mne_plan_undp-slm project final (1)

Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Mainstreaming Sustainable Land

Management in Agro-Pastoral Production Systems of Kenya Project

Prepared by Zablon Wagalla, Natural Resources/M&E Consultant

October/November 2014

http://www.google.co.ke/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/Images/GEF-notag-lowres_0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thegef.org/gef/GEF_logo&h=166&w=142&sz=9&tbnid=d3McJqUO678k5M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=77&prev=/search?q=gef+logo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=gef+logo&usg=__dKi0HBm400sPsqrWmCeTq_yYuSs=&docid=RoG1_3gz9uF8rM&hl=sw&sa=X&ei=7pSHUbC8EIvjtQaGvYCAAg&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA&dur=1326

Table of Contents

1.0 M&E PLAN ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

M&E OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 5 M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAPPING: KEY STAKEHOLDERS, THEIR MANDATES, RESPONSIBILITIES, INTEREST, POTENTIAL

CHALLENGES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND PARTNERS AT ALL LEVELS ...................................................................................................... 13

2.0 PURPOSE OF M&E PLAN .............................................................................................................................................15

3.0. M&E OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE .........................................................................................................................17

3.1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 17 3.2 INDICATORS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.0 REPORTING ....................................................................................................................................................................20

Diagram 3: Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Implementation Arrangements ..................................................... 23

5.0. M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT .........................................................................................................................................24

5.1 BASELINE DATA AND METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 24 5.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS ...................................................................................................................................... 25

National ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Counties .................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Catchment/Communities ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 FFS/PFS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26

6.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................27

ANNEX 1: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK/LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...............................................................28

ANNEX 2: M&E MATRIX.......................................................................................................................................................42

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN FOR SLM PROJECT-KENYA. ........................................................................................... 42 I. Key Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................................................................ 42 II. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 43

ANNEX 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND THEMATIC STUDIES ...................................................................................50

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS: ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 THEMATIC STUDIES: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51

ANNEX 4: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE/COMMUNITY AND SLM ACTION PLAN- REPORT

TEMPLATE .............................................................................................................................................................................52

PART 1: OVERVIEW OF THE TARGET LANDSCAPE 1.1 BASIC INFORMATION- CATCHMENT ....................................................... 52 1.2 Reasons for selection of the catchment: .............................................................................................................. 52

PART 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TARGET CATCHMENT ....................................................................................................... 52 2.2 Geography, Land and Water Availability and Use ..................................................................................................... 53

2.3 Land Degradation ..................................................................................................................................................... 53 2.4 SLM ............................................................................................................................................................................ 53 2.5 Policy and planning ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

PART 3: CATCHMENT- COMMUNITY SLM ACTION PLAN............................................................................................................. 54 3.1 SLM interventions and activities proposed at community/catchment level ..................................................... 54 3.2 Capacity Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 54 3.3 Collaboration and Co-financing .................................................................................................................................... 54 3.3 Upscaling process and sustainability .................................................................................................................... 55

ANNEX 5: M&E REPORTING TEMPLATES ...................................................................................................................................56

List of Abbreviation and Acronyms

ALRMP Arid Land Resource Management Programme

ASALS Arid and Semi-arid Lands

APR Annual Progress Review

ASDSP Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme

BTOR Back to Office Reports

CDW Country Dialogue Workshop

DLPO District Livestock Production Officer

DLMC District Livestock Management Committee

DMT District Management Team

DRSRS Department of Resource Surveys & Remote Sensing

ERC Evaluation Resource Centre

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FFS Farmer Field Schools

GEF Global Environment Facility

IFAD International Finance for Agricultural Development

KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute

KFS Kenya Forestry Service

LD Land Development

M & E Monitoring & Evaluation

MOA, L & F Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

NALEP National Agricultural & Extension Programme

NDMA National Drought Management Authority

OFP Operational Focal Point

PFS Pastoral Field Schools

PIR Project Implementation Report

PMED Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Department

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

QPR Quarter Progress Report

RCU Regional Central Unit

SDL State Department of Livestock Development

SIP Strategic Implementation Plan

SLM Sustainable Land Management

SO Strategic Objective

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDP CO United Nations Development Programme Country Office

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

1.0 M&E PLAN

The M&E plan for the Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-Pastoral Production Systems

of Kenya Project has been developed by the consultant in close collaboration with the Dr. Zeinabu Khalif,

Programme Analyst (UNDP Country Office),all the staff working at the Project Management Unit (PMU-Hill

Plaza) and all the District Management Team, Frontline Extension Officers working at the sub-county levels

of Dadaab, Kyuso, Mbeere North and Narok North using a collaborative and participatory work sessions

with field officers from Garissa, Kyuso, Narok and Embu during October/November 2014. Guidance and

technical comments were provided by the staff working at PMU Office, Leonard Odini, Communications

Officer, Solomon Karuri, Ag. National Project Manager, Barbara Ombasa, Project Assistant, State

Department of Livestock, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division staff.

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

M&E of Project Performance Monitoring focuses on the management and supervision of project activities, seeking to improve efficiency

and overall effectiveness of project implementation. It is a continuous process to collect information on

actual implementation of project activities compared to those scheduled in the annual work plans, including

the delivery of quality outputs in a timely manner, to identify problems and constraints (technical,

processes, human resource, and financial), to make clear recommendations for corrective actions, and

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

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

Environment and Climate Change Unit and the State Department of Livestock Planning, Monitoring and

Evaluation Division through Monthly statement of expenditure reports, Quarterly progress reports, Annual

progress reports, Annual implementation reviews, Mid-term reviews and Terminal evaluation reports, and

regular technical supervision missions to the project sites as required to enhance success. Participatory

monitoring and evaluation is also encouraged at the grassroot level where beneficiaries are involved

through their respective FFS/PFS in monitoring progress of their activities. The grassroot monitoring

missions are led by county focal point persons for monitoring and evaluations and these feeds into monthly

and quarterly progress reports.

M&E of project impact Evaluation of the project’s success in achieving its outcomes will be monitored continuously throughout the

project period. The key indicators can be found in the logical framework as indicated in the annex 1. The

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

methods and indicators for measuring impact have been determined and agreed to ensure that a

standardized framework is shared by the four participating sub-counties while ensuring compliance with

UNDP and government M&E requirements are met.

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya Project

(SLM) is a 5 year (2010-2015) Project financed by Global Environmental Facility (GEF), supported by

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-Kenya) and Government of Kenya (GoK) through State

Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, . The project is financed under

the Land Degradation Focal Area of GEF – hence part of Kenya’s implementation of the UNCCD program

of work and is also part of the regional Strategic Investment Plan of TerrAfrica.

The overall goal of the project is to promote economic development, food security and sustainable land use

practices while restoring ecological integrity of the ASALs. The main objective of the project is to provide

land users and managers with enabling policy and institutional capacity for effective adoption of sustainable

land management (SLM). This will be realized by enhancing the ability of the local communities to mitigate

impacts of climate changes by adopting appropriate technologies that promote socio-economic resilience.

The envisaged outcomes of the project are:

a) Knowledge-based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands sustainable economic

development

b) Viability of agro-pastoral production system increased through diversification and access to

finances for SLM

c) Mainstreaming SLM policies into cross-sectoral national and local level decision making processes

and support implementation

d) Lessons learnt used to upscale SLM in other ASAL districts.

The project uses two pronged approaches in achieving its goal. At national level, it supports review of

policies related to Sustainable Land Management and mainstreaming of SLM in national planning

processes. It also supports civil societies in mobilization of communities to champion land use policies that

support SLM. At local level, the project activities are implemented in four pilot districts of Mbeere North,

Kyuso, Narok North and Dadaab. The lessons learnt from these pilot districts will be used to upscale in

other ASAL areas.

1.2 Sphere of Influence Mapping: Key Stakeholders, their Mandates, Responsibilities, Interest,

Potential Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Stakeholder Institutional

Mandate/Responsibilities

Role/Interest in the Project Potential Challenges Mitigation strategy Level of Influence on Project Activities

State Department of Agriculture

To promote sustainable and competitive agriculture through creation of an enabling environment and provision of support services, to enhance food security, incomes and employment opportunities

Establishment of Agro pastoral FFS Facilitation / training in:

soil and water conservation

water harvesting

crop husbandry

promotion of emerging crops

income generating activities

value addition

market information

Inadequate extension staff

Staff transfers

Multiple projects in the district requiring same staffs

Lack of motivation among extension staff

Strengthening the linkages

between district and HQ levels

Strengthening the district

Coordination units

Motivate facilitators

Through training and recognition awards

National

County

Sub-County level

State Department of Livestock

To create a favourable legal framework for the sustainable development of the livestock industry; and to provide support services that increase productivity, value addition and market access for the sub- sector products

Technical training and support in;

animal husbandry

livestock upgrading

pasture and fodder establishment

disease control

emerging livestock

value addition

beekeeping

market information

Inadequate field extension officers

Staff transfers

Multiple projects in the district requiring the same staffs

Inadequate motivation among extension staff

Lobbying for recruitment of staff

Strengthening the linkage with ministry headquarters

Strengthening district coordination unit

Motivation of facilitators

through training and recognition awards

National

County

Sub-County level

Ministry of Environment

Protecting, conserving and managing the environment and natural resources through

Coordinating TerrAfrica Strategic Investment Framework for sustainable land management (SLM) in

Inadequate baseline data on SLM initiatives

Inadequate linkage to grassroot initiatives and

Inventory of SLM projects and programmes in the country

National

Stakeholder Institutional Mandate/Responsibilities


sustainable exploitation for the social- economic development, aimed at eradicating poverty, improving living standards and ensuring that a clean environment is sustained now and in the future.

