PROJECTTITLE:ReversingDesertificationProcessinSusceptibleAreasofBrazil:SustainableAgroforestryPracticesandBiodiversityConservation(REDESER)PROJECTSYMBOL:GCP/BRA/085/GFFRecipientCountry:BrazilResourcePartner:GlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF)FAOprojectID:616970 GEFProjectID:PIMS5324ExecutingPartner(s):FederativeRepublicofBrazil,MinistryofEnvironment(MMA),SecretariatofExtractivismandSustainableRuralDevelopment(SEDR),DepartmenttoCombatDesertificationandLandDegradation(DCD)ExpectedEOD(startingdate):April 1,2016ExpectedNTE(enddate):March30,2020ContributiontoFAO’sStrategicFramework

a.StrategicObjective/OrganizationalResult:StrategicObjective2:Increaseandimproveprovisionofgoodsandservicesfromforestryandfisheriesinasustainablemanner:a)producersandnaturalresourcemanagersadoptpracticesthatincreaseandimprovetheprovisionofgoodsandservicesinagriculturalsectorproductionsystemsinasustainablemanner;StrategicObjective5:Increasetheresilienceoflivelihoodstothreatsandcrises:c)countriesapplypreventionandimpactmitigationmeasuresthatreducerisksforagriculture,foodandnutrition.b.RegionalResult/PriorityArea:2.Climatechangeandenvironmentalsustainabilityc.CountryProgrammingFrameworkOutcome:Outcome4:PublicpoliciesandprogramsfortheSustainableManagementofforestresources,fisheriesandaquaculturewithinthecontextofclimatechangeanddesertificationstrengthened.

GEFFocalArea/LDCF/SCCF:LD,BD,SFM/REDD+(MultipleFocalAreas)GEF/LDCF/SCCFStrategicObjectives:LD‐2;LD‐3;BD‐2;SFM/REDD+‐1EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentCategory(insert√):A √BCFinancingPlan:GEFallocation:Co‐financing:*

1. AGENDHA–socio‐environmentalNGO2. APNE‐NortheastPlantsAssociation3. CEPIS‐TechnologicalParkFoundationofParaíba4. FA‐AraripeFoundation5. FAO–FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations6. FUNETEC‐TechnologicalandCulturalEducationFoundation7. IABS‐BrazilianInstituteofDevelopmentandSustainability8. ICRAF–WorldAgroforestryCentre9. INSA‐NationalSemi‐AridInstitute10. MDA‐MinistryofAgrarianDevelopment11. MMA‐MinistryofEnvironment12. SEAFDS‐Paraíbastateagriculturesecretariat13. SEAPAC‐RioGrandedoNortesocialorganization14. SEIHRMACT–Paraíbastateenvironmentsecretariat15. SEMA‐Cratomunicipalenvironmentsecretariat16. SEMARH–Alagoasstateenvironmentsecretariat17. SEPLAN‐RioGrandedoNortestateplanningsecretariat18. SFB‐BrazilianForestService

SubtotalCo‐financing:

USD3,930,155

160,000160,000533,333160,000200,000800,000266,666100,000

1,333,3333,360,0001,866,6671,066,667160,000800,000533,334533,333

1,066,6662,666,667

15,766,666

FAO/GLOBALENVIRONMENTFACILITY PROJECTDOCUMENT

2

TotalBudget:*Exchangerate=BRL3.75perUSD

USD19,696,822

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

TheobjectiveoftheREDESERprojectistohaltandreversetheprocessofdesertificationthrough actions to address increasingly strong causes of land degradation andbiodiversity loss inCaatingaecosystems located inAreasSusceptible toDesertification(ASD),whichcover1.34millionkm2(16%ofBrazil)andarehometo34.8millionpeople(17%)in1,490municipalities(27%).Project activities will contribute to national efforts to identify and disseminate bestproduction practices for sustainable use in ASD. The Caatinga biome provideswood‐basedenergyandenvironmentalservicesofgreatimportancetolocallivelihoodsandtheregional and national economies. Land degradation in the Caatinga is due mainly tooverharvestingofwoodandclear‐cuttingofnativevegetationforunsustainablecropandlivestock production. Biodiversity is lost because of land‐use change and habitatfragmentation.There are60 threatened species in theCaatinga, including someof themostthreatenedbirdspeciesintheworld.ThemainbarrierstobeovercomebytheProjectare:1)Limitedknowledgeandcapacityin promoting integrated natural resource management (INRM) across market valuechains(fromproductionlandscapestomarketproducts);2)Limitedinstitutionalcapacityto promote sustainable land management (SLM) and sustainable forest management(SFM);3)Lackofsustainedtechnicalsupportfortherestorationofdegradedforestsandlandscapes;4)Lackofidentificationandeffectivedisseminationofbestpractices.Theprojectwillcarryoutconcretefieldactivitiesinvolvingfederal,stateandmunicipalgovernments,civilsocietyorganizationsandfamilyfarmersin14municipalities,withinatotal of89adjacentmunicipalities tobe indirectly influencedbyproject actions in thefollowingclustersofmunicipalities:1)Araripe,insouthernCeará;2)Seridó,insouthernRioGrandedoNorteandnorthernParaíba;3)Uauá,innortheasternBahia;4)Xingó,inwestern Alagoas. Other project activities including capacity development will reachbeyondsitesintheseclustersandinvolvetheentireASD.The Project will be implemented through five components: 1) Promoting IntegratedNatural Resource Management (INRM) in ASD Production Landscapes; 2) PromotingMultiple‐Use Forest Management ‐ through adoption and expansion of multiple‐usesustainable forest management (SFM) practices among family farmers in the ASD; 3)Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) ‐ so as to contribute to community‐basedeconomies, maintain and restore biodiversity; 4) Knowledge Management, CapacityDevelopmentandAwareness‐Raising‐aimedatcommunitiesandinstitutionsinvolvedinenvironmentallicensingprocesses;5)Coordinationwithotherinitiatives,monitoringandevaluation. Theprojectimpactswillexertdirectinfluenceover904,142ha.,with618,062ha.offorest,therestbeingmainlycroplandandrangeland.152,475ha.ofthelandareaofinterventionisdegraded (seeAppendix1).Project activitiesover fouryearswill avoid5,709ha.ofdeforestationintheareasofdirectprojectinterventionandabsorb

3

439,200tCO2eq through restoration activities and additional 696,219 tCO2eq throughavoideddeforestation.Furthermore,theprojectwillreducethedeforestationrateinthearea of indirect impact by 30%, enabling therefore an estimated 2,472,347 tCO2eqsequestration through avoided deforestation and forest degradation. Due to newpractices,increasedcapacityandawarenessaswellasinstitutionalchanges,thepositiveimpacts at the local levelwill bemaintained in the future andmultipliedover amuchlargerarea.

4

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Contents

GLOSSARYOFACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... 5 

SECTION1–RELEVANCE ..................................................................................................... 11 1.1GENERALCONTEXT .............................................................................................. 11 

1.1.1Rationale .................................................................................................... 16 1.1.2FAO’scomparativeadvantages ............................................................. 26 1.1.3Participantsandotherstakeholders ................................................... 27 1.1.4Lessonslearnedfrompastandrelatedwork,includingevaluations .......................................................................................................... 34 1.1.5Linkstonationaldevelopmentgoals,strategies,plans,policyandlegislation,GEFandFAO’sStrategicObjectives ........................................... 37 

SECTION2–PROJECTFRAMEWORKANDEXPECTEDRESULTS .................................. 45 2.1PROJECTSTRATEGY ............................................................................................ 45 2.2PROJECTOBJECTIVE ............................................................................................ 49 2.3EXPECTEDPROJECTOUTCOMES ....................................................................... 49 2.4PROJECTCOMPONENTS,OUTPUTSANDACTIVITIES .................................... 51 2.5GLOBALENVIRONMENTALBENEFITS ............................................................. 63 2.6COSTEFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................... 70 2.7INNOVATIVENESS ................................................................................................ 71 

SECTION3‐FEASIBILITY .................................................................................................... 73 3.1ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTASSESSMENT ........................................................ 73 3.2RISKMANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 73 

SECTION4–IMPLEMENTATIONANDMANAGEMENTARRANGEMENTS ................... 74 4.1INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS ................................................................... 74 4.2IMPLEMENTATIONARRANGEMENTS .............................................................. 76 

4.2.1Rolesandresponsibilitiesoftheprojectco‐executingpartners ... 78 4.2.2FAO’srolesandresponsibilitiesoftheGEFagency ......................... 79 4.2.3Projectdecision‐makingmechanisms ................................................. 83 

4.3FINANCIALPLANNINGANDMANAGEMENT .................................................... 87 4.3.1Financialplan(bycomponent,outputsandco‐financier) .............. 88 4.3.2GEFinputs ................................................................................................. 88 4.3.3Governmentinputs ................................................................................. 89 4.3.4FAOinputs ................................................................................................ 89 4.3.5Otherco‐financiersinputs .................................................................... 89 4.3.6FinancialmanagementofandreportingonGEFresources ........... 89 

4.4PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................... 91 4.5  MONITORINGANDREPORTING ...................................................................... 91 

4.5.1Oversightandmonitoringresponsibilities ........................................ 92 

5

4.5.2Indicatorsandinformationsources .................................................... 93 4.5.3Reportingschedule.................................................................................. 94 4.5.4Monitoringandevaluationsummary .................................................. 96 

4.6PROVISIONFOREVALUATIONS ........................................................................ 97 4.7COMMUNICATIONANDVISIBILITY .................................................................. 98 

SECTION5–SUSTAINABILITYOFRESULTS .................................................................... 99 5.1SOCIALSUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................... 99 5.2ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY .............................................................. 100 5.3FINANCIALANDECONOMICSUSTAINABILITY ............................................. 100 5.4SUSTAINABILITYOFCAPACITIESDEVELOPED ............................................ 101 5.5APPROPRIATENESSOFTECHNOLOGYINTRODUCED ................................. 101 5.6REPLICABILITYANDSCALINGUP ................................................................... 102 

APPENDIX1:RESULTSMATRIX ....................................................................................... 104 

APPENDIX2:WORKPLAN(RESULTS‐BASED) ............................................................. 124 

APPENDIX3:RESULTSBASEDBUDGET ......................................................................... 131 

APPENDIX4:RISKMATRIX ............................................................................................... 133 

APPENDIX5:DRAFTTERMSOFREFERENCE(TORS) ................................................. 135 

APPENDIX6:BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 145 

APPENDIX7:ENVIRONMENTALANDSOCIALREVIEWFORM .................................... 151 

APPENDIX8:THREATENEDSPECIESOFFLORAINTHECAATINGA ......................... 152 

APPENDIX9:MAPS ............................................................................................................. 154 

GLOSSARYOFACRONYMSNote:TheacronymsforBrazilianorganizationsandprogramsareinPortuguesesothattheiridentityisclearforthereader.ABC BrazilianCooperationAgencyABC LowCarbonEmissionAgriculture

6

ADESE SeridóDevelopmentAgencyAFS AgroforestrySystemAGENDHA AdviceandManagementonNatureStudies,HumanDevelopmentand

Agro‐ecologyANA NationalWaterAgencyANATER NationalAgencyofTechnicalAssistanceandRuralExtensionAOP AnnualOperationalPlanAPA EnvironmentalProtectionAreaAPNE NortheastPlantAssociationAPP AreaofPermanentPreservationAPR AnnualProjectReportASA Semi‐AridNetworkASCOM CommunicationsOfficeASD AreasSusceptibletoDesertificationATER TechnicalAssistanceandRuralExtensionAWP/B AnnualWorkPlanandBudgetBANCOOB BrazilianCooperativeBankBANSICREDI SicrediCooperativeBankBASA AmazonDevelopmentBankBB BankofBrazilBD BiodiversityBH BudgetHolderBNB NortheastDevelopmentBankBNDES NationalEconomicandSocialDevelopmentBankBRL BrazilianRealCAA‐NM AlternativeAgricultureCenterofNorthernMinasGeraisCAR RuralEnvironmentalRegistryCBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversityCE Ceará(State)CEF FederalSavingsBankCEMAFAUNA CaatingaFaunaManagementCenterCENARGEN EMBRAPAGeneticResourcesandBiotechnologyCEPIS CenterforSustainableIndustrialProductionCHESF SãoFranciscoHydro‐ElectricCompanyCIFOR CenterforInternationalForestryResearchCIMA AgrobiodiversityManagementIrradiationCentersCNAPO NationalCommissionofAgroecologyandOrganicProductionCODEVASF SãoFranciscoandParnaíbaValleysDevelopmentCompanyCONAB NationalFoodSupplyCompanyCONAMA NationalEnvironmentCouncilCOOPERCUC FamilyAgribusinessCooperativeofCanudos,UauáandCuraçáCRAD ReferenceCenterinRecoveryofDegradedAreasCSO CivilSocietyOrganizationDCD Department to Combat Desertification and Land Degradation (SEDR-

