Project Title: Sustainable Land Management for Improved ... · The mountains are 1,000 to about 4,000 meters high. The annual precipitation in this zone goes, as high as 1000 mm and

Project Title: Sustainable Land Management for Improved Livelihoods in Degraded Areas of Iraq

FAO Project symbol: 637880

GEF Project ID: 9745

Recipient Country(ies): Iraq

Executing partners: Ministry of Health and Environment

Expected EOD (Starting Date): January 15, 2019

Expected NTE (End Date): January 15, 2023

Contribution to FAO’s

Strategic Framework:

SO2: Making agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable.

SO3: Reducing rural poverty.

SO5: Increase the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises.

Country Programming Framework Priority Areas: (B) Building up the investment projects

portfolio for agricultural development; (C)Technical assistance, normative work and guidance on

subsector and cross cutting themes and issues.

Regional (NENA) Priority Areas: Water scarcity initiative; Small-scale family farming initiative;

Building resilience for food security and nutrition initiative

Contribution to GEF TF Focal

Area Strategic Objectives and

Programs:

Land Degradation LD-1 Program 1: Maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem

services to sustain food production and livelihoods

Environmental and Social Risk

Classification

low risk x moderate risk high risk

Gender Marker1 G0 x G1 G2a G2b

Financing Plan:

GEF/TF allocation:

LD1 Program 1: USD 3,549,321

Co-financing:

Ministry of Health and Environment (in-kind): USD 5,000,000

Ministry of Agriculture (in-kind): USD 5,000,000

Ministry of Water Resources (in-kind): USD 5,000,000

Local Governments (in-kind): USD 2,500,000

USAID and Coca-Cola (WADA) (Grant): USD 1,200,000

FAO (Grant): USD 2,500,000

Sub-total co-financing:

USD 21,200,000

Total budget: USD 24,749,321

Executive Summary

The project objective is to reverse land degradation processes, conserve and sustainably manage land and water resources

in degraded marshland ecosystems in Southern Iraq for greater access to services from resilient ecosystems and improved

livelihoods.

1 See Guidance Note on ‘Gender Mainstreaming in project identification and formulation’.

The Government of Iraq along with agricultural producers currently struggle to address the challenges of land degradation.

The nation has limited capacity to identify, program, and incentivize the uptake of SLM practices. This is particularly

critical in areas associated with the globally significant southern marshlands which are severely threatened by

unsustainable agriculture and livestock production.

This project is designed to assist the Government of Iraq to remove these barriers and to successfully address land

degradation threats. The project is built around four integrated components. The first will set in place national level

capacities to strategically assess land degradation threats, support the implementation of globally proven best SLM

practices, and monitor progress to inform government and producer decision-making. The second component will

establish a program to support producers to adopt SLM practices through FFS approaches. The third component will focus

upon the promotion of SLM practices within wetlands through an innovative, wetlands targeted FFS model. The fourth

component will ensure that project advances are being made and that best practices are captured for regional and

international upscale.

By project closure, the Government of Iraq and associated stakeholders will have a fully functioning SLM program

integrating best international principles and practices adapted to Iraq’s unique social and environmental setting. This

program will be supported by capacities national and local decision-makers. Extension workers and producers will be

benefiting from on-going training and innovation through the application of globally proven SLM practices facilitated by

an established FFS program.

The project will directly result in significant global environmental benefits. At least 10,000 hectares of productive

landscape under SLM, maintaining globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides

to society. This includes at least 6,000 hectares of degraded agricultural lands restored and 4,000 hectares of wetlands

restored. It is anticipated that more than 2,500 smallholders (1,250 men/ 1,250 women) will directly benefit from the GEF

investment.

ACRONYMS

ABRC ...................... Agricultural and Biological Research Centre

AWP/B ............... Annual Work Plan and Budget

BCM ....................... Billion Cubic Meters BH ...................... Budget Holder

BOD ........................ Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CA ...................... Conservation Agriculture

CAD .................... Conservation Agriculture Directorate

CBD ........................ Convention on Biological Diversity CC ....................... Climate Change

CCM ................... Climate Change Mitigation

CE ....................... Capacity Enhancement

CFSVA .................... Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis

ComDev ................ Communication for Development CPF ......................... Country Programme Framework CSO .................... Civil Society Organization

DST .................... Decision-Support Tool

FAO ................... UN Food and Agriculture Organization

FAO-CO .................. FAO Country Office

FEW ....................... Field Extension Worker FFF ..................... Farmer Field Facility

FFS........................... Farmer Field School FFS ..................... Farmer Field School

FLO .......................... Funding Liaison Officer FLO .................... Funding Liaison Officer

FPIC .................... Free Prior and Informed Consent

FPMIS ..................... Field Programme Management Information System GCT .......................... Governorate Coordination Team GDP ......................... Gross Domestic Product GEB .................... Global Environmental Benefit

GEF .................... Global Environment Facility

GETF ....................... Global Environment Technology Foundation GIS ........................... Geographical Information Systems GNI .......................... Gross National Income GoI ........................... Government of Iraq GPCC ....................... Global Precipitation Climatology Centre Ha ............................ Hectares HQ ...................... Headquarters

ICARDA ................. International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas IDP ........................... Internally Displaced Peoples IEO ........................... Independent Evaluation Office IFAD ........................ International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD ................... International Fund for Agricultural Development

ILO ........................... International Labour Organisation IPARC ..................... Institute of Agricultural Research IUCN .................. International Union for Conservation of Nature

LADA ...................... Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands project

LD ...................... Land Degradation

LMP .................... Landscape Management Plan

LSMS .................. Living Standards Measurement Survey

LTO .................... Lead Technical Officer

MDG ................... Millennium Development Goal

MENA ..................... Middle East and North Africa MFI .......................... Microfinance Institutions MoA ......................... Ministry of Agriculture MoHE ..................... Ministry of Health and Environment MoWR .................... Ministry of Water Resources MRV ................... Measuring, Reporting and Verification

NBSAP .................... National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NDC .................... Nationally Determined Contributions

NGO .................. Non-Governmental Organization

NP ....................... National Park

NPSC .................. National Project Steering Committee

NRM ................... Natural Resource Management

PIA ...................... Project Implementing Agency

PIR ...................... Project Implementation Review

PIU ...................... Project Implementation Unit

PMU ................... Project Management Unit

PPR P .................. Project Progress Report

SARP ....................... Smallholder Agriculture Revitalisation Project SDG .................... Sustainable Development Goals

SFM .................... Sustainable Forest Management

SLM .................... Sustainable Land Management

SLMILDA ............... Sustainable Land Management for Improved Livelihoods in Degraded Areas of Iraq

SPC .......................... Social Protection Commission

UNDP ................. United Nations Development Programme

UNEP .................. United Nations Environment Programme

USAID ..................... United States Agency for International Development

USD .................... United States Dollar

WADA .................... Water and Development Alliance WASH ..................... Water Health and Sanitation WFP ........................ World Food Programme WHO ....................... World Health Organization

WOCAT .................. World Overview on Conservation Approaches and Technologies ZT ............................. Zero Tillage

Table of Contents

Section 1: Project Rationale

1.1 Context.........................................................................................................................................................................

1.2 The Current Situation

1.2.1 Threats .............................................................................................................................................................

1.2.2 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................

1.2.3 Barriers ............................................................................................................................................................

1.3. The GEF Alternative

1.3.1 Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................................

1.3.2 Project Framework ...........................................................................................................................................

1.3.3 Project Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................

1.3.4 Stakeholder consultation and engagement .......................................................................................................

1.4 Lessons Learned ..........................................................................................................................................................

1.5 Alignment and strategic fit ...........................................................................................................................................

1.5.1 Alignment with national development goals and policies ...................................................................................

1.5.2 Alignment with GEF focal areas .........................................................................................................................

1.5.3 Alignment with FAO Country Programming Framework and FAO Strategic Framework .................................

Section 2: Innovativeness, Potential for Scaling Up and Sustainability

2.1 Innovativeness ............................................................................................................................................................

2.2 Potential for Scaling Up ..............................................................................................................................................

2.3 Sustainability ..............................................................................................................................................................

2.4 Gender Equality ...........................................................................................................................................................

2.5 Capacity Development ...............................................................................................................................................

2.6 Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................

Section 3: Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

3.1 Institutional Arrangements .............................................................................................................................................

3.2 Implementation Arrangements ......................................................................................................................................

3.3 Risk Management .........................................................................................................................................................

3.5 Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................................................

3.5 Financial Management ..................................................................................................................................................

3.6 Procurement ...................................................................................................................................................................

Section 4: Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

4.1. Oversight ......................................................................................................................................................................

4.2 Monitoring .....................................................................................................................................................................

4.3 Reporting .......................................................................................................................................................................

4.4 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................................................

4.5 M&E Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................

4.6 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................

Annex 1: Results Framework

Annex 2: Work Plan

Annex 3: Results Based Budget

Annex 4: Risk Management

Annex 5: Environmental and Social Management Assessment

Annex 6: Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Annex 7: Terms of Reference

Annex 8: Description of FFS and Potential SLM Interventions

Annex 9: Response to STAP and GEF comments

Annex 10: GEF-OFP Endorsement Letter

Annex 11: Letters of Co-Financing

Annex 12: FAO’s Role in Internal Organization

Annex 13: Financial Management

Key Concepts

Conservation Agriculture:

Conservation Agriculture is a farming system that promotes maintenance of a permanent soil cover,

minimum soil disturbance (i.e. no tillage), and diversification of plant species. It enhances biodiversity and

natural biological processes above and below the ground surface, which contribute to increased water and

nutrient use efficiency and to improved and sustained crop production. It is based on three fundamental

principles of minimal soil disturbance through Zero Tillage (ZT), permanent organic soil cover and

diversified crop rotations. CA may be adapted with other technologies that provide synergistic benefits such

as controlled traffic, direct seeding and laser levelling.

Agroecology:

FAO broadly defines agroecology as “applying ecological concepts and principles to optimize interactions

between plants, animals, humans and the environment while taking into consideration the social aspects that

need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system. By building synergies, agroecology can support

food production and food security and nutrition while restoring the ecosystem services and biodiversity that

are essential for sustainable agriculture. Agroecology can play an important role in building resilience and

adapting to climate change. Agroecology is based on context-specific design and organization, of crops,

livestock, farms and landscapes. It works with solutions that conserve above and below ground biodiversity

as well as cultural and knowledge diversity with a focus on women’s and youth’s role in agriculture. To

harness the multiple sustainability benefits that arise from agro-ecological approaches, an enabling

environment is required, including adapted policies, public investments, institutions and research priorities.

Agroecology is the basis for evolving food systems that are equally strong in environmental, economic,

social and agronomic dimensions.”

Project Document: Iraq: SLMILDA Page 2

SECTION 1 – PROJECT RATIONALE

1.1 Context

1. General Background: The Iraqi land covers approximately 438,000 km2, of which around 54% is

desert. Iraq once called Mesopotamia, which means land between the two rivers, is located at 33°00′ N,

44°00′E. Iraq mainly consists of desert, but near the two major rivers, Tigris and Euphrates there used to

be fertile alluvial plains. The North of the country is mostly composed of mountains. Iraq has a small

coastline measuring 58 km along the Arabian Gulf. In the Southeast of Iraq, there used to be marshlands,

but many were drained in the 1990s. The Government is now trying to restore these marshlands to their

original state and extent.

2. The local climate is mostly desert, with mild to cool winters and dry, hot, cloudless summers. The

northern mountain has cold winters with occasional heavy snows, sometimes causing extensive flooding.

Most of Iraq has a hot, arid climate. Summer temperatures average above 40°C for most of the country

frequently exceeding 48°C. Winter temperatures infrequently exceed 21°C with maximums roughly 15

to 16 °C and nighttime lows occasionally below 0°C. Typically, precipitation is low; most places receive

less than 250 mm annually, except for the north and northeast where annual rainfall exceeds 1000 mm.

The maximum rainfall falls during the period of November to April and rainfall during the summer is an

extremely rare except in the very North of the country.

3. The Republic of Iraq neighbours Turkey and Syria to the north and north-west, Jordan to the west,

Saudi Arabia to the south-southwest, to the south by Kuwait and east by Iran. Its geography is diverse

and falls into four main regions: the desert, west of the Euphrates; Upper Mesopotamia, between the

upper Tigris and Euphrates rivers; the northern highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan; and Lower Mesopotamia,

and the alluvial plain extending from around Tikrit to the Arabian Gulf.

4. Iraq can be divided into five physiographic units as follows: i) Zagros Mountain Region: consists of

high mountain ranges and valleys. The mountains are 1,000 to about 4,000 meters high. The annual

precipitation in this zone goes, as high as 1000 mm and the daily average temperature in summer ranged

between 25-30°C, agriculture and livestock management is the main source of income. ii) Foothills

Region: comprises hills at the foot of the Zagros Mountains, 500 to 1000 meters high. It is an area of

rolling hilly landscape with low parallel hill ridges and extensive valleys and plains. In summer, the

vegetation dries up and the climate is hot and dry. The area is suitable for cereals and fruit trees. iii)

Jazeera Region: includes the remnant of an old inland sea. It is a steppe and desert plateau. The natural

vegetation is of desert type in the southwest. This region has been traditionally a grazing area, but

recently some parts in the north have been broken and ploughed to grow wheat and barley. iv) Desert

Region: this region is 200 to about 600 meters above sea level. The vegetation is of desert shrub type.

Wind erosion is important as strong winds are very common. A layer of gravel or pebble called desert

pavement is commonly present on the surface protecting the soil from being blown away, and v)

Mesopotamian Plain Region: is a geological depression filled with river sediments, which covers the

central and southern parts of Iraq. It is a plain of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This is a highly-

irrigated zone and it is characterized in most areas with high saline soil.

5. Iraq is estimated to have a population of 36 million people of which 33 percent reportedly live in

rural areas. Population density is about 85 people per sq. km in 2015. More than 70% of the population

is urban and mostly concentrated along the central part, in the largest cities, Baghdad, Al Mousel and Al

Basrah.

6. It is an oil rich upper middle-income country with a Gross National Income (GNI) of USD 5,550 in

2015. The agricultural sector accounts for 8.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) including

the oil sector and 32% excluding it. The protracted conflict and ongoing economic crisis in Iraq left 3.2


million people food insecure1 and water shortages and the lack or high cost of agricultural inputs

continue to negatively affect the performance of the sector.

7. In 2012, rural poverty rate stood at 39 percent, nearly double that of urban poverty (16 percent) with

19 percent of poor people in Iraq living below the national poverty line with less than USD 2 per person

per day. About 54 percent of the labour force is rural and the rural population is more adversely affected

by illiteracy (25 percent) than the urban population (14 percent). With an average rural household size of

6.9 people, rural poverty in Iraq is a direct consequence of the rapid 3% population growth, internal

conflict and insecurity, climate change, increasing water scarcity and rapid desertification. The combined

effects which have resulted in reduced prospects for viable rain-fed and irrigated agricultural and

livestock production, and lack of sustainable income generating opportunities for rural communities.

8. At the regional level, and out of the 18 Governorates in Iraq, the poverty ratio ranged from 35

percent to 52 percent for the 5 poorest governorates, from 11- 26 percent for 9 governorates and from 2 -

10 percent for the remaining 4 governorates. In the rural areas of the 5 poorest governorates, small-scale

farmers and livestock producers are the most marginalized households with unemployed young men and

women the most vulnerable.

9. According to the 2007/2008 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) by

the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Government of Iraq, an estimated 930,000 Iraqis were food

insecure and an estimated 6.4 million are on the threshold of food insecurity.

10. Unemployment in Iraq is at 11 percent and rural poverty in 2012 stood at 31 percent, 19 percent are

below the poverty line of less than USD 2 per day. At the regional level, and out of the 18 Governorates

in Iraq, the poverty ratio ranges from 35% to 52% for the 5 poorest governorates with women and

women headed households the most affected. In the rural areas of the 5 poorest governorates, including

Muthanna and Thi-Qar, small-scale farmers and livestock producers are the most marginalized

households with unemployed young men and women members as the most vulnerable and most

dependent on critical ecosystem services. Private sector solutions in small cottage industry activities

have been identified as the most suitable for targeting women and vulnerable heads of households, they

are also the most efficient, effective and sustainable means of supporting economic regeneration in

remote areas that will also alleviate the stresses on degraded marshland ecosystem services.

11. Agricultural Sector: Less than 20% of Iraq’s labor force worked in agriculture in 2012. Around 50%

of employed women were working in the agriculture sector per figures from 2000. The agriculture sector

is one of the major contributors to GDP after the oil and services sectors with (3.6%). The smallholders’

total area in Iraq is estimated to be 31.5 million dunum in 2001 (726,102 smallholders); around 10

million dunum belongs to private owners (296,804 smallholders), and 21 million dunum belongs to the

Ministry of Agriculture (429,298 smallholders). Around 80% of the holdings fall into the category of

holdings sizing 10 hectares or less.

12. The land holding system in Iraq is a mixture of owner operator, lease holding and sharecropping

arrangements. In the rural areas of the four poorest governorates, small-scale farmers and livestock

producers are the most marginalised households with unemployed young men and women the most

vulnerable. Small-scale farmers with a holding size ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 ha account for 35 percent of

total number of farmers (for irrigated lands less than 4 ha). Medium-sized farmers account for 34 percent

with a holding size ranging between 7.6 ha and 12.5 ha. In Muthanna smallholders account for 60 percent

of the total farming population.

13. Population in rural areas are strongly dependent on farming and livestock breeding as primary

sources of income, per the FAO in 2001, the production of cereals dropped from 4.27 million tons in

2011 to 3.2 million tons in 2015, vegetable production dropped from 3.7 million tons in 2011 to 1.2

million tons in 2015. This applies to all agricultural products with a decreasing rate range between 20-

66.7%. Rural and poorer households are strongly dependent on firewood for energy, a significant driver

1 FAO (2018) http://www.fao.org/emergencies/countries/detail/en/c/161511.

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/countries/detail/en/c/161511


of land degradation. However, no data is available on the annual land use changes, and thus it is difficult

with the limited data available to estimate the CO2e lost annually due to land use change, and land

degradation in Iraq.

14. Credit is difficult to access outside government ad-hoc and subsidised credit programmes due to the

unavailability of private capital investment resources as are credit options unavailable for farmers.

Institutional credit is also almost completely absent making the cost of capital prohibitive for agricultural

producers and discourage private investment. The Iraqi microfinance sector remains one of the smallest

and least developed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and substantial obstacles still

exist in the form of lack of regulations and clear guidance as well as a lack of funding. Microfinance

Institutions (MFIs) in Iraq have historically relied on grants and as of 2015 there have been no new

grants to the sector since 2012. With a lack of alternative sources of funding Non-Governmental

Organisations (NGOs) are not able to raise equity or take deposits.2 The World Bank is currently working

on developing a more enabling legal framework for microfinance in Iraq.

15. Due to unfavorable climatic conditions, nearly all agriculture in the country relies on irrigation.

Approximately 27.5% of Iraq’s land are arable, and only 22% of land in Iraq is currently used for

agricultural purposes. The total area of cultivated lands in Iraq is 51.6 million dunum excluding

Kurdistan region as of 2013. Almost 70% of the country's cultivated area is under irrigation while the

remaining 30% are under rain fed cultivation. Supplementary irrigation is used, in a few locations, to

complement rainfall; the entire natural rangeland relies solely on rainfall. Of the areas under irrigation,

62.8% receives water through gravity irrigation projects, 36% pumped from rivers and major channels

and 1.2% from ground water aquifers and springs.

16. Water resources are mainly surface water in Iraq. The country is heavily dependent on surface water

from the Tigris and its tributaries and Euphrates. The total amount of water reached 56.02 billion cubic

meters per year in October 2012/ September 2013, compared with the year before, which only reached

40.11 billion cubic meters, with an increase of 14.1%. The average annual flow of the Euphrates is

estimated at 30 cubic kilometers as it enters Iraq, and 21.2 cubic kilometers of the Tigris. More than

90% of Euphrates water comes from outside Iraq, while 50% of the Tigris water comes from within the

Country. The total length of the running rivers is about 4,773 km, with the Tigris and Euphrates

accounting for 1,290 km and 1,015 km, respectively.

17. Agriculture surface water resources are estimated at 75 billion cubic meters per year, are usually

supplied from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and their tributaries. An artificial river was constructed,

the Saddam River (Third River), with a water course of 565 km and a total discharge of 210 cubic meters

per second, to increase the water transport efficiency, minimize losses and water logging, and improve

water quality. The river functions as a main out-fall drains collecting drainage waters between the two

main rivers the Euphrates and the Tigris serving more than 1.5 million ha of agricultural land from north

of Baghdad to the Gulf. Other drainage canals were built and new ones are now being constructed to

reduce water logging or reclaim new lands.

18. The Tigris and Euphrates are the main water resources in Iraq and both originate in Turkey and

converge to form the Shatt Al-Arab which drains into the Arabian Gulf. The drainage area of the Tigris

comprises four countries namely Turkey (17 percent), Syria (2 percent), Iran (29 percent), and Iraq (52

percent); the Euphrates in turn originates 27 percent from Turkey, 17 percent from Syria, 40 percent from

Iraq and 15 percent from Saudi Arabia. The two rivers account for 98 percent of the Iraqi surface water,

and the total of the annual flow of the Euphrates and Tigris River is about 80 to 84.2 billion cubic meters

(BCM), 65.7 BCM comes from Turkey, 11.2 BCM from Iran, 6.8 BCM comes from Iraq, and 0.5 BCM

comes from Syria. 3 Surface water supply in Iraq is therefore heavily dependent on Turkey’s water

management policies. By 2020, average estimated water demand in Iraq is expected to surpass estimated

water availability, with river discharges potentially running dry by 2040.4

2 World Bank (2015). The legal and regulatory framework for microfinance in Iraq. 3 Abd-El-Mooty M, Kansoh R, Abdulhadi A (2016) Challenges of Water Resources in Iraq. Hydrol Current Res 7:260. doi: 10.4172/2157-7587.1000260 4 USAID (2017). Climate Change Risk Profile Iraq. https://www.climatelinks.org/resources/climate-change-risk-profile-iraq

https://www.climatelinks.org/resources/climate-change-risk-profile-iraq


19. Iraq-Turkey water agreements date back to 1946 when Turkey agreed to monitor the two rivers and

share the data with Iraq, and in 1980 the two countries established the Committee on Regional Waters.

At present Turkey has no water sharing agreements with Iraq, it has agreed to 15.75km3/yr. of the

Euphrates to flow into Syria. In 1990 Syria in turn agreed to share 52 percent of the Euphrates water

with Iraq which is the equivalent of 9km3/year. As yet there is no global agreement between the three

countries to share the Euphrates waters.5

20. The use of groundwater for agriculture is limited in Iraq. As of 2014, groundwater resources

provided an estimated amount 0.9 billion cubic meters annually, covering the needs of 64,000 ha of

agricultural lands, mainly in those areas where surface water is not available or limited, and need to be

supplemented by groundwater. The State Commission for Groundwater, a public sector attached to the

MOWR drilled thousands of deep wells for Water Wells Drilling, at different sites mainly in the

Governorates of Al-Anbaar, Ninewa, Tameem, Salah El-Din, Kerbela'a, Najaf, Samawa, and Basrah.

21. Animal production plays an important role in the agricultural development process in Iraq, though it

faces many challenges. As per the Ministry of Agriculture animal census in 2009, there was a great

decrease in the number of animals. The number of sheep was 18.6 million in 2006 and dropped to

13.025 million. Goats were 1.897 million, dropped to 1.614 million, and cattle were 1.4 million, dropped

to 1.16 million, with 30%, 15%, and 25% decrease, respectively. Desertification, overgrazing of natural

lands, deforestation, and uprooting of combustible species have directly affected the rangeland

productivity and led consequently to a marked decrease in the productivity of the farm animals in Iraq.

22. Small producers face issues regarding both agricultural production and access to markets, which will

contribute to raising the standards of living of the smallholders. Smallholders lack the skills, capacities,

and financial means to develop their production. This includes; the use the appropriate techniques;

improving quality standards; ensuring better fruit and vegetable selection; using modern packaging;

promoting entrepreneurial capacity building; and the technology and infrastructures improvement.

Therefore, improving the sustainability of agricultural product is one of the key threats smallholders are

facing. The economic aspects and the importance of individual farmers within the overall production

chain are not clear and therefore not seen by smallholders and decision makers.

23. Once among the largest wetlands in the world, covering more than 10,000 km2, the marshes of

southern Iraq supported diverse flora and fauna and a human population of around 500,000.6 Eighty-eight

percent of the runoff that contributes to the flow of the Euphrates comes from Turkey; the remainder,

from Syria. Turkey supplies 42 % of the flow of the Tigris; Iraq, 32%; Iran, 26%; and Syria, less than

1percent.7 The ecology of the marshes requires periodic flushing by floodwaters to drain pollutants and

sustain the wetlands. Iraq, and its marshes, are almost completely dependent on the two river systems for

its water. These wetlands were drained during the 1990’s with almost 90% destruction. Now, nearly

60% of the marshes are flooded again. The wetland complex has been designated a “Ramsar Wetland of

International Importance”. Most of the area is part of UNESCO’s World Heritage List.

24. Those that lived from the marshland eco-services have depended on a healthy ecosystem for fishing,

agricultural activities including animal husbandry such as water buffalo including for dairy products,

chicken, cattle, sheep and growing wheat, barley, corn, rice, and dates. The wetlands also provided for

reeds used in handicrafts and buffalo forage, drinking water, medicinal plants and transportation, all of

which is intrinsically linked to the supply of fresh water.8 The traditional activities were important to the

local economy and are estimated to have been worth over USD 7.3 million annually.9,10 The marshes

5 FAO. (2004). Support to the drafting of a national Water Resources Master Plan. 6 Coast, E. (2003). Demography of the Marsh Arabs. In The Iraqi marshlands: A human and environmental study, ed. E. Nicholson and P. Clark. 2nd ed. London: Politico’s Publishing. 7 Altinbilek, D. (2004). Development and management of the Euphrates-Tigris Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development 20 (1): 15–33. 8 Fawzi, N. A.-M., K. P. Goodwin, B. A. Mahdi, and M. L. Stevens. (2016). Effects of Mesopotamian Marsh (Iraq) desiccation on the cultural knowledge and livelihood of Marsh Arab women. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2(3):e01207. doi: 10.1002/ehs2.1207 9 Maltby, E. (1994). An environmental and ecological study of the marshlands of Mesopotamia. Draft Consultative Bulletin, Wetland Ecosystems Research Group, University of Exeter, AMAR Appeal Trust, London, UK.


hosted a diverse variety of wild flora and fauna including endangered migratory birds, and before 1990,

60 percent of the fish consumed in Iraq came from the wetlands.11,12 After the Gulf War in 1991, the

marshes were subject to a sustained drainage effort to displace the local population that reduced the

marshes to ten percent of their size and the population reduced to 80,000.13 This was an action that was

internationally recognised as a major environmental and humanitarian disaster.14

25. There was brief hope following the fall of the dictatorship in 2003, that the marshes could have been

restored after they recovered up to thirty-five percent of their 1973 size by 2006. Despite the low-quality

water, fish numbers were also returning and so were bird populations in record numbers, even the reeds

showed resilience by returning after a decade or more of drought. But as the UNEP project to restore the

marshes showed, the main challenge in the Iraqi marshes is the quantity of water.15 The drought in 2008-

2009 as well as reduced snowfall in the Turkish mountains attributed to climate change and the

construction of infrastructure projects on the Tigris and Euphrates, have all meant that the marshes have

since returned to their 2002 size.16 Any effort to restore the marshes and the local economy sustainably

need to address the dwindling water supplies at the national and international levels.

Institutional and Policy Context

26. The national government has twenty-three ministries.

27. The Ministry of Health and Environment (MoHE) originally took the form of the Higher Commission

for the Environment in 1974 following Iraq’s participation in the Stockholm Conference on the Human

Environment in 1972. It subsequently became the Environment Protection and Improvement Council in

1975 and following the Law 76 of 1986 the Supreme Council for Environment Protection. The MoHE as

it exists today was established after the fall of the Ba’athist regime in 2003 and the establishment of the

Iraqi Constitution in 2005 under article 114-3, which emphasised the importance of environmental policy

and environmental protection; it was further strengthened by the laws No. 37 and 27 from 2008 and 2009

respectively. The functions of the MoHE are currently anchored in the National Development Plan

(NDP) 2013-2017 as well as the National Environmental Strategy and Action Plan of the same period.

28. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) dates back to 1979 when the State Board for Applied Agricultural

Research Structures was established as a research body. It was subsequently renamed in 2013 with the

objective to improve the quality and yields of agricultural production through crop and livestock

research. Today the MoA is characterised by challenged research and extension services capacity for

technological transfer particularly to small producers. The capacity of the MoA to provide services to the

agricultural sector has drastically deteriorated over the past twenty years; budget cuts have reduced

services resulting in the departure of qualified technical staff in support services such as research and

extension among others. This has resulted in a lack of an extension training, effective decentralisation,

privatisation, gender empowerment, farmer participation, use of modern information technologies,

linkages with research and other institutions such as universities and the private sector.

29. The MoA departments involved in the SLMILDA project are: The Office of Agricultural Research;

The Office of Forests and Combating Desertification; The Agricultural Directorates; and the Office of

Agricultural Extension Services and Training. The MoA will be one of the main implementing

ministries working in close cooperation with the MoHE. It will be a member of the PSC and will be

closely involved with the design and implementation of the project. It will also work with the MoHE,

10 Nicholson, E., and P. Clark. (2002). The Iraqi Marshlands: a human and environmental study. The Amar Appeal International Charitable Foundation, London, UK. 11 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1999. Fisheries country profile. FID/CP/IRQ Rev. 2 http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/IRQ/profile.htm 12 Tkachenko, A. (2003). The economy of the Iraq marshes in the 1990s. In the Iraqi marshlands: A human and environmental study, ed. E. Nicholson and P. Clark. 2nd ed. London: Politico’s Publishing. 13 France, R., ed. (2006). Sustainable redevelopment of the Iraqi marshlands. Oxford, UK: Routledge. 14 Partow, H.(2001). The Mesopotamian marshlands: Demise of an ecosystem. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. 15 UNEP (2011). Terminal Evaluation of project “support for Environmental Management of the Iraqi Marshlands”. 16 Lonergan,S. (2012). Ecological restoration and peacebuilding: the case of the Iraqi marshes. In Jensen,D and Lonergan, S. 2012. Assessing and restoring Natural Resources in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. Earthscan.

http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/IRQ/profile.htm


MoWR and FAO to research, identify and develop proven technologies and methodologies. These will

include soil rehabilitation; training and developing extension services in methods such as FFS and other

participatory approaches; and work in partnership with private sector and NGO SPs and research

institutions.

30. The Ministry of Water Resources, previously known as the Ministry of Irrigation, manages water

resources in Iraq. It is responsible for the assessment, monitoring, and supply of water resources in Iraq.

It is also responsible for providing the needed water allocation per sector. It supervises irrigation and

drainage projects, including conducting the needed studies aimed at improving irrigation. While the

responsibility for the development of irrigation infrastructure is with the Ministry of Agriculture. The

Ministry has several general directorates, many field offices, and centers (National centers for Water

Resources Management, Studies, and Engineering Design, and Al Ahwar Rehabilitation Centers) in

addition to three national companies.

31. The primary responsibility of the MoWR includes the maintenance of Iraq’s extensive water

infrastructure that includes hydraulic dams, water reservoirs, water conveyance systems, drainage canals,

and control stations for irrigation and drainage, most of which are in various stages of disrepair as a result

of poor maintenance. The relevant departments involved in the project will be the National Centre for

Water Resource Management; The State Commission Authority for Ground Water; the Department for

Underground Water in Muthanna and Thi-Qar governorates; and water user associations.

32. National Council of Seeds (NCS) determines the political guidelines agricultural research institutes

such as the Institute of Agricultural Research (IPARC), the State Council for Agricultural Research

(SBARC) and the Agricultural and Biological Research Centre (ABRC) have to adhere to.17 Commercial

seed producers are verified and selected by the State Council for Examination and Certification of Seeds

(SBSTC), having a permanent collaboration with companies producing and marketing of seeds. IPARC

is responsible for the improvement and development of new varieties of agricultural crops, such as

cereals (barley, wheat, rice and maize), legumes (lentils, chickpeas and beans), but also of industrial

plants (nuts, soya, sunflower). The SBARC is responsible for grain, vegetables, and cotton, while the

Centre for ABRC pursues the development of varieties of cereals and industrial plants. Agricultural

colleges play a less important role in the amplification of seeds quantities.

33. Following GoI decentralisation, most large-scale investments for agricultural development are

implemented under the responsibility of the local governorates, through the CPF.

34. In post-conflict Iraq (2003 – present) land tenure is a complicated and a highly contentious issue

because of a number of reasons. These include the right to return to lands and properties that had been

previously denied to thousands of families and the return of Iraqi refugees and IDPs, which the current

Iraqi government has tried to address through the formation of a national legal committee to resolve

property disputes. There are many land tenure categories and practices in Iraq (see table two below) of

which religious dimensions to land tenure systems within Islamic law (Shari’a), have a vital and deep

existence within the active Islamic Ownership concepts and is a major factor working against registry

and land ownership in Iraq. The concept of land registration in Iraq is originally a product of Ottoman

rule, and subsequently evolved under the British Mandate Period and ultimately by the Ba’ath Party.18

35. At present land tenure legislation in Iraq remains inadequate with the tenure regime a major

constraint contributing to land degradation and low productivity and slow growth in the agricultural

sector. Land ownership is recorded and validated through a title deed as legal proof of ownership,

however Iraqi social and political conflicts have an important influence on land tenure security.

17 Yousif, M.D. et al (2015) The agriculture potential development in the Republic of Iraq. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, Vol. 15, Issue 4. 18 L. Ossimi and V. Ahmed (2015). Land tenure security according to land registration systems in Iraq. Conference paper University of Salford, Manchester.


Land Type Description Practices Legal source

Ameriya

(Miri)

Stateland, owned by the

governorate

Ottoman era practices

that still exist under state

regulations.

Ottoman Land Rights.

State regulations of ownership

Mulk Private land title deed.

Private ownership and

governed by land rights

laws.

Ottoman Land Rights.


Waqf

Mainly religious

endowments, translation of

private ownership within

land governed and regulated

by Islamic law.

Ottoman era

still currently practiced.

Ottoman land rights

The British Mandate land rights

The recent State regulations laws

Empty land

Dead Land (Mewat) is

undeveloped remote land far

from human settlements.

Ottoman era


Ottoman land rights

The British Mandate land rights

The recent State regulations laws

Fixed-term

land rights

Rights of use and benefit for

a fixed term of years during

which the land and property

is still owned to grantor.

Ottoman era


Ottoman land rights.


