CBINRM plans implementation is supported through direct investments, investments of other partners and providing incentives to communities

2.2.2.1. Support to the investments of other partners in the CBINRM plans

2.2.2.2 Direct support to CBINRM plans implementation

2.2.2.3 Community-based enterprises strengthened through value-addition activities for provision of improved/alternative livelihoods linked to the INRM plans

Component 3: Monitoring, evaluation and lessons learnt Outcome 3: Adaptive Management and Key lessons shared

Output 3.1: Documentation and dissemination of lessons learned

3.1.1 FLR knowledge platform, linking to existing REDD+ knowledge platforms and communities of practices, established.

3.1.2 Systematisation of lessons learned, success stories and project results.

3.1.3 Participate in key learning events and mechanisms for documenting and sharing learning

Output 3.2: Project progress continually monitored and adaptive management actions taken

3.2.1 .Ongoing monitoring of project results

75

3.2.2 Development and implementation of a community based monitoring

76

ANNEX 3: BUDGET         BUDGET (GEF FINANCING) Expenditures by year FAO MTA

Oracle code and description Unit

No. of

units Unit cost

Component 1

Component 2

Component 2 Component 3 PMC Total

GEF Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4    

Outcome 1 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3            

5570 Consultants                  

 CTA    Days            240 

  450 

                   16,009 

                   25,889 

                  58,896 

  7,206 

  108,000

            27,000 

            27,000 

            27,000 

            27,000 

          108,000   

 Sub-total international Consultants                     16,009 

                   25,889 

                  58,896 

                         7,206 

              -   

                108,000 

            27,000 

            27,000 

            27,000 

            27,000 

          108,000 

                 -   

 National Project Cooridnator   Month    

48               2,500 

                   17,788 

                   28,765 

                  65,440 

  8,007 

  120,000

            30,000 

            30,000 

            30,000 

            30,000              120

,000 

 CB/FFS expert   Month    36 

              1,875 

                   67,500 

        67,500

            16,875 

            16,875 

            16,875 

            16,875                67

,500 

 Administrative/Finance Assistant   Month    

48   

1,875                   9

0,000 

90,000             2

2,500             2

2,500             2

2,500             2

2,500                90,000 

 Provincial Project Coordinator Tailevu   Month    

48   

2,083                    

14,824                    

23,971                   5

4,533   

6,672  

100,000             2

5,000             2

5,000             2

5,000             2

5,000              100,000 

 Provincial Project Coordinator Ra   Month    

48   

2,083                    

14,824                    

23,971                   5

4,533   

6,672  

100,000             2

5,000             2

5,000             2

5,000             2

5,000              100,000 

 Capacity Building M&E expert   Month    

6   

2,000   

1,779   

2,877                     

6,544   

800     

12,000             1

2,000                      12,000 

 GIS consultant fro District LUP   Month    

6   

1,000     

6,000         

6,000               

6,000                       6

,000 

 KM/IT consultant for the webplatform   Months    

12   

2,000                               

24,000     

24,000             1

2,000             1

2,000                    24,000 

 Sub-total national Consultants                   116,714 

                   85,584 

                181,050 

                        46,152 

          90,000 

                519,500 

          149,375 

          131,375 

          119,375 

          119,375 

  -   

          519,500 

5570 Sub-total consultants 132,724

111,473

239,945

53,358

90,000

627,500

176,375

158,375

146,375

146,375

108,000

519,500

5650 Contracts                  

 LoA with FTC for focused technical training on forest and biodiversity  

 Lump Sum    1 

            24,000 

                   24,000 

        24,000

              12,000 

            12,000                

24,000  

77

 LoA for the Development of Community Financial Plans linked to CBINRM plans 

 Lump sum    1 

          100,000                     1

00,000        100,000

              50,000 

            50,000              1

00,000   

 LoA value chain analysis and enterprise development   Lump Sum    

1             97,500 

                      97,500     

97,500               4

8,750             4

8,750                97,500 

 

 OPIM audit   Lum Sum    4 

            11,400 

                              34,676 

          10,924 

45,600

            11,400 

            11,400 

            11,400 

            11,400 

            45,600 

 

 Mid term review   Lump sum    1 

            30,000 

  4,447 

  7,191 

                  16,360 

  2,002 

  30,000

              30,000                  

30,000  

 Terminal report   Lump sum    1 

  6,550 

  971 

  1,570 

                    3,572 

  437 

  6,550

                    6,550 

  6,550 

 

 Final review   Lump Sum    1 

            50,000 

  7,412 

                   11,985 

                  27,267 

  3,336 

  50,000

                  50,000 

            50,000 

 

5650 Sub-total Contracts 36,830

120,747

144,698

40,451

10,924

353,650

11,400

152,150

122,150

67,950

353,650

-

Locally recruited labour/casual labour                  

 M&E student data enumerators   Lump Sum    

1             20,000 

                              20,000 

  20,000

              5,000 

              5,000 

              5,000 

              5,000 

              20,000 

Locally recruited labour/casual labour -

-

-

20,000

-

20,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

-

20,000

5900 Travel                  

 Local Travel for field work (DSA)   Day    

1,765   

75                    

19,623                    

31,732                   7

2,188   

8,833  

132,375             3

3,094             3

3,094             3

3,094             3

3,094              132,375 

 Travel CTA   Trip    8 

  2,500 

  2,965 

  4,794 

                  10,907 

  1,334 

  20,000

              5,000 

              5,000 

              5,000 

              5,000 

            20,000 

 

 Regional travel on KM   Trip    1 

  1,500 

        1,500 

  1,500

                  1,500 

                  1,500 

 International travel on KM   Trip    1 

  3,500 

        3,500 

  3,500

                  3,500 

                  3,500 

5900 Sub-total travel 22,587

36,526

83,095

15,167

-

157,375

38,094

38,094

43,094

38,094

20,000

137,375

5023 Training & Meetings                  

 Inception & Terminal Workshop National   Workshop    

2   

3,000   

890   

1,438                     

3,272   

400  

6,000               

6,000                       6

,000 

 Inception Workshop District   Workshop    3 

  1,500 

  667 

  1,079 

                    2,454 

  300 

  4,500

              4,500 

                      4,500 

 PSC meeting   Meeting    4 

  1,000 

  593 

  959 

                    2,181 

  267 

  4,000

              1,000 

              1,000 

              1,000 

              1,000 

                4,000 

78

 TWG National   Workshop    8 

  1,250 

  1,483 

  2,397 

                    5,453 

  667 

  10,000

              2,500 

              2,500 

              2,500 

              2,500 

              10,000 

 Meetings:  1) Capacity Building Coordination (Bi-annual) Provincial Level, 2) Community meetings for Capacity building M&E testing in 5 villages,  3) Community consultations/CBINRM awarness raising, 4)Meetings for FFS/Demo sites (set up and follow up) 

 Meeting    54 

  250 

                   13,500 

        13,500

              3,375 

              3,375 

              3,375 

              3,375 

              13,500 

 Validation workshop on Capacity Building M&E system (1/Province) and Workshop on District LUP 

 Workshop    8 

  1,500 

                   12,000 

        12,000

              12,000                    12

,000 

 Training of FFS trainers    Training    4 

  1,400 

  5,600 

        5,600

              2,800 

              2,800 

                    5,600 

 FFS Field days   Field day    12 

  150 

  1,800 

        1,800

    600 

  600 

  600 

                1,800 

 Stipend for Community trainers   Day    

720   

30                    

21,600        

21,600                 

7,200               

7,200               

7,200               21

,600 

 Focused technical trainings in the DF   Training     

12   

2,500                    

30,000        

30,000               1

5,000             1

5,000                  30,000 

 Cathering for LUP planning   Person    6,930 

  8 

                     51,975 

      51,975

            25,988 

            25,987                    51

,975 

 Material for LUP Workshop   Per LUP    21 

  1,050 

                     22,050 

      22,050

            11,025 

            11,025                    22

,050 

 YMST Community Meeting    Meeting    68 

  250 

                      17,000     

17,000               

4,250               

8,500               

4,250                 17

,000 

 CBIRNM Support Forum   Forum    3 

  7,500 

                      22,500     

22,500               

7,500               

7,500               

7,500               22

,500 

 Systematization of lessons learnt workshop   Workshop    

8   

1,000         

8,000  

8,000                 

4,000               

4,000                 8

,000 

 Workshop/Training on community M&E   Workshop    

2   

5,000                               

10,000  

10,000               

5,000               

5,000                   10

,000 

5023 Sub-total training 52,860 6

6,438 10

2,487 4

5,425 2

6,175 240,525

79

88,133 79,898 19,634 - 240,525 - 6000 Expendable procurement                  

 Inputs for Demo Farms   Lump sum    4 

  3,500 

                   14,000 

        14,000

              7,000 

              7,000 

                  14,000 

 Inputs for CBINRM implementation Average/ha 

 Average/ha 

  286 

  2,100 

                    600,600     

600,600           15

0,150           15

0,150           15

0,150           15

0,150              600,600 

 Imputs as Community M&E incentives   Per village    

17   

1,250                               

21,250  

21,250                 

7,084               

7,083               

7,083               21

,250 

 Office Supplies   Montlhy rate 

  48 

  103 

                     736 

                     1,190 

                    2,708 

                         331 

  4,965

              1,241 

              1,241 

              1,241 

              1,241 

                4,965 

6000 Sub-total expendable procurement 14,736

1,190

603,308

21,581

-

640,815

158,391

165,475

158,474

158,474

-

640,815

6100 Non-expendable procurement                  

 Computer/Laptop   Laptop    4 

  1,000 

  593 

  959 

                    2,181 

  267 

  4,000

              1,000 

              1,000 

              1,000 

              1,000 

                4,000 

 Camera   Camera    2 

  500 

  148 

  240 

  545 

  67 

  1,000

  250 

  250 

  250 

  250 

                1,000 

 Motorbike   Motorbike    2 

  7,000 

  2,075 

  3,356 

                    7,635 

  934 

  14,000

              3,500 

              3,500 

              3,500 

              3,500 

              14,000 

6100 Sub-total non-expendable procurement 2,816

4,554

10,361

1,268

-

19,000

4,750

4,750

4,750

4,750

-

19,000

6300 GOE budget                  

 OP - Miscellaneous (Fuel for field activities, Editing, Printing, etc) 

 Monthly lump sum 

  48 

  1,220 

                     8,681 

                   14,037 

                  31,935 

                         3,907 

  58,560

            14,640 

            14,640 

            14,640 

            14,640                58

,560 

 FAO - Miscellaneous Operation costs   Lump sum    

1   

2,000   

295   

479                     

1,094   

132  

2,000   

500   

500   

500   

500                 2

,000 

6300 Sub-total GOE budget 8,976

14,516

33,029

4,039

-

60,560

15,140

15,140

15,140

15,140

-

60,560

TOTAL       306,802

368,904

1,167,296

175,499

100,924

2,119,425

475,588

641,471

540,408

461,958

481,650

1,637,775

80

ANNEX 4: THE PROJECT RISK LOG

A. Risks

Risk No. Risk statement Impact(effect on project organization if risk were to occur: H, MH, ML, or L)

Likelihood(estimate of likelihood: H, MH, ML, or L)

Overall ranking(Red/Amber/Green)

Mitigating action Action owner

1 Changes in Government priorities in relation to natural resources management

MH Low: the Government’s commitment is expressed in a number of major policy documents

Green The project will focus strongly on demonstrating the feasibility, cost-effectiveness and social and sustainability benefits achievable through appropriate integrated natural resources management.

PMU & PSC

2 Lack of close and collaborative cooperation between the key institutional stakeholders

MH Low: key institutional stakeholders have already had good experiences working together

Green Close and collaborative cooperation between many institutional stakeholders will be essential for the project to achieve its stated goal and objectives. All the stakeholders have been (and will be) involved from the beginning of the project preparation process and through establishment of a working group for the project implementation under the project steering committee. Multistakeholder platforms will be supported at national, district and local levels to ensure maximum

PMU & PSC

81

coordination.3 Reluctance of local

population to take ownership of the project activities

M ML Green Local communities and their representatives will be effectively engaged from the onset of the project preparation process. Their perspectives and concerns will be taken into account in the project design, and sensitization activities carried out during the project preparation phase would communicate the socio-economic benefits to be delivered through the project.

PMU

4 Long gestation periods for alternative livelihoods to mature and yield benefits which can undermine the short gains of CBINRM initiatives and weaken community participation

H ML Amber The restoration plans will include livelihood menu of options (including activities with short-term gestation periods like high value agricultural crops as buffer until longer-term investments generate sustainable benefits). This is to help diversify the livelihood and resource base, including linkage with on-going governmental and NGO programs to supplement and complement project activities.

PMU

5 CBINRM activities are undermined by climate change patterns

MH Medium Amber Diversifying the NRM methodologies and approaches will lower the risk of strong climate impacts. Also the introduction of climate smart practices will increase resilience to climate change.

PMU

82

83

ANNEX 5: RISK CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATION FORM

The table below summarizes the environmental and social risks identified in relation to the proposed action.The proposed action is classified as: Moderate

Safeguard Triggered Risk Identified Answer Risk Classification Reference Guidance Additional Description (if any)

9

9.1 - Are there indigenous peoples* living outside the project area** where activities will take place?

*FAO considers the following criteria to identify indigenous peoples: priority in time with respect to occupation and use of a specific territory; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness (e.g. languages, laws and institutions); self-identification; an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination (whether or not these conditions persist).

**The phrase "Outside the project area" should be read taking into consideration the likelihood of project activities to influence the livelihoods, land access and/or rights of Indigenous Peoples' irrespective of physical distance. In example: If an indigenous community is living 100 km away from a project area where fishing activities will affect the river yield which is also accessed by this community, then the user should answer "YES" to the question.

YesMajority of the population in the project country are indigenous people

9 9.2 - Are there indigenous peoples living in the project area where activities will take place? Yes Moderate

A Free Prior and Informed Consent process is required.If the project is for indigenous peoples, an Indigenous Peoples' Plan is required in addition to the Free Prior and Informed Consent process.Please contact the ESM/OPCA unit for further guidance.In cases where the project is for both, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, an Indigenous Peoples' Plan will be required only if a substantial number of beneficiaries are Indigenous Peoples. project activities should outline actions to address and mitigate any potential impact.Please contact ESM/OPCA unit for further guidance.

More than approximately 95% of the population in the targeted provinces are indigenous people

84

ANNEX 6: Terms of Reference of Project Management Unit Staff

At national level:

National Project Coordinator (NPC) – M&E and Knowledge Management Expert– Full time Administrative/Finance Assistant – Full time Chief Technical Advisor – Part time (60 days/year, 4 years)0

At Provincial level:

Provincial Project Coordinators – Land use experts– Full time

National Project Coordinator (NPC) – M&E and Knowledge Management Expert

The NPC will be contracted for a full-time position for a duration of four years.