Kenya (KSIF) representation of local communities

Overlap/duplication of activities with other national frameworks

Nominating local communities to national committees Harmonizing roles with other national frameworks e.g. National Environmental Council

National Drought management Authority (NDMA)

To enhance food security and reduce livelihood vulnerability in drought-prone and marginalized communities in 28 ASAL districts

Support SLM implementation

water harvesting

reseeding

Provide early warning system

Support value addition initiatives

Donor funded

Relief dependence may stifle local food security initiatives

Recurrent droughts

Sustainable financing from central government

More investment for long term food security solutions

Factoring drought management in all projects

National

County

Sub-County level

Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP)

To promote the socio-economic development of the agricultural sector (in its broadest sense including livestock, forestry and processing activities based on agricultural raw materials); while at the same time contribute towards the national priority of poverty alleviation.

Linkage with Agro-pastoral FFS in the pilot districts

Sharing of same facilitators and other resources

Sharing experiences

Inadequacy of coordination

Overlapping and duplication of projects

Farmers fatigue with different programmes

Strengthening linkages with NALEP vertically and horizontally

County

Sub-County level

Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS)

To collect data on natural resources for use by other government agencies and institutions for their use in conservation and management

Spatial analysis of landscape units

Linkage with INRA Project

Inadequate coordination with other partners

Engagements in many other activities

Securing agreements with other partners and strengthening coordination

National

County

Kenya To contribute, together Soil analysis Sectoral approach and Detailed ToRs National



Agriculture and Livestock Research organization ( (KALRO)

with its partners, agricultural innovations and knowledge towards improved livelihoods and commercialization of agriculture through increasing productivity and fostering value- chains while conserving the environment

Land use planning at landscape level

Household surveys to determine baseline

Provision of appropriate seeds for dryland farming

lack of involvement of relevant expertise

Inadequate coordination with other partners

Engagements in other activities causing delays in submission of outputs

Monitoring of activities

Securing agreements with other partners and strengthening coordination

County

Sub-County

Kenya Forestry Service (KFS)

To contribute to the growth of the natural resource sector by enhancing development, Conservation and management of all forest resources in the country. This entails ensuring an increasing supply of forestry products and services for meeting the basic needs future gene

Facilitation of registration of Community Forest Associations

Participatory planning for Kiangombe and Suswa hill management plans

Conflicts over common resource use

Participatory consultations with all stakeholders

National

County

Sub-County

Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)

To conduct research in forestry, Disseminate research findings, co-operate with other research bodies within and outside Kenya carrying out similar research and liaise with other organizations and institutions of higher learning in training and on matters of forestry research.

Inventory of invasive species in pilot districts- Establishment of dryland agroforestry

Provision of appropriate fodder crops for drylands

Inventories are cost and time consuming

Some fodder crops may be invasive

Use of cost effective methods

Selection of indigenous or non-invasive fodder crops

National

County

Sub-County level

World Agroforestry Centre

Works towards mitigating tropical deforestation, land depletion and rural

Ground validation of LD index to develop a scientific rigorous index

Too technical and scientific information

Lack of capacity by

Use of simple language and visual indicators

National

County

Sub-County



(ICRAF) poverty through improved agroforestry systems. Its goal is to initiate and assist in the generation and dissemination of appropriate agroforestry technologies for resource-poor farmers and other land users

of LD that would allow regional and global evaluation of LD

Land Health Surveillance: Evidence based diagnosis on agricultural and environmental problems.

Use of SENTINEL monitoring sites.

M&E framework

facilitators to interpret data

that the Agropastoralists and field staffs can understand

level

African Highlands Initiative (AHI/ICRAF)

To develop innovative methods and approaches for participatory "integrated natural resource management" (INRM) through their development and testing in pilot sites, cross-site synthesis and regional dissemination and institutionalization

Support for development of institutional processes for sustaining SLM on the ground

Define key technical entry points and combine FFS and Landcare approaches based on SLM best practices

Develop methods for scaling up from plot to landscape, from private to communal land and from household to community

Conflicts over management of common landscape resources

Disagreements among institutions

Participatory planning

Defining roles of all stakeholders

National

County

Sub-County level

Improved Management of Agricultural Water in Eastern and Southern Africa (IMAWESA)

To enable poor producers in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa increase their incomes through improved management of agricultural water

Enhance the capacity of beneficiaries in rainwater harvesting (RWH)

Advocate and mobilize local & national resources for water harvesting in communities beyond the FFS level

Policy advocacy and support for agropastoralists, at local, district and national levels, including regional

Expensive equipment for water harvesting

Siltation of water reservoirs

Selecting cost effective water harvesting techniques

Integrating water harvesting with soil conservation

National

County

Sub-County level



level

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

To work at the crossroads of livestock and poverty, bringing high-quality science and capacity-building to bear on poverty reduction and sustainable development for poor livestock keepers and their communities

A synthesis of climate change impacts on grazing and livelihoods in FFS sites with details for each catchment basin, habitat structure and landscape ecology

Guidelines for adaptation Strategies for Agropastoralists to cope with climate change.

Lack of data to support climate change scenarios

Need to understand the impact of land degradation and climate variation which at times is interpreted as climate change

National

County

Sub-County level

FAO- Rural Knowledge Networks / SARD- Livestock Market Access Initiative (MACS)

To initiate a people-centered knowledge management process that is built on an understanding of farmer needs, shapes the existing technical information to respond to farmer’s requirements and delivers the knowledge in a form they can understand

Development and support of market access companies in project sites

Commodity trading scaling up of best practices

Brokers may frustrate the initiative

Corrupt dealings and cheating of farmers

Securing legal contracts

Monitoring all transactions for accountability and transparency

National

County

Sub-County level

Agro-pastoral Farmer Field Schools

Key learning Mechanism of the project

Community mobilization

Piloting through experiential learning and practice

Linking FFS to their livelihoods

Participatory monitoring of project activities

Scaling up Agro pastoral FFS across the selected landscape

Too high expectations

Community conflicts over resources and leadership

Agro-pastoralist fatigue over too many projects

Sustainability of pilot activities

Definition of project scope

Participatory planning and implementation Conflict resolution

Mobilization of resources from various donors

Sustainability strategy

Sub-County level

National Environment Management Authority

Environment regulatory authority

Advocacy for environmental projects

Wide coverage in the country

National and global



County government of Garissa, Narok, Embu, and Kitui

Devolved government unit

Custodian of policies at county level

Implement development at the county level

County systems are still in the development stage

County

1.3 Project participants and partners at all levels

Levels Participants/Partners

Local (Sub-County and County Level)

Farmers Field Schools (FFS) and Pastoral Field Schools(PFS) Pastoralists Farmers Agro-Pastoralist Community Owned Financial Institution (COFI) Mumoni and Kyuso Organization for Rural Development and

Active Participation (MURKY-ORDAP) DLMC Mwingi Market Honey Place/ICIPE Frontline Extension Officers Local level leaders and decision makers Sub-County Authorities and County Government leaders Civil Society organizations Financial Institutions (Kenya Commercial Bank, Equity Bank,

Kenya Women Finance Trust)

National Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries National Research institutions like KEFRI, KARI, and University

of Nairobi and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Private Sector UNDP Country Office Line ministries Civil Society organization

Global GEF (Global Environmental Facility)

UNDP Country office is directly involved in implementation of the project. The project is being

executed under UNDP National Execution (NEX) procedures. The State Department of

Livestock Development (SDL) has overall responsibility for the project, with close collaboration

with the State Department of Agriculture (MoA) and the National Drought management Authority

(NDMA).The project activities are financed by the Government of Kenya, UNDP and GEF.

The project design is consistent with objectives of the Land Degradation focal area strategy and

Strategic Program for GEF-4; in particular the two main project strategies: 1) Mainstreaming

SLM into the production landscape by addressing both global environmental and sustainable

livelihood values within a holistic development framework 2) Capacity building leading to long-

term sustainability and visible impact for preventing and controlling land degradation. These are

backed up by outreach and networking for horizontal and vertical information flow. Specifically,

the project is contributing to SO-2 by demonstrating and upscaling successful and innovative

SLM practices for agro-pastoral communities that reduces the extent and severity of

degradation, enhance the productivity and resilience of agro-pastoral management systems

(livestock, pasture and range) and generate socioeconomic/ livelihood benefits for the agro-

pastoralists as well as maintaining environmental services and generating global environmental

benefits. Capacity building is promoted through farmer field school approaches for adaptive

management of SLM practices, and through community planning and integrated ecosystem

approaches in the drylands.