Communal

lands

Village level common

undivided land or communal

grazing land

Ottoman era



laws:Civic Code Art 68 (1958)

Civic Code Bk. 1 1929)

Unit/plot User residence ownership

rights.

Ottoman era



Pastoral lands, as opposed to

cultivated land

Leases Rights of use and benefit or

specific amount and period.

Ottoman era



State regulations of ownership Law

87/ 1979

36. The Iraqi Water Law, Law No. 50 of 2008, an Iraqi’s main piece of legislation concerning water

management and use, declares water a publicly owned good that can only be exploited after procurement

of a license, defining the amount and duration of use rights, from the Water Authority. The law sets the

order of priority for water exploitation and defines the pathways to define, develop, grow, and utilize

water resources in Iraq. The law also details several other aspects of water regulation in Iraq, including

ownership, management responsibilities, licensing, resource preservation through pollution control, and

trans-boundary water resources management.

37. There are no laws addressing marshlands restoration or conservation on of wetlands in Iraq.

However, to protect the land, and preserve the nature, and agriculture, the Government has established

several laws since 1965. The most important ones are law No. 64, of 1965, for cities land use; law No.

25, of 1967, for rivers systems and other water resources protection; law No. 2, of 1983, for the

rangeland management and desertification control; law No. 79, of 1986, for protection and improvement

of environment; law No. 30, of 1997, for protection and improvement of the environment; law No. 2, of

2001, for environment conservation, and law No. 44, of 2003, creating the Ministry of Health and

Environment.

Law No. 50/2012 On seeds and tubers.

The law mandated the establishment of the National Council for Seeds in the

MoA to oversee the Iraqi seed industry, the analysis of seeds according to

international standards, as set by the International Seed Testing Association.

The law also permits all national and international seed companies registered

with the Iraqi government to participate in the local market.

Law No.11/2012 - Fourth Amendment to

law 12/1995 on Irrigation and Drainage

Networks

The main objective of the amendment is to give control of inland waters to

the beneficiary associations established by common water users with the

responsibility to increase water efficiency, reduce water wastage, and ensure

a fair distribution of water and water conflict resolution.

The basic federal law for environmental conservation in Iraq on


Environmental Protection Law (No.

27/2009).

environmental conservation, regulating Environmental Impact Assessments

(EIAs), and the conservation and regulating of air quality, soil, biodiversity

and hazardous waste treatment and sanctions for polluting activities and

compensation for damages. Ministry of Health and Environment is seeking

through the Centre of Climate Change to develop a national strategy for

adaptation to climate change impacts.

Forests and Woodlots Law (No.

30/2009).

The federal law prohibiting deforestation to protect water resources. The

purpose of the law is biodiversity conservation and the preservation of green

land that aid the replenishing of water resources.

Ministry of Water Resources Law

(No.50/2008).

The law that creates the legal framework for regulating Iraq’s national water

resources at the Ministry of Water Resources.

Law for the Conservation of Water

Resources (No.2/2001).

Perhaps one of the most effective water legislation regulating the utilisation

of water for purposes other than domestic use and updates the No.25/1967

law below on discharging waste into public areas by regulating water

recycling standards.

Irrigation and Drainage Networks Law

(No.12/1995)

The law regulating the protection of irrigated agricultural lands against

negligence, salinisation, or otherwise reducing the fertility thereof.

Natural Pastures Law (No.2/1983)

The law protecting natural pastures for the protection of water resources.

Public Health Law (No.89/1981)

The law includes Article 64 setting out procedures for the supply of drinking

water; and Article 67 on the source and purification methods of drinking

water.

Water Quality Law of Rivers and Public

Water Areas (No.25/1967)

The federal law regulating effluent discharge into public areas and sewerage

systems; the illegal dumping of solid and liquid waste; and setting national

water quality and effluent standards.

Project Sites

38. On-the ground project interventions will take place at two sites:

• Muthanna Governate: Al Salman district (Al-Shaweaa) and Al-Rumaitha district (Al-Majid)

• Thi-Qar Governate: Al-Chibayish district (Al-Tar)

Site GPS coordinates

1) Al Salman district (Al-Shaweaa in map) 30°30'12.02"N, 44°32'30.05"E

2) Al-Rumaitha district (Al-Majid in map) 31°24'53.57"N, 45°8'49.36"E

3) Al-Chibayish district (Al-Tar in map) 30°57'20.14"N, 46°40'49.49"E

39. The selection process was facilitated through FAO based upon technical, social, and economic

criteria. The participatory site selection process involved PIF and PPG phase workshops as well as high-

level ministerial representatives from all three ministries (MoHE, MoA and MoWR).

40. The Muthanna Governate and Thi-Qar Governate share similar socio-economic characteristics. The

governorates have been neglected under the Ba’athist regime, and despite some of them producing oil, it

has generally lacked investment. The UN sanctions, that were imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

in 1990 and lasted until after the 2003 invasion, was detrimental for Iraq’s economy but had a

particularly devastating impact on these areas with infrastructure suffering due to the war and the limited

investment.


41. The agricultural sector has suffered from adverse side effects of the Public Food Distribution

programme, which was set in place after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to provide Iraq’s population with

subsidized food rations. The programme had the consequence of pushing down the prices of staple crops

like wheat and rice, making them unprofitable for farmers to produce.

42. The 2 governorates covered by the project are already and will be even more severely subject to

climate change risks in the form of frequent seasonal and yearly droughts, heat waves, sand storms and

associated land degradation and desertification

43. The climate is generally dry desert climate. In summer, temperatures easily surpass 40°C, while

rainfall is very limited and restricted to the winter months and is reported to average around 110 mm

annually. Climate change will have a significant impact on the target governorates: (i) the relative change

of Annual Precipitation for the period 2010-2040 will be the highest with up to 20-30% less precipitation

in large parts of the regions (in the rest of Iraq precipitation reduction will not be higher than 20 percent);

(ii) absolute change of Annual Maximum Temperature will be the highest with an increase up to 1.6oC.

Extension Services

Governate Total Number of Full-time Staff

Muthanna Governate 32

Thi-Qar Governate 45

Muthanna Governorate

44. The Muthanna Governorate’s landscape is dominated by desert plains, with only a narrow ribbon of

irrigated farmland along the Euphrates River in the north. The population is concentrated along the

Euphrates River in the north of the governorate, while the southern desert districts are only sparsely

populated. Muthanna is an important centre for the production of cement and other construction

materials. In 2005 an oil refinery was opened in Muthanna, which processes crude oil from the Kifl oil


field. The salt waters of Lake Sawa provide salt, which is used as a raw material in various industries.

The lake’s touristic infrastructure has dilapidated over the years, but the area still holds the potential to be

developed into a touristic hotspot. The governorate is divided into four districts: Al-Samawa, Al-

Khidhir, Al-Rumaitha and Al- Salman.

45. The proposed site is located in the Samawa desert (Badia) within the governorate of Muthanna

named Al Salman of which a 3,000 hectares equivalent to 12,000 dunums of the desert near the Wadis

have been selected. Grazing is prohibited in this area due to overgrazing and allow for the natural

vegetation to recover. CA will be promoted to give the beneficiaries alternative forms of food production.

46. Most of the desert land is either calcareous or gepsuferious and the soil in this location is of gray in

colour and the organic matter is low and does not exceed 0.5%. The soils are considered shallow with

gypsum and calcium found at around 1cm in depth. The region consists of Wadis, hilly land, slopes and

most of the land is rocky with gravel and calcareous rocks. The land slopes naturally from east to west.

47. There are a number of Wadis in the area, namely (Sheeab Al Farag, Al Oaja, Al Akrack, Al Bosh, Al

Gorabi, Al Ghanimi, and Abo Gar). There are also a number of ponds harvesting rain water, most

important of which are Ghader abo Geer, Gader Al Oja, and Ghader Al Salman. They can all serve for

rain water and flood water harvesting with additional earth dams and excavation reservoirs.

48. There are many wells in the region with an average discharge of between 4-7 l/s, salinity is high

between 3000-5000 ppm and the depth of the wells range between 80-120m. In addition, there are some

wells in Al Salman, Tachded, Al Shehaat, and Hameed with good quality water (salinity levels of less

than 1,000 ppm).

49. This governorate is home to some of Iraq’s poorest and disadvantaged people, and smallholders

account for 60 percent of the total farming population and a youth unemployment level of 52.4 percent.

In this Governorate, wheat and barley together account for 37,500ha with only 2000 ha under other crops

such as rice, potato, and okra.19

Land Usage in Muthanna Governorate

Forests area Natural range

land area

Desert and

decertified land Sand Dunes

Salinized

area

16,000 dunums were

destroyed as a result

of war and 15,000

orchard area was

degraded and the

Directorate of

agriculture is planting

300 dunums as forest.

8,200,000

dunums

situated 15 km

from the

Samawa city

centre.

1,870,600 dunums

in the southern

desert not surveyed

and the degraded

desertified land

totals 1,560,325

dunums scattered

around the whole

governorate.

103,000 dunum of

mobile sand dunes

scattered in Al

Khader, Al Najmi,

Al Warka, Al Hilal,

Al Samawa and

Bsyia

1,924,800 and there

are two projects for

reclaiming saline

and water logged

land in Samawa

and Rumatha. i)

65,000 dunum in

Samawaand Super;

and ii) 200,000 in

Rumatha, Warka

and Al Najmi

Al-Rumaitha District

50. Umm Al-Akaf, also referred to as Al-Majid, is a sub-district of Al-Rumaitha and is located on the

road between the centre of Al-Muthanna province and the centre of Umm Akaf sub-district and Al-

Rumaitha districts. The population size is approximately 9,000 people with about 65% of those working

employed in agriculture, with the remaining in the governmental sector. Land in Umm Akaf varies

between orchards and areas that are unsuitable for agriculture. Land degradation is a serious problem that

19 Department of Planning, Ministry of Agriculture.2017.


has caused the loss of agriculture land; GEF funding would be used to rehabilitate lands in Umm Akaf

villages with an area of 3000 ha, which represents 35% of the total area of Umm Akaf.

51. Soil quality in the al Majid area is silty clay soil with a pH level of 6.5-8.5, electrical conductivity of

cultivated land (EC 3mg / L ) and uncultivated land (EC 24 mg / L). Water resources: The area is located

at the banks of the Euphrates river and its tributaries (Alsbl and Alatshan), which provide water to the

area. The site is located on the Euphrates east main drain that passes through the area and helps improve

the properties of the soil by reducing the salt concentrations. There are no water wells in the area.

52. Livestock present in the area of Umm Akaf varies and is used for meat and dairy products, these

include: sheep: 4750 head; goats: 550 head; cows: 160 head; buffaloes 75 heads. Farmers also raise

domestic poultry chickens, ducks and geese in their homes and for which there is no accurate census.

53. Most crops grown in the region are economic crops (wheat and barley) although some cultivate

fodder crops (Berseem and alfalfa). In addition, vegetables are cultivated and sold in the local markets

such as radishes, celery, leeks and basil. Some farmers cultivate small areas with low-income crops such

as sunflowers, lettuce, potatoes and cucumbers. The cultivated area is estimated at 20- 25 dunums (5 -

6.25ha).

Results of tests on water sources in the area in January 2018

Test Type Euphrates (Alsbl tributary) Alatshan tributary

PH 7.8 8.08

Temp 16.5 17.1

Turb 11.71 1.38

DO 9.7 70.1

PO4 0.31 0.29

NO3 3.056 1.37

Ca 200.1 396

Mg 73 220.5

T.H 810.6 1920

K 10.2 24.3

Na 370.5 444

SO4 476.79 601.36

CL 180.9 1208

T.S.S 66.5

TDS 1601 4001

E.C 2463 6063

ALK 66.68

54. Orchards are estimated at 250 acres (101.1 ha) and comprise a variety of tree types. The dominant

method of agriculture is the simple mechanical method (manual seeding) and mechanical harvesting. The

main irrigation method is the conventional irrigation, where farmers do not use any improved irrigation

techniques. Farmers also produce some simple crafts whose primary materials are mainly based on the

available plant and animal materials (cheese, date palm, palm leaf products, some sheepskin furnishings).

55. Research has been carried out in the Soil and Water Department of the Agriculture College at the

University of Muthanna by final year students for the academic year 2017 – 2018. Of the wheat and

barley crops assessed, salinity ratios were observed at 13mg /me, with plant dwarfing (30 cm) due to

salinity.

Agriculture Holdings in Umm Akaf Sub-districts- 2017, in dunums.

Umm Akaf Sub-district

Number of

holders

Total

holding land

area

Minimum of

holding land

area

Maximum of

holding land

area

Most

frequent

holding size

Eastern Umm Akaf 139 3155.00 3.00 300.00 10.00

Northern - Western Umm Akaf 107 3726.00 5.00 500.00 15.00

Southern Umm Akaf 221 5464.00 4.00 500.00 10.00


Thi-Qar Governorate

56. The governorate of Thi-Qar is the poorest governorate of Iraq and one of the most underdeveloped.

The level of poverty varies between the various districts and is most acute in the marshland areas. The

economy has remained relatively rural compared to other regions in Iraq; however, the agricultural sector

fails to provide jobs and income for the governorate’s population, while the local agricultural based

economy of the marshlands, based on traditional fishing and farming, has been devastated by their

draining.

57. During the past decade, the public sector and construction have been major job providers, but low

wages have been an issue for public service workers. Tribal identity and structure remain strong in Thi-

Qar. A patchwork of tribes, many of them descendants of the Muntafiq tribal confederation that governed

the area in Ottoman times, is living across the governorate. The governorate of Thi-Qar is divided into

five districts: Al-Chibaysih, Nassiriyah, Al- Rifa’i, Al-Shatra and Suq Al-Shuyukh.

Al-Chibayish District

58. The land in these villages are generally leased from the government for agricultural use, and most of

the soil can be categorised as degraded loamy soil caused by general mal-practice, climate change and

high levels of salinity. Water is primarily sourced from the Euphrates and its tributaries for surface water,

and shallow wells for groundwater. The latter vary from 12 to 120 meters in depth, and draw their water

from the marshes due to their proximity. Crop production largely focuses on wheat and barley with

fodder crops such as alfalfa; garden vegetables are also grown for domestic consumption and to sell in

the local market. The farmers in the district keep water buffalos 6,000 head, cows 4,500 head; and sheep

5,000 head in addition to domestic poultry.

Chemical Analysis of the Euphrates in the Governorate 12/ 2017

Test

Sample sites.

E17 Average E18 Average E19 Average

PH 7.35 7.55 7.7

Temp 15.4 18.3 17.8

DO ppm 6.7 6.25 5.05

PO4 ppm 0.145 0.055 0.06

NO3 ppm 2.1 1.35 1.8

Ca+2 ppm 200 144 164


Mg+2 ppm 105 97.5 85

T.H ppm 920 750 750

K ppm 16.6 12.1 16.05

Na ppm 431.5 415 510

SO4 ppm 485 350 324.5

CL- ppm 630 570 605

T.D.S ppm 1980 1732.5 1850

COND μs 3350 2872.5 3091.5

Alk ppm 180 200 168

O&G ppm 10.8 8 26

Turbidity

NTU 1.55 11.75 7.8

59. Vegetative cover is decreasing due to deforestation for fuel wood, reduced rainfall, climate change

and general land degradation. The main indigenous plants are range plants such as Atriplix and Salsoa

rigida and perennial Sedar trees. The major challenges facing the district and Governorate in general are

drought, high soil and water salinity levels, the lack of fertilisers and fragile ecosystems.

Thi-Qar crop production - December 2016

Number of

holders

Sub-district Albu Khalifah crop Alfalfa 3

Wheat 55

Barley 46

All Ismael crop Alfalfa 8

Wheat 9

Barley 19

Radish 2

Al Jugaber crop Alfalfa 17

Wheat 61

Barley 36

Radish 2

Agriculture Holdings of Al Tar –Thi- Qar, December 2017 in Dunums

Al Tar Number of

holders

Sum of

Holding land

Area

Minimum of

Holding land

Area

Maximum of

Holding land

Area

Most frequent

Holding size

Albu Khalifah 363 1822.00 1.00 10.00 5.00

All Ismael 271 737.00 1.00 75.00 1.00

Al Jugaber 799 4559.00 3.00 60.00 5.00


1.2 The Current Situation

1.2.1 Threats

Threat 1: Unsustainable Agricultural and Livestock Production Practices

60. Iraq is experiencing serious land degradation and desertification problems (affected around 92.5% of

the country) because of a combination of factors, including the country’s geographic position,

overgrazing, unsustainable agricultural practices, limited precipitation, years of war and civil unrest and

overexploitation of water resources and natural vegetation.

61. Several factors lead to agro-ecosystems degradation in Iraq, including the loss of soil fertility through

wind and water erosion, improper agriculture practices like tillage or overgrazing; the reduction in

species because of a production focus on monoculture prioritizing commercial varieties; and salinization

due to unsustainable irrigation practices. Though exact numbers are difficult to find, there is a consensus

among policy makers that unsustainable use of agro-ecosystems is the primary cause of land degradation

in Iraq’s marshlands. This degradation is a major cause of carbon emissions and the loss or

diminishment of critical ecosystem services related to water provision, the maintenance of crop genetic

diversity, etc. These degraded areas nevertheless represent a major opportunity for the restoration of

ecosystem functions through improved land use management.

62. Farm animals have contributed to the degradation of the rangelands in Iraq and this occurred because

of the decreased rangeland carrying capacity, early grazing, overgrazing, the lack of government capacity

to implement programs for organizing grazing, and lack of alternative feeds, which can help in satisfying

part of the animals’ needs.

63. Land degradation in the form of loss of vegetation cover, soil erosion, soil fertility loss, water

pollution and salinisation and sand mobilisation is a direct consequence of mal-adaptive agricultural

practices and over-exploitation of water resources.

64. During the eighties and nineties, over 90% of the original marshland areas were drained or destroyed

due to systematic over-exploitation, political conflict, and a lack of coordinated management. Thus,

some 175,000 local communities were forced to flee and relocate in Iraq and abroad. Those who have

stayed are disproportionately poorer or living in more marginal socioeconomic conditions than urban

populations. A typical rural inhabitant of the marshland areas receives a portion of his/her income from

the unregulated market of non-agricultural products. These activities include very limited production and

trading of local handcrafts with low value-added. The remaining percentage of a typical rural

smallholder’s income comes from traditional agriculture, mainly planting palm trees and extensive


livestock raising - which leads to overgrazing - for local and sub-regional markets (low-value-added

activities due to scale and absence of proper marketing). Despite this, their actual capacity to act is

effectively limited by significant social, cultural, and economic constraints, as well as by organizational

weaknesses and a generalized shortage of access to knowledge, technical assistance, and financial

resources. Their marginal condition impedes their adequate access to financing and markets for

specialized goods and technology critical to sustainable production and landscape management.

65. Iraqi marshlands faced and still face several threats. The overall area of marshland shrunk by around

84% to 87% and the area of open water shrunk by 90%, while seasonal marshes increased by 48% to

66%. Some of those threats are regional in nature; however, others are local. Per IUCN, 2011, the main

threats and key pressures to the marshlands are the draining of the marshes, the large dams constructed in

the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris which started to change the hydrological discretion

throughout the basin, flood control structures, vegetated surface (soil–vegetation–fruit-trees and palm-

trees), high tree density, very fragmented and small average size of individual plantations. Marshlands

are also suffering from the re-flooding initiated by local inhabitants in an uncontrolled and haphazard

fashion. In addition, poor marketing opportunities, limited credit, inheritance practices that continually

subdivide land holdings and result in poor land management, have increased the overuse of natural

resources, especially land. This, coupled with the breakdown of land management practices, has

increased the level of salinization, loss of soil fertility, eutrophication, alien and invasive plant species,

destruction, or degradation of vegetation due to draining, insufficient water supply in some location,

introduce herbivorous fish and pollution.

66. The marshland populations are among some of Iraq’s most disadvantaged people. They depend on

the marshland eco-services. However, these ecosystem services are rapidly diminishing due to

decreasing levels of water from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. In the absence of a regular supply of

fresh water, salinisation and water pollution have become serious chronic problems undermining the

ability of those who used to depend on its services, to survive.

67. Drought, water salinity and pollution are the major factors preventing Internally Displaced Peoples

(IDPs) from returning to their original communities. The wetlands of the Hammar marsh in the Thi-Qar

governorate are largely desertified, consequently the Thi-Qar governorate has seen the highest degree of

displacement of the southern governorates with eighty-one percent of IDPs due to the absence of water

rather than from insecurity, conflict or unemployment.20 Many remaining families keep water buffalos

although in smaller numbers as the activity no longer appears to be sustainable as livestock often fall ill

and die from the polluted and saline water. In the absence of reeds, families have been reportedly selling

livestock to purchase fodder and water to keep the remaining buffalo alive. The government does provide

fodder in some areas for families with animals, and those that can afford it purchase reeds for fodder

without depending on the marshes.

68. Research has shown that the loss of marshland has directly resulted in the loss of traditional

ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional resource management, particularly by women. The

knowledge being lost is the traditional use of medicinal herbs, but also other ecological practices

including the rhythms of seasonal reed harvest and use, handicraft construction and sale from reeds,

water buffalo husbandry, dairy and agricultural production. Of women interviewed 20 out of 34 (59

percent) either never learned how to make traditional handicrafts or have discontinued making them.21

The TEK should be preserved for the future management of the marshes should they return again in

future.

69. Estimates show that agriculture consumes 85 percent of the water resources in Iraq, with 8% used for

other purposes and the remainder lost through evaporation. There are substantial water losses through

irrigation schemes as water is by and large transported to farmer’s fields through inefficient and poorly

maintained distribution networks comprising earth canals and ditches. Water loss occurs through

20 UNESCO (2014). Integrated Drought Risk Management – DRM National Framework for Iraq. An Analysis Report. SC/2014/REPORT/H/1. Second Edition, Baghdad, Iraq. 21 Fawzi, N. A.-M., K. P. Goodwin, B. A. Mahdi, and M. L. Stevens. (2016). Effects of Mesopotamian Marsh (Iraq) desiccation on the cultural knowledge and livelihood of Marsh Arab women. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2(3):e01207. doi: 10.1002/ehs2.1207


infiltration, seepage, evaporation or leakage during transportation, while inefficient on-farm practices are

characterised by traditional surface gravity systems that lose between 20-40 percent of water.22

70. The quality of water used for drinking and agriculture is poor and violates both Iraqi national

standards and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. In 2010, the Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(BOD) representing the degree of water pollution by organic materials - was more than three times the

national limit indicating an alarming increase in water pollution. The Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) in the

Euphrates’ river water increased from 457 parts per million (ppm) in the 1980s to 1200ppm in 2009

reflecting a quick deterioration of incoming transboundary water. High pollution and salinity have

devastating effects on livestock, agriculture, and fishing in the Muthanna, Missan, Basra, and Wassit

governorates.23 In 27 percent of households tested by UNICEF there were no traces of chlorine in the

water and in 15 percent, the concentration of chlorine was below the standard considered necessary to

prevent waterborne diseases (0.5ppm).24 People who depend on polluted water sources are exposed to a

high risk of water-related health issues such as dehydration, diarrhea, and skin infections.25

71. The flat irrigated areas in central and southern Iraq (the Mesopotamian Plain) include regional

groundwater aquifers that flow towards the coast under the Plain and discharge over most of the lower

Plain. Consequently, shallow water-tables of varying degrees of salinity and depths underlie the area. The

increase in demand for water by Turkey and Syria causes the return of saline drainage water back into the

rivers in upstream countries and reduces the quality of water that flows into the Iraqi part of the basins.

This apparent water scarcity and water quality deterioration, together with inefficient delivery and

drainage systems combine to increase the salinisation of irrigated fields and reduce productivity. The

deterioration of drainage infrastructure and lack of maintenance in the recent past has further

compounded the situation.26 Salinity has reduced the production potential of the total irrigated area of

Iraq by 70 percent with up to 30 percent completely lost to production.27 It is estimated that 4 percent of

irrigated areas is severely saline, 50 percent moderately saline and 20 percent slightly saline.28

72. Desertification is the most important challenge facing Iraq. The consequences include the loss of

productive lands, the increase in sand dunes, diminishing forms of biota, increase in air pollution and

sand movement, and increasing pressure on groundwater. Desertification affects 92 percent of Iraq and

the majority of it in central and southern Iraq is attributable to incorrect irrigation and absence of

drainage resulting in waterlogging and salinisation of the soil; overgrazing; deforestation; the formation

of sand dunes due to reduced precipitation levels; increased temperatures; increased evapotranspiration;

and elevated wind speeds.29 The decrease in annual rainfall and reductions in vegetation cover and river

flow due to the construction of river dams in Turkey have also given rise to increasingly frequent sand

and dust storms (SDS). Between 1951-1990 the maximum annual SDS used to be twenty-four day per

year, while in 2013 this is now 300 days per year. The SDS cause the loss of soil and remove organic

matter and nutrient-rich particles in the process, hereby reducing agricultural productivity.30

73. While the trends and patterns of degradation in marshland ecosystems are serious, only refraining

from practices that promote degradation would be insufficient to conserve biodiversity and optimize

ecosystem services for sustainability, productivity, and climate resilience across the production marsh

systems. A pro-active effort to restore ecosystem functions at scale in degraded landscapes is critical to

achieving these goals. To date, no systematic programme is in place to study the biological value of the

marsh ecosystems in Iraq. There is currently limited and outdated data available on the total area of

22 FAO – World Bank (2012). Iraq Agriculture Sector note. Rome. 23 IOM-IRAQ (2012), Special Report – Water Scarcity. https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/iom-iraq-special-report-water-scarcity 24 UNICEF (2011). Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Iraq http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/1989 25 UN Joint Analysis and Policy Unit (JAPU) (2013). Water in Iraq Factsheet. 26 ICARDA (2012). Methodologies to improve soil, agronomic, irrigation, water and drainage management for salinity control.

http://www.icarda.org/publications-resources/Iraq_Salinity 27 FAO. (2011). Crops. FAOSTAT: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor. 12.02.2012. 28 Al-Taie, F. (1970). Salt – affected and water – logged soils of Iraq. Report to seminar on methods of amelioration of saline and water-logged

soils. Baghdad, Iraq. 29 Al-Saidi, A. and Al-Juaiali, S., (2013). The economic costs and consequences of desertification in Iraq. Global Journal of Political Science and

Administration, 1(1), pp.40-45. 30 Sissakian, V. , Al-Ansari, N. and Knutsson, S. (2013) Sand and dust storm events in Iraq. Natural Science, 5, 1084-1094. doi: 10.4236/ns.2013.510133.

https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/iom-iraq-special-report-water-scarcity

http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/1989

http://www.icarda.org/publications-resources/Iraq_Salinity

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.510133


marshlands, location (exact geographic distribution), types of ecosystems presented, kind of species, and

biological value, and finally the exact number of people depending on such ecosystems. Marshland in

Iraq has significant potential in terms of intensive development leading to job creation; support for

biodiversity, diversification through innovative and green activities. Access to crop and livestock

resources to cope with these conditions, and the increased pest and disease problems associated with loss

of biodiversity, are affecting the survival of marshland farmers.

74. Conflicts in the late 20th century, recent civil unrest, increasing population and shortage of natural

resources led to (i) farmers abandoning their lands and moving to other places looking for jobs; (ii)

farmers holding higher numbers of livestock and requiring increased resources, and extending their

cropping areas; and (iii) farmers increasingly adopting livestock as a risk management mechanism and

extending their cropping areas. Further, within the central parts, many of the previous lands are

inaccessible. Thus, farmers must concentrate their activities in a relatively small area. Further, much of

the infrastructure has been damaged, including water harvesting and storage infrastructure, putting an

even greater strain on resources. These actions inevitably divided the various communities, adding to the

mixture of factors already contributing to conflict. Moreover, land degradation, drought, and climate

variability clearly contributed to ecosystem degradation and the shortage of resources, thereby indirectly

contributing to the community’s instability.

Threat 2: Climate Change

75. Iraq is one of the countries in the MENA region most vulnerable to climate change.31 The region is

characterised by aridity, recurrent drought, water scarcity, increased average temperatures, reducing and

more erratic precipitation and sea level rise. For the 2010-2040 period, precipitation levels in Iraq are

predicted to decline significantly, although the scenarios A1b and A2 differ as to the extent. The former

foresees a decline of 5-20 percent in over 90 percent of Iraq, while the latter scenario predicts a similar

decline in 18 percent of the country. The main factors contributing to the decline are predicted to be

attributable to precipitation reductions of 5-20 percent in winter and 10-20 percent in spring. Eastern

Iraq is predicted to see gains of over 20 percent in summer precipitation however these will be

insignificant given the scarce baseline precipitation levels.

76. The emerging declining trend in precipitation is a confirmed long-term decline. The results of a

trend analysis of precipitation data for the 1901-2010 period obtained from the Global Precipitation

Climatology Centre (GPCC) indicate that precipitation in Iraq has been declining for a considerable

period of time and that this trend is significant for most of Iraq. The consequences of the precipitation

reductions are serious and slated for the immediate-to-near future hereby affecting the growth cycles of

winter crops.

77. Iraq was one of five countries in the MENA region that set records for high temperatures in 2010:

Kuwait (52.6oC), Iraq (52oC), Saudi Arabia (52oC), Qatar (50.4oC) and Sudan (49.7oC).32 The variation

of predicted temperature changes between scenarios A1b and A2 are minimal signifying that the mean

annual temperatures for the 2010-2040 period will see an increase of 1-1.5oC, although seasonal

variations will be expected. During the winter months (December to February) nearly all of Iraq will

experience an increase of 0.5-1.0oC. The increases for spring and summer are expected to be more

significant with 80 percent of Iraq experiencing a 1.0-1.5oC increase for the former and 100 percent of

Iraq a 1.5-2.0oC increase for the latter.33

78. The predominant trend corroborated by both A1b and A2 scenarios throughout Iraq, is one of even

more arid conditions. This will be caused by a combination of reduced precipitation and increased

potential evapotranspiration (PET). In 80 percent of Iraq moisture limits rainfed agriculture and climate

models predict that 90 percent of Iraq will experience a 0-15 days reduction in moisture-limited growing

periods while up to 8 percent of the country will see an increase in moisture limited days.

31 Arab Forum for the Environment and Development (2009). Arab Environment: Climate Change Impact of Climate Change on Arab Countries.

http://www.afedonline.org/afedreport09/Full%20English%20Report.pdf 32 UNEP (2016). Global Environment Outlook GEO – 6: Regional Assessment for West Asia 33 De Pauw, E. et al (2015) Mapping climate change in Iraq and Jordan. ICARDA Working Paper 27

http://www.afedonline.org/afedreport09/Full%20English%20Report.pdf


79. The IPCC fifth Assessment Report concludes for West Asia - including Iraq –that the projected

major changes in relation to climate phenomena are increased rainfall extremes of landfall cyclones on

the Arabian Peninsula (section 14.8.10). In recent decades, there appears to be a weak but non-

significant downward trend in mean precipitation (Zhang et al., 2005; Alpert et al., 2008; Al Sarmi and

Washington, 2011; Tanarhte et al., 2012), although intense weather events appear to be increasing

(Alpert et al., 2002; Yosef et al., 2009). In contrast, upward temperature trends are notable and robust

(Alpert et al., 2008; AlSarmi and Washington, 2011; Tanarhte et al., 2012). Indeed, the country has

witnessed severe prolonged drought in 2008/2009, leading to farmers abandoning their fields and moving

to urban centers, which added more stress on cities in Iraq that are already struggling to provide basic

services and economic opportunities. Marshlands are shrinking due to climate change, causing the loss of

a globally-important habitat, traditional livelihoods, future conservation, and eco-tourism potential.

Furthermore, water purification plants south of Baghdad cannot pump water due to high mud

concentration at low river levels. Climate change has also lead to increasing frequency and severity of

dust storms due to low soil moisture, those dust storms may cause irretrievable desertification. Because

of drought, wheat production was down (in the year 2008/2009 alone to 45%) form a normal harvest.

80. The CMIP5 model projections for this century are for further warming in all seasons, while

precipitation shows some distinct sub-regional and seasonally dependent changes, characterized by

model scatter. In both winter (October to March) and summer (April to September) precipitation in

general is projected to decrease. However, the various interacting dynamical influences on precipitation

of the region (that models have varying success in capturing in the current climate) results in uncertainty

in both the patterns and magnitude of future precipitation change.

81. Since AR4 climate models appear to have only modestly improved fidelity in simulating aspects of

large-scale climate phenomena influencing regional climates over West Asia. Model agreement,

however, indicates that it is very likely that temperatures will continue to increase. But at the same time,

model agreement on projected precipitation changes have reduced, resulting in medium confidence in

projections showing an overall reduction in precipitation.

1.2.2 Baseline

Government of Iraq Baseline

Agency Approx. Annual Budget Total Number of Staff

Ministry of Health and Environment (MoHE) USD 1,228,800 72

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) USD 1,240,000 106

Ministry of Water Resources USD 1,250,000 38

82. The GoI is committed to and invests heavily in the improvement of both environmental conservation

and agricultural sustainability. The Iraqi government has confronted the problem of land degradation,

deforestation, marshland degradation and unsustainable use of land in Iraq by e.g. i) creating the Ministry

of Agriculture in 1921, ii) creating the Environmental Protection and Improvement Board in 1975, iii)

establishing the Ministry of Environment in 2003 that later became the Ministry of Health and

Environment, and vi) establishing the Ministry of Water Resources which superseded the Ministry of

Irrigation under which a large establishment was created in 1973 for land reclamation. Nevertheless, the

Government support to marshlands restoration has been focused on developing strategies and action

plans and covering portions of the total areas and has neglected the more populated and intensely utilized

marshland ecosystems in many areas.


83. The Government of Iraq is developing a number of national programmes through the MoA aimed at

productivity enhancement, efficiency in Natural Resource Management (NRM) and climate change

adaptation. These programmes are relevant to the FAO/GEF project and include: (i) the national

programme for the use of on-farm modern irrigation systems; (ii) the national programme for the

improvement of wheat production; (iii) the national programme for the development of drought and

salinity tolerant crops; and (iv) the programme for the genetic improvement of local animal breeds. In

addition to introducing new agricultural practices, the national programmes listed above are in the

process of promoting relevant supportive instruments including the use of land suitability maps for the

selection of crops according to respective agro-ecological zones, which will support the country in

identifying needed future interventions to support the agricultural sector and enhancing food security.

84. Government agricultural programmes during the last decade have concentrated on boosting

management-unit productivity without a correspondingly strong focus on ecological sustainability. There

have been efforts to mainstream sustainability concerns within the agricultural extension system.

Different initiatives had been implemented and had great impacts on the ground. It was expected to lead

to some level of increased sustainability at the level of individual farmers, it is clear now that these

impacts are at individual levels, in aggregate, achieve optimization of ecosystem services at the

landscape level or enhance the resilience of protected landscapes overall in the Iraqi agricultural system.