Duties and responsibilities

The NPC will oversee daily project management and technical supervision including: Develop and supervise the implementation of consolidated annual work programme and budget

(AWPB); Ensure smooth and timely implementation of project activities in support of the results-based work

plan, through operational and administrative procedures according to MTA & FAO rules and standards;

Coordinate the project operational arrangements through contractual agreements with key project partners;

Coordinate with relevant initiatives; Ensure a high level of collaboration among participating institutions and organizations at the national

and local levels; Arrange the operations needed for signing and executing Letters of Agreement (LoA) and

Government Cooperation Programme (GCP) agreements with relevant project partners; Monitoring, providing technical support and assessing the outputs of the project national

consultants, who will be hired with GEF funds, as well as the products generated in the implementation of the project, including products and activities carried out by project consultants;

Lead and manage the PMU to ensure the proper implementation of the project in accordance with MTA & FAO rules and regulations, and the approved AWPB;

Work closely with the project counterparts (MTA, MoFo, MoA, MoFi, Provincial offices etc.) Provide technical and operational guidance to the provincial coordinators; Provide technical advice to ensure that the appropriate approaches are followed during project

implementation (participatory and integrated approaches, multi-stakeholder participation, gender, etc.);

Assume a leadership position for the Knowledge Management activities under the project; In consultation with the CTA, ensure timely implementation of the gender mainstreaming strategy

including achievement of targets and monitoring of and reporting on indicators; Develop and implement the M&E framework and assist in the set-up and implementation of the

project M&E systems at provincial and national levels including data collection, analysis and means of verification for indicators and project outputs;

Set up the community based monitoring system and conduct field survey and site visits for collecting and analysing data needed for monitoring condition and progress of indicators and outputs;

Ensure compliance with all OPA provisions during the implementation, including on timely reporting and financial management;

Ensure timely preparation and submission of requests for funds, financial and progress reports to FAO as per OPA reporting requirements;

0 To be contracted by FAO, not the OP

85

Approve and manage requests for provision of financial resources by FAO using FAO provided format in OPA annexes; monitoring financial resources and accounting to ensure accuracy and reliability of financial reports;

Maintain documentation and evidence that describes the proper and prudent use project resources as per OPA provisions, including making available this supporting documentation to FAO and designated auditors when requested;

Submit the six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs) with the AWP/B to the PSC and FAO; Prepare the first draft of the Project Implementation Review (PIR); Support the organization of the mid-term and final evaluations in close coordination with the FAO

Budget Holder and the FAO Independent Office of Evaluation (OED); Submit the OP six-monthly technical and financial reports to FAO and facilitate the information

exchange between the OP and FAO, if needed; Inform the PSC and FAO of any delays and difficulties as they arise during the implementation to

ensure timely corrective measure and support. Act as Secretary of the Project Steering Committee; Liaise with UNDP in a join PSC and other

coordination bodies. Ensure linkages with other national and international project such as the TRI global project.

Qualifications

Higher education degree related to natural resources management, forestry or landscape restoration;

At least 10 years of experience working in forest and landscape restoration; At least 5 years of experience working with communities, IPs and other group in community-based

restoration; Solid experience in project management, including results-based management and monitoring and

evaluation; At least 5 years of experience working in one of the 2 target areas would be a plus; Previous experience working with international partners on related issues; Strong report-writing skills in English.

Administrative/Finance Assistant

The Administrative / Finance Officer will be contracted for a full-time position for a duration of four years within the Project Management Unit (PMU). (S)he will report to the NPC.

Duties and Responsibilities

The Administrative / Finance Officer will be responsible to:

Coordinate the project operational arrangements through contractual agreements with key project partners;

Arrange the operations needed for signing and executing Letters of Agreement (LoA) with relevant project partners;

Manage the project budget day-to-day, including the monitoring of cash availability, budget preparation and budget revisions to be reviewed by the NPC;

Ensure the accurate recording of all data relevant for operational, financial and results-based monitoring;

Ensure that relevant reports on expenditures, forecasts, progress against work plans, project closure, are prepared and submitted in accordance with MTA, FAO and GEF defined procedures and reporting formats, schedules and communications channels, as required;

Execute accurate and timely actions on all operational requirements for personnel-related matters, equipment and material procurement, and field disbursements;

86

Participate and represent the project in collaborative meetings with project partners and the Project Steering Committee, as required;

Undertake missions to monitor the outputs-based budget, and to resolve outstanding operational problems, as appropriate;

Be responsible for results achieved within her/his area of work and ensure issues affecting project delivery and success are brought to the attention of higher level authorities through the BH in a timely manner;

In consultation with MTA, FAO Evaluation Office, the LTO, and FAO-GEF Coordination Unit, support the organization of the mid-term and final evaluations, and provide inputs regarding project budgetary matters;

Undertake any other duties as required.

Qualifications

University Degree in Economics, Business Administration, or a related field; Three years of experience in project operation and management related to natural resources

management, including field experience in developing countries; Proven capacity to work and establish working relationships with governmental and non-

governmental representatives; Fluent in English.

Chief Technical Advisor

The CTA will be contracted by FAP SAP for a part-time position (60 days/year) for a duration of four years.

Duties and responsibilities

The CTA will be responsible to:

Ensure that the latest and best international practices and approaches are reflected in the design and planning of project activities, including the implementation of FPIC;

In Year 1, support the organization and implementation of the inception workshop and first steering committee in close cooperation with the NPC;

In sub sequential years, support the organization and implementation of the steering committees in close cooperation with the NPC;

Support the preparation of annual work plans in collaboration with NPC, PCU and LTU; Support the design of the project’s work with stakeholders in the field and in the pilot areas; Support the preparation of ToRs and LoAs and help identify potential candidates; Provide technical advice as required to project experts, consultants, and contractors and help to

organize and supervise consultant inputs; Monitor and oversee the timely implementation of the gender mainstreaming strategy including

achievement of targets; Support real-time monitoring of project progress and alert the BH and the LTO to potential problems

that could result in delays in implementation; Support proper monitoring of the project using tools and methodologies in collaboration with the

M&E expert; Support the NPC in reporting on project progress and contribute to the development of semi-annual

PPRs and annual PIRs. Provide technical advice and assistance to the mid-term and final evaluations of the project; and Define methodologies for measurement and monitoring of indicators and information sources; Make sure baseline is established for all indicators; Support the definition of baselines and monitoring for indicators;

87

Qualifications

Higher degree related to natural resources, environment management, agriculture or rural development;

Experience in developing and implementing GEF projects; Solid experience in project management and results-based management; At least ten years’ experience of supporting work in the CBINRM/natural resources management

sector; Demonstrated previous experience with CBINRM, sustainable NRM, and biodiversity conservation,

possibly in the context of climate change adaptation/mitigation; Strong report-writing skills in English; Knowledge of FAO’s project management systems is an asset.

Provincial Project Coordinator – Land use experts (one in each Province)

The Regional Project Coordinator will be contracted for a full-time position for a duration of four years.

Duties and responsibilities

The Provincial Project Coordinator will be in charge of daily project management and technical supervision of the project activity in its Province including:

Develop and supervise the implementation of provincial annual work programme and budget (AWPB);

Ensure smooth implementation of the project activities by close working with the forest department as per approved AWPB, through operational and administrative procedures according to MTA & FAO rules and standards;

Coordinate the project operational arrangements through contractual agreements with key project partners;

Arrange the operations needed for signing and executing Letters of Agreement (LoA) and Government Cooperation Programme (GCP) agreements with relevant project partners;

Provide technical and operational guidance to the forest department staff and the local community organizations, including the preparation and implementation of CBINRM management plans, value addition and value chain development

Facilitate the forest department and other partners in undertaking baseline studies, valuation studies, assessment of opportunities for restoration

Identify training need assessment both for the institutional partners as well as community organizations, and develop training programme

Contribute to the development of the pilot Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme Develop partnership with the local community organizations for facilitating CBINRM Ensure Indigenous People and women involvement in the project Monitor and maintain records of commitments and actual expenditures based on the approved

AWPB and in compliance with the FAO and GEF policies and procedures/ Undertake day-to-day management of the project field budget, including the monitoring of cash availability, budget preparation and budget revisions to be reviewed by the National Project Coordinator;

Prepare periodic progress report and other project documents

Qualification and Skills

Advanced degree in forestry, natural resources management or other related fields;

88

A minimum of 10 years of experience in planning, development and implementation of forestry and natural resource management projects;

Proven capacity to work and establish working relationships with governmental and non-governmental representatives in the Fiji, with a particular focus on the target region;

Multi-disciplinary team development and management experiences; Working knowledge in English and local languages.

89

ANNEX 7: MAPS OF THE SELECTED DISTRICTS

Fig 7.1 Project Areas in Viti Levu Island

Fig 7.2 Nokorotubu – Ra province

90

Project Area

Fig 7.3 Dawasamu – Tailevu province

Fig 7.4 Namena – Tailevu province

91

ANNEX 8: Socio-Economic baseline survey Ra and Tailevu

Introduction

Existing socio-economic baseline data is available through the Provincial Councils of Ra and Tailevu’s Village Profile Reports 0which compile detailed information on a broad list of indicators. This information is compiled by individual village headmen (Turaga ni Koro) and are annexed to their quarterly village reports.

Current information from the Provincial Councils (provided by their Conservation Officers) cover the following data:

Population (distributed by household and disaggregated by sex, age) Construction of homes (based on building materials) Sanitation (access to various toilet types) Energy sources Water Source Food sources (limited only to those cultivated – fished/planted, within village boundaries) Status of Health of villagers (including incurrence of NCDs) School enrolments and number of school leavers residing in villages Domestic status of villagers (married or single) Prevalence of crime (reported incidents) Means of transport (personal use by villagers but not covering access to markets).

Some of the issues faced with the above data availability is that all reports are in vernacular (Fijian language) and will require translation. The data also does not align effectively to the baseline needs determined by the GEF 6 project’s draft logframe outcome and outputs.

Baseline data provided by AAD Project was not comprehensive (only one village from Ra – Tikina Nakorotubu) was included in the baseline study. Several notable data sets missing (including source of income, safety net). Throughout consultations with various stakeholder groups (refer to GEF 6 Consultation Registry for further information), it was established that no other socio-economic data was available for the identified areas in Tailevu and Ra.

Objectives of Baseline Survey (Ra and Tailevu):

The baseline survey for Ra and Tailevu was developed to complement existing baseline data from village profiles. The survey also identifies key indicators which contribute to project socio-economic monitoring according to the proposed outcomes and outputs identified in the project logframe.

The following are a proposed set of indicators derived from the project logframe. :

Baseline Socio-Economic Data IMPACT INDICATORS1. Average household income Performance Indicator = 250FJD per week (national average0) Baseline = - Definition of income – income is defined as money received from wages or salary; sale of produce;

government assistance or pension. - Significance and Observations – the national census 2017 does not provide an average income per

week. The national average is derived from the last census release prior to 2017. Changes to average household income will indicate impact of project implementation on livelihoods; ability of surplus trading households to access markets/mitigate challenges identified; access to more favourable living standards.

2. Gender representation

0 See annex – Village Profiles – Ra; Village Profiles extract - Tailevu0 https://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/component/advlisting/?view=download&format=raw&fileId=1381

92

Performance Indicator = 30% (provided by Provincial Council representatives as reflecting national policy)

Baseline = - Definition of gender representation – proportion of women represented in community level decision

making (this is represented by the number of women in composition of development committees, YMST, capacity building and training).

- Significance and Observations – As at 2018, qualitative data from interviews/focus groups indicate an average of 10-20% representation of women in community decision making.

3. Youth representation Performance Indicator = no national average available Baseline = - Definition of youth representation – proportion of youth represented in community level decision

making. - Significance and Observations – As at 2018, qualitative data from interviews/focus groups indicate

an average of 10% representation of youth in community decision making. The prevalence of youth in community decision making bodies varies from village to village and across the two provinces.

Other long-term impact socio-economic indicators that will not be measured during the project period:4. Household size Performance indicator = 5.7 for poor households, 4.3 for non-poor Baseline =- Definition of household size – number of people living in one household- Observations – refer to analysis below. Size of household determines stress placed on low household

incomes.

Baseline Socio-Economic Data: OUTCOME INDICATORS

These are indicators that support the project outcomes around lessons learned and monitoring and evaluation. These indicators ensure that there is sufficient baseline capacity to access project information (through engagement tools); participate effectively in capacity building initiatives during project implementation; and contribute to monitoring community level socio-economic indicators.

1. Highest level of education – the highest level of educational attainment. The national average is 13% (male) and 9% (female) attaining undergraduate degrees. There is insufficient data available in national education profiling to ascertain the national average highest level of education.

2. Communication indicators – preferred means of receiving information; prevalence in use of new media (such as social media/online platforms) to communicate information.

Baseline Socio-Economic Data: OUTPUT INDICATORS

This level of indicators create a necessary baseline to understand willingness/buy-in and ability to mitigate risks, as well as an initial idea of nutrition which are all relative to the scope of activities/outputs under the project’s components.

1. Land tenure related indicators – mataqali ownership (land owning units) as imperative in FPIC and necessary buy in for project implementation – understanding of village governance is a necessary baseline to determine capacity for project implementation/understanding; Participation in village work – as a means of capturing willingness/support for development at the community level.

2. Source of Food – precursor indicator to the level of nutrition;3. Generation of Income – determination of the main livelihoods activities at the community level;4. Safety Net – what villagers would fall back on in times of hardship provides a picture of the extent of

government dependency in times of hardship; self-sufficiency and proactiveness of community members to mitigate risks such as environmental risks (natural hazards) that may impede project implementation.

Key Considerations/Definitions:

93

Given the reliance in project site identification on the presence/absence of the Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST) structure in villages across Ra/Tailevu; findings during the inception workshop determined that YMST structures were already in existence in Ra but not in Tailevu.

In consideration of the perceived differences in development and natural resource management across communities in Ra and Tailevu, Ra was chosen as the control site with an independent set of data developed during the baseline survey that would allow for comparability with communities in Tailevu (the pilot site – consistent with the planned approach for both the first and second components of the project design itself).

While some socio-economic baseline data was available, the parameters of this data does not align effectively to the data/monitoring needs of the project. Under the survey design section below, definitions of each indicator are elaborated on.

Project Area

Further details on the justification for the project sites can be found in the project section relating to project site identification criteria.

Tailevu – The villages covered in the survey constitute the two districts of Dawasamu and Namena (along the border of Dawasamu and Namena).

Ra – The villages covered in the survey constitute only those within the district of Nakorotubu along the coast. These villages belong to the sub-divisions of Bureiwai and Navitilevu. Initially, there was a proposal to include villages in the highlands (Soa and Matuku) however, during field consultations it was determined that these villages would not be selected in the project identified sites.

Survey Design

The baseline survey design took into consideration the following areas of focus; overall approach and methodology.

(i) Focus – the indicators identified for the baseline survey align to the needs for monitoring of outputs/outcomes and impacts derived from the project logframe. The following are areas of focus:

Gender disaggregation Youth and marginalised groups – disabled Religion Highest level of education (and literacy rates) Technology uptake (impacting on opportunities and channels for knowledge sharing/information

dissemination) Source of Income and average household income Safety Net Source of Food Land Tenure (mataqali ownership unit, knowledge of traditional governance structure) Participation in village work (ii) Overall ApproachDue to time considerations and limited budget as well as lack of responsiveness to administrative requests impacting on availability of enumerators, the following revisions to the sample size and area covered were made: Only villages visited during community consultations were covered. Due to the difficulty in facilitating

necessary protocols to access the villages outside of the approved consultation period; only villagers present within the village boundaries during the time of survey were enumerated;

Due to lack of availability of enumerators, the sample size was reconsidered (also taking into account the average time spent on each survey as the purpose and scope of the survey in English would need to be contextualised into the local dialect and enumerators also took into account qualitative responses at the time of survey);

94

The timeframe available before executing the surveys impacted on the quality of training of enumerators and required concurrent supervision during enumeration by the consultant responsible for socio-economic baseline data (GEF 6 PPG team);

Baseline Survey questions were limited to 12 key questions (there was consideration given to previous GEF project socio-economic baseline survey samples however given the constraints listed above, this was reconsidered and aligned as well to the requirements listed in the latest GEF Updated Results Architecture and need for fewer and more relevant indicators);

Consent from subjects of the survey was a necessary requirement as detailed in the attached survey forms.