The focus of the programme on restoration of land in different agro-ecosystems through SLM in

agro-pastoral areas provides direct support for GEF Strategic Program 1 (SP-1 element b) for

land degradation. SLM is applied to overcome land degradation through the use of a landscape

approach and integrating ecosystem-based concerns with human land use activities. The

project also addresses the root causes and negative impacts of land degradation on ecosystem

stability, functions and services as they affect local people’s livelihoods and economic well-

being, and to identify and find ways to overcome bottlenecks. Strategic Programme 4 is also

addressed through innovative incentive mechanisms that encourage wide adoption of SLM

practices.

By facilitating inter-sectoral coordination of natural resource management among government

departments and donor projects and by promoting harmonization of the policy and legal

framework guiding communities and districts in SLM the project contributes to Strategic

Objective SO-1. Barriers to SLM are being addressed by building of institutional and human

capacity for land use/ resources planning and incentive/support mechanisms to promote wider

SLM adoption. Capacity building is promoted through the FFS approach for adaptive

management of SLM practices, and through community planning and integrated ecosystem

approaches and thereby the project contributes to Strategic Objective SO-2. The project is

demonstrating and up-scaling successful, innovative and cost-effective SLM practices that

reduces the extent and severity of degradation and deforestation to enhance productivity and

resilience of agricultural systems and generate socioeconomic/livelihood benefits for local land

users as well as global environmental benefits.

The project contributes directly to the SIP indicators by scaling up and out improved land-use

practices including through national policies, coordinated actions and cross-sectoral district

planning and decision making processes (SIP IR 1); contributing to pastoral economies’

knowledge base through practical technologies (tested and proven) in pastoral set ups (SIP IR

4); strengthening the institutional and enabling framework for SLM, building on the coordination

system put in place by the government (SIP IR 2). The project also catalyzes inter-sectoral

partnerships between institutions to overcome barriers to SLM, including enhancement of

institutional and human resource capacity for land use/resources planning.

The project looks forward to filling a strategic gap in the developing portfolio of GEF SLM in

Kenya and the eastern Africa region. This project addresses agro-pastoralism in the semi-arid

lands, an area where resource-use conflict is increasing with immigrant farmers taking over dry-

season grazing reserves and water points. Other GEF projects are addressing arid lands

specifically (e.g. Desert Margins Programme in Marsabit District and Indigenous Vegetation

Programme in Turkana & Marsabit Districts). There are also other projects addressing the

moister end of the ASALs focusing on mountain water towers (WB-GEF Agricultural Productivity

and Sustainable Land Management project with inputs to Taita, Tugen and Cherangani Hills

areas, among others; and UNEP IFAD on Mount Kenya). These interventions have been

discussed at Kenya’s Country Dialogue Workshop (CDW) with staff of the office of the

Operational Focal Point (OFP), to ensure that the project was complementary, not overlapping

or duplicative.

2.0 PURPOSE OF M&E PLAN

The monitoring and evaluation plan for the SLM project will serve two functions: first, periodic

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

Performance-efficiency of resource application), and second, evaluation of their results in terms

of relevance, effectiveness and impact in promoting the adoption of sustainable land and agro-

ecosystem management (SLM) (M&E of Project Impact). The M&E system of the project will

provide answers on the progress and impact made by UNDP, Government line departments

and their partners in achieving the project’s outputs and outcomes. Project Performance: Performance evaluation will assess the project’s success in achieving

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

closely by UNDP Energy Environment and Climate Change Unit, Planning, Monitoring and

Evaluation Division of the State Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and

Fisheries, the Project Steering Committee and the Project Technical Committee through

Monthly expenditure reports, Quarterly progress reports, and Annual progress reports.

Moreover, regular technical supervision missions and Back to Office Reports will be provided as

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

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

continuously throughout the project. The key indicators found in the logical framework, and in

the revised M&E matrix will guide the evaluation of the project results and impacts. To do so,

reliable baseline data was collected at start of the project activities, and impact data will be

collected when appropriate during the project implementation. The diagrams 1, 2 and 3 below

illustrates the monitoring and evaluation continuum of the project

Monitoring Project Performance

(Assess how are inputs are used to produce outputs)

Outputs

Activities

Impact

Outcomes

Outputs

Monitoring Project Impact

(Assess whether outputs produce the expected results)

Diagram 1: M&E of project performance and project impact Both project performance and impact M&E will contribute to improve decision making and

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

and development objectives and by integrating lessons learnt into planning. Project achievements was evaluated at mid-term and the same will be done at the end of the

project through an independent final evaluation.

Monitor Monitor

Evaluate Act Evaluate Act

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

3.0. M&E OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE

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

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

to enable the project management and stakeholders:

i. To track at regular time intervals the activities achieved (compare planned/versus achieved) and assess effects of both external factors and internal project operations;

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

3.1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

The challenge in the ASALs in Kenya and the rest of SSA is to develop an innovative approach

to sustainable land management (SLM) at the landscape level where resource conservation

and land rehabilitation can be combined with improved livelihoods and income generation for

local communities and farmers/herders.

Selected districts represent a variety of agropastoral contexts so it is envisaged that many

lessons will be learned for scaling up within Kenya and more widely in agro-pastoral and

pastoral systems for example through the World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism. Land

uses historically in Narok and Garissa have mainly been pastoralism and herding, with recent

trends towards privatization of land and increase in crop production, while Mbeere North and

Kyuso are based on mixed agropastoral systems but increasingly inhabited by farming

communities with small numbers of livestock.

The GEF project will implement targeted incremental activities to strengthen SLM and assist in

identifying and removing policy, financial and capacity barriers currently impeding SLM and

sustainable agriculture in ASALs. It will therefore mainstream SLM by strengthening

institutional and community capacities at district and local levels; ensuring policies support

SLM and improving the local level access to alternative income generating activities. Innovative

ideas will be taken up by cross-sectoral District and National Planning and decision-making

processes which will ultimately influence policy change on SLM in agropastoral areas. The

project will operate under significant government co-finance by ongoing programmes, in

particular the Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP) and National Agriculture

and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) while the districts will provide office space and

technical and logistical support for project implementation.

The project will focus on four district: Dadaab (Garissa County); Mbeere North (Embu County)

Kyuso (Kitui County); and Narok North (Narok County); which have been regarded as sites of

land degradation severe enough to cause significant reduction in productivity and

crop/livestock yields. The extent of intervention (expected to exceed over 70,000 ha directly in

the project lifetime) and anticipated improvement in agricultural yields, will lead to sustainable

land management on a scale that reduces poverty and increases food security. This will free

up disaster resources, allowing for replication of interventions.

Lessons learned and experiences from SLM will be captured in different ways. The project will

invest into a large M& E component linked to and co-financed by ICRAF’s partnerships with the

Gates Foundation (Africa Soils Initiative). In this respect, it will develop Sentinel Soil sites at

three landscapes with detailed soil and vegetative cover (biodiversity surrogates) monitoring,

related to changing land uses. This work will be done in partnership with KARI (Kenya

Agricultural Research Institute), which will ensure continuity and upscaling.

3.2 INDICATORS

Indicators provide parameters against which to assess project performance and achievement

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

(how good?). Indicators can be quantitative, (number of people, number of ha, % of adoption),

semi-quantitative (scale, ranking), or qualitative (perceptions, opinions, categories).

The table of objectively verifiable indicators (OVI) at sub county and country levels is in Annex 1

3.3 DATA COLLECTION

The established monitoring and evaluation systems for the project are multilayered at different

levels using a variety of tools and funding mechanisms. At pilot project sites a monitoring and

evaluation officer has been designated who collates back to office reports submitted by

executing officers. The FFS and PFS executives committees monitor and evaluate members

and SLM activities and achievements that are subsequently deposited with the DLPOs office.

The PMU monitors the DMTs through quarterly progress reports and field visits. The Project

board monitors the PMU through meetings and reports. The UNDP Country Office monitors

and evaluates the PMU through reports, meetings and undertakes field visits to the project

sites.

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

information on project activities and implementation to the SLM project Coordinator at the sub

county level are the Sub county M & E Officers, sector leads at the sub county levels, local

extension officers, and FFS facilitators at the divisional level. These resource people can use

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

in data collection and participatory M&E. Furthermore, the PMU shall synthesize the

information for the project area (all selected catchments, communities and sub-counties) and

similarly shall compile it for reporting to the UNDP country office on quarterly and annual basis.

The M&E tools provided with this plan are composed of a set of forms to collect and compile the information at each level:

Community M&E form for the local extension officers and FFS/PFS facilitators

Sub County level M&E form for the SLM project Coordinators at the Sub counties

National level M&E form for the PMU, and excel table for quantity data tracking

The templates are a way of standardizing the way data is recorded and stored, aggregating data, and informing project management about progress.