85. The Government of Iraq has undergone a major decentralisation process under the Constitution of

2005 and has enacted several legal, policy and institutional reform initiatives following the election of

2009. The number of recent laws that have been enacted in relation to water as well as environmental

management demonstrate a degree of awareness by lawmakers on the importance of environmental and

water conservation. There is no absence of relevant laws, but what is lacking are practical and technical

details that would ensure their accurate application for sound water and environmental management.

Equally, legislation covering Conservation Agriculture (CA) and Sustainable Land Management (SLM)

is also still missing.

86. Land use planning for global environmental benefits or sustainable land management in the

production landscape was not and is not currently practiced in Iraq. Technical capacities and resources to

carry out these responsibilities are also still lacking. There is the necessary framework at the national

and regional level, including plans, policies, and legislation, as explained under the coordination section.

Moreover, there is a series of planned and ongoing projects in many places in Iraq. However, none of

these focuses specifically on sustainable land management in degraded areas and rehabilitation and

conservation of marshland ecosystems in a comprehensive way. Consequently, unsustainable land

practices are a common feature in this baseline. Examples of frequently adopted mismanagement

practices include: expanding cropping into unsuitable soils; allowing livestock to graze on cropping land

before crops are harvested; unstudied flooding marshland and water supply cut due to dams and small

channel construction upstream.

87. Conservation agriculture in Iraq is new and limited to a few demonstration sites focusing on zero-

tillage implementation and a few projects implemented by international development partners at the

specific locations. One of the main initiatives is one implemented by ICARDA in northern Iraq, it

focused on development of conservation cropping systems in the dry lands of northern Iraq. 29 zero-

tillage demonstrations were established in farmer fields in different locations, Ninevah, Kirkuk,

Salahaddin, and Anbar. More than 100 farmers and 50 staff were involved in intensive training.

88. The national government has very few resources with which to implement the above plans or to

enforce its Regulations and Acts. The highly decentralized nature means that most responsibility falls on

the State governments and State technical ministries. In turn, the State governments are generally

lacking finance and capacity, particularly in the southern part of the country.

89. The IFAD approved “Building Resilience of the Agriculture Sector to Climate Change in Iraq”

project will be operational for six years commencing in early 2019. The project’s total investment is


US$ 9.9 million. The IFAD project will align with the SLMILDA, providing a baseline and Government

of Iraq co-financing opportunity.

90. The project objective is to strengthen the agro-ecological and social resilience to climate change in

the four target governorates. The project will take place in governorates that over-lap and compliment

the proposed SLMILDA investment: Muthanna, Qadisiya, Missan and Thi Qar. The project is organized

around two components. Under the first component, the project will build capacities required to integrate

CC adaptation and risk reduction into agriculture planning and production systems. Under the project’s

second component, the project will assist to generate climate-resilient agriculture investments.

91. The IFAD project will enhance water availability and use efficiency and promote adaptive

agriculture production systems and technologies for improved livelihoods and food security of rural

households. This will include focusing upon addressing the growing scarcity of irrigation water and to

assist the country with strengthening its capacity at the national level for monitoring climate change

patterns and providing relevant information to key stakeholders and farmers to enable them to undertake

adaptation and risk mitigation measures through an early warning system.

92. A second IFAD project in partnership with FAO, will be reengaging with the Government of Iraq

with the implementation of a Smallholder Agriculture Revitalisation Project (SARP) over a seven-year

period and will target around 16,000 households to benefit a total of around 140,000 people. As one of

FAO’s sister Rome-based agencies and specialised UN agency dedicated to eradicating rural poverty in

developing countries, IFAD’s focus is on agricultural development; financial services; rural

infrastructure; livestock; fisheries; capacity and institution building; storage, food processing, marketing;

research and extension training; and small and medium enterprise (SME) development. The focus in Iraq

will be on assisting rural people overcome poverty and achieve food security through remunerative,

sustainable and resilient livelihoods by enabling smallholder farmers improve crop and livestock

productivity, resilience to climate change and diversify incomes. It will achieve this through the

modernisation and rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure schemes; knowledge management and

institutional strengthening; crop, livestock and off-farm development; skills development; and capacity

building. SARP and SLMILDA operations overlap as both target the governorates of Muthanna and Thi-

Qar and both aim to improve agricultural productivity; increase water availability and irrigation

infrastructure; and promote alternative livelihoods for the Marshland Arab community. Co-financing by

SARP will provide mutually beneficial synergies as SLMILDA will benefit from SARPs livestock

development activities which are aimed at the same target group by providing livestock packages to

women from poor households. The total budget for this project is USD 18,230,000. The project duration

covers the years 2019-2025.

93. The international community plays a key role in implementing several additional short-term projects

and strategies, long-term interventions.

• UNDP’s “Developing disaster risk management capacities in Iraq” related to enabling Iraqi

government and communities to reduce losses and damages from natural and human-induced disasters

by adopting effective mitigation and preparedness approaches, using the priorities of the Hyogo

Framework of Action. The proposed project is going to coordinate with this project to benefit from the

assessment of the affected areas. The total budget for this project is USD 6,519,000. The project

duration was to cover the years 2013 -2016. However, due to implementation delays, the project is on-

going.

• The “Strengthen Iraq’s Capacity for Sustainable Water Resources Management” Project, managed by

UNDP, and funded by the USDS) aims at assisting in the successful launch and the functioning of the

National Water Council by supporting its establishment through an interim secretariat hosted by the

Prime Minister Advisory Commission and establishing connections between the future council and

international experts and institutions. A partnership will be promoted with this project during the full

project preparation to share lessons learnt and projects’ findings. The total budget for this project is

USD 2.45M. The project duration was to cover the years 2013 -2015. However, due to

implementation delays, the project is on-going.


• Water and Development Alliance (WADA). WADA is a partnership between the United States Agency

for International Development (USAID), Coca-Cola and the Global Environment Technology

Foundation (GETF). Together they work to bring solutions in Water Health and Sanitation (WASH);

the productive use of water in terms of efficient use for value chains and access to markets; and the

environment in watershed resilience and improving access to ecosystem services. WADA works in

over thirty countries implementing over forty projects, it has improved the watershed management of

one million acres of land; positively impacted over 570,000 people with improved water access; and

over 244,000 people with improved sanitation access. In Iraq WADA has carried out a needs

assessment that was presented during the SLMILDA PPG inception workshop. The WADA project

will be implemented over a two-year period (2018-2020) and will improve access to water and

sanitation for the Marsh Arab (Ma’dan) communities, as well as identifying and adopting sustainable

management measured to rehabilitate and replenish water resources to the marshland ecosystems. The

geographical overlap with the SLMILDA project will be in the Thi-Qar governorate and the indigenous

marshland populations where WADA will co-finance to provide much needed WASH support to the

same communities. The total budget for this project is USD 1.2M. The project duration covers the

years 2019-2021 (delayed from the original 2018-2020).

• FAO: The USD1.5M Japan-funded project Improving rural livelihoods, nutrition and food security for

returnee and remainder households in newly regained areas and areas most affected by the recent

crisis, aims at achieving improved food and income security through greenhouse and backyard

vegetable production among the affected vulnerable populations in the targeted areas. This is done

through the enhancement of their capacity using innovative training skills and provision of essential

agricultural inputs to increase food availability and access to vitamins and micronutrients. The project

is implemented in different areas of the country, including the project area during the period 2018-

2019.

• FAO: The USD18M EU funded project Support to Recovery of Agricultural livelihoods by

revitalization of food production, value chains and income generation in Nineveh Governorate, Iraq

will be implemented during the period 2019-2021. This action addresses the needs of (vulnerable)

smallholder farmers and rural poor in the Governorate of Nineveh and falls within the programming

framework of the GoI-UN’s Recovery and Resilience Programme (RRP). The project is expected to

make a significant contribution to the sustainable food and agricultural livelihood security of Iraq’s

rural and peri-urban population in Nineveh Governorate, within the Humanitarian-Development Nexus

by focusing on two complimentary outcomes. The two outcomes support 1) vulnerable smallholder

crop and livestock farmers with i) vegetable production and marketing systems rehabilitated and

strengthened; ii) small-scale agri-food processing, marketing and micro-enterprise systems developed;

and iii) improved small-scale dairy processing and marketing systems developed; and 2) smallholder

crop and livestock farmers respectively, with iv) efficient irrigation water use and management

measures and technology introduced; v) increased availability of quality cereal and legume seeds; and

vi) improved small-scale animal fodder production, conservation and marketing systems developed.

While equal opportunities will be given to women in affected rural and peri-urban areas to participate

in and benefit from all sub-programme interventions, they will be specifically targeted for homestead-

based vegetable, poultry and dairy production and processing ventures. Similarly, the affected rural and

peri-urban youth (especially unemployed agricultural graduates) will be encouraged to benefit from

training to gain employment as agri-food processors, farmer field school and farmer business school

facilitators, community animal health workers, market information system operators and food security

and nutrition data collectors and analysts.

94. The Australian Government Centre for International Agriculture Research (ICIAR) along with the

Department of extension in Mosul implemented a successful conservation agriculture project in the

drylands of Northern Iraq. This USD5.9M project closed in late 2014. While the project did not apply

and/or expand conservation agriculture techniques to the southern regions of the country, lessons learned

will be upscaled and integrated within this proposed project.


1.2.3 Barriers

Barrier 1: The outdated regulatory and policy frameworks of Iraq do not coherently mainstream

sustainable land management and ecosystem service maintenance

95. Following years of turmoil and international sanctions the institutional capacity and governance

structures in agriculture and environment sectors in Iraq are severely underdeveloped. The Government

has very low capacity with regards to the identification of best SLM management practices. The MoA-

CAD is newly established and therefore capacity building is at the forefront of priorities. Not

surprisingly given the country’s recent history, a great deal of effort has not gone into building a strong

foundation with regards to international advances in SLM, conservation agriculture, agroecology and

other concepts from which the nation’s agriculture sector could benefit. This unique and challenging

situation requires the generation of institutional capacities and associated frameworks that are innovative

and appropriately scaled.

96. To be effective, sustainable land management needs to occur across the landscape with individual

actions working in cooperation with each other and with communal efforts to optimize ecosystem

services, biodiversity, and economic productivity. There is a need to improve planning and governance

within and between ministries based on an agreed strategic vision and supported by an appropriate policy

and incentive framework to establish and maintain production landscapes that are productive, produce

global environmental benefits and enhance climate resiliency. Smallholders must have the capacities,

knowledge, resources, and support from enabling policies to plan and manage land use for sustainability

and resilience to climate change across their production landscapes.

97. Government decision-makers and technical staff have not been afforded the opportunity to be

exposed and trained in how to generate the institutional and policy frameworks required to support and

incentivize the uptake of the improved practices. The institutional capacity and governance structures in

agriculture and environment sectors are underdeveloped. Ministries of Health and Environment, Water

Resources, and Agriculture suffer from limited technical and research capacity. MoH&E, the main

responsible institution for developing and implementing policies and projects in the field of

environmental and natural resources management, remains understaffed. There are very few technical

staff situated within government agencies at both the national and regional level who are able to translate

these good ideas to the next level by mainstreaming them within basic policy, regulatory and

management guidelines required to drive uptake at the farm level.

98. Policy implementation is very constrained. Resources to implement national policies are inadequate.

Decision-making is often decentralized and informal. In some cases, the governance structures are not

well established and undergo frequent transformations that also preclude progress in implementation in

Iraq. For instance, water management is a highly important area for sustainable land management.

Nevertheless, due to several reasons, starting with previous wars, recent unrest and limited government

control over the available resources, the absence of laws and regulation enforcement, the internal

conflict, and ending with the adverse impact of the last drought, it becomes very difficult for the Ministry

to manage the resources. In response, smallholders and private farms have established their own,

informal infrastructures that perpetuate unsustainable land use and irrigation practices significantly

contributing to land degradation and threatening food security and livelihoods.

99. The agricultural sector is poorly monitored. The concerned ministries suffer from lack of capacity to

research and conduct measurements. The Ministries’ facilities and instruments had been destroyed

during the previous wars and civil conflicts. There is no agriculture, environmental comprehensive

spatial data management systems, and therefore, the work of the main ministries is limited to data

collection from different stations. Thus, there is a huge data gap in these two sectors in Iraq. Data in

these two sectors is also scattered and currently, there is no attempt to collect it from different resources.

This does not allow for any user-friendly availability of data for experts or decision-makers.

Instrumentation for observation is very poor.


100. Moreover, relevant, and readily available databases and GIS layers (e.g. climate, soil, vegetation,

hydrology, geology, ground waters, biodiversity richness, and aquifers as well as land use) do not exist in

appropriate scale and become constraints to more advanced and detailed research, analyses, and robust

decision-making. At present, there are no readily available databases and GIS layers at the scale needed

to create land suitability maps for the selection of crops according to respective agro-ecological zones.

These maps would support the country in identifying needed future interventions to support the

agricultural sector and improve food security.

101. Even if these fundamental knowledge and management improvements were in place, the

Government has little capacity to monitor results and use these results to generate informed decision-

making that could subsequently be used to assist farmers to adapt and improve their practices. Without

these basic structures, there is little chance that a meaningful shift will occur.

102. While individual smallholders may adopt sustainable production practices and alternative income

generating activities, the potential impact on ecosystem services across the landscape depends on their

coordinated response guided by a strategic vision integrating productivity, connectivity, conservation,

and sustainable use goals. Government needs to have the capacity to identify appropriate SLM

interventions, articulate this vision, set strategic objectives, define outcomes, identify trade-offs,

formulate action plans, and negotiate and agree individual contributions to the fulfillment of these plans.

Barrier 2: Farmer support systems do not have the capacity to identify and incentivize the adoption

of SLM production practices

103. There is a general absence of hands-on experience, skills, and information to identify and

implement conservation agriculture projects. Moreover, the basic awareness of conservation agriculture

and marshlands ecosystem rehabilitation is absent. SLM tools such as conservation agriculture are not

widely known in Iraq although limited progress has been made by ICARDA. Small-scale farmers have

shown a willingness to adopt improved production technologies. However, producers tend to be risk

averse and want to see the positive results of SLM.

104. The current approach to sustainable land management needs to be revamped, moving from

relying on isolated and uncoordinated activities to a more coherent approach that will provide a basis for

the transfer and up scaling of best practices. Communities depending heavily on farms in Iraq should

plan and manage land use to achieve productivity objectives as well as to adopt and implement

conservation agriculture and compatible production practices and systems. This will contribute to

biodiversity conservation, carbon stocks, and ecosystem services of productive landscapes impacting

areas of high ecological value such as the Iraqi marshlands ecosystems.

105. The Iraqi government is the product of the decades-long culture of top-down planning that

extends to the demonstration plot approach in imparting new farming techniques to smallholders and

needs to evolve through practical exposure to participatory approaches. In contrast, the well-established

FFS programme is an interactive, participatory, non-formal approach to adult learning which is based on

pluralistic, dynamic and client orientated principles. The project aims to gradually introduce the FFS

approach into the more traditional governmental approach. One of the challenges of project

implementation are the weak MoA extension services which are a consequence of decades of

underinvestment and this has resulted in among other things, a lack of extension training, privatisation

and farmer participation.

106. The extension system in Iraq is public sector-centric, old-fashioned and top-down instead of

being pluralistic, dynamic and client orientated. Theoretically, technical advice is to trickle down from

elite farmers and lead farmers, but there appears limited evidence of this effect materializing, not least

because of the human resource and resource limitations (mobility, fuel, materials, etc.) of the Directorates

of Agriculture. In Muthanna Governorate, for example, the ratio is one of 34 extension agents for 18,000

farmers, with only five female extension agents. The ratio of male to female extension agents is much

better in Thi-Qar Governorate, where 15 male and 15 female extension workers are present covering the


agricultural units. Also, since 2005 there are two public extension systems, one under central authority

responding to Baghdad, and the other one under provincial authorities responding to the Governorates.34

107. Iraq has had limited international cooperation with the exception of FAO and the International

Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), consequently there is a lack of a real

extension and training strategy with adequate operating budgets, involving effective decentralization,

privatisation, gender empowerment, farmer participation, use of modern information technologies,

linkages with research and other institutions such as universities, private sector, and support to the heads

of vulnerable households in particular women and youth.

108. Organisations at producer level still exist but the institutional capacity at the MoA and MoWR to

provide services to the sector have significantly deteriorated over the past decades. Consequently, there

is little institutional coordination and cooperation in agricultural planning and project implementation.

Years of conflict and disruption of the social fabric have left traditional customs and social rural life

disintegrated and Organisations at the producer level weak and ineffective. Consequently, the main

constraints for the SLMILDA target communities are a lack of capital, inadequate level of skills, poor

access to finance as well as a lack of marketing expertise and linkages.35

109. Zero-tillage (ZT) seeders are not commercially available. Uncultivated soil is much harder than

tilled soil. The springs and tines on conventional seeders are unable to sow the seed and fertilizer at a

consistent depth. Moreover, conventional seeders are prone to the build-up of crop residues and mud on

their tines, causing blockages and ineffective seed distribution.

110. A key driver of adoption by communities is the economic benefit derived from successful

marketing and sale of sustainably harvested product at scale. Communities must have the capacities to

produce sufficient volumes of high quality, conservation-compatible products, add value, and get them to

markets. This implies capacities to coordinate, plan and manage land use that is coherent with ecosystem

service and climate resilience objectives of key landscapes, as well as the development of appropriate

business management skills and abilities. Providing the needed skills for smallholders for proper

packaging, labeling, and marketing of products is, therefore, key.

Barrier 3: Farmer support systems do not have the capacity to identify and incentivize the adoption

of SLM production practices relevant to the conservation of high-value wetlands

ecosystems.

111. Smallholder communities associated with marshland ecosystems have practiced traditional low-

input agriculture for years based on a profound knowledge of species and agro-ecosystem function, with

the overall strategy of reducing risk and increasing or maintaining labor efficiency. While this has

generated a certain degree of food security and well-being, the unintended long-term environmental

consequences of some of these practices in changing ecological and socio-economic circumstances

require the development and incorporation of new practices and techniques to achieve sustainability

while enhancing productivity to meet increasing development demands. Smallholders would benefit

from the adoption of skills and knowledge to adapt conservation agriculture and agro-ecological

principles to current farming systems with the aim of maintaining or increasing productivity while

conserving habitats important for production of ecosystem services.

112. There is little documented evidence in Iraq on the range of benefits generated by protecting

ecosystem services. Such evidence is however essential for influencing decision makers to invest in the

transition to sustainable practices. Assessing, evaluating and documenting the value, status and service

of Iraq’s fragile ecosystems and the contribution it can make to the broader economy, livelihoods of

small-holders dependent on eco-services and the national wellbeing, is an essential first step. GIS and

34 IFAD 2017 Small Holder Agriculture Revitalisation Project: Final project design report, Rome. 35 FAO – World Bank (2012). Iraq Agriculture Sector note. Rome.


remote sensing land use mapping are important tools for any government institution in documenting and

monitoring land use and land degradation, the MoHE currently does not possess this capacity.

113. For communities to benefit economically as an incentive to conserve marshland ecosystems, they

must coordinate their production systems to avoid duplication and unconstructive competition and to

achieve economies of scale across sustainable production operations throughout the country. The project

will promote the development and/or adoption by community groups and organizations of a set of low

input sustainable income generating practices that taken together and carried out by hundreds of

smallholders across the landscape will enhance climate resilience, productivity, resource use efficiency,

and niche marketability. The project will facilitate access to certification of local agricultural products,

access to credit, and contribute to marshlands ecosystems sustainability and resilience. Engagement and

discussion with certifying entities and the access to credit will be carried out during the PPG phase of the

project.

114. The sustainability of Iraq marshland ecosystem services, its biodiversity, and its economic

productivity requires an approach that provides the opportunities, the means, and the motivation to

communities for them to rehabilitate, develop, acquire, and/or exercise the financing, knowledge, and

capacities needed to develop and manage their resources for global environmental and local development

benefits. The switch to the Conservation Agriculture system in Iraq could add to the amount of carbon

sequestrated and help in conserving and rehabilitating the degraded land.

115. To achieve sustainability over the long term, communities practicing agriculture need to have

substantial knowledge of conservation agriculture pillars, mechanisms, techniques, as well as planning

and management skills. Lands and resources like marshlands used for agriculture and good governance

of these commons are required to avoid diminishing the productivity and availability of the resource and

generating conflicts. At the same time, new practices must be identified and developed and the

appropriate skills acquired on a continuous basis given the nature of these living systems.

Barrier 4: Information and knowledge management systems required for informed decision-making

and incentivize sustainable production practices regionally are inadequate.

116. The Government and other stakeholders are not capturing lessons learned and/or contributing

these lessons to global scaled improvements. There is a need to support the Government to become part

of and benefit from global SLM initiatives. This includes monitoring project progress, reporting on this

progress, and feeding best practices into regional and global centers for learning and advancement.

1.3. The GEF Alternative

1.3.1 Theory of Change

117. Under the existing situation, the productive landscape of southern Iraq does not measurably

contribute to the achievement of global environmental benefits. Agriculture and grazing management in

this region often result in land degradation with adverse impacts upon soil, water, vegetation,

biodiversity, sustainable livelihoods and, in many cases, associated globally significant wetlands.

118. The project is designed to address SLM for improved livelihoods in degraded areas of Iraq. The

project objective is to reverse land degradation processes, conserve and sustainably manage land and

water resources in degraded marshland ecosystems in Southern Iraq for greater access to services from

resilient ecosystems and improved livelihoods. The project will cover degraded lands and associated

production that have a direct and indirect impact upon wetlands. This project’s theory of change is based

upon four integrated components designed to result in the achievement of the project objective. Each


component is designed to catalyze and result in the transformations required to assist Iraq to move

towards production modalities that support SLM.

119. The first component will address Barrier 1: The outdated regulatory and policy framework of

Iraq do not coherently mainstream sustainable land management and ecosystem service maintenance

Under this component, the project will assist the Government to build the capacity required to support a

comprehensive SLM program. The efforts will focus upon assisting the newly established Conservation

Agriculture Directorate within the Ministry of Agriculture. Capacities will also be strengthened with

other ministries and agencies with mandates associated with the generation and support of SLM

programming. This will engender a coordinated approach to support conservation of ecosystem services.

The final outcome of this component will be a national institutional and management framework capable

of moving forward a strategic SLM agenda.

120. As part of the national SLM capacity building efforts, the project will provide the technical and

catalytic support required to generate and implement a national agriculture SLM strategy and action plan.

This strategy will focus upon necessary policy, institutional and financing mechanisms needed to support

and incentivize innovations such as conservation agriculture and agroecology. The strategy will set in

place the building blocks required to identify opportunities to enhance the ways the agriculture sector can

improve production methods in order to drive forward SLM based production.

121. As part of the component’s overall strategic management and capacity building efforts, the

project will generate a strategic assessment and management plan focused upon the unique aspects

related to the interface between agriculture and marshlands conservation. This action program will build

upon and augment the more general national strategy. The wetland-centered program will include an

assessment of the benefits flowing from wetlands to agriculture and the mediation of potential adverse

impacts to marshlands from agriculture. Building these capacities will assist national agencies and other

stakeholders to provide a more strategic policy, funding, and capacity building efforts to the distinct

needs of marshland associated agriculture interests.

122. The component will set in place a comprehensive national knowledge management and

monitoring tool. This output will make certain capacities built are capturing lessons, informing decision-

making, and inventorying improved practices. This will include social media and web-based platforms to

capture and disseminate best practices generated through Component 2 and 3. The tool will be linked to

a digital land use map allowing extension officers, decision-makers and producers to elevate the level of

sophistication regarding production practice selection and process towards delivery of targeted global

environmental benefits.

123. The second component will address Barrier 2: Farmer support systems do not have the

capacity to identify and incentivize the adoption the of SLM production practices. The project will focus

energies and investments upon generating a platform for learning and building incentives for

agriculturalists to gain exposure to and experience with more production practices that generate SLM

benefits. The final outcome will be an established FFS program targeting SLM that is supported by

trained extension professionals with access to international best practices and awareness building

materials. This FFS program will have demonstrated the benefits of SLM across two Governate. The

outcome will link with, inform, and be informed by the Component 1 knowledge and management

program.

124. The FFS model developed by FAO has been highly effective particularly with building farmer

skills to improve production and sustainability in dozens of countries. The project will build upon and

expand this model for the purposes of building local community capacity to engage in and support agro-

ecological and conservation practices at the landscape level.

125. The component will kick off with an assessment and identification of best SLM practices that

address threats within the target region. This will then move forward into the development of an FFS

curriculum to teach these best practices and training programs to build the capacity of extension officers

and others to implement the SLM focused FFS programs. Once these capacities are in place, the project


will support the implementation of FFS programming across the governates. This will include both a

teaching element as well as demonstrations. Demonstrations will be designed to support agriculturalists

to engage in improved practices by providing support to reduce perceived risks in adopting improved

production while proving the social, economic, and ecological benefits of improved practices. These

improvements will be linked to the component 1 knowledge management and monitoring platform

emplaced with CAD. In this way, a learning circle will exist with information informing decision-

making, decision-making adapting to lessons learned, and results distributed to farmers to provide them

with information regarding what SLM improve tools are most practical and suitable to particular

locations and circumstances. The project’s theory of change under this component is that emplacing

these improvements will serve to incentivize the uptake and amplification of SLM practices that deliver

global environmental benefits across a wider landscape.

126. The project’s third component will address Barrier 3: Farmer support systems do not have the

capacity to identify and incentivize the adoption the of SLM production practices relevant to the

conservation of high-value wetlands ecosystems. The third component will in many ways mirror and

build upon Component 2 activities. This will include assessing opportunities, identifying a suite of best

practices to apply, generating FFS curriculum, training extension officers and others to use this

curriculum, applying the curriculum to support agricultural improvements, and monitoring these

improvements to inform national and governote level applications. Component three, however, will

focus these efforts upon the unique circumstances and challenges associated with agricultural production

most closely associated with and impacting the globally significant southern marshlands. These

distinguishing factors are detailed with the project framework. The theory of change is that the

component’s program will serve to incentivize the adoption and amplification of SLM practices to

deliver global environmental benefits specifically addressing issues related to agriculture as an identified

threat to wetlands conservation.

127. The project’s fourth component will address Barrier 4: Information and knowledge

management systems required for informed decision-making and incentivize sustainable production

regionally practices are inadequate. This fourth component will be closely aligned with the information

and management programming set in place under the nationally oriented Component 1. Under

Component 4, the project will make certain that lessons learned by this project are magnified regionally.

Through Component 4, monitoring and reporting will capture best practices and feed these into regional

and international forums to make certain results help to inform international efforts to identify best

practices for the delivery of SLM and associated global environmental benefits. This will include

linkages to international information delivery mechanisms such as FAO’s WOCAT database and regional

SLM network. The theory of change will result in an outcome of improved global and regional capacity

to identify and implement SLM practices that help to drive the delivery of global environmental benefits

both within Iraq and internationally.

Summary of Baseline

128. Under the business-as-usual scenario, the Government is eager to make advances and there are

isolated examples of agricultural improvements. However, without GEF funding, negative land use

trends present in the Iraqi agricultural land and marshland systems will remain static. Iraq has endured

decades of conflict. The result is a production system and associated institutional framework with little

experience in terms of the identification and application of best global SLM practices designed to

promote agriculture that is economically, socially, and ecologically positive. Land degradation,

biodiversity losses, and ecosystem degradation can be expected to continue, along with increasing GHG

emissions, and vulnerability to climate change. Without GEF funding, stakeholders will not possess the

resources to develop their capacities to plan and manage their production landscapes for multiple,

integrated production, sustainability, and global environmental benefits.

129. There would be no specific dedicated effort to enable the concerned authorities in Iraq with the

sufficient opportunities, means and motivation to identify, develop and implement conservation

agriculture and sustainable livelihood practices and systems which, when appropriately coordinated

within a landscape planning and management framework, will produce global environmental benefits


and local and sub-regional climate resiliency. In the absence of this project, hundreds of farmers will

remain unaware of the benefits of conservation agriculture, and the link between landscape management,

farm management, and the sustainability of ecosystem services and the generation of global

environmental benefits.

130. Without the components proposed in this project, Iraq risks losing an opportunity for a globally

relevant, systematic mainstreaming of sustainable land management. In the absence of this project,

conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation will remain absent from development goals

and receive less support from public policy and these ecosystems, particularly rich in a unique diversity

in marshland system, will continue to face the threat of genetic deterioration and the loss of valuable

genetic resources. In addition to this consequence, the implementation of the project will also help to

meet national priorities and will provide means for the country to benefit through shared best practices

and experiences in the sustainable land management. Without this project, an opportunity to enhance the

conservation and sustainable use of valuable resources to meet environmental and development goals

will be lost in the agricultural and marshlands of Iraq.

The GEF Alternative

131. The project’s GEF investment of approximately USD 3.5 million will leverage more than USD

21 million in co-financing. This investment will help Iraq to accelerate conservation improvements

necessary to address baseline challenges. The end result will be a significant transformation from the

existing situation where government institutions and private farmers struggle to identify and apply SLM

practices.

132. The program will positively impact the production practices of hundreds of households and

extend over tens of thousands of hectares of productive agricultural ground. This result in a substantial

reduction in the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. SLM will be promoting more

judicious water use, improving both the quality and quantity of surface and ground water. The project’s

ecosystem-based agricultural enhancements will positively affect currently degraded, high-conservation-

value areas, including conservation impacts for globally significant wetlands ecosystems and associated

biodiversity. The project established SLM platforms will engender coordination and collaboration

among stakeholders, align efforts, and facilitate monitoring and identification of potential improvements.

Best practices will be mainstreamed to positively impact SLM within the agricultural sector nationally,

resulting in long-term and sustainable impacts supported by capacitated institutions and individuals

actively driving forward SLM practices to deliver global environmental benefits.

Global Benefits

133. The project will result in at least 10,000 hectares of productive landscape under SLM globally

significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society. This includes at

least 6,000 hectares of degraded agricultural lands restored and 4,000 hectares of wetlands restored. It is

anticipated that more than 2,500 smallholders (1,250 men/ 1,250 women) will directly benefit from the

GEF investment.

134. Following are indicative targets and quantifiable impacts. Please refer to the project’s Results

Framework in Annex 1 for more specifics regarding indicators.

Corporate Results

Replenishment Targets

Project targets

2. Maintain globally significant biodiversity

and the ecosystem goods and services that it

provides to society

120 million hectares under sustainable land

management.

10,000 Hectares


GEF-7 Core Indicator 3: Area of land restored (hectares)

Ha (expected at PIF) Ha (expected at CEO

Endorsement)

Ha (achieved at MTR) Ha (achieved at TE)

10,000 10,000 TBD TBD Figure at a given stage must be the sum of all figures reported under the four sub-indicators (3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) for that stage.

3.1 Area of degraded agricultural lands restored


Endorsement)


6,000 6,000 TBD TBD

3.2 Area of forest and forest land restored


Endorsement)


NA NA TBD TBD

3.3 Area of natural grass and shrub lands restored


Endorsement)


NA NA TBD TBD

3.4 Area of wetlands (including estuaries and mangroves) restored


Endorsement)


4,000 4,000 TBD TBD

GEF-7 Core Indicator 4: Area of landscapes under improved practices

(Hectares; excluding protected areas)


Endorsement)


10,000 10,000 TBD TBD Figure at a given stage must be the sum of all figures reported under the four sub-indicators (4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) for that stage.

4.3 Area of landscapes under sustainable land management in production systems Ha

(expected

at PIF)

Description of

Management

Practices at PIF

Ha (expected at

CEO

Endorsement)

Description of

Management

Practices at CEO ER

Ha

(achieved

at MTR)

Description

of

Management Practices at

MTR

Ha

(achieved

at TE)

Description of

Management

Practices at TE

10,000 Conservation

agriculture and

agrobiodiversity

practices; please

see project

document for

details

10,000 Conservation

agriculture and

agrobiodiversity

practices; please

see project

document for

details

TBD TBD TBD TBD

GEF-7 Core Indicator 11: Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit

of GEF investment Total number (expected

at PIF)

Total number (expected

at CEO Endorsement)

Total number (achieved

at MTR)

Total number (achieved

at TE)

Women 250 1,250 TBD TBD

Men 250 1,250 TBD TBD

Total 500 2,500 TBD TBD


1.3.2. Project Framework

Outcome 1: Enhanced policy, legal, and institutional frameworks support SLM

GEF: USD 485,700/Cofinacing: USD 1,950,000

Output 1.1 National SLM training program established

135. The project will support the implementation of a comprehensive SLM training program. The

capacity building effort will target the Ministry’s newly established Conservation Agriculture Directorate

(CAD) while integrating MoH&E and other relevant stakeholders.

136. The training will make certain that key decision-makers are exposed to best international

principles and practices. The training program will be led by international technical teams. The training

programs will consist of at least three-days of intensive workshops using specifically developed training

materials.

137. The project will implement a series of at least 7 core training programs. These training programs

will be organized by the project management team. Each training program will cover a seven-day

period. Training participants will include key decision-makers representing national and project site

level decision-makers, extension officers, and recognized farm leaders in each of the target communities.

Core Training: Participant Organizations Participating Agencies

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)

Conservation Agriculture Directorate

Office of Agriculture Extension Services and Training

Ministry of Health and Environment (MoHE) Environment Agency

Office of Forests and Combating Desertification

Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) National Centre for Water Resource Management

The State Commission Authority for Ground Water

Muthanna Governate Agriculture agency representative

Environment agency representative

Thi-Qar Governate Agriculture agency representative

Environment agency representative

Iraqi Farmer's Association Representative

University of Thi-Qar Faculty Representative

University of Muthanna Faculty Representative

Farmer’s groups At least 6 participants from state and private held “lead” farms

138. One purpose of the effort will be to generate synergies and cooperation between the CAD and

MoH&E. This will include how best to coordinate efforts to make certain that capacity building is

designed to target the delivery of global environmental benefits. The activity will be closely integrated

with the project in its entirety. This will make certain that the project assists the government to design

and promote informed decision-making able to support adaptation and incentivize uptake of agricultural

practices proven to deliver on the project’s objective.

139. During the project’s first year, a comprehensive capacity building strategy will be designed with

the technical support of FAO-Rome as well as regional technical staff. This strategy will fully evaluate

capacity building needs.

