fao-gef project implementation report 2021 revised

2021 Project Implementation Report

of 43

FAO-GEF Project Implementation Report

2021 – Revised Template Period covered: 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021

1. Basic Project Data General Information

Region: West Africa (RAF)

Country (ies): The Gambia

Project Title: Community-based Sustainable Dryland Forest Management

FAO Project Symbol: GCP/GAM/031/GFF

GEF ID: 5406

GEF Focal Area(s): Land Degradation (LD)

Project Executing Partners: Department of Forestry

Project Duration: 5-years

Project coordinates: (Ctrl+Click here)

Project sites

coordinates.docx

Milestone Dates:

GEF CEO Endorsement Date: 09th May 2016

Project Implementation Start Date/EOD :

25th October 2016

Proposed Project Implementation End Date/NTE1:

24th September 2021

Revised project implementation end date (if applicable) 2

30th September 2022

Actual Implementation End Date3:

N/A

Funding

GEF Grant Amount (USD): USD 3,066,347

Total Co-financing amount as included in GEF CEO Endorsement Request/ProDoc4:

USD 12,718,100

1 As per FPMIS

2 In case of a project extension.

3 Actual date at which project implementation ends - only for projects that have ended.

4 This is the total amount of co-financing as included in the CEO document/Project Document.

https://forms.gle/a9Psd9YXJnJEQvET7


of 43

Total GEF grant disbursement as of June 30, 2021 (USD m):

USD 2,016,342

Total estimated co-financing materialized as of June 30, 20215

USD 9,438,000

Review and Evaluation

Date of Most Recent Project Steering Committee Meeting:

11 – 12 June 2021

Expected Mid-term Review date6:

NA

Actual Mid-term review date: January 2020

Mid-term review or evaluation due in coming fiscal year (July 2021 – June 2022)7:

No

Expected Terminal Evaluation Date:

July 2022

Terminal evaluation due in coming fiscal year (July 2021 – June 2022):

No

Tracking tools/ Core indicators required8

Yes

Ratings

Overall rating of progress towards achieving objectives/ outcomes (cumulative):

S

Overall implementation progress rating:

S

Overall risk rating:

M

Status

5 Please see last section of this report where you are asked to provide updated co-financing estimates. Use the total from this Section

and insert here.

6 The MTR should take place about halfpoint between EOD and NTE – this is the expected date

7 Please note that the FAO GEF Coordination Unit should be contacted six months prior to the expected MTR date

8 Please note that the Tracking Tools are required at mid-term and closure for all GEF-4 and GEF-5 projects. Tracking tools are not

mandatory for Medium Sized projects = < 2M USD at mid-term, but only at project completion. The new GEF-7 results indicators (core

and sub-indicators) will be applied to all projects and programs approved on or after July 1, 2018. Also projects and programs approved

from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018 (GEF-6) must apply core indicators and sub-indicators at mid-term and/or completion


of 43

Implementation Status (1st PIR, 2nd PIR, etc. Final PIR):

4th PIR

Project Contacts

Contact Name, Title, Division/Institution E-mail

Project Manager / Coordinator

Sambou Nget, Project Coordinator [email protected]

Lead Technical Officer John Fonweban [email protected]

Budget Holder Moshibudi Rampedi [email protected]

GEF Funding Liaison Officer

Fritjof Boerstler [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





of 43

2. Progress Towards Achieving Project Objectives and Outcome (DO)

(All inputs in this section should be cumulative from project start, not annual)

Project objective and Outcomes (as indicated at CEO Endorsement)

Description of indicator(s)9

Baseline level Mid-term target10

End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2021 Progress rating 11

Objective(s):

Outcome 1: Institutions at national and regional level have the capacity to integrate dryland forest management into policies, sectoral planning, and practices

Under LD (LD 2) Tracking Tool Forestry Policy score moved from 4 to 5

Lack of capacities in and understanding of dryland forest management issues within key institutions

30 government staff trained

90 government and non-government institutional stakeholders trained”

90 staff from Government, Non-Government and Community-based Organizations trained on Sustainable Dryland Forest Management

S

Forest policy provides very limited guidance on dryland forest management

N/A A National Dryland Forest Management Strategy developed and the National Forestry Action planned reviewed

A National Forest Strategy has been developed and the National Forestry Action Plan reviewed by a team of national consultants led by Mr Falie Baldeh and validated on the 17 & 17th August 2018

S

9 This is taken from the approved results framework of the project. Please add cells when required in order to use one cell for each indicator and one rating for each indicator.

10 Some indicators may not identify mid-term targets at the design stage (refer to approved results framework) therefore this column should only be filled when relevant.

11 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory

(U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU).


of 43

Outcome 2.1: Community forestry legal ownership strengthened (management plans developed)

Institutional bottlenecks removed resulting in improved JFPM (18 agreements) and efficient and effective transfer of forest ownership to communities (at least 28 gazetted)

CF designation process and progress in JFPM stalled due to institutional limitations and bottlenecks

N/A 18 JFPM Agreements and 28 Gazettes

9 JFPM Agreements signed and 9 JFPM management plans developed.

MS

Successful application of 18 JFPM plans and 73 management plans

Existing CFs and communities involved in JFPM have very limited capacities and lack adequate technical assistance for implementing SFM

N/A 18 JFPM plans and 73 management plans

9 JFPM plans and 65 CF management plans developed

S

Outcome 2.2: About 15,000 ha of dryland forests are sustainably managed by local communities

About 15,000 ha of dryland forests are sustainably managed by local communities

Dryland forests in the project area are degraded and are under severe threat from unsustainable resource use patterns

N/A 15,000 ha of dryland forests sustainably managed by local communities

8, 000 ha of natural forests under sustainable management by local communities

MS


of 43

Outcome 3.1: Project implementation based on results based management and application of project findings and lessons learned in future operations facilitated.

Project implementation based on results based management and application of project findings and Document lessons learned in future operations.

No Result Based Management (RBM) exists

N/A RBM in place M&E frameworks and plan developed

S

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU ratings

Outcome Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?

Outcome 2.1: Community forestry legal ownership strengthened (management plans developed)

Training of the Core group for CF designation and compilation of documentation for all CFs due for gazetting

NACO and Department of Forestry

2021

Outcome 2.2: About 15,000 ha of dryland forests are sustainably managed by local communities

An additional 9 Forest Parks will be brought under JFPM in 2021 with estimated area of 6,000ha. New CF communities will received PCFMA and their community forests will be demarcated and management plans developed to bring them under sustainable management (more than 10 communities have already expressed interest to join the community forestry programme in 2020).