M&E Stakeholders and Responsibilities

Stakeholders M&E Responsibilities

UNDP Country Office Review the progress and result reports and propose adjustments. Send progress reports and budget to GEF

State Department of Livestock, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division

Review the progress and result reports from PMU and makes sure they are line with the government development policies

PMU (Project Management Unit)

Prepare the progress report (Quarterly and annual) Submit workplan and budget on time Share minutes meetings of Project Technical Committee

M&E consultant (when needed)

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

DMTs Prepare Quarterly work plan and targets Prepare the progress report and send it to PMU Share minutes meetings of DMT Provide information to PMU on activities carried out, problems encountered, e.t.c at the catchment/community level

Frontline Extension officer, DLPOs office.

Provide information to Sub county SLM Coordinator and Sub-County M & E Officers on activities carried out, problems encountered, e.t.c at catchment/community level

FFS and PFS executive committees

Provide information to sector lead extension officers and M & E focal person on activities carried out, problems encountered, e.t.c at FFS/PFS level.

4.0 REPORTING

Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and

GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP

CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex 2 provides

indicators for project implementation, cross referenced to the SIP Results Framework as

currently designed, along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the

basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built.

Project start: A Project Inception Workshop was held within the first 2 months of project start

with those assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and

regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders. The Inception

Workshop was crucial to building ownership for the project results and to planning the first year

annual work plan. It addressed a number of key issues including: assist all partners to fully

understand and take ownership of the project; detail the roles, support services and

complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) staff vis à

vis the project team; discussed the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's

decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict

resolution mechanisms; shared the terms of reference for project staff as needed.

The inception workshop provided a venue for finalizing the first annual work plan as well as

reviewing and agreeing on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and

rechecking assumptions and risks; it provided a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) requirements; it also confirmed the monitoring and evaluation work plan and

budgets and schedules; discussed financial reporting procedures and obligations, and

arrangements for annual audit; planning and scheduling Project Board meetings; clarifying

roles and responsibilities of all project organization structures; and holding the first Project

Board meeting.

Monthly Expenditure reports: Expenditure reports are generated monthly by the respective

SLM coordinators to track expenditure according to planned activities monthly and submitted to

PMU.

Quarterly: Project Progress will be monitored quarterly using the UNDP Enhanced Results

Based Management Platform. The risks identified at project design will be entered into ATLAS

and monitored quarterly. The risks related to markets, micro-finance and conflicts are all rated

critical under the Enhanced Results Based Management Platform on the basis of their

innovative nature (high impact and uncertainty due to no previous experience justifies

classification as critical), and the high incidents of conflicts in the ASALs. These will therefore

be monitored very carefully and information used to adapt project management.

Quarterly Project Progress Reports (PPR) will be generated in the Executive Snapshot,

using the information recorded in Atlas. Other ATLAS logs will be used to monitor issues,

lessons learned etc. The use of these functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive

Balanced Scorecard.

Annually: Annual Project Progress will be monitored and captured through the Annual Project

Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR). This key report comprehensively combines

both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements and includes, but is not limited to, reporting on:

progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - each with indicators, baseline

data and end-of-project targets (cumulative); project outputs delivered per project outcome

(annual); lesson learned/good practice; AWP and other expenditure reports; risk and adaptive

management; and, ATLAS QPR. Portfolio level indicators (i.e. GEF focal area tracking tools)

are used by most focal areas on an annual basis as well.

Periodic Monitoring through site visits: UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to

project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan

to assess first hand project progress. Other members of the Project Board may also join these

visits. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be

circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board

members.

Mid-term of project cycle: The project has undergone an independent Mid-Term Evaluation

at the mid-point of project implementation, in August 2014. The Mid-Term Evaluation

determined progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and identified course

correction that are needed including reviewing of the indicators and having a structured

Monitoring and Evaluation plan for the project. It focused on the effectiveness, efficiency and

timeliness of project implementation; highlighted issues requiring decisions and actions; and

presented initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.

Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation

during the final half of the project’s term.

End of Project: An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final

Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.

The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as

corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation

will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity

development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The Terms of

Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the

Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. The Terminal Evaluation will also provide

recommendations for follow-up activities and will be accompanied by a management response

which will be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource

Center (ERC). The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the

final evaluation.

During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This

comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs),

lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will

also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure

sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and knowledge sharing: Results from the project will be disseminated within and

beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums.

The project will therefore identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific,

policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation

though lessons learned. The project will also identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that

might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Finally, there

will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus.

Currently, the project publishes a quarterly newsletter named SLM focus that shares success

stories, and best practices.

Diagram 3: Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Implementation Arrangements

GEF FOCAL PERSON (REVIEW

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS

FROM UNDP CO)

UNDP COUNTRY OFFICE (REVIEW

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS

FROM PMU AND SUBMIT TO GEF)

PROJECT MONITORING UNIT

(COMPILE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE,

QUARTER AND ANNUAL REPORTS)

SLM COORDINATOR-NAROK

SUB COUNTY (PREPARE

MONTHLY EXPENDITURE

REPORT AND QUATERLY

REPORTI)

SLM COORDINATOR-

MBEERE SUB COUNTY

(PREPARE MONTHLY

EXPENDITURE REPORT

AND QUATERLY REPORTI)

SLM COORDINATOR-KYUSO

SUB COUNTY (PREPARE

MONTHLY EXPENDITURE

REPORT AND QUATERLY

REPORTI)

SLM COORDINATOR-

DADAAB SUB COUNTY

(PREPARE MONTHLY

EXPENDITURE REPORT AND

QUATERLY REPORTI)

M & E OFFICER NAROK

SUB COUNTY (COMPILE

MONTHLY REPORTING TO

HAVE QUARTER REPORTS)

M & E OFFICER MBEERE

SUB COUNTY (COMPILE


HAVE QUARTER

REPORTS)

M & E OFFICER KYUSO SUB

COUNTY (COMPILE


HAVE QUARTER REPORTS)

M & E OFFICER DADAAB

SUB COUNTY (COMPILE

MONTHLY REPORTING TO HAVE QUARTER REPORTS)

FFS/PFS FACILITATORS/SUB COUNTY SECTOR LEADS FROM NAROK, MBEERE, KYUSO,

AND DADAAB SUB COUNTIES (BACK TO OFFICE AND MONTHLY REPORTING, ALSO

PROVIDES PERIODIC INFORMATION THAT HELPS IN UPDATING QUATERLY REPORTS)

MOAL PMED REVIEW

PROJECT PROGRESS

THROUGH REPORTS FROM

PMU

5.0. M&E OF PROJECT IMPACT

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

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

Management Unit, and project implementers at the sub county levels and these indicators have

been reviewed and revised and their means of verification (assessment methods) specified to

complete the M&E matrix. The resulting M&E matrix is in Annex 2.

5.1 BASELINE DATA AND METHODS

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

evaluation of land management practices and their implication was collected in Narok North,

Kyuso, Mbeere North and Dadaab and PRA processes conducted in a range of agro-ecological

zones and contexts by an interdisciplinary team of experts with community representatives. An

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

costs and impacts/benefits, etc. was gathered and reviewed to inform and complement the

baseline for this project.

5.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS

Indicators of project impact will be applied at the national, sub county and catchment/community levels. Major areas identified for impact assessment include:

Status of land, natural resources and ecosystems, their conservation and capacity for production of goods and services;

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

resources ;

Improvement in achievement of environmental and livelihood goals – reversing land degradation, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and enhancing crop and livestock productivity, reducing poverty, reducing food insecurity and vulnerability;

Strengthened capacities for integrated sustainable land and agro-ecosystem

management (SLM) at different levels

Policies reviewed and formulated at the national and sub county level to support SLM principles and activities

The assessment of project impact will be based on 4 specific and complementary activities (1) Stakeholder discussion groups and PRA at catchment/community levels around project

components and outputs. These will help to analyse information, identify lessons learnt, and make recommendations about project implementation, and to assess the changes brought up by the project;

Example: Case Studies, Focus group discussion with the project participants to assess the quality of services provided (information, expertise and institutional support) at the field level.

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

assess livelihoods, agricultural production, resilience and food security;

Example: Survey with farmers in FFS to identify their % of adoption and extent (ha) for each SLM practice, and benefits of SLM.

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

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

Example: Field monitoring protocol and land user survey on land degradation/improvement

through LD local indicators, such as : soil properties, soil erosion, soil carbon sampling,

vegetation cover and extent of burning, water resources conditions and availability, habitat

diversity, species/varietal diversity, pest & disease incidence, trends in land/livestock

productivity under different land use types and management practices (controlling for

yearly rainfall difference), livelihoods : income, food security and vulnerability.

(4) Thematic studies undertaken to provide further information on important issues Examples: SLM technologies and approaches, canopy cover on landscapes before/after SLM actions, and monitor how SLM practices/approaches contribute to Community action plans and County development action plans

The different impact assessments shall be done periodically to be included in quarterly reports.

Doing so, the results and recommendations of the impact assessment can feed on to the quarter

and annual reports, use to produce newsletters and bulleting’s on SLM project successes and

documented as knowledge and lessons learnt for project upscaling and dissemination.

