Sally Bunning FAO with Anne Woodfine and Domitille Vallée - lead consultants

with GEF national consultants in 5 selected countries

Review of Lessons Learned from Experiences of the GEF Strategic

Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land Management

(SLM) in Sub-Saharan Africa under the NEPAD - TerrAfrica Partnership

TerAfrica/SIP Portfolio - GEF 4 land degradation focal area projects in sub-

Saharan Africa

36 projects 26 countries GEF 150USD leveraging

800M USD co-financing Started 2007 - some

projects not yet completed

Implementation: 1 FAO, 5 UNEP (regional) 11 WB, 12 UNDP, 1 joint 5 IFAD, 1 with AfDB

Too many overlapping and scattered programmes and missions with conflicting objectives

A lack of joint work programming by donors and governments to achieve cohesive results.

Land degradation considered too large a problem for a single institution to address alone

Narrow approaches have had a limited and unsustainable impact

Poor knowledge management

Why TerrAfrica/SIP? Context 2007

A vehicle for implementing land related strategies of UN Conventions and NEPAD CAADP Pillar 1 and Environment Initiative 1. Coalition2. Knowledge Building3. Investments 16 multi-sector country platforms Analytics and Tools informing cross- sector investments + programmes2 Key documents • C0untry support tool for scaling

up SLM July FAO/WB 2009• SLM in practice Guidelines and

Best Practices WOCAT/FAO

TerrAfrica Program-

http://www.wocat.nethttp://blengrafix.com/terrAfrica/wp-content/uploads/files/CountrySupportTool.pdf

The Lessons Learning Process with Governments, GEF

Implementing agencies and project partners

Guidance of a Steering Committee - World Bank, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, NEPAD and FAO

Online surveys - in English and French Desk review of available project documents Interviews with informants on regional projects – skype

& telephone 5 detailed “country” studies supported by

Bancy Mati with consultants in Ethiopia, Kenya & Uganda Domitille Vallée with Abdoulaye S. Soumaila in Niger and

Taibou Ba in Senegal

Main report plus 5 country reports and case studies: Guidance for future engagement/investments in the context of recent AU Declarations on agriculture, NEPAD, GEF, TerrAfrica, other donors

Areas of Focus1. Support activities on the ground for SLM

scaling up2. Create and enabling environment for SLM at

all levels – cross-sector + policy development3. Strengthen advisory services for SLM4. Support knowledge generation, management

and sharing and M&E

27 Country projects

4 Regional Transboundary UNEP Kalahari- Namib Enhancing Decision making through Learning

and Action Molop-Nossob RB (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa) WB Eastern Nile TB Watershed management (Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan) WB LVEMP II (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda) FAO Kagera TAMP- agroecosystem management Kagera river basin

5 thematic multi-country UNEP Equatorial Africa Deposition Network (Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana,

Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda) Institutional support to NEPAD and Regional Economic Communities

(RECs) in Africa Stimulating Community Initiatives in Sustainable Land Management -

Ghana, Morocco, Uganda, South Africa

Not considered UNDP Integrating WH and SLM (Djibouti) and WB Monitoring carbon and co-benefits of BioCF (Madagascar, Niger)

NO SINGLE UMBRELLA PROJECT!

SIP Portfolio (survey)

Multi-SLM approach multi-stakeholder partnershipsmulti-sectoral and multi-disciplinarymulti-scale efforts (natural, administrative and decision-

making units) Specific approaches “landscape/ecosystem management”

and “development” of relevance to SLMNO UNIVERSAL BLUEPRINTResponsive advisory + support services + partnerships

Social/people-centred management neededgender and cultural sensitivitycommunity based participatory planning +technology devt.people centred learning attention to vulnerable households

TerrAfrica/SIP Theory of Change

Impacts of TerrAfrica/SIP for SLM in sub-Saharan Africa

1. Created momentum on financing (GEF & co-funding)

2. Catalytic role in promoting country-regional partnerships (human & financial resources for SLM)

3. Understanding of importance of addressing LD and commitment to promoting SLM new country investments, SAWAP-100M$, IAP FS-106M$ by GEF