MMA)DLDD Desertification,LandDegradationandDroughtDNOCS NationalDepartmentofCivilWorksagainstDroughtsEMBRAPA BrazilianAgriculturalResearchCorporation

7

EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAreaFA AraripeFoundationES EspíritoSanto(State)FAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationsFE FinalEvaluationFLONA NationalForestFLR ForestandLandscapeRestorationFNDE NationalEducationalDevelopmentFundFNDF NationalForestDevelopmentFundFNMA NationalFundforEnvironmentFPMIS FieldProjectManagementInformationSystemFUNAI BrazilianFoundationforIndigenousPeoplesFUNBIO BrazilianFundforBiodiversityFUNETEC TechnologicalandCulturalEducationFoundationGDP GrossDomesticProductGEB GlobalEnvironmentalBenefitGGWSSI GreatGreenWallfortheSaharaandtheSahelInitiativeGHG GreenhouseGasesGIZ GermanInternationalCooperationAgencyGLCN GlobalLandCoverNetworkGoB GovernmentofBrazilIABS BrazilianInstituteofDevelopmentandSustainabilityIBAMA BrazilianInstituteofEnvironmentandRenewableNaturalResourcesIBGE BrazilianInstituteofGeographyandStatisticsICMBio ChicoMendesInstituteofBiodiversityConservationICRAF WorldAgroforestryCenterIDH HumanDevelopmentIndexIICA Inter‐AmericanInstituteforCooperationonAgricultureINCRA NationalInstituteofColonizationandAgrarianReformINRM IntegratedNaturalResourceManagementINSA NationalInstituteoftheSemi‐aridISPN InstituteforSociety,PopulationandNatureIUCN InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNatureLADA LandDegradationAssessmentinDrylandsLD LandDegradationLDCF LeastDevelopedCountriesFundLoA LetterofAgreementLTO LeadTechnicalOfficerLTU LeadTechnicalUnitM&E MonitoringandEvaluationMAPA MinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandSupplyMCTI MinistryofScience,TechnologyandInnovationMDA MinistryofAgrarianDevelopmentMDS MinistryofSocialDevelopmentandFightAgainstHungerMEC MinistryofEducationMI MinistryofNationalIntegrationMIQCB InterstateMovementofWomenBabassuNutBreakersMMA MinistryofEnvironment

8

MONAT NaturalMonumentNAMA NationallyAppropriateMitigationActionNAP NationalActionPlanNAPA NationalAdaptationProgrammeNCCD NationalCommissiontoCombatDesertificationNFCFM NationalProgramofCommunityandFamilyForestManagementNFF NationalForestFacilityNFP NationalForestProgramNIP NationalImplementationPlanNPTD NationalProjectTechnicalDirectorNTC NationalTechnicalCoordinatorNTFP Non‐timberforestproductsOED OfficeofEvaluation(FAO)OFP GEFOperationalFocalPointOEMA StateEnvironmentAgencyOSCIP CivilSocietyPublicInterestOrganizationPAB ProjectAdvisory BoardPAC GrowthAccelerationProgrammePAN NationalActionPlanPBMC BrazilianPanelonClimateChangePEU ProjectExecutionUnitPIB GrossInternalProductPIF ProjectIdentificationForm(GEF)PIP ProjectInceptionPhasePIR ProjectImplementationReviewPIW ProjectInceptionWorkshopPLANAPO NationalPlanforOrganicProductionandAgroecologyPLANAVEG NationalPlanforRecoveryofNativeVegetationPMFS SustainableForestManagementPlanPMU ProjectManagementUnitPNAE NationalSchoolLunchProgrammePNAPO NationalPolicyforOrganicProductionandAgroecologyPNATER NationalTechnicalAssistanceandRuralExtensionPolicyPNPPS NationalPlanforthePromotionofSocio‐BiodiversityProduction

ChainsPNUMA UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramPPCerrado ActionPlanforPreventionandControlofDeforestationintheCerradoPPCDAm ActionPlanforPreventionandControlofDeforestationintheAmazon

RegionPPG ProjectPreparationGrant(GEF)PPP‐ECOS Eco‐SocialSmallGrantsProgramPPR ProjectProgressReportPRA EnvironmentalRegularizationProgramPROBIO ProjectforConservationandSustainableUseofBrazilianBiological

DiversityPRODHAM ProgramofHydro‐environmentalTechnologiesandPracticesPRONAF NationalFamilyFarmingProgramPSC ProjectSteeringCommittee

9

PTC ProjectTechnicalCoordinatorPTF ProjectTaskForcePTM PortfolioTaskManagerPY ProjectYearRCC RegionalConsultativeCommissionRDS SustainableDevelopmentReserveREDD+ ReductionofEmissionsfromDeforestationandForestDegradation,

includingtheroleofconservation,sustainablemanagementofforestsandenhancementofforestcarbonstocks

REDESER ReversingDesertificationProcessinSusceptibleAreasofBrazil:SustainableAgroforestryPracticesandBiodiversityConservation

RENASEM NationalRegistryofSeedsandSeedlingsRTA RegionalTechnicalAdvisorRTC RegionalTechnicalCommissionSAP StateActionPlanSBF ForestandBiodiversitySecretariat(MMA)SC SteeringCommitteeSCCF SpecialClimateChangeFundSDG SustainableDevelopmentGoalSEAFDS SecretariatofFamilyAgricultureandDevelopmentoftheSemi‐Arid

(Paraíba)SEAPAC ServiceforSupportofAlternativeCommunityProjects(RioGrandedo

Norte)SEBRAE BrazilianServiceofSupportforMicroandSmallEnterprisesSEDR MMA'sSecretariatofExtractivismandSustainableRuralDevelopmentSEIHRMACT StateSecretariatofInfra‐Structure,WaterResources,Environmentand

ScienceandTechnology(Paraíba)SEMA SecretariatofEnvironmentSEMARH SecretariatofEnvironmentandWaterResourcesSEPLAN SecretariatofPlanningSFB BrazilianForestryServiceSFM SustainableForestManagementSGP SmallGrantsProgramSLM SustainableLandManagementSNUC NationalSystemofNatureConservationUnitsSNSM NationalSystemofSeedsandSeedlingsSO StrategicObjectiveSTAP ScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanelSUDENE NortheastDevelopmentAgencyTCI InvestmentCentreDivision(FAO)TCID InvestmentCentre,TechnicalCooperationDepartment(FAO)TCP TechnicalCooperationProjectTOR TermsofReferenceTPC TripartiteCommitteeTT TrackingToolUC ConservationUnitUCG UniversityofCampinaGrandeUFRI UniversityofRiodeJaneiro

10

UNCCD UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertificationinThoseCountriesExperiencingSeriousDroughtand/orDesertification

UNFCCC UnitednationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChangeUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramUNFF UnitedNationsForumonForestsUNILAB UniversityforInternationalIntegrationofAfro‐BrazilianLusophone

CountriesUNIVASF UniversityoftheSãoFranciscoValleyUSD UnitedStatesDollarWOCAT WorldOverviewofConservationApproachesandTechnologiesWRI WorldResourcesInstituteZEE Ecological‐EconomicZoning

11

SECTION1–RELEVANCE1.1GENERALCONTEXT

a)Generaldevelopmentcontextrelatedtotheproject

Withanareaof8.5millionkm2,Brazilistheworld'sfifthlargestcountry,thelargestinSouthAmericaandthethirdlargestoftheAmericas,afterCanadaandtheUnitedStates.The country has a variety of landscapes, including coastal mountain ranges, centralhighlands, a large semi‐arid region, the Amazon rain forest, wetlands and grasslands,whicharedividedintothecountry’ssixofficialbiomes:AtlanticForest,Cerrado,Caatinga,Amazon,PantanalandSouthernGrasslands(Pampas).TheCaatingaandCerrado,bothofwhich are sub‐humid, are ecologically similar in that they have long dry seasons, fewdenseforestsandmuchherbaceousplantcover,buttheCaatinga,whichcovers734,478km2,istheonlybiomeentirelywithinBrazilandisanAreaSusceptibletoDesertification(ASD)subjecttoperiodicdroughtslastingseveralyears.Brazilisadevelopingcountrythatisemergingasoneoftheworld’slargesteconomies,withGDPofUSD2.33trillion,atthetopoftheMiddleIncomeCountries(MIC)andakeyrole in international affairs. It isoneof theBRICS, the fivemajoremergingeconomics(Brazil,Russia,India,ChinaandSouthAfrica),aswellasparticipatingintheBASICbloc(Brazil,SouthAfrica,IndiaandChina)andtheIBSADialogForum(India,BrazilandSouthAfrica). Itparticipates inboth theG20groupofdevelopedcountriesand theG77plusChina group of developing countries. Growth was relatively strong during the recenteconomiccrisis,butslowedto1%peryearin2013andisnownearnegative.Theindustryandservicesectorshavegrown,butagricultureandlivestockremainamainstayoftheeconomy,producingfoodandincome,providingtaxrevenuesandhelpingthebalanceoftrade. They are now largely integratedwith agro‐industry,whichprovides inputs andprocessesoutputs.In2015,thepopulationofBrazilwas203.6million,whichisapproximatelyhalfthetotalforSouthAmerica.Currently,morethan85%liveinofficiallyurbanplaces,whichincludemany small towns in the interior. Brazil’s rural population is concentrated in theNortheast,oneofBrazil’sfivemacro‐regions,wheremostoftheCaatingaislocated.TheTotal Fertility Rate (TFR) has dropped to 1.64,well below the replacement level, andconsequentlyfamiliesaresmallerandtheagestructureisolder.Brazil's economic, social and environmental achievements have put the country in apositionofinternationalleadership,althoughseriousproblemsremain.Itsanti‐povertyconditional cash transfers serve as a model for the world. It has some of the largestemissionsofgreenhousegases,buthasalsoreducedthemmorethantherestoftheworldand isakeyplayer ininternationalclimatenegotiations,defendingapledgeandcheckapproach andpromising an end to illegal deforestationby 2030 and12millionha. ofrestoration.Incontrasttoitseconomicanddemographicimportanceandinspiteofprogress,Brazilstillstandsoutworldwideforitsregionalandincomeinequality,betweentheextremesofthe poor Northeast and the wealthier Southeast. The IDH for 2013 was 0.744, with

12

averageannualincomeofUSD14,275,lifeexpectancyof73.9yearsandaverageschoolingof7.4years.TheGiniindexofincomeinequalityfellfrom0.594in2001to0.495in2014.There has been universal public health care since 1988. Since 2003, the statutoryminimum wage has undergone significant real increases. Government policies havecombated extreme poverty with family stipends (conditional cash transfers) and the“Brazil without Misery” initiative, which now includes socio‐productive inclusion,meaning job training, opportunities for self‐employment andpromotion of productiveactivitiesforthepoor.Focusedsocialprogramsincluderuralworkerretirement,"LightforAll"forelectricity,"WaterforAll"forwatersupply,"MyLife,MyHouse"forhousingand"MyHouseBetter"forfurnitureandappliances.Thegovernmentalsopurchasesfoodfrom small farmers and provides school lunches. During droughts in semi‐arid areas,therearedroughtstipends,watertanktrucksandharvest insuranceandcisternshavebeeninstalledinamillionruralhouseholds.Suchsocialprogramssavelives(millionsofpeople died in past droughts, but none died due to the recent drought), reduce out‐migrationandalleviatepressureonland,althoughtheydonotavoiddeathoflivestockandwildlifeduringdroughts.Thesocialprogramsalsoincreaselocalconsumerdemandforsmallholderproductsandservices.Brazilhasmaderapidprogress inaddressinggenderdisparities. Illiteracyamongbothmen and women is becoming residual and there are nowmore women thanmen inuniversities.Womenparticipateactivelyinthelaborforceandinsocialmovements.Theyreceivespecialtreatmentinruraldevelopmentandlandreformsettlementssince2007.Schools include teaching on gender issues. There is a special ministry for women’spolicies.Ontheotherhand,Brazilianwomenarepaid58%ofwhattheirmalecolleaguesearn,whiledevotingover15hoursmoreeachweektohouseworkthanmen.Thelevelofparticipation in theexecutiveand legislativebranches is low.Therearealsoproblemswith domestic violence. The Northeast is a stronghold of gender discrimination ascomparedtotherestofBrazil,althoughchangeisunderway.TheASDshavesomeof theworsthumandevelopment indicesof theNortheastregionbasedonindicatorssuchaspovertyandmortalityrates(Table1.1).Illiteracyratesinthesemi‐aridareasarehighbutfalling(Table1.2),with36%ofchildrenage7‐14unabletoreadandwrite,43%ofyouth12‐17yearsoldand60%ofthose18andover.Fewpeoplehavesecondaryschooling,muchlesshighereducation.TheaverageFamilyDevelopmentIndex (IDF), used to measure levels of family development based on factors such asresourceavailabilityandlivingconditions,is0.54inASD,comparedto0.70forBrazilasawhole.Table1.1.Infantmortalityrates,ASD,NortheastandBrazil,2005and2012.