(iii) Methodology A random sample of 400 was chosen for both Ra and Tailevu, split equally (200 surveys for each

province) over a period of 10 working days. The survey area also only covered the villages in the Dawasamu and Namena districts (Tailevu) and Nakorotubu (Ra);

In both provinces, no more than 5 enumerators were available at any one time and the period of 5 days was extended to ensure coverage of the full sample size;

Baseline enumerators were agricultural extension officers and forestry officers from the locality stations who were familiar with the local dialect and area covered. They received training on the survey implementation beforehand;

The survey itself was developed as both an electronic form (using google forms) as well as paper based for areas where there was limited internet coverage;

Despite daily data entry of forms as well as immediate compilation of data via electronic forms, there was considerable cleaning of data required at the end of the survey period;

Final data has been included in the attached spreadsheet for both Ra (control area) and Tailevu (pilot) and have been interpreted into relevant graphs with analyses drawn from comparisons of quantitative outcomes across the two provinces;

Focus groups were executed in both Ra and Tailevu (covered below) with the intention of complementing quantitative data with qualitative experiences and information relating to the focus of the baseline survey and socio-economic needs of the project.

Village Profiles

The village profiles annexed to this report have been provided from the respective provincial councils. Given the delay in facilitating access to these, they provided little basis for the development of the baseline socio-economic survey.

There are inconsistencies in the detail of data (Tailevu Conservation Officer extracted and translated data from quarterly village reports which were of relevance to the socio-economic baseline). The information received from Ra however, is in the vernacular and will need translation prior to further analysis.

Preliminary Analyses and Conclusions of Baseline Survey – Ra and Tailevu

Consent: All respondents (100% of subjects) consented to the survey. This was a condition for each enumerator to proceed with the questions in each form.

Age:

The distribution of age of respondents was highly dependent on villagers available for survey at the time of enumeration. Due to various factors beyond the control of the enumerators, many villages had a notable absence of its youth populations due to cane harvest season; conferences in nearby main towns (Ba, Lautoka) for training on cane harvest methodologies and the annual Methodist church conference (which saw a significant number of villagers of various ages attending outside of their province).

The age distribution of the 200 respondents to the survey is displayed below, with a majority of respondents falling in the 36-55 year category.

Ra:

95

Tailevu:

Gender:The expected ratio of female to male respondents was expected to be 30:50. This is reflective of the national gender mainstreaming target provided by the Provincial Council (aligned to the national gender policy) of 30% representation in all community committees/groups. Gender distribution of respondents in Ra was 77% male and 23% female. Lower than intended distribution however this was reflective of the presence of villagers at each village location, at the time of surveying. In Tailevu, there were slightly more females enumerated (40%), and 60% male. This was simply a reflection of those present in villages at the time of enumeration.

Ra:

96

Tailevu:

Composition of respondents according to village of domicile:

While there was an initial intention to have as close to 10% of each village population included in the survey), it was settled on a random sample of 400 (distributed as 200 respondents from Ra and 200 respondents from Tailevu) with as close as possible to 10% targets however, due to unforeseen circumstances with availability of villagers and number of enumerators; it was settled on a completely random sample with the following distribution of respondents across villages visited in Ra and Tailevu.

Ra:

97

Tailevu:

Ethnicity:

100% of subjects surveyed in both Ra and Tailevu were of iTaukei (indigenous Fijian) ethnicity. There were no noted settlements within village boundaries at sites visited in either province although there were some settlements on freehold land that surrounded some of the villages in Dawasamu province. The project proposed areas do not include freehold land (only mataqali owned land).

Religion:

98

Of the key religions sampled (based on religions sampled during the 2007 Fiji Census 0), Methodism appeared to be the strongest religious grouping, with Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) having significant following amongst subjects surveyed, and a smaller percentage of AOG and Other Christian (such as Latter Day Saints and New Methodist). All subjects sampled adhered to the Christian faith.

Where there was significant SDA presence, it was noted in the lack of consumption of yaqona amongst community members.

Although the survey provided several options including other religion and non-Christian denominations, based on the 5 most common responses, only AOG, Catholic, Methodist, SDA and Other Christians are represented in the graphs below (results from both Ra and Tailevu are very similar in the distribution of faith based denominations).

Ra:

Tailevu:

Household Size:

0 2017 Fiji Census did not survey religion

99

With the number of households on the ‘y’ axis, corresponding to the household size on the ‘x’ axis, it is clear that the average size per household for Ra was 4 people (38% of subjects interviewed). 18.5% of those interviewed had 3 people in their household and 20.5% lived in households with 5 people. Only 5.5% of subjects interviewed, lived in households with 7 or more people. Qualitative findings supported the majority of households with 4 or more people, constituting couples with young children or elderly parents. There were many households who had children in secondary schools outside of the province as there was evidently fewer educational institutions in the province in comparison to Tailevu.

The sample from Tailevu showed a slightly more random distribution, with the highest number of respondents living in households with either 3 or 5 people. It was noted that in Tailevu, there were more school age residents living within the village (supported by the presence of at least two prominent secondary schools in the provinces – Ratu Kadavulevu School and Queen Victoria School). Ra:

Tailevu:

Disability:

In Ra, 25 respondents (12.5% of all subjects interviewed), responded positively to having someone with a disability living in their home.

In Tailevu, only 12 (less than half of those in Ra) respondents confirmed having someone with a disability living in their home.

Average Household Income:

100

Out of 200 respondents to surveys conducted in Ra, only one respondent confirmed their average household income was between 200-400FJD. All other respondents came from households with an average income of only 0-200FJD per week. No respondents had average household incomes above 400FJD per week.

Considering the median number of persons living in each household in Ra was 4 people, this is an average of 50FJD per person, per week.

Tailevu in comparison, shows a slightly higher proportion of households in the 200-400FJD average income per week category, with a small handful earning above 400FJD a week. This may be consistent with more fulltime workers/casual workers who earn an income outside of the traditional subsistence categories. The average income for majority of households in Tailevu however, still falls within the 0-200FJD a week range.

Ra:

Tailevu:

Source of Income:

Subjects were allowed to choose more than one main income source where applicable. A maximum of two choices were allowed. In terms of surveyed individuals in Ra, the two most prominent sources of income (per household) were:

a. A combination of Agriculture and Fisheriesb. Agriculture on its own

These findings are consistent with the majority of villages visited being coastal communities with access to agricultural land. Only one respondent out of 200 surveyed, confirmed forestry as a source of income.

Ra:

101

Tailevu:

Safety Net:

In conducting the survey, enumerators explained the option of “combined household income” as reliance on other members of the household in times of hardship.

Safety Net or the primary safeguard against possible hardship or adversity for the Ra province was determined to consist of the following, with reliance on relatives/friends outside of the village as the main safeguard against hardship, followed by dependence on others in the household/village and on government assistance:

102

Ra:

Tailevu:

Source of Food:Subjects were allowed to choose two options for the most prominent sources of food in their households. An overwhelming number of those surveyed in Ra (90%) chose a combination of both purchased and non-purchased foods. In Tailevu, the majority of respondents chose non-purchased foods as their main source of food. Fewer villagers than in Ra substituted household foods with store bought options. Qualitative responses indicated that Tailevu villages also had more programmes run by women and youth to encourage healthy living (exercise and nutrition).

Non-purchased foods are defined as those farmed/fished for whereas purchased foods referred to those bought in exchange for cash/barter. This did not include stocked food (in store before the date of survey), in kind (provided by others). There were no other categories of food indicated.

103

Ra:

Tailevu:

Education:It was determined that all respondents had completed at least primary school education, with a 100% literacy rate. This was useful given the choice to have community engagement material in printed format. Only 8% of respondents had progressed to complete either technical/vocational education or university degrees in Ra however Tailevu showed 12.5% of respondents completing technical/vocation or university education.

An important observation from community consultations was that there were more established educational institutions in Tailevu (two prominent secondary schools – RKS and QVS) are located in the project districts for Tailevu and most students of secondary age attend these two schools. There was also a notable presence of primary schools throughout villages in Tailevu (at least every second village) providing access for students living at home to travel daily. In Ra however, it was noted that in the sub-division of Bureiwai there was only one primary school in Saioko with boarding facilities and many primary aged students lived away from their families during the academic week due to the lack of availability of transport along the coastal villages of Ra.

104

Ra:

Tailevu:

Mobile Phone Use:

In Ra, 93.5% of respondents owned a mobile phone. In Tailevu, the results were slightly lower with only 72% of respondents owning a mobile phone.

Ra:

105

Tailevu:

Social MediaOf respondents who confirmed owning a mobile phone in Ra, only 46% use facebook (no other online platforms) and 54% did not use their phones for social media. In Tailevu, despite fewer respondents owning mobile phones, of those confirming ownership, at least 80% confirmed extensive use of social media (facebook in particular) with several indicating prevalent use of other online platforms including social media, mobile phone apps such as viber (no one used whatsapp or wechat) and online community forums. Qualitative responses from Tailevu also showed that there were several community managed facebook pages (particularly for youth groups).

Ra:

Tailevu:

Access to Information/Communication:

106

Most respondents from Ra prefer to receive information on the project in printed form (translated into vernacular). Respondents from Tailevu (61%) mostly preferred to receive information through their village meetings and welcomed the opportunity for collective discussion.

Ra:

Tailevu:

Participation in Village Work:Most respondents in Ra participated in village work on a weekly basis. None of the respondents participated any less than on a quarterly basis.

Ra:

107

Tailevu:

Understanding of Traditional Governance Structures:Enumerators were asked to rate participant responses on understanding of their traditional governance structures. In enumerating these responses, level of understanding was determined based on understanding of existing land/mataqali boundaries; structure of YMST where present.

Ra – over 90% of respondents understood their traditional governance structures very well. This also coincided with YMST structures in place already in villages within Nakorotubu and capacity building already taken place at the provincial level.

In Tailevu however, there were only around 37% of respondents indicating a level of 5 in terms of understanding of their traditional governance mechanisms and the benefits/composition and implementation of the YMST. This was consistent with the lack of established YMSTs at the village/district level in Tailevu and fewer development plans noted.

108

Ra:

Tailevu:

Preliminary Analyses and Conclusions of Focus Group studies – Ra and Tailevu

The focus group discussions were conducted at each province with participants representing a cross section of:

Women’s groups Youth Land Owners (Mataqali heads) Village Headmen and Men involved in community development.

At each location, the groups were separated into Women/Youth and Men/Land Owners. This was to facilitate ease of discussion (particularly with traditional/age considerations and discussions of land tenure). Focus questions used by focus group facilitators were consistent for each provincial set of focus groups 0.

The groups including women/youth focused on the following:1. Traditional Knowledge2. Religion3. Gender4. Youth

0 Annex: Focus Group Questions

109

The focus groups which included land owners/men’s representatives focused on the following:1. Traditional Knowledge2. Transport3. Land Tenure4. Environment.

The following is a compilation of qualitative responses/observations from the focus groups in Ra and Tailevu.

FOCUS AREAS RESPONSES1. Traditional

Knowledge Passed down orally Need to learn how to capture it Within the village and at their meetings they rarely discuss the issue of traditional

knowledge - how to preserve it etc. It’s just a given Some of the traditional methods of capturing changes in the environment include

changes to the “traditional calendar” – they determine changes in weather patterns based on the dryness of their voivoi (pandanus) etc.

2. Religion The church is represented like any other committee on the development committee for each village

Some examples of church driven development include church plantations (amongst a denomination).

In some villages, different denominations may do their own thing but the MAIN FOCUS of the church is on spiritual development. Not so much on driving the community to work together

Silana example – there is a soli next month, 5 denominations will all contributed to the Methodist Soli as the principal denomination, they will drive village development for everyone

Youth were very clear on support for an independent church, that is and focused on SPIRITUAL development. They agreed it will change in the future as young people are becoming more aware and frustrated by the amount of money that goes to churches and also what they perceive as greed from church leaders

3. Gender WOMEN’S ROLES Women take care of cooking, child rearing, weaving/production of mats and

handicraft. In coastal villages of Nakorotubu this also extends to fishing and backyard gardening.

OPINIONS ON LEVEL OF AUTHORITY/DECISION MAKING Interesting observation that women agreed that they would like more authority

eg/ autonomy to plant when they need to (production of voivoi) without husband’s consent for some things but the general consensus even with young women present was that they would like to hold onto traditional gender roles and do not wish to overrule their husbands.

Discussion which was consistent with consultations is that women are satisfied with their representation on committees etc.

CONTRIBUTION TO LIVELIHOODS They would like more resources/technology to assist with weaving – eg/

straightening out voivoi which is done manually with a shell. In Nakorotubu, women were interested in capacity building and resources (such

as seeds) to develop backyard gardens to contribute to their families’ nutrition. Young men surprisingly heard these sentiments and offered that when they got

married they would like to consider sharing responsibility in the household with wives. Eg/ helping look after their children if wife needed to go out and tend to weaving/growing voivoi OR if wives wanted to take on more masculine roles like planting of trees they would welcome that BUT both young men and women AND older women all agreed that they want to ensure that the male dominance in

110

leadership within the household and village continues

4. Youth Everyone uses facebook – Lawaki and Driti have youth committee pages set up Women felt in some villages like Delakado their youth needed to be involved

more Social media has impacted on youth motivation – they no longer see the

traditional roles as “cool” Villages like Lawaki are leading the way with their youth given dominance and

TRUST to run their village development and this is working out quite well. In Driti it is the same. I notice the youth from those two places are incredibly empowered, driven and open to innovation

Natadradave noted that their youth do come up with their own initiatives like kava planting/ going to find work in Nadi and contributing back to their village obligations.

Youth in Ra were not as active as in Tailevu and less vocal. They were however more involved in cultivation of land, fishing.

5. Environment In relation to fires, communities felt that they had an obligation to protect their pines. Now, without the pine scheme; there is more prevalence of fires as people do not see the economic value in protecting the forests;

Climate change has disoriented the natural indicators they had for changes to the environment;

6. Land Tenure In some of the villages with mataqali lands in the mountainous ranges, there were issues with accessing land due to lack of roads but also because there was freehold land that was registered during Fiji’s colonial period, and it is hard to determine ownership (however these freehold lands are in the way of accessing mataqali lands).