Department of Forestry 2021


of 43


of 43

3. Progress in Generating Project Outputs (Implementation Progress, IP) (Please indicate progress achieved during this FY as planned in the Annual Work Plan)

Outputs12 Expected

completion date 13

Achievements at each PIR14 Implement.

status (cumulative)

Comments Describe any variance15

or any challenge in delivering outputs 1st PIR 2nd PIR 3rd PIR 4th PIR 5th PIR

Output 1.1.1 Key sectors and institutional stakeholders trained on effective dryland forest management

Q2 Y2 90 staff from Government, Non-Government and Community-based Organizations trained on Sustainable Dryland Forest Management

Done - 100%

Output 1.1.2 National dryland forest management and rehabilitation strategy developed as a supplement to the Forest

Q2 Y2 n/a A National Forest Strategy developed and validated The National Forestry Action Plan

100%


of 43

12 Outputs as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision. In case of project revision resulted from a mid-term review please modify the output accordingly or

leave the cells in blank and add the new outputs in the table explaining the variance in the comments section.

13 As per latest work plan (latest project revision); for example: Quarter 1, Year 3 (Q1 y3)

14 Please use the same unity of measures of the project indicators, as much as possible. Please be extremely synthetic (max one or two short sentence with main achievements)

15 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.

Policy 2010-2019

reviewed and validated

Output 1.1.3 Multi-stakeholder regional dryland forest management forums created

Q2 Y2 One additional Multi-stakeholder forum yet to be created (however, 4 have been created under the project “Action Against Desertification in same project sites”

An additional multi-stakeholder forum created in addition to 3 others created under the project “Action Against Desertification) thus making a total of four 100 members (92 male and 8 female) sensitized on the

4 Regional meetings conducted to plan Field Monitoring visits; 100 (85 male 15 female) SLM Forum members attended these meetings 4 Regional Field Monitoring visits conducted by the SLM Forums in NBR, LRR, CRR-North and URR-North respectively

A fifth Multi-stakeholder forum created Regional SLM Forum meetings conducted in 4 Regions LRR, NBR, CRRN and URRN 4 Regional Field Monitoring visits conducted by the SLM Forums in NBR, LRR, CRR-North and URR- (100 Participants F6 M 94)

100%

Support for the functioning of the SLM forums will continue for the rest of the project period.


of 43

project

60 members (57 male and 3 Female) participated in the 3 days Field visits

Output 2.1.1 Regional community forestry task forces created and strengthened

Q3 Y3 160 members (148 male and 12 female) of the 4 regional CF taskforces trained on participatory forest ownership transfer, forest governance, forest policy and legislation.

100 forestry taskforce members trained on forest designation procedures

80%

On additional Regional Community Forestry Taskforce to be formed during second half of 2021

Output 2.1.2 3251.4 ha of forests under start-up phase advanced to PCFMA stage and 4578.42 ha of forests at PCFMA stage are advanced to CFMA stage

Q4 Y5 906.31 ha advanced to PCFMA 24 communities were sensitized on the CF concept and 16 communities sent in

20 applications completed for CFs under start-up (1045ha) for award of PCFMA 20 applications completed for CFs

482.44 ha of forests under start-up phase advanced to PCFMA stage 3451.1 ha of forests at PCFMA recommended for CFMA

74% 75%

Activities leading to these outputs will continue during the second half of 2021


of 43

their letters of interest to the Department of Forestry 15 CFMA application completed for CFs under PCFMA covering 975 ha

under PCFMA (1300ha) for award of CFMA

Output 2.1.3 14 new management plans (1438.12 ha) developed for CFs under CFMA

Q4 Y5 Nine (9) 5-year management plans have been developed

20 new 5-year management plans developed for 20 CFs recommended for CFMA covering an area of (3451.1ha)

100%

Additional new plans will be developed in 2021

Output 2.1.4 5,749.9 ha of forests brought under Joint Forest Park Management

Q4 Y3 No management plans have been developed

Approximately 3000 ha of forests brought under JFPM (9 JFPM Agreements signed & 9 JFPM management plans developed)

135 JFPM members (105 males and 30 females) engaged on Committee formation, work planning and training on the JFPM Concept

52%

Nine additional Forest Parks to be brought under JFPM in 2021

Output 2.2.1 Community Forestry

Q4 Y3 160 members (148 male

No additional training

400 stakeholders (256 male and 144 female) trained on

66% 200 CF & JFPM Committee members to be trained in 2021


of 43

Committee and Joint Forest Park Management committee members trained in improved dryland forest management and CF procedures/processes (600 members) (trainings linked to Outputs 2.1.2, 2.1.3 & 2.1.4, and the committees under them)

and 12 female) of regional taskforces trained in dryland forest management 50 (16 female and 34 male) CF and JFPM Committee members trained on participatory forest resource management, forest enterprise development and forest governance

conducted up to 30th June 2020

improved dryland forest management and CF procedures and processes

Output 2.2.2 SFM practices implemented - Forest cover increased by 5% through small scale

Q3 Y5 No planting activity

An assortment of 10,500 seedlings covering 31.5 ha

No additional tree planting has been done as of 30thJune 2020.

33,000 seedlings distributed to 67 communities and planted in an aggregated area of 182 ha of degraded forests

60%

Enrichment planting and beating-up in already planted areas will continue in 2021


of 43

tree planting and assisted natural regeneration - Site suitable agroforestry techniques implemented across 500 ha - Improved bushfire management techniques

have been planted

Site suitable agroforestry techniques implemented across 500ha

Q3 (Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4 & Y5)

18 communities sensitized on agroforestry practices and 200 ha identified for agroforestry practices

No tree planting has been done as of 30thJune 2020

552 farmers sensitized on agroforestry practices. 15, 658 seedlings distributed to 32 farmers and planted in aggregated area of 155ha.

31% Another Implementing Partner (National Agricultural Research Institute -NARI) has been engaged in 2021 fast track progress in this result area

Seedling production

Q2 Y1 Five central nurseries have been identified for rehabilitation and supplied with water

Five boreholes drilled and reticulation system put in place in the central nurseries

Nursery sites cleared awaiting installation of water system

A pump house constructed, an overhead tank mounted and sites for installation of solar panels identified

70%

Tender for the construction of the nursery beds has been launched and construction works expected to finish in 2021

Controlled grazing implemented through 10

Q4 Y3 4 rangelands and 4 cattle tracks

4 rangelands identified

6 rangelands demarcated and mapped

80%

Rest of the activities (installation of beacons around the boundaries of the rangelands and


of 43

community grazing agreements in the community forests and efficiency of fuelwood use improved by introduced cooking stoves (2000 households)

identified awaiting signing of agreements

8 local conventions signed

cattle tracks, conclusion of local conventions and fabrication of additional improved cook stoves) which lead to this output will be pursued in 2021