RegionInfantMortality

2005 2012

ASD 26.13 15.49

Northeast 26.38 15.57

Brazil 21.16 13.88Source:DATASUS(MinistryofHealth),2014.

13

Table1.2.Illiteracyrates,ASD,NortheastandBrazil,1991,2000and2010.

Region

Illiteracy (%)

1991 2000 2010

ASD 40.49 27.99 21.05

Northeast 36.55 24.79 18.54

Brazil 19.33 12.84 9.37

Source:BrazilianInstituteofGeographyandStatistics(IBGE),2014.In addition to various indigenous peoples and Afro‐descendant communities calledquilombolas,theASDinBrazilarehometotraditionalcommunitiesoffamilyfarmersofmixeddescentthataregenerallyreferredtoassertanejos,i.e.inhabitantsofthesemi‐aridhinterlandknownassertãowhohavetheirowncultureintermsofdress,speech,music,cordelliteratureanddiet.b)GlobalEnvironmentalBenefits(GEB)status,threatsandcausestheprojectwilladdressTheCaatingaisthelargestdryforestregioninSouthAmericaandoneoftherichestdryforestsintheworld.ThebiomeincludespocketsofCerrado(savannawoodland)andhastransitionstotheAmazon,CerradoandAtlanticForestbiomes.It isparticularlyrichinavifauna,withhighlevelsofendemicityofplants(Table1.3),butithasbeensubjecttointensedeforestation,havinglostmorethan40%oftheforestcoversofar.Deforestationand fragmentation of forests as well as pollution by pesticides result in significantbiodiversityloss,someofwhichishardlynoticed.Forexample,disappearanceofbeesduetoclearing,fireandpollutionseriouslyaffectspollination,theproductionofhoneyandfoodandincomesecurityforsmallholders.Thereare82speciesthreatenedbyextinctionintheCaatinga, includingtwoofthetenmostthreatenedbirdsintheworld,theindigomacaw(Anodorhynchusleari)andthelittleblue macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii). The other most noteworthy threatened terrestrialvertebrate species are maracajá wildcats (Leopardus wiedii), suçuarana wildcats(Leoparduspardalis),three‐bandedarmadillos(Tolypeutestricinctus)andredbats(Myotisruber). Distinctive endemic plant species include Godmania dardanoi, Cordia globosa,Billbergiafosteriana,Cereusjamacaru,Melocactusoreas,Pilosocereusgounellei,CoperniciapruniferaandZiziphusjoazeir.ThethreatenedspeciesarelistedinAppendix8.Thereareinvasivealienspeciessuchaspaloverde(Parkinsoniaaculeata)andalgaroba(Prosopisjuliflora), although this particular leguminous drought‐resistant tree species is alsoconsidered to be useful as a source of food and feed. Conservation International hasmappedKeyBiodiversityAreas(KBAs)forplantsandaquaticspecies.

14

Table1.3.Distributionofspeciesbytypeandendemism,Caatinga.

Type Total Endemic (%)

Plants 932 34

Mammals 148 8

Birds 510 3

Fish 240 8

Reptilesandamphibians 154 15

Source:EMBRAPA,2014.Only7.4%oftheCaatinga,63,631km2,isinprotectedareas,with1.1%inthecategoryofIntegralProtection(withouthumanpresence)and6.3%inthecategoryofSustainableUse(Table1.4).Moreinformationonstatus,threats,causesandproblemstheprojectwilladdresscanbefoundinthesub‐sectiononbarriers(1.1.1.b).Table1.4.Protectedareas(ConservationUnits),Caatinga.

Category Area km2 % of the Caatinga

IntegralProtection 9,600 1.1

SustainableUse 52,031 6.3

Total 63,631 7.4

Source:BrazilianForestService,2014.

Drought patterns in Northeast Brazil are changing and seriously affect the livingconditions of its population, while rains are erratic and sometimes cause disastrousconsequences.Floodscanoccur,butdroughtsarerecurrent.From2011to2013,theASDexperienced periods of themost intense drought in decades. Farmland, livestock andinfrastructureweredestroyedalongwiththeinvestmentcapacityoffamilyfarmers.Thecattleherdwasreducedby1.3millionheadbetween2011and2012,directlyaffectingthedairyindustryandlivelihoodsof10millionpeople.Thenegativeimpactsontheregionalandnationaleconomieswerefar‐reaching.Climate projections in Brazil varywidely according to themodels used. TheBrazilianPanelonClimateChange(PBMC),whichcanbeconsideredtheBrazilianIPCC,carriedoutdetailed analyses that arebeingpublishedby theFederalUniversity ofRiode Janeiro(UFRJ).TheBrazilianAgriculturalandLivestockResearchCompany(EMBRAPA)hasalsostudied patterns of climate change that indicate a need formany crops tomigrate tolatitudesthatarelessaffectedbyrisingtemperaturesandreductionsinrainfall.In2015,theSecretariatofStrategicAffairs(SAE)releasedaseriesofstudiesaboutregionalclimatechange for 2040 showing higher temperatures and lower precipitation for NortheastBrazil,affectingagriculture,energyandinfrastructureofvariouskinds.

15

Deforestationof2,700km2peryearcontinuestobethemajorcauseoflanddegradationand desertification, creating unfavorable conditions for natural regeneration, soilconservation,moisturecontentandfertility.Thevariouseconomicdriversofthreatsaredescribedbelow.Productionoffirewood,whichisoftenunsustainable,accountsforover30%oftheenergyconsumedbyindustriesintheNortheast,inadditiontodomesticconsumptionbypoorfarmers. Deforestation is also due to clear‐cutting to open fields for smallholdersubsistenceagriculture, rain‐fedcommercialagricultureforBrazilianmarkets,rain‐fedagricultureforexport,irrigatedcropsandextensivelivestockraising.Suchclearingcausesfragmentationofnaturalareas,landdegradationanddesertification,whilecattle‐raisingcauses emissions ofmethane and fertilizers used on crops cause emissions of nitrousoxide.Small‐scale agriculture, in the ASD, mostly, for subsistence and domestic markets, issubjecttoadverseweatherconditionsandischaracterizedbylowproductivity,limiteduseoftechnologicalinputsandinsufficienttechnicalassistance.However,thousandsofsmallfarmersgenerateavitalflowofrawmaterialsforfood,clothing,medicalsuppliesandconstruction,meetingthegrowingneedsoftheregion'spopulation.Familyfarmingalsoprovideslivelihoodsformillionsofpeoplewhowouldotherwisehavenoalternativebuttomigratetocities.Agricultural production in the ASD has traditionally been dependent on long fallowsystemsthatcontributetothereplenishmentofnutrients inproductioncyclesrangingfrom3to7years.Practiceshavechangedunderpressureofcommercialagricultureandareincreasinglydependentonexternal inputsandtechnology.ProductionofgrainanduplandcottonstandoutinthestatesofBahia,MaranhãoandPiauí.Theexpansionofthesecropsresultsintherapiddisappearanceoflargeforestareas.Thenationalagriculturalcensusesin1996and2006indicateatrendinthereductionofareasofnaturalpastures.In10years,thedecreaseintheareaofnaturalpasturesintheNortheast was 3.9 million ha. concentrated in Bahia. Expansion of pastures, excessstocking rates and indiscriminate grazing have negative impacts on the naturalvegetation,changingthefloristiccomposition,theproductivepotentialofbiomassandthecapacityfornaturalregeneration.Inaddition, intensetramplingofgrazingareasaltersthe water cycle, causing hardening of the soil, thus reducing water infiltration andacceleratingsurfacerunoffanderosion.Tramplingoftheedgesofstreamsandriversalsocausessiltation.Brazilhas4.45millionha.ofirrigatedland,ofwhich980,000ha.arelocatedinsemi‐aridandsub‐humidareasintheNortheast.Theactivitybenefitstheagro‐industrialcomplex,especiallyinthemunicipalitiesofJuazeiro,inBahia,andPetrolina,inPernambuco,whichproducefruitforexport.Inadequatedrainagecausessoilsalinization,whichlimitscropyields.Mining,mainlyforclayandgypsum,contributestolanddegradationanddesertificationinrelativelysmallareas,butthenegativeimpactscanreachlargerareasbecauseofthedemandforfirewoodarefarmoreextensive.

16

Growthinproductionoftextiles,shoes,food,steel,ceramicsandplasterhasdirectimpactsbyincreasingtheconsumptionoffirewood,whichcomesincreasinglyfromforestsdistantfromindustrialcenterssuchasAraripinaplasterhubinPernambucoandthebricksandtileshubintheSeridóregionsofParaíbaandRioGrandedoNorte.Populationgrowth isno longeraserious threat, since fertility rateshavedeclinedandtherecontinuestobestrongout‐migrationfromruralareastotownsandcities.Themainproblemswithdemographicchangesarethatthereislessfamilylaboravailableandthatyouthoftenleavethecountryside,whiletheproportionofelderlygrowsandseparationanddivorcearecommon.Suchchangesinageandsexcompositionandfamilystructuremustbetakenintoaccountinplanningfortechnologyforfamilyfarming.c)InstitutionalandpolicyframeworkThecomplexinstitutionalandpolicyframeworkfortheREDESERprojectisdescribedindetailinsub‐sectionsbelowonbaselineprojectsandinvestments(1.1.1)andparticipantsandstakeholders(1.1.3).Therearemanyfederalandstategovernmentagenciesaswellas civil society organizations and scientific and academic institutions, in addition tovariouscommissionsandnetworksinwhichtheyparticipate.Therearealsonumerousgovernmentpolicies,plansandprogramsthataredirectlyrelatedtoprojectexecutionandtoreplicationandsustainabilityofitsresults.1.1.1Rationalea) Baseline projects and investments for the next 3‐5 years addressing theidentifiedGEBthreatsandcausesanddevelopmentOpportunities for involvement with co‐financing partners in order to promote theimplementation of best production practices to reach project objectives are identifiedbelow.Inadditiontogovernmentprojectsandinvestmentstobeconductedbyministriesandstateandmunicipalagencies, therearealsovariousassociationsandcooperativesinvolved,asdescribedinTable1.6inSection1.1.3.MinistryofEnvironment (MMA). The implementationof theUNCCDNationalActionPlan(NAP),ledbytheDCDoftheMMA'sSecretariatofExtractivismandSustainableRuralDevelopment(SEDR),ispartofBrazil'scommitmenttotheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertificationandMitigate theEffectsofDrought(UNCCD).TheNAPandthevarious State Action Programs (SAPs) provide a basis for reversing unsustainableproductionpracticesthroughoutASD.OtherrelevantpoliciesandprogramsinwhichtheMMAisinvolvedaredescribedbelow.ChicoMendesInstituteforBiodiversityConservation(ICMBio).Inadditiontoparks,this agency of the MMA manages sustainable use protected areas such as ExtractiveReserves (RESEX), Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS) and National Forests(FLONA).TheAraripe‐Apodi FLONA covers38,919ha. in theAraripe field site,wherethereisalsoanEnvironmentalProtectionArea(APA).Productionintheseprotectedareasmust complywith low‐impact forestmanagement forproductionofwood andNTFPs.ICMBiostressesmultipleusesofnaturalresourcesandtheprotectionandpromotionoflocaltraditionsandculturesinterritoriesthatextendbeyondprotectedareas.