7. Transport Transport is the single biggest issue in accessing municipal markets In all of the provinces, there are only one or two trucks servicing the entire

province Some villages are conducting fundraising activities/ contributing earnings from

kava farming (initiative under youth in Natadradave) to purchase an additional vehicle

Some issues that are faced by villagers transporting goods to markets is that during harvest periods, drivers tend to hike the price of transport higher

111

ANNEX 9: Courses on INRM related topics offered in Fiji

Annex 9.a Related Courses offered by the Forest Training Centre

Example of the SFM Training

Aim

1.1.1 The program aims to educate communities on the national advantages of managing their forests in a sustainable manner

1.2 Objective

1.2.1 At the end of the program, participants should be able to:

1.2.1.1 Discuss the concept of sustainable forest management and explain the advantages and disadvantages of such management regime

1.2.1.2 Discuss the need to have guiding principles for logging operations such as minimum allowable cut, obligatory species and the national code of logging practice

1.2.1.3 Describe the socio-economic benefits of logging and compare benefits of sustainable forest management and conventional logging regime

1.2.1.4 Explain national strategies for Forest sector and discuss the various government interventions appropriate for LOU participation.

Program Structure

1.3 General

1.3.1 The program introduces the theory of environmental management prior to discussing concepts of sustainable forest management. The association between environmental conservation and sustainable management is the fundamental drive of the concept that is geared to challenge participants own perception of resource use in their community. For this reason, issues such as Conventional logging, socio-economic benefits and national policies are discussed once the concept of sustainable management is highlighted.

1.4 Delivery Mode

The program is delivered in the face to face mode with ample time given to group discussion and energizers relevant to the underlying theme of the program.

1.5 Order of Delivery

1.5.1 The five-module program is delivered over a period of 5 consecutive days. 1.5.2 The order of delivery of the five modules is listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Order of Delivery of the Five Modules

Modules Title Duration

1 The Web of Life ½ day

2 Sustainable Forest Management ½ day

3 Conventional Logging ½ day

112

4 Socio-Economic Benefits of the Forest ½ day

5 Forest Policies & Corporate Intent 1 day

6 Participatory Learning Action for Sustainable Forest Management

2 days

TOTAL 5 days

Teaching and Learning Methods

1.6 The program adopts adult education methods with a lot of discussion groups, the use of visual aids and other participatory tools.

1.7 Teaching Methods

1.7.1 Teaching methods will include lectures, demonstrations, role plays, group discussion and field work to relevant sites.

1.7.2 For communities who intend to log, possible field activities may include simple volume assessment calculations.

1.7.3 For communities that need rehabilitation or enrichment planting, field exercise may include planting of a few seedlings

1.7.4 For communities that have already logged or are logging their forest, field activity could include the drawing of a community profile to highlight effects of logging to the community.

Annex 9.b Related Courses offered by the Fiji National University

Programme Name Programme Type

Year Offered

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Bachelors Degree

2018

Bachelor of Science in Fisheries Bachelors Degree

2018

Bachelor of Science in Forestry Bachelors Degree

2018

Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Bachelors Degree

2018

Certificate III in Commercial Agriculture Certificate 2018

Certificate IV in Horticulture Certificate 2018

Higher Education Diploma in Animal Health Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Agriculture Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Agroforestry Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Animal Husbandry Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Applied Fisheries Diploma 2018

113

Trade Diploma in Aquaculture Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Forestry Diploma 2018

Trade Diploma in Wood Processing & Value Adding Diploma 2018

Short Course in Apiculture Short Course 2018

Short Course in Basic Biological Control of Insect Pests of Economically Important Crops in Fiji

Short Course 2018

Short Course in Commercial Floriculture Short Course 2018

Short Course in Organic Farming Short Course 2018

Short Course in Ornamental Horticulture Short Course 2018

Short Course in Plant Propagation and Nursery Management Short Course 2018

Short Course in Safe Tractor Operation and Maintenance Short Course 2018

Short Course in Sheep Farming Short Course 2018

114

ANNEX 10: Capacity Need Assessment

A detailed Capacity Need Assessment (CNA) was carried out by the Action Against Decertification (AAD) Project through a capacity assessment workshop that was carried out from the 25th to 26th November 2015.

Summary of Responses to Workshop Questionnaire

Capacities for Good Governance and Institutional Collaboration on Natural Resources (NR)For this set of question, please follow these instructions:Please first complete the list (column A) of all the concerned actors. Then complete the column B with their respective roles in the governance of natural resourcesThen complete question C about the existing coordination mechanisms

Which actors or organizations should be involved in the governance of natural resources (NR)?Please first complete this list↓

What role each actor should have in the governance of natural resources (NR)?

State actors

TLTB /Lands

Land administrationRegulatory role-law enforcement & monitoring• Technical supportLand Use Policy Development/Advice and M+E Land UseAdvice on laws relating to land use – boundaries, advice on plans they have on land parcels, identify which parcels are free (outside of native reserve)

i-Taukei Affairs Board – (Provincial Office -Conservation Officers)

Govt Agents should go through PO in-order to reach or work with communities. PO to coordinate with Tikina Reps and Village Headmen on new initiatives that are being planned for the provinceLand Use Policy Development/Advice and M+E Land UseCommunity Development Policy – Cultural Heritage and Traditional KnowledgeOversee the good governance and wellbeing of the iTaukei within the ProvinceSupport the Native Land and Fisheries commissionConduct the identification of projects using bottom – up approachAwareness and Capacity Building on the Management of Natural Resources to resource ownersFormation of YMST at Provincial, District and Village

Fisheries / Forestry

Facilitate Technical Support – (Policy, Legislation, Advice), TrainingAdvice on Sustainable Forest Management and Reforestation,Awareness and Capacity Building on the Management of Natural Resources – (Land/Marine resources)Sustainable livelihoodAwareness and Capacity Building on the Management of Natural Resources to resource ownersSustainable Forest Ressources/ ManagementReforestation/Afforestation ProgrammeMangrove Réhabilitation Programme

Agriculture

Advice on sustainable agriculture, restoration, use of idle landsSecure and support market access for alternative commodities such as pine apple, peanuts, ginger, water melon, sweet patato, etc.Collate Biophysical Data’s such as Land Use Capabilities, Soils, Topographies, and Land Tenure Maps and produce LUC for communities.

115

Sustainable Livelihoods - Set up of Vegetable Nurseries with capacity Awareness to Resource Owners

Environnent

Capital development & support services Capacity developmentAwareness and Capacity Building on the Management of Natural Resources to resource ownersApproval for any Development – EIA/EMPMonitoring of Development - penalty for breach

Regional Development Coordinate and facilitate rural development

National Planning Capacity Assessment at National Level – Human, Financial, Infrastructure, Physical

Non-state actors

NGOs’ – (Conservation NGOs like WWF, CI etc.)

Sustainable Natural Resource Program (Support further protection of forest and freshwater systems as well as reforestation of grass lands, increase livelihood interventions….)Income generating projects – alternative livelihoodsInstitutional linkage – NGO to GovernmentDeveloping plans / awareness /Capacity DevelopmentData integrity

Resource Owners

Formation of committees to appraise conservation program and other government programmes like development of land use systemsVillage council, District councils, provincial CouncilCommitment towards any intervention to allow sustainability

Regional Organisation (USP, SPC, CI etc.)

Technical support (Program development) Education and Training on Investment in AgricultureExport market developmentSupport Government and Implementing agencies through: - Research capacity development - Stewardship of resources - Fund projects such as reforestation, protection of marine resources - Policy development

Coordination mechanisms

C1.What are the existing coordination mechanisms among these actors?

Project site Level

Land owning communities,(LOU consent)TLTB (issuing of lease)ITAB (Village council, Tikina council and Provincial )Fishery And Forestry, Agriculture (Extension services)Environment (Feasibility studies e.g. EIA)Ministry of Provincial Development (Project monitoring and evaluation)NGOs and Development partners.Financiers (e.g. FDB and Commercial Banks)

National level

Agriculture/fisheries &ForestFAO, National Steering CommitteeDepartment of EnvironmentNational Environment CouncilCrop and Livestock Council

Regional Level

Pacific Island Development ForumSPCPI Forum Secretariat (Pacific Island Round-Table Forums)

Global LevelSIDSUN Secretariat for UNCCD, UNCCC, UNCBD• Foreign Affairs and International Trade

116

C2.Do they need to be improved, or are new coordination mechanisms needed?

Project site level

Improvement of coordination in terms of Data Collection, Analysis, Information dissemination, policies, procedures and practices (“Break down Silo Mentality”)

National Level

Improvement of coordination in terms of Data Collection, Analysis, Information dissemination, policies, procedures and practices (“Break down Silo Mentality”)

Regional Level Change/New – More Bottom-Up Approach in coordination – “more contextual”

Global level Change/New – More Bottom-Up Approach in coordination – “more contextual”

Availability and implementation of NR-related policiesE1. Are there comprehensive policies in:Land use Rural LU Policy - Gap on LU Policy

Need to review land use policy to better support SLMForestry Forest Decree, Forest Policy, Forest Policy, Some forest concessions

are too long for 99 yearsPrivate and communal lands TLTA, Some leases are too long e.g. 99 year leases for

agriculture/residentialEstablishment of protected areas/reserve

Forest PolicyForest Decree Reserves Protected Area

E2. Are policies implemented effectively and coherently, or are they conflicting with one another?Land use TLTB and Land (Land Bank)

Landuse conflict between agriculture, forestry and others… need to have clear implementation of land use classification… need to move from rural to national landuse policy

Forestry TLTB and Forest Policy e.g. Sovi Basin or TaveuniForestry and EnergyConflicting with landuse e.g. forest concession areas cannot be used by locals who have not given consensus for concessionRates of royalties are not reviewed regularly – this needs to be done Replanting of forested areas is another policy in place but never implemented – conflict within the same organization?Boundary of Mataqali – over logging into neighbouring landowners … boundary dispute arises from the use of GPS and not following actual NLC boundary

Private and communal lands Need to review renewal of leases and lease condition to allow prior agreement/consensus from landowners before renewal of leasesNeed to align land-use classification to land leases,Idle lands that used to be under sugar cane farms are kept with TLTB...it would be better to release the area to landowners to perhaps plant trees or do other alterative land-use.Leased lands left by tenants that have debts with banks is a hindering factor for new potential tenants to take over effective production of the land. Suggest to write-off the debt so the potential new tenant farmer can start from clean slate…

Establishment of protected areas/reserve

Process for formalising by-laws should be clearly articulated so that by-laws formed at community level becomes effective

Awareness on laws, regulations and international agreements on NR management and utilizationD1. What are some key laws and regulations on NR management and use?

Forest decreeLand Conservation Improvement ActFiji Forest Code of PracticeTLTB Act

117

Rural Land Use PolicyLand Acquisition actRiver and stream Act ( Gravel Extraction)Agriculture Landlord and Tenant ActEnvironment Management Act Mahogany Decree;Lands ActNative Land and Fisheries Act;Mining ActPublic (Environmental) Health Act;Fijian Affairs Act;

D1.1. What are some relevant by-laws at community level?

Village By –LawsProject committee by-lawsPolicies and procedures for Community based Protected Areas (forested areas) and MPA

118

D2.Who should have the awareness and knowledge about laws, by-laws regulations and international agreements on land, forest and tree resources management and utilization?

Main stakeholders Please rate (1-5) their current level of awareness and knowledge on these issues1 = low5 = high

LOU-by-lawsITAB(Provincial Office )– by-laws

33

Forestry/Fisheries 3

Agriculture 3

TLTB 3

All stakeholders 3

Neighbouring Communities 3

Natural resources conflict management and mediationF1.Who should be the key players in the management and mediation of NR related conflicts?

Provincial office, National Environment Council Natural Resource Cabinet sub-committeeTLTBI-Taukei Affairs (Provincial Council) - Provincial Office – to manage/mediate conflict between Govt/Civil society and communityNative Lands and Fisheries Commission Community Leaders (e.g. Turaga ni Vanua (Chiefs) to mediate/manage conflicts arising from within the community. Or at the village level, Tikina Representative can act as manage/mediator to solve conflicts relating to village by-laws

F2.Are their existing tools and approaches to manage and resolve NR -related conflicts?

Traditional ApproachFive Approaches to conflict management:Force WithdrawalAccommodationCompromiseConsensus

F3.If yes, what is the level of awareness about these tools?

Not many are aware as this requires training and exposure before one can apply successfully.

F4. Are new tools needed or can existing tools be improved?

Mediation to be improvedBetter communication needed between all stakeholders

Participation of Local Communities (women and youth groups, Church groups, etc.) in NR management and land use planningG1.What is the level of participation of local communities in:Men - 4Women -3Youth - 5Church groups - 3Village committee - 5Crime committee - 2Development committee - 3Health Committee -3Education committee - 3Yaubula committee - 5

Please rate (1-5) their level of participation1 = low5 = high

G.1.1 Land/Forest policy discussions? 1

119

Men -3Women -1Youth -1 G.1.2 Land use planning?Men -5Women -2Youth -3

2

G2.What is the constraints/barriers to improve the participation of communities?

Lack of knowledge/skillsInability to utilize existing communication linkages and protocols within the community (village) settings and hierarchyLack of consultation from Govt. agencies to bring awareness and discussion to communitiesLack of Financial to support active participation Mind-set - Resistance to new ideas – being content with current conditions

G3.What could be done to overcome these constraints?

Capacity DevelopmentAwareness/TrainingTraining, Education and Awareness on Communication Strategies, ProtocolsIncrease communication between Govt agencies to communities to raise awareness on relevant Govt policies on NR

CAPACITY TO MANAGE NR (i.e. PLAN, IMPLEMENT, MONITOR AND EVALUATE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCES)

What are the existing capacities in the following areas in terms of knowledge, experience, technology (i.e.: “what we can do well”) and what should we be doing better, or differently?

H1. Planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating activities related to NRM (at central and district levels)What works well is:Planning at Central level Solesolevaki concept at the village level Integrated farming system Traditional agroforestry Provincial Office connection works wellParticipatory planning and awareness

What does not work well is:Planning at District Level ImplementingMonitoring and EvaluationFollow up – inconsistentCommunity taking ownership when project phases out Conflict resolutionMany areas available for reforestation/restoration but not plantedWhy?Lack of AwarenessLack of Capacity Development (Lack of Profiling to Community level)Lack of Support from communityMind –setLack of prioritising activities (ad hoc system to community/District level)Lack of M+E SkillsLack of funds

H2. Sustainable production of Non Wood Forest Products (e.g. Honey, bamboo, coconut, etc.)

What we can do well is:Planning Honey production to be set up within groups (Tokaimalo Bee Keeper Association - 500 boxes)Virgin coconut oil production

What we should do better, or differently, is:Enhance marketing system in place Quality control to meet market standard Value adding Improve supply chains

120

Sandalwood production Developing model sites and researches follow ups activities(exchange schemes)Access to Trade shows

Replanting of coconut trees To plant more tree/flowers for bees to feed onCoordinate market and secure supply agreement among all communitiesWork towards certified organic honey to secure niche market price

H3.Creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities (including development of value chains from production to marketing and agroforestry)What we can do well is:Planning Honey production to be set up within groups Product Market Developments Integrated model of short, medium and long term tree and crop species Identifying climate resilient crop species Planting pine apple, ginger, sandalwood seedling propagation, pandanus

What we should do better, or differently, is:Enhance marketing system in place Zoning of crop commodities Value adding (packaging and marketing)Product Market DevelopmentBusiness Models Work together towards common goal at community levelWork with youths as leaders of projectImplementation especially for model farms where they can convince families and other farmers to uptake the idea Report directly to Arg. Extension Officer on Production and seek advice on market connectionWhy?Lack of commitment to implement activities discussed.