5.3 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

Through discussions at the field level, document reviews and discussions with PMU staff, a simple check list here in developed to help in assessing the project sustainability during implementation and at the end of the project:

National

Policies to support SLM principles and activities reviewed

Best practices and lessons learnt are mainstreamed in development processes, and used

in SLM project upscaling

SLM information and knowledge generated by the project is available

SLM practices and approaches are mainstreamed in County agriculture, rangeland and

natural resources action plans

Counties

SLM action plans are mainstreamed in County Integrated Development Plans, and district

funds are allocated

Partnership and collaboration continue at County level between different stakeholders

Catchment/Communities

SLM interventions are maintained by local communities and land owners

SLM technologies promoted are upscaled by land users and communities

Charcoal users associations formalized and registered and are using sustainable

charcoal production methods as well as paying levies to county government

FFS/PFS

FFS/PFS and cooperatives/associations/groups created/supported by the project have

opened bank accounts and are formerly registered

FFS and cooperatives/associations/groups remain active

FFS and cooperatives/associations/groups have diversified their activities and are

generating income

6.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

main components: project performance, and project impact. Project performance requires the

monitoring of activities and outputs, and his closely related with project execution and planned

activities versus achieved (and budget). Project impact is assessed through the impact and

outcome indicators and through specific and timely assessments, including baseline studies. The

information at the project baseline serves as a basis for monitoring and eventually for impact

assessment at project mid-term and closure.

Some recommendations are as below:

i. M&E focal points established at the sub counties should be strengthened to be effective

in tracking and monitoring activities, especially at field level (catchment/community).

Templates for data collection are provided in annexes, and punctual support for planning

and assessment shall be provided by the PMU and if possible with the help of a

consultant. PMU shall integrate the lessons learnt into their planning, and document

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

collection and participatory impact monitoring shall later be organized to build capacities

of the M&E focal points in regard to M&E for all M & E focal point persons at the sub

county levels. This is suggested to be carried out by the officers from the PMED of State

Department of Livestock.

ii. Considering the project needs partners and co-funding, it would benefit from developing a

clear communication strategy. It is proposed that PMU and Government line ministries

should be proactive in providing information for preparation and dissemination of a

newsletter every three months to update partners on project activities (each newsletter

would have a theme e.g.: selection of the catchments, startup of field activities).

Moreover, the PMU shall be pro-active on proposing specific outputs on which to develop

partnership for SLM implementation and co-funding. It would be important to highlight the

linkages between SLM and climate change adaptation and mitigation, as this can also

generate further funding and partnerships.

ANNEX 1: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK/LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The strategic results framework was reviewed and found adequate. Included in the result framework are reviewed indicators and indicator

definition in reference to the Mid-term review, desk research and analysis and discussions by field focal persons.

Results Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

Indicator Definition Means of Verification (MOVs)- Sources of information/ data - Sources of information/ data

Risks and Assumptions

Project Goal : “Sustainable Land Management” provides the basis for economic development , food security and sustainable livelihoods while restoring the ecological integrity of the ASALs

Baseline surveys

Impact studies

Monitoring and evaluation reports

End of project evaluation report

Prolonged drought Increased encroachment by agriculture

Purpose; To provide land users and managers with financial incentives , enabling policy, institutional and capacity for effective adoption of SLM in four agro pastoral districts

50% of rangeland in the 4 pilot districts register improvement of range condition by end of project

Level of dependency on food aid in target landscape reduced by 30% by the end of project period

At least 25% of woodlands showing recovery as measured by regeneration and improvement in species index and canopy cover

Ha of Improved rangeland

% of households depending on food aid

Number of trees planted/Types of species introduced.

Baseline surveys

Impact studies


Mid-term review report


Outcome 1: Knowledge based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands sustainable economic development

25% of cultivators in pilot landscapes adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by mid-term and 75 cumulatively by project end

At least 30% increase in soil fertility from baselines for land users consistently engaging in 3-5 improved

Numbers of farmers adopted improved practices

• Numbers of farmers

Sampling captured in the monitoring reports

Project training reports as part of M& E reports

Project M&E and technical


practices by mid-term and by 30% cumulatively by end of project

At least 25% of agriculturalists and pastoralists in the pilot landscape taking decisions on the basis of weather and drought early warning information by mid-term and 50% cumulatively by end of project

At least 40% of land users and 30% of technical officers’ requiring to update skills have done so by mid-term; by end of project at least 60% of land users and 75% of technical officers cumulatively have updated skills

Lessons on improving land and resource tenure , range rehabilitation , sustainable charcoaling, improving livestock mobility and other important project initiatives available for dissemination through the up scaling project

of farmers engaged in improved practices • Numbers of farmers taking decision on basis of weather and drought early warning information • Numbers of farmers/Number of technical officers trained

Numbers of Information, Education and Information materials produced

reports ,

KARLO test reports

Output 1.1; Knowledge base for No. of land capability Number of maps • Project M&E and technical Prolonged droughts,

landscape based land use planning in place

updated maps

Integrated land use plans for pilot landscapes

No. of collaborating institutions for training and research

No. of new FFS/PFS established

No. of stakeholders aware on SLM land use practices

Number of plans

Number of institutions

Number of FFS/PFS

Number of farmers

reports conflicts driven by political considerations and developments

Activity 1.1.1: Land capability assessment & use of result in land use decision making

No. and frequency of land capability assessment done

No. of land users using assessment results

Ha of land

Number of farmers


Activity reports

Community willingness to participate

Sub-Activity 1.1.1.1: Updating land capability maps and land use plans using GIS

No. of land capability maps and land use plans updated using GIS

Number of plans Financial and procurement reports

Activity reports

Institutions partnerships developed

Sub-Activity 1.1.1.2: Determining current livestock land carrying capacity

Hectares of land whose current livestock land carrying capacity is known in pilot landscapes

Ha of land Monitoring and Evaluation reports


Sub-Activity 1.1.1.3: Determining land potential for dry land cropping

Hectares of land whose cropping potential for dry land cropping is known in pilot landscapes

Ha of land Monitoring and Evaluation reports


Activity 1.1.2: Developing guidelines for integrated land use planning

No. of stakeholders forum held

No. of stakeholder by categories consulted

Number of stakeholders

Financial and procurement reports

Community willingness to participate and resources available

No. of capacity needs assessment conducted

Sub-Activity 1.1.2.1: Stakeholders consultations on guidelines development

• No. of stakeholders forum held

Number of forums Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Stakeholders workshop reports

Pictures


Sub-Activity 1.1.2.2: Conducting capacity needs assessment to design capacity building programmes for stakeholders

• No. of stakeholders forum held

Number of forums Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Assess reports/ back to office report


Activity 1.1.3: capacity building on

integrated land use planning using developed guidelines

No. of people trained on integrated land use planning

Number of people Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Workshop reports

Pictures


Sub-Activity 1.1.3.1: training of technical officers, land users , politicians and civil society

No. of people attending awareness forum on SLM guidelines by category

No. awareness forum created

Number of people

Number of forums

Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Training reports

Pictures


Sub-Activity 1.1.3.2: updating extension packages and increasing dissemination and use of weather information

No. of extension packages updated

No. of land users using weather information and EWS from MET department

Number of extension packages

Number of farmers



Activity 1.1.4: Collaboration with universities and research institutions colleges

No. of institutions by type collaborating for training and review of course curriculum

Number of institutions


MOU/MOA

Collaborators reports


Sub-Activity 1.1.4.1: to reviewing curriculum for training courses in agriculture, forestry, and biological sciences

No. and types of courses whose curriculum is reviewed

Number of courses Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Workshop reports

Pictures

Institutions of Learning cooperative and participate in project activities.

Sub-Activity 1.1.4.2: Supporting training in research on SLM relevant courses

No. of technical officers and level of training supported

Number of technical officers


Training reports


Output 1.2; Community based experiential learning for SLM

At least 25% of cultivators in the pilot landscapes

% of farmers adopting new


Community willingness to participate and resources

adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by mid-term and 75% cumulatively by project end

technologies Pictures available

Activity 1.2.1: Increasing community knowledge in SLM practices through establishment FFS/PFS

Number of FFS/PFS established

Number of PFS/FFS Monitoring and Evaluation reports


Activity 1.2.2: Facilitate exchange

visits per district Number of exchange visits

achieved Number of visits Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Back to office report

Pictures


Activity 1.2.2: Establish FFS/PFS

SLM award schemes for farmers and Child Adopt a tree programme for schools in pilot sub-counties

Number of award schemes and schools involved

Number of award schemes



Output 1.3: Technical staff provided

with skills and other capacities required in SLM facilitation

At least 25% of the agriculturalists and pastoralists in the pilot landscapes taking decisions on the basis of the weather and drought early warning information by mid-term and 50% cumulatively by project end

Number of technical officers


Workshop/Training reports

Pictures


Activity 1.3.1: Trainings to DEC members to develop district environmental action plans

Number of DEC members trained

Numbers training

Number of DEC members

Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Training reports

Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Activity 1.3.2: Conduct training for frontline extension officers on FFS/PFS methodology

Number of frontline extension officers trained on FFS/PFS methodology

Numbers training

Number of frontline extension officers


reports

Training reports

Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Activity 1.3.3: Support world day to Combat desertification activities and World Environment day