17

National Biodiversity Policy. In order to implement the three components of theConventiononBiologicalDiversity(conservation,sustainableuseandbenefitsharing),Brazil created the National Program of Biological Diversity in 1994 and a NationalBiodiversityPolicyin2002,forwhichtheMMAisresponsible.Workshopswereorganizedbetween1998and2000toestablishpriorityareasandactionsandthesewererevisedin2006and2011.TheCaatingahas82priorityareas,ofwhich27areconsideredextremelyimportant,covering24.7%ofthetotalarea.NationalSystemofNatureConservationUnits(SNUC).Thenationalsystemincludes12typesoffederal,stateandmunicipalprotectedareasintwobroadcategories:IntegralProtectionandSustainableUse.TheSNUCcovers17.4%ofthecountry,ofwhich13.8%is in sustainable useprotected areas,whicharehome to traditional communities thatdepend on biodiversity for their livelihoods. The Sobradinho Lake, formed by thehydropower dam in Bahia, is surrounded by an environmental protection area of1,018,000ha.SustainableUseandIntegralProtectioncategoriesoftheSNUCintheCaatingainclude:i. EnvironmentalProtectionArea(EPA)1,whichisanextensivenaturalareafor

protectionandconservationofbioticattributes(faunaandflora),thereinaestheticorcultural,importantforthequalityoflifeoflocalpeopleandfortheprotectionofregional ecosystems. The main goal of EPAs is the conservation of naturalprocessesandbiodiversity,includingguidance,thedevelopmentandadaptationofdiversehumanactivitiestotheenvironmentalcharacteristicsofthearea.As protected areas with sustainable use category, the EPAs allow humanoccupation.Theseunitsareestablishedtoreconcilethehumanoccupationoftheareaandthesustainableuseofitsnaturalresources.EPAs can be established in areas of public or private land by federal, state ormunicipalities, without the need for expropriation of private land. However,activities and practices developed in these are subject to specific rules. Theconditionsforconductingscientificresearchandpublicviewingareasinthepublicdomainwill be established by the unit's management agency, while in privateproperty,itisuptotheownertoestablishtheconditionsforresearchandvisitsbythepublic,subjecttothelegalrequirementsandrestrictions.

ii. Natural Monument (MONAT2). In Brazil, MONAT is a category of strictlyprotected conservationareadefinedby theNationalNatureConservationUnits(SNUC).Theseunitsarecreatedinordertopreserverarenaturalsites,naturalorof great scenic beauty. The units of categoryMONATmay consist of particularareas,provided it ispossible tomatch theunit'sgoalswith theuseof landandnaturalresourcesofthesitebytheowners.Ifthereisincompatibilitybetweenthefieldgoalsandtheprivateactivitiesornotthereisconsentfromtheownertotheconditionsproposedbytheresponsibleunitofadministrationforthecoexistenceof Natural Monument with the use of the property, the area should beexpropriated, according towhatprovidedby law.Theopenhouse is subject toconditionsandrestrictionssetoutinUnitManagementPlan,thestandardssetbytheagencyresponsibleforitsadministrationandthosespecifiedbyregulation.

1 In Portuguese they are called APA(ÁreadeProteçãoAmbiental) 2 AsperitsacronyminPortuguese

18

AccordingtotheNationalRegisterofProtectedAreas,therewere23unitsofthiscategoryinBrazilin2012.SaoFranciscoMONATisoneofthem.

Araripe has a large National Forest (Araripe‐Apodi) with 38,919 ha. as well as anEnvironmentalProtectionArea‐EPA(ChapadadeAraripe),with972,590ha.,bothinthecategoryofSustainableUse.XingócanyonshavetheSãoFranciscoNationalMonument(MONAT) in thecategoryof IntegralProtection,with26,736ha.TheSeridóEcologicalStationisanAreaofIntegralProtection(IP)inRioGrandedoNorte,with1,163ha.Theother targeted project areas have practically no official protected areas. There are noUNESCOWorld Heritage Sites. Thus, there is practically no prospect for establishingcontinuousbiologicalcorridorsamongprotectedareas in theCaatinga.ThealternativethatisfeasibleforthesesitesissustainableproductivelandscapesnotcoveredbySNUC.ForestLaw.Akey instrument for reducing clearingand recoveringdegradedareas inBrazil is the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), which is the responsibility of theBrazilian Forest Service (SFB) and State Environment Secretariats. It maps the LegalReserves(20%intheCaatinga)andAreasofPermanentPreservation(set‐asidesalongedgesofriversandstreams,onhilltopsandonsteepslopes,averagingabout5%)requiredby the newForest Law (2012) in each rural property. Enforcement of the law,whichrequirescomplianceinordertohaveaccesstocreditafter2017,willimproveconnectivityamongforestfragmentsandprovidedetailedgeographically‐referencedinformationonland use, protection and recovery. CAR will be followed by an EnvironmentalRegularizationProgram(PRA)..

GreenGrantProgram.Throughtheprogramestablishedin2011,theMMAmakesdirectfinancial transfers to extremelypoor families in priority areas for conservation in theAmazon,CerradoandCaatingabiomes.ThefamiliesreceiveUSD100everythreemonthsfor two years, renewable, to promote conservation and sustainable use of naturalresources. The Green Grant Program finances sustainable forestmanagement, amongotherpriorities.NationalPolicy forAgro‐ecology andOrganic Production (PNAPO). The policy isimplemented through the National Plan for Organic Production and Agro‐ecology(PLANAPO). The policy is coordinated by the National Agro‐ecology and OrganicProduction Commission (CNAPO),with 14 civil society representatives, and the Inter‐ministerial Chamber of Agro‐ecology and Organic Production (CIAPO), both of whichincludetheMMA,amongotherministries.Thefirstpubliccallforproposalswaslaunchedin2014,withabudgetofUSD11.4milliontofinance30projectsfor20,000familyfarmers,ruralsettlersandindigenousandtraditionalpeoplesandcommunities.Supportwillbeprovided for native seed banks, an activity that is of fundamental importance forrestorationrequiredbytheForestLawandcanprovideincomeforsmallfarmers.NationalPlan forRecoveryofNativeVegetation(PLANAVEG).Thegoalof theplandesignedbytheMMAin2015istobroadenpublicpolicies,financialincentives,markets,bestagriculturalandlivestockpracticesandothermeasuresneededtorecovernaturalvegetationinatleast12.5millionha.inthenext20years.PriorityisforLegalReserves,Areas of Permanent Preservation anddegraded areaswith lowproductivity. Thiswillcontributegreatlytorecoveryofhabitatfornativeterrestrialandfreshwaterfaunaoratleastconnectivityamonghabitats.Itcreatesenormousnewdemandfornativeplanting

19

material including seeds, seedlings and shoots, which smallholders could provide,improvingtheircashincome.MinistryofAgrarianDevelopment(MDA).TheMDA,whichworkswithfamilyfarming,hasoneofthelargestfederalbudgetsandisthemainco‐financieroftheREDESERproject.IthaslongbeenakeypartneroftheMMAinpromotingsustainabledevelopmentwithemphasisontheruralpoorandgenderequitythroughvariousagenciesandprograms.National InstituteofColonizationandAgrarianReform (INCRA). In the extensiveagrarianreformsettlementsintheNortheastestablishedbythisagencyoftheMDA,thestrongdemandforfirewoodandcharcoalprovidesopportunitiesforworkandincomeforfamilyfarmers,butsustainabilityrequiresappropriatepractices,licensingandinspection.SFM in native or recovered areas also contributes to ecosystem conservation. INCRAcollaborateswiththeMMAinestablishingfiveAgrobiodiversityManagementIrradiationCenters(CIMAs)intheCaatinga.Ruralcredit.TheNationalProgramtoStrengthenFamilyFarming(PRONAF),managedbyMDA,providesawiderangeofsourcesofcreditforfamilyfarmerswithlowinterestrates.Forofficialpurposes,familyfarmersinBrazilareruralproducerswho:a)usetheland as owners, squatters, tenants or land reform settlers; b) reside on or near theproperty;c)havenomorethanfourfiscalmodules(varyinginsizeaccordingtolocation)forfarmingorsix fiscalmodules for livestock;d)primarilyusefamily labor.LoansarechanneledthroughtheNationalRuralCreditSystemoftheBankofBrazil,theBankoftheNortheastandtheBankoftheAmazon,amongothers.Ofthe12typesofcreditavailable,the most suitable for NTFPs and agroforestry are in the environmental credit lines.Specific credit instrumentshavebeendeveloped toprovideworking capital formicro,small andmedium enterprises, although thesemodalities require adjustments so thattheycanbeaccessedbyfamilyfarmers.Ruralextension.Brazil’stechnicalassistanceandruralextensionsystemwasdismantledinthe1990s,butanewlawin2010establishedtheNationalTechnicalAssistanceandRural Extension Policy (PNATER). The National Program of Technical Assistance andRuralExtensioninFamilyFarmingandAgrarianReform(PRONATER)andanewagency,coordinatedbytheMDA,promotesustainabledevelopmentamongthediversecategoriesoffamilyfarming,consideringgender,generationandethnicity.ItcanpromoteSLM,SFM,NTFPandagroforestrysystems.Therearenowmoreflexibleproceduresforcontractingrural extension services. There is now more emphasis on sustainability. Possiblesynergies include: a)partnerships amonggovernment,businessesandcivil society; b)partnershipswithformalandnon‐formaleducationalorganizations;c)preparationandpublicationofbasicandadvancedtrainingmaterials;d)design,testinganddeploymentofinnovativetechnologies.Interpersonalruralextensionisdifficultinremoteareas.NationalCommunityandFamilyForestManagementProgram(PNMFC).The jointinitiativebetweentheMMA,throughtheBrazilianForestService(SFB),andtheMDAwascreated to coordinate promotion of sustainable forest management with a focus ontraditionalcommunitiesandpeoplesandfamilyfarmerswhomaketheirlivingfromuseof forests. The steering committee includes representatives of various governmentagenciesandcivilsocietyorganizations.

20

ProgramforFoodAcquisition(PAA).Theprogramforgovernmentpurchaseof foodproductsisconductedinpartnershipwithstatesandmunicipalitiesandtheNationalFoodSupply Company (CONAB) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply(MAPA).Itisofvitalimportanceforstrengtheninglocalsupplychainsoffamilyfarming.Paymentsaremadedirectlytofamilyfarmers.Themainobjectivesaretopromoteaccesstofood,encouragefamilyfarmingandcontributetotheformationofpublicfoodstocks.Foodisdistributedtopeopleinsituationsoffoodinsecurityandbeneficiariesofsocialassistance. The program strengthens local and regional marketing networks, valuesbiodiversity and organic and agro‐ecological food production and stimulates farmerassociations.Itbenefitsbothfarmerswhoaresuppliersofproductsandconsumerswhoarebeneficiariesofsocialassistanceprograms.NationalSemi‐AridInstitute.Thefourthlargestco‐financieroftheREDESERprojectistheNationalSemi‐AridInstitute(INSA),aunitoftheMinistryofScience,TechnologyandInnovation(MCTI)fortheregion,locatedinCampinaGrande,intheinteriorofParaíba.ItcarriesoutresearchontheCaatingaandhasadvancedinformationandcommunicationtechnologyfordisseminationofresults.FAOiscurrentlycollaboratingwithINSAfortheproduction of the first ever baseline assessment of the Global drylands using FAO‐developedCollectEarthTool and involving data collectionof thedrylandsof the sub‐regionofBrazil‐Venezuela‐Colombia,includingtheCaatinga.Thereferencedatawillbeusedandbecompletedduringtheprojectinceptionphase(bymonth6,ProjectYear1)formonitoringintheframeworkofthisproject.Citizenship Territories. The program involving many different ministries promoteseconomicdevelopment anddemocratic access tobasic services in rural areas throughsustainableterritorialdevelopmentbasedonsocialparticipationinvolvingfederal,stateandmunicipalgovernments.The120territoriescomprisegroupsofmunicipalitieswithsimilareconomicandenvironmentalcharacteristics,culturalidentityandgeographicandsocialcohesion.ThefiveCitizenshipTerritoriesintheREDESERprojectsitesare:1)Cariri,forAraripe;2)SeridóandMédioSertãodaParaíba,forSeridó;3)SertãodoSãoFrancisco,forUauá;4)AltoSertãodeAlagoas,forXingó.Foreachterritory,theprogramprovideshundredsofmillionsofBrazilianReais inassistanceregardingsustainableproduction,education, health, infrastructure, water supply, social development and rights. It isimportantfortheprojecttocatalyzetop‐downandbottom‐upinfluenceonhowthefundsareusedsothattheycontemplatelanddegradation,desertificationandbiodiversityinthefiveCitizenshipTerritoriesandtherestoftheASD.NationalPlanforthePromotionofSocio‐biodiversityProductionChains(PNPPS).ThePNPPS,conductedincoordinationwiththeMDA,MDS,CONABandMMA,promotesvalue chainsof sustainableuseofbiodiversity in territoriesof traditionalpeoplesandcommunities. It provides alternative income for rural communities through access tocredit,technicalassistance,ruralextension,localmarketsandminimumpriceguarantees.State andmunicipal environment and agriculture secretariats. Five sub‐nationalenvironment, agricultural and planning secretariats, which sometimes include waterresourcesandscienceandtechnology,signedco‐financingletterstosupporttheprojectin their respectiveareas:1)Paraíbastateagriculturesecretariat (SEAFDS);2)Paraíbastate environment secretariat (SEIHRMACT); 3) Rio Grande do Norte state planning

21

secretariat (SEPLAN); 4) Alagoas state environment secretariat (SEMARH); 5) Crato(Ceará)municipalenvironmentsecretariat(SEMA).