H4. Supporting private and public-sector investments in NR-related sectorsWhat we can do well is:Set up nurseries (native trees/vegetable & Fruits)Institutional strengtheningPromote technology transfer

What we should do better, or differently, is:Proper use of existing water source –fish pondEnabling Policies for initiatives In promoting technology transfer.Secure and maintain market access through Tikina based cluster farmers with specific crop commodities aligned to landscape land capability assessment and plansNeed to change local mind-set by raising awareness on importance of securing market access no matter what the price…Problem is market connection : e.g. In Macuata dalo planting at village advised by MoA promised market but no market was available.

TECHNICAL CAPACITIES FOR THE ADOPTION AND USE OF SUSTAINABLE LAND AND FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES

What are the existing technical capacities in the following areas (I 1-5) in terms of knowledge, experience, technology, skills (i.e.: “what we can do well”) and what should we be doing better, or differently?I-1. Restoration activities including nursery techniquesWhat we can do well is:All key partners to strengthen the methods in implementing nurseryCommunity Nursery Development with lots of challengesReforestation and AfforestationSkills and Knowledge on nursery techniquesControl of quality seed to ensure high genetic and

What we should do better, or differently, is:Incentives using CI modelNursery market to obtain community interestAwareness to change mind-set of people to see long term instead of short termUsing of local material in building nurserySpecies selection and timing Appropriate technology

121

physiological seeds. Land use planningIntegrated farming Baseline SurveyManagementDeveloping improved processing and germination testing methods and procedures

I-2. Integrated farming systems such as row cropping, multiple cropping, alley cropping, zero tillage, agro-forestry, and other techniques building resilience to climate changeWhat we can do well is: What we should do better, or differently, is:

What we can do well is:Row CroppingMulti CroppingTraditional Agro forestryFarming is part of village life and farming techniques are based on lessons handed down from ancestors

What we should do better, or differently, is:Right crop mix in multi croppingCrop selection for the type of site in term of soil typeSelecting of Climate resilience crop varietyEstablishment of farmers training centre to promote agroforestry or expand curriculum at FTC to include agroforestry programs to farmers and forestry/agriculture officers. Various forms of farming techniques and technologies is lacking;Knowledge on Application of techniques listed and areas suitable

122

I-3. Soil conservation and management techniques (erosion control, shelterbelts, ...)What we can do well is:To champion the use of land resources through the adoption of sustainable land management practices and farming system development for sustainable agriculture development in Fiji.All government agencies dealing with land to be well versed of Soil Conservation and its Management practices – forestry involvement.

Establishment of Soil / Forest Conservation and Management Practices in a complete package – The need for the community to understand effect of using vertiver grass, pineapple use for conservation measures amongst the public and targeted audiences (such as national policy and decision makers).

Contour Farming using vertiver grass, pineapple, intercropping coupled with farming systems the change of commodities – the steeper the slope the closer the contours. Planting around the gallery forest or near the gullyTraining on soil conservation and management techniques. Very little knowledge: reactive actionsFarmers expand plantation size and sites searching for fertile land for commercial crop (yaqona) farming (even on steep slopes) without considering its consequences Understand the importance of water for everyday livingProtection of water sourcesWater harvesting – roof drainage system for collection of rain water

What we should do better, or differently, is:Adoption of SLM Concepts using the different practices.To generate more posters on vetiver grass and its value, pineapple and its value.

The technical capacities in recognising the importance of gathering reliable and relevant field data and information to strengthen strategies on preventing and mitigating land degradation.

Strengthening coupled with promoting policy and institutional frameworks that support sustainable land management.

CD - Impact of soil Erosion On FarmsCD - Impact of Soil erosion Off farms

challenges1% MOA Budget for SLM Project in Fiji (as presentation)Staffing structure – dealing with SLM Concepts.Seek assistance of Conservation Officers within the Province Because soil plays a key role in World Health, economics and environmental stability, we MUST Conserve it and use it in a sustainable manner. Contour cropping Soil capability study Land Use PlanningMaintain the buffer areaCommunity level their lack of skills in M+EAdvance training on soil conservation & management techniquesSoil conservation and management techniques

I-4. Water use, including water harvesting, hydropower and water-saving irrigation techniques

What we can do well is:Rehabilitation of water catchment through tree plantingWater harvesting during dry season

What we should do better, or differently, isMore awareness on water source protection and management water source hygiene and sanitationCapacity development on irrigation technique and appropriate technology (eg. Water-saving irrigation techniques)

123

I-5. Activities related to sustainable biodiversity conservation and use , including management of native flora/fauna, management of invasive species

What we can do well is:Identification of Potential Conservation site (must be well documented)Monitoring and evaluation at community level.Strengthen training program at TITC on applied wood technology/wood craft and non-woods technology to cater for communityTraditional knowledge of herbal plants and trees – traditional name and usesBiodiversity concept – limited

What we should do better, or differently, is:Promote Traditional knowledge of Herbal MedicineConsistency in CD – enabling communities to proceed. Communities are well informed on projects, its objectives , outputs and outcomesStrengthening by lawBaseline Assessment on Potential SiteSetup community base site support group Registration of conserved site with TLTBLooking at the potential use of invasive species rather than looking at the threatReview approaches to training and awareness at all levelEstablish Rapport between Government Agencies, Statuary bodies and Development Agencies.Importance of its Management and conservation

I-6. To what extent are indigenous knowledge and practices considered in the implementation of each of the area listed under I 1-5?

Please rate (1-5):1 = low consideration5 = high consideration

3- Medium consideration Need to explore and capture important indigenous knowledgeTraditional knowledge of herbal and medicinal plants – Bio prospectingEstablish Site Support Groups to be capacity developed (training) and institutionalized;SSG Training should include SLM, SFM, M+E & Reporting, Planning and ImplementationFires and its implications

CAPACITIES FOR COMMUNICATION AND KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE Communication and knowledge exchange on project goals and achievementsJ1.Is there appreciation and awareness on the issues of desertification land degradation and the need to address it?

Awareness on the issues of desertification, and Degradation has been an ongoing process in the MOA. In community level there is very low knowledge on the issue due to lack of awarenessIn state level there is moderate knowledge in addressing the issue.Though it has been captured in National Strategic plans, very little has been realised on the ground.Discussed at village meetings and concerns have been raised by all, however very little change in activities and attitudes noted

J.2 What are the actual capacities of the project stakeholders to mobilize existing local knowledge on causes and measures for combating desertification and land degradation?

Capacities to Communicate within Government Agencies, share information, rapid package assessment where all govt agencies & stakeholders on community knowledge needs to be developedCommunication channel in community level is well versed.Need more work in government channel of communication

124

J.3 What are the capacities of project stakeholders to devise an appropriate communication plan that respects hierarchical protocols within Government and community structures?

Availability of Rural Transformation Centres. Existing communications frameworks already in placeLegislation and policies, direction of initiatives and stats reports are available in different sectors.Avenues available for disseminating information and knowledge but will requires assistance in devising a robust/appropriate communication plan

J4. What are the mechanisms for supporting a systematic exchange of knowledge amongst projects/partners working on NR issues? Does a new one need to be established?

To strengthen the existing mechanism – the need Communities are full of knowledge to any projects – prerogative of technical officers to formulate/ devise reporting formats for exchanging of knowledge amongst projects.National Environment steering committee being in place.District and Provincial Council MeetingsRequest that it is brought down to village meetingsResource owners committee under ITAUKEI affairs

DEFINITION OF PRIORITY CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Looking at the roles/ functions of the different actors as well as the available capacities and main capacity needs, what would be the 3-5 most important themes on which the capacity development activities should focus for the first two years?

Target stakeholders

1 Strengthen Coordination amongst actors – Data integrity Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, Regional DevelopmentProvincial office, ITLTBVillager Leaders

2 Awareness to key actors and community on NR/Development issues

Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, Regional DevelopmentProvincial office, ITLTBVillager Leaders

3 Training of key actors and community –management NR Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, Regional DevelopmentProvincial office, ITLTBVillager Leaders Resource OwnersFarmer Financing Institution Ministry of Public Enterprise plus Tourism

Based on the responses of workshop participants on the key questions above, we then analysed the results to determine priority capacity development needs. Furthermore the understanding of the of land degradation situation from the foregoing part of this paper has been taken into account in proposing capacity development activities and target audiences.

6.3 Consolidated Priorities for Capacity Development

125

CD Priority CD Sub-Priority(As Identified In The Questionnaires)

Target Potential Activities Lead Actors

A. Strengthen legal frameworks(to improve coherence between laws and by-laws and institutional arrangements for enforcement of these laws)

Strengthening of Village By-Laws

CommunityDevelopment Partners,NGOs, Line Ministries

Workshop for reviewing village by-lawsBy-laws to be legalized and recognized by Court of LawConsultation between Solicitor General Office and iTtaukei affairs

iTaukei Affairs, I-TLTB, SG

Review of key Laws and Regulations on NR management

Provincial office,MOA,DOF,ITLTB

Review of fire regulationsEvaluation of key laws and regulations on NR management

Line ministries and agencies

B. Improve cross-sector coordination between line ministries

Coordination Mechanisms at projects plus line Ministries

Provincial office,MOA,DOF,ITLTB, DOE

Establish mechanism for coordination at Project + line ministries

Ministry of Forestry and Ministry of Agriculture

C. Improve processes for communication between government and communities (top-down and bottom up) to ensure better participation by local communities in NR Planning

Dissemination of Government Plans and Priorities at village level Increase visitation to villages Dissemination of information through radio/newspaper/TV

Villages, Farming settlements., Provincial and District councils, Community Organisations,NGOs

Strengthen existing clearing house mechanisms at provincial, tikina/district and village/settlement level

Provincial Administrators,RokoTui, Extension OfficersTikina/District repsChiefs/Community leaders

Strengthening of YMST (Natural Resource Management Support Team)

Community Development of Communication Strategy for YMST

Provincial CouncilConservation Officers

Strengthen participations of Local Communities

Resource Owners, Farmer Communitiese

Formation of Farmer Cluster groups and/orLandscape and ecosystem based Community Forums

Department of EnvironmentMinistry of AgricultureMinistry of Forest and Fisheries

Improve flow of communication on project proposals submitted by communities at provincial level to empower village leaders and enable

Villagers, Farmers, small business enterprises. Leaders

Conduct training on:Stakeholder Analysis Project Formulation Project ManagementTechnical, financial and policy support

Department of EnvironmentMinistry of AgricultureMinistry of Forest and FisheriesMinistry of iTaukei Affairs

126

them to respond to community queries

Ministry of Provincial Development

Strengthen Coordination amongst actors for enhanced data integrity

Agriculture, Forestry, Provincial Office, TLTB, Environment, Regional Development, community

Training program on data integrityEstablishment of integrated Data Base systemTraining on usage of integrated data base system

Agriculture, Forestry, Provincial Office, TLTB, Environment, Regional Development, community

D. Technical skills enhancement at community level

Land use Planning at Landscape/Project level

CommunityExtension OfficersPlanning Officers

Conduct Training and carry out:Land use surveyPrepare strategic plans on integrating farming systems

Ministry of AgricultureMinistry of ForestryMinistry of iTaukei AffairsMinistry of Provincial Development

Strengthening Integrated Farming

Extension Officers,Planning OfficersResource Owners, Farming Communities

Develop and deliver Training on:Integrated Farming Systems and PracticesTechnical skills on NR management

Exchange schemes on NR practices with other countries

FAOFinancial and Technical SupportForestry Training Centre (FTC)Competency based trainingFiji National University (FNU)Graduate Programs

E. Functional skills enhancement (specifically on business creation, communication, value chain assessment) aimed at creating livelihood opportunities

Livelihood assistance or commodity development to be based on value chain assessment in order to connect farmers to supply market demands based on supply agreements… this involves changing the mind set of local rural farmers to document agreements

Communities/Farmers/ Buyers Resource owners, Financing Institution. Agriculture, Forestry, Provincial Office, TLTB, Environment, Regional Development

Development of Training Program:Functional Skills on Business creation Communication,Value Chain Assessmentcreating livelihood opportunitiescommunity –management of NRCreation of Sustainable business models

FAOFinancial and Technical SupportForestry Training Centre (FTC)Competency based training

Ministry of Public Enterprise & Tourism

F. Increase awareness at community level

Awareness to key actors and community on NR/Development issues

Community, Agriculture, Forestry, Provincial Office, TLTB, Environment, Regional Development

Development of outreach tools, and communication strategy on AADAwareness activities on lessons learned from other projects

Line Ministries supported by Project awareness material on AAD

127

Awareness at community level to support project initiative and secure community support

Community MembersCommunity organisations

128

ANNEX 11: Stakeholder mapping and analysis

Stakeholders have been categorised into four main groups:1. Fiji Government Ministries and Statutory bodies2. Community stakeholders3. NGOs, Civil Society/Non-state actors (not including INGOs and development partners/donors identified with co-financing/financing potential for the project)

Impact of the project on stakeholder – this describes the level of change, potential benefits to the stakeholder and possible perceived negative impacts. Level of influence – The level of influence of the stakeholder on implementation and achievement of project outputs/outcomes. This includes their ability to advocate for support/indirectly influencing other stakeholders. The level of influence has been determined through the consultation process. 5 is the highest level of influence (very influential), 0 is the lowest (no influence).

Priority to engage – based on the proposed involvement of stakeholders in the project, 5 being the highest and 0 being the lowest priority to engage. It is important to understand that although stakeholders may display a high level of influence, they may not be prioritised for engagement in project implementation/co-financing and potential partnerships.

Stakeholder Group Impact of project on stakeholder Level of influence of stakeholder

Proposed involvement in the project Priority to engage

Government agencies and statutory bodiesMinistry of iTaukei Affairs (MTA)

1. iTaukei Affairs Board (ITAB)

2. 14 Provincial Councils

3. Roko Tui & Assistants

4. Conservation Officers

5. Yaubula Management Support Teams (YMST)

The community focus of the project covers mainly iTaukei/indigenous communities. The impact of the project through its community focus, stands to benefit the MITA greatly as the executing agency/administrator of GEF funding. Success of the project will support its conservation efforts in iTaukei communities of Ra and Tailevu.

5 MTA will lead on project implementation as the executing agency. They will coordinate other technical agencies and partners as required. They will also re-enforce the YMST system as well as facilitate community level engagement. It will ensure the adoption and sustainability of the project.Conservation Officers under MITA are attached to respective provincial councils. They play a key role in the community governance hierarchy, in the administration and support towards the FPIC process; soliciting continuous community buy-in. During the PPG process, engagement of conservation officers was crucial to facilitate access to communities. Through the existing process of reporting from the community level, the conservation officers facilitate community based reporting of project indicators (socio-economic

5

Ministry of Forests (MoFo)1. Management 

The project has the potential to contribute directly to the implementation of the Strategic Development and 

5 MoFo main program is the Reforestation of Degraded Forest (RDF) which will have strong 

5

129

Services Division (MSD)

2. Extension Division 3. Silvicultural 

Research Division (SRD)

4. Forestry Training Center

Annual Corporate Plan. Key outcome areas of the proposed GCF project through capacity building and lessons learned/KM support. 

linkages with this project. MoFo will be involved in capacity building (through FTC and extension officers), and LUP development and implementation. It will ensure the adoption and sustainability of the project. MoFo is one of the implementing agency for GEF 5 (R2R) with a component of restoration of water catchment as well as capacity building. MoFo is taking lead on REDD+ implementation including developing model sites at Emalu and Dogotuki. There is potential for strong lessons learned/best practices to be shared with the GEF6 project. MoFo is also in the process of developing a significant project which covers overlapping technical areas to GEF6, funded by GCF. MSD is taking the lead in mapping and inventorying Fiji’s forest estate and forest carbon stocks, and undertaking research on native forest species and a vital source of information on propagation, establishment and silviculture on native species including yasi, dakua makadre and many others. The Extension Division is a major source of information on growing Fiji’s trees and the largest producer of nursery stock of native tree species. They have the potential to contribute at the technical level to SFM, SLM and carbon stock enhancement aspects of this project. They will support the enterprise development activities of the project.