Resources allocated towards support of events

Amount of resources


reports

Back to office report

Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Output 1.4:Rehabilitation of

degraded lands At least 30% increase in

soil fertility from baselines for land users consistently engaging in 3-5 improved practices by mid-term and by 30% cumulatively by end of the project

% increase in soil fertility

Number of samples


Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Activity 1.4.1: Support to land rehabilitation, pasture reseeding and soil conservation structures

Number of Ha of land rehabilitated

Ha, Km of terraces, Ha of pasture reseeded


Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Activity 1.4.2: Rehabilitation of selected degraded land sites through support to agro-forestry

Number of trees planted Number of trees Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Pictures

Community

willingness to

participate and

resources available

Output 1.5: A participatory M&E

system designed and used to provide information to link policy decisions to ecosystem health and improvements in livelihoods

Lessons on improving land and resource tenure, range rehabilitation, sustainable charcoaling, improving livestock mobility, and other important

M & E plan developed and shared

Monitoring and Evaluation plan documented

All stakeholders and

project participants are

involved in the

discussion and

development of M % E

Plan document

Activity 1.5.1: Conduct quarterly monitoring visits to assess implementation progress

Number of monitoring missions conducted

Number of monitoring missions

Monitoring reports All stakeholders and

project participants are

involved in monitoring

missions

Activity 1.5.2: Conduct training on Early warning systems

Number of trainings on Early Warning Systems

Number of trainings Monitoring and Evaluation Reports

Community willingness to participate and

Training reports resources available

Outcome 2: Viability of the agro

pastoralism production system increased through diversification increased access to finance for SLM

At least 20% increase in agricultural produce for key crops for those adopting 3-5 improved practices consistently by mid-term and 50% cumulative by project end

At least a 20% increase in livestock prices being obtained in markets within the pilot landscapes due to better marketing/trading conditions

At least 25% increase in numbers accessing micro-finance and credits By mid project - at least 25% increase in household incomes for more than 40% of participating households, cumulatively rising to at least 40% for more than 50% of households

At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still retain livestock mobility by the end of the project

At least 10% reduction in incidents of conflicts over land and resources in the pilot districts and a cumulative 50% reduction by project end

Numbers of farmers • % increase in livestock prices • Numbers of farmers accessing micro-finance credits • Numbers of farmers still retain livestock mobility

Numbers of farmers



Project M&E and technical reports


• Numbers of

conflicts reported

Numbers of conflicts

reported

Output 2.1: Livestock Trade Improved.


% increase in livestock prices

Livestock prices reports and assessments

Community willingness

to participate and

resources available

Activity 2.1.1: Support to dissemination of livestock market information

Number of Livestock market Information distributed

Number of information materials



to participate and

resources available

Activity 2.1.2: Strengthen/rehabilitate existing market structures in pilot sites

Number of markets rehabilitated

Number of Markets Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Pictures


to participate and

resources available

Activity 2.1.3: Support upgrading of local livestock breed to improve productivity

Breeds of livestock upgraded

Increase in productivity

Number of improved breeding stock


Pictures

Partnership with KALRO

developed and breeding

done.

Activity 2.1.4: Conduct field days to promote livestock-based trade

Number of field days conducted

Number of field days Monitoring and Evaluation reports

Back to Office report

Pictures

Community participate

and resources available

Output 2.2: Access to markets for alternative sustainable livelihood options increased

At least 20% increase in

agricultural produce for

key crops for those

adopting 3-5 improved

practices consistently by

mid-term and 50%

cumulative by project end

% increase in agricultural produce



and resources available

Activity 2.2.1: Promote alternative income generating activities and support linkage to markets

Number of IGAs

developed and linked to

Number of IGAs Monitoring and Evaluation reports


and resources

markets available

Output 2.3: Farmers and herders increase access to micro-finance and credits


numbers accessing micro-

finance and credits By mid

project - at least 25%

increase in household

incomes for more than

40% of participating

households, cumulatively

rising to at least 40% for

more than 50% of

households

Number of farmers

accessing finance

and credit from

finance institutions


reports


and resources

available

Activity 2.3.1: Conduct trainings on financial literacy in partnership with financial institutions

Number of trainings on

financial literacy

Number of farmers

accessing finance

and credit from

finance institutions


reports

Training reports

Pictures


and resources

available

Output 2.4: Agricultural productivity increase sustainably


agricultural produce for

key crops for those

adopting 3-5 improved

practices consistently by

mid-term and 50%

cumulative by project end

Number of farmers Monitoring and Evaluation

reports


and resources

available

Activity 2.4.1: Conduct trainings on drought resistant crops and post-harvest storage.

Number of trainings on

drought resistant crops

conducted

Number of trainings Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Training reports

Pictures


and resources

available

Activity 2.4.2: Conduct trainings on adoption of appropriate agricultural practices

Number of trainings

conducted on adoption of

appropriate agricultural

technologies

Number of trainings Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Training reports

Pictures


and resources

available

Activity 2.4.2: Develop training manuals and support extension services.

Number of training

manuals developed

Number of manuals Monitoring and Evaluation

reports


and resources

available

Output 2.5: Livestock Mobility supported as an adaption technology

At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still retain livestock mobility by the end of the project


Number of mobile

pastoralists


reports


and resources

available

Activity 2.5.1: Support peace building barazas to address resource conflicts

Number of peace barazas

supported

Number ofpeace

barazas


reports

Pictures

Back to Office reports


and resources

available

Activity 2.5.2: Conduct trainings and support disease surveillance on stock routes

Disease surveillance

reports

Number of training Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Back to office reports


and resources

available

Output 2.6: Post harvest losses minimized through better planning and private sector engagement

At least 20% of farming population report minimized loss of produce due to post-harvest handling by mid-term and 50% cumulative

Number of private

companies involved

in post-harvest

handling at farmer


reports


and resources

available

by project end

level

Activity 2.6.1: Mapping post-harvest risks using GIS

Report of Post-harvest risks mapped.

Report on post-harvest risks


reports

Maps



and resources

available

Activity 2.6.2: Conduct trainings on post-harvest management and facilitate involvement of private sector in servicing post-harvest technologies

Number of trainings on post-harvest management

Number of private sector involved in servicing post-harvest technologies

Number of trainings

Number of private sector companies


reports

Training reports

Pictures


and resources

available

Output 2.7: Gender mainstreamed into SLM, Policy, and economic outcomes.

Gender mainstreaming strategy developed

Strategy document Monitoring and Evaluation

reports


and resources

available

Activity 2.7.1: Implementation and monitoring of gender mainstreaming Action Plans.

Gender mainstreaming action plan developed

Action plan Monitoring and Evaluation

reports


and resources

available

Outcome 3: The policy, regulatory

and Institutional environment support sustainable land management in the agro pastoral production system (and ASALs)

At least 2 policies revised to mainstream SLM principles and so provide a better policy environment for SLM; Discussions for legislation and institutional arrangement for policy implementation for at least 2 key policies held by mid-term and recommendations provided adopted by end of the project At least 5 charcoal associations have rules and

Numbers of policies • Number of policies discussed




Pictures of the adopted technologies


regulations for sustainable charcoal and are actively enforcing them; At least 5 groups with sustainable charcoal production operations and earning money from carbon finance; Collection of revenue by Districts and Kenya Revenue Authority from charcoal processes increase by 25% by mid-term and 50% cumulatively be end of the project; Number of charcoal producers using improved kiln in carbonization in pilot landscapes increase by at least 30% by mid-term and a cumulative 50% by project end By mid project, traditional resource institutions in pilot landscapes have assessed the effectiveness of their rules and regulations in modern day resource governance and have identified ways to improve; by end of project several agreements entered into with formal institutions for resource governance

• Numbers of charcoal associations • Numbers of groups

Amount of revenue collected

• Numbers of

charcoal associations

Number of

traditional

institutions

Output 3.1: Policies relevant to SLM reviewed in a participatory process and recommendations for mainstreaming SLM generated

At least 2 policies revised

to mainstream SLM

principles and so provide

Number of policies Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Communities, government departments and county government cooperate.

a better policy

environment for SLM;

Activity 3.1.1: Support review and implementation of SLM policies

Number of policies

reviewed

Number of policies Monitoring and Evaluation

reports

Communities, government departments and county government cooperate.

Activity 3.1.2: Production of documentaries and radio programmes on SLM

Number of documentaries

produced

Number of

documentaries


reports

Copies of the documentaries

Communities, government departments and county government and radio stations cooperate.

Activity 3.1.3: Publication of reader friendly SLM briefs

Number of newsletters

issues and briefs

produced

Number of

newsletters issues


reports

Copies of the publications


Output 3.2: Local governance improved through capacitated traditional institutions

No number of local

governance and traditional

institutions capacitated

No of local

governance and

traditional institution


reports

Training reports


Activity 3.2.1: Strengthen traditional institutions to participate in policy reviews and implementation

Number of traditional

institutions strengthened

Number of

traditional

institutions


reports


Output 3.3: Implementation of new charcoal rules tested on the ground

At least 5 charcoal

associations have rules

and regulations for

sustainable charcoal and

are actively enforcing

them;

At least 5 groups with

sustainable charcoal

production operations and

earning money from

carbon finance;

Number of charcoal

associations

Number of charcoal

groups


reports


Activity 3.3.1: Increase awareness on sustainable charcoal production

Number of charcoal Number of Monitoring and Evaluation Communities, government departments and county

through sensitization workshops and formation of Charcoal associations

associations formed

Awareness campaigns on


production

associations

Number of

awareness

campaigns

reports


government and radio stations cooperate.