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). The vision of this research center of theConsortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) is “a ruraltransformationinthedevelopingworldassmallholderhouseholdsstrategicallyincreasetheir use of trees in agricultural landscapes to improve their food security, nutrition,income, health, shelter, social cohesion, energy resources and environmentalsustainability.” Itsmission is “to generate science‐based knowledge about the diverserolesthattreesplayinagriculturallandscapes,andtouseitsresearchtoadvancepoliciesandpractices,andtheirimplementation,thatbenefitthepoorandtheenvironment.”Itsnew office in Brazil focuses on agroforestry systems for recovery of degraded areasprotectedbytheForestLaw.b)RemainingbarrierstoaddressthreatsonGlobalEnvironmentalBenefits(GEBs)Duringfullprojectpreparation,thebarriersthattheprojectwilladdresstodeliverglobalenvironmentalbenefitswerefurtheranalyzed.Duplicationwithotherprojectshasbeencarefullyavoided.Despitegovernmentefforts,therearestillsomemainbarriersthatneedtobeaddressed:

Barrier#1:Limitedidentificationandlackofeffectivedisseminationanduptakeofbestpractices

Throughthepastprojects/initiativesintheNortheastregionofBrazil,avarietyofSFM,biodiversitymanagementandSLMtechniquesandpracticeswereimplementedinapilotfashion.Someofthesewerehighlysuccessfulandwereshowntobeveryeffective.Butthere have not been enough efforts to evaluate these practices, identify them as bestpractices,andeffectivelydisseminateandpromotethemfurther.

Dryland forests and agrosilvopastoral systems of the Caatinga have received limitedrecognition and attention so far in Brazil, despite their crucial ecological, social andeconomic roles. If comparedwith other unique ecosystems in Brazil (e.g. theAmazonregion),theCaatingahasnotattractedtheamountoftechnicalandfinancialinvestmentthatisneededneitherforassessment,monitoring,conservation,sustainablemanagementnorforrestorationinthewiderlandscape.Policyinitiatives, fundingschemesandfieldprojectstosupportingSLMandcombatingdesertification,managementandrestorationofdrylandforestsandagroforestrysystemsinBrazildrylandshaveremainedscatteredandun‐knownbymanyoftheproducersandfarmers.Mostof these initiativeswouldneedacarefulassessment todraw lessonsonsuccessandfailurefactors,andtocompilebestpracticesfordisseminationandscaling‐up. As result, land degradation, habitat and biodiversity loss, CO2 leakage and GHGemissionsareglobalenvironmentalproblemsstillwidespreadintheCaatinga.Barrier#2:Complex and restrictive legislations and regulatory frameworks forSFMandSLM

Forest management legislations, both at federal and state level, are complex andrestrictive,andtherearenocleardirectivestoenabletheirimplementation,especiallyat

22

thelocalandfarmlevel.TheprocessesassociatedwithuptakeandapprovalsofSFMplansat local level are bureaucratic and tedious. The existing licensing and inspectionguidelinesandpracticesgenerallyfavorunsustainablelandusesuchasclearingforcropsandpasture,whichcontributetodegradationanddesertificationratherthaninnovativeSLMandSFM.Proceduresandregulations(i.e.sanitarystandards)aredesignedforthelarge‐scale production of conventional agricultural products, without addressing theparticularitiesofthesmall‐scaleproduction.AllthisdiscouragestheadoptionofSFMandSLMbysmallholdersandruralfarmers.

Barrier#3:LackofappropriatepolicyandguidelinesforINRM,SFMandFLR

Thisisremarkable,asit isvitaltoqualifyandformallyrecognizeINRM/SFMpractices,especiallytakingintoconsiderationthenewForestLawandthenationalEnvironmentalRegularizationProgram(PRA).Thesepracticesareimportantandnecessarytosupportsustainablemanagement and restoration of dryland forests and landscapeswith theirassociatednaturalresourcesatlocallevel.Acoordinatedeffortatfederalandstatelevelwillbenecessarytoachievethis.NewalternativesandguidelineshavetobepreparedinordertointegrateandrecognizegoodSFMandINRMpractices,takingintoconsiderationtraditional integrated production systems, sustainable harvesting, processing andmarketingofnon‐woodforestproducts,forestandlandscaperestorationandecosystemsservices.

Barrier #4: Limited institutional capacities to promote SLM, SFM and FLR atregionalandstatelevel

TherearesignificantgapsincapacitiesofregionalandstatelevelinstitutionstopromoteSLM,SFMandFLRpractices.Thelackofcapacitiescanbecategorizedas:a)capacitiestoprovidetechnicalassistanceandguidance;andb)capacitiestoengagecivilsocietyandlocalcommunitiesinidentifyingandpromotingbestpractices.

CivilsocietyandlocalcommunitiesarepoorlyengagedinidentifyingandpromotingNRMbestpractices.Whenthere isdemandofNWFPs, thesupply isgenerally insufficient interms of quantity, quality and regularity. Small‐scale rural producers and forest‐dependentcommunitiesintheCaatingalackknowledgeonhowtoapplyforcreditandsoft loans. National banks (state‐owned and private) lack knowledge aboutunconventional rural products andprocesses that aredifferent fromuniformnationalstandards.Existingprocessesareverybureaucratic, time‐consumingandcostly,whichdiscouragestheadoptionofnewpractices

Institutional knowledge is limited about effectiveness, sustainable production,sustainable forest management and restoration planning and standards, analysis ofproductivity, costs, impacts, benefits and market volatility. Norms and curricula aredefinedatthefederallevel,withoutdueconsiderationofregionalspecificities,traditionalpractices, low income or informal organization of production. Credit agents and ruralextensionofficersarenotfamiliarwiththeseproductsandservices,manyofwhichhave

23

not been sufficiently tested in the field under normal conditions. There is little inter‐sectoral cooperation or coordination, which also results in inability to generateconfidenceandsupportamongcivilsocietyandlocalcommunitiestoadoptnewpractices.

Barrier #5: Limited value chain incentives for implementing INRM practices atsmall‐scalelevelintheCaatingaOnthevaluechainside,marketincentivesthatsupporttheidentificationandscaling‐upofbestNRMpracticesintheCaatingaarelimited.Farmers,institutionsandacademiaareaccustomed to working with conventional livestock and crops. As mentioned above,sanitary standards are designed for the large‐scale production of conventionalagricultural products. Few non‐wood forest products (NWFP) are marketed orincorporatedintogovernment‐fundedprogramsorinlocalvaluechains,mainlybecausetheNWFPsarenotknownandoftendealtwith in informalmarkets.Supplychains formultiple‐useSFMproductsandservicesarefragileorinexistent.More efforts are needed to stimulate and drive enhanced and targeted INRM acrosslandscapes and to link sectoral production systems.This includesbothproducers andend‐users.Caatingaecosystems,ifwellmanaged,wouldofferagreatandyetuntappedeconomicpotential forproducers,due to thewiderangeofgoodandservices that theCaatingafarmersprovide(includingthebiologicaldiversityofnon‐woodforestproductsand other traditional agroforestry products). However, few economic and financialviabilityanalyseshavebeenconductedtoassesssmall‐scaleruralproductionsystemsandtheir related value chains. Viability and sustainability are necessary conditions toincentivizelocalstakeholderstoinvestingandallocatingsufficientresourcesforINRMintheirdrylands.AccordingtoFAO,theimprovementofincomeopportunitiesarisingfromforestandagroforestrysystemsisoneessentialwayofprovidingsuchincentives.

Barrier#6:WeakcapacityinknowledgemanagementandtransferandextensionservicesinASD.Similarlytotheabovebarriers,thedisseminationofbestpracticesofland use andmanagement are related to poor coverage and inappropriate content ofextensionservicesinruralareas,inparticularinmoreremotepartsoftheASD.Havingtechnical information isnot sufficient, if notwell transmittedanddisseminated to thestate and local institutions and the practitioners/producers who are supposed toimplementthemontheground,Indeed,somevaluableexperiencesexist,butareisolatedinafewresearchcentersandlocalprojectsratherthanbeingtakenupinnewinitiativesinvolving agrarian reform settlers, other family farmers, wild harvesters, indigenouspeoplesandvariouskindsoftraditionalcommunities.Moreattentionneedstobegiventoappropriatemulticultural approaches integrating gender and ethnicity and traditionalknowledge.

Barrier #7: Lack of sustained technical support for forest and landscaperestoration.ThoughinthepasttherehavebeeneffortstoenableforestrestorationintheNortheast region, with some good successes, the efforts have hit a snag once theinitiatives/projects ended. It is important to identify andexecuteactivities thatwouldensure sustainable forest and landscape restoration creating biodiversity connectivityareasbetweenPAs.

24

Furthermore, in spite of State Action Plan(s), the restoration of degraded forests andecosystems lacks sufficient and sustained technical and financial support in existinggovernment initiatives. Restoration is limited by: a) insufficient systematization andassessment of existing experiences; b) lack of criteria for defining priority areas forrestoration; c) lack of guidelines /standards for restoration of degraded forests andlandscapes in the contextofdrylands; d)high costsof restorationusing seedlings; e)inappropriate methods and silvicultural systems for ASD conditions; f) isolated localorganizations;g) inabilityoffarmerstoinvest;h)Gapsinthesupplyofseedsofnativespecies (trees, shrubs and grasses); i) lack of the use of cost‐effective restorationstrategies(suchasnaturalregeneration).

c)Incrementalreasoning(addedvalueoftheproject)In order to remove the above mentioned barriers and achieve global environmentalbenefits, GEF funds will be invested incrementally to the aforementioned baselineinitiatives,asdescribedbelowandfurtherdetailedinsub‐sections2.3and2.4:Component 1: Promoting Integrated Natural Resources (INRM) in ProductionLandscapes.Inordertoovercomebarriers#1,3,4and5,andindirectlybarrier23(seesubsection1.1.1.b),Component1throughGEFfinancingofUSD937,747willsupportthepromotionof INRM in production landscapes in project targeted areas. Federal government co‐financingofUSD700,000throughMMAwillsupporttechnicalassistance,stafftime,fieldactivities,useoffacilities.Stategovernmentin‐kindco‐financingofUSD1,333,333fromParaíbaandAlagoaswillsupportsimilaractivities,aswillmunicipalin‐kindfundingofUSD266,667fromCrato.Non‐governmentalin‐kindfinancingofUSD160,000fromtheAraripeFoundationandthesameamountfromAPNE4willsupportfieldactivities.ICRAF5will contribute with research and knowledge management‐related activities for thisComponentwithco‐financingbyUSD40,000.Component2:PromotingMultiple‐useForestManagementInordertoovercomebarriers#1,4,5,andindirectlybarrier26(seesubsection1.1.1.b),Component2throughGEFfinancingofUSD1,199,309willsupportmultiple‐useforestmanagementinprojectareas.Federalgovernmentco‐financingofUSD1,333,333throughthe Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA), USD 566,667 through MMA and USD2,556,667throughtheBrazilianForestryService(SFB)willsupporttechnicalassistance,stafftime,fieldactivities,useoffacilities,travel.Statein‐kindfinancingofUSD266,667

3 Barrier 2 is directly being addressed by the UNDP/GEF project Sustainable Land Use Management in the Semiarid Region of Northeast Brazil (Sergipe), as anticipated in the FAO/GEF PIF submitted in 2013. This FAO/GEF project is coordinating actions with the UNDP/GEF project through the Directorate of Desertification (MMA) which is the main counterpart for both projects. 4 For its acronym in Portuguese, Associação Plantas do Nordeste, PlantAssociationofNortheast 5 World Agroforestry Centre 6 Barrier 2 is directly being addressed by the UNDP/GEF project Sustainable Land Use Management in the Semiarid Region of Northeast Brazil (Sergipe), as anticipated in the FAO/GEF PIF submitted in 2013. This FAO/GEF project is coordinating actions with the UNDP/GEF project through the Directorate of Desertification (MMA) which is the main counterpart for both projects.