Q3 Y3 2000 cook stoves constructed and 1500 distributed to 750 households

500 additional improved cook stoves distributed to 250 additional households

Monitoring of the use of the improved cook stoves and the clay ovens conducted List of beneficiaries for the distributed improved cook stoves finalized

50%

An additional 2000 improved cook stoves to be constructed and distributed to 1000 households in 2021

Output 2.2.4 Community based forest enterprises strengthened (21 enterprises)

Q2 Y4 Eight (8) Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs) in place

Eight (8) additional Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs) developed (7 on beekeeping and 1 on ecotourism)

5 Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs) on beekeeping developed for five Joint Forest Park Management (JFPM) Committees. 220 beehives constructed by 7 forest enterprise groups through cash-for-work Mentoring support on Apiary Management, Honey harvesting and Tree Nursery Management

95% Materials for the construction of an additional 205 beehives through cash-for-work will be procured and distributed to 5 forest enterprise groups in 2021.


of 43

provided to the 16 existing enterprises in the 4 Regions Training provided on simple record keeping for the 16 forest resources and services enterprises in CRR & LRR (40 Participants F16 M 24)

Q4 Y3 Eighty (80) (46 male and 34 female) Community Forest Management Committee members trained on Enterprise Development

Eighty (49 male and 31 female) additional Forest Management Committee members were trained on Phase 1: Assisting existing situation and Phase 2: Carrying out market surveys Business incubation training was provided to 40 (M=24 & F=16) beekeeping

25 JFPM Committee members (15 Male, 10 Female) provided with business incubation support. 60 JFPM Committee members (30 male and 30 female) trained on Phase 1 – 4 of the Market Analysis and Development (MA&D) approach

90%

Other training events are planned for 2021


of 43

entrepreneurs / Interest Groups from seven JFPM and one CF areas

Q4 Y4 3 Collaboration Fairs for 60 Interest Group (IG) Members and 15 Support and Service Institutions conducted to facilitate value addition of marketed forest products

No additional fairs organized as of 30th June 2020

No additional fairs organized as of 30th June 2021

33% Three events are planned for 2021. Results delayed due to COVID-19.

Output 3.1.1 Project monitoring system providing systematic information on progress in meeting project outcomes and output targets

Q4 Y3 Project baseline assessment using the SHARP Tool conducted and the M&E frameworks developed

An Indicator Tracking Tool (ITT) developed as part of the M&E system Project Mid-tern Review conducted

Input data collection tool developed for tracking project’s inputs and beneficiaries Field visit to some project sites conducted by the PSC A PSC meeting conducted

80%

To include “timing triggers” to show when activities are falling behind in the M&E plan/Tools


of 43

Output 3.1.2 Project related ‘best practices’ and ‘lessons learnt’ published

Q4 Y5 Nothing done yet

As part of enhancing visibility for the project, signboard designs completed for the enterprise groups An article on the provision and installation of 210 beehives for some enterprise groups has been published in the UN Gambia Newsletter

In 2021, three major events (fire management award ceremonies, PSC field visit, and validation of the charcoal value chain assessment report) were organized by the project extensively covered by the media (print and electronic as well as TV and community radios). Signboards for the honey enterprise groups were also installed at strategic locations to increase visibility of the project. The project also provided visibility materials in the form of cups and covid-19 masks during a trade fair organized by the Gambia Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI)

60% A short-term communications officer will be hired in 2021 for the documentation of the project’s “best practices and lessons learnt”


of 43

4. Information on Progress, Outcomes and Challenges on Project Implementation

Please briefly summarize main progress towards achieving the outcomes (cumulative) and outputs (during this fiscal year):

One additional SLM forum was formed bringing the total number to five. The forums successfully carried out meetings and field monitoring visits to Agriculture and Natural Resources projects and programme sites. Resolution of six (6) community forest management related conflicts were resolved in three of the four project intervention regions. About 6, 000 hectares of forests were brought under sustainable forest management through community forestry and Joint Forest Park Management approaches. The capacity of 400 stakeholders was enhanced on dryland forest management, community forest management and Joint Forest Park Management approaches, 528 and 552 additional stakeholders were sensitized on Assisted Natural Regeneration and agroforestry practices and techniques respectively. A charcoal value chain assessment report was validated by stakeholders. Seven (7) forest enterprise groups successfully completed the construction of two hundred and twenty (220) Kenyan Top Bar (KTB) beehives through cash-for-work. Twenty-four (24) new communities expressed interest in participating in the community forestry programme. Forty-four thousand, six hundred and fifty-eight seedlings were distributed to sixty-eight (68) communities for enrichment planting and agroforestry purposes. Five (5) additional Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs) were developed bring the total to twenty-one (21). Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Project Taskforce (PTF) meetings were held at various intervals.

What are the major challenges the project has experienced during this reporting period?

During the reporting period, the project continued to be confronted with slow procurement processes that delayed the rehabilitation of the central nurseries, construction of beehives for forest enterprise groups, provision of fencing materials for planted seedlings, provision of seedlings to forest committees and agroforestry farmers. Some of the Implementing Partners (IPs) were very slow in implementing activities under their Letters of Agreements (LoAs) signed with FAO under the project. COVID-19 with its numerous restriction measures also posed challenges to both the timing and number of activities implemented during this period. Other challenges on the project included the slow colonization of the beehives that were distributed to the forest enterprise groups and slow disbursement of funds to Implementing Partners.


of 43

Development Objective (DO) Ratings, Implementation Progress (IP) Ratings and Overall Assessment

Please note that the overall DO and IP ratings should be substantiated by evidence and progress reported in the Section 2 and Section 3 of the PIR.

For DO, the ratings and comments should reflect the overall progress of project results.


of 43

FY2021 Development

Objective rating16

FY2021 Implementation Progress rating17

Comments/reasons18 justifying the ratings for FY2021 and any changes (positive or negative) in the ratings since the previous reporting period

Project Manager / Coordinator

S S The project has registered tremendous achievements since the last reporting period. Among them are: the formation of an additional SLM forum bringing the total number to five. The forums successfully carried out meetings and field monitoring visits to Agriculture and Natural Resources projects and programme sites. Six (6) community forest management related conflicts were facilitated and resolved in three of the four project intervention regions. About 4, 000 hectares of state forests was transferred to local communities and brought under sustainable forest management. The capacity of 400 stakeholders was enhanced on dryland forest management, community forest management and Joint Forest Park Management approaches. 528 and 552 additional stakeholders were sensitized on Assisted Natural Regeneration and agroforestry practices and techniques respectively. A charcoal value chain assessment was conducted and the report validated by stakeholders. Seven (7) forest enterprise groups successfully completed the construction of two hundred and twenty (220) Kenyan Top Bar (KTB) beehives through cash-for-work as part of support to communities to enhance their livelihoods and protect their environment. Twenty-four (24) new communities expressed interest in participating in the community forestry programme and to manage their own community forests. Enrichment planting was carried out over one hundred and eighty hectares (180 ha) of degraded forests with the involvement of 68 communities. Five (5) additional Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs) were developed bring the total to twenty-one (21) under the community-based forest enterprise development programme. The PSC successfully conducted field visits to some projection sites in all the project intervention regions with the participation of four Regional Governors. PSC and PTF meetings were also successfully held.