Activity 3.3.2: Support to energy efficient technologies and capacity communities/FFS/PFS on carbon benefits

Types of energy efficient

technologies introduced

Amount of carbon

sequested back to the soil

Kinds of

technologies

Number of Kilns

Number of Improved

jikos

Amount of carbon in

tons/ha


reports

Pictures of the new

technologies


Activity 3.3.3: Production of extension manuals/technologies on sustainable charcoal production

Number of extension

manual/technologies on


production bulletins

produced

Number of materials

produced


reports

Copies of manuals


ANNEX 2: M&E MATRIX

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for SLM Project-Kenya.

I. Key Evaluation Questions

Baseline Context: What is the current context in the status of land, natural resources and ecosystems, their conservation and capacity for production of goods and services?

Needs: What are the evidence of positive changes in the management and use of biodiversity and natural resources?

Inputs: Have correct, sufficient and appropriate interventions been designed? Are there sufficient human and financial resources and leadership support to design and implement them?

Processes/Implementation: How well is the project proceeding: are all inputs, processes and outputs on track and are milestones being met? What is the quality of training and advocacy processes being implemented? To what extent are key stakeholders providing support and involvement needed to achieve results?

Outputs: Has the community acquired new knowledge and skills as a result of training? Have supervisory visits and work environment improvements taken place?

Effects: To what extent did the indicators showing the difference between desired and actual performance change as a result of the interventions that were implemented? To what extent has SLM principles adopted?

Impacts: To what extent have desired strategic results been achieved? How satisfied are the catchment community with performance improvements? How effective was the project implementation and what lessons/best practices can be derived? How sustainable is the process?

II. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Outputs Indicators (illustrative) Baseline Indicative M & E activities Timeline Frequency of Information Collection

Responsible Parties Uses of Information

Assumptions/Risks

Project Goal: Sustainable Land Management” provides the basis for economic development , food security and sustainable livelihoods while restoring the ecological integrity of the ASALs

Project purpose: To provide land users and managers with financial incentives , enabling policy, institutional and capacity for effective adoption of SLM in four agro pastoral districts

Improvement in rangeland condition

At least 25% of the rangeland registering improvement in rangeland condition in pilot districts (using range condition measurements) by mid-term and 50% cumulative by end of the project

Various statistics report that about 80% of rangelands badly degraded

Various statistics report that about 70% of the woodlands are degraded

Baseline report augmented by rangeland condition sampling under the M&E system Project reports through documentaries

Annually Before and after activity implementation

Project Team UNDP-CO

Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation

The traditional coping mechanisms among agropastoralists to deal with climate variability are compromised by immigration, barriers to mobility, and by perverse markets

Improvement in food security

Level of dependency on food aid in target landscapes reduced by at least 30%; Number of food secure days increased by at least 40% for more than 50% of the population in the target landscapes

Various statistics indicate that over 65% of people in ASAL depend in part on food aid and face substantive food insecurity

Socio-economic baselines and consequent sample assessments and project reports captured from the field

Annually Annually Project Team UNDP-CO


The traditional coping mechanisms among agropastoralists to deal with climate variability are compromised by immigration, barriers to mobility, and by perverse markets

Carbon mitigated from sustainable charcoaling

At least half a million tons of carbon dioxide mitigated from sustainable charcoal in the districts by mid-term and a million cumulative at the end of the project

Currently no sustainable charcoaling – no carbon mitigated from it

Reports of the charcoal associations on extent of adoption of sustainable charcoal augmented by records of carbon credits ready for sale and/or sold

Quarterly Quarterly Project team Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation

Climate variability, notably drought and floods may compound risks such as crop and livestock pest or disease outbreaks that may reduce the impact of SLM practices

Improvement in woodlands condition

At least 25% of woodlands showing recovery as measured by regeneration and improvements in

Various statistics report that about 70% of the woodlands are

Baseline report augmented by ecological sampling under the M&E system linked; Project reports

Quarterly Quarterly Project team Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation

Climate variability, notably drought and floods may compound risks such as crop and livestock



Assumptions/Risks

species index and canopy cover;

degraded pest or disease outbreaks that may reduce the impact of SLM practices

Quantity of land managed using SLM principles

At least 70,000 ha total (28 sites*2500 ha ) under SLM principles supported by experiential learning

Limited land under SLM, no clear documentation on what little is under SLM

Baseline report augmented by ecological sampling under the M&E system linked; Project reports

Annually Annually Project Team UNDP-CO



Outcome 1: Knowledge based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands sustainable economic development

Percentage of land and resource users adopting improved practices

At least 25% of cultivators in the pilot landscapes adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by mid-term and 75% cumulatively by project end

Less than 20% engaging in 1-2 improved practices consistently

Sampling captured in project monitoring reports

Quarterly Quarterly Project Team Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation


Change in soil fertility

At least 30% increase in soil fertility from baselines for land users consistently engaging in 3-5 improved practices by mid-term and by 30% cumulatively by end of the project

Very low and declining, exact levels for pilot districts obtained during inception

Sampling captured in project monitoring reports

Annually Annually Project Team Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation


Use of weather data for adapting SLM practices

At least 25% of the agriculturalists and pastoralists in the pilot landscapes taking decisions on the basis of the weather and drought early warning information by mid- term and 50% cumulatively by project end

Less than 5% use of weather information provided by the early warning systems of Kenya Met and Dept of resource mapping and planning

Sampling captured in project

monitoring reports





Assumptions/Risks

Number of people with relevant skills for SLM

At least 40% of land users and 30% of technical officers requiring to up-date skills have done so by mid- term: by the end of project, at least 60% of land users and 75% of technical officers cumulatively have updated skills.

Less than 15% of land users and pastoralists have skills for improved management; less than 50% of technical officers have updated SLM skills

Project training reports as part M&E reports



Lessons generated Lessons on improving land and resource tenure, range rehabilitation, unstainable charcoaling, improving livestock mobility, and other important project initiatives available for dissemination through the upscaling project;

Limited knowledge management happening now, no clear mechanism for generating and sharing lessons




Outcome 2: Viability of the agro pastoralism production system increased through diversification increased access to finance for SLM

Change in agricultural productivity

At least 20% increase in agricultural produce for key crops for those adopting 3-5 improved practices consistently by mid-term and 50% cumulative by project end

Current low and declining, exact levels of selected crops to be obtained during inception

Project monitoring reports Quarterly Quarterly Project Team Project reviews,

Successes and thematic studies documentation


Increase in livestock trade and prices


Currently livestock trading riddled with problems of insecurity, lack of up to date information on prices and therefore very low prices being obtained

Household economic activity data captured in project monitoring reports



Number of households or

At least 25% increase in numbers accessing micro-

Less than 10% of households have

Household economic activity data captured in project

Quarterly Quarterly Project Team Project reviews, Successes and

Climate variability, notably drought and



Assumptions/Risks

individuals accessing micro finance and credits

finance and credits access monitoring reports thematic studies documentation

floods may compound risks such as crop and livestock pest or disease outbreaks that may reduce the impact of SLM practices

Increase in household income

By mid project - at least 25% increase in household incomes for more than 40% of participating households, cumulatively rising to at least 40% for more than 50% of households

Over 85% of people live below the UN poverty line, living on less than a dollar a day; exact household incomes in the pilot landscape will be established during inception

Household economic activity data captured in project monitoring reports

By mid project After 2 years Project Team

UNDP- CO, UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)



Mobile livestock At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still retain livestock mobility by the end of the project

The current trend is tilted to fast rates of sedenterization; specific baseline will be obtained during inception

Project monitoring reports Annually Annually Government Counterparts, UNDP CO, Project team,



Incidents of conflicts over resources (inter and intra pastoralists and agriculturalists)


Very high number of incidents of conflicts, specific baseline will be obtained during inception

Project monitoring reports Quarterly Quarterly Project Team Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation

Civil strife, ethnic conflicts and insecurity pose a risk especially currently following the 2007 election violence. Conflict may also arise over natural resources such as water, pasture etc.