25

fromParaíbawillsupportfieldactivitiesinSeridó,aswillmunicipalin‐kindfundingofUSD 266,667 from Crato. ICRAF7 will contribute with research and knowledgemanagement‐relatedactivitiesforthisComponentwithco‐financingbyUSD20,000.Component3:ForestandLandscapeRestoration(FLR)In order to overcome barriers # 1, 4, 6 and 7 (see subsection 1.1.1.b), Component 3through GEF financing of USD 992,294 will support sustainable forest and landscaperestoration.Governmentco‐financingofUSD2,026,667throughMDA,USD400,000fromMMA andUSD1,333,333 from INSAwill support technical assistance, staff time, fieldactivities,useoffacilities,travel.Stategovernmentin‐kindco‐financingofUSD1,066,666fromSEPLAN‐RNandUSD533,333fromParaíbawillsupport fieldactivities inSeridó.Non‐governmental in‐kindfinancingofUSD160,000fromAGENDHAwillsupport fieldactivitiesinBahia.Component 4: KnowledgeManagement, Capacity Development and Awareness‐RaisingIn order to overcome barriers # 1, 4, 6 and 7 (see subsection 1.1.1.b), Component 4throughGEFfinancingofUSD462,448willsupportcoordination,capacitydevelopment,communicationandawareness‐raising.Paraíbastategovernmentin‐kindco‐financingofUSD266,667willsupporttechnicalassistance,stafftime,fieldactivities,useoffacilities,travel. Non‐governmental in‐kind co‐financing of USD 800,000 from FUNETEC, USD266,666 from IABS and USD 160,000 from SEAPAC will support training anddissemination.ICRAF8willcontributewithresearchandknowledgemanagement‐relatedactivitiesforthisComponentwithco‐financingbyUSD40,000.Component5:Coordinationwithotheractivities,MonitoringandEvaluationGEFfinancingofUSD151,207willsupportprojectMonitoringandEvaluationandprojectcoordinationwithcomplementaryinitiativesaimingatlandscape‐levelbenefitsonlanddegradationanddesertification.Government co‐financingofUSD200,000 through theMMA and USD 110,000 through the Brazilian Forest Service will support technicalassistance, staff time, field activities, use of facilities and travel for data collection,processinganddisseminationandforcoordinationwithotherinitiatives.FAOwillprovideUSD200,000(in‐kind)tosupporttheProjectManagementstructure.SeedetailsintheFinancialPlans,Section4.3ofthisProjectDocument.Ingeneralterms,theaddedvalueoftheREDESERprojectwithGEFfinancingistheabilityto mobilize significant co‐financing resources, more than USD 15 million, from 17different federal, state and municipal government institutions and non‐governmentalorganizationsandtoinvolvenumerousadditionalstakeholderstoworkacrosssectors,inamainstreaming initiative that until nowhas not received the interest and support itdeserves, in spite of the severe environmental, economic and social impacts of landdegradationanddesertification,climatechangeandbiodiversityloss. 7 World Agroforestry Centre 8 World Agroforestry Centre

26

The scenario without GEF resources would be timid and isolated initiatives, withoutintegrationandmainstreaming.Tothecontrary,theallocationofGEFresourceswillmakeit possible to implement concrete benefits, produce and disseminate new knowledge,capacityandawareness,reactivateimplementationofpoliciessuchasSAPsandconstructmulti‐sectoral dialog with all partners regarding ASD development issues. In Brazil,limitedinternationalcooperationcanbeusedtoleveragesubstantialadditionalresourcesandinfluencefar‐reachingpoliciesandpractices.1.1.2FAO’scomparativeadvantagesAsaworldleaderindesigningandimplementingtechnicalprogramstobolsternaturalresource management and combating desertification, FAO has wide experience inpartnershipswith government, donors, research organizations andnetworks and civilsocietyandcommunityorganizationsaroundtheworld.Buildingonitsexperienceoverthepast60years,FAOcatalysesregionalandinternationalcooperation,includingNorth‐South,South‐Southandtriangularcooperation,servingasaneutralforum.Sustainable natural resource management and sustainable forest management andrestoration areFAO’s greatest technical strengths. From working with farmers andproducersintheirfieldstoscientistsintheirlaboratoriestopolicy‐makersandtechnicalforestryofficersintheirministries,FAOhasahighlevelofawarenessandunderstandingof the causes and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and of the variousoptionsforthedevelopmentofsustainableforestandecosystemmanagementstrategiesthat reducepoverty through thegenerationof incomeandemployment, that integratebiodiversity conservation into productive forest landscapes and that both mitigateclimatechangeandprovidekeytoolsforruralcommunitiestoadapttoclimatechange.FAOhasstronginternationalprogramsforknowledgemanagementinsupportofSFMandrestorationindrylands,disseminatedthroughcapacitydevelopmentprojectsandevents,on‐lineplatformssuchastheSFMToolBox,technicalguidelinesandforestrypapers.Allof these will provide critical support to the REDESER project and benefit from itscontributions.Moreover,FAOleadsorparticipatesinthemostactiveglobalandregionalnetworksandplatforms on Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought (DLDD) issues, includingTerrAfrica,theWorldOverviewofConservationApproachesandTechnologies(WOCAT),theGEF‐fundedLandDegradationAssessmentinDrylands(LADA)andtheGlobalLandCover Network (GLCN), and the Great GreenWall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative(GGWSSI).FAO’sForestryDepartmentiscombatingdesertificationandlanddegradationthroughacomprehensive program focused on drylands forestry, agroforestry, climate changeadaptation andmitigation, resource assessments, sustainable forest management andforest and landscape restoration.Thishas included the formulationofNationalForestPrograms(NFP) incountriesthatareheavilyaffectedbydesertificationinAfrica,Asia,LatinAmerica,theCaribbeanandthePacific.FAO’s Forest Policy and Resources Division (FOA) has backstopped field projects indiverse habitats (drylands, islands and mountains) and assisted in improving the

27

productionandmarketingofawiderangeofecosystemservicesandcommodities,suchasgums, resinsandotherNWFPsusingaMarketAnalysisandDevelopmentapproachacrossforestproductsvaluechains.Ithasprovidedtechnicaloversightoninterregionalstudies, guidelines and publications based on field experience and lessons learnedthroughcountry‐drivenprocesses.ReducingruralpovertyiscentraltoFAO’smissionandithaslongexperienceinpromotingsustainable rural livelihood solutions, particularly among smallholder and subsistencefarmers.FAOunderstandshowtomakeagricultureprofitableforruralwomenandyoungpeople,specificallywithrespecttoinformalemploymentinagriculture.FAOhasbeenselectedastheimplementingagencyforthisprojectbecauseofthebroadandglobalnatureoftheprojectobjectivesandFAO’sprovenexperienceandexpertiseinSFM,sustainablemanagementofnaturalresourcesandcombatingdesertification,aswellasitsknowledgeofthesubjectmatteranditsmanyregionalandcountryoffices.FAOisabletoworkcloselywithruralcommunities,countries,UnitedNationsagencies,donorsandresearchandcapacity‐developmentorganizations.FAO’sprojectsinthissectorinBrazilduringthelasttwodecadesarelistedbelow.Awiderangeofdeliverymodalities fornational, regionaland inter‐regionalprojectshasbeenemployed,rangingfromfullyFAO‐fundedTechnicalCooperationProjects(TCP),projectsgrantedbyexternaldonors(GEF,EuropeanCommunityandtheNationalForestFacility)andprojectsfullyfundedbytheBrazilianGovernment.TheportfolioofnationalprojectsreachedatotalvalueaboveUSD22million.TheportfolioincludestheNFPFacilityfunds,totalingUSD300,000between2007and2010tosupporttheNationalForestryProgram.A sequence of two TCP projects, TCP/BRA/3103 and ‐3202, set the basis for a GEFinitiativepreparedwithaProjectPreparationGrant(GCP/BRA‐073/GFF)completedin2008 that prepared the ground for the full projectGCP/BRA/079/GFF “StrengtheningNationalPolicyandKnowledgeFrameworks inSupportofSustainableManagementofBrazil'sForestResources”,GEFn.3767,begunin2010andstillongoing.ThelargeGEF‐fundedprojectaimsatsupportingnationalforestpolicy,withFAOactingasimplementingandexecutingagency,attheurgingoftheMMA,whichhasexpressedtheneedforFAOexperienceandexpertiseinmanagingGEFprojects.1.1.3ParticipantsandotherstakeholdersTheREDESERprojectwillpromotecapacitydevelopmentbasedonalliancesamongstateagencies,ministries,theFederalPublicMinistryandcivilsocietyorganizationsatvariouslevels. In addition to using co‐financing promised to far, it will also seek new andadditional sources of funding. The project is led by the Department to CombatDesertification (DCD) of the Secretariat of Extractivism and Sustainable RuralDevelopment(SEDR)oftheMMA.Itsimplementationislinkedtothemaingovernmentagencies responsible for forestry, rural development, NTFPs, biodiversity, landregularization and extension programs. A summary of key project participants andstakeholders,whetherornottheyhavesignedco‐financing letters,andtheirrolesandresponsibilities,directlyorthroughinter‐ministerialprograms,ispresentedinTable1.5.Table1.5.Participantsandstakeholdersandrelevantroles

28

Participantsandstakeholders RelevantRoles

MinistryofEnvironment(MMA),SecretariatofExtractivismandSustainableRuralDevelopment(SEDR),DepartmenttoCombatDesertificationandLandDegradation(DCD)

MMA is one of the main project co‐financiers.ItsDCDisresponsiblefortheimplementationofBrazil'sNationalActionPlan(NAP)toCombatDesertification.ThedepartmentisinchargeofimplementationofBraziliancommitmentswithUNCCDandisresponsibleforthedesignandimplementationofpublicpoliciestocombatdesertificationandlanddegradationandconservebiodiversityinASD.Itwillplayacentralroleintheimplementationofrelevantpoliciesandprograms.

ChicoMendesInstituteofBiodiversityConservation(ICMBio)

ICMBio, part of MMA, manages the federalprotectedareas(ConservationUnits)andpromotescommunitydevelopmentinthosethatallowforsustainableuse,inadditiontoresearchandknowledge,environmentaleducationandecosystemmanagement.ItwillsupportdevelopmentofinformationmaterialsandtrainingandassistintrainingfarmersonbestNTFPandagroforestryproductionpractices,aswellasidentifyingthebestalternativesfortherecoveryofdegradedareasprovidingbiologicalconnectivityamongforestremnants.Itseeksgreaterintegrationbetweenprotectedareasandlocalcommunitiesandsocietyingeneral.

BrazilianInstituteofEnvironmentandRenewableNaturalResources(IBAMA)

IBAMA, also part of MMA, will participate indefiningtechnicalandregulatoryframeworksandcoordinatewithstateenvironmentalagenciestointernalizetechnicalstandardsanddevelopappropriateguidelinesforenvironmentalmonitoring,lawenforcementandadministrativesanctions,particularlywithregardtothepreventionandcontrolofdeforestationandforestfires.Theinstitutionwillbenefitfromthebestpracticesandstandardsofsustainableproductiontobegeneratedbytheprojectandusetheminmonitoringandorientation.

BrazilianForestService(SFB)

The Brazilian Forest Service (SFB), also partofMMA,supportsforestmanagementactivitiesintheCaatingaandotherbiomesandmanagestheNationalFundforForestDevelopment(FNDF).Itisresponsibleformanagingnationalforests(FLONA)suchasAraripe,whereitcantesttheresultsoftheproject.TheSFBwillworkwiththeprojecttostrengthenthecollectionofseeds,productionofseedlingsandrecoveryofdegradedareasthroughseedandseedlingplanting,

29

supporting the Caatinga Forest ManagementNetworkandimplementationofthemanagementplanoftheAraripeFLONA.Inaddition,theSFBisakeypartnerinthedesignoftrainingandinformationmaterials.ItisalsoresponsiblefortheRuralEnvironmentalRegistry(CAR)toenforcetheForestCodeandfordevelopingandcoordinatingdetailedfederalandstatenormsaboutitsapplication.

MinistryofAgrarianDevelopment(MDA)

The mission of MDA is to promote sustainabledevelopmentinagrarianreformsettlementsandamongfamilyfarmersingeneral.Itwillbethemainco‐financieroftheproject.MDApoliciesarefundamentalforstrengtheninganddiversifyingfamilyfarminginareasthataresociallyandenvironmentallyvulnerable.TheprojectwillinvolveitdirectlyintheintroductionofSLMandSFMamongfamilyfarmers,benefitingfromitsleadershipinvolvingmanystakeholdersinlong‐terminitiatives.MDAanditsagenciesstrengthenfamilyfarmingbyfacilitatingaccesstocreditthroughtheNationalProgramtoStrengthenFamilyAgriculture(PRONAF),whichincludesorganicandagro‐ecologicalproduction,agroforestryandNTFP.

MinistryofSocialDevelopmentandtheFightagainstHunger(MDS)

The role of MDS, which works closely withMMAandMDA,istochannelpublicinvestmentsfororganizedforsocialinclusion,foodandnutritionsecurity,socialassistance,minimumincomeandwatersecurityforpoorfamilies.Itcanprovideadditionalco‐financingfortrainingprogramsanddisseminationofinformation.TheMDSwillusetheinformationproducedbytheprojecttotrainitspersonnelandproducersinvolvedinagroforestry,guideinvestmentsintargetlandscapes,providemoreeffectivesupportforproductiveactivitiesandimprovetheFoodAcquisitionProgram(PAA).TogetherwithMDAandBNDES,itwillsupport24memberorganizationsofASAtoestablish600communityagro‐biodiversityseedbanksintheCaatinga.

MinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandFoodSupply(MAPA)

The mission of MAPA, which works with large‐scaleagricultureandlivestock,istopromotesustainabledevelopmentandthecompetitivenessofagribusiness.Althoughitisnotaprojectco‐financier,oneofitsmostrelevantinitiativesistheSectorPlanforMitigationandAdaptationtoClimateChangefortheLowCarbonAgriculture(ABCPlan),whichoffersverysubstantialincentivesandresources(ontheorderofUSD1billionperyearforBrazilasawhole)tofarmerswhoadoptpracticesthatincreasetheresilienceofproduction

30

systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,thusbeingimportantforuptakeofsustainabletechnologiesthatcontributetocarbonstorageandsequestrationandgenerateco‐benefitsintermsofbiodiversityconservationandlanddegradation.AnotherroleisimplementationoftheNationalPlanofAgro‐ecologyandOrganicProduction(PLANAPO).

NationalFoodSupplyCompany(CONAB)

CONAB, part of MAPA, implements two importantpoliciesthatincludeNTFPs:minimumpricesforbiodiversityproducts(PGPMBio)andfoodacquisition(PAA).ItensuresfairpricesforgovernmentprocurementofNTFPs,settingminimumpricesforagriculturalandsocialbiodiversityproducts.Itwillincorporateprojectinformationinitsactivities.

BrazilianAgriculturalResearchEnterprise(EMBRAPA)

EMBRAPA is also part of MAPA. The projectwillestablishacooperationagreementwithEMBRAPAGoatsandSheepinSobral,Ceará,todisseminateagroforestryintheCaatingabasedonbestpracticesofSFMforrearingthiskindoflivestockcommonintheregion.Thecenterwillbeinvolvedinprovidingtechnicalexpertise,implementationofprojectactivities,promotingpartnershipsandcoordinationwithstakeholders(governmentagencies,cooperatives,producerassociations,NGOs)participatingintheprojecttoimproveNTFPs,agroforestry,SLMandSFMinASD.

MinistryofNationalIntegration(MI)

TheMI will be involved because of its mega‐projectsintheNortheast,especiallytheSãoFranciscoRivertranspositionproject,involving477km.ofcanalstocarrywatertopartsof Ceará,RioGrandedoNorte,Paraíba andPernambuco,andtheTrans‐NortheasternRailway.Bothprojectsrequireenvironmental compensation that canbe synergeticwiththeproject.TheMI also supports “Routesof Integration”linking local productive clusters (APLs) of biodiversityproductssuchashoneyandcashew.

MinistryofEducation(MEC)

MECis responsible for the National School LunchProgram(PNAE). In 2014 the budget for this institutionalmarketprogramwasUSD1.2billiontobenefit43millionpupils.Atleast30%ofthefundstransferredtomunicipalitiesmustbeusedtopurchasefamilyfarmproducts,stimulatinglocalandregionaleconomicdevelopmentandreducingextremepoverty.Inadditiontoconventionalproducts,theprogramalsopromotessustainableuseofbiodiversitysuchasnativefruits,butsupplyisfarfromsufficientforthisscale.

31

MinistryofScience,TechnologyandInnovation(MCTI)

The Northeast Regional Center of the NationalSpaceResearchInstitute(INPE)inNatal,RioGrandedoNorte,isdoingdetailedsatellitemonitoringintheCaatingathatwillprovidevaluabledataforprojectmonitoringandevaluation.

NationalSavingsBank(CEF),BankoftheNortheast(BNB),BankofBrazil(BB)

These three federal banks provide loans undertheNationalProgramtoStrengthenFamilyFarming(PRONAF).Financingsupportsagroforestrysystems,agro‐ecology,restorationofLegalReserves(RL)andAreasofPermanentPreservation(APP),familyfarmingingeneralandprocessingandmarketingofagriculturalproducts.TheprojectwillseektopromoteandadjustcreditlinesforsustainableforestactivitiesandoperationalizespecialfinancingsystemsforpromotingSFManddisseminationofbestproductionpracticesamongfarmersandwildharvestersandtheirassociations.

StateEnvironmentAgencies(OEMAs)

Because of decentralization to sub‐nationalgovernments,stateenvironmentagenciesareincreasinglyresponsibleforplanningandimplementationofenvironmentallicensingandregulation.Forthisproject,theywillplayakeyroleinimplementingstateactionprogramstocombatdesertificationinallthestatesofASD(Alagoas,Bahia,Ceará,Paraíba,Pernambuco,Piauí,RioGrandedoNorte,Sergipe,Maranhão,MinasGeraisandEspíritoSanto).Theywillalsoassistinengagingtheprivatesector.StateenvironmentagenciesinParaíbaandAlagoasareco‐financiers.

SustainableRN Through the Department of Planning and FinanceofthePlanningSecretariat(SEPLAN)ofRioGrandedoNorte,oneoftheco‐financiers,theprojectwillestablishapartnershipwiththeRioGrandedoNorteRegionalandGovernanceProject(“SustainableRN”),tobefundedbyaUSD360millionloanfromtheWorldBank.ThepartnershipfocusesontheSeridóRegioninconjunctionwithINSAandMMAthroughtheimplementationofapilotprojectaimedatintegratingsoilremediation,landscapemanagement,naturalresourcemanagement,recoveryofnaturalareasandexchangeofexperiencesoflivinginharmony(convivência)withdrought,thuscontributingtoincreasedfoodsecurity,improvedproductiveinfrastructureandaccesstomarketsforfamilyfarmers.

32

ResearchandEducation(INSA)

Collaborationwithpartnersinresearchandeducationinstitutionswillprovidesupportfortheimplementationoftechnicalassistanceinthefield,trainingofpersonnelandimprovedawarenessoflocalconditions.INSAwillplayanimportantroleinachievingtheknowledgemanagementobjectivesoftheREDESERprojectusingitsadvancedinformationandcommunicationtechnology,inparticularthroughstudies,applicationofnewresearchmethodsandsystematizationanddisseminationofsustainableusetechniquestocombatdesertification,conservebiodiversityandreduceemissions.INSAwillhousetheimplementationunitoftheprojectinCampinaGrande,inthestateofParaíba.Asoneofthemainco‐financiers,itwillhostmanyoftheprojectactivitiesrelatedtodisseminationofbestpracticesandcapacitydevelopment,facilitatingtrainingandtheproductionofextensionmaterials.ItwillalsosupportincollaborationwithFAOandpartnersthemonitoringofprojectperformanceandimpactsontheground.

UniversityforInternationalIntegrationofAfro‐BrazilianLusophoneCountries(UNILAB)

The project will establish agreements withUNILABtoofferopportunitiesfortraineesandpersonnelonissuesrelatedtolivinginharmonywithsemi‐aridity.UNILABwillbenefitfromtheprojectactionstoidentify,carryoutresearchaboutanddevelopbestproductionpracticeswithpotentialapplicationindrylandsinAfrica.

CenterforSustainableIndustrialProduction(CEPIS)

CEPIS, one of the co‐financiers, is part of theTechnologyParkFoundationofParaíba.Itisareferencecenterrecognizedforitsworkonindustrialenergyefficiencyandcleanerproduction.TheprojectwillbenefitfromthejointworkwithCEPISbyexpandingitspresenceamongproducersofbricksandtilesthroughouttheSeridóregionthatarenowheavilydependentontheuseoffirewoodprovidedbyfamilyfarmersandranchers.

Semi‐AridNetwork(ASA)

ASA includes over 1,000 civil society organizationsthatdefendthegoaloflivinginharmonywithsemi‐aridity.Itimplementstheprogram“OneMillionCisterns,”whichpromoteshouseholdstorageofrainwaterforhumanandproductiveuses.ASAwillsupporttheprojectthrough:a)disseminationofbestproductionpracticesinthefield;b)capacitydevelopmentandmobilizationofruralcommunities;c)exchangeswithAfricanandLatinAmericancountries.

33

AdviceandManagementonNatureStudies,HumanDevelopmentandAgro‐ecology(AGENDHA)

The NGO, one of the co‐financiers, promotestechnologicalinnovation,implementstechnicalassistanceandruralextensionandparticipatesinpolicydialogaboutwaystoliveinharmonywithsemi‐aridity.Itsupports30cooperativesandassociationsmainlyledbywomeninvolvingmorethan3,000people.ItwillcooperatewithexpansionofthecoverageoffoodprocurementanddistributionprogramsinthenortheasternpartofthestateofBahia,wheretheUauásiteislocated.

NortheastPlantsAssociation(APNE)

One of the co‐financiers, this association promotessustainabledevelopmentthroughthepromotionofSFMandgreaterknowledgeaboutCaatingaflorathroughtheimplementationoftrainingcourses,fieldevaluationsandstudiesofASDenvironments.TheprojectwillworkwithAPNEbyestablishingagreementstosupporttrainingonseedcollection,forestnurserypractices,SFM,degradedareasandbiologicalconnectivity.

AraripeFoundation(FA)

Thefoundation,oneof theco‐financiers,playsakeyroleinraisingawarenessanddisseminationofinformationaboutimprovementoflivingconditionsinsemi‐aridconditions.ItalreadyimplementsNTFPproductionchainsintheCratoregionofCeará.ThefoundationwillsupportprojectactivitiestopromotebetterproductionpracticesinASD,stafftrainingandproductionofinformationmaterials.

SeridóDevelopmentAssociation(ADESE)

The association, which is qualified by the MinistryofJusticeasaCivilSocietyOrganizationofPublicInterest(OSCIP),worksin25municipalitiesinRioGrandedoNorte’sSeridóregionandisakeyplayerinthe“SustainableRN”project.Theorganization'sgoalsaretheconsolidationoflocalprocessesofparticipation,promotionofsustainablesocio‐economicdevelopmentandpublicpolicydialog.

BrazilianInstituteofDevelopmentandSustainability(IABS)

Oneoftheco‐financiers, alsoanOSCIP,IABSseekstopromotesocialwelfare,sustainabledevelopmentandthereductionofinternational,national,regionalandlocalinequalities.IthasanimportantfieldcenterintheXingóregionofAlagoas.TheMandacaruandDrylandsChampionsprizesarevaluableformsofdisseminationofinnovations.Cooperationwiththeprojectwillinvolvemanagementprocessesandtraining.

SocialActionAgencyoftheNatalEcclesiasticalProvince,theCaicó

Oneoftheco‐financiers,thisagencyislocatedinRioGrandedoNorte.Itsmissionistosupportruralandurbanpopulationgroupsthataresociallyvulnerable,

34

DioceseandtheMossoróDiocese(SEAPAC)

leadingthepropositionandachievementofrightsandpublicaccesspolicies.Itinvestsintheorganizationandcoordinationofcivilsocietyindialogwiththegovernmentandbuildingbroadpartnerships,implementingeducational,socialandenvironmentalprocessesfromtheperspectiveofaunited,democratic,justandsustainablesociety.ItisakeyplayerintheSeridóprojectsite.

AlternativeAgricultureCenter‐NorthernMinasGerais(CAA‐NM)

Theprojectwillestablishexchangeswiththisnon‐governmentalcenter,whichhasvastexperienceingenerationanddisseminationofknowledgeaboutwaysinwhichlocalcommunityassociationscansupportlandreform,familyfarming,agro‐ecology,agroforestryandNTFPsintheCaatingaandtheCerrado.

FamilyFarmerCooperativeofCanudos,UauáandCuraçá(COOPERCUC)

Inthe Uauá field site, this cooperative willplayakeyroleinprovidinginformationandknowledgetohelpotherassociationsengageinsustainableuseofbiodiversity.Itsmorethan200members,mostlywomen,processnativeCaatingafruits(mainlyumbuandpassionfruit)fordomesticandinternationalmarkets.Thecooperativeservesasamodelforestablishingpartnershipswithgovernmentalandinter‐governmentalagenciesandnon‐governmentalorganizations.

1.1.4Lessonslearnedfrompastandrelatedwork,includingevaluationsThe REDESER project will build upon pioneering experiences of diversified andsustainableuseofresourcesoftheCaatinga.VariousoptionsforSLMandSFMhavebeenstudied in the ASD since the 1980s, especially through projects on sustainable use ofbiomasssupportedbyFAOandUNDP.TheBRA/02/G31projectonIntegratedEcosystemManagement for theCaatingaBiome (2002‐2006)provided crucial information.TheseprojectshavespreadtheconceptofSFM,takingintoaccountlivelihoodsandincreasingthe understanding of society about the value of Caatinga vegetation, although widerdisseminationisneeded.Themain lesson learned from this experience is with regard to the need to promotecooperationamonggovernmentinstitutionsacrosssectorsandcivilsociety.Otherlessonslearnedare:a)theimportanceofconnectivityamongfragmentsoftheCaatingabiome;b)theneedtoimproveenvironmentallicensingofproductionoffuelwood;c)recognitionoftheroleofindustrialdemandforbiomassandthepotentialforindustrytoinfluencethesupplychaintomakeitmoresustainable;d)theimportanceofSFMforfoodandenergysecurityamongfamilyfarmers.