16 Development/Global Environment Objectives Rating – Assess how well the project is meeting its development objective/s or the global environment objective/s it set out to meet.

For more information on ratings, definitions please refer to Annex 1.

17 Implementation Progress Rating – Assess the progress of project implementation. For more information on ratings definitions please refer to Annex 1.

18 Please ensure that the ratings are based on evidence


of 43

Budget Holder

S S The Project has achieved satisfactory results for the reporting period noting the impediments posed by the COVID19 pandemic. FAO Gambia has maintained strong relations with the Government and development partners thus facilitating other means of implementing the project activities.

GEF Operational Focal Point

S S The project has built the capacity of grass root natural resources users and managers. This helps to drive sustainable management of our forests and, improve resilience of the locals thus protecting our environment from further degradation. Despite the challenges highlighted, the involvement of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Working Group has also helped in the coordination and discussion of pertinent ANR issues. This practice should be maintained to continue the collaboration with the National Environment Agency which is the secretariat of the ANR Working Group.

Lead Technical Officer19

S S For the reporting period the project registered great achievements despite the prevailing pandemic and lock downs. This could not have been possible without the careful planning by the coordination/management team to utilise the windows between lockdowns to organised field activities.

FAO-GEF Funding Liaison Officer

S S The overall progress of the project is satisfactory. Many important milestones have been already achieved despite slow procurement processes and the COVID crisis throughout 2020 and 2021. Since the last monitoring period, the project has advanced in the implementation of sustainable community-led management of dryland forest ecosystems practices (planting seedlings in 182 ha degraded forests, sensitization on agroforestry practices installation of solar panels, rangelands demarcated and mapped, monitoring of the use of the improved cook stoves), SFM value chains were strengthened (beehives through cash-for-work and Enterprise Development Plans (EDPs)) and community forestry legal ownership supported (SLM forum, capacity development). Communication and awareness rising activities such as the documentation of the project’s “best practices and lessons learnt” will be undertaken.

19 The LTO will consult the HQ technical officer and all other supporting technical Units.


of 43

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS)

Under the responsibility of the LTO (PMU to draft)

This section of the PIR describes the progress made towards complying with the approved ESM plan, when appropriate. Note that only projects

with moderate or high Environmental and Social Risk, approved from June 2015 should have submitted an ESM plan/table at CEO endorsement.

This does not apply to low risk projects. Please add recommendations to improve the implementation of the ESM plan, when needed.

N/A

Social & Environmental Risk Impacts identified

at CEO Endorsement Expected mitigation

measures

Actions taken during

this FY

Remaining

measures to be

taken

Responsibility

ESS 1: Natural Resource Management

ESS 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Natural Habitats

ESS 3: Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

ESS 4: Animal - Livestock and Aquatic - Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

ESS 5: Pest and Pesticide Management

ESS 6: Involuntary Resettlement and Displacement

ESS 7: Decent Work

ESS 8: Gender Equality

ESS 9: Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Heritage

New ESS risks that have emerged during this FY


of 43

In case the project did not include an ESM Plan at CEO endorsement stage, please indicate if the initial Environmental and Social Risk

classification is still valid; if not, what is the new classification and explain.

Overall Project Risk classification (at project submission)

Please indicate if the Environmental and Social Risk classification is still valid20. If not, what is the new classification and explain.

Low The risk classification remains the same.

Please report if any grievance was received as per FAO and GEF ESS policies. If yes, please indicate how it is being/has been addressed.

No

6. Risks Risk ratings

RISK TABLE

The following table summarizes risks identified in the Project Document and reflects also any new risks identified in the course of project implementation. Please make sure that the table also includes the Environmental and Social Management Risks captured by the Environmental and social Management Risk Mitigations plans. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant.

20 Important: please note that if the Environmental and Social Risk classification is changing, the ESM Unit should be contacted and an updated Social and

Environmental Management Plan addressing new risks should be prepared.


of 43

Risk Risk rating21 Mitigation Actions

Progress on mitigation actions22

Notes from the Project Task Force

1

Institutional risk: Difficulties in institutional cooperation between Department of Forestry and other key government institutional partners (National Environment Agency, Department of Parks and Wildlife Management, Department of Agriculture) arising out of changes in political orientation, and intrinsically contradicting institutional targets and priorities

M The project continues to work closely with the Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Working Group and has created five (5) SLM forums in the 5 of the country. The SLM forums are under the regional Technical Advisory Committees (TACs). The TAC, which composes of representatives from all sectors (state and non-state) operating in the regions is chaired by the regional governors and serves as a regional multi-sectoral coordination platform. The regional SLM forums established by the project will ensure multi-sectoral coordination at all levels about Agriculture and Natural Resources management issues. The project’s steering committee is also comprised of senior members from the partner government and non-government institutions ensuring constant involvement and coordination.

Five multi-stakeholder SLM forums have been formed and members of the forums have been trained on SLM issues including participatory forest ownership transfer, forest governance etc. A Project Steering Committee (PSC) chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment with members drawn from other relevant government and non-government institutions including the regional Governors of the project intervention regions is still functional and has successfully conducted a field monitoring visit to project intervention sites in all the four regions of the project

The PSC has been very supportive during the reporting period and this has been demonstrated during the field monitoring visit.

21 GEF Risk ratings: Low, Moderate, Substantial or High

22 If a risk mitigation plan had been presented as part of the Environmental and Social management Plan or in previous PIR please report here on progress or results of its implementation.

For moderate and high risk projects, please Include a description of the ESMP monitoring activities undertaken in the relevant period”.


of 43




2 Political-institutional risk: Difficulties in securing co-financing

M The project’s participatory design ensures strong government commitment to the initiative. All project partners have expressed their willingness to support the initiative through formal co-financing commitment letters. The PSC and the PCU will continuously follow up on the co-financing commitments and will seek other co-financing sources as some of the co-financing projects have phased out.

Government is still committed to the project and co-financing arrangements are being discussed with other partners such as the GCF funded “Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA)” project.

The target level for all co-financing is USD 12,718,100; according to the table at the bottom of this document, as of 30 June 2021, the level achieved was USD 9,438,000. The project needs to continue to seek sufficient co-financing, from the EbA project.