4. Useful platform for testing, developing and applying SLM technologies to restore ecosystem services, soil functioning and improve crop yields (NB In some cases decisions on technology choice top-down not enough farmer innovation, information on options & conditions for success)

Positive Lessons – Capacities Developed for SLM

Many projects anticipated to have sustained impacts Developed capacities at various levels – approaches & skills

targeted to stakeholders (farmers , pastoralists, gender, poor) Use of farmer field schools -FFS, land users “learning by doing” Service providers -technical /extension, CSOs , local networks

Bottom-up participatory planning of SLM for range of landscape units (community territory, watershed, river basin) administrative units (village, district, region)

Enhanced inclusion of local/traditional knowledge combined with scientific /technical advances across range of land use systems

Exchange visits by land users and policy makers in country /region and wider (India, Brazil)

Independent evaluations informed adaptive management

1. SLM practices (Land, water, vegetation)

Approaches TechnologiesLand use regimes

Agronomic /vegetative

Structural measures

* Watershed plans* Community

land use plans* Grazing

agreements, closures, etc.* Soil and water

conservation zones* Vegetation

corridors* Other

* Inter-cropping * Natural regeneration* Agro-forestry * Af- and Re-

forestation/ * No tillage* Mulching & crop

residue * Conservation

agriculture* Crop rotation* Compost/green

manure * Integrated pest

mgmt.* Vegetative

strip/contours* Rangeland

revegetation * Crop-livestock

systems* Woodlots; Live

fencing* Alternatives to

woodfuel* Sand dune

stabilization

* Terraces earth/stone bunds* Flood control & drainage* Water harvesting, runoff

management, and small-scale irrigation* Gully control measures * Other

2. Integrated landscape/ecosystem approaches for resilience and multiple

benefits• Bring together FFS, catchment planning & management and bye laws/ local governance • Knowledge management SLM / watershed management experiences worldwide WOCAT Knowledge base• Environmental and livelihood impacts at farm/HH and landscape scale and in short and long term (resilience)• Productivity, • Climate adaptation + Mitigation• Agro-biodiversity (genetic resources, species

and habitats- pollination, pest control etc.) • Nutrition and Food security (access, availabiity)• Ecosystem services (carbon, nutrients, water,

flood & drought management)

Positive Lessons- Tools, Knowledge, Innovative options

Inter-sectoral approaches working- on-the-ground & guided by PSCs/ boards

Explored innovative options for SLM financing- some “CSIFs” for cross-sector planning, coordination

Some good communications for range of audiences- materials in local language, technical guides, websites, twitter,…)

Some use of WOCAT tools, database and “SLM in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for SSA (Kagera)

Many tools produced that could be used by future projects / programs

Limited mainstreaming

Not systematic

Inadequate outreach/ communication strategies

Limited knowledge /training in such tools

Hard to access. Need to compile, target & disseminate

Rural radio dedicated program

Books/printed materials: Specialized knowledge (I.e WOCAT books)

Internet Access (with good bandwith)

Technical Fairs (regular access)

Demonstrations (regular)

Documentation in local languages

Mobile phone messaging

Other (specify)

0

20

40

Access to information and knowledge exist and is satisfac-tory

a) Existing information / knowledge access of extension agents in project areas and b) Tools used to engage stakeholders (regional projects)

Broad multistakeholder consultationTargeted consultations (expert groups)

Face to face meetings

Focus group discussions (communities)

Online consultation or Survey

Field level surveys

Participatory M&EConferences and presentations

Outreach activities: television, radio, newspapers article

Farmer field schools

Open days/field visits

Exposure visit to project sites

small group thematic visits  and meetings (Learning route)

0

5

10

Local/ Sub-national

National

regional (group of countries)

guidance provided by regional coordination unit

Local/sub nationalNationalRegionalBy RCU

a

b

Less positive Lessons - Design + Implementation

Delays in project start-up + 3 projects cancelled Most projects of too short duration (4 -5 years) to

demonstrate significant impacts and sustainability Few projects integrated specific “components” on:

capacity development communications

Products/lessons not accessible “hid their lights under a bushel”

Baselines often inadequate for effective impact monitoring

Reinventing the wheel–some projects spent time testing proven SLM technologies instead of focusing on capacities and dissemination for scaling up

Less positive Lessons - Scaling up & Sustainability

Policy impact limited - Bye laws tested /operational in a few communities but not applied across wider territories; draft policies prepared but not enacted

Very limited exchange between projects (specific funds/ mechanisms not in place ; some informants were not aware their project was part of a wider program.