35

SFMplansconstituteavaluableexperienceinnearly400,000hathatarealreadylicensedinASD,providinganopportunityforsuccessfulsustainablemanagement,restorationandsocioeconomicsustainability.Thetotalnumberofapprovedplansisconstantlygrowing,despite theobstacles to theirwideracceptance,whichrequireevaluationandstrategydevelopment.Intheprojectareaonly1,712hectaresareundermanagementplans.Experience shows that SFM can be included in state plans such as the PernambucoEnvironment Plan (PLANOAMBIENTAL) and Piauí’s Action Plan for IntegratedDevelopmentoftheParnaíbaBasin(PLANAP).SFMandcommunityforestmanagementplansarealsosupportedbyINCRA/MDAandSFB/MMAinagrarianreformsettlementsinsouthwesternBahiaandPernambuco,respectively.TheProgramofHydro‐environmentalTechnologies and Practices (PRODHAM) of theWater Resources Secretariat of CearáincludesbestsoilandwaterconservationpracticesthatcanbereplicatedthroughouttheASD.Partnershipswithindustryassociationsandresearchorganizationshaveproveneffectivein promoting adherence to the principles of sustainable use. Greater efficiency inproductionofgypsuminPernambucoandbricksand tiles invariousstates isvital forsustainableuseoffuelwood.PrevioustechnicalassistanceprojectsofregionalpartnerssuchasCEPISandSEBRAEwereabletoinfluenceenvironmentalmonitoring,increaseuseof wood from known sources and promote adoption of improved industrial burningmethods.Lessonslearnedservedasthebasisforaprojectproposaltopromotesustainableuseofnaturalresourcesthroughthestrengtheningofgrassrootsorganizationssoastoimprovetheir organizational skills, communication, public visibility and extension capabilities.Previous experiences also show the possibilities of local projects for native fruitproduction chains, in line with the National Policy for Sustainable Development ofTraditional Peoples and Communities and the National Plan for Promotion of Socio‐biodiversity Production Chains. Other experiences have provided national andinternational visibility for local handicrafts. These initiatives improve both humannutritionandbiodiversityconservation.Atgloballevel,thefollowinglessonshavebeenlearnedfromSLM9‐relatedworkdonebyFAOanditspartnersinrecentyears:Useguidelinesandbuildonsuccessfulprojects,programmesandpartnershipsTheprojectwillmakeuseofFAO’sglobalguidelinesfortherestorationofdegradedforestsandlandscapesindrylands10,andwillbuildonthefollowinglessonslearnedfrominitiativesandprojectsimplementedindifferentdrylandregionsincludingAfrica,theNearEast,CentralAsiaandLatinAmerica:

9 SLM is defined as the adoption of landuse systems that, through appropriatemanagement practices,

enables landuserstomaximize theeconomicandsocialbenefits fromthe landwhilemaintainingorenhancingtheecologicalsupportfunctionsofthelandresources.Thiscanincludecarbonaccumulationinbiomass,biodiversityprotection,waterfilteringandsoilhealthamongothers

10http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5036e.pdf

36

Adopting landscape restoration approaches and principles11 is critical to thesuccess of efforts to combat DLDD and achieve climate changemitigation andadaptation.Maintainingthefunctionalityandsustainabilityoffragileecosystems,such as islands and drylands, both in ecological and socio‐economic terms,requires taking a landscape perspective. The interlinked challenges related toclimate change, food security, poverty, deforestation, ecosystem degradation,desertificationandbiodiversitylosscallforsolutionsthatgobeyondsingle‐trackapproaches that aim to solve one problem, but often exacerbate another.Integratedapproaches to landscapemanagementcan increasesynergiesamongmultiple landuseobjectivesandmayrequirenewpolicies, investments,marketincentives,institutionsandcapacities.Theroleofforestsandtrees,andthegoodsand services they provide, should be viewed from a broader perspective thatencompasses agricultural productivity, soil protection, water supply anddistribution,biodiversityconservationandpastureprovisionaswellasforestsandtrees.Anintegratedapproachthattakesintoaccounttheperspectives,needsandinterestsofallstakeholders,includinglocalcommunitiesandindividuallandusers,is an indispensable element in developing sustainable land use and livelihoodstrategiesforruralareas.Thisisespeciallyneededindrylands,whereforestsandagroforestry systemsprovidea safetynet for the livelihoodsofpeople that areaffectedbylanddegradation,droughtanddesertification.

Appliedresearch,whichcombinesmodernscienceandtraditionalandindigenous

knowledge, is needed for planning, managing andmonitoring sustainable landmanagementandlandscaperestorationinterventions

Local knowledge and innovation can be protected and applied through the

establishmentoflocalknowledgebuildingsystems,suchasfarmers’fieldschools.

Coordination, complementarities and synergies should be promoted amongstakeholdersandongoingprojectsandprogrammes(sectors,fields,includingCivilSocietyOrganizations[CSOs])atlocal,nationalandregionallevels.Participatoryandinclusiveapproachesensuretheactiveinvolvementofallstakeholders.

Integratednaturalresourcemanagementandrestorationrequireacombinationofpreventiveandcurativemeasures.

Theparticipationofyouthandwomeniscriticalforenablingthesustainabilityofprojectachievementsthroughthedevelopmentofchampionsandnewleadersofchange.

11A landscapeapproach looksacross large, connectedgeographicareas tomore fully recognizenatural

resource conditions and trends, natural and human influences and opportunities for resourceconservation,restorationanddevelopment.Itseekstoidentifyimportantecologicalvaluesandpatternsof environmental change that may not be evident whenmanaging smaller land areas. A landscapeapproachprovidesaframeworkforintegratingsciencewithmanagement;forcoordinatingmanagementeffortsanddirectingresourceswheretheyaremostneeded;andforadaptingmanagementstrategiesandactionstochangingconditionsandnewinformation.Italsoprovidesanimportantfoundationfordeveloping coordinatedmanagement strategieswith partner agencies, stakeholders and indigenouspeople.Forfurtherinformation,seealsolinkto FAO Unasylva issue on FLR: http://www.fao.org/3/a‐i5212e.pdf

37

Itisimportanttointegrateobjectivesofruralemploymentcreationintheproject,including for women and youth, acknowledging that jobs can contribute toconserving, protecting and enhancing natural resources, while also helping tomitigateandadapttoclimatechange.

It isnecessarytodevelop income‐generatingactivitiesbasedonthesustainableuseofforestgoodsandecosystemsservices(woodandnon‐woodforestproducts,ecotourism)while ensuring the effectivemanagement of ecosystem goods andservicesusingFAO'smarketanalysisanddevelopmentapproachandtools,whichhaveshownsuccessinmanycountries

Usenewapproachestocapacitydevelopment

Inthepast,developmentassistancefocusedmainlyonthetransferofknowledgeandblueprintsolutionsfromoneregiontoanother.Thissometimescontributedtothe successful application of ready‐made solutions, but did not necessarilystrengthentheabilitiesofthenationalsystemtoanalyzetheirownsituationsanddevelop suitable solutions to their problems. Capacity development, key forsustainingresults,isattheheartoftheprojectandwilltakeplacethroughouttheprojectinception,implementation,monitoringandevaluationstages.Theprojectwilltakeathree‐dimensionalapproachtocapacitydevelopmentthatfocusesonthe enabling environment, organizational and individual capacity to sustainchange.Theapproachwillnotonlyaddress technical capacities, forexample inSLMandSFMbutalsothefunctionsneededtosustainchange.Theseincludethecapacitytoshareknowledge,tocreatepartnerships,toleadadvocacyactivities,tohave inclusive policy processes, to share information on SLM/SFM and FLR, toensurethatallstakeholdersparticipateinmeetingsandtomobilizeresources.

Capacitydevelopmentthroughsouth‐southlearningandcooperationisastrategyto ensure sustainability. This will be accomplished by using regionally andnationallyadaptedweb‐basedtools,casestudies,learningaids,policybriefs,maps,sharing lessons learned fromsmallholdersandproviding joint trainingcourses.Suchcourseswillbeanefficientmeansofsharingexperiences,andnewknowledgeand building trust and cross‐border relations. Training will be provided on ademand‐drivenbasis.Itiswellknownthattheexchangeofexperiencesbetweenproducerscanscaleupgoodpracticesinsustainablelandmanagement.

1.1.5Linkstonationaldevelopmentgoals,strategies,plans,policyandlegislation,GEFandFAO’sStrategicObjectivesa) Alignment with national development goals and policies TheREDESERprojectisinlinewiththeConstitutionofBrazil,whichestablishesuniversalrightstoanecologicallybalancedenvironment,consideredtobeagoodforthecommonuseofthepeopleandessentialforhealthyqualityoflife.Forthesocialobjective,italignswiththeBrazilWithoutMisery(BSM)partofthe“MoreBrazil”PluriannualPlan(PPA)for2012‐2015,theoverarchingreferenceforfederalgovernmentpolicy,togetherwiththeGrowthAccelerationPlan(PAC).ThePluriannualPlanfor2016‐2019,whichisnowbeingprepared,fitswithnationalpoliciestoconservebiodiversityandreduceemissionsfrom

38

deforestation.Itisalsoinlinewiththevariouslong‐standingnationalpoliciestopromoteregionaldevelopmentandreduceinequality,especiallyintheNortheast.Theimplementationoftheanti‐desertificationapproachundertakenbySEDR/DCD/MMAincludes partnerships for international cooperation through UNDP, FAO, the Inter‐AmericanInstituteforCooperationonAgriculture(IICA)andtheGermanInternationalCooperationAgency(GIZ).TheClimateFundhasabudgetofUSD10millionandsupports40 projects to combat desertification, while the National Environment Fund (FNMA)providesadditionalsupport.Attheinter‐institutionallevel,theprojectrelatestotheSãoFranciscoandParnaíbaRiverValleysDevelopmentCompany (CODEVASF) initiatives covering263 communities and12,000families.ItisalsorelatedtotheworkoftheNationalWaterAgency(ANA)oftheMMA in partnership with the Semi‐Arid Network (ASA) regarding integratedmanagementforriverbasinsandecosystemsandenergyefficiency.The project is linked the Biodiversity Law, the National Biodiversity Plan, the 2015NationalReport to theCBDand theCBD’s goals for2020, includingAichi targets.Theactionplanprioritizesstrategicstudies,anationalbiodiversitypolicyandabiodiversityinformationnetwork.TheprojectwillcollaboratewiththeSecretariatofBiodiversityandForests (SBF) and the National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO) by providingsupplementarydata,informationgapanalysisandknowledgemanagement.Manyoftheproject'sactivitiesarerelatedtomitigationandadaptationtoclimatechange.TheASDfacelossofnativevegetationandbiodiversity,increasedfrequencyofdroughtsandfloods,reducedgenerationofhydropower,decreasedfoodproductionandincreasedout‐migrationtootherregionsorevenothercountries.ProjectactivitiesconformwiththegeneralguidelinesoftheNationalPolicyonClimateChange,whichstressesreductionofdeforestationandforestdegradation.TheadvanceofdeforestationintheCaatingaisestimatedatanannualrateof2,700km2,equivalent to release of more than 25 million tons of CO2. SFM and INRM areopportunities to promote carbon storage and sequestration. At least 20% of the areashould be in Legal Reserves (RL) and another estimated 5% in Areas of PermanentPreservation(APP),theset‐asidesoneachruralpropertyrequiredbytheForestLaw.Theprojectwillcontributetoovercomingthedeficitofnearly2millionha.thatneedtoberecovered in theCaatingaaccording to theNationalPlan toRecoverNativeVegetation(PLANAVEG).The Forest Law, replaced the former Forest Code and approved in 2012, makesconcessionstolandownersregardingconsolidateduseoflandandprovidesforvariouskinds of flexibility, but the intention is to enforce the law. The Rural EnvironmentalRegistry(CAR)requiresgeo‐referenceddeclarationofRLandAPPareas.Enforcementofthe law will be a powerful incentive to recover degraded areas, especially since it isconditionforaccesstobankcredit..Likewise, the project will focus on the diffusion of agro‐ecological production invulnerable areas of ASD. Preventive action includes collaboration with local projects,farmers’ organizations and networks and agricultural research institutions such as

39

EMBRAPA Semi‐Arid, INSA and the National Space Research Institute (INPE), whichworkswithdisasteralerts.TheForestLawprovidesforestablishmentoftheNationalFundforForestDevelopment(FNDF) to promote sustainable forest management. The fund supports NTFPs andagroforestry through technical assistance and extension and sustainable forestmanagementresearchanddevelopment.The national policy on food and nutrition security foresees: a) sustainable supplystructures and decentralized systems and agro‐ecological production, extraction,processing and distribution of food; b) food and nutrition security for traditional andindigenouspeoplesandcommunitiesandagrarianreformsettlers;c)sufficientquantityandqualityofwaterforconsumptionandproductionoffood.The project focuses on Brazil’s