3 Social risk: Lack of interest or sense of ownership on the part of local communities

L

The project continues to engage the communities in all the implementation activities and allows the partners and communities to always take the lead.

Livelihood enhancement opportunities (such as beekeeping, tree nursery management, cash-for-work activities etc.) are being integrated into the participatory forest management programme in addition to the continuous capacity building and awareness raising which are all contributing to an increased ownership of the porgramme by local communities.

This risk continues, but the project has clearly generated interest and ownership among local communities, and can be expected to continue to do so, unless procurement challenges prevent the project from effectively implementing site level activities, which could generate community backlash.


of 43




4

Community forests tenure conflict risks: Targeted CFs have conflicts with regards to informal and customary tenure (local communities participating in CF demarcate their customary forests as one of the preliminary steps for formal CF tenure transfer). The conflicts can arise during the demarcation and even later during the Preliminary Community Forestry Management Agreement (PCFMA) stage between neighbouring communities claiming rights over the forests

M The targeted CFs under the project were chosen keeping in mind the customary tenure conflicts, and the project is facilitating the resolution of some CF management related conflicts.

Project has currently identified eight conflict areas and has started working with the communities involved as well as the local authorities, to resolve them through consensual negotiation. So far six of these conflicts have been resolved. Local natural resources management conventions have also been developed and agreed upon among communities as way to reduce tension between livestock owners and crop farmers and well as on transhumance

The project should continue to monitor the potential for tenure conflict to develop, including the possibility of conflict over grazing rights not only between local communities but also with livestock herders entering northern Gambia from Senegal.

5

Socio-economic risk: Conflicts between members of Community Forestry Committees (CFCs) and Joint Forest Park Management (JFPM) committees for access to benefits

M

JFPM agreements and CF management plans are generally very clear on equitable and fair sharing of benefits derived through CF and JFPM. CF management plans and JFPM agreements developed through the project will establish clear criteria for benefit sharing. Any conflicts arising would be dealt within through the respective CFCs and JFPM committees.

Department of Forestry’s field officers are working very closely with Community Forestry and Joint Forest Park Management Committees to ensure that the criteria for benefit sharing are respected.


of 43




6

Political risk: Reduction in political will and decrease in support from the government

L Representatives of the relevant sectors of the government including regional governors are members of the PSC, which performs the oversight function for the project.

The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources is designated as Chairperson to the PSC. The Ministry is also regularly updated on progress of the project through its Central Projects’ Coordination Unit (CPCU).

7

Climate contingency risk: Possibility of extreme weather events throughout the time frame of the project, involving significant changes in the project’s baseline natural conditions related to agroforestry and forestry

M The plant and tree species used for forest rehabilitation and agroforestry will be chosen considering the known patterns of climate change (for example: in the context of Gambia, the species will be chosen to be resilient to droughts).

Well targeted tree-planting operations (reducing the scale of enrichment planting and using well developed seedlings –preferably 2-year old seedlings) for planting. The Department of Water Resources, which doubles as the focal institution for the UNCCC provides seasonal outlooks for the country and has an early warning system in place.

The risk of bushfires and drought impacting forest rehabilitation and other natural resource management activities remains high, and climate change is believed to be increasing this risk over time.


of 43




8

Delays in procurement and late conclusion of Letters of Agreement (LoAs) with Implementation Partners (IPs)

M To prepare the LoAs and the procurement plans early and to regularly update the Head of programmes on their current status.

Development of new LoAs with partners before their current ones expire and regular follow up on procurement with the Operations and Finance officers.

The process of signing LoAs has been problematic throughout project implementation, and has impacted a number of project outputs and activities

Project overall risk rating (Low, Moderate, Substantial or High):

FY2020 rating

FY2021 rating

Comments/reason for the rating for FY2021 and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

M M Despite the challenges posed by COVID-19 since 2020, tremendous progress have been made in 2021. Consequently, the risk remains moderate and the project is in a good course to achieving its objectives.


of 43

7. Adjustments to Project Strategy –

Only for projects that had the Mid-term review (or supervision mission)

If the project had a MTR review or a supervision mission, please report on how the MTR recommendations

were implemented as indicated in the Management Response or in the supervision mission report.

MTR or supervision mission recommendations

Measures implemented

Recommendation 1: Improve coordination with other on-going and relevant projects

Collaboration with the GEF funded “Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change in The Gambia” on identification, demarcation and provision of water points for rangelands and stock routes. Also collaboration with the Central Project Management Unit (CPCU) of the Ministry of Environment on building synergies with other projects under the Ministry through projects’ forum meetings and field visits.

Recommendation 2: The PCU team should revise some project activities, indicators and targets and present them to the PSC for approval at its next meeting

The indicator (forest cover increased by 5% through small scale tree planting and assisted natural regeneration) under Output 2.2.2 of the project was tabled during the last PSC meeting for amendment. This indicator cannot be measured since there will not be any national forest inventory under the project. Following discussions on it by the PSC members, it was decided to amend the indicator to read as follows: “community forest cover increased by 5% in the project intervention regions”

Recommendation 3: The PCU team should also develop an overall workplan for the remainder of the project (including any project extension period)

A budget review for the rest of the project period including the one year no-cost-extension is ongoing and this includes a plan for the remainder of the project.

Recommendation 4: FAO, DoF, the Project Coordinator, and the Project Steering Committee should clarify and agree on the process and steps for proposing and approving changes to project activities in a coherent and timely manner.

This process is now clear to the PSC and the PCU

Recommendation 5: The project should be granted a 12 month No Cost Extension in order to achieve most of its primary goals and objectives

A request was made and a 12 month No Cost Extension has been granted i.e. from 22 September 2021 – 22 September 2022


of 43

Recommendation 6: The project team, in partnership with the IPs and stakeholder groups such as the Regional SLM Forums, should produce in the next 12 months a project exit strategy

A draft exit strategy has been developed that will be shared among PSC members and other partners before validation

Recommendation 7: FAOGM should improve its capacity to manage procurement and contracting through the hiring or appointment of a Procurement Expert to support the CBSDFM and other projects

The Admin Unit office is working toward strengthening its procurement unit through establishment of clear work flows among operations officers and holding of regular meetings to discuss procurement related issues

Recommendation 8: FAOGM and the PCU need to improve the tracking of project spending and use that information to improve project delivery

This ongoing in line with FAO’s financial reporting system and procedures in IFMIS

Recommendation 9: The Project Coordinator should strengthen budget planning to facilitate the allocation of funds to priority activities for the remainder of the project.

This is being done under the current budget review with the assistance of Operations colleagues

Recommendation 10: FAOGM needs to take the lead in improving project financial management processes.