Ministry of Agriculture1. Extension 

Division /nurseries 2. Research 

(Nocolevu, Legalega and Seqaqa research stations) Land Use Planning Section (LUP)

Across project sites, the project will support the development/implementation of PLUPs which the Ministry is already involved in focusing on the district level. Through the project, it is anticipated that MoA will benefit from the integrated approach in working with other technical agencies to support INRM in project areas. The ministry will also benefit from lessons learned throughout the project implementation phase. 

5 LUP of the Land Resource Planning Development Unit is an important source of baseline biophysical information. They are also responsible for land capability mapping and categorization of lands. They are a key resource for knowledge; capacity building and biophysical assessment as well as facilitating monitoring of related indicators in project areas. Beyond LUP, extension services will also play a key technical role in implementing components of project delivery including capacity building.They will support the enterprise development activities of the project.It will ensure the adoption and sustainability of 

5

130

the project.

Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi) The project will provide channels of communication and communities of practice at the village level to facilitate outreach of awareness material developed by the DoFish particularly around threatened species; maritime safety. The project seeks to work in partnership with DoFish on mangrove rehabilitation around coastal communities. There are perceived implications on the role of technical agencies such as MFF in implementation of INRM under the execution of a non-technical agency. This has been raised informally during consultations and may impact on project implementation as it diverts from existing processes for integration of technical/non-technical delivery on projects.

5 A lot of the communities under the project are coastal communities with large fishing grounds. MoFi will be involved in in the development of alternative livelihoods to support the implementation of the LUP. Inland communities can also be interested in aquaculture (fish & prawn pounds). MoFi is undertaking various important R& D and monitoring work in fisheries across coastal communities; monitoring control & surveillance within inshore fisheries; freshwater aquaculture; and research on conservation of selected threatened and valuable species such as turtles, bumphead parrotfish, humphead wrasse and sea cucumbers. They are an important technical agency in supporting capacity building and livelihoods development for coastal communities covered by this project. It will ensure the adoption and sustainability of the project.They will support the enterprise development activities of the project.

5

Ministry of Industry and TradeIntegrated Human Resource Development Program

5 They can support the development of local enterprises through appropriate capacity need assessment as well as implementation of training and coaching. They will support the setup of enterprises/cooperative. They might provide seed funding.

5

Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management (MRMDNDM)

1. Divisional Commissioners

2. Provincial Administrators

3. District Administrators

The MRDNDM will benefit from shared lessons learned relating to conservation efforts/impact of natural disaster relief efforts particularly on socio=economic development at the community level; results throughout the project implementation period and evaluation. 

5 They will chair the Technical Working Group. All the Integrated LUP will be checked by them. Responsible for providing sustainable socio-economic development and coordination of preparedness and response to natural disasters in project areas through the provincial councils.

5

Ministry of Waterways and Environment (MoE)

They are the GEF project focal point are therefore are involved in all GEF funded projects.

5 They are the Chair of the Steering Committee. Environment Department is concerned with all activities related to environmental matters and will therefore have an interest at implementation level particularly on monitored 

3

131

results and biophysical assessments. The DoE is also the Government’s focal point for GEF. 

Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport(including Water and Energy agencies) MIT

No perceived direct impact although feedback from community consultations and monitoring of lessons learned may be of indirect significance to MIT work planning in affected areas.

4 Ministry responsible for supply of essential infrastructure (roads, water, energy) to people living and working in all project sites. Although not directly identified as a project partner, there is an indirect interest in any planned MIT construction/attention to roads in the project areas which will directly impact communities’ access to mataqali lands.

2

Ministry of Economy1. Climate Change 

division 2. Strategic Planning, 

National Development and Statistics (SPNDS) Including Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBOS)

The Fiji Climate Change Unit is responsible for delivering the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) and coordinating climate change programmes and projects in Fiji across sectoral boundaries. The NCCP is supported through other sectoral activities including development of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation + forest conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) mechanism led by the Department of Forestry, Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry. Underlying goals of the policy include promoting integration of climate change issues in national planning, budgeting and implementation processes and to guide sectors to develop appropriate climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. This requires an integrated approach to multi-sectoral, multi-level and inter-disciplinary approaches to achieve national development goals across natural resource sector interventions. In accordance with the goals of the Climate Change Policy the Climate change unit must ensure all sectors coordinate climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction efforts to enhance aid effectiveness and streamline implementation.

Data/lessons captured throughout project relating to enhancement of carbon stocks; implementation of awareness/outreach relating to climate adaptation and mitigation through programmes such as REDD+ would be of direct interest to the Climate Change Division.The project will support implementation of some of the components of the National Adaptation Plan

5 Has a direct interest and involvement in all projects, especially donor-funded projects, to assist Fiji both to mitigate and adapt to climate change.They will participate in the Technical Working Group and monitor the carbon impact of the activities, as part of Fiji contribution to the SDGs and the NDCs.SPNDS is chairing the Land Care group, with linkage with the project and monitor the implementation of the National Development Plan.SPND&S is mandated to ensure improved and better coordination of national development efforts, they are also responsible for the provision of key data at the national level which may be of relevance to socio-economic analysis.

5

iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB)

Direct impact as the project is to focus on mataqali owned land. Direct implications of development of 

5 Responsible for handling all ITaukei land. They are involved in LUP in all iTauki Land.They 

5

132

community owned lands in the project communities. have all the information of the mataqali land, lands, disputes etc.. They also do biophysical assessment 

CommunityVillage leaders

1. Turaga iTaukei

2. Turaga ni Koro

There is a direct benefit through project’s proposed impacts on livelihoods of all community beneficiaries as well as the impact on the sustainability of their natural resources. 

5 Interested and concerned about all developments in their respective villages and lands – all catchments. Turaga ni Koro will be instrumental in implanting the project and facilitating the reporting of community monitored indicators as the project proposes adapting quarterly turaga ni koro reports to include indicators. Both levels of leadership will be instrumental in facilitating community participation.

5

Resource owners Mataqali (land owning clan)

1.

There is a direct benefit through project’s proposed impacts on livelihoods of all community beneficiaries as well as the impact on the sustainability of their natural resources.

5 With few exceptions, such as mining, Mataqali determine the developments to be undertaken on their lands. They have been identified as the most important unit at the community level for the implementation of the project due to the implications of land tenure on access/decision making relating to project areas. 

5

Local people and associations(including Women, Youth, Faith-based and Village organizations)

There is a direct benefit through project’s proposed impacts on livelihoods of all community beneficiaries as well as the impact on the sustainability of their natural resources. There are specific impacts targeting women and youth at the output and activities level as they will be instrumental drivers of project implementation. Local people and associations stand to directly benefit from capacity building/awareness as well as opportunities to take part in project implementation.

4 Community stakeholder have been directly involved in project development throughout the PPG phase. They will continue to be directly involved in implementation and monitoring activities throughout the project. 

5

Farmers There is a direct benefit through project’s proposed impacts on livelihoods of all community beneficiaries as well as the impact on the sustainability of their natural resources. 

4 Without the strong involvement of farmers the project won’t succeed. 

5

NGOs and CSOBirdlife International Perceived direct positive impacts of sustainably 

managed natural resources on ecosystems in the area. 

2 In Fiji working with NFMV, and Departments of Forestry and Environment on ‘Delivering sustainable forest management for Fiji’s people and wildlife’ with aim to protect 26,000 ha of native forest. There is potential for Birdlife to support capacity building indirectly, and to SFM activities carried out under MoFo.

2

Conservation International (CI) CI stands to benefit from INRM in project areas which directly support their ongoing work in both Ra and 

2 Contribution of lessons learned and towards capacity building.

5

133

Tailevu provinces.Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA)and Locally Managed Marine Area or LMMA Network

FLMMA will benefit from updated information/biophysical survey data on project areas particularly coastal communities. 

2 Contribution of lessons learned and towards capacity building.

3

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

No direct impact however benefit from updated information/biophysical survey data on project areas.

2 No direct involvement in project although lessons learned from similar areas of work relating to NRM may contribute towards capacity building/awareness raising activities.

2

Live and Learn (L&L) No direct impact however benefit from updated information/biophysical survey data on project areas.

0 No direct involvement in project although lessons learned from similar areas of work relating to NRM may contribute towards capacity building/awareness raising activities. They work under the REDD+ scheme and secure a buyer for carbon trade.

2

National Council of Women Fiji (NCWF)

Soqosoqo Vakamarama iTaukei (SVT)

No direct impact however benefit from updated socio-economic data particularly on livelihoods/status of women.

1 No direct involvement 3

NatureFiji-MareqetiViti No direct impact however benefit from updated socio-economic/biophysical data particularly on livelihoods/status of women.

2 As Birdlife’s NGO partner in Fiji, there is potential to support capacity building indirectly, and to SFM activities carried out under DoF. 

3

Pacific Community (SPC)- Land Resources Division (LRD)

Project lessons learned and data capture will contribute to LRD knowledge in its Forestry/Landscapes pillar. LRD is interested to use knowledge from this project to inform their regional work in this area.

1 LRD experience from PLUPs may contribute to development of capacity building project As an identified co-financing partner, SPC may be requested to provide technical capacity if not resources.

3

CChange Knowledge dissemination platforms and proposed activities/outreach campaigns may benefit CChange in dissemination of their existing community focused nationally targeted awareness materials on conservation of natural resources. CChange also stands to benefit as a supplier for design materials relating to project driven outreach/awareness.

1 CChange has been identified as a design supplier for outreach/awareness materials given their experience working with community focused campaigns such as Wakatu and 4FJ. 

4

PHAMA PHAMA   benefits   from   community   focused partnership   in   Tailevu   and   Ra   to   support   market access   and   agri-business   opportunities   for community stakeholders.

2 Identified   as   a   co-financing   partner   around enterprise development/market access

5

Secretariat of the Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)

May benefit   from data gathered through biophysical surveying/monitoring   of   environmental   impacts particularly on biodiversity/ecosystems.

1 No direct involvement  2

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

May benefit   from data gathered through biophysical surveying/monitoring   of   environmental   impacts particularly on biodiversity/ecosystems.

1 No direct involvement 1

World Wide Fund for Nature  May benefit from data gathered through biophysical  1 No direct involvement 1

134

(WWF) surveying/monitoring of environmental impacts particularly on biodiversity/ecosystems.

Private sectorChambers of Commerce (including businesses in flood plain)

May benefit from updated socio-economic data from community level, development of MSMEs through strengthened community enterprise initiatives.

2 Support to community enterprise development 3

Forest Industry1. Fiji Pine Group of 

Companies2. Fiji Hardwood 

Corporation Limited3. Forest logging 

contractors4. Other – Fiji Pine 

Trust (FPT), Fiji Mahogany Trust (FMT), Future Forests, Pacific Reforestation (Fiji) Ltd (PRF)

Could benefit from improved mitigation of forest fires; implementation of SFM activities across project areas where forest industry exists.

3 Significant stakeholder group in supporting awareness as well as developing outreach on unplanned rural forest fires 

5

Agricultural Exporters/processor 

1. Rise Beyond the Reef

2. Foundation for Rural Integrated Enterprises & Development (FRIEND)

3. Agromarketing4. Eco-Tourism 

ventures – Nataleira Resort

Potentially benefit from improved NRM leading to improved production of horticulture/agroforestry/agri-based commodities/crops in the longterm

2 Key partners in agricultural processing and marketing initiatives to support market access/enterprise development across project communities.

3

MSME financing1. Fiji Development 

Bank2. Merchant Finance3. Commercial banks 

Coordinated presence through established networks at community level

2 Provide awareness/product training to support community access to finance to strengthen enterprise development

5

Education and Research InstitutionsThe University of South Pacific (USP)

1. Institute of Applied Science – IAS

Benefit from improved/updated biophysical data and lessons learned.

2 No direct involvement 3

Fiji National University (FNU) Potential for FNU to roll out community based training  4 Key partner identified for capacity building  3

135

also to have research/postgraduate fellows develop thesis in support of project monitoring/evaluation. 

(forestry, land management, food production)

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

Benefit from shared knowledge on improved/updated biophysical data and lessons learned.

1 Given ACIAR’s extensive work on soil science, horticulture and agricultural research; they have the potential to support capacity building and development of biophysical baseline

3

International Organizations, Donors/FinanciersUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Scaleable lessons learned in area of FLR and CBINRM

5 GEF partner 

5

Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Scaleable lessons learned in area of FLR and CBINRM

5 Project donor 5

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Benefit from shared knowledge on improved/updated biophysical data and lessons learned.

2 Provision of lessons learned and support to awareness/training particularly around Ridge to Reef concept 

3

Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI)

Benefit from shared knowledge on FLR and climate implications particularly if scaled out nationally.

1 Provision of lessons learned at the national level that may be adaptable at the community level in the context of climate change/rural economic development

1

European Commission (EU) - EuropeAid

Both IKSA and Reforest projects come to an end in the next year however, there are key lessons from this project that will benefit the EU Pro-Resilience project implementation under FAO

0 Potential areas of partnership on implementation with Pro-Resilience project. Lessons learned and technical support to capacity building from IKSA and Reforest Fiji projects under SPC.

3

GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit)

Benefit from shared knowledge on REDD+ initiatives in project areas

2 Support to REDD+ on implementing Fiji’s REDD+ policy, potential to contribute to co-financed activities under lessons learned/knowledge management through joint REDD+ initiatives

5 

Green Climate Fund (GCF) Information from PPG and project matrix of activities/outputs have direct correlation to GCF project under DoF

4 Potential for major source of co-financing (GCF project also in preparatory phase as of 2018)

5

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

No direct benefit other than shared knowledge on mangrove rehabilitation (potential synergies with Fish Aggregated Device project). Knowledge may be relevant to future project development in project areas. 

2 Sharing of lessons learned from Fish Aggregated Device project (under MIFF – DoFish)

2

136

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia (DFAT)

Benefit from partnered outcomes under PHAMA or ACIAR as they are DFAT funded programmes

1 Potential to support capacity building/biophysical studies and evaluation through shared knowledge/lessons learned

3

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Benefit from shared knowledge under the project 1 Potential for shared knowledge on climate change/disaster mitigation and lessons learned from projects in the area

2

137

ANNEX 12: The participatory land use planning guidelines Below are presented the main aspects of the participatory land use planning guidelines0 developed by the Land Resources Planning and Development Division of the Ministry of Agriculture.