SIP website – “could do better” Knowledge exchange across countries- updated but past information seems to be lost and no sharing of products.

Exit strategy often inadequate for post-project sustainability

Less positive Lessons - Design + Implementation (2)

A cross program M&E system (TerrAfrica/SIP) was planned- but document prepared only in 2014, still a draft - too late for SIP, too long /complex, few people know it exists.

Many project M&E plans were not realistic –too complex to be effective

Impact assessment not systematic or comprehensive (socio-economic + environmental benefits local to landscape scales)

Useful Reference: Landscape People food and nature LPFN website Buck, L. et al (2014) A Landscape Perspective on M&E for Sustainable Land Management. Trainers’ Manual (148pp). EcoAgriculture Partners http://www.ecoagriculture.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=676

Some Key Lessons Learned for program level impact

Communication strategy, mechanisms and tools are fundamental – at all levels and for all target groups

Knowledge management and sharing is vital with other projects in country and at program level

Project design and implementation teams should be familiar with and provided with key SLM tools and guidelines –technologies, approaches, strategies, mechanisms for scaling + mainstreaming

Win-win benefits of SLM should be assessed, analysed, shared with local actors and policy makers at all levels and

Impact findings should be more effectively used to influence local land planning and sector and cross-sector policies

Win-win solutions for livelihoods, ecosystems and productivity

(Liniger et al 2011)

Donors/investor

Development agencies

regional organizations

national Policy makers

implementers (technical experts etc.)learning/teaching organizations (universities etc)

research organizations (universities etc)

communities and land users

Media

a) Stakeholder engagement in the projects and b) What Stakeholder groups were

trained

Land users (crop farmers, herders, fisher folks, forest users)

Extension staff

Technical services

Private sector service providers : private companies, NGO

Local politicians

Decision makers / Institutional capacity building for SLM

Researchers/ academics

Other

0

10

20

TRAINEDMixed groups with good represen-tation of womenMany trained (in a given stakeholder group)

Some Key Lessons Learned for impact & sustainability

SLM projects should be planned and phased over at least 6 years to be able to scale up and mainstream successes

SLM projects should be monitored effectively Use of standard monitoring tools that feed into data/statistics

e.g. EX-ACT; hydrology, sampling for livelihood surveys, Demonstrate and assess impacts on livelihoods (income, food

and nutrition, wellbeing) as well as GEBs (biodiversity and ecosystem services – carbon , hydrology, soil biological functions)

Better linkages needed with research & education institutes A limited, relevant set of indices should be selected and used

for monitoring all SLM projects (e.g. areas under SLM, causes of yield increases, constraints to adoption) effectiveness + national trends

M & E process should be participatory, to extent possible involving beneficiary communities/actors

Sustainability planning - exit strategy - should be initiated from start of project, involving beneficiary communities

Conclusions The SIP created a momentum and helped increase the

total resources planned for SLM but the potential for scaling up and for sustainability remains challenging

Farmer organizations and stakeholder platforms are key at local level for wide adoption (more attention is needed to sustainable pastoralism and impacts on women)

More is needed to involve and share results with national policy and decision makers (finance ;cross-sector

dialogue ; need to break down territorial issues by ministries) other development agencies and competent regional

organizations educational organizations media

The SIP is anchored in NEPAD framework but much is needed to articulate better with decision makers in NEPAD CAADP

Thank to all those who contributed to the survey and review process

Thanks to the team of consultants

FAO and other members of the Steering committee look forward to your feedback and recommendations

to Guide future engagement/ investments