140. Illustrative core training programs include:

• Policy and practice: The design and implementation of policy framework to integrate the

achievement of international and national agriculture and environmental objectives;

• Government Management Efficiency: How to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of

government’s approach to supporting the realization of SLM, CA, and agrobiodiversity;


• Farm Extension: Using contemporary tools to engage with farmers to assist them to uptake best

practices;

• Global SLM Initiatives: Overview of the best international SLM on-farm practices. This will

include an overview and introduction to programs such as TerrAfrica recognized as leader in the

promotion of SLM;

• Farmer Field Schools: Design and implementation of Farmer Field School Programs. This will

include an introduction to the suite of programs supported globally by FAO, including an

introduction to training materials and module development;

• Wetlands and agriculture: Best global practices in the use of agrobiodiversity to achieve

ecosystem services. This will include introductions to frameworks related to the impacts of

agriculture upon wetlands conservation and global best practices;

• Farm Economics: How to support the design of business plans and value chains that incentivize

improved agricultural practices. This will include an introduction to basic business planning and

the results of FAO’s international suite of best practices;

• Monitoring: Best practices to determine that agriculture is contributing to the achievement of

global environmental benefits. This will include an introduction to FAO’s remote and on-farm

monitoring experiences; and

• Gender: Women and agriculture, international experiences. This will include an introduction to

FAO’s programs specific to agriculture, livelihoods, quality of life, and women.

141. Each training session will include a measurement of capacity enhancement based upon

comparison of capacity at start and end of the training program. The results of each training module will

be fully captured and feed into Component 4’s knowledge management activities. This will help to

ensure sustainability of capacity building as well as amplification. Capture will include a brief 10 – 15

summary report of each training program. The training programs will be executed during project years 1

– 3, to make certain results are fully integrated to support achievement of desired outcomes. By project

close, the MoA with the support of MoH&E should be fully capacitated to complete annual monitoring

and support without project assistance.

Output 1.2 National SLM strategy and action plan developed and implemented

142. The project will develop a national sustainable land management and conservation agriculture

strategy and action plan to drive forward the SLM. The strategy and action plan will focus primarily

upon improving the management of currently degraded productive landscapes that have an indirect

impact upon wetlands conservation. The program emplaced under Output 1.2 will look at SLM in a

broad context to build basic capacity requirements. The SLM strategy and action plan will be

supplemented by a wetlands specific strategy and action plan to be developed under Output 1.2

143. The strategy will particularly focus upon issues related to the achievement of global

environmental benefits. This will include objectives, indicators, and monitoring arrangements to make

certain strategy implementation is on-track to deliver these targets. The national level plan will be based

upon and integrate the result of project components 1 – 4. The plan will encapsulate and reflect lessons

learned and capacities built. The strategy and action plan will consider the following issues:

• Successful Technologies: The strategy will review best available farm level technologies to be

encouraged in the Iraq’s agriculture sector pertaining to SLM. This will include specific sections

covering wetlands conservation and restoration;


• Policy Recommendations: The strategy and plan will identify institutional and regulatory issues

related to the realization of more sustainable agriculture, both those addressed through the

project and remaining to be addressed. The strategy will include detailed recommendations

including specific regulatory language to fix policy issues. The strategy will consider ways to

improve the coordination of various ministries at national and regional level. This will include

looking at issues of cost-efficiencies and effectiveness;

• Extension Service: Best practices and national targets in terms of building the capacity of

extension services to provide farm level support to engage in and uptake sustainable agricultural

practices. This will include provisions related to the mainstreaming of proven and effective tools

such as the FFS model;

• Ecosystem Services: The strategy and action plan will specifically address issues concerning the

relationship of agriculture and ecosystem services. This includes the valuation and reliance upon

ecosystem services as well as mitigating degradation to ecosystem services. The strategy will

fully integrate the findings of Output 1.3;

• Farm Level Incentives: A very important element will be the identification of how government

agricultural support programs can be realigned to provide incentives for more agro-ecological

production. This will include a full assessment and description of the current suite of incentives

related to things such as input subsidies, price support, and marketing/sale of agricultural

products. The strategies will describe how farmers and other stakeholders perceive how these

entitlements can be reoriented to help farmers reduce investments risk and increase incentives for

adoption of agro-ecological production;

• The strategy will review the current system of incentives and disincentives pertaining to farmers

up taking improved practices. This will include incorporation of findings and recommendations

related to improve business planning and value chains;

• Livelihoods and Food Security: The strategy will address issues of livelihoods and food security,

making certain that proposed interventions do not cause adverse impacts to these issues for

farmers and other stakeholders;

• Issues of Gender: The strategy will carefully consider issues of gender. This includes ways to

improve access of women to decision-making processes and ways to build capacity to engage

more independently within the agriculture sector;

• Financing: The strategy will be costed. This includes detailing precisely how much each

proposed activity and initiative will cost and where these finances will be secured. This will

include covering the costs for project emplaced programming that will be absorbed within the

national strategy framework. The strategy will prioritize expenditures based upon best practices

and examples to date, while providing adequate budgeting for staffs to continue to explore and

identify new SLM pathways;

• Institutional Capacity: The strategy will carefully assess and detail current government

capacities relevant to the delivery of proposed objectives. This will be important to make certain

that the proposed strategy matches the absorptive capacity of Iraq, which is currently quite low.

The strategy will also detail what capacities were built during the project implementation period,

what was successful in this regard, identify existing capacity gaps, and generate

recommendations for filling these gaps; and

• Monitoring and Reporting: The strategy will detail how the Government intends to actively

monitor agriculture in order to generate more informed decision-making. This includes the

generation of specific and measurable impact indicators related to the achievement of global

environmental benefits. The strategy will detail how financial returns, productivity, and other


data required to assist policy makers and producers make informed decisions regarding which

practices to adopt to improve livelihoods while generating ecological benefits. This will be

linked to the project emplaced monitoring improvements, including knowledge management

under Component 4 and the decision-making tool created under Outputs 1.2 and 1.3.

144. This working group will be identified by each of the primary stakeholder agencies with

relevancy to agriculture and environment management. By the close of project year 2, the working group

will have completed an annotated outline for the proposed strategy. During project year 2, a national

working group will be held. This will cover issues related to national management objectives, impact

indicators, capacity, and sustainable financing support. By the close of project year 3, the draft plan will

be completed. At this stage, the task force will implement a national workshop to introduce the draft

plan and engage stakeholders to gather inputs and insights. The full strategy will be completed and

submitted to government for approval prior to the project’s terminal evaluation.

Output 1.3 National strategic action plan for agriculture and marshlands developed and

implemented

145. The project will assist the ministry to first generate a strategic marshland management

assessment and management plan. Generation of the marshland management assessment strategy will be

supported with the technical assistance of the project. The final strategy will be designed using an

inclusive, round-table approach. This will include a representative group of between 6 – 8 persons

charged by the government to specifically work with the technical expert(s) to generate the assessment

and proposed strategy. The national policy and legal framework concerning the marshland ecosystem

management will be analyzed and modifications proposed after broad consultations with stakeholders

and local communities in the pilot locations.

146. The project will build the capacity of the MoH&E to more effectively monitor the marshland

ecosystem in coordination with CAD. Capacities built through project engagement will be specifically

focused upon the interface between the productive (farm) landscapes and generating positive impacts to

the long-term sustainable management of the marshlands.

147. The project will assist stakeholders to generate responses that are in line with Ramsar

Conventions Resolution VIII (2002) that calls for frameworks for identifying, documenting and

disseminating good agriculture-related practice with wetland specific management guidelines. This

includes minimizing the adverse impacts of agricultural practices on wetland conservation and

sustainable use goals. FAO has been instrumental globally in developing a suite of policy and practice

initiatives relevant this Ramsar resolution.

148. The project will particularly support the Government to undertake a Resilience, Adaptation,

Pathways and Transformation Assessment (RAPTA) Framework36 approach to this assessment. Assess

the social-ecological system, including the problems affecting its sustainability and work with

stakeholders to identify options to consider and devise pathways to improve the system's condition. This

will include application of RAPTA’s approaches towards scoping, multi-stakeholder engagement,

assessment, and the identification of pathways.

149. The project will assist stakeholders to gain an understanding and comparative analysis of

international policies and programs related to agriculture and wetlands conservation. This includes

reviewing initiatives and policy reforms taken by other countries. There are a host of nations who have

progressive and effective policies in place to help mitigate the adverse impacts of agriculture on

wetlands. This comparative analysis will help Iraq learn from these advances and adopt the best

practices suited to Iraq’s unique challenges.

36 “Designing Projects in a Rapidly Changing World: Guidelines for embedding resilience, adaptation and transformation into sustainable development projects” STAP Advisory Document. V1.


150. Agriculture and wetlands assessment and management considerations will include:

• Inventory, identification, categorization and delineation of wetlands

• Administration responsibilities

• Management objectives, both general and specific for identified categories

• Land use planning

• Identification and prioritization of threats

• Review, assessment and recommendations regarding laws, policies, and institutional frameworks

• Opportunities for cooperative governance, including private and public sector

• Generation of incentives for improved agriculture management

• Best agricultural practices to be applied and supported

• Integrated water resource management applied to agriculture

• Agricultural support and extension programming

• Public awareness and capacity building priorities and responses

• Restoration and enhancement programming

• Potential offset, mitigation, easements, and “no net loss” programming

• Impact assessment, evaluation and reporting tools

• Permitting, enforcement and oversight

• Monitoring objectives, protocols and responsibilities

• Funding mechanisms

151. The finalized assessment and strategy will be presented by the “round-table” development group

through a series of workshops. First, a national and local workshop will be conducted to engage national

and local stakeholders in the design process. These workshops will be used as a method to gauge

stakeholder interests and concerns. When the final draft assessment and strategy are completed, the

round-table participants will present these drafts to national and regional stakeholders for their input. In

addition, drafts will be vetted with concerned international stakeholders. This includes in particular

parties such as UNEP and IUCN who have already begun the process of looking at wetlands

conservation. Again, the assessment and strategy will add value to the existing baseline by providing

information and focus upon the specific issues related to the improvements of agricultural systems to

promote long-term rehabilitation and conservation of the wetlands and associated globally significant

species.

152. The marshland assessment and agriculture strategic management plan will be completed by the

close of project year 2. During project year 3, this plan will be fully integrated within the results of

Component 3. The results will also be fully integrated within Output 1.4 (productive landscape

conservation strategy). During project years 3 and 4, the strategy will be fully monitored. This will

include indicators related to the achievement of global environmental benefits. The results of this

monitoring will be reflected in strategy update reports to be produced annually by the MoH&E with

technical support from the project. By project close, the MoH&E should be fully capacitated to complete

annual monitoring and support without project assistance.

Output 1.4 National monitoring and knowledge management platform to inform SLM

decision-making established

153. The project will support the creation of a knowledge and decision-making platform supported by

a digital land use mapping system. The land use mapping system will provide basic information to

support management improvements. The system will serve as a tool to assist farmers, extension officers,

and government agencies to makes informed decisions regarding the application of best SLM practices.

154. The system will upload and monitor the following sets of data and information:


• Land Use and Ownership: The system will demarcate farm boundaries and ownership patterns.

This will include contact and tracking details for individual farmers, the identification of

government and private land boundaries, and the tracking of encroachment and/or expansion.

• Suitability Index: The system will provide basic information regarding land use and production

suitability. This will include issues related to carrying capacity, soil management, water resource

management and other issues required within a comprehensive productive management system

designed to drive the achievement of global environmental benefits.

• Soil Management: The system will upload monitoring information related to soil, fertility,

organic composition, etc. This will include identification of “at-risk” landscapes. The tool will

provide a mechanism to quantify risks, identify preferred interventions, and provide detailed

analysis of progress made with regards to risk mitigation.

• Climate Change: The system will support the enhancement of climate change resilience and

adapation. This will include monitoring climate change impacts as well identifying best practices

as they relate to building climate change resilience and assisting agriculturalists to better adapt to

climate change impacts. Again, this will be linked to the results of FFS emplaced practices under

Outputs 2 and 3.

• Grazing Management: The system will track herd size, use and composition for both rangelands

and cultivated lands.

• Water and Irrigation: The system will provide the capacity to track water resource use. This will

include issue pertaining to irrigation, evaporation, groundwater use, production levels, run-off,

efficiency, and pollution loads.

• Production Practices: The system will upload and monitor information regarding production

practices at the farm level. This will include seed varieties, tillage practices, irrigation, fertilizer

and pesticide use, etc.

• Wetlands Conservation: The system will integrate issues specifically related to wetlands

conservation and agriculture. This includes best practices identified.

• Production Value: The system will monitor yields and values at the site level. This will include

tracking of profitability to provide key information related to inform the up-take of best practices

and the improvement of value chains and business planning.

• Farmer Field Schools: The tool will identify and track farmer field school activities. This will

include the identification of farms that are uptaking production practices recommended by the

results of farmer field schools and the resulting impacts.

• Extension Services: The tool will track extension services and the provision of these services.

This will include a tabulation of farm level engagement, tracking how the allocation of farm

extension results in improved farming practices.

• Environmental Information: The system will monitor basic environmental and conservation

information at the farm level. This will include particularly impacts related to the wetlands and

wetlands conservation. Specific indicators for this will be developed by the project linked to

both farm and production system wide impacts. This information will feed in from the result of

Output 1.3 (Marshland management)

155. Data and information generated for the system will be a combination of remote sensing, farm

level reporting using cellphone technology and ground-truthing by project, government extension

services, academics and others. The system will be established within the MOA’s Conservation


Agriculture Directorate (CAD). However, information generated by the system will be made available

with to the other ministries and agencies concerned with issues of environmental management, wetlands

conservation, and integrated water resources management.

156. Under this output, the project will design and implement a core set of knowledge dissemination

practices. This will include a website, social media (e.g., Facebook, YouTube site, etc.) designed to

make certain that information generated is widely distributed and available for farmers, extension

officers, and decision-makers. This will be closely aligned with the results, monitoring information,

training materials, and best practices generated under Components 2 (general agriculture production) and

Component 3 (Wetlands specific production).

157. The project will support the creation of a comprehensive strategy for the design, operational and

data generation/information management for the system by the close of project year one. The system

will be emplaced by the close of project year two. By project year three, the system should be fully

operational and delivering site level information covering each of the proposed project areas. By project

close, the system should be fully functional and ready for application across a much wider productive

area landscape. Result generated by the tool should be complied at least twice annually. These results

will be provided to decision makers at the national, regional and farm level and used to inform the

improvement of farm practices and specifically the delivery of global environmental benefits.

Outcome 2: SLM best practices promoted and delivering global environmental benefits

GEF: USD 1,991,921/Cofinancing: USD 12,700,000

Output 2.1 Locally adapted SLM best practices described and prioritized for target areas

158. The project will provide the government with technical expertise required to assess current

farming practices across the target areas associated with wetlands. The purpose of these assessments will

be to generate a suite of optimal production practices designed to improve local economic livelihoods

and food security while driving agriculture improvements that result in global environmental benefits.

Production practices will include both agriculture and livestock systems.

159. During project year one, the assessment will work at the site level to engage directly with

producers to assess current production methods. Based upon this initial assessment, government staff at

both the MOA and MoH&E will work the project’s international technical team to generate an initial best

practices hand-book. This will serve as the first step in generating teaching and training tools to be

utilized by extension services for the support and implementation of the FFS model. This training tool

will include reference to business and management planning, production methods, monitoring, and the

remaining suite of comprehensive approaches required to deliver GEB’s.

160. The technical team will develop a range of options to identify, assess and adapt sustainable land

management and conservation agriculture practices. SLM and CA best practices will increase vegetation

cover, improve soil fertility, productivity and reduce soil salinity in pilot production systems. Potential

interventions to be further investigated include: improved crop varieties (e.g., climate resilient maize),

production diversification, crop-livestock integration, cover cropping and rotation, integrated soil fertility

management, system of rice intensification (SRI), agro-forestry and forest management, water

management and harvesting techniques, improved crop storage facilities to minimize post-harvest losses

and reduce climate shock, improved livestock oversight and grazing regimes (e.g., ear tagging,

permitting, etc.), and rotational grazing.

161. As part of the assessment and strategy design process, select representatives from the project

area as well as MoA and MoH&E will have the opportunity to travel abroad for a one-week intensive

training program. This program will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to discuss best practices

related to agriculture and wetlands management. The capacity building program will engage with

experts in fields related to in agroecology, conservation agriculture, wetlands and integrated water


resources management, and the incorporation of wetlands conservation within FFS curriculum and

programming. Participants will be charged with leading a workshop in Iraq presenting the findings of

their mission. Of primary importance will be assisting the participants to fully identify factors to

consider within the finalized assessment and strategy. Expenses associated with this capacity building

approach are justified given the security considerations associated with foreign technical experts

traveling to Iraq.

162. As the project moves forward through trial implementation, results will inform the training

manuals and guidelines so that these grow in sophistication. The entire resource library will be made

available electronically through Component 1 and 4 activities.

163. The FFS design will incorporate a comprehensive monitoring and reporting program. This will

be done to achieve both in-flow and outflow of information. The monitoring and reporting program will

link with and inform decision-making and policy improvements established under Component 1. This

will include describing, technically supporting, and initially financing pathways for feeding knowledge

into the GIS data base and decision support tool. The program will describe pathways for delivering data

and information to extension workers and farmers on an on-going basis. Again, the project will apply

models developed in other countries such as cellphone distribution, radio, and web-based approaches.

An important element of the FFS program will be the development of farmer to farmer training. This

will include opportunities for farmers within and between the regions to exchange information and

knowledge. This will be achieved through direct field visits as well as media production (e.g., dedicated

FFS and SLM project website, Facebook links, YouTube programming, and video conferencing). There

are excellent examples that have been developed in both Kenya and Tanzania through projects associated

with FAO to develop engaging and educational multi-media programming that will inform the final FFS

design.

164. Prior to the project’s terminal evaluation, the best practices guidelines supported by monitoring,

education, and reporting functions be fully operational and mainstreamed with standard government

practices. The program will be ready for broader upscale and replication. This program will be absorbed

within the CAD with facilitation by the MoH&E. This will include project support for the finalization of

an MoU between these parties to describe fully responsibilities and support.

Output 2.2 SLM extension training program established

165. Working through existing extension officers and training institutions, the project will establish a

formal agriculture and livestock extension program designed to assist producers to adopt SLM

agriculture and livestock management practices.

166. Based upon the result of Output 2.1 (identification of best practices), a series of FFS training

curriculum will be developed. These will be adapted based upon FAO’s global FFS experience. The

FFS curriculum will cover basic issues addressing soil management, cultivation practices, seed selection,

water management and conservation, integrated production systems, gender sensitivity, value-chains and

business planning. The curriculum developed will detail issues related to the interface of productive

landscapes and ecosystem services with a focus upon issues related to wetlands conservation.

167. The FFS curriculum will help participating farmers to improve agricultural and livestock

management. This will include providing insights regarding production techniques designed to increase

vegetation cover and improve soil fertility, drive higher levels of sustainable productivity, increase water

retention, and reduce soil degradation and salinity.

168. Once the curriculum is developed, the project will advance a training program for 50 Master

trainers (extension officers). The intensive training course will cover best national and international

principles and practices related to sustainable agriculture and risk coping strategies. The extension

training program will provide materials, experience, and trained trainers to support national replication.

The training program and materials will benefit from inputs from FAO’s globally recognized FFS


agriculture experience. The training will provide extension officers with exposure to innovations

developed in other countries to engage and incentivize farmer participation in FFS programming.

169. The training for Master trainers/extension officers will apply a combination of class-room and

field-based follow-up training. The class-room training will serve as a platform for the establishment of

farmer field schools, monitoring and information generation, and knowledge dissemination. Extension

officers will receive two-weeks of classroom training. This may be done in one session or divided into

two sessions, one for each of the pilot governates.

170. The training program will benefit from existing national and international source materials. This

includes things such as FAO’s “Climate Smart Agriculture” Sourcebook. TerrAfrica, a program that has

benefitted from substantial GEF support, has a wide range of reference materials that can easily be

adapted to support knowledge building SLM Models.

171. Initial class-room training will be followed by field level training. Field based training will

engage professionals with previous experience with FFS to support newly trained Iraq extension officers.

This follow-up field-based training will assist extension officers to effectively assist FFS participating

farmers to shift production practices towards modalities that support the achievement of GEBs’.

172. The curriculum will be developed during project year one. The first training program for

extension officers will be completed prior to the close of project year two. By project year three, field-

based training will commence with initial FFS programming. This will include monitoring and

evaluation of training effectiveness, measured by the successful uptake of SLM practices. By project

year four, the FFS models with capacitated extension officers should be fully operational with lessons

learned supporting replication.

Output 2.3 SLM production systems established with FFS program

173. The project will support the establishment of FFS as a tool to build farmer awareness and

stimulate adoption of improved management practices. Efforts under this output will be inclusive of

production practices on both state and private owned lands. The project will providing the technical and

financial support required for each of the trained extension officers to establish formal Farmer Field

School (FFS) programs focused upon the implementation of SLM practices. Models will benefit from

FAO’s global experience with sustainable agriculture and FFS, validating the environmental, economic

and social benefits of adopting improved practices. These programs will be based upon the successful

completion of Outputs 2.1 and 2.2.

174. FAO has a long history of establishing Farmer Field Schools (FFS). There are numerous

publications and other resource materials already available that will be collated and applied to support

farmer capacity. FAO has developed a global set of tools and experiences that will be brought in to

support improvements to the FFS system. For instance, FAO generated tools such as “Rural Invest” will

be used to assist farmers to develop business management plans predicated in part upon sustainable

agriculture practices. Organizations such as Digital Green have established a framework for using

technology to facilitate and motivate linkages and efficient delivery of FFS materials. Digital Green uses

short, farmer-produced videos posted online and shown via village screenings to facilitate farmer-to-

farmer knowledge sharing and collaboration.

175. The FFS will build upon and integrate FAO’s successful Farmer and Forest Facility (FFF) to

address local livelihood needs in the respective ecological context. The FFF model is now operational in

ten countries. The FFF links landscape planning, community-based self-determination, and policy

improvements with farm and forest practices designed to support sustainability and increase market

access. The programs will be innovated, using mobile and smartphone technologies to link producers,

provide information, and generate monitoring to inform decision-making.


176. The capacity-building benefits of FFS implementations will be cross-sectoral. Initial trials will

engage and integrate field-level agencies responsible for diverse ecosystem services. Implementation of

best practices will have additional benefits of building the foundations and practices of good governance.

This includes participation, representation, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, and

accountability. Implementation will emphasize the inclusion of women and potentially under-

represented or vulnerable groups which might be reflected in minimum representation and codified

inclusion in bylaws.

177. The project will provide support for FFS participants to introduce a selection of locally suited

SLM and CA practices in pilot production systems. National partners will focus part of their efforts on

developing and testing several model agreements with smallholders that regulate the implementation of

the SLM and CA practices in their farms. This will include assisting farmers to demonstrate the co-

benefits of tools such as improved tillage, alternative cropping patterns, better agricultural land

management, and reduction or alteration of chemical inputs. This will result in co-benefits that improve

resilience for both agriculturalists and associated ecosystems.

178. This funding innovation will reduce the current misperceptions regarding the risks associated

with shifting from traditional practices and investing in SLM approaches. Encouraged practices will be

cost effective and appropriately scaled to facilitate producer uptake, including the realistic financial

capacities of the at-risk communities. The FFS program will reflect the Government’s financial capacity,

making certain that FFS will be self-sustaining with Government resources by project close.

179. Providing the bridging or “safety net” funding required to support farmers – particularly small

and marginal farmers – to adopt innovative “agroecological” practices will be vitally important. Moving

from a “known” production method to a new production method can be a risky venture, even if the

potential economic and food security benefits are high. The project will make certain early adopter

farmers receive the full technical support required to mitigate these risks as much as possible. This

includes benefiting from extremely professional farm level extension support. The project will also

make certain early adopters have adequate safeguards through a combination of GoI and/or project funds.

180. Each of the implementation sites will become a testing ground for the application and up-scaling

of best practices. The practices will become models that will be very closely monitored with lessons

learned gleaned. The results will be absorbed within the Decision-Support and Knowledge Management

tools. In this way, results and impacts will be used to inform decision-making at all levels. In addition,

results and impacts will be collated in the Knowledge Management tool for replication and upscale.

181. Through the FFS model, the project will support farmers to improve their business planning

acumen. This will include opportunities for the establishment of profitable value chains to enable family

farmers and particularly poor households to participate in and benefit from emerging markets. This will

assist farmers with innovative marketing. Such value chains will be developed, strengthened, or greened

jointly with stakeholder groups based on a sound analysis of local challenges, natural resources, market

potential, and farmers’ individual circumstances. This includes ensuring that new value chains do not

jeopardize farmers’ food security and sustainable production systems.

182. There are many examples where cooperative production can help improve the quality of life for

rural producers. These same strategies could be applied to support for agro-ecological production that is

in line GEB objectives. This might include cooperative marketing, seed management, etc. FAO has

already developed a “Community Seed Guidance Tool” that might be applied to support agro-

biodiversity production.

183. By organizing agricultural improvements that support GEB delivery, the project will be working

towards achieving landscape level influence. This will include encouraging producers to work together

and coordinate their actions. Producers – through the monitoring efforts – will understand how their

cumulative actions are impacting the achievement of agreed to conservation objectives. This may also

open opportunities for farmers to use improved practices as a means to increase their leverage over value

chains and influence both market and policy.


184. Land-use planning driven by the FFS model will ensure that land and resource use is

appropriately situated to maximize production without undermining or degrading ecosystem services.

This includes improving and changing production practices to be more ecosystem friendly with a focus

on sectors that have significant impacts and to leverage various financial mechanisms (e.g., certification,

payment for environmental services, access and benefit sharing agreements) to help incentivize actors to

change current practices that may be inhibiting.

185. The trained extension officers will develop at least 30 model FFS cohorts of 50 persons each

(50% female/50% male) covering 6,000 hectares of land. By project close, on-going FFS programs

should be driving SLM practices that directly result in improved conservation with at least 500

smallholder farms actively participating in the institutionalized FFS programs and each operation

generating measurable global environmental benefits and associated lessons for upscale. Monitoring of

improved practices should be informing the knowledge management tool developed under Component 1.

Outcome 3: Measures to restore and sustainably manage marshland ecosystems adopted

GEF: USD 685,700/Cofinacing: USD 4,950,000

Output 3.1 Agroecology best practices described and prioritized for marshlands

186. The marshlands of southern Iraq present unique sustainable production practices and challenges.

The component will focus energies in the Dhi Qar Governorate’s Al-Chibayish district. The district is an

area within the marshland complex and approximately 100 kilometers north-west of Basrah.

187. Under this output, the project will provide the technical and capacity building expertise required

to build capacities to support production practices that are directly linked to the restoration of wetlands.

These efforts will build upon and integrate with the deliverables achieved under Component 2. This

method will the project to tailor interventions to the specific challenges and opportunities associated with

wetlands related production practices. This will include involvement of specialty stakeholders that focus

upon issues of wetlands conservation, such as the technical agencies will be included in the project,

including the National Center for Marshlands Rehabilitation and Wetland Management.

188. The project will provision the information and strategic approaches required to inform the

Output 2.1 (Assessment and best practices). This will include providing technical expertise to identify

the linkages between agricultural practices and wetlands degradation. The programmed activity will

inform and be informed by Output 1.3 (Marshland assessment). The program will link directly with and

follow the information management and dissemination programs set in place under Component 2,

including multi-media platforms for learning and information exchange.

189. The project will identify and adopt sustainable management measures to restore and sustainably

use marshland ecosystems, and assess and promote alternative income generation activities, for and with

the participation of local communities living in the marshland landscapes and depending on its ecosystem

services and products. This will include absorption of Component 2 activities related to value chains,

improved livelihoods, and agriculture business planning. Natural re-establishment of native species may

take some time. However, drained wetlands, even those used for crop or forage production, often still

have viable "seed banks" of native species.

190. The wetlands specific interventions will consider issues most relevant to marshland conservation

such as conversion avoidance, wetlands rehabilitation, integrated water resource planning, water balance

regulation, return flows, water quality and quantity, and the linkages between agriculture and physical,

chemical and biological impacts related to wetlands conservation. This will include effective solutions

that employ a combination of approaches, including: agricultural practices that help to reduce impacts on

wetlands; development of multifunctional agro-ecosystems managed to provide the broadest possible

range of wetland ecosystem services; and restoration of wetlands to provide functions and services in


agricultural landscapes. This will include strategies such as low-till, zero-till, and manure management

that reduce production costs, improve profitability, and increase delivery of GEB’s.

191. Examples of specific SLM interventions to apply within and proximate to the wetlands to

encourage restoration include:

• Livestock Management: Combined production systems that utilize livestock manure to fertilize

crops. This might also include high density feeding of livestock on open fields. This may be

supported by a proper grazing management plan.

• Intensification: Utilized properly, crop intensification can generate efficiency gains that reduce

pressure on wetland. This can also reduce the amount water required for agriculture.

• Conservation Tillage: No-till, zero-till and other conservation agriculture practices result in

lower water erosion and reduced infilling of wetlands by sediment. This will also help to reduce

movement and deposition of dissolved and sediment bound nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides

into water bodies. These practices also reduce erosion.

• Nutrient Management: The timing, rate, and method of application of manure and fertilizer can

have a significant impact on the risk of nutrient movement from upland areas into water bodies.

These practices maximize efficiency of crop nutrient uptake.

• Integrated Farm Management: The program will consider how to utilize the diversified production practices of marshland agriculturalists to support wetlands conservation and improved livelihoods.

• Perennial Forages: Areas not suitable for annual crops may be suited to flood tolerant perennial

forages. This may include shifting annual crop production to limit areas that dry up in time for

seeding and are not susceptible to water after seeding.

• Grassed Waterways: This intervention will ensure that the flow remains in the waterway and

does not cause gully erosion and deposition of sediments in wetlands.

• Forage Buffer Strips: adding a perennial forage buffer along riparian areas may assist the entire

riparian zone to remain in perennial vegetation and provides good ecosystem functions. This

provides opportunities for improved grazing production.

• Set Back Distances for Crop Inputs: A setback distance between the edge of a wetland and

applications of manure, fertilizer, or pesticides to reduce the risk of nutrient, pesticide, and

pathogen loadings into wetlands.

• Annual Crop Boundaries: This creates an annual cropped field that is not fragmented and subject

to inefficient field operations through excessive overlap and can be achieved by including small,

irregularly shaped parcels of land adjacent to the wetland in the forage buffer.

• Filter strips: This integrated farming practice removes pollutants from runoff before the material

enters a body of water. They buffer water and the fields so that chemicals, nutrient loads, and

siltation do not directly impacts adjacent wetlands.

• Crop selection and rotation: Cropping selection and rotation can be done to generate co-benefits

for producers and the delivery of GEB’s. This may include a planned sequence with forage crops

in rotation with field crops. By succeeding crops of a different genus, species, subspecies, or

variety over a period of several years, benefits can be generated.


• Strip Cropping: Properly arranged strips across the field will reduce soil erosion by water and/or

wind. A strip of grass or close-growing crop is alternated with a clean zero-tilled strip or a strip

with less protective cover.

• Cover Crops: This is a practices where regular crop rotations such as corn, soybean and wheat

with suitable cover crops such as annual ryegrass, crimson clover, oats, oil-seed radishes, and

cereal rye. A key concept is to ensure that vegetation is green and growing during all times of

the year.

192. To be able to promote income-generating activities, marketing guidelines will be developed to

link traditional and sustainable produced products from marshland ecosystems to the national market and

to help in engaging the private sector with the national agencies and local communities. This may

include capacity of local communities on business development, product eco-labeling, marketing, access

to credit and market access will be enhanced. The project will investigate how to support the market and

value chain assessment that will drive the demand driven environmentally sustainable alternative income

pilot, hereby contributing to the relieving of pressures on fragile marshland ecosystems.

193. The project will then support the creation of a suite of potential interventions that are wetlands

specific. This will entail looking at issues related to water use, pesticide and fertilizer use, and other

issues associated with farming practices that most directly impact wetlands. The wetlands assessment

and finalized FFS curriculum will be completed in tandem with Component 2.

Output 3.2 Agroecology and marshlands extension training program established

194. This output will build upon the extension training established under Output 2.3. Under Output

3.2, a special set of FFS curriculum will be developed specifically for wetlands conservation as it related

to sustainable farming practices.

195. A select cohort of 20 extension trainees who work in areas within the target sites most associated

with wetlands degradation will receive special training. This will be a two-week supplementary course

adding to the core training received under Output 2.3. This training will enable extension officers to be

capable of delivering FFS modules and curriculum designed to promote SLM practices that result in

wetlands conservation.

196. The wetlands specific extension curriculum will be developed during project year one. The first

training program for extension officers will be completed prior to the close of project year two. By

project year three, field-based training will commence with initial FFS programming. This will include

monitoring and evaluation of training effectiveness, measured by the successful uptake of SLM practices.

By project year four, the FFS models with capacitated extension officers should be fully operational with

lessons learned supporting replication.

Output 3.3 Marshland agroecology production systems established with FFS program

197. This output will mirror output 2.3’s FFS implementation. Under Output 3.3, special FFS

programs will be emplaced that focus upon issues of wetlands conservation. Having these FFS organized

under a specific output will enable the project’s technical team to support programming and monitoring

that is specifically directed to addressing the threats agriculture poses to long-term wetlands

conservation.

198. Measures to restore and sustainably manage marshland ecoystems will be adopted. The project

will focus on the design and implementation of locally adapted sustainable land and water management

practices (introduction of conservation agriculture, improving of crop productivity, soil and water

management practices that include soil fertility improvement, managing of soil salinity, among others) in

5 selected areas associated with marshlands in order to reduce the degradation of natural resources. This


distinct approach will promote the conservation of marshland ecosystem services and enhance the

community’s institutional arrangement.

199. The component foresees to establish a restoration and management plan of marshlands with the

participation of women and men from local communities that have been sensitized to the multiple

environmental, social and economic benefits of marshland ecosystem restoration and sustainable use.

200. The marshland systems will be supported through integrated water and land management

practices for productivity enhancement. The project will also strengthen the capacity of national/ local

institutions, NGOs, and local communities in the sustainable marshland management and its importance

to food security and nutrition.

201. Having a distinct set of FFS focused upon wetlands conservation and farming practices will

allow the project to more closely monitor the results of project emplaced production practices in terms of

delivery of benefits to the marshlands. The project will capture these lessons and use them to inform the

national programming under Component 1.

202. The wetland production trained extension officers will develop at least 20 model FFS cohorts of

50 persons each (50% female/50% male) covering 4,000 hectares of land. By project close, on-going

FFS programs should be driving SLM practices that directly result in improved marshland conservation

with at least 500 smallholder farms actively participating in the institutionalized FFS programs and each

operation generating measurable global environmental benefits and associated lessons for upscale.

Monitoring of improved practices should be informing the knowledge management tool developed under

Component 1.