Outcome 3: The policy, regulatory and Institutional environment support sustainable land management in the agro pastoral production system (and ASALs)

Number of policies mainstreaming

At least 2 policies revised to mainstream SLM principles and so provide a better

All policy statements mention

Policy discussion papers and briefs; project monitoring

Annually Annually Government Counterparts, UNDP

Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies

Policy processes tend to be slow in developing countries. Speeding up



Assumptions/Risks

SLM policy environment for SLM; importance of SLM but don’t have details of how SLM will be ensured

reports CO, Project team, documentation the process, especially of formulating legislative frameworks will be necessary for achievement of this indicator

Number of policies with legislation and institutional arrangement for effective implementation

Discussions for legislation and institutional arrangement for policy implementation for at least 2 key policies held by mid-term and recommendations provided adopted by end of the project

Few SLM policies have updated and effective frameworks well linked into the local institutions

Policy discussion papers and briefs; project monitoring reports

Annually Annually Government Counterparts, UNDP CO, Project team, UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit


Policy processes tend to be slow in developing countries. Speeding up

Number of functional charcoal associations

At least 5 charcoal associations have rules and regulations for sustainable charcoal and are actively enforcing them;

No charcoal associations

Charcoal production data captured in project reports


Current willingness and support by government and people to clean up charcoaling processes declines

Number of groups with operational sustainable charcoal processes

At least 5 groups with sustainable charcoal production operations and earning money from carbon finance;

No charcoal producing groups




Revenue from charcoal going to District and national revenue

Collection of revenue by Districts and Kenya Revenue Authority from charcoal processes increase by 25% by mid-term and 50% cumulatively be end of the project;

Minimal collection through licensing but none through taxation

County Budgets Project monitoring reports

Annually Annually Project Team, County team



Adoption of improved kilns in carbonization

Number of charcoal producers using improved kiln in carbonization in pilot landscapes increase by at least 30% by mid- term and a cumulative 50% by project end

Less than 5% use improved kilns in carbonization


Mid-term 2 years Project Team, Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation


Improvement in local resource governance institutions

By mid project, traditional resource institutions in pilot landscapes have assessed the effectiveness of their rules and regulations in

Currently traditional institutions sidelined in natural resource management but

Project reports based on project monitoring

Mid-term 2 years Project Team, Project reviews, Successes and thematic studies documentation

Current political support for SLM persists; local institutions can be revived for resource



Assumptions/Risks

modern day resource governance and have identified ways to improve; by the end of project several agreements entered into with formal institutions for resource governance

formal institutions not effective at local level

governance under modern conditions

Impacts

Mid Term Review Midterm review report produced detailing achievements, challenges, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and lessons learnt and best practices.

n/a Local Consultant carrying out Independent mid-term review.

Project Mid term

Project Team,

UNDP- CO, UNDP-

GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit,

External Consultants

(i.e. evaluation team)

Program strategy reviews, Mid-term reporting and Improvement

Basic security continues to exist and allows access to areas of operation and Project Implementation

Lessons leant Number of lessons captured and documented

n/a Project team use case study and lessons learnt template to capture lessons and documentaries

Quarterly Project Team Program strategy reviews, Mid-term reporting and Improvement


End-of-program evaluation

End of Project Evaluation report detailing effectiveness, sustainability, Achievements, challenges, lessons learnt, best practices and recommendations.

Local Consultant carrying out In-depth interviews to Community leaders, major stakeholders, project staff, GMC’s Project document reviews

At the end of project (comparative)

Project Team,

UNDP- CO, UNDP-

GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit,

External Consultants

(i.e. evaluation team

Program strategy reviews, Mid-term reporting and Improvement


ANNEX 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND THEMATIC STUDIES

Impact Assessments:

1. Assessment of SLM technologies and approaches including case-studies

o inventory

o selection of technologies and approaches to assess

o case studies (book or newsletters on SLM)

2. Assess how SLM practices/ approaches contribute to Community Action plans and County Integrated action plans through a set of results based indicators

3. Assessment of environmental benefits through a set of project indicators (and capacity building for monitoring catchment/community SLM action plans and benefits of SLM):

o Effective erosion control

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

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

o Increase in soil carbon store (sequestration) (proxy indicators such as increase organic matter, or increase productivity

can be used, or exact measure of labile carbon)

o Increase agro biodiversity: crops and crop species, livestock and livestock breeds, and trees and tree species

o Enhance crop and livestock productivity and livelihoods (income sources and activities)

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

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

o Food Security: production and yield of main crops cultivated, and duration of the lean period

Thematic Studies: 1. Best practices to address sustainable land management practices mainstreamed in planning and development processes:

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

o agree on mechanism to mainstream best practices in planning and development processes in counties (final reports by consultants)

o inform policy makers from different sectors (agriculture, environment, land, water, livestock, etc.) for integration in

development and planning processes

o Solicit co-funding from sub-counties to address issues and develop pilot actions

2. Policy recommendations per county that support national policy decisions and regulatory mechanisms for SLM,

o Review national policies and regulatory mechanisms, and identify the gaps, and draft 5 policy recommendations

o Identify bye-laws and existing barriers at sub-county and community level,

o Workshop to discuss and agree on policy recommendations

ANNEX 4: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE/COMMUNITY AND SLM ACTION

PLAN- REPORT TEMPLATE

Part 1: Overview of the Target Landscape 1.1 Basic Information- Catchment

o Sub-county and location within the district (map) o Number of communities/villages within target landscape o Catchment population (number of households, average family size and total population male and female)

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

o Opportunities to contribute to at least 1 of the 3 project outcomes with impacts on project targets (reducing land degradation, conservation and sustainable use of agro biodiversity and improved livelihoods- income, nutrition, reduced risk/vulnerability, etc.)

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

o Degree and type of degradation and causes in specific land use systems and impacts of land degradation on ecosystem services and livelihoods in accordance with county priorities and plans

o Presence of various SLM measures on the ground with options for improving efficiency and scaling up (local innovations

introduced) o Probability of success- good relationship with community and local decision makers o Readily accessible and visible for policy makers and farmers (market, main road)

o In accordance with national plans, strategies and priorities o Selection agreed upon by a range of stakeholders

Part 2: Characterization of the Target catchment (include pictures) 2.1 More detailed Information

o Service providers operating or planning to operate in the area o Catchment map/sketch drawing of the micro-catchment)

o Data on targeted land users: main areas of employment; poverty level (proportion of vulnerable/poor people (if data available) and

education level (proportion educated at primary, secondary and tertiary levels)

o Community organizations and CSOs

2.2 Geography, Land and Water Availability and Use

o Maps available (soils, elevation, slope, topographic, etc.)- specify scales, o Main land use types (proportion of each and significant changes if available), o Main farming systems and enterprises (crops, livestock, forestry, others) for consumption and market average farm sizes and

degree of fragmentation (hectares; number of parcels/plots) for small, medium, large farms) o Land tenure arrangement and level of security o Water sources (distance, supply, management, quality, permanent or seasonal and recent changes if available) o Conflicts/competition over land and water resources

2.3 Land Degradation (mention and explain the land degradation problems in the catchment) o Types (by land use types) o Extent o Severity o Causes (hypothesis) o Impacts (hypothesis)

2.4 SLM (mention and explain the measures and practices seen in the catchment-inventory) o Technologies/practices (local innovations and introduced) o Approaches/process (for each Technology)

2.5 Policy and planning

o Application of environmental and agricultural policies

o Existence of district or local action plans and budgets

o Existence of local environmental and agricultural committees

Part 3: Catchment- Community SLM Action Plan

3.1 SLM interventions and activities proposed at community/catchment level Demonstration sites (for improved pasture/rangelands, protection of wetland/buffer zones, protection of river banks, erosion

control, water management, uncontrolled charcoal production, agro-forestry, tree planting, etc.).

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

3.2 Capacity Building

Farmer Field School Number of PFS/FFS groups and plots in the Target catchment/communities

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

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

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

Activities (SLM and income generation and other (nutrition, business management e.t.c)

Trainings Training of trainers, technicians and policy makers

Trainings of land users on income generating activities

Trainings of land users on SLM at catchment/community level

3.3 Collaboration and Co-financing

o Letters of agreement and MOUs (who with, what for and amounts) o Co-funding amount (in kind; cash) and proportion by Government, private sector, projects, NGOs e.t.c) o Other areas of collaboration (ongoing; in pipeline)

3.3 Upscaling process and sustainability (Explain how activities will be upscaled and sustained through partnership, income generating (including PFS and FFS)

ANNEX 5: M&E REPORTING TEMPLATES

County

Sub-County

Reporting Officer

Date

Monthly Project Activity Report- FFS/PFFS Facilitator.

No Activities

Activity Progress Indicators Remarks

(precise the unit : ha, km2, km, number of trainings,

Number of people trained by sex, etc.)

1

2

3

4

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

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

ACTIONS TAKEN Cite specific actions taken to address the challenges.

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

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

County

Sub-County

Reporting Officer

Date

Quarterly Project Activity Report- by Sub-County Facilitator

Sub-County Level

Activity Progress Indicators Quarter : Remarks

No

Outputs- Activities (precise the unit : ha, km2, km,

(explain reasons if low rate of

number of trainings, number of

achievement and mitigation

Rate of

people trained by sex, etc.)

actions)

Planned Achieved achievement

%

Output

Output

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






County

Sub-county

Reporting Officer

Date

Annual Project Activity Report- by PMU

NATIONAL LEVEL

Quarter Remarks

No

Outputs Indicators (explain reasons if low rate of

achievement and mitigation

Rate of

actions)

Planned Achieved

achievement

%

Outcome 1 :

Outcome 2 :

Outcome 3:

Outcome 4:

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






mne_plan_undp-slm project final (1)

Documents