Finance/Operations continue to improve on the ongoing efforts to enhance timely disbursement of funds to IPs and on procurement through proper planning and communication

Recommendation 11: The project should begin to track the contributions (in terms of labour that constitutes in-kind co-financing) of the participating communities.

This is still under consideration

Recommendation 12: The Project Steering Committee should meet at least twice / year for the remainder of the project.

PSC meetings are planned for twice a year for the rest of the project period.

Recommendation 13: The project team, with support from the Project Steering Committee, should work to increase the participation of relevant national agencies in the project’s

The project continues to engage with relevant partners including MoA through the National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI), the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) on identification of rangelands and cattle tracks and development of local conventions on grazing. Engagement with the Ministry of Local Governments and Lands is also ongoing through the Department


of 43

implementation, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the Department of Livestock Services (DLS), the Ministry of Energy (MoE), and the Ministry of Lands and Rural Administration (MoLRA)

of Lands AND Survey and the offices of the Regional Governors. It should be noted that all these institutions are part of the PSC of the project.

Recommendation 14: FAOGM should quickly contract a short-term expert to design and lead project activities for Knowledge Management and Communications.

One of the Communications officers at FAOGM will be transferred to this project by end of July to focus more on knowledge management issues including documentation of best practices and lessons learned under this project.

Recommendation 15: FAOGM should support the recently hired Monitoring and Evaluation Officer (shared with the AACC project) to ensure the rapid development of the project M&E plan.

The M&E team has developed M&E tools which are currently used by the project.

Recommendation 16: The project should add one or both of the following gender-disaggregated indicators to the project’s Results Framework: at least one female and one youth member who is responsible for presenting the concerns of women and young people and at least 50% of those who directly participate in and receive income from one or more of the forest enterprises supported by the project are women

Female and youth are all represented in the local forest management institutions and forest enterprise groups. Women who participate in forest enterprises receive benefits directly or indirectly from income accrued through these enterprises.

Adjustments to the project strategy.

Pleases note that changes to outputs, baselines, indicators or targets cannot be made without official

approval from PSC and PTF members, including the FLO. These changes will follow the recommendations

of the MTR or the supervision mission.

Change Made to Yes/No Describe the Change and Reason for Change


of 43

Project Outputs

No

Project Indicators/Targets

Yes Based on the MTR recommendation, the indicator (forest cover increased by 5% through small scale tree planting and assisted natural regeneration) under Output 2.2.2 of the project was amended to make it measurable. This indicator cannot be measured since there will not be any national forest inventory under the project. The indicator now reads as follows: “community forest cover increased by 5% in the project intervention regions”

Adjustments to Project Time Frame

If the duration of the project, the project work schedule, or the timing of any key events such as project

start up, mid-term review, final evaluation or closing date, have been adjusted since project approval,

please explain the changes and the reasons for these changes. The Budget Holder may decide, in

consultation with the PTF, to request the adjustment of the EOD-NTE in FPMIS to the actual start of

operations providing a sound justification.

Change Describe the Change and Reason for Change

Project extension

Original NTE: 24 September 2021 Revised NTE: 30 September 2022 Justification: Delay in project implementation due to the sudden passing away of the first National Project Coordinator and a long while before his replacement and the restrictions imposed by COVID-19


of 43

8. Stakeholders Engagement

Please report on progress, challenges, and outcomes on stakeholder engagement (based on the description of the Stakeholder engagement plan included at CEO Endorsement/Approval (when applicable) If your project had a stakeholder engagement plan, specify whether any new stakeholders have been identified/engaged: N/A If a stakeholder engagement plan was not requested for your project at CEO endorsement stage, please List all stakeholders engaged in the project;

- Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources (MECCNAR) - Department of Forestry (DoF) - Department of Livestock Services (DLS) - Department of Agriculture (DoA) - National Environment Agency (NEA) - Department of Parks and Wildlife Management (DPWM) - Ministry of Energy (MoE) - Ministry of trade - Ministry of Lands and Rural Administration (MoLRA) - National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) - Climate Change Secretariat - TANGO (Umbrella Organization for NGOs in The Gambia) - ANR Working Group - Natural Resources Consulting (NACO) - Institute for Social Research and Development (ISRAD) - Agency for Development of Women and Children (ADWAC) - Local communities, CFCs and JFPM committees - Local Government Authorities (LGAs) - National Farmers Platform - All Gambia Forestry Platform (AGFP) - Livestock Owners Association - National Bee Keepers Association (NBAG)

- please indicate if the project works with Civil Society Organizations and/or NGOs

The project continues to work with the National Beekeepers’ Association of the The Gambia (NBAG) that conducts training and mentoring support to honey enterprise groups basically on beekeeping (traditional and modern) methods, relationship between bees and trees, apiary selection and management, beekeeping materials, baiting methods, hive placement, harvesting procedures, honey by-products and value addition. The project also works with the All Gambia Forestry Platform (AGFP), which is an umbrella organization for all local forest managers in The Gambia. The project is supporting the rehabilitation of a central tree nursery that has been allocated to this organization by the Department of Forestry for seedling production. One of the implementing partners of the project that is, the Agency for the Development of Women and Children (ADWAC) is an NGO. ADWAC has been assigned activities related to provision and distribution of improved cook stoves, training of women and men on the construction of clay ovens and the identification and mapping of rangelands and cattle tracks as well as facilitating the development and signing of local conventions on grazing by local


of 43

authorities and communities. The project also works with the “Kombo and Foni Forestry ssociation” on matters related to beekeeping, forest fire management and tree planting.

- briefly describe stakeholders’ engagement events, specifying time, date stakeholders engaged, purpose (information, consultation, participation in decision making, etc.) and outcomes.

The main stakeholder engagement events at national level are during PSC field monitoring visit to project intervention sites and a PSC meetings to monitor and discuss progress on project implementation including challenges and possible solutions and review of annual work plans and budgets for approval. The PSC monitoring visit and meeting took place from the 7 – 11 June 2021. A national validation workshop of a charcoal value chain assessment report supported by the project took place on the 30 June 2021 with all the relevant stakeholders. In January 2021, anti-bush fire day celebrations and awarding of prizes under the forest fire management scheme of the project also took place in all the project intervention regions. In September 2020, tree planting exercises were organized with forest management Committees across the project regions. At local or community level, the engagements are through CF and JFPM Committee meetings, trainings and field activities including monitoring of project activities by the SLM forums.

- Please also indicate if the private sector has been involved in your project and provide the nature of the private sector actors, their role in the project and the way they were involved

The private sector involvement in the project includes the production of improved and efficient metallic cook stoves for targeted households in the project intervention regions through one of the implementing partners. Contact and collaboration fairs are also organized by the project for Community forest enterprise groups and private sector entities to facilitate linkages and create opportunities for markets as well as support for the enterprise groups. One of the implementing partners of the project that is the Natural Resources Consulting (NACO) is a private consultancy group assigned with the livelihood enhancement component under the project.