Outcome 4: Monitoring and evaluation informs knowledge management with best practices

upscaled

GEF: USD 217,000/Cofinancing USD 600,000

Output 4.1 Project M&E system operationalized

203. The project will monitor and report on progress and delivery of GEB’s throughout the

implementation cycle. The project will conduct regular monitoring according to standard FAO

guidelines. This is generally described in Section 4 (Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation). The project

will complete mid-term and terminal evaluations. On-going monitoring and evaluation will track of

progress towards indicators contained in Section 5 (Strategic Results Matrix). This will include tracking

of GEF Core Indicators.

Output 4.2 Project lessons and practices captured and disseminated

204. The project has built within the framework a series of steps to capture good practices, disemnate

lessons, and encourage local and national upscale. This includes packaging and distributing information

to the respective stakeholders through a variety of platforms (e.g. website, brochures, studies, posters,

training materials, FFS curriculum, etc.). The knowledge-sharing process will be supported by

workshops and awareness raising outreach events and site visits. This will be carried out in adherence

with FAO’s Knowledge Management Strategy37 principles. Under Component 4, FAO will bring

additionality by ensuring the capture of lessons, monitoring, and best practices for international

distribution and upscale.

205. The Regional FAO Office Regional houses a regional SLM Network. This office coordinates

the dissemination of SLM good practices across the region and internationally. This includes placing

37 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/capacity_building/KM_Strategy.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/capacity_building/KM_Strategy.pdf


best practices with the international WOCAT database available to national, regional and international

stakeholders. Results will also be reflected in FAO’s suite of training materials, best practices manuals,

reports, and other documentation designed to enhance global knowledge and awareness regarding SLM,

conservation agriculture, agroecology, and other technical advances to support achievement of global

environmental benefits through improved production practices.


1.3.3 Project Risks and Assumptions

Description of Risk

Impact/Proba

bility Rating

(Low: 1 to

High: 5)

Mitigation and Contingency Measures

Political instability and

civil unrest in addition to

internal conflict

Impact: 4

Probability: 3

The political instability may lead many difficulties in the project

implementation; it can also limit the access to some areas and/or

access to data as well as limit the potential for some income

generating activities. It is vital to undertake mitigation

measures. This includes continuous consultation with the

Governments to identify possible interventions to solve any new

risk faces the project and working closely with local community

to provide them with the needed skills and tools to be used once

the political situation enhanced.

Security issues make

recruitment and

placement of

international technical

support difficult.

Impact: 3

Probability: 4

Iraq is facing substantial security issues. This was recently seen

with unrest in Basra. The project is designed to provide both

on-site and remote technical support. This includes field visits

by Iraq colleagues to Rome for training by experts.

Challenged project

coordination

Impact: 2

Probability: 3

The project will ensure that there is close coordination between

the relevant agencies within Iraq. Close and collaborative

cooperation between many institutional stakeholders will be

essential for the project to achieve its stated goal and objectives.

This is mitigated to some extent by the positive experience of

collaboration of project management team and project steering

committee as well as FAO’s long-standing experience.

Proposed mitigation measures include intra-governmental

agency liaison by the Project Management Unit; inspection of

coordinated activities by the Project Board; and, overview of

coordinated activities by the Project Steering Committee.

Land Tenure issues will

challenge

implementation

Impact: 2

Probability: 3

To mitigate against the risk of exasperating social division and

land related conflicts, the project will need to ensure that the

small holder farmers are the rightful owners of their land or are

otherwise legally entitled to work on the land after the project

end.

Low capacity of local

and national institutions

Impact: 3

Probability: 3

National institutions capacity and technical expertise at various

levels are sometimes low. To mitigate this risk, the project will

support the institutional framework and technical capacity

development at national and local levels, a capacity building

program and training.

The current level of

commitment and interest

to work on multi-sectoral

approach on sustainable

agriculture diminishes.

Impact: 3

Probability: 3

This project is designed with the full support of both primary

stakeholders. Extensive meetings were held at both the national

and state levels with responsible representatives. The level of

commitment to this project and general project design has been

excellent to date and is expected to continue through-out

implementation. This will be insured through an approach that

continues to be highly inclusive and facilitates full engagement

by multi-sectoral stakeholders.

Low ownership and lack

of sustainability of new

technologies and

techniques

Impact: 3

Probability: 2

Lack of ownership and subsequent lack of sustainability of new

technologies promoted under the project could cause difficulties

in achieving desired adoption levels. This will be mitigated

through capacity building and awareness targeted at project

beneficiaries. This will involve tools, such as economic models

and plans, economic analysis that clearly show that there is an

economic and social benefit to the adoption of these

technologies (win-win).


Description of Risk

Impact/Proba

bility Rating

(Low: 1 to

High: 5)

Mitigation and Contingency Measures

Incentives for local

stakeholders are not

adequate to generate

engagement

Impact: 4

Probability: 3

The project is designed to engage fully with local stakeholders.

This will make certain that stakeholder desires, including local

resource users, have the opportunity to help define how best to

conserve steppe resources. A major part of this effort will

involve working directly with pastoralists to assist them to

measure how various steppe conservation activities result in

economic benefits. For instance, the project will provide

stakeholders with the technical support required to measure how

improved management delivers both enhanced ecosystem

services as well as production improvements. This will serve as

a major incentive for local project support. In addition, project

funding will provide a bridge to reduce risks to producers who

may be hesitant to adopt “new” technologies.

Climate Change Impact: 4

Probability: 5

Although appreciable climatic changes are unlikely to occur

over the course of implementation, on-going climatic trends are

one of this project’s primary inducements. The project’s

approach will enable stakeholders better understand

vulnerabilities and strategically adapt. Emplacing this

resilience will be key to the project’s long-term success. SLM

and CA practices will be selected based on their potential

contribution to more resilient production systems and marshland

ecosystems. Steps will be taken to build resilience measures into

project design to minimize the risk and/or adapt to new

conditions when possible.

1.3.4 Stakeholder consultation and engagement

206. The principle of stakeholder inclusion is fully integrated within the initial project design and was

carried forward through the PPG. This includes tools such as intersectoral working groups at all levels

with gender specific cohorts. Key stakeholders for this project include governmental organizations and

farmers (smallholders), including local community, who will identify, design, implement, monitor,

evaluate and coordinate their own interventions on farms and surrounding marsh systems to achieve

sustainable land management in relation to global environmental benefits, economic productivity, and

ecological sustainability.

207. A broad program of stakeholder consultations was conducted in Amman, Erbil and Baghdad

through a series of meetings, presentations, and interviews during the preparatory phase. A focus group

discussion was conducted as well as a project validation in Baghdad. The stakeholder meetings included

representatives from the Governmental organizations, academic sectors, non-governmental organization,

and research institutes. The below table provides a preliminary description of the key stakeholders and

will be updated and improved during the project preparation phase.

208. A consultation workshop identified a complex set of inter-related challenges faced by the

concerned vulnerable communities. Some of the most notable challenges are: salinization, land

degradation; high variability in rainfall; climate change; insecurity; desertification and deterioration of

vegetation cover; the politicization of conflicts over natural resources; restricted mobility due to security

and other reasons; lack of extension services; lack of awareness; weak government institutions, weak

governance of management of natural resources; and oil development activities in some areas.


209. The project will promote participation of a wide range of relevant stakeholders including

government agencies, civil society (e.g., NGOs, self-help groups, and producers’ groups), the private

sector, relevant financial institutions, women, indigenous people and identified vulnerable groups. Local

communities and private sector’s farmers will be engaged in the project, as appropriate, especially

concerning conservation agriculture, certification, marketing, and commercialization of underutilized

crops, sustainably harvested cereal products and other goods produced by local communities with project

support.

210. The project is designed to create an environment for informed and participatory decision-making.

This will commence during the project implementation period with famers working with extension

officers and other technical support persons to determine and tailor specific approaches to solve

challenges associated with achieving the project’s objective.

211. Participatory processes will include: (i) regular meeting of the PSC and advisory committees, (ii)

multi-stakeholder consultation workshops at national and state levels, and (iii) direct consultations with

stakeholders via individual and focus-group meetings. A grievance processes will be incorporated into

the project’s management plan and structure.

212. As part of FAO’s standard practices, a gender and social analysis was undertaken during the PPG

phase with involvement by a highly respected national expert. The results formed the basis for

appropriate plans, activities, monitoring, and safeguards to be defined in the project document. Both ESS

and FPIQ are planned and budgeted for completion during the project’s inception period.

213. The grievance mechanism will be based on FAO’s grievance mechanism as stated in FAO’s

Guidelines on Compliance Reviews38 and FAO’s Grievance Handling Mechanism.39 The objective is to

ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to allow individuals and communities to contact FAO

directly and file a complaint if they believe they are, or might be adversely affected by a FAO-funded

project/programme not complying with FAO’s Environmental and Social Standards. FAO facilitates the

resolution of concerns of beneficiaries/stakeholders of FAO projects and programs regarding alleged or

potential violations of FAO’s social and environmental commitments. For this purpose, concerns may be

communicated in accordance with the eligibility criteria, which apply to all FAO programs and projects.

All projects and programs are required to publicize the mechanism for the receipt and handling of

grievances at the local level. The grievance mechanism will be integrated into the FFS and general

training programmes for beneficiaries directly involved in project; members of the general public will be

able to refer to the project website for further information. Grievance Mechanism will also be addressed

in the leaflets distributed by the project to ensure that the general public with no internet access are

informed.

Stakeholder Mandate Role in project implementation

Ministry of Health and

Environment (MoHE)

Responsible for the monitoring and

evaluation of the proper use of the

country’s environment and natural

resources, including protected areas,

watershed areas and public land. As well as

representing Iraq in all the international

treaties and agreements related to the

environment sector, it is responsible for

digital mapping services.

Responsible for the overall implementation of the

project’s activities,

Coordinate with other national stakeholders.

Provision of digital mapping services.

Ministry of Agriculture

(MoA)

Responsible for the strategic development

of all aspects of the agriculture sector

(including traditional and rain fed

agriculture), setting up policies and

providing technical support to stakeholders.

In partnership with other national partners

provide implementation resources and technical

SLM/CA support.


Ministry of Water

Resources (MoWR)

Responsible for management of water

resources, land reclamation and efficient

Implementation of the project's water

management plan in SLM/CA in partnership with

38 FAO, 2015c. Compliance reviews following complaints related to the organization’s environmental and social standards – Guidelines.– FAO, February 2015. 10p 39 See http://www.fao.org/aud/en/

http://www.fao.org/aud/en/



water use for agriculture and other purposes

in the country.

MoHE and MoA.

National Centre for Water

Resource Management

Relevant MoWR department consulted in

project implementation.



MoHE and MoA

The State Commission

Authority for Ground Water





MoHE and MoA

Department for

Underground Water in

Muthanna and Thi-Qar

governorates





MoHE and MoA

Muthanna Governate Government authority for Muthanna

Governate

Instrumental for project site level implementation

Al Salman district (Al-Shaweaa) and Al-

Rumaitha district (Al-Majid)

Thi-Qar Governate Government authority for Thi-Qar

Governate


Al-Chibayish district (Al-Tar)

Office of Forests and

Combating Desertification

Responsible for establishment of wadis and

maintaining their operation as well as

fixation of sand dunes all over the country

and acting as the first state agency to

combat desertification.

Consultations for the implementation of

SLM/CA.

Office of Agriculture

Research

Responsible for carrying out research on all

agricultural development and

environmental related research as well as

the application of new technologies such as

conservation agriculture and sustainable

land management, trials of new species etc.

Support universities in delivering published

research into the socio-economic and

environmental benefits of SLM/CA.


Extension Services and

Training

Transfer of applied research and results to

the farmers. It acts as tool between the

research institutions and the farmers in

terms of applied research and extension.

Support MoA extension services in project

implementation in partnership MoWR, ICARDA,

FAO and private sector SPs.

Centre for Restoration of

Iraqi Marshlands

Rehabilitation and restoration of

marshlands to its original state.

The Centre will be consulted in the process of

carrying research on the marshes.

National Council for Seeds Located in the MoA the it oversees the Iraqi

seed industry; conducts analysis of seeds

according to international standards, as set

by the International Seed Testing

Association.

Will partner with the project in supporting the

development of private sector seed nurseries and

seedbanks.

Iraqi Farmer's Association Responsible for coordination and assisting

the Office of Agricultural Research in

transfer of technology, distribution of

inputs, application of laws and regulations

among farmers in the private sector.

Provide support in the development of Farmer

Associations and cooperatives at the smallholder

level.

University of Thi-Qar Established in 2000 the University was

originally a branch of the University of

Basrah that was established in 1992. The

University has a Department of Agriculture

and Marshes which regularly carries out

research and collaborates with development

projects in the area.

Be a source of technical knowledge on

agricultural research in the region.

Produce peer-reviewed research into capacity of

the identified soil rehabilitation techniques to

reverse salinisation and soil degradation and

improve yields.

University of Muthanna Established in 2007 the University of

Muthanna has an Agricultural College, with

a Department for Soil and Water.

Agriculture research is regularly carried out

on the impact of salinisation on the crop

and soil productivity.




the applied soil rehabilitation techniques to


improve yields.

Smallholder farmers. The target group: women, youth and

vulnerable heads of households small

holder farmers with 2.5-5ha of land. This is

particicularly inclusive of communities

living within and proximate to marshlands.

The main focus of project activities is improving

livelihoods, food security and environmental

rehabilitation.

Private Sector Service

Providers

Alternative livelihood service providers to

be created and/or supported to in turn

support small holder alternative income

Providing local employment and function as

facilitators and providers of technical support to

the smallholder farmers as well as guaranteed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Basrah




development in training, post-processing

and marketing.

buyers and the link to market.

1.4 Lessons Learned

214. There is a very large body of international work and exemplary practices developed concerning

SLM. There is also a substantial amount of information available regarding wetlands and agriculture.

The project will benefit from and apply these lessons throughout implementation.

215. In Iraq, ICARDA has worked with local workshops to adapt conventional seeders to facilitate the

planting of seed directly into untilled soil with crop residues, has identified the main changes needed to

make conventional seeders suitable. These are:

• The use of narrow ‘knife’ points to replace the typical ‘duck-foot’ points to reduce soil

disturbance and drag by cutting a narrow slot in the undisturbed soil.

• The use of tines with stronger springs and an adequate break-out force need to be fitted to enable

seeding into hard, undisturbed stony and shallow soils without risk of damage to the seeder.

• Row spacing needs to be increased to 20-25 cm to allow reasonable flow of residues.

• The seeder frame needs to be raised and longer tine shanks to be fitted to avoid residue clumping

when sowing into thick and standing crop residue.

• The distance between each row of times on the seeder needs to be increased from 25 to 50-60 cm

to improve residue flow, and tines placed on 3 or 4 ranks in the 4-meter wide seeder models.

• The seed/fertilizer box height needs to be raised to provide good flow of seed and fertilizer down

the pipes into the soil, especially for seeders with widely spaced tine ranks. Many seeders are also

fitted with two separate boxes, one for seeds and the other for fertilizers, to allow greater

flexibility in application rates and placement.

216. ICARDA has previously initiated efforts to develop, test, demonstrate, and promote modified

low-cost seeders for conservation tillage. These efforts have been met with significant success in

Ninevah, northern Iraq where a group of enterprising farmers have produced a farmer-designed zero-

tillage seeder at a lower cost (USD5,000) instead of commercially sourced from Jordan (USD10,000) by

using locally available parts and mechanical skills.

217. The results of the ICARDA Iraq Salinity Project have identified best soil, agronomic, irrigation

and draining management practices for salinity management at the farm level that have shown to reduce

salinity levels by up to 90 percent and increase yields as a result from successive cultivation. The

following best practices have been used at farmer discretion with various techniques overlapping and

sometimes different techniques used simultaneously:

• Deep ploughing using the ‘rotor’ to breakdown the hardpan or hard layer below the plough

layer. This layer is formed over the course of decades through the use of the common plough

under moist conditions, which results in the compaction of said layer. Using the ‘rotor’ at

depths of 60-80 cm below soil surface in lines 4 to 6 meters apart is very efficient at breaking

this hard layer. This practice can be repeated every five years to assure the movement of salts

and water below the root zone.

• The digging of a drain or deep ditch around the cultivated land has proved to be the best at

draining and discharging excess irrigation water. This practice may work well when the

remaining plant materials are mixed with the upper soil layer and help avoid the fallow during

summer months.

• Adoption of a rotation system using salt tolerant varieties of wheat or barley followed by

legumes while avoiding leaving land fallow, provide the best conditions to improve soil

environment.

• The cultivation of saline tolerant crops during the first seasons mainly barley, alfalfa, okra and

eggplants help reduce soil salinity levels. After a few seasons the farmer replaces the saline

tolerant crops with wheat.


218. Project will apply a host of good practices developed by FAO, GoI, CSO’s and others. FAO is

particularly well-suited to support the implementation of this initiative and brings to both the design and

implementation process a proven portfolio of relevant good practices.

• Sustainable Agriculture Policy: FAO has worked in many countries to support the generation of

a Common Vision on Sustainable Agriculture. FAO also maintains an extensive support system

to improve laws and policies related to improving agricultural systems. This includes the both

the FAOLEX and the Agroecology LEX.

• SLM Agriculture: FAO is well positioned to provide support for programming designed to

facilitate convergence between agriculture and conservation, which is one of FAO’s five

strategic objectives (Strategic Objective 2). FAO is a global leader in SLM expertise and project

support.

• Monitoring and Decision-Support: The project will draw upon both national and international

monitoring and decision-support tools. This includes FAO housed WOCAT.

• Farm Extension: The project will build upon the existing Farmer Field Schools (FFS) models.

The project will also build upon international extension tools such as the Forest & Farm Facility

(FFF).

• Knowledge Management: FAO has extensive experience with the design and implementation of

effective knowledge management hubs. This includes the creation of a “Pastoralists Knowledge

Hub” program for herding families in the Gobi to the generation of the TerrAfrica Knowledge

Platform on SLM covering dozens of African countries.

• Market Analysis and Development (MA&D): FFF has developed a package of materials to

support the implementation of the Market Analysis and Development (MA&D) approach. The

Field Facilitator Guidelines (FFG) assists field facilitators and entrepreneurs to implement the

various phases and steps of the MA&D approach. The Manual helps the project management

teams to plan the development of tree and forest product enterprises using the MA&D approach.

1.5 Alignment and strategic fit

1.5.1 Alignment with national development goals and policies

219. Iraq ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and

Kyoto Protocol in 2009 and also became a member of the United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD) in the same year, with a first national report submitted in 2014.

220. The project will be aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which Iraq is a

member. To this end the project will help the GoI implement the NBSAP (2015-2020) by: i) Raising

awareness of biodiversity loss; ii) Reducing direct pressures on biodiversity by promoting alternative

livelihoods and by contributing to a GIS database of marshland ecosystems.

221. The Project takes place within the framework of the National Strategic Plan for Combating

Desertification (NSPCD), and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, which have

established a national coordination mechanism, supported by the Ministries of Health and Environment,

Agriculture, and Water Resources. The Project intervention area includes smallholders and marshland

areas in middle and southern Iraq that have a high number of vulnerable farmer communities. These

communities are historically poor and politically marginalized. Due to the recent years of conflict, they

are now amongst the poorest and most vulnerable communities in Iraq. Land degradation and climate

variability and climate change challenges are to be superimposed on top of these and other challenges.

222. The NSPCD identified habitat fragmentation, degradation, and conversion as primary drivers of

desertification and biodiversity loss, with a special emphasis on the positive feedback loop existing

between rural poverty and land degradation. The strategy identified several projects to be implemented


which are addressed in this project (development of irrigated and rain fed agricultural land, marshland

rehabilitation, coordination, and enhanced technical capacities).

223. The National Strategy for Poverty Reduction in Iraq 2009. This Strategy gives importance to the

development of the agriculture sector since poverty is largely a rural phenomenon. It also emphasizes on

agricultural extension services and rural infrastructure for production and marketing. The project will

contribute to the following objectives of the strategy: 1) a better living environment for the poor, and 2)

higher income for the poor from work.

224. The 2015-2019 United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) in partnership

with the GoI, sets out the collective response by the UN system to national development priorities which

in turn are explicitly based on the programming principles of the UN Development Group (UNDG). The

SLMILDA project will be aligned to the UNDAF through the promotion of SLM/CA, building resilience

through alternative livelihoods, climate change adaptation, vulnerability targeting and capacity building.

The project will contribute towards UNDAF priority areas through environmental sustainability to

combat desertification and climate change, gender equality and the building of resilience of women,

youth and capacity development.

225. The Iraq National Development Plan (2013-2017). This Plan emphasizes on the role of

Agriculture and water Resources in development. It aims to give a strong investment impetus to selected

sectoral growth poles, including agriculture, to raise its share of GDP generation. In the Plan, agriculture

is one of the key sectors identified in accelerating non-oil growth, raising incomes, and improving

income distribution and gender equality. The project will contribute directly to the achievement of the

Plan’s objectives.

226. Agriculture for Development in Iraq. It estimated the impacts of achieving the agricultural

targets of the National Development Plan 2013-2017 on economic growth, incomes, and gender equality.

It is widely believed that the country's agricultural potential is great, and might help accelerate economy

wide growth, raise household incomes, and affect the household income distribution in Iraq. The

proposed project is perfectly aligned with the Plan and supports its implementation. Components 2 and 3

will contribute to the implementation of the proposed programmes in the plan.

227. Iraq's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2020” (NBSAP) constitutes the main

vehicle for coordinating and mobilizing investment, including to marshlands and wetlands rehabilitation

and development activities. The project will help in implementing some of the measures listed in the

action plan. The NBSAP defines the strategic directions for the conservation of the biodiversity and the

adoption of the actions to preserve globally significant ecosystem (marshlands). This project will

directly contribute to the implementation of a set of measures proposed by the Strategy to rehabilitate the

marshlands and preserves its significant biodiversity ecosystems.

228. The “National Environmental Strategy and Action Plan for Iraq 2013-2017” emphasizes on the

environmental values of wetlands, oases, and marshlands in Iraq. It includes specific actions proposed to

restore and rehabilitate the destroyed marshlands and describes the Ministry's efforts to register the

marshlands, as environmental sites of global importance, which is believed, would help in convincing

neighboring countries to provide sufficient water to re-flood the marshlands. The project is contributing

directly to the implementation of some of the proposed actions. Component 2 will help achieving the

outcome of the proposed project 2.7.2. Using remote sensing techniques and GIS for marshlands.

229. Iraq’s Initial National Communication submitted to the UNFCCC in 5 December 2015. The

Report explained the two main pathways that Iraq could undertake to mitigate and adapt to the changing

climate. It recorded that Iraq will work to decrease 1% of its total emissions by 2035 as part of its

commitment to mitigate climate change. It also confirmed that Iraq is planning to decrease up to 13% of

its emission in case the international community provides financial and technical supports. It also

included the measures proposed by the Government to adapt to climate change mainly on the water,

agriculture, and health sectors. The report highlighted the negative impacts of climate change. It

highlighted the importance of adaptation measures for rain-fed farming and pastoral systems.


230. The Project contributes to UNDAF 2015-2019 Outcome A. 2, Outcome B.1, and Outcome B.2.

i.e.: “Government capacity at national and sub national levels, enhanced for evidence-based decision-

making”, “Strengthened resilience through enhanced government and community disaster risk

management capacities” and "Economic and livelihood opportunities increase for women and youth in

both public and private sectors" respectively.

231. In 2016, Iraq committed itself to set national Land Degradation Neutrality Targets (LDN)

targets and joined the Programme that provides opportunities to foster coherence, move from pilots to

scale and identify transformative projects. It is expected that this project will support Iraq in setting its

LDN targets, as it will generate information and data on two of the three LDN indicators (namely, land

cover and land productivity).

1.5.2 Alignment with GEF priorities

232. The project is designed to contribute GEF-6 LD-1 Program 1: Maintain or improve flow of agro-

ecosystem services to sustain food production and livelihoods. The project will contribute to Outcomes 1.1)

Improved agricultural, rangeland and pastoral management; and 1.2) functionality and cover of agro-

ecosystems maintained.

1.5.3 Alignment with FAO Country Programming Framework and FAO Strategic Framework

233. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) enjoys a valuable

partnership with Iraq. FAO’s cooperation with Iraq dates back to 1945 when Iraq joined the

Organisation. Since then, FAO has provided assistance in a wide range of areas. This includes

establishing agricultural research and extension institutes, the provision of technical expertise and

capacity building, as well as essential food and agricultural inputs, particularly during the difficult years

marked by economic sanctions and war.

234. FAO continues playing a catalytic role in Iraq’s progress in the areas of crops, livestock,

fisheries, food security, and natural resources management. FAO has significant experience it can bring

to this Project. Over the past decade – in partnership with government agencies and institutions and civil

society organizations – FAO has implemented a series of national and regional humanitarian relief,

livelihood protection/recovery and agricultural development programmes and projects in Iraq. The

following lessons-learned or best practices have been documented: the importance of capacity

development for government institutions; the importance of food security information systems; and the

importance of community-based natural resource management; the importance of post-harvest

management.

235. Currently FAO acts as a facilitator and knowledge partner and its operations in Iraq are guided

by the Country Programme Framework 2013-2017. Its current operations are focused on three priority

areas: i) Policy development for the agriculture sector and food security, including programme-specific

priorities for implementation at the central and governorate levels, and enhancement of the private-public

sector partnership, as well as of the private sector’s contribution to agricultural growth; ii) Building the

portfolio of investment projects for agricultural development, entailing capacity building throughout the

project cycle, including supervision of largescale interventions, as well as support at the local level for

projects requiring high-level technical expertise; and iii) Technical assistance, normative work and

guidance on subsector and cross-cutting issues, with FAO providing on-demand technical expertise,

advice and capacity building.

236. As an intergovernmental body, FAO facilitates the promotion of sustainable traditional

agricultural practices to its member countries in different fora through intergovernmental bodies. FAO

continues to enhance awareness, knowledge and understanding of crop-associated biological diversity

providing ecosystem services to sustainable agricultural production; demonstrating methods for


conservation, and sustainable management of agro-biodiversity; and promote mainstreaming of

biodiversity conservation in sectoral plans and policies. FAO is already playing a pivotal role in the

management of natural resources through a number of initiatives and projects in Iraq, and is one of two

agencies with the longest record of supporting the conflict ravaged country, the other being ICARDA.

237. FAO promotes the uptake and adoption of SLM through holistic processes to prevent and

mitigate land degradation and promote the restoration of degraded soils, to control soil erosion, improve

soil-water storage, manage and enhance soil fertility, promote soil-crop-water management, rehabilitate

and sustainably manage dryland environments and crop-water productivity, and manage soil salinity in

irrigated dryland agriculture.

238. Globally, the project contributes to FAO Strategic Objective SO2 and (SO) 5, i.e. “Increase and

improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a sustainable manner”

and “Increase the resilience of livelihoods from disaster”.

239. Regionally, the project contributes to FAO Regional Initiative “Sustainable small-scale

agriculture for inclusive development”.

240. Nationally, the project contributes to the three priority areas under FAO’s Country Programming

Framework Plan of Action (2013 -2017:(a) agricultural sector and food security policy development;

(b)building up the investment projects portfolio in for agricultural development, and (c) technical

assistance, normative work and guidance on subsector and crosscutting themes and issues.

FAO Iraq’s Country Programming Framework (CPF)

241. FAO’s Strategic Framework (2010-2019) specifically focuses on improving the productivity and

sustainability of agriculture and fisheries; to reduce poverty; and to increase the resilience of livelihoods

to threats and crises. Furthermore, FAO assists member countries in their pursuit of food security,

sustainable rural livelihoods, equitable access to resources, and promotion of multidisciplinary and

ecosystem-based approaches on sustainable agricultural and rural development. In the area of sustainable

land management, FAO has a long history in supporting member countries on a wide range of

complementary SLM technologies and approaches, through training, information, communication, tools

and equipment, advisory services for institutional strengthening, policy reforms and national

programming. FAO has introduced and promotes a range of SLM programs and approaches, such as

farmer field schools, conservation agriculture, catchment and farming systems approaches to integrated

land and water management and better land husbandry.

242. The project outputs will contribute towards FAO Country Programming Framework (CPF)

priority area two: ‘effective natural resource management and community resilience. The CPF represents

a confluence of Iraq’s development goals and FAO’s Strategic Framework. The Government of Iraq’s

priorities serve as the primary driver for FAO’s programme. The CPF was prepared with a strong

involvement of national stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society. The CPF is

motivated by FAO’s own vision and key corporate principles that promote sustainability in production

systems and balance the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable food and

agriculture.

243. The CPF advocates for FAO Iraq to play a catalytic role in contributing to the following main

priorities: Stronger food and nutrition security systems and agricultural productivity and increased farm

incomes, rural households have improved livelihood options and greater access to a nutritionally

adequate food basket at household level; Effective natural resource management and community

resilience, focusing primarily on strengthening management of natural resources that are under threat and

making communities more resilient to climate change and disaster risks; and, Enhanced social inclusion,

skilling and employability in the agriculture sector, people vulnerable to social, economic and

environmental exclusion especially women and marginalised farmers have increased opportunities for

productive employment through jobs and entrepreneurship for sustainable livelihoods in the agriculture

sector.


244. FAO Iraq’s CPF and this project are aligned to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Cross cutting issues such as governance, capacity building, gender, data and information sharing will be

addressed as integral parts of the project. FAO will use its comparative advantage as a specialised

agency of the United Nations and use the knowledge it has gained over the years in designing and

implementing programmes in Iraq.

FAO Regional Office for Near East and North Africa Priorities

245. FAO’s work in Iraq is also guided by the priorities outlined by the FAO Regional Office for Near

East and North Africa. These priorities include:

• Strengthen food and nutritional security,

• Foster agricultural production and rural development,

• Enhance equitable, productive and sustainable natural resource management and utilisation,

• Improve capacity to respond to food and agricultural threats and emergencies, and

• Coping with the impact of climate change on food and agriculture.

FAO Strategic Objective 2 (SO2)

246. FAO’s vision is “A world free from hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture

contribute to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially

and environmentally sustainable manner”. The three Global Goals of Members are: eradication of

hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, progressively ensuring a world in which people at all times

have sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active

and healthy life; elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all,

with increased food production, enhanced rural development and sustainable livelihoods; and, sustainable

management and utilization of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources

for the benefit of present and future generations.

247. FAO is dedicated to supporting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. FAO’s strategic

framework is designed to support achievement of the Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals and

associated targets.

248. This project fits most directly with FAO’s Strategic Objective 2: Make agriculture, forestry and

fisheries more productive and sustainable. Under this objective, FAO will focus on building a stronger

dialogue and integration within and across sectors and stakeholders to sustainably increase production

and productivity, address climate change, biodiversity and environmental degradation in agriculture,

forestry and fisheries in the context of nutrition and gender-sensitive food systems.


SECTION 2 – INNOVATIVENESS, POTENTIAL FOR SCALING UP AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Innovativeness

249. The proposed project is designed to be highly innovative. The Project’s innovative nature lies in

introducing locally adopted conservation agriculture practices for the integration of agro-biodiversity in

the local economic development, based on the communities’ traditional knowledge and experiences, in

arid and semi-arid areas in Iraq with a focus on irrigated lands and marshland rehabilitation. It also

stems from the unique and complex situation in Iraq. The post-war situation, civil unrest, the high

population levels, the number of locally displaced people and returnees, and the growing land

degradation challenges combined to create a unique challenge for the GEF portfolio.

250. The alternative will especially build on Conservation Agriculture, one of the innovative tools for

rural and agricultural development that FAO and its partners in the region have implemented extensively

in recent. Based on experience in the region, this tool can be adapted to ensure local communities are

well served, and they can be adapted to ensure the most vulnerable sections of community benefit. This

will include creating an improved management regime designed for maintaining ecosystem services at

scale. The project will generate and adapt improved agricultural technologies. The project will work to

improve soil, water, and land management in a more unified way to deliver cumulative impact. This will

be a “first” strategic convergence within the agricultural sector to achieve SLM benefits while

simultaneously improving livelihoods and food security. The project is also unique in its aim to support

farmer-managed natural regeneration of land productivity. This will be done through an innovative

community-based approach designed to address past challenges related to disconnect between “good

policy” and “poor implementation”. Innovative institutional arrangements will include multi-agency and

funding program platforms.

251. The proposed investment includes multi-sectoral approaches to transformative policy, capacity,

practice and knowledge regime changes to address key drivers of threats to land degradation and

unsustainable land management linked to agricultural and allied sectors. A key innovation entails

enabling large numbers of farmers and hectares to come under SLM with complimentary BD benefits.

The engagement of robust private sector partners will anchor the market-based and value chain elements.

2.2 Potential for Scaling Up

252. This project has tremendous potential to be both sustained and amplified. The Project introduces

practices and approaches that can be potentially up-scaled. Up-scaling can take place throughout the entire

marshland covered areas, which have all suffered from draining, land degradation, and desertification. FAO will

help and facilitate in up scaling the project by facilitating up scaling in other locations in Iraq. Finally, elements of

the Project will be relevant to other places, both in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Through FAO offices in the

Region and other regional offices, and with the support from the GEF, these successes can be replicated.

253. The GoI is behind this project as indicated by several factors, including co-financing. The

project provides the catalytic investment required to establish a new pathway for conserving landscapes

where environmental and agricultural concerns intersect. This is just a small sampling of the potential

landscapes requiring similar interventions. Because the project utilizes primarily existing institutions, the

process of upscale will be greatly simplified. To facilitate upscale, the project has integrated several

tools. This includes specific strategies for handover, strong attention to the details required to build and

sustain capacity, and focusing upon reorienting existing funding streams to support long-term support for

project emplaced success.

254. This project aims to reach a concentrated effort at a level and scale not seen in other projects and

programs in Iraq. The project is designed to reflect national, state, and local priorities, making the project

highly relevant at multiple scales for numerous stakeholders, particularly vulnerable groups. The project

will also maximize the utilization of existing institutional frameworks.


2.3 Sustainability

255. Iraq’s capacity to sustain project outcomes at the moment is limited owing to the prevailing

security situations, infant institutions, lack or limited number of skilled manpower. However, the country

has considerable potentials with emerging conditions favorable to develop its human capacity, strengthen

the institutions and increasing economic levels. Iraq has the financial resources to invest in its future and

develop further its human resources and the economy. Moreover, its predominantly young population is

a significant human asset that can help guarantee a successful transition towards a better future and

sustainable development. The various programs and projects under implementation and others upcoming

place more emphasis on capacity development of institutions at national and local level.

256. The project will aim achieve sustainability at all levels. The project is designed to remove the

key barriers to degradation vulnerabilities. Rehabilitation and agricultural improvements will rely on

conserving biodiversity and natural ecological functionality. The persistence of these improvements will

be enhanced through a hand-over strategy to be carried out as a phased transition that will be completed

well prior to project close and endorsed by the project’s steering committee.