BASIC STEPS IN PARTICIPATORY LAND USE PLANNING

STEP OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES1 PREPARATION a. Clarify objectives and

outputsb. Define area and boundary for land use planc. Identify participants and beneficiariesd. Develop workplan with stakeholders and involved agenciese. Assess existing planning methods

· Identify key stakeholders and secure their availability and commitment· Develop workplan with stakeholders, identifying activities, responsible agencies, resources needed (budget), and timeframe· Collect preliminary (existing) data and information about the general conditions of the area · Check and update the collected data· Assess existing planning approaches and knowledge on LUP· Organize the training on PRA and participatory GIS · Prepare resource materials for field work (digitized aerial photos, topography maps etc.)

2 SITUATIONAL & PROBLEM ANALYSIS

a. Identify existing local conditionsb. Document and report on survey and appraisal findingsc. Enable the local actors to Analyse their own situation

· Carry out field survey:– Data collection of the project area on natural/ecological, social and cultural, and economic conditions,– Assess the points of view of relevant actors· Analyse past and current land use systems· Determine existing social structures (traditional and non-traditional) and land tenure system· Carry out economic analysis at household level· PRA application and identification of best PRA tool· Analyse the policy framework and the local institutions concerned

d. Present and discuss the survey results

· Compile and digitise information and layout in a clear and simple format for presentation and easy understanding· Present findings to local community for discussion and verification

Problem Analysis

a. Identify problems, conflicts and potentialsb. Discuss opportunities and future solutions

· Identify problems (social, environmental, economical, development etc.), conflicts and potentials of the local community· Carry out a problem analysis - problem tree or matrix· Summarize the main problems (problem statements) · Raise awareness on environmental problems and economic needs.

3 ELABORATION OF THE PRESENT LAND USE MAPS

a. Villagers analyse their environment concerning present land use, land tenure, forests, soils and

· Carry out the participatory in-depth field survey to get detailed information · Integrate the data in a GIS and document the field findings

0 http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Media-Center/Press-Releases/PARTICIPATORY-LAND-USE-PLANNING-GUIDELINES-FOR-SUS.aspx

138

STEP OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIESwaterb. Map present land use with local community

· Develop thematic layers and maps· Present and discuss the maps at village and district level with concerned stakeholders· Add changes according to discussion

4 IDENTIFICATION OF OPPORTUNITIES & OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

a. Identify land use optionsb. Formulate the objectives of the land use plan

· Identify opportunities and potentials against for existing problems· Identify land use options· Present the opportunities and options against problem statements

PRINCIPLES OF LAND USE PLANNING IN FIJI When undertaking land use planning the following will be ensure and/or observed: 1. Promote Integration – involvement of all sectors and disciplines. From the initial preparation and planning to implementation to monitoring, a team from the concerned sectors are to be involved. Put in place a system to facilitate collaboration between the different agencies. 2. Promote the active participation of local communities – the PLUP approach will encourage resource owners to be actively involved in all phases of planning. Though local communities are seen to be “participating” in land use planning processes, this form of participation is normally in the form of imparting information only. Local communities are often not involved in the actual processing of this information and decision-making on land use allocation. Decision-making on land use is often seen as a “technical” procedure, drawing from largely technical data such as soil type, topography, vegetation cover etc. However the PLUP approach will draw from technical, social, and traditional knowledge for the identification of the most viable land use option. This identification will be carried out with resource owners. The participatory process will develop capacities of resources owners to enable them make informed decisions on the future utilisation of their natural resources. 3. Be ecosystem conscious – the planning approach will promote an ecosystem-management mentality. Throughout the entire land use planning process, there will be consideration for the whole watershed/ or ecosystem. When identifying land use options, its impact on the watershed/ecosystem as a whole and not only on that planning will be taken into account. Examples of this include the off-site effects of agricultural clearing away from the targeted area, the impact of tree removal on the entire forest ecosystem, etc. 4. Be supported by institutional frameworks at all levels – to ensure inter-sectoral support, an established National Body (e.g. Land Conservation Board via the LandCare Committee) will be mandated with supporting land use planning initiatives. This is to promote coordination and facilitate the mobilisation of resources from the different government agencies. A coordinated approach is also important to iron out any conflicting message or contradictory priorities between sectors. Community committees will also be supported and strengthened to facilitate the development, implementation, and local monitoring of their land use plans. 5. Be supported by an effective and reliable information management system – through supportive institutional structures and formal agreements between agencies, all types of data and information on a targeted area should be readily available and accessible to the land use planning team. This information and data could come from non-governmental organisations working in resource management and rural development, government agencies, and other sectors. This should help avoid duplication of surveys and information gathering, and also serve as good baseline information for incoming activities. NGO’s carry out substantial work in their areas of work and valuable information and data is collected in the process. Formal agreements will need to be in place to encourage information sharing and exchange. 6. Promote Community-Based Adaptive Management - the PLUP approach will encourage capacity development of communities to identify and effectively respond to factors (both internal and external) that affect land use or resource management regimes. Resource owners and community facilitators will be in a position to modify their land use plan without compromising sustainability when countering the changes in a given situation.

139

7. Be supported by relevant national plans, polices, and legislations – land use planning is cross-cutting amongst all land-related policies such as the National Rural Land Use Policy (umbrella policy for all land-related policies) , the National Forest Policy, the Environment Management Act, etc. All concerned policies and stated legislations and regulations will be considered in the development of land use plans and will support its implementation. 8. Be supported to meet international commitments – the development of land use plans to ensure the sustainable utilisation of land resources contributes towards meeting the objectives of the 3 Rio conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification. There is national interest in supporting participatory land use planning in terms of meeting international obligations. 9. Schedule of land use values is to be guided by land capability guidelines to determine rental assessments and new lease considerations (currently guided by unimproved capital value – as mandated under ALTA) 10. Gender considerations 11. Ensure transparency and open information sharing amongst all agencies 12. Capacity building of land use planning teams and institutions 13. Support the development of skilled land use planners from local communities (to be part of the land use planning team)

BASIC INFORMATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPILE A “LAND INVENTORY MAP”

To promote the need for a land use planning and sustainable agricultural developments, a biophysical survey is conducted whereby land use capability classification is used to assist land users in making informed decision on farm planning. The survey will enable land users to conduct conservation measures based on land used capability classes. In the land use capability classification system, there is a systematic arrangement of different kinds of land according to properties that determine its capacity for sustained production. This classification is to assess, classify and map land according to its capability to support a range of crops on a sustainable basis. The evaluation is based on the degree of limitation imposed on the land by a variety of physical factors which include erosion, soils, wetness and climate. Land is also evaluated on the basis of variety of potential crops, productivity, and ease of management and risk of degradation. The classification provides for three categories of grouping of the land inventory units, all of which are decided objectively, but which are based on physical qualities of a soil and its particular site. The Fiji classification system comprises eight classes ranked in order of increasing degree of limitation in relation to agricultural use, and decreasing order of agricultural versatility. Class 1 is considered the best land for agriculture because of little or no limitation whereas Class 8 is not considered for agricultural use because of severe limitations the land have. As a basis for land use capability assessment an inventory is made of the facts about the land. The following basic information is required in order to compile a “Land Inventory Map”:- 1. Soils 2. Relief3. Erosion4. Vegetation 5. Land Use6. Climate Soils

140

The soil classification of soil in measured in the adaptation in the field to the scale of the land inventory map (1:50,000 or 63 chains to 1 inch). The main soils are described in the Soil Taxonomic Unit Description sheets where 227 soil series are identified and mapped for Fiji. In some areas of Fiji, there are some areas that would need a more detailed soil maps or where it is more applicable to use (e.g. Navua flats by Hunting Techanical Services Ltd -1969 etc.) In areas where no soil exists e.g. bare rock surfaces or extremely bouldery areas, if mappable, the symbol B. R. (for Bare Rock) is used in the place of the soil unit, similarly, if not mappable but significant, B. R. or R. O. (for rock outcrop) is placed either before or after the soil type symbol depending on which of the two is more dominant. Relief This is expressed as slope in degrees and is measured with a slope meter. Slope is recorded in accordance in the slope grouping given under the “Limitation standards for LUC classes”. The “C” slope group is subdivided into C- and C+ so as to suit the LUC classification. However, the minus and plus signs may also be used in other groups for the purpose of indicating which end of the group the slope is. A slope which is on the borderline between two groups can be shown as B/C or D/E, etc., placing the more dominant group first. Similarly compound slopes can be expressed as B + F or D + E etc., where B or D slopes are more dominant than F or E slopes. Double symbols should be used only where the less dominant slope group is almost equal in significance to the dominant group. Erosion Erosion that are intensified by action men, is known as accelerated erosion.The degree of erosion can be represented by (a) percentage of bare ground exposed to erosion, or (b), severity or seriousness of types such as gully and a stream bank erosion, or mass movements. Vegetation Vegetation is recorded in five main groups – cropland, grassland or pasture, weedland, scrubland, and forest land. The different sizes of letter used signifies the vegetation cover, if a capital letter is used, there is 40% cover but if a small letter is used then it covers less than 40%, but if there is any combination of the above symbols it will used in descending order of dominance (e.g. C1 + C2b + o2c = about 50% of cane, 45% rainfed rice and 5% dryland rice). If there is an association of vegetation in a given area, it will be labelled accordingly and small letters will indicate the different species “e.g. Pla, ‘P’ stands for pasture/grassland, ‘I’ for established pasture and ‘a’ for paragrass. In the case if there is a complex vegetation pattern, recording SHOULD only be limited to 3 more dominant types. Land Use This is recorded in terms of crops grown, using the same method of recording as vegetation types. Depending on local requirements, additional notes may be made on the history of land use, past and present management systems, water supply, fencing, stock carrying capacity, access, etc. Climate Rainfall and temperature are the two main important factors that NEEDs to be recorded accurately. Additional notes may be made on humidity, sunshine, rainfall intensity, etc. in as far as they affect land use and flooding. The rainfall map of the Fiji Meteorological Services should be used as a general guide in determining the rainfall groups of an area. A 5 region rainfall grouping is based on the average annual rainfall over the past 20 years. Current trends and other detailed information can be obtained from local Met. Stations. THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Land use capability classification is used to determine the soil suitability for production. The capacity for soil to produce and be sustainable, the physical qualities of the soil is measured and the effect of the environment. There are limitations that affect productivity, and these are measured so corrective practices

141

could be implemented and to also measure the intensity of land use. The degree of limitation can be measured from: a) susceptibility to erosion, b) steepness of slope, c) liability to flooding, wetness, or to drought, d) salinity, e) depth of soil, f) soil texture, structure, and fertility, g) stoniness, and h) climate. The basis of the assessment an inventory is made on the facts about the land, and the information is recorded on the “Land Inventory Map” on which distinct “inventory units” are shown. The information on this map is combined with other information on climate, land use, results of research, and farming experiences to assess the capacity of the land for permanent sustained production. CATEGORIES OF THE CLASSIFICATION The classification provides for three categories that are based on the physical qualities of a soil and its particular site. The three categories are; (a) major class, (b) subclass, and (c) capability unit. Description of the major class The first grouping is into eight major classes. Class 1 – 1V comprise land suitable for arable cultivation; land in classes V – VII is not suitable for arable cultivation but suitable for pastoral or forestry use; and class VIII is land suitable only for protective purposes. The four arable and four non-arable classes are arranged in the order of increasing degree of limitation or hazard to use, from class 1 to class VIII. Correspondingly the range of uses to which the land may be put decreases from class 1 to class VII, with class VIII having land least suitable for productive use. The major class gives information about the general limitations of the land only (i.e. total degree of limitation); it shows only the location, amount and general suitability of the land for agricultural, pastoral or forestry use. Each major class may include many different kinds of land units or soils, and many of the units within a class may require different management treatments. Thus it is difficult to make valid generalisations at the major class level about suitable kinds of crops or other management needs. Description of the subclass The second category, the subclass, provides for a grouping of units within the major class that have the same kind of limitation or hazard. The four general kinds of limitation recognised are: E - Erodibility W - Wetness S - Soil limitation within the rooting zone. C – Climate These are the subclasses and they may be used in two ways – either as broad divisions of the major classes at a more general level of classification for land use, or as groupings of the units for detailed classifications. Subclass E: Erodibility, where erosion susceptibility, past erosion damage, or steepness of slope are the main limitations to use. This subclass is present in all major classes except class 1 which is of flat land with soils of good structural stability. Subclass W: Wetness, where the main limitations to use are due to soils of poor drainage or a high water table, or to damaging flooding from rivers or coastal waters, or to areas of deep peat, or larger mangrove swamps.

142

The subclass apply in all major classes except class V. Wetness due to poor drainage or high water table apply only in classes 1-IV; on damaging flooding the wetness limitations occur in classes 1IV and in VI; and on peat and mangrove, the limitations are found only in classes VI and VIII. Subclass S: Soil limitations within the rooting zone of plants. These are limitations on shallowness, stoniness, low fertility which is difficult to correct, salinity, toxicity, low moisture holding capacity, unfavourable soil texture and structure, and peaty soils or shallow peat. This subclass is the only one that occurs in all the major classes. Subclass C: Climatic limitations, where the climate (rainfall, temperature, wind, humidity and sunshine) is the major hazard in the use of the land. The subclass is used only where a less than ideal climate is the only limitation to the use of the land, or where a climatic factor (e.g. too much or too little rain, or extreme temperature) is the dominant limitation to land use. This subclass is present only in major classes 1-VI. It does not occur in VII and VIII.

143

ANNEX 13: EXACT METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF CARBON BENEFITS QUANTIFICATION

The project will work in 2 Provinces and 3 Districts: Namena et Dawasamu in Tailevu and Nokorotubu in Ra.

The project will be supporting the 3 Districts to develop Land Use Plans incorporating Integrated Natural Resource Management covering 47,179 ha.

Within these Districts, the project will support the development of Community Based INRM plans over 18,799 ha.

As part of the direct support of the project, it is estimated that the project through direct support, 2,100 ha of land can be restored/ under improved management:

500 ha under climate smart agriculture technologies, 450 ha under Sustainable Forest Management/ Restoration 250 ha of forest plantation/ Restoration, 50 ha of mangrove replanting, 550 ha under agroforestry, 300 ha under improved rangeland management: grassland systems improving without inputs which

are currently moderately degraded and will become severely degraded without the project.

The carbon benefits from the project are estimated in terms of lifetime direct as well as consequential GHG emissions avoided over the default time horizon of 20 years under the IPCC guideline and the guidance of the GEF Core Indicators. For this project, the durations of implementation phase and the capitalization phase are defined as 4 years and 16 years, respectively. The carbon benefits are calculated using EX-Ante Carbon Balance Tool (EX-ACT).

Direct lifetime GHG emission avoided

In the GEF Core Indicators for Climate Change Mitigation projects, direct lifetime GHG emissions avoided are the emissions reductions attributable to the investments made during the project's supervised implementation period, totalled over the respective lifetime of the investments. The EX-ACT results file is available separately.

The estimated values of direct lifetime GHG emission avoided during 20 years (4 years of implementation phase and 16 years of capitalization phase) are estimated as 328,225 tCO2eq, which is equivalent to about 7.8 tCO2eq per hectare per year in the considered biome and time frame.