9. Gender Mainstreaming

Information on Progress on gender-responsive measures as documented at CEO Endorsement/Approval in the gender action plan or equivalent (when applicable)

Was a gender analysis undertaken or an equivalent socio-economic assessment made at formulation or during execution stages? Please briefly indicate the gender differences here. A socio-economic baseline assessment was done for the project and some gender aspects were analysed as below: “In the Gambia, households are commonly headed by male and there are few instances where female headed households exist, and in most of such cases, the women are widowed. A significant proportion of households interviewed in all the project clusters were headed by male (over 90%).


of 43

Household women are often involved in various socio-economic interest groups. Women confirm that they greatly participate in such interest groups. They are also not left behind in terms of community decision-making. This has been authenticated by the result of the survey as 88% of the household’s show-up women participation in socio-economic interest groups. Women participation in decision-making meetings is very crucial in community development activities. In most rural communities, women are often in the center of development activities, and this is reflected in the proportion (87%) of their participation in community decision-making meetings. In all the communities visited, women involvement in the management and protection of forest is reported to be high. Often, it is the women that are responsible for fetching water to extinguish forest fires, transport seedling during tree planting, and importantly are included in the CF committees. This has been reflected in the results of the survey. Overall, 71% of the surveyed households said women are actively involved in the management and protection of forest in the area”. Does the M&E system have gender-disaggregated data? How is the project tracking gender results and impacts? Gender was not well integrated into the objectives and results framework of the project. However, the approved FAO Prodoc did identify some gender related targets, namely that the memberships of the dryland forest management forums, the regional task forces; the community forest committees and the joint forest park management committees are all at least 30% women. The Prodoc also stated that at least 30% of the participants in training programmes organized by the project should be women. Does the project staff have gender expertise? There is no gender expert among the project staff. If possible, indicate in which results area(s) the project is expected to contribute to gender equality:

- closing gender gaps in access to and control over natural resources. - improving women’s participation and decision making; and or - generating socio-economic benefits or services for women


of 43

Result areas; 2.1.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 both contribute to gender equality related to the above dimensions. Women in The Gambia bear many responsibilities for the care of the family at household level. The household division of labour between women and men is not equal, and poverty is more prevalent amongst women due to gender inequalities in access to resources such as land, credit and information technology. Community Forestry (Result: 2.1.2), Agroforestry (2.2.2), Access to improved cook stoves (Result: 2.2.3) and Community-based forest enterprises (Result: 2.2.4) all make a substantial contribution to income generation for women and enhance food security by providing women access to resources and reducing their daily chores for collecting firewood etc. The Participatory forest management approach promoted through the community forestry programme advocates for both women and men’s participation and decision making in forest resources management and guarantees equal and equitable access to resources and benefits accrued from participatory forest management activities. The production and distribution of improved cook stoves to households under the project directly benefits women who are responsible for cooking in the household. It will reduce the time spent on collection of firewood, the amount of firewood collected, the time spent on preparing food as well as the health hazards related to smoke from traditional cooking methods. The time gained could be used for income generation activities for these women. Women like their men counterparts are actively involved in community-based forest enterprises under result area 2.2.4 focusing mainly on Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs) for example, fruits and nuts, honey, branch wood etc. This programme is empowering women in terms of increased income and capacity on business planning and management.

10. Knowledge Management Activities

Knowledge activities / products (when applicable), as outlined in knowledge management approved at CEO Endorsement / Approval

- Does the project have a knowledge management strategy? If not, how does the project collect and document good practices? Please list relevant good practices that can be learned and shared from the project thus far.

The project does not have a knowledge management strategy. There are plans however, to hire a communications officer who will document all the good practices of the project and the various lessons learnt. Among the relevant good practices that can be learned and shared from the project so far, are the introduction of improved cook stoves both metallic and clay to some households in the project intervention sites. This has helped reduced drastically the amount of fuelwood used for cooking and heating and the time and money spent by women on fire wood collection and purchase. This, therefore, means that the drudgery of women and children on firewood collection has been reduced, pressure from fuel wood collection on the forest has also been reduced in areas where the improved cook stoves were distributed. Families could now keep their meals warm for a whole day as result of the newly supplied improved cook stoves. The support to community-based honey enterprise groups through provision of beehives and other beekeeping materials is an opportunity for increasing income streams for community forests management communities in the near future, that will serve as additional motivation for sustainable dryland forest management in The Gambia. Knowledge transfer in form of capacity building of forest enterprise groups on construction of beehives is good practice and lessons learnt through this is that forest enterprise groups can now construct their own beehives in real time, they also maintain their hives and could earn income through the construction and sale of beehives in their communities or even outside.


of 43

- Does the project have a communication strategy? Please provide a brief overview of the

communications successes and challenges this year. The project does not have a communication strategy yet, but there plans to hire a communications expert by end of July for improved visibility to the project as well as to document and disseminate lessons learnt in this project. One of the tasks of the communications expert will also include the development of a communication strategy. The communications successes this year are the coverage of numerous activities such as the anti-forest day celebrations, the PSC field visit to project sites, the SLM monitoring visits, the validation of the charcoal value chain report etc. which were all covered by both the print electronic media as the community radios.

- Please share a human-interest story from your project, focusing on how the project has helped to improve people’s livelihoods while contributing to achieving the expected global environmental benefits. Include at least one beneficiary quote and perspective, and please also include related photos and photo credits.

Kunting village is a community that participates in a Joint Forest Park Management (JFPM) with the Department of Forestry. The JFPM activities which include a community-based forest enterprise on beekeeping are being supported by the project. The enterprise group is among 6 other who have been trained on construction of beehives. Following their training by the National Beekeepers Association of The Gambia, the project procured beehive materials for the groups to construct their own hives through cash-for-work. Kunting successfully constructed 20 beehives and has already installed some these hives. The PSC visited the community to gauge its impression of the project and the opportunity afforded to construct their won beehives. The President of the JFPM Committee said “the Dryland Forest Management Project is of the best projects that has intervened in our community, it has built out capacity on beekeeping but also ow how to construct and maintain beehives. In addition, it has afforded us the opportunity to construct our own beehives without contracting them to outsiders. This has enhanced our income and we are very much grateful to the project and to FAO”


of 43

Own photo

- Please provide links to publications, leaflets, video materials, related website, newsletters, or other

communications assets published on the web.