257. This includes making certain that more vulnerable groups of society, such as women and the

rural poor, benefit directly from project activities. The project will help rural communities work in a

more cooperative manner to understand and identify environmental issues that might cause social

instability. For instance, land degradation and climate change both increase economic risks and decrease

social cohesion. By working to reduce land degradation and minimize the impacts of climate change, the

project will be promoting social sustainability. This will also be improved by creating opportunities for

stakeholder engagement and discussion, such as capacity building functions.

258. Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBA) including Right to Food, Decent Work, and

Accountability to Affected Populations is a critical area of concern for FAO and the Government.

During the project’s inception phase and throughout the project implementation period, HRBA will be

fully integrated within all activities. Decent Rural Employment is at the core of the SLMILDA project.

The project’s target group are the women, youth and vulnerable head of households of the rural poor in

the governorates with the highest levels of poverty and unemployment. It focuses on employment

creation and small enterprise development through environmentally friendly alternative forms of income;

standards and the right to work though the targeting of women, youth and heads of vulnerable

households; and governance and social dialogue that will be generated through strategy and action plan

and legislative development at the national stage.

259. Agreement was made to fund and complete a full Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

exercise during the project’s inception period. This will be completed with the support and involvement

of FAO’s FPIC office. All parties agree that the planned approach will be more than adequate to make

certain concerns are addressed. Efforts will include analysis and engagement designed specifically to

meaningfully involve indigenous stakeholders during the inception phase. Details will be fully

elaborated by the FAO FPIC office. This will include extensive stakeholder engagement to be certain

issues related to indigenous peoples are fully reflected in project implementation.

260. At the site level, where sustainability means that the positive impacts on the lives and livelihoods

of the beneficiaries should be sustained, and the revised practices and technologies continue to be used

by the beneficiaries after the Project ends. The Project design will focus on introducing locally adopted

practices that should be within the ability of local communities to sustain. The Project develops the

negotiation and community decision-making capacity and approaches. This should leave in place a

capacity for the communities to better drive their own development after the Project ends. At the

national level, where the capacity – individual and institutional – developed through the Project should

be sustained and should continue to support vulnerable villages to implement sustainable land

management practices.

261. The project at all levels is designed to set in place not only mechanisms to support the

sustainability of capacities developed but to continue to improve those capacities. This is particularly the


case in terms of the improving management, monitoring programs, and land use initiatives. Each of

these activities and all others are designed to grow, evolve and improve over time, all the while building

and supporting capacities within the private and public sector.

262. Institutional sustainability will be integral to project’s success. One of the fundamental aspects

of this project’s design is that it will positively affect institutions at all levels. Direct capacity-building

will take place through training programs designed to be launched during project implementation and

carried forward post-project by strengthened institutions. Indirect capacity-building will result from

implementation of various project activities. Much of the project’s efforts are focused on providing

institutions with the tools required for long-term institutional integrity and coordinated efforts. The

project will be designed to respond to stakeholders’ informed priorities, including those of governmental

agencies. GoI is eager to use this project do the heavy lifting required to design and implement a more

efficient and effective programs to deliver national and global environmental benefits. GoI’s aim for this

project is to improve environmental sustainability on all fronts.

263. Each component has integrated within it a hand-over plan. This hand-over plan will specify the

financial and economic factors required to carry forward project-initiated activities. The Government

and other stakeholders have shown a willingness to co-finance the project and a desire to fully absorb

and continue identified best practices.

264. The project design benefited from the inputs of numerous national experts, government staff, and

private stakeholders. Each of these parties had a hand in helping to define the types of technology that

the project will support and introduce. This applies to sophisticated technologies such as improved

agriculture and grazing techniques. Each technology has been scaled to match the technical and financial

capacities of the participating stakeholder group.

265. The project in its entirety is designed to promote environmental sustainability. The project will

result in both on-the-ground improvements that will be carried forward as well as policy improvements.

This will have positive ramifications in terms of climate change mitigation/adaptation, SLM, and

biodiversity conservation. All project activity is directed towards achieving improvements in ecosystem

integrity and making certain that these improvements are supported and progress over time. This

includes setting in place a comprehensive monitoring system linked to decision-making frameworks to

make certain environmental sustainability is achieved.

266. Environmental sustainability is the underlying principle of the SLMILDA design. The aim of the

pilot project is to make a lasting initial contribution to reversing decades of agricultural malpractice as a

result of a historic absence of structures of governance, hereby resulting in land degradation and

ultimately desertification. The SLMILDA will result in net environmental and productivity gains as

innovative approaches are introduced to reduce soil salinisation; increase productivity; reduce soil

degradation; promote sustainable, efficient and cost-effective water management techniques and

technologies; and build capacity at all levels contributing to improved awareness and better NRM; and

promote alternative livelihoods to alleviate the stressors on the eco-services by the women, youth and

vulnerable heads of households in marshland areas. The project will also positively contribute to the

national policy and legislative discourse as a national SLM/CA action plan is produced and evidence-

based research produced on solutions that will improve food security and also the environment.

2.4 Gender Equality

267. The Government of Iraq and FAO are both fully dedicated to improving the status of women.

This includes a fundamental dedication to making certain issues of gender are fully incorporated within

project conceptualization, design and implementation. The project integrates gender related issues

consistently throughout the proposed approach.


268. Rural unemployment is higher for women than men with only 15-18 percent of women

employed and they make up only 7 percent of employment in non-agricultural sectors. The percentage of

women in paid employment in the non-agricultural sector has risen from 12.1 percent in 2008 to 14.7

percent in 2011. The agriculture sector has a particularly high share of women, whose participation in the

sector has increased from 30 to 50 percent between 1980 and 2010.40 Women in Iraq are represented in

the higher levels of the public sector and government. In 2010, the average rate of parliament seats held

by women was 27 percent; there is a quota of 25 percent women on Provincial Councils. Nearly half of

workers in the public administration are women, although few of them are in senior or decision-making

positions.41

269. In the more traditional rural communities, even off-farm income generating opportunities are

extremely limited for women. Cottage industry-style activities offer some opportunities however, and

these are mostly in the form of processing of dairy products (that also improve household nutrition) such

as cream and cheese; both of these products enjoy strong and stable local market demand. For women

especially, the rearing of goats and sheep, and poultry farming, offer very good opportunities for

improving household food security, for diminishing household expenditure on meat and eggs, and for

income generation. Female-headed households, divorcees and widows are known to the local authorities

and in all southern governorates NGOs exist especially dedicated to working with these disadvantaged

groups; SLMILDA will work to identify these NGOs who will be considered to operate as SPs in the

alternative income activities.

270. Women’s rights have deteriorated since the rise of religious parties confining many of them to

their homes in rural areas. The project will therefore develop specific gender disaggregated targets to

include service providers with women staff to ensure outreach to women and integrate gender aspects in

all reports and stakeholder mapping exercises. Each of the components encourages the inclusion of

women and specific targets have been identified for them. The identification of assets, skills training and

enterprise development would be designed to address opportunities of relevance for women.

271. The Project will seek to lessen the impact of land degradation on women and other particularly

vulnerable groups, and it will contribute to women’s empowerment and gender equality. The project will

look at how the aridity of the Marshes adversely impacts Marsh women's traditional ecological

knowledge. Furthermore, it will define the impact on women’s income, as women have six major

activities in marshland associated productive landscapes: (1) Gathering Reeds/Handicrafts, (2) Animal

Husbandry, (3) Fishing, (4) Agriculture, (5) Selling goods at the market, and (6) Utilization of locally

available medicinal herbs. Those activities are highly impacted by land degradation. During Project

preparation and implementation a full gender analysis and gender segregated assessment will be

undertaken to determine: the number of female resource users; the number of women headed households;

the differentiated impacts of land degradation, climate change and drought on women and girls; the

different knowledge base of men and women; strategies for mainstreaming gender into natural resource

management; strategies for optimizing the participation of women in natural resource management and

optimizing their economic benefit. This will be done at the household and regional level.

272. The long-term conflicts have had a particular damaging impact on women overall in Iraq. One

notable impact has been the creation of a large number of women-headed households in vulnerable

communities, as the men have migrated in search of work or to protect their land. Moreover, women in

the marshland communities are traditionally reserved, and it is highly complex to target them through

international partnerships such as this Project. This Project will acknowledge gender differences, it will

assess and comprehensively understand them, and it will then design and implement activities that

promote women’s empowerment and gender equality.

273. In one of the UN offical events on strenghening role of rural women in managing natural

resources, the former environment minister in Iraq said “the role of rural women was an under-

appreicated factor in achieving sustainable peace. The impact of women’s participation in natural

40 World Bank 2016. Iraq Risk and Resilience Assessment.

41 UNDP Iraq 2012. Women’s Economic Empowerment: Integrating Women into the Iraqi Economy.


resources managmeent on generating and maintaing social equality and stabiity needs to be better

understood so greater efforts can go into anchoring peacebuilding in gender equality and the sound

management of natural resouces”. He further indicated the rural women have few legally recognaized

rights. The project will help in discussing how this situation tends to worsen in conflict setting due to

insecuirty, violence, and migraiton. The project will come up with specific interventions that would help

in defining how and where women’s engagment in SLM and finances increase, for example, to better

manage land and natural resources mainly during and post-conflict periods.

274. A recent paper on the Effects of Mesopotamian Marsh (Iraq) desiccation on the cultural

knowledge and livelihood of Marsh Arab women, published in March 2016, indicates that local women

are essential to marshland management in Iraq, land desiccation is destroying traditional lifestyles and

depleting water resources, and that government is out of funds to fix the problem. This research focuses

on analyzing the impacts of decades of exterem variations in the Marshes’ extent, availability of

culturally signficat natural resources and the ability of Marsh inhabitants to sustaina a livelihood from

ecosystem serives throug the Marsh Arab women. Unfortunaltey, due to lack of water, people had to flee

their homes primairly and became environmental refuguees. For example, women walk their water

buffalo approximately 2 km to reach the neasest water resoruces. According to another study by

UNESCO, published in 2014, around 81%, 33%, and 12% of internally displaced people in Marsh land

areas in Thi-Qar, Missan, and Basrah provinces were displaced due to water insufficency near the Marsh

areas, the majority of those are women.

275. Women in rural Iraq face several challenges. Women and particularly women headed

households often lack equitable access to decision-making, empowerment, and capacity building

opportunities. They are not equitably represented in the institutions and processes of knowledge

generation and dissemination in relation to agriculture and SLM. Women are often excluded from

financial decision-making in the household, community and in the other local bodies. There is an under-

representation of women in decision-making at the household and community levels. Women are the

custodian of rich knowledge but are not generally part of knowledge management systems.

276. Women often have added responsibilities in farming communities. The work load for women in

rural Iraq is frequently very physically demanding and difficult. Women have multiple responsibilities in

the household including collection and maintenance of fields, fodder and water. Women too often face

low levels of literacy/education for women, poor health and nutritional levels. They have few options for

gainful employment and few options of livelihood beyond agriculture. The responsibility and work load

on rural women often increase due to large scale out-migration of men.

277. Although women face many challenges, there are not commensurate, meaningful and directed

investments in improving their quality of life. There are very few extension services organized around

women’s needs and even fewer female agriculture extension workers.

278. Women will be particularly favored by this project as women´s groups will be explicitly targeted

for support, given their role in agriculture as well as the production of non-agricultural products. As

stated earlier, more than 60% of employed women in rural areas are working in agriculture sector as of

2012. This project will apply a multicultural and gender equality approach during the full-size project

design and implementation. The project will monitor its interventions using disaggregated indicators to

assess project results and effects on men and women.

279. The project will work to address these issues. This will include, but not be limited to, the

following steps.

• All project related and relevant government policies, programmes and schemes will formally

recognize and embed objectives related to improving the quality of life for rural women. This

includes all activities related to each of the outputs. All strategies and other policy

improvements under will formally recognize gender-based objectives.


• Data collection and monitoring programs will include gender analysis. This will be modelled

through relevant project monitoring that disaggregates indicators based upon gender. These

indicators will make certain positive project impacts and benefits accrue to women and women

headed households. This will include creation of gender objectives, collection of gender

disaggregated data and analysis of gender issues in reporting and monitoring materials.

• Communications and knowledge management tools will have gender specific materials and

sections. The project will use knowledge management tools to facilitate the development of

networks of women contributing to project objectives. The project will support this through a

network of female cohorts established through extension and community services.

• The guidelines for establishment and operations will require minimum female representation.

The project will be implemented to make certain GoI mandate female membership and that this

is meaningfully implemented.

• Ground-level interventions will be designed with gender specific functions and cohorts. These

will serve as a tool to make certain women are full participants in developed strategies and

investments. This will include establishment of gender specific capacity building and female

cohorts. For instance, women-only FFS may be organized if mixed groups appear to be

problemantic for women to attend.

• A set of training and extension programs will be tailored specifically for women’s needs as

defined and supported by women. This will likely include enhanced income of women;

participation in higher links of value chains; and, identification of gender specific activity

improvements. This will be augmented by funding and support for women exclusive initiatives.

2.5 Capacity Development

280. Effective and systemic capacity development (CD) approaches42 are essential to enhance the

impact and sustainability of GEF project results through deepening country-ownership and leadership of

the development process.

281. Effective CD ensures needs-based project interventions addressing all three CD dimensions

interdependently and systematically, namely strengthening 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).

Methodologically, capacities across the three dimensions are jointly assessed with country stakeholders.

On the basis of the assessment, appropriate CD interventions are designed, results identified and tracked

jointly.

282. In accordance with FAO’s GEF Project Formulation Guidelines, effective CD practices are fully

incorporated within the project identification and formulation. During project implementation, a

dedicated CD specialist from FAO will identify and prepare activities to include: (a) participatory

capacity needs assessment, analysis and mapping at national level to ensure needs-based project

interventions while maximizing stakeholder ownership and commitment, (b) project team analysis of

“agents of change” to be enabled and empowered during the course of project implementation, (c)

formulated strategies to work towards sustainable CD interventions after project completion.

283. National capacities will be enhanced by enabling and empowering a national project team

through training / coaching on effective CD practices. CD specific project preparation activities will

include a comprehensive and participatory capacity assessment with stakeholder validations based on the

findings refinement of CD interventions with budgeting and alignment with the project results.

42 See FAO Corporate Strategy http://www.fao.org/capacity-development/en/

http://www.fao.org/capacity-development/en/


2.6 Cost effectiveness

284. During project design, several alternative scenarios were considered from the point of view of

cost-effectiveness. These included extensive purchase of hardware and other tactical equipment,

construction of major facilities for administration and agriculture and expensive international training

programs. Stakeholders eventually abandoned these options after carefully considering conservation

priorities relevant to a limited budget. In the end, the highly precise and, therefore, cost-effective

investment rested on a number of principles, each integrated within the activities and expenditures of this

proposed project. The investment is targeted to catalyze a substantial course change. Paramount was the

desire to build the regulatory, management and financial capacity required for the Government and

relevant stakeholders to independently maintain effective conservation efforts. For instance, the project’s

limited investment will help to create capacity and decision-making pathways that enable local

governments to use revenues to make pro-conservation investments rather than ill-advised and

unsustainable short-term investments. This catalytic effect coupled with the objective of sustainability

makes the GEF investment highly cost-effective.


SECTION 3 – INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

3.1 Institutional Arrangements

General institutional context and responsibilities

285. The Ministry of Health and Environment, the Technical Directorate and the Directorate of

Environmental Protection and Improvement in the Southern Region (the divisions of Muthanna and Thi-

Qar) will lead the project implementation with the day-to-day management and monitoring undertaken

by a dedicated management member staff. It will be chairing the Project Steering Committee, providing

staff and resources, and engaging in strategic partnerships with other agencies and institutions from

government and civil society, including the private sector, environment, and development NGOs, local

community representatives, academic institutions, and professionals.

286. Ministry of Health and Environment will also be responsible for the technical implementation of

the conservation outputs in close cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture. It will also be responsible

for the land improvement on sustainable land management and salinity reduction with the Ministry of

Water Resources, including water and irrigation activities and private sector SPs for the alternative

livelihoods. As member of the PSC, the MoWR will be closely involved in the water related decision-

making, design and implementation processes. The activities it will be involved in include the study tours

to assess locally specific SLM/CA best practices and the implementation of all water source development

and irrigation activities. The research institutions attached to the different ministries and academia/

universities will play an important role in applying the outcomes of the project and should cooperate with

the extension service to achieve this task.

287. The project will be implemented through a National Project Implementation Unit (PMU)

supported by a Field Office. The PMU will be placed under Ministry of Health and Environment.

Linkages with local stakeholders will be established, including representatives of local staff of relevant

agencies, local resource user associations and NGOs. At the national level, a Project Steering Committee

will be established for the coordination of project activities. The PSC will provide overall guidance and

Project Board/Steering Committee

Project Organisation Structure

Management

Project Manager Senior Technical Advisor

M&E Project Support Staff

Support

Operations and Admin

Officer

Implementation partner:

FAO

Quality Assurance

FAO Iraq Representation LTO

FAO GEF Unit

Main execution partner:

Ministry of Health and Environment

SLM Policy Team Component 1

M&E KM Team Component 4

Agroecology Team Component 3

SLM Practices Team

Component 2


strategic leadership to create synergies for multi-sectoral coordination in project implementation; and

facilitate ‘mainstreaming’ of relevant project findings and recommendations into a national strategy and

action plan, which could eventually lead to formulation of a national policy.

288. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) will be the project’s GEF Agency. In accordance

with the GEF agency’s operational policies and procedures, FAO will provide a core set of services

linked to project implementation, evaluation and completion. The support to project implementation and

supervision will include: (i) technical support service, supervision, and monitoring of a project; and (ii)

preparation of annual Project Implementation Review (PIR). Activities related to evaluation and

completion will include: (i) preparation of the mid-term and final evaluations and project completion

report; and (ii) operational closure and financial closure of the project. FAO will report on project

progress to the GEF Secretariat and financial reporting will be to the GEF Trustee. FAO will closely

supervise the project by drawing upon its capacity at the global, regional and national levels, through the

concerned units at FAO-HQ, the Sub-Regional Office and the FAO Representation.

289. The FAO Representative will be the Budget Holder (BH) of this project. The BH, working in

close consultation with the Lead Technical Officer (LTO), will be responsible for timely operational,

administrative and financial management of the project. The BH supported by FAO staff and consultants

will be responsible for project supervision, monitoring of project progress, and oversight of financial

management, procurement and project progress and financial reporting. Final approval of the use of GEF

resources rests with the BH, also in accordance with FAO rules and procedures.

290. The Ministry of Health and Environment is the political focal point of GEF projects in the

country and will sign a grant agreement with FAO for project implementation.

291. The project will be launched by a well-publicized multi-stakeholder inception workshop. This

workshop will provide an opportunity to provide all stakeholders with updated information on the

project, as well as a basis for further consultation during the project’s implementation and will refine and

confirm the work plan. In addition, certain project activities will be specifically designed to directly

involve stakeholders in project implementation.

Coordination with other ongoing and planned related activities

292. The project is designed to respond to the demands of the Government to make certain

coordination is facilitated. As discussed in the project framework, the generation and implementation of

conservation strategies at both the national and provincial level will be used to engage a broad base of

stakeholders. One purpose of this effort is to foster improved coordination. Representatives of on-going

projects, including those financed via GEF, will be invited to participate in associated workshops,

seminars, and round-table discussions. This engagement will help make certain that all parties are well

aware of on-going project efforts, implementation progress, and exchanging opinions and lessons

learned. The result will be that all investments are better coordinated to deliver leveraged impacts.

293. The project will also benefit from existing coordination mechanisms and contribute to the

effectiveness of the mechanisms towards sustainable land management. Further analysis and detailed

design of the coordination scheme will be done during project implementation to make sure that a strong

interaction among key stakeholders is facilitated.

294. The project will work particularly closely with the programs described under the baseline

analysis. The proposed GEF project will be implemented in coordination with a number of FAO on-

going and pipeline projects consistent with and complementary to the project objectives and outputs.

Coordination with other GEF Financed Initiatives

295. The proposed project is designed to enhance and generate synergies with Iraq’s current portfolio

of GEF investments. FAO held extensive discussions with government, UN agencies, NGO partners and

others to be certain the proposed project will generate synergies. All parties have agreed to work in


unison to create a programmatic approach to jointly support advancement of GEF objectives. The

proposed project will take the imitative to be certain tools are emplaced to help harmonize and coordinate

relevant GEF initiatives. This will include the creation of bi-annual meetings between managers of all

relevant GEF projects facilitated through the proposed project management and implementation team.

The project will also organize formal, annual progress reporting seminars. These seminars will be used

as a tool to inform stakeholders of project progress and intended future activities. This will serve as a

mechanism to enhance replication and further galvanize cooperation.

296. Establishing a Functional Environmental Information System for the Synergistic Implementation

of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA’s) for Iraq (UNEP/GEF) (PIF Approved). This

project’s objective is to enhance capacity of Iraq for monitoring and reporting on multi-lateral

environment agreements through a functional environment information system. The is includes

streamlined and integrated data and information systems at the national level that take into consideration

the decentralized governance system in Iraq for use in decision-making, planning and reporting. The

project also intends to improve results based regulatory monitoring. This aligns well with the proposed

SLMILDA project.

297. Initial steps for the establishment of the national protected areas network Project: (UNEP/GEF).

The objective of this medium sized GEF project to develop and start implementation the plan for the

establishment of a national Network of Protected Areas. The project is scheduled for completion by

2019. The project is working to two protected areas as pilot sites with a focus on provision of essential

infrastructure and support to the selected Protected Areas. The proposed project will support the Iraqi

biodiversity efforts by rehabilitating critical marsh ecosystems, including the Dalmaj marshland. A

partnership is being promoted with this existing GEF-UNEP project to build on its lesson learnt and

findings, informing selection for demonstration sites and selection of target communities. Indeed, to the

extent possible, the FAO-GEF project will aim at working in the production areas and degraded

marshlands buffering Protected Areas in order to further lift pressures on Protected Areas.

3.2 Implementation Arrangements

Roles and responsibilities of the executing partners

298. The Ministry of Health and Environment will be the lead executing partner. At the request of the

Government, the project will be executed by FAO in close consultation with project partners. Please see

the annexes for details. The Government will carry out their responsibilities to support project execution

through the National Project Director (NPD). National executing partners will designate the NPD in

consultation with the FAO Budget Holder and the Lead Technical Officer. The NPD will be a senior

staff member with relevant experience and able to devote sufficient time to take part in the project during

its implementation. Among the many duties of the NPD, he/she will act as the responsible focal point at

the political and policy level and he/she will ensure that all necessary support and inputs from

Government personnel are provided to enable the project to implement all of the proposed component

activities.

299. The administration of the project will be carried out by a Project Management Unit (PMU) under

the overall guidance of the Steering Committee. The PMU will be composed of an overall Project

Coordinator, a Deputy Project Manager and a Project Assistant/Financial Officer. More specifically, the

role of the PMU will be to: (i) ensure the overall project management and monitoring (ii) facilitate

communication and networking among key stakeholders; (iii) organize the meetings of the PSC and other

experts and participants; (iv) support the local level implementing unit and working groups, and (iiv)

reporting and day by day managing of the project.

300. At the local level, a Project Implementation Unit will be established, which will include the

representatives of local staff of relevant GoT agencies, local farmer organizations, University and NGOs.

The Government will provide technical and logistical support, on a need basis for the overall project


activities. The project will be executed by the Government agencies at the field level. The executing

partners will work closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including village cooperatives, village

leaders, private farmers, shepherds, the private sector, universities, research institutions, civil society

organizations, local communities and residents.

301. Other partners supporting the execution will work closely with the Government through their

nominated technical focal points at the national, provincial and local levels. The project is designed to

achieve many of its key outputs by means of letters of agreement (LoA) with key partners. These LoA

are listed under the “Contracts” Budget Line of the project budget. Further detail on results-based LoA

work plans and budgets will be developed during inception phase of the project. Specific Letters of

Agreement (LoA) will be elaborated and signed between FAO and the respective collaborating partner.

This will include inter alia, civil society organizations as appropriate. Funds received under a LoA will

be used to execute the project activities in conformity with FAO’s rules and procedures.

Governate Level

302. The Director of the Directorate of MoHE would assume the overall responsibility for the

project. The Governorate level structure will include Technical Advisory Committees which will

advise the MoHE, this will comprise the Chair: The Governorate Directors of MoA, MoHE and

MoWR; the governorate council representative (woman); business representatives from 3 alternative

income sectors (including women) NGO representatives and a representative of the relative

University. The Governorate GCT staff will be seconded from the MoHE and will coordinate the

day-to-day implementation of project activities both for the MoA for agricultural activities and the

MoWR for the implementation of the water source and irrigation investments.

Service Providers

303. Service Providers will be competitively recruited and supported by the ministries, they will

be selected from local NGOs or private sector firms with a strong gender balance and trained. They

will be responsible for identifying the gender balanced target group and provide support in the

implementation of component three in coordination with the project FEWs from the Department of

Agriculture Extension. Short-term specialised technical assistance will be financed by GEF while

office space, office equipment, provision of vehicles and their operation and maintenance will be

supplied by the Government.

Project technical, coordination and steering committees

304. The project will have a Project Steering Committee that will be led by the Deputy-Ministry of

Health and Environment and have representatives of the MoA and MoWR. The PSC will also include

technical resource people appointed by the ministries, it will meet at least once a year to approve the

programme and provide guidance on key aspects; provide oversight and assurance of technical quality of

outputs; ensure the timely availability and effectiveness of financial and in-kind support; effective

coordination of government partners; and approve the Annual Project Progress and Financial reports and

well as the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB). The Project Manager will act as the PSC Secretary.

The composition of PSC will be: (maximum of 10 people with at least 4 women): Chair: Deputy Director

General of MoHE; Director General of MoA; Director General of MoWR; 3 technical resource people

(nominated by the Chair) including women; Technical members as required – including women; Project

Manager (Secretary); a FAO Country Office (FAO-CO) representative; and the GEF focal person.


Member Organization Member Representative Position

Ministry of Health and Environment Deputy Director General Chair

Ministry of Agriculture Director General Member

Ministry of Agriculture Director of CAD Member

Ministry of Health and Environment GEF Focal Point Member

Ministry of Water Resources Director of IWRM Member

Muthanna Governorate Representative to be appointed Member

Thi-Qar Governorate Representative to be appointed Member

FAO-Iraq Representative Member

305. The PSC will meet at least two times per year and its specific responsibilities will be: (i) overall

oversight of project progress and achievement of planned results as presented in six-monthly Project

Progress Reports; (ii) take decisions in the course of the practical organization, coordination and

implementation of the project; (iii) facilitate cooperation and project participating partners and project

support at the local level; (iv) advise the PMU on other on-going and planned activities facilitating

collaboration between the Project and other programs, projects and initiatives; (v) facilitate that co-

financing support is provided in a timely and effective manner; and (vi) review six-monthly Project

Progress and Financial Reports and approve AWP/B.

Project Management Unit

306. The Project Management Unit (PMU), which is composed of the Government experts will be

installed Ministry of Health and Environment as a central office from where the project will be managed

and coordinated. It will be responsible for day-to-day project operations. The Ministry of Health and

Environment will be beneficiaries and responsible for carrying out all project activities together. The

office will be equipped with adequate computer facilities to facilitate the project management

307. The PMU will be established in Baghdad under the auspices of the MoHE and be responsible for

overseeing project implementation. Its staff will be seconded from the MoHE and be led by the Project

Manager who will have ten years’ experience in managing similar projects and report to the PSC. He/she

will be assisted by an equally experienced Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) officer will coordinate

reports from the Governorates to present quarterly statistical reports and bi-annual PPRs and annual

PIRs. The PMU will provide oversight and assurance of technical quality of outputs; ensure close

linkages and cooperation between the MoHE, MoA, MoWR and the SPs; the timely availability and

effectiveness of co-financing support; the sustainability of key project outcomes and upscaling and

replication; the coordination between government partners and approval of six-monthly PPRs including

Financial Reports and AWPB.

308. The PMU Coordinator shall be assigned by the Ministry of Health and Environment and shall be

assigned by GDPP and supported by an English-speaking Executive Secretary, which will be hired

externally for the project period. PMU will have a full-time consultant as co-manager who has project

relevant topical and management experience under the coordinator and will be hired externally for the

project period. The PMU Coordinator will be responsible for the administrative and technical

coordination of the project and report progress upon feed-back received from the project partners. The

PMU will coordinate with the relevant stakeholders.

309. The National Project Implementation Unit (PMU) will be hosted by Ministry of Health and

Environment and will be responsible for day-to-day project operations. The role of the PMU will be, in

close consultation with the PSC and independent expert group (IEG) members (see below), to ensure the

coordination and execution of the Project through the timely and efficient implementation of annual work

plans. The PMU will act as secretariat to the PSC. It will coordinate work and follow closely the

implementation of project activities, handle day-to-day project issues and requirements, coordinate

project interventions with other on-going activities and ensure a high degree of provincial and local inter-

institutional collaboration, monitor project progress and ensure the timely delivery of inputs and outputs.

It will organize workshops and annual meetings for the Project for monitoring project progress and

develop work plans with detailed budget for the next year to be approved by the PSC. It will be


responsible for implementing the project’s M&E plan, managing its monitoring system and

communication programme, the elaboration of six-monthly Project Progress and Financial reports and

assist in the preparation of the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) and midterm and final

evaluations. Project Progress Reports on implemented activities and progress in achieving project

outputs and outcomes, and financial statements of expenditures and status for the previous year will be

submitted together with the Annual Work Plan and detailed Budget (AWP/B) to the PSC and FAO via

Project Director.

310. As required, a Local Project Implementation Unit (LPIU) shall be established to take necessary

actions within their areas of responsibility, under the guidance of the PMU. The Local Project

Implementation Unit will also consult and work with the local stakeholders on specific issues in the

project areas. The members of LPIU shall continuously work together, while they can invite the local

stakeholders for meetings periodically to review and evaluate collaborative management and to exchange

information. LPIU, on request of the committees or for its own purposes, can invite any expert or

authority member to participate in the meetings. The LPIU shall be authorized to make the final decision

in case of dispute. The decisions will be submitted to the PMU for approval. The LPIU will be

responsible for coordination with the relevant government institutions and local stakeholders in the field

level. The local project office will be equipped with adequate computer facilities and other field

equipment.

311. The PMU will consist of the following Government staff financed by co-financing: (i) a part-

time National Project Director in charge of overall coordination and supervision of the project and

coordination with other sector departments; (ii) a full time SFM Technical Officer; and a full time SLM

Technical Officer, managing project information and documentation, and distribution of project reports,

newsletters and training materials to relevant stakeholders; managing project M&E, conducting regular

field M&E visits to project sites, and assisting the National Project Manager (see below) in preparing six-

monthly Project Progress Reports monitoring progress in achieving project outputs and outcome

indicators, and in liaising with FAO Representation’s Finance and Administrative Assistant (for

preparing financial reports). The Ministry of Health and Environment will provide office space,

equipment and utilities and part of travel as a counterpart contribution to project management.

312. To further strengthen the PMU the GEF resources will finance (i) a full-time National Project

Coordinator in charge of project daily management and technical supervision including, preparing

“Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B)” and allocating tasks to Field Office, preparing TORs and

technical requirements for consultancy services contracting documents and material and equipment

procurement documents, providing technical supervision and guidance to the Field Office in

implementing project activities, conducting regular field supervision visits and provide on-site guidance

to oblast/rayon technical staff, day-to-day coordination and communication with Field Office staff in

charge of the GEF project, and preparing the project progress reports; (ii) an Operations, Finance and

Procurement/Administrative Assistant (based in the FAO Representation) in charge of preparing detailed

budgets for cash transfer requests based on the AWP/B and project account cash balance, keeping the

financial records and regular review of the project account, reviewing the receipts and financial reports

submitted by field office and sub-contractors and preparing six-monthly financial statement of

expenditures, preparing the personnel and services contracting and procurement documents and

participate in contracting and procurement processes including of submission of documentation to FAO

for ex-antes clearances, and preparing relevant documents for internal and external financial audits. A

Field Office will be responsible for pilot site activities and work under supervision of the PMU.

Independent Technical Expert Group

313. An Independent Expert Group (IEG) will be established to provide technical advice on specific

project components and outputs and may among others be composed Government technical staff

representing all departments participating in the Project, technical staff from other sector departments of

the oblasts involved in the management and/or use of the relevant resources at the pilot sites, and other

research institutions, and FAO. The main tasks of the IEG will be to provide technical advice to the

PSC, backstop the PMU on request, advise the PMU on other on-going and planned activities and


facilitate collaboration between the Project and other programs, projects, and initiatives of sector

agencies and research institutions. The IEG may also be involved in technical evaluation of project

progress and outputs, and identification of possible solutions and/or changes in project activities when

technical issues arise in the course of project implementation.

3.3 Risk Management

314. Iraq is a fragile and potentially volatile country still emerging from decades of sanctions, and

years of conflict that have left the social fabric in ruins. The risks to the project range from institutional

capacity in implementation because of the unavailability of adequate extension services and the risk of

elite capture, to more broader issues of corruption and concerns about land ownership, access to credit

and the general security situation. All these factors exert varying degrees of risk to successful project

implementation; all of which have been ranked and categorised in table 5 below. The highest risks have

been identified as access to credit because this is a guaranteed factor, that if not mitigated against with

GEF asset grants, will jeopardize one of the main pillars of the project, that of empowering women and

heads of vulnerable households to reduce dependency on the marshland ecosystem services. The second

highest risk has been identified as that of security; Iraq has enjoyed a recent increased level of security

however the risk to project implementation is still significant. The impact on the project is that

international supervision missions will not be able to independently verify implementation, FAO

however has a successful record of project implementation in Iraq even during times of crisis, which

means that this risk is mitigated against through its standard operating procedures, as long as there is no

further deterioration in the level of security.

3.4 Financial Management

315. The total cost of the project is USD 24,749,321. This is financed through a GEF grant of USD

3,539,121 and USD 21,200,000 in other co-financing. FAO, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is

responsible for the implementation of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to FAO

bank account only. FAO will be providing USD 2,500,000 (grant) in co-financing.

316. Co-financing: The actual realization of project co-financing will be monitored during the mid-

term review and terminal evaluation process and will be reported to the GEF.

317. Much of the total co-financing is represented by the Government of Iraq’s work with IFAD and

the USD 18,230,000 Smallholder Agriculture Revitalisation Project (SARP) described under the

baseline. Please see letters of co-financing attached. The planned co-financing will be used as follows:

Co-financing source

Co-

financing

type

Co-financing

amount Planned Activities/Outputs Risks


Environment

Recipient Government

In-kind 5,000,000

MoHE is the Implementing

Partner and as such will work

with the project under all

Outcomes and Outputs. It will

provide a venue for the PMU

Low Risk


Recipient Government In kind 5,000,000

MOA and particularly CAD will

work with the project under all

Outcomes and Outputs. It will

provide a venue GIS monitoring

program, provide extension

services support, etc.