Table below provides the details of the direct lifetime GHG fluxes as calculated with the EX-ACT during 20 years of project lifetime:

Project Name 0 Climate Tropical (Dry) Duration of the Project (Years) 20Continent Oceania Dominant Regional Soil Type Volcanic Soils Total area (ha) 2100

Gross fluxes Share per GHG of the Balance Result per yearWithout With Balance All GHG in tCO2eq Without With BalanceAll GHG in tCO2eq CO2 N2O CH4Positive = source / negative = sink Biomass Soil Other

Land use changes CO2-BiomassCO2-Soil CO2-OtherN2O CH4

Deforestation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Afforestation 0 -133,464 -133,464 -105,573 -27,892 0 0 0 -6,673 -6,673

Other LUC 0 -31,662 -31,662 6,453 -38,115 0 0 0 -1,583 -1,583Agriculture

Annual 2,412 -2,249 -4,661 0 -2,970 -33 -1,658 121 -112 -233Perennial 0 -66,792 -66,792 -63,525 -3,267 0 0 0 -3,340 -3,340

Rice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grassland & Livestocks

Grassland 12,870 -9,900 -22,770 0 -22,770 0 0 644 -495 -1,139Livestocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Degradation & Management 34,438 -34,438 -68,876 -54,026 -14,850 0 0 1,722 -1,722 -3,444Coastal wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Inputs & Investments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fishery & Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 49,720 -278,505 -328,225 -216,670 -109,864 0 -33 -1,658 2,486 -13,925 -16,411

Per hectare 24 -133 -156 -103.2 -52.3 0.0 0.0 -0.8

Per hectare per year 1.2 -6.6 -7.8 -5.2 -2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 -6.6 -7.8

Components of the project

144

Consequential (indirect) lifetime GHG emission avoided

According to the Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting and Reporting for GEF Projects (GEF/C.48/Inf.09, 7 May 2015), indirect emissions reductions have been re-defined as “consequential emissions”. Consequential GHG emission reductions are those projected emissions that could result from a broader adoption of the outcomes of a GEF project plus longer-term emission reductions from behaviouralbehavioral changes. Broader adoption of a GEF project proceeds through several processes including sustaining, mainstreaming, replication, scaling-up and market change. Based on the initial consultations and assessments, the consequential potential is assumed to improve half of the area covered by the CBIRNM plans (i.e.ie 18,799 ha). Taking out the 2,100 hectares already included under the direct calculation above and taking into consideration the land capacity. It is expected that the indirect effect of the project would cover 7,376 ha divided in:

850 ha under climate smart agriculture technologies, 550 ha under Sustainable Forest Management/ Restoration 2,547 ha of forest plantation/ Restoration, 1,450 ha of agroforestry, 1,979 ha under improved rangeland management: grassland systems improving without inputs which

are currently moderately degraded and risk to become severely degraded

The consequential GHG emission mitigation potential after the end of the project is estimated as 1,756,286 tCO2eq in the considered biome and time frame.

Project Name 0 Climate Tropical (Dry) Duration of the Project (Years) 20Continent Oceania Dominant Regional Soil Type Volcanic Soils Total area (ha) 7376

Gross fluxes Share per GHG of the Balance Result per yearWithout With Balance All GHG in tCO2eq Without With BalanceAll GHG in tCO2eq CO2 N2O CH4Positive = source / negative = sink Biomass Soil Other

Land use changes CO2-BiomassCO2-Soil CO2-OtherN2O CH4

Deforestation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Afforestation 0 -1,254,414 -1,254,414 -972,844 -281,571 0 0 0 -62,721 -62,721

Other LUC 0 -83,472 -83,472 17,013 -100,485 0 0 0 -4,174 -4,174Agriculture

Annual 4,100 -3,824 -7,924 0 -5,049 -56 -2,819 205 -191 -396Perennial 0 -176,088 -176,088 -167,475 -8,613 0 0 0 -8,804 -8,804

Rice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grassland & Livestocks

Grassland 84,899 -65,307 -150,206 0 -150,206 0 0 4,245 -3,265 -7,510Livestocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Degradation & Management 42,091 -42,091 -84,182 -66,032 -18,150 0 0 2,105 -2,105 -4,209Coastal wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Inputs & Investments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fishery & Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 131,090 -1,625,196 -1,756,286 -1,189,337 -564,074 0 -56 -2,819 6,555 -81,260 -87,814

Per hectare 18 -220 -238 -161.2 -76.5 0.0 0.0 -0.4

Per hectare per year 0.9 -11.0 -11.9 -8.1 -3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 -11.0 -11.9

Components of the project

145

ANNEX 14: The Mataqali with over 400 ha in the 3 selected Districts

District Name of the Village with Mataqali > 400h Names of Mataqali

Namena`

Dranu Narogoivalu

NadranuNaqeledinaNarayaga

Delaikuku NarayagaNaburenivalu WairikiNananu Wairiki

Dawasamu

Natadradave Rara

DelakadoRaraWaiduaDakuitova

NaitaleiraRaraVunivaluDakuitova

Driti

RatuNaboroNamaralevuWailevu

Silana Rokacikaci

NasinuBureqeleNalota

Nakorotubu

Soa Namolibale

DogoloaNabavatuCorikaWaibasaga

DelaiyaduaNabavatuCorikaWaibasaga

VerevereNabavatuCorika

Naocobau Naivuru

146

ANNEX 15. Analysis of fiduciary risk and mitigation measures

Risks identified Risk mitigation measures and agreed corrective actions0 Date0

FAO staff members responsible for

follow-up

Bank Reconciliations are prepared by individuals who approve payments

Bank reconciliations to be delegated to a finance assistant (non- bank signatory) and then reviewed/ approved by the senior accounts officer and/or permanent secretary.

1. Review Bank Reconciliation Standard Operating Procedures – (Review every year, from April, 2019).

2. Responsibility reflected in Job Description (JD) and Individual Work Plans (IWP) of designated officers – (Review every year – from July 2019).

3. Implementation and monitoring of compliance to changes - (Monthly).

Sub-regional Coordinator for the Pacific (SAP SRC) /

Budget Holder (BH)

SAP GEF Programme Officer

SAP GEF Operations Officer

Reconciliation of petty cash performed is not documented or reviewed

Petty cash counts and reconciliations to be documented on a pro-forma template which should include fields showing the date of the count; the name of the cashier; the name of the individual who performed the count (who should be separate from the cashier who has day to day responsibility for managing these

1. Assess current “Petty Cash ” procedures and their alignment to Financial Instructions; - (Daily / Monthly) – replenishment depends on the availability of funds.

2. Petty Cash SOP awareness for Accounts staff carried out [including documentation process] – Quarterly in line with the Ministry’s Training

SAP SRC / BH

SAP GEF Programme Officer

SAP GEF Operations Officer

0 Based on the recommendations made in the Micro-assessment Report0 Inputs and schedule / dates provided by the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (MTA)

147

Project title and Logo: Community-based Integrated Natural Resource Management, GCP /FIJ/007/GFF

Operational Partner’s name: Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (Fiji)Type of Operational Partner: Government MinistryOverall risk classification assigned: Low

funds); the balance; the expected balance from the cashbook; and any unreconciled amounts requiring further investigation.

Plan (In – House Training).3. Job Description and Individual Work Plan of the

designated officer responsible for the task i.e. Petty Cash – Review every year, from July 2019.

4. Ad hoc Spot Checks carried out monthly.

No specific anti-fraud and corruption policy

The Ministry launched its Anti- Corruption Policy document on 27 November 2018 and had undertaken a pre- awareness session on the document. Further dissemination on the management and implementation of this policy will be conducted.

1. Awareness on the Anti-Corruption Policy carried out for all MTA staff; - Quarterly in line with the Training Plan (In – House Training).

2. Further awareness carried out on Gift Register for Staff to ensure compliance; - (Quarterly awareness to MTA Staffs in line with the MTA Training Plan).

SAP SRC / BH

SAP GEF Programme Officer

SAP GEF Operations Officer

Physical verification of fixed assets is only performed once per year

Physical asset counts to be performed more frequently (at least every quarter) to ensure there are no impairments and that depreciation is accurately calculated.This will also allow for any loss, damage or misappropriation of assets to be detected and investigated at an earlier stage, increasing the likelihood of a successful resolution.

1. The Ministry will review its Standard Operation Procedures; for verification for fixed assets be performed quarterly to ensure that there are no impairments.

2. There are also proactive measures such as:- (i) for a vehicles; the Driver is responsible for

checking the vehicle daily; and in accordance to government procedures on average, every two months, the vehicle is taken to ASCO Motors [a Toyota Workshop provider] for thorough checks on the vehicle. – [Daily checks / Depends on its utilization (Mileage) for servicing].

(ii) An officer is designated to attend to any issue related to building etc. under their Individual Work Plan [Review every year, from July 2019].

SAP SRC / BH

SAP GEF Programme Officer

SAP GEF Operations Officer

No Insurance on fixed assets other than motor vehicles

The Micro-assessment report recommends comprehensive insurance cover for all fixed assets purchased. This would help protect the Ministry against any damage or loss of

1. The Ministry to define Fixed Assets [May, 2019].

2. Identify all fixed assets within the Ministry [July 2019].

SAP SRC / BH

SAP GEF Programme Officer

148

physical assets and reduce the risk that could result to their operations / programme delivery.

In response, the Ministry noted that “at this juncture government has yet to determine a stand on insurance with regards to fixed asset, however this does not include vehicle insurance.”

3. The Ministry to determine what items to be insured [August 2019].

4. Stock take of identified items in 3 (see above), for valuation and depreciation calculation of the asset [January 2020].

5. The Ministry to make a submission to Ministry of Economy for a review on the current fixed asset insurance stance [March 2020].

SAP GEF Operations Officer

The Fixed Asset Register is only reconciled to the accounting system once per year

The finance team to reconcile the accounting/control accounts and the fixed asset register on a more regular basis (at least monthly perhaps as a part of month end procedures) to reduce the risk that the accounting records are inaccurate and to allow for timely follow-up on any discrepancies.

1. The SOP for Reconciliation of the accounting control accounts and fixed asset register to be done monthly. – [Monthly Reconciliation].

2. Each Division to maintain ledgers to monitor spending [Monthly update].

3. An officer to be designated within Divisions, and this responsibility be inserted in their Job Descriptions and Individuals Work Plan – [Review every year, from July 2019].

SAP SRC / BH

SAP GEF Programme Officer

SAP GEF Operations Officer

149

ANNEX 16: Financial management

Financial management in relation to the GEF resources directly managed by FAO will be carried out in accordance with FAO’s rules and procedures as outlined below. The OP is accountable to FAO for achieving the agreed project results and for the effective use of resources made available by FAO. Financial management and reporting for the funds transferred to the OP will be done by the OP in accordance with terms, conditions, formats and requirements of FAO and the provisions of the signed Operational Partners Agreement (OPA). The administration by the OP of the funds received from FAO shall be carried out under its own financial regulations, rules and procedures, which shall provide adequate controls to ensure that the funds received, are properly administered and expended. The Operational Partner shall maintain the account in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards.

Financial Records. FAO shall maintain a separate account in United States dollars for the project’s GEF resources showing all income and expenditures. FAO shall administer the project in accordance with its regulations, rules and directives. The OP shall maintain books and records that are accurate, complete and up-to-date. The OP’s books and records will clearly identify all Fund Transfers received by the OP as well as disbursements made by the OP under the OPA, including the amount of any unspent funds and interest accrued.

Financial Reports. The BH shall prepare quarterly project expenditure accounts and final accounts for the project, showing amount budgeted for the year, amount expended since the beginning of the year, and separately, the un-liquidated obligations as follows:

i) Details of project expenditures on outcome-by-outcome basis, reported in line with Project Budget (Appendix 3 of this Project document), as at 30 June and 31 December each year;

ii) iFinal accounts on completion of the Project on a component-by-component and outcome-by-outcome basis, reported in line with the Project Budget (Appendix 3 of this Project Document);

iii) A final statement of account in line with FAO Oracle Project budget codes, reflecting actual final expenditures under the Project, when all obligations have been liquidated.

The OP will prepare the financial reports in accordance with terms, conditions, formats and requirements of FAO and the provisions of the signed OPA. The BH will review and approve request for funds and financial reports of the OP. The subsequent instalments can be released only based on the BH confirmation that all expenditures are eligible and all OPA requirements are fulfilled to the satisfaction of FAO. The BH will withhold any payment due to the OP in case of non-compliance with the reporting obligations detailed in the OPA.

Financial reports for submission to the donor (GEF) will include both FAO- and OP-managed resources, will be prepared in accordance with the provisions in the GEF Financial Procedures Agreement and submitted by the FAO Finance Division.

Responsibility for Cost Overruns. As regards resources directly managed by FAO, the BH shall utilize the GEF project funds in strict compliance with the Project Budget (Appendix 3) and the approved AWP/Bs. The BH can make variations provided that the total allocated for each budgeted project component is not exceeded and the reallocation of funds does not impact the achievement of any project output as per the project Results Framework (Appendix 1). At least once a year, the BH will submit a budget revision for approval of the LTO and the FAO/GEF Coordination Unit through FPMIS. Cost overruns shall be the sole responsibility of the BH.

150

As regards resources managed by the OP, the OP shall utilize the funds received from FAO in strict compliance with provisions of the signed OPA and its Annexes, including approved work plan and budget. The OP can make variations not exceeding 10 percent on any budget heading. Any variations above 10 percent on any budget heading that may be necessary will be subject to prior consultations with and approval by FAO.

Under no circumstances can expenditures exceed the approved total project budget or be approved beyond the NTE date of the OPA and/or the project. Any over-expenditure is the responsibility of the BH.

Audit. The project shall be subject to the internal and external auditing procedures provided for in FAO financial regulations, rules and directives and in keeping with the Financial Procedures Agreement between the GEF Trustee and FAO.

The audit regime at FAO consists of an external audit provided by the Auditor-General (or persons exercising an equivalent function) of a member nation appointed by the Governing Bodies of the Organization and reporting directly to them, and an internal audit function headed by the FAO Inspector-General who reports directly to the Director-General. This function operates as an integral part of the Organization under policies established by senior management, and furthermore has a reporting line to the governing bodies. Both functions are required under the Basic Texts of FAO which establish a framework for the terms of reference of each. Internal audits of imprest accounts, records, bank reconciliation and asset verification take place at FAO field and liaison offices on a cyclical basis. Specific provision for auditing the OP managed funds are included in the signed Operational Partners Agreement (OPA). During implementation, assurance activities are organized by FAO to determine whether the progress has been made and whether funds transferred to Operational Partners were used for their intended purpose, in accordance with the work plan and relevant rules and regulations. This may include, but is not limited to, monitoring missions, spot checks, quarterly progress and annual implementation reviews, and audits on the resources received from FAO.

Procurement. Careful procurement planning is necessary for securing goods, services and works in a timely manner, on a “Best Value for Money” basis. It requires analysis of needs and constraints, including forecast of the reasonable timeframe required to execute the procurement process.

Procurement will follow OP rules and regulations for the procurement of supplies, equipment and services. The OP will draw up a procurement plan as part of the supporting documentation to each request for funds submitted to FAO. The plan will include a description of the goods, works, or services to be procured, estimated budget and source of funding, schedule of procurement activities and proposed method of procurement. In situations where exact information is not yet available, the procurement plan should at least contain reasonable projections that will be corrected as information becomes available.

The procurement plan shall be updated every quarter and submitted to FAO BH and LTO for clearance.

151

152