YERRO ON FORESTRY DAY 2.mp4 (Command Line)

- Does the project have a communication and/or knowledge management focal point? If yes, please

provide their names and email addresses The project is currently working with the FAO-Gambia communications Unit, which serves as the communication focal point this project. Contact persons: Mr. Amadou Bah (Communications Officer) E-mail: [email protected]

11. Indigenous Peoples Involvement

Are Indigenous Peoples involved in the project? How? Please briefly explain. If applies, please describe the process and current status of on-going/completed, legitimate consultations to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) with the indigenous communities Do indigenous peoples have an active participation in the project activities? How? No indigenous peoples are involved with or impacted by this project.

12. Innovative Approaches

Please provide a brief description of an innovative23 approach in the project / programme, describe the type (e.g. technological, financial, institutional, policy, business model) and explain why it stands out as an innovation.

23 Innovation is defined as doing something new or different in a specific context that adds value



of 43

The Market Analysis and Development (MA&D) approach used for the development of tree and forest product-based enterprises is quite innovative. It is based on participatory principles, systematically includes, and stresses linkages among social and environmental concerns alongside technological, commercial and financial aspects of small enterprise development to create positive impacts as explained below: SOCIAL IMPACTS

- Increases consideration of gender aspects in forest resource management - Promotes synergy and the benefits of working together - Reduces friction between stakeholders - Enhances learning skills on forest business planning - Creates employment opportunities for local communities

MARKET/ECONOMIC IMPACTS - Facilitates market access through the creation of economic groupings as platform for information

exchange - Creates economic incentives for local forest users and managers - Enables people to identify potential products and develop markets that will provide income and benefits

without degrading their resource base - Builds strategic alliances between value chain actors and service providers through contact and

collaborations fairs ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

- MA&D promotes sustainable forest management by local communities - Increases consciousness about forest utilization methods - Increases environmental knowledge and awareness among local forest managers - Reduces illegal forest harvesting of forest products - Promotes little known forest products such as Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)

INSTITUTIONAL IMPACTS - Enhances policy and institutional capacity for participatory forest management - Strengthens the capacity of technical field Staff on management and organizational issues - Promotes collaboration and partnership between rural entrepreneurs and other facilitators such as

NGOs, CBOs, CSOs to enhance small entrepreneurial capacity TECHNICAL IMPACTS

- Enhances technical capacity of forest enterprise groups for example in the construction of beehives, handicrafts etc.

- Facilitates technology transfer among enterprise interest groups and other stakeholders - Promotes research in forest product development

13. Possible impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the project

Please indicate any implication of the Covid-19 pandemic on the activities and progress of the project. Highlight the adaptive measures taken to continue with the project implementation.


of 43

- Are the outcomes/outputs still achievable within the project period? Yes, more than 90% of the outputs are achievable before the new NTE of the project.

- Will the timing of the project MTR or TE be affected/delayed? The MTR has already been conducted and the timing of the TE may not be affected or delayed if the situation of COVID-19 is not aggravated.

- What is the impact of COVID-19 on project beneficiaries, personnel, etc? As the beneficiaries of the project are mostly farmers, they have been affected by the numerous state of public emergencies declared by the government which at some points restricted large gatherings and closed down the local weekly markets and other public places. The farmers could no longer go carry out some of their income generating activities and could not go to markets to either sell or buy goods. Generally, their income and livelihoods were seriously affected. The project personnel could not carry out activities which involved large gatherings and in some instances were restricted to travel etc. Everyone was affected in one way or the other.

- Are there good practices and lessons learned to be shared? The COVID-19 has actually forced us to be more innovative in the way we do things for example working remotely with our communities through telephone, voice mails etc. Some of the national engagements (meetings …) were also carried out through virtual calls.


of 43

14. Co-Financing Table

24 Sources of Co-financing may include: Bilateral Aid Agency(ies), Foundation, GEF Agency, Local Government, National Government, Civil Society Organization,

Other Multi-lateral Agency(ies), Private Sector, Beneficiaries, Other.

Sources of Co-

financing24 Name of Co-financer

Type of Co-

financing

Amount

Confirmed at

CEO

endorsement /

approval

Actual

Amount

Materialized

at 30 June

2021

Actual Amount

Materialized at

Midterm or closure

(confirmed by the

review/evaluation team)

Expected total

disbursement by

the end of the

project

Government Department of Forestry Grant 370,000 250,000 0 370,000

In-kind 1,830,000 850,000 500,000 1,830,000

Government

NEMA (National Agricultural

Land and Water Development

Project)

Grant

5,000,000

3,500,000

3,500,000

5,000,000

Government FASDEP (Food and Agriculture

Sector Development Project) Grant

2,800,000 2,600,000 1,900,000 2,800,000

NGO

ADWAC (Agency for the

Development of Women and

Children)

Grant

450,000 305,000 255,000 450,000

Private NACO (Natural Resources

Consulting) In-kind

100,000 80,000 50,000 100,000

EU FAO - Action Against

Desertification Grant

1,368,100 1,093,000 700,000 1,368,100

International

Organization FAO - Forest and Farm Facility Grant

700,000 700,000

700,000 700,000


of 43

Please explain any significant changes in project co-financing since Project Document signature, or differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement The major changes in project co-financing are in respect of the NEMA project, which phased out in December 2019 as well as the AAD project which phased out in 2020. NEMA could only fulfill 70% of its co-financing agreement, while AAD fulfilled 80% of its co-financing agreement.

Annex 1. – GEF Performance Ratings Definitions

Development/Global Environment Objectives Rating – Assess how well the project is meeting its development objective/s or the global

environment objective/s it set out to meet. DO Ratings definitions: Highly Satisfactory (HS - Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major

global environmental objectives, and yield substantial global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project can be presented as

“good practice”); Satisfactory (S - Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global

environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings); Moderately Satisfactory (MS - Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant

objectives but with either significant shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve some of its major global

environmental objectives or yield some of the expected global environment benefits); Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU - Project is expected to

achieve of its major global environmental objectives with major shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental

objectives); Unsatisfactory (U - Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory

global environmental benefits); Highly Unsatisfactory (HU - The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major

global environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.)

International

Organization FAO Country Office In-kind

100,000 60,000 30,000 100,000

TOTAL 12,718,100 9,438,000 7,635,000 12,718,100


of 43

Implementation Progress Rating – Assess the progress of project implementation. IP Ratings definitions: Highly Satisfactory (HS):

Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised implementation plan for the project. The project can

be resented as “good practice”. Satisfactory (S): Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised

plan except for only a few that are subject to remedial action. Moderately Satisfactory (MS): Implementation of some components is in substantial

compliance with the original/formally revised plan with some components requiring remedial action. Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU):

Implementation of some components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan with most components requiring remedial

action. Unsatisfactory (U): Implementation of most components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan. Highly

Unsatisfactory (HU): Implementation of none of the components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan.

fao-gef project implementation report 2021 revised

Documents