Low Risk


Ministry of water resources

Recipient Government In-kind 5,000,000

MOWR will work with the

project under all Outcomes and

Outputs. It will provide a venue

of Water Resources, deep wells,

monitoring program, provide

support services, etc.

Low Risk

Recipient Government Anbar,

ThiQar, Basra, Missan and Wasit In-kind 2,500,000

Local Government agencies will

work with the project under all

Outcomes and Outputs. This

will include provide

implementation support for on-

the-ground activities.

Low Risk

USAID/WADA Grant 1,200,000

Will work to support efforts

related to water management and

marshland conservation.

Low Risk

FAO Grant 2,500,000

Parallel projects will focus their

efforts on agricultural livelihood

diversification, food security and

nutrition.

Low Risk

Total Co-financing 21,200,000


Name of Co-financier Type of Co-

financing C1 C2 C3 C4 PMC TOTAL

GEF TF Grant $ 485,700 $ 1,991,921 $ 685,700 $ 217,000 $ 169,000 $ 3,549,321

MoHE In-kind $ 750,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 750,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000

MoA In-kind $ 4,800,000 $ 200,000 $ 5,000,000

MoWR In-kind $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 200,000 $ 5,000,000

Local Governments In-kind $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 2,500,000

USAID/WADA Grant $ 400,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,200,000

FAO Grant $ 400,000 $ 2,000,000

$ 100,000 $ 2,500,000

TOTALS $ 2,435,700 $ 14,691,921 $ 5,635,700 $ 817,000 $ 1,169,000 $ 24,749,321


SECTION 4 – MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION

4.1. Oversight

318. Project 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.

319. 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 Monitoring

320. Project monitoring will be carried out by the Project Management Unit (PMU) and the FAO

budget holder. 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 Reporting

321. Specific 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.

322. 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.

323. 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.

324. 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.

325. 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

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.

326. 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 ([email protected] , 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.

327. 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.

328. 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.

329. GEF Core Indicators: Following the GEF policies and procedures, the relevant Core Indicators

for full sized projects will be completed at three moments: (i) with the project document at CEO

mailto:[email protected]


endorsement; (ii) at the project’s mid-term review; and (iii) with the project’s terminal evaluation or final

completion report. The core indicators are completed by the PMU and made available for the mid-term

review and again for the final evaluation.

330. 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 Evaluation

331. A Mid-Term Review 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 will be instrumental for bringing improvement in the overall project

design and execution strategy for the remaining period of the project’s term. FAO will arrange for the

mid-term review in consultation with the project partners. The evaluation will, inter alia:

• Review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation;

• Analyse effectiveness of partnership arrangements;

• Identify issues requiring decisions and remedial actions;

• Propose any mid-course corrections and/or adjustments to the implementation strategy as

necessary; and

• Highlight technical achievements and lessons learned derived from project design,

implementation and management.

332. An independent Final Evaluation (FE) will 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.

M&E Plan

Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Budgeted costs

Inception Workshops: At

national and pilot site level

PMU, FAO Project Task Manager

(PTM) supported by the FAO LTO,

BH, and the GEF Coordination Unit

Within two months of

project start up USD 10,000

Project Inception Report PMU, FAO PTM cleared by FAO

LTO, and the GEF Coordination Unit

Immediately after

workshop USD 2,500

Field based impact monitoring PMU and relevant line agencies. Continually USD 40,000

Supervision visits and rating of

progress in PPRs and PIRs

PMU, FAO LTO and GEF

Coordination Unit

Annual or as required The visits of the FAO and

the GEF Coordination

Unit 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 Six-monthly Covered by PMU


Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Budgeted costs

Project Implementation Review

report

PMU supported by FAO PTM, LTO,

and project partners and cleared and

submitted by the GEF Coordination

Unit to the GEF Secretariat

Annual

FAO officers’ time cover

by GEF agency fee

Co-financing Reports PMU Annual Covered by PMU

Technical reports PMU As appropriate

Mid-term Review External Consultant, FAO GEF

Coordination Unit and other partners

Conducted and

completed during

project mid-term

USD 30,000 for external

consultant. In addition,

either FAO staff time and

travel or an additional

consultant will be paid

through the agency fee

Final evaluation External Consultant, FAO Office of

Evaluation, in consultation with the

project team including the GEF

Coordination Unit and other partners

Conducted and

completed during

project’s final 3

months of operations.

USD 40,000

Terminal Report PMU, TCSR (formatting) Completed at project

close USD 7,000

Total Budget

USD 129,500

4.5 Provision for Evaluations

333. Mid-Term: A Mid-Term Review (MTR) will be undertaken during project months 23 and 24.

The MTR will review progress and effectiveness of implementation in terms of achieving project

objective, outcomes and outputs. Findings and recommendations of this review will be instrumental for

bringing improvement in the overall project design and execution strategy for the remaining period of the

project’s term if necessary. FAO will arrange for the MTR in consultation with project management.

334. The review will, inter alia: (i) review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project

implementation; (ii) analyse 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. The FAO Project Task Manager will

prepare the first draft of the Terms of Reference for the mid-term review and consult with and

incorporate comments from key project partners, including the FAO budget holder, the FAO Lead

Technical Unit and Officer, and the FAO GEF Coordination Unit.

335. Final: An independent Final Evaluation (FE) will be completed by project month 46. The FE

will identify the project impacts and sustainability of project results and the degree of achievement of

long-term results. This Evaluation will indicate future actions needed to sustain project results, expand on

the existing Project in subsequent phases, mainstream and up-scale its products and practices, and

disseminate information to responsible management authorities to assure continuity of the processes

initiated by the Project. The FE will be managed by FAO Office of Evaluation (OED), in consultation

with the Project Portfolio Coordinator GEF-FAO Iraq, LTO, and FAO–GEF Coordination Unit. OED

will be responsible for developing the Terms of Reference (TORs) of the FE, with inputs/comments from

the project task force, the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit and, when relevant, other stakeholders.”

4.6 Communication

336. The capture and management of knowledge is fundamentally important to this project. Outputs

are designed for this purpose and will be supported by a professional communications team. Information

will be fed into the national monitoring program, the tool-box, and inform adaptation of national and


state level strategies and related programming. The project will generate a specific marketing strategy to

make certain lessons are captured and disseminated effectively. This will include generating

management templates, training materials, and other educational resources. The project will initiate an

annual lessons-learned workshop to share advances with associated stakeholders, projects, and

government agencies. 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. This site will

serve as a knowledge repository and function as an organic monitoring, assessment, and reporting tool.


Annex 1 FAO/GEF Strategic Results Matrix

Objective/Outcome Objective and Outcome Indicators Baseline

Mid-term Target

End of Project Target

Means of Verification

Project Objective:

Reverse land degradation

processes, conserve and

sustainably manage land

and water resources in

degraded marshland

ecosystems in Southern

Iraq for greater access to

services from resilient

ecosystems and

improved livelihoods

Area of landscapes under sustainable land

management in production systems (GEF

Core Indicator 4.3)

0 ha 2,000 ha 10,000 ha

Number of direct beneficiaries

disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of

GEF investment (GEF Core Indicator 11)

Male: 0

Female: 0

Male: 750

Female: 750

Male: 1,250

Female: 1,250

Outcome 1: Enhanced

policy, legal, and

institutional frameworks

support SLM

Number of national and governate staff

reporting higher SLM management

capacity.

0: MOA

0: MoH&E

0: MoW

0: Muthanna Gov.

0: Thi-Qar Gov.

3: MOA

5: MoH&E

2: MOW

2: Muthanna Gov.

2: Thi-Qar Gov.

10: MOA

12: MoH&E

5: MOW

5: Muthanna Gov.

5: Thi-Qar Gov.

Progress reports

MTR and TER project evaluations

Website and social media tracking tools

GIS software; and remote sensing

software procured.

FAO Capacity Assessment

KM annual reports

Government budget reports

Number of Government staff exclusively

mandated to support implementation of

SLM programming, including agriculture

and wetlands

0 CAD Staff

0 MoH&E Staff

20 CAD

(Conservation

Agriculture

Directorate) Staff

20 MoH&E Staff

40 CAD Staff

40 MoH&E Staff

A national SLM strategy action plan

developed with implementation financed

by government.

0 SLM action plans

developed and

financed

1 SLM action plans

developed and

financed

1 SLM action plans

developed and financed

A national strategic action plan for

agriculture and marshlands developed

with implementation financed by

government.

0 agriculture and

marshlands action

plans developed and

financed

0 agriculture and

marshlands action

plans developed and

financed

1 agriculture and

marshlands action plans

developed and financed


Number of annual users reported for

project emplaced capacity and knowledge

tools.

0 users of project

social media (e.g.

Facebook)

0 users of project

emplaced knowledge

management website

150 users of project

social media (e.g.

Facebook)

500 monthly visitors

of project emplaced

knowledge

management website

300 users of project

social media (e.g.

Facebook)

1,000 monthly visitors

of project emplaced

knowledge management

website

Number of annual national SLM progress

reports delivered based upon information

generated by GIS-based monitoring and

knowledge platform.

0 national SLM

progress reports

2 national SLM

progress reports

4 national SLM

progress reports.

Output 1.1 National SLM training program established

Output 1.2. National SLM strategy and action plan developed and implemented

Output 1.3 National strategic action plan for agriculture and marshlands developed and implemented

Output 1.4 National monitoring and knowledge management platform to inform SLM decision-making established

Outcome 2: SLM

best practices promoted

and delivering global

environmental benefits

Number of extension officers with proven

capacity to implement FFS SLM training

programs.

0 extension officers 50 extension officers 50 extension officers

FFS training certificates.

Progress reports


Capacity needs assessment report.


KM annual reports

Number of hectares of degraded

agriculture and grazing lands under

improved SLM management as a result of

FFS implementation.

0 ha 2,000 ha 6,000 ha

Number of agricultural producers

reporting higher economic returns based

upon participation in FFS SLM training

programs.

0: men

0: women

N/A

150: men

150: women

Number of agriculture hectares (degraded

and under SLM) monitored annually as a

result of FFS programming with linkages

to the national KM system.

0 ha monitored and

reporting to national

KM

15,000 ha monitored

and reporting to

national KM

30,000 ha monitored

and reporting to

national KM

Output 2.1 Locally adapted SLM best practices described and prioritized for target areas

Output 2.2 SLM extension training program established


Output 2.3 SLM production systems established with FFS program

Outcome 3: Measures to

restore and sustainably

manage marshland

ecosystems adopted

Number of extension officers with proven

capacity to implement FFS

agroecological training programs that

support marshland conservation.

0 extension officers 20 extension officers 20 extension officers

FFS training certificates.

Progress reports



KM annual reports

Number of marshland dependent

agricultural producers reporting higher

economic returns based upon

participation in FFS agroecological

training programs.

0: men

0: women N/A

100: men

100: women

Number of hectares of wetlands restored

and sustainably managed as a result of

FFS agroecological implementation.

0 ha restored 1,500 ha restored 4,000 ha restored

Number of wetland agriculture hectares

monitored annually to promote SLM

practices and reporting to national KM

system.

0 ha monitored and

reporting to national

KM system

10,000 ha monitored

and reporting to

national KM system

20,000 ha monitored

and reporting to

national KM system

Output 3.1 Agroecology best practices described and prioritized for marshlands

Output 3.2 Agroecology and marshlands extension training program established

Output 3.3 Marshland agroecology production systems established with FFS program

Outcome 4: Monitoring

and evaluation informs

knowledge management

with best practices

upscaled

Percentage of intended outputs and

indicators reported by the project’s mid-

term and final report as delivered and/or

on-track for delivery.

0% delivered

100% on-track for

delivery

50% delivered

50% on-track for

delivery

100% delivered

0% remaining for

delivery

Progress reports



KM annual reports

WOCAT network

FAO Regional SLM Unit Reports Number of annual KM tool reports

uploaded into regional and international

KM tools.

0: reports submitted to

WOCAT



WOCAT



WOCAT



Regional SLM FAO

Unit

Regional SLM FAO

Unit

Regional SLM FAO

Unit

Output 4.1 Project M&E system operationalized

Output 4.2. Project lessons and practices captured and disseminated

DRAFT

Annex 2 Work plan

The following workplan is illustrative. During the project inception period a complete work plan will be delivered. This will include a comprehensive implementation plan

and strategy covering the entire project period.

Outputs Activities Responsible

Institution

2019 2020 2021 2022

T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4

Output 1.1 National SLM training

program established

Core Training Program Designed MoHE

Core Training Program Implemented MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

Output 1.2 National SLM strategy

and action plan developed and

implemented

Working group established and meeting MoA (CAD)

Assessment completed MoA (CAD)

Draft completed MoA (CAD)

Output 1.3 National strategic action

plan for agriculture and marshlands

developed and implemented

Working group established and meeting MoHE

Assessment completed MoHE

Draft completed MoHE

Output 1.4 National monitoring and

knowledge management platform to

inform SLM decision-making

established

KMT designed MoA (CAD)

KMT Operational MoA (CAD)

KMT Reporting MoA (CAD)

Output 2.1 Locally adapted SLM

best practices described and

prioritized for target areas

Assessment Completed MoA (CAD)

Curriculum Designed MoA (CAD)

Output 2.2 SLM extension training

program established Training completed with improvements on-

going

MoA (CAD)

Output 2.3 SLM production

systems established with FFS

program

FFS established MoA (CAD)

FFS training on-going MoA (CAD)

SLM under production and monitored MoA (CAD)

Output 3.1 Agroecology best

practices described and prioritized

for marshlands

Assessment completed MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

Curriculum designed MoHE with


Outputs Activities Responsible

Institution

2019 2020 2021 2022

T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4

MoA (CAD)

Output 3.2 Agroecology and

marshlands extension training

program established

Training completed with improvements on-

going

MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

Output 3.3 Marshland agroecology

production systems established with

FFS program

FFS established MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

FFS Training for marshlands on-going MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

Marshlands under agroecological production

and monitored

MoHE with

MoA (CAD)

Output 4.1 Project M&E system

operationalized

Mid-term and Final Evaluations FAO

Project Implementation Reports FAO

Output 4.2. Project lessons and

practices captured and disseminated

Information and reporting to Regional SLM

Unit and WOCAT

MoA (CAD)

DRAFT

Annex 3 Results based budget

Expenditures by year

Oracle code and description Unit No. of units Unit cost

Total Component

1 Component

2 Component

3 Component

4

PMC TOTAL Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

GEF

5300 Salaries professionals

Operations and administrative officer

Lumpsum 1 139,000 139,000 0 0 0 0 139,000 139,000 34,750 34,750 34,750 34,750

5300 Sub-total salaries professionals 139,000 0 0 0 0 139,000 139,000 34,750 34,750 34,750 34,750

5570 International Consultants

Expertise to implement thematic training seminars: policy, governance, gender, global practices, FFS, etc. (Output 1.1. SLM policy training program)

Days 100 500 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 15,000 15,000 20,000

Expertise to support strategy development, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.2 National SLM Strategy)

Days 100 500 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 25,000 25,000

Expertise to complete assessment and strategy, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.3. Marshland Strategy)

Days 80 500 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 25,000 15,000

Expertise to establish monitoring programming and knowledge management platform, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.4 SLM KMT)

Days 50 500 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 25,000


Expertise to identify best SLM technical practices and approaches, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 2.1. SLM targeted best practices)

Days 200 500 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 30,000 50,000 20,000

Expertise to generate FFS curriculum and extension training (Output 2.2 SLM extension training)

Days 260 500 130,000 0 130,000 0 0 130,000 30,000 50,000 40,000 10,000

Expertise to support the implementation of FFS programming, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 2.3 SLM FFS Program & KNT monitoring)

Days 200 500 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Expertise to identify suite of best interventions to support marshlands sustainable use and restoration practices (Output 3.1 Agroecology target best practices for marshlands)

Days 130 500 65,000 0 0 65,000 0 65,000 15,000 25,000 25,000

Expertise to support generation of FFS curriculum to support marshland restoration, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 3.2 Agroecology extension training)

Days 130 500 65,000 0 0 65,000 0 65,000 15,000 25,000 25,000

Expertise to technically support implementation of marshland FFS programs, , including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 3.3 Agroecology FFS program and KMT monitoring)

Days 60 500 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 15,000 15,000


Final and mid-term evaluation (Output 4.1 Project M&E operationalized)

Days 140 500 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 30,000 40,000

Sub-total international Consultants 725,000 165,000 330,000 160,000 70,000 0 725,000 155,00

0 310,00

0 185,00

0 75,000

National consultants

Expertise to implement thematic training seminars: policy, governance, gender, global practices, FFS, etc. (Output 1.1. SLM policy training program)

Days 80 250 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 10,000

Expertise to support strategy development, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.2 National SLM Strategy)

Days 120 250 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 15,000 15,000

Expertise to complete assessment and strategy, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.3. Marshland Strategy)

Days 120 250 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 15,000 15,000

Expertise to establish monitoring programming and knowledge management platform, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 1.4 SLM KMT)

Days 80 250 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 10,000

Expertise to identify best SLM technical practices and approaches, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 2.1. SLM targeted best practices)

Days 360 250 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 90,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 15,000


Expertise to generate FFS curriculum and extension training (Output 2.2 SLM extension training)

Days 360 250 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 90,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 15,000

Expertise to support the implementation of FFS programming, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 2.3 SLM FFS Program & KNT monitoring)

Days 340 250 85,000 0 85,000 0 0 85,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 10,000

Expertise to identify suite of best interventions to support marshlands sustainable use and restoration practices (Output 3.1 Agroecology target best practices for marshlands)

Days 120 250 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Expertise to support generation of FFS curriculum to support marshland restoration, including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 3.2 Agroecology extension training)

Days 120 250 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Expertise to technically support implementation of marshland FFS programs, , including national capacity building and skills transfer (Output 3.3 Agroecology FFS program and KMT monitoring)

Days 120 250 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Final and mid-term evaluation (Output 4.1 Project M&E operationalized)

Days 160 250 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000

National Project Manager Days 520 250 130,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 130,000 32,500 32,500 32,500 32,500

Sub-total national Consultants 625,000 120,000 305,000 110,000 60,000 30,000 625,000 107,50

0 212,50

0 192,50

0 112,50

0

5570 Sub-total consultants 1,350,000 285,000 635,000 270,000 130,000 30,000 1,350,000 262,50

0 522,50

0 377,50

0 187,50

0


5650 Contracts

Establishment, equiping and operationalization of national monitoring and knowledge management platform (Output 1.4 SLM KMT)

Lumpsum 1 100,000 100,000 80,000 0 0 20,000 100,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Implementation of FFS, generation of training materials, and financial support for adoption of new agricultural techniques under FFS programming (Output 2.3 SLM FFS Program & KMT monitoring)

Lumpsum 1 850,000 850,000 0 850,000 0 0 850,000 25,000 275,00

0 300,00

0 250,00

0

Implementation of FFS, generation of training materials, and financial support for adoption of new agricultural techniques under FFS programming Output 3.3 Agroecology FFS program and KMT monitoring

Lumpsum 1 175,000 175,000 0 0 175,000 0 175,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

5650 Sub-total Contracts 1,125,000 80,000 850,000 175,000 20,000 0 1,125,000 75,000 350,00

0 375,00

0 325,00

0

5900 Travel

National and international travel Lumpsum 1 400,000 400,000 40,000 190,000 120,000 50,000 400,000

70,000 170,00

0 100,00

0 60,000

5900 Sub-total travel 400,000 40,000 190,000 120,000 50,000 0 400,000 70,000 170,00

0 100,00

0 60,000

5023 Training and workshops

Implementation of training workshops under Output 1.1. SLM policy training program

Lumpsum 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 10,000


Implementation of training workshops under Output 1.2 National SLM Strategy

Lumpsum 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 10,000

Training workshops for the design and generation of Output 1.3. Marshland Strategy

Lumpsum 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 10,000

Implementation of training workshops and stakeholder engagement to identify Output 2.1. SLM targeted best practices

Lumpsum 1 85,000 85,000 0 85,000 0 0 85,000 15,000 30,000 25,000 15,000

Support for extension officer training to implement FFS under Output 2.2 SLM extension training

Lumpsum 1 85,000 85,000 0 85,000 0 0 85,000 15,000 30,000 25,000 15,000

Support for establishment of initial training and monitoring under Output 2.3 SLM FFS Program & KNT monitoring

Lumpsum 1 85,000 85,000 0 85,000 0 0 85,000 15,000 30,000 25,000 15,000

Implementation of training workshops and stakeholder engagement to identify Output 3.1 Agroecology target best practices

Lumpsum 1 20,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 10,000 10,000

Extension officer training to implement FFS under Output 3.2 Agroecology extension training

Lumpsum 1 70,000 70,000 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 40,000 30,000

5023 Sub-total training 405,000 60,000 255,000 90,000 0 0 405,000 65,000 170,00

0 125,00

0 45,000

6000 Expendable procurement

Various equipment required to support implementation of project activities, including computers, projectors, etc.

Lumpsum 1 63,121 63,121 10,700 31,721 20,700 0 63,121 20,321 20,000 12,400 10,400

6000 Sub-total expendable procurement 63,121 10,700 31,721 20,700 0 0 63,121 20,321 20,000 12,400 10,400


6100 Non-expendable procurement

6100 Sub-total non-expendable procurement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6300 GOE budget

GOE Lumpsum 1 60,200 60,200 10,000 30,200 10,000 10,000

60,200 15,000 15,000 15,200 15,000

Terminal report Lumpsum 1 7,000 7,000 0 0 0 7,000

7,000 7,000

6300 Sub-total GOE budget 67,200 10,000 30,200 10,000 17,000 0 67,200 15,000 15,000 15,200 22,000

TOTAL 3,549,321 485,700 1,991,921 685,700 217,000 169,000 3,549,321 542,57

1 1,282,2

50 1,039,8

50 684,65

0

SUBTOTAL Comp 1 485,700 13.7%

SUBTOTAL Comp 2 1,991,921 56.1%



SUBTOTAL Project Management 169,000 4.8%

TOTAL GEF 3,549,321 100.0%

DRAFT

Annex 4 Risk Management

Risk identified Risk

Classification

Risk Description

in the project Mitigation Action (s) Indicators

Progress on

mitigation action

Political instability

and civil unrest in

addition to internal

conflict

Impact: 4

Probability: 4

The political instability may lead many

difficulties in the project

implementation; it can also limit the

access to some areas and/or access to

data as well as limit the potential for

some income generating activities.

It is vital to undertake mitigation

measures. This includes continuous

consultation with the Governments to

identify possible interventions to solve any

new risk faces the project and working

closely with local community to provide

them with the needed skills and tools to be

used once the political situation enhanced.

Project producers and implements

necessary SLM strategic action

plans.

TBD

Security issues make

recruitment and

placement of

international

technical support

difficult.

Impact: 3

Probability: 4

Iraq is facing substantial security issues.

This was recently seen with unrest in

Basra.

The project is designed to provide both on-

site and remote technical support. This

includes field visits by Iraq colleagues to

Rome for training by experts.

Project SLM capacity building

efforts underway. TBD

Challenged project

coordination

Impact: 2

Probability: 3

Close and collaborative cooperation

between many institutional stakeholders

will be essential for the project to

achieve its stated goal and objectives.

The project will ensure that there is close

coordination between the relevant agencies

within Iraq. This is mitigated to some

extent by the positive experience of

collaboration of project management team

and project steering committee as well as

FAO’s long-standing experience.

Proposed mitigation measures include

intra-governmental agency liaison by the

Project Management Unit; inspection of

coordinated activities by the Project

Board; and, overview of coordinated

activities by the Project Steering

Committee.

Project producers and implements

necessary SLM strategic action

plans.

TBD

Land Tenure issues

will challenge

implementation

Impact: 2

Probability: 3

Land tenure is very unclear in Iraq

which might hinder investment in SLM

programming.

To mitigate against the risk of

exasperating social division and land

related conflicts, the project will need to

FFS participation and number of

hectares under improved

management.

TBD


ensure that the small holder farmers are

the rightful owners of their land or are

otherwise legally entitled to work on the

land after the project end.

Low capacity of local

and national

institutions

Impact: 3

Probability: 3

National institutions capacity and

technical expertise at various levels are

sometimes low.

To mitigate this risk, the project will

support the institutional framework and

technical capacity development at national

and local levels, a capacity building

program and training.



management.

TBD

The current level of

commitment and

interest to work on

multi-sectoral

approach on

sustainable

agriculture

diminishes.

Impact: 3

Probability: 3

The Government of Iraq is facing

consistent political challenges that

might make implementation difficult.

This project is designed with the full

support of both primary stakeholders.

Extensive meetings were held at both the

national and state levels with responsible

representatives. The level of commitment

to this project and general project design

has been excellent to date and is expected

to continue through-out implementation.

This will be insured through an approach

that continues to be highly inclusive and

facilitates full engagement by multi-

sectoral stakeholders.



management.

TBD

Low ownership and

lack of sustainability

of new technologies

and techniques

Impact: 3

Probability: 2

Lack of ownership and subsequent lack

of sustainability of new technologies

promoted under the project could cause

difficulties in achieving desired

adoption levels.

This will be mitigated through capacity

building and awareness targeted at project

beneficiaries. This will involve tools, such

as economic models and plans, economic

analysis that clearly show that there is an

economic and social benefit to the

adoption of these technologies (win-win).



management.

TBD

Incentives for local

stakeholders are not

adequate to generate

engagement

Impact: 4

Probability: 3

Investment in SLM principle and

practices might not happen at a rate

desired by the project. In spite of being

proven to support enhanced economic

returns, agriculturalists may be risk

averse and hesitant to adopt new

The project is designed to engage fully

with local stakeholders. This will make

certain that stakeholder desires, including

local resource users, have the opportunity

to help define how best to conserve steppe



management.

TBD


measures. resources. A major part of this effort will

involve working directly with pastoralists

to assist them to measure how various

steppe conservation activities result in

economic benefits. For instance, the

project will provide stakeholders with the

technical support required to measure how

improved management delivers both

enhanced ecosystem services as well as

production improvements. This will serve

as a major incentive for local project

support. In addition, project funding will

provide a bridge to reduce risks to

producers who may be hesitant to adopt

“new” technologies.

Climate Change Impact: 4

Probability: 5

Although appreciable climatic changes

are unlikely to occur over the course of

implementation, on-going climatic

trends are one of this project’s primary

inducements.

The project’s approach will enable

stakeholders better understand

vulnerabilities and strategically adapt.

Emplacing this resilience will be key to

the project’s long-term success. SLM and

CA practices will be selected based on

their potential contribution to more

resilient production systems and

marshland ecosystems. Steps will be taken

to build resilience measures into project

design to minimize the risk and/or adapt to

new conditions when possible.

Number of hectares under SLM

production, including wetlands

restoration.

TBD


Annex 5 Environmental and Social Management Assessment

ESM Checklist for Risk Classification

Would the project, if

implemented?

Not

Applic

able

N

o

Y

es

Unkn

own Comments and Clarifications

I. FAO Vision/Strategic Objectives

Be in line with FAO’s vision? X

Be supportive of FAO’s strategic

objectives? X

II. FAO Key Principles for Sustainability in Food and

Agriculture

Improve efficiency in the use of

resources? X

Conserve, protect and enhance

natural resources? X

Protect and improve rural

livelihoods and social well-being? X

Enhance resilience of people,

communities and ecosystems?

X

Include responsible and effective

governance mechanisms?

X

ESS 1 Natural Resources Management

❖ Management of water resources and small dams

Include an irrigation scheme that is

more than 20 hectares or

withdraws more than 1000

m3/day of water?

X

Include an irrigation scheme that is

more than 100 hectares or withdraws

more than 5000 m3/day of water?

X

Include an existing irrigation

scheme?

X

Include an area known or expected

to have water quality problems?

X

Include usage of non-conventional

sources of water (i.e. wastewater)?

X

Include a dam that is more than 5 m.

in height?

X

Include a dam that is more than 15

m. in height? X

Include measures that build

resilience to climate change? X

❖ Tenure

Negatively affect the legitimate

tenure rights of individuals,

communities or others44?

X

44 In accordance with Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National

Food Security (VGGT ) http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf



implemented?

Not

Applic

able

N

o

Y

es

Unkn


ESS 2 Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Natural Habitats

Make reasonable and feasible effort

to avoid practices that could

have a negative impact on

biodiversity, including

agricultural biodiversity and

genetic resources?

X

Have biosafety provisions in place? X

Respect access and benefit-sharing

measures in force?

X

Safeguard the relationships between

biological and cultural diversity?

X

❖ Protected areas, buffer zones and natural habitats

Be located such that it poses no risk

or impact to protected areas, critical

habitats and ecosystem functions?

X

ESS 3 Plant Genetic Resources For Food And Agriculture

❖ Planted forests

Have a credible forest certification

scheme, national forest programmes

or equivalent or use the Voluntary

Guidelines on Planted Forests (or an

equivalent for indigenous forests)?

X

ESS 4 Animal - Livestock And Aquatic- Genetic Resources For

Food And Agriculture

Involve the procurement or

provision of pesticides?

X

❖ Aquatic genetic resources

Adhere (Aligned) to the FAO Code

of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries (CCRF) and its related

negotiated instruments?

X

Be aligned, where applicable, with

FAO’s strategic policies established

in the FAO Technical Guidelines for

Responsible Fisheries (including

aquaculture)?

X

❖ Livestock genetic resources

Be aligned with the Livestock Sector

Strategy including the animal

disease, public health and land

degradation provisions?

X

ESS 5 Pest And Pesticides Management

Involve the procurement or

provision of pesticides?

X

Result in increased use of pesticides

through expansion or intensification

of production systems?

X

Require the disposal of pesticides or

pesticide contaminated materials?

X

ESS 6 Involuntary Resettlement And Displacement

Avoid the physical and economic X



implemented?

Not

Applic

able

N

o

Y

es

Unkn


displacement of people?

ESS 7 Decent Work

Adhere to FAO’s guidance on

decent rural employment, promoting

more and better employment

opportunities and working

conditions in rural areas and

avoiding practices that could

increase workers’ vulnerability?

X

Respect the fundamental principles

and rights at work and support the

effective implementation of other

international labour standards, in

particular those that are relevant to

the agri-food sector?

X

ESS 8 Gender Equality

Have the needs, priorities and

constraints of both women and men

been taken into consideration?

X

Promote women’s and men’s

equitable access to and control over

productive resources and services?

X

Foster their equal participation in

institutions and decision-making

processes?

X

ESS 9 Indigenous Peoples And Cultural Heritage

Are there any indigenous

communities in the project area?

X

Are project activities likely to have

adverse effects on indigenous

peoples’ rights, lands, natural

resources, territories, livelihoods,

knowledge, social fabric, traditions,

governance systems, and culture or

heritage (tangible and intangible)?

X

Are indigenous communities outside

the project area likely to be affected

by the project?

X

Designed to be sensitive to cultural

heritage issues?

X


Annex E: Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Stakeholder engagement is a fundamental principle of this project design. The process of design included

practices consisting of involving all stakeholders, including all local communities and other project-

affected people, as well as government, private sector and civil society partners, as early as possible in the

preparation process and ensure that their views and concerns were made known and taken into account.

Stakeholder Engagement: Project Design

Participatory and collaborative meetings were held. This included organization of round-table discussions

where stakeholders representing a variety of interests were engaged in lively meetings regarding how best

to approach the project design in order to maximize impacts and remain realistic regarding national

capacities.

A broad programme of stakeholder consulted was conducted in Amman, Erbil and Baghdad through a

series of meetings, presentation, and interviews during the preparatory phase. A focus group discussion

was conducted as well as a project validcation workshop was organized in Baghdad. The stakeholder

meetings included representatives from the Governmental organizations, academic sectors, non-

governmental organization, and research institutes. The below table provides a preliminary description of

the key stakeholders and will be updated and improved during the project preparation phase.

A consultation workshop identified a complex set of inter-related challenges faced by the concerned

vulnerable communities. Some of the most notable challenges are: salinization, land degradation; high

variability in rainfall; climate change; insecurity; desertification and deterioration of vegetation cover; the

politicization of conflicts over natural resources; restricted mobility due to security and other reasons; lack

of extension services; lack of awareness; weak government institutions, weak governance of management

of natural resources; and oil development activities in some areas.

Project design was defined by a highly stakeholder driven process. During the development of the PIF and

Project Document, extensive efforts were made to fully engage all relevant stakeholders. This was done

through several international missions, work directly by national NGO’s and partners, the Government’s

own efforts, and the work of the FAO/CO. Key government agencies and partners were consulted

multiple times. Each of the partner projects were engaged several times with detailed meetings held.

Women’s groups and individual households were consulted with issues discussed.

The design process engaged directly with the private sector. This included meeting with farmers and

private commercial interests. Project designers visited, interacted, and interviewed these stakeholders to

gain a better understanding of how these processes work and how best to design the project to address

their conservation concerns. Members of academia and research were consulted with extensively and

involved in round-table discussions.

Individual meetings were held with the leadership of each of the primary ministries and associated

technical staff. This includes participating in field missions and meetings with government agencies,

donors, and other project stakeholders and implementation partners.

Name Title Org

Dr. Jassim Abdulazeez Al Falahi, Technical deputy minister MOHE Rawea Mizel Mahmood Director General MOA Suray Abdel hameed Rasheed Engineer MOWR Basim Tuma Naser Ass. of chief agronomist MOWR-national centre for water resources Qays Awad Omar Head of dep of forestry MOA Fatin Nafal Kadhem Senior physicist Muna Abed Khddawi Chef Engineer MOHE


Yousif Swadi Jabbar Engineer MOHE Ahmed Radhe Hashim Supervisor MOHE Qasim Toban Bazoon Dr. Agr. MOHE Yousif Muayad Yousif Manager MOHE Buthaineh Hussein Environment specialist MOHE Muwafaq H.Khudhair Environment specialist MOHE Muthana Jabbar MOHE

Fadhil Al-Farraji Retired MOA Abdulazeez Dala Ali FAO /NC FAO Aseel Abdulhameed AFAOR, FAO /NC FAO Ahmad alfalahi FAO /NC FAO Haidar Awad FAO /NC FAO Basima Abdulrahman FAO /NC FAO Rawea Mizel Mahmood Director General MOA Anaam Thabit Khaleel Deputy/DG MOHE Fadel El-Zubi FAO Representative FAO-IRAQ Aseel Abdulhamid Ass. FAO Rep FAO-IRAQ Maude VeyretPicot FAO-HQ Daniel Dale FAO Officer FAO-RNE Wietse Michiels International Consultant Basima Abdulrahman Programme Officer FAO-IRAQ Suray Abdel hameed Rasheed Engineer MOWR Basim Tuma Naser Ass. of chief agronomist MOWR-national centre for water resources Qays Awad Omar Head of dep of forestry MOA Fatin Nafal Kadhem Senior physicist MOHE Muna Abed Khddawi Chef Engineer MOHE Yousif Swadi Jabbar Engineer MOHE Ahmed Radhe Hashim Supervisor MOHE Qasim Toban Bazoon Dr. Agr. MOHE Yousif Muayad Yousif Manager of EIR MOHE Mowaffaq Alrefai FAO Programme Security FAO-IRAQ Dalal Ali Qais MOHE Hussam Talib Khalaf Chemistry expert MOHE Hussam Hawwa CEO Difaf GETF Sarah Dahnke Project Manager GETF Ali Ahmed FAO-IRAQ

Stakeholder Engagement: Project Implementation

The same participatory approach applied during project design will be carried forward during

implementation. This includes a host of engagement strategies that are fully embedded in each of the

project components. One of the primary objectives of this project is to break down barriers between

agencies and stakeholders that currently create inefficiencies and gaps to the realization of informed

management decision-making. Therefore, a fundamental and core concern in the design was how to

facilitate and catalyze a collaborative process to both the solving of conservation issues as well as the

implementation of critical interventions.



Environment (MoHE)

Responsible for the monitoring and

evaluation of the proper use of the

country’s environment and natural

resources, including protected areas,

watershed areas and public land. As well as

representing Iraq in all the international

treaties and agreements related to the

environment sector, it is responsible for

digital mapping services.

Responsible for the overall implementation of the

project’s activities,

Coordinate with other national stakeholders.





(MoA)

Responsible for the strategic development

of all aspects of the agriculture sector

(including traditional and rain fed

agriculture), setting up policies and

providing technical support to stakeholders.

In partnership with other national partners

provide implementation resources and technical

SLM/CA support.


Ministry of Water

Resources (MoWR)

Responsible for management of water

resources, land reclamation and efficient

water use for agriculture and other purposes

in the country.



MoHE and MoA.

National Centre for Water

Resource Management





MoHE and MoA

The State Commission

Authority for Ground Water





MoHE and MoA

Department for

Underground Water in

Muthanna and Thi-Qar

governorates





MoHE and MoA

Muthanna Governate Government authority for Muthanna

Governate


Al Salman district (Al-Shaweaa) and Al-

Rumaitha district (Al-Majid)

Thi-Qar Governate Government authority for Thi-Qar

Governate


Al-Chibayish district (Al-Tar)

Office of Forests and

Combating Desertification

Responsible for establishment of wadis and

maintaining their operation as well as

fixation of sand dunes all over the country

and acting as the first state agency to

combat desertification.

Consultations for the implementation of

SLM/CA.


Research

Responsible for carrying out research on all

agricultural development and

environmental related research as well as

the application of new technologies such as

conservation agriculture and sustainable

land management, trials of new species etc.

Support universities in delivering published

research into the socio-economic and

environmental benefits of SLM/CA.


Extension Services and

Training

Transfer of applied research and results to

the farmers. It acts as tool between the

research institutions and the farmers in

terms of applied research and extension.

Support MoA extension services in project

implementation in partnership MoWR, ICARDA,

FAO and private sector SPs.

Centre for Restoration of

Iraqi Marshlands

Rehabilitation and restoration of

marshlands to its original state.

The Centre will be consulted in the process of

carrying research on the marshes.

National Council for Seeds Located in the MoA it oversees the Iraqi

seed industry; conducts analysis of seeds

according to international standards, as set

by the International Seed Testing

Association.

Will partner with the project in supporting the

development of private sector seed nurseries and

seedbanks.

Iraqi Farmer's Association Responsible for coordination and assisting

the Office of Agricultural Research in

transfer of technology, distribution of

inputs, application of laws and regulations

among farmers in the private sector.

Provide support in the development of Farmer

Associations and cooperatives at the smallholder

level.



University of Thi-Qar Established in 2000 the University was

originally a branch of the University of

Basrah that was established in 1992. The

University has a Department of Agriculture

and Marshes which regularly carries out

research and collaborates with development

projects in the area.




the identified soil rehabilitation techniques to


improve yields.

University of Muthanna Established in 2007 the University of

Muthanna has an Agricultural College, with

a Department for Soil and Water.

Agriculture research is regularly carried out

on the impact of salinisation on the crop

and soil productivity.




the applied soil rehabilitation techniques to


improve yields.

Smallholder farmers. The target group: women, youth and

vulnerable heads of households small

holder farmers with 2.5-5ha of land.

The main focus of project activities is improving

livelihoods, food security and environmental

rehabilitation.

Private Sector Service

Providers

Alternative livelihood service providers to

be created and/or supported to in turn

support small holder alternative income

development in training, post-processing

and marketing.

Providing local employment and function as

facilitators and providers of technical support to

the smallholder farmers as well as guaranteed

buyers and the link to market.

The project will promote participation of a wide range of relevant stakeholders including government

agencies, civil society (e.g., NGOs, self-help groups, and producers’ groups), the private sector, relevant

financial institutions, women, and indigenous people and identified vulnerable groups. Local communities

and private sector’s farmers will be engaged in the project, as appropriate, especially concerning

conservation agriculture, certification, marketing, and commercialization of underutilized crops,

sustainably harvested cereal products and other goods produced by local communities with project

support.

The project is designed to create an environment for informed and participatory decision-making. This

will commence during the project implementation period with famers working with extension officers and

other technical support persons to determine and tailor specific approaches to solve challenges associated

with achieving the project’s objective.

Participatory processes will include: (i) regular meeting of the PSC and advisory committees, (ii) multi-

stakeholder consultation workshops at national and state levels, and (iii) direct consultations with

stakeholders via individual and focus-group meetings. A grievance processes will be incorporated into the

project’s management plan and structure.

As part of FAO’s standard practices, a gender and social analysis was undertaken during the PPG phase

with involvement by a highly respected national expert. The results formed the basis for appropriate

plans, activities, monitoring, and safeguards to be defined in the project document. Both ESS and FPIQ

are planned and budgeted for completion during the project’s inception period.

The grievance mechanism will be based on FAO’s grievance mechanism as stated in FAO’s Guidelines on

Compliance Reviews45 and FAO’s Grievance Handling Mechanism.46 The objective is to ensure that

appropriate mechanisms are in place to allow individuals and communities to contact FAO directly and

file a complaint if they believe they are, or might be adversely affected by a FAO-funded

45 FAO, 2015c. Compliance reviews following complaints related to the organization’s environmental and social standards – Guidelines.– FAO, February 2015. 10p 46 See http://www.fao.org/aud/en/



http://www.fao.org/aud/en/


project/programme not complying with FAO’s Environmental and Social Standards. FAO facilitates the

resolution of concerns of beneficiaries/stakeholders of FAO projects and programs regarding alleged or

potential violations of FAO’s social and environmental commitments. For this purpose, concerns may be

communicated in accordance with the eligibility criteria, which apply to all FAO programs and projects.

All projects and programs are required to publicize the mechanism for the receipt and handling of

grievances at the local level. The grievance mechanism will be integrated into the FFS and general training

programmes for beneficiaries directly involved in project; members of the general public will be able to

refer to the project website for further information. Grievance Mechanism will also be addressed in the

leaflets distributed by the project to ensure that the general public with no internet access are informed.

The nature, frequency and level of effort of stakeholder participation will be sustained through a number

of tools, including the capacity building efforts specifically detailed in each component. Specific

examples are: the capacity building working sessions for high-level government decision-makers; SLM

guidelines that incorporate stakeholder engagement; and, a host of stakeholder inclusive actions to be

taken under each component specifically directed towards private enterprise and communities. Gender

will be a critical element of the project’s stakeholder engage efforts. This is detailed by items such as

working with community women’s groups to promote improvements in terms of livelihoods and decision-

making processes. The project’s results framework contains specific indicators that will make certain that

the project is engaged with stakeholders effectively and, in particular, with women as shown by gender

specific indicators in the results framework.

NGOs and community associations will play an important complementary role in the project. Several

NGOs are well capacitated and important defendants of the national environment. They will be an

important support in terms of awareness raising and community engagement, and to identify potential

long-term alternatives to the current situation.

The Coordination of the project creates the conditions for ensuring and complying with Best Practices for

Involving Stakeholders: project beneficiary groups, civil society organizations and other institutions in the

design process and ensuring that their views and concerns are known and taken into account. It ensures

that consultations with stakeholders are continued during project implementation as needed to address

social and environmental issues that affect them.

A comprehensive Stakeholder Engagement Plan will be developed at the beginning of the project and in a

participatory and negotiated way. It will contain the following items:

1. List the key stakeholders

2. Stakeholder Engagement Program

3. Consultation methods

4. Timetable

5. Resources and Responsibilities

6. Monitoring and Reporting

During the implementation of the project the main actors will be involved in various ways: socialization

workshop, meetings within the Partners Committee to be created in the implementation of the project.

Meetings may be extended to all partners or specific partners and dissemination of information. At the

beginning of the project there will be a workshop for socialization of the project and shared definition of

the responsibilities of the main actors in which we find representatives of the Government, Civil Society

and Private Sector. The objective of the initial workshop will be to develop more detailed strategies to

address the priority issues identified during national and provincial consultations, including integrating

biodiversity in the fisheries sector, strengthening civil society capacity, and systematically monitoring the

impacts of conservation investments.

The purpose and goals of the program are:


a) Involve stakeholders in conservation and development to ensure collaboration and coordination

and enable sustainability of actions

b) To increase the sense of identification and responsibility of the actors with respect to the results

of the projects

c) address social and economic needs of people affected / beneficiaries;

d) To promote collaboration among entities responsible for carrying out the projects and

stakeholders to take advantage of the skills, experience and knowledge, above all, of Civil Society

and the private sector to design, implement and evaluate the activities of the projects

During the implementation of the project the main actors will be involved in various ways. At the

beginning of the project there will be a workshop for socialization of the project and shared definition of

the responsibilities of the main actors in which we find representatives of the Government, Civil Society

and Private Sector.

During the implementation of the project the main actors will be involved in various ways: socialization

workshop, meetings within the Partners Committee to be created in the implementation of the project.

Meetings will be extended to all partners or specific partners. At the beginning of the project there will be

a workshop for socialization of the project and shared definition of the responsibilities of the main actors

in which we find representatives of the Government, Civil Society and Private Sector.

The objective of the initial workshop will be to develop more detailed strategies to address the priority

issues identified during consultations, including integrating SLM into the agriculture sector, strengthening

civil society capacity, and systematically monitoring the impacts of conservation investments.

The project’s monitoring and reporting requirement is important not only to track what is happening with

projects, but to provide a basis for actions and adjustments that will be needed to address challenges that

may arise, and ensure that a project is meeting its objectives. The reports will also provide a window for

stakeholders to better understand project activities during the implementation stage, in support of their

more informed participation. To this end, Agencies will also develop user-friendly and accessible systems

to make information available to stakeholders on stakeholder engagement during the course of the project,

and on project progress, changes and outcomes.

In addition, wherever feasible, the process of monitoring and reporting will also include “participatory

monitoring” by stakeholders. This is an important tool that will enhance both the independence, strength

and accuracy of monitoring information. As indicated in the GEF-Policy, local communities and CSOs

possess essential knowledge, expertise and capabilities relevant to project interventions. Participatory

monitoring, which will be based on gender inclusion and other core principles in the Policy and will be

one means to harness this for the benefit of the project and better results. In terms of frequency of

preparation of the reports, the GEF-FAO guidelines will be followed.

Preliminary Timetable of Proposed Engagements (improved and adapted at project inception)

Activities 1th year 2 th year 3 th year 4th year

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1. Workshop of socialization of project

2.Participatory elaboration of annual

activities

3.Participation in monitoring activities

4. Participation in program balance

5.Participation Mid-course evaluation

6. Continuation of dialogue and outreach

7. Dialogue and consultation

8. Review of proposed activities


9.Identification of partners in project

execution

10.Identify/Revision the role of

stakeholders in project execution

11. Ensure Stakeholders are engaged in

respect to environmental and social issues

related to the project, and are informed

about actions taken in response to their

input

12.Creating and making available a

complaint management system


1. Grievance Mechanism

Focal Point Information Fadel El Zubi

Contact Details [email protected]

Explain how the grievance

mechanism has been

communicated to stakeholders

Stakeholders have been made aware of the process that is in place in order to express concerns, complaints and other grievances during the PPG phase.

2. Disclosure (For moderate and high risk projects only)

Disclosure Means Face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges

Disclosure information/document shared Main components of the Project Document and Project Document

Disclosure dates From: 18 June 2018 To: 2 November 2018

Location Baghdad

Language(s) English and Arabic

Other Info

(+) Add disclosure as necessary


Annex 7: Terms of References

Project Manager (National / Full-Time)

Under the direct supervision of the FAO Representative Budget Holder (BH) and the technical guidance of

FAO HQ, the PM will lead the PMU and fulfils the role as Secretary to the PSC. He/she will work in close

collaboration will the FAO Country Office and all PMU staff, and be responsible for the overall planning,

daily management, technical supervision and coordination of all project activities. Specifically, this will

include the following tasks:

i. Serve as the FAO’s point of contact with the project and project partners and be responsible

for overall functioning and performance of the project.

ii. Be responsible for, and ensure that all technical and coordination aspects and overall project

implementation is in accordance with FAO and GEF rules and procedures; that technical

activities implemented within the project are consistent with the Project’s Results Framework

indicators and results-based management targets.

iii. Manage and supervise human resources allocated to the PMU including: providing technical

supervision/guidance in implementing project activities and day-to-day coordination and

communication with the project executing partners.

iv. Act as the Secretary for all PSC meetings and activities, including preparation of documents

and the reports.

v. Participate in the inception workshop, annual project progress review and planning

workshops with local stakeholders and project executing partners to prepare the AWPB in

collaboration with the PMU.

vi. Prepare six-monthly PPRs in coordination with the PMU, reporting on the implementation of

activities, and monitoring the achievement of project outcomes and output targets.

vii. Support the LTO in preparation of the annual PIR.

viii. Establish working relations with appropriate national and local institutions (Government and

grass-roots organizations) to ensure effective implementation of project supported activities at

national and local level.

ix. Coordinate the design of the participatory project M&E system and exercise overall

management responsibility of the regular monitoring and review of the execution of the

activities including: (i) conduct regularly field M&E visits to project sites, which information

will be included into the six-monthly PPRs; (ii) prepare monthly monitoring progress in

achieving all project outputs and outcome indicators; (iii) provide technical and operational

guidance to executing partners staff; (iv) propose changes in project implementation

strategies if the project is not performing as planned; and (v) act on recommendations by

supervision missions to improve on project implementation.

x. Review TOR for consultancies and contracts to be performed under the LoA’s with National

Co-executing Partners for submission to FAO for clearance. Review and provide comments

on technical products delivered by consultants and contract holders contracted by the GEF

project.

xi. Represent the project in relevant coordination meetings and conferences.

xii. Perform other related duties as required.


Annex 8 Description of The Farmer Field School Concept.1

The FFS approach is an extension methodology which uses farmer groups to deliver advisory services in

a more interactive, participatory and democratic manner than previous often top-down extension systems.

Through the FFS methodology, the agriculture extension officer or FFS facilitator interacts with farmers

in more of an interactive learning environment. Furthermore, the FFS extension approach follows the

principles of adult learning (i.e. non-formal adult education (NFE) in delivering the extension messages,

knowledge and skills. Together with other merits of NFE, farmers’ already acquired experiences and

indigenous knowledge provide the starting point and basis of learning in FFS, hence it is an experiential

learning approach.

In its grassroots operational sense, FFS involves a group of farmers coming together to learn something

related to agriculture and/or life skills. These groups of farmers, usually numbering 25 – 30 individuals,

normally share a common interest (e.g. how to increase the crop yields on their degraded plots) and meet

regularly in their learning field. Most learning activities of FFS take place in the field, therefore the field

is their prime learning environment and material. The FFS field can be either an agriculture enterprise or

any other related enterprise such as livestock keeping, an animal stall, beehives, fish ponds, a tree nursery

or a woodlot. The focus is on the field as a place where members are exposed to the real situation of their

production challenges and where they learn to tackle them by practically improving the way they do

things and receive practical learning and make informed decisions.

The FFS field or study plot is also used by members to test and validate various new knowledge and

skills before adopting them in their own fields. Instead of being mere recipients of extension messages

and technologies, farmers by using their FFS plot undertake adaptive research (validation trials) and at

the same time learn the “what, why and how” of the new skills, thus the FFS plot becomes a study plot

rather than demonstration plot and thus farmers become active rather than passive receivers of

extension/knowledge. In the same vein, all learning process of FFS is participatory and bottom-up rather

than top-down.

The FFS activity can be developed in four main stages:

Needs assessment;

Development;

Implementation;

Monitoring and evaluation.

The needs assessment phase embraces the baseline and gap analysis activities of the project. During this

phase, the causes of land degradation and other production constraints are identified and documented

(using WOCAT2 and LADA3 tools). The aim of this phase is to both identify existing gaps to be included

in the FFS learning curriculum and to identify opportunities and good practices that could be utilised by

FFS community members.

The development phase covers various project activities such as the selection of FFS sites, the selection

of potential FFS facilitators, training of trainers and FFS facilitators (ToTs and ToFs), also development

of FFS curriculum and action plans, including the FFS participatory monitoring and evaluation

framework. In its core content, the development phase is essentially the capacity building phase of the

FFS facilitators and coordinators (i.e. extension officers and local SPs) based on the FFS methodology as

the avenue for learning and dissemination.

Implementation phase is the actual period during which there is mass capacity building of community

members (i.e. FFS members) through the growing season and year-long FFS learning groups, facilitated

and backstopped by the FFS facilitators and extension officers/SPs respectively.

1 FAO (2017). Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Practice in the Kagera Basin. – Lessons learned for upscaling at landscape level. Rome. 2 WOCAT - World Overview on Conservation Approaches and Technologies – see www.wocat.net. 3 LADA - Manual for Local Level Assessment of Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management – see www.fao.org/nr/lada/.

http://www.wocat.net/

http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/


Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) phase entails follow-up activities, monitoring and fostering of

adoption and documentation of FFS activities at all levels and report production. The M&E phase needs

to be continuous and recurrent during all phases of the project.

Conservation Agriculture4

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that aims to

achieve acceptable profits, high and sustained production levels and is based on the principles of

enhancing natural biological processes above and below the ground. Mechanical soil tillage is reduced to

an absolute minimum, and the use of external inputs such as agrochemicals, nutrients of mineral or

organic origin are applied at an optimum level and in a way and quantity that does not interfere with or

disrupt the biological processes. CA is characterized by three principles which are linked to each other,

that are:

Minimum mechanical soil disturbance throughout the entire crop rotation.

Permanent organic soil cover. Diversified crop rotations in case of annual crops or plant associations in case of perennial crops.

The three basic principles can be complemented with other technologies that provide additional

synergetic benefits.

Zero tillage (ZT). The absence of soil tilling leads to changes in the soil structure where a system of

continuous macro pores develops, facilitating water infiltration and aeration of the soil as well as root

penetration into deeper zones. At the same time the soil matrix provides a firm structure leading to higher

soil bulk densities than on conventionally tilled soils. Tillage mixes air into the soil which leads to the

mineralization (oxidation) of the soil organic matter, said mineralization is reduced in the ZT. If organic

matter in the form of roots and residues is added, soil organic matter contents increases with higher

values near the surface, gradually declining at increased depth. Soil macro and micro fauna and flora is

hereby re-established resulting in better soil fertility.

Soil cover. Permanent soil cover in the form of crops, mulch or green manure cover crops and

complement ZT by supplying substrate for soil organic matter build up; mulch reduces evaporation,

avoids crusting, and suppresses weed growth. Problems associated with direct seeding or zero tillage

when applied in isolation are hereby reduced; equally problems often associated with ZT and direct

seeding in conventional systems are also reduced through the facilitating and management of residues. In

very dry regions however it is often difficult to maintain a permanent full soil cover but despite this,

conservation agriculture practices are still valid. Productivity will be increased if sufficient organic matter

is supplied to the system to build up soil organic matter, although the weed control function cannot be

achieved in this case. Livestock also often competes for the residues especially in dry climates, it is

therefore important particularly in the first years of transition, to strike a balance between the different

uses for the residues. Once the productivity is increased as a result of the increased soil organic matter,

the system often delivers sufficient material to feed both, soil and animals.

Crop rotations. Crop rotations serve different purposes in the CA system and are linked to the other two

principles of ZT and coil cover. It opens up different soil horizons with different rooting types;

diversified crop rotation increase overall productivity and its long-term profitability when compared to

mono-cropping of economically attractive cash crops that in the long-term is unsustainable. Crop rotation

is an integral part of the soil cover and residue management strategy, with the objective to keep the soil

constantly covered either under a live crop or dead residue mulch. CA also allows for shorter turnover of

crop rotations which under conventional agriculture would be impossible, for example to add an

additional cash, forage or cover crops.

Bed planting aims to provide the benefits of water saving in systems where surface irrigation is applied.

Under CA the beds are converted into permanent beds whereas any soil tillage would be limited to a

periodic cleaning and reshaping of the furrows. The same permanent bed system would be applicable

4 Friedrich, T.H.E.O.D.O.R. and Kienzle, J.O.S.E.F., 2007, May. Conservation agriculture: impact on farmers’ livelihoods, labour, mechanization and equipment. In Stewart, BI, Asfary, AF, Belloum, A. Steiner, K., and Friedrich, T., editors. Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Land Management to Improve the Livelihood of People in Dry Areas. Proceedings of an international workshop (pp. 25-36).


under CA also for crop rotations, which include crops grown on beds, for example for drainage purposes.

All rotation crops would be grown on the same beds, regardless whether they are row crops or small

grain cereals. Water savings compared to flat surfaces of 26% for wheat have been reported, with yield

increases at the same time of 6.4 %.5 However, the precondition for such a permanent bed system is the

harmonization of the furrow distances and bed width for all crops in the rotation and for all mechanized

traffic operations. In this way a permanent bed system leads also to controlled traffic taking additional

advantage of that resource conserving technology.

Other technologies that provide synergistic benefits.

Controlled traffic farming restricts any traffic in the field to always the same tracks. While these tracks

are heavily compacted, the rooting zone never receives any compaction resulting in better soil structure

and higher yields. Through border effects the area lost in the traffic zones is easily compensated by better

growth of plants adjacent to the tracks so that the overall yields are usually higher than in conventional

systems with random traffic (Kerr, 2001). Obviously controlled traffic farming is the ideal complement to

zero tillage systems since soil compaction due to machine traffic in the cropping zone is completely

avoided. Other benefits are fuel savings since the traction is more efficient when tires work on compacted

tracks.6

Direct seeding is another complement to conservation agriculture. Although transplanting of crops,

including paddy rice, is possible under zero tillage, direct seeding is preferable for the reasons mentioned

above. In addition direct seeding results in less soil movement than transplanting, which often involves

some sort of strip tillage. At the same time conservation agriculture facilitates direct seeding by reducing

a number of problems, such as surface crusting or weed control, encountered when direct seeding is

applied in isolation.

Laser levelling provides the same benefits to conservation agriculture as to conventional agriculture

under surface irrigation conditions. However, since it involves significant soil movement in the

beginning, it would be considered as an initial investment before converting to a permanent zero tillage

cropping system as conservation agriculture is. The benefit of such a strategy is that the investment in

laser levelling would last much longer than in conventional systems, since under CA no further soil

tillage would be applied which could upset the levelling off the field.

5 RWC-CIMMYT 2003. Addressing Resource Conservation Issues in Rice-Wheat Systems of South Asia: A Resource Book. Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains – International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. New Delhi, India. 305 p.

6 RWC-CIMMYT 2003. Addressing Resource Conservation Issues in Rice-Wheat Systems of South Asia: A Resource Book. Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains – International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. New Delhi, India. 305 p.


Annex 10 Letters of Co-Financing

See separate documents


Annex 11 FAO’s Roles in Internal Organization

FAO will be the GEF Implementing Agency of the project and, as such, FAO will supervise and provide

technical guidance for the overall implementation of the project, including:

a) Administrate the portion of project GEF funds that has been agreed with the OP to remain for

FAO direct implementation. These funds will be managed in accordance with the rules and

procedures of FAO;

b) Monitor and oversee OP’s compliance with the OPA and project implementation in accordance

with the project document, work plans, budgets, agreements with co-financiers and the rules and

procedures of FAO;

c) Commence and completing the responsibilities allocated to it in the Project Document in a timely

manner, provided that all necessary reports and other documents are available;

d) Making transfers of funds, supplies and equipment, as applicable, in accordance with the

provisions of the OPA;

e) Review, discuss with the OP, and approve the project progress and financial reports, as detailed

in the OPA and its annexes. undertaking and completing monitoring, assessment, assurance

activities, evaluation and oversight of the project;

f) Liaising on an ongoing basis, as needed, with the Government (as applicable), other members of

the United Nations Country Team, Resource Partner, and other stakeholders;

g) Providing overall guidance, oversight, technical assistance and leadership, as appropriate, for the

Project;

h) Initiating joint review meetings with the OP to agree on the resolution of findings and

to document the lessons learned;

i) Report to the GEF Secretariat and Evaluation Office, through the annual Project Implementation

Review, on project progress and provide consolidated financial reports to the GEF Trustee;

j) Conduct at least one supervision mission per year;

k) Lead the Independent Mid-Term and Final Evaluation, through the FAO Evaluation Office;

l) Monitor implementation of the plan for social and environmental safeguards, in accordance with

the FAO Environmental and Social Safeguards.

In collaboration with the PCU and the PSC, FAO will participate in the planning of contracting and

technical selection processes. FAO will process fund transfers to the OP as per provisions, terms and

conditions of the signed OPA.

The FAO Representative in Egypt will be the Budget Holder (BH) and will be responsible for timely

operational, administrative and financial management of GEF resources implemented by FAO directly.

The budget holder will be also responsible for i) managing OPIM for results, including monitoring of

risks and overall compliance with the OPA provisions; ii) review and clear financial and progress reports

received from the OP and certify request for funds iii) review and clear budget revisions and annual work

plan and budgets; iv) ensure implementation of the Risk Mitigation and Assurance Plan v) follow up and

ensure that the OP implements all actions and recommendations agreed upon during Assurance

Activities.

As a first step in the implementation of the project, the FAO Representation will establish an

interdisciplinary Project Task Force (PTF) within FAO, to guide the implementation of the project. The

PTF is a management and consultative body that integrate the necessary technical qualifications from the

FAO relevant units to support the project. The PTF is composed of a Budget Holder, a Lead Technical

Officer (LTO), the Funding Liaison Officer (FLO) and one or more technical officers based on FAO

Headquarters (HQ Technical Officer).


The FAO Representative, in accordance with the PTF, will give its non-objection to the AWP/Bs

submitted by the PCU as well as the Project Progress Reports (PPRs). PPRs may be commented by the

PTF and should be approved by the LTO before being uploaded by the BH in FPMIS.

The Lead Technical Officer (LTO) for the project will be (insert officer and division). The role of the

LTO is central to FAO’s comparative advantage for projects. The LTO will oversee and carry out

technical backstopping to the project implementation. The LTO will support the BH in the

implementation and monitoring of the AWP/Bs, including work plan and budget revisions. The LTO is

responsible and accountable for providing or obtaining technical clearance of technical inputs and

services procured by the Organization.

In addition, the LTO will provide technical backstopping to the PT to ensure the delivery of quality

technical outputs. The LTO will coordinate the provision of appropriate technical support from PTF to

respond to requests from the PSC. The LTO will be responsible for:

a) Assess the technical expertise required for project implementation and identify the need for

technical support and capacity development of the OP.

b) Provide technical guidance to the OP on technical aspects and implementation.

c) Review and give no-objection to TORs for consultancies and contracts to be performed under the

project, and to CVs and technical proposals short-listed by the PCU for key project positions and

services to be financed by GEF resources;

d) Supported by the FAO Representation, review and clear final technical products delivered by

consultants and contract holders financed by GEF resources;

e) Assist with review and provision of technical comments to draft technical products/reports during

project implementation;

f) Review and approve project progress reports submitted by the NPD, in cooperation with the BH;

g) Support the FAO Representative in examining, reviewing and giving no-objection to AWP/B

submitted by the NPD, for their approval by the Project Steering Committee;

h) Ensure the technical quality of the six-monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs). The PPRs will

be prepared by the NPD, with inputs from the PT. The BH will submit the PPR to the FAO/GEF

Coordination Unit for comments, and the LTO for technical clearance. The PPRs will be

submitted to the PSC for approval twice a year. The FLO will upload the approved PPR to

FPMIS.

i) Supervise the preparation and ensure the technical quality of the annual PIR. The PIR will be

drafted by the NPD, with inputs from the PT. The PIR will be submitted to the BH and the FAO-

GEF Coordination Unit for approval and finalization. The FAO/GEF Coordination Unit will

submit the PIRs to the GEF Secretariat and the GEF Evaluation Office, as part of the Annual

Monitoring Review report of the FAO-GEF portfolio. The LTO must ensure that the NPD and

the PT have provided information on the co-financing provided during the year for inclusion in

the PIR;

j) Conduct annual supervision missions;

k) Provide comments to the TORs for the mid-term and final evaluation; provide information and

share all relevant background documentation with the evaluation team; participate in the mid-

term workshop with all key project stakeholders, development of an eventual agreed adjustment

plan in project execution approach, and supervise its implementation; participate in the final

workshop with all key project stakeholders, as relevant. Contribute to the follow-up to

recommendations on how to insure sustainability of project outputs and results after the end of

the project.

l) Monitor implementation of the Risk Mitigation Plan, in accordance with the FAO Environmental

and Social Safeguards.


The HQ Technical Officer is a member of the PTF, as a mandatory requirement of the FAO Guide to the

Project Cycle. The HQ Technical Officer has most relevant technical expertise - within FAO technical

departments - related to the thematic of the project. The HQ Technical Officer will provide effective

functional advice to the LTO to ensure adherence to FAO corporate technical standards during project

implementation, in particular:

a) Supports the LTO in monitoring and reporting on implementation of environmental and social

commitment plans for moderate risk projects. In this project, the HQ officer will support the LTO

in monitoring and reporting the identified risks and mitigation measures (Appendix 4) in close

coordination with the OP.

b) Provides technical backstopping for the project work plan.

c) Clears technical reports, contributes to and oversees the quality of Project Progress Report(s)

(PPRs – see Section 3.5).

d) May be requested to support the LTO and PTF for implementation and monitoring.

e) Contribute to the overall ToR of the Mid-term and Final Evaluation, review the composition of

the evaluation team and support the evaluation function.

The FAO-GEF Coordination Unit will act as Funding Liaison Officer (FLO). This FAO/GEF

Coordination Unit will review and provide a rating in the annual PIR(s) and will undertake supervision

missions as necessary. The PIRs will be included in the FAO GEF Annual Monitoring Review submitted

to GEF by the FAO GEF Coordination Unit. The FAO GEF Coordination Unit may also participate in the

mid-term evaluation, and in the development of corrective actions in the project implementation strategy

if needed to mitigate eventual risks affecting the timely and effective implementation of the project. The

FAO GEF Coordination Unit will in collaboration with the FAO Finance Division to request transfer of

project funds from the GEF Trustee based on six-monthly projections of funds needed.

The FAO Financial Division will provide annual Financial Reports to the GEF Trustee and, in

collaboration with the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit, request project funds on a six-monthly basis to the

GEF Trustee.


Annex 12 Financial Management

Financial Records. FAO shall maintain a separate account in United States dollars for the project’s GEF

resources showing all income and expenditures. Expenditures incurred in a currency other than United

States dollars shall be converted into United States dollars at the United Nations operational rate of

exchange on the date of the transaction. FAO shall administer the project in accordance with its

regulations, rules and directives.

Financial Reports. The BH shall prepare six-monthly 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:

Details of project expenditures on a component-by-component and output-by-output basis, reported in

line with project budget codes as set out in the project document, as at 30 June and 31 December each

year.

Final accounts on completion of the project on a component-by-component and output-by-output basis,

reported in line with project budget codes as set out in the project document.

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 BH will submit the above financial reports for review and monitoring by the LTO and 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.

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

standard guidelines and procedures.

Responsibility for Cost Overruns. The BH is authorized to enter into commitments or incur

expenditures up to a maximum of 20 percent over and above the annual amount foreseen in the project

budget under any budget sub-line provided the total cost of the annual budget is not exceeded.

Any cost overrun (expenditure in excess of the budgeted amount) on a specific budget sub-line over and

above the 20 percent flexibility should be discussed with the GEF Coordination Unit with a view to

ascertaining whether it will involve a major change in project scope or design. If it is deemed to be a

minor change, the BH shall prepare a budget revision in accordance with FAO standard procedures. If it

involves a major change in the project’s objectives or scope, a budget revision and justification should be

prepared by the BH for discussion with the GEF Secretariat.

Savings in one budget sub-line may not be applied to overruns of more than 20 percent in other sub-lines

even if the total cost remains unchanged, unless this is specifically authorized by the GEF Coordination

Unit upon presentation of the request. In such a case, a revision to the project document amending the

budget will be prepared by the BH.

Under no circumstances can expenditures exceed the approved total project budget or be approved

beyond the NTE date of 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 impress accounts, records, bank

reconciliation and asset verification take place at FAO field and liaison offices on a cyclical basis.

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

and delivery of inputs in technical cooperation projects will follow FAO’s rules and regulations for the

procurement of supplies, equipment and services (i.e. Manual Sections 502 and 507). Manual Section

502: “Procurement of Goods, Works and Services” establishes the principles and procedures that apply to

procurement of all goods, works and services on behalf of the Organization, in all offices and in all

locations, with the exception of the procurement actions described in Procurement Not Governed by

Manual Section 502. Manual Section 507 establishes the principles and rules that govern the use of

Letters of Agreement (LoA) by FAO for the timely acquisition of services from eligible entities in a

transparent and impartial manner, taking into consideration economy and efficiency to achieve an

optimum combination of expected whole life costs and benefits.

As per the guidance in FAO’s Project Cycle Guide, the BH will draw up an annual procurement plan for

major items, which will be the basis of requests for procurement actions during implementation. The first

procurement plan will be prepared at the time of project start-up, if not sooner, in close consultation with

the CTA/NPC and LTU. 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 12 months and submitted to FAO BH and LTO for

clearance, together with the AWP/B and annual financial statement of expenditures report for the next

instalment of funds.

The BH, in close collaboration with the NPC, the LTO and the Budget and Operations Officer will

procure the equipment and services provided for in the detailed budget in Appendix 3, in line with the

AWO and Budget and in accordance with FAO’s rules and regulations.

Documents

Project Title: Sustainable Land Management for Improved ... · The mountains are 1,000 to about 4,000 meters high. The annual precipitation in this zone goes, as high as 1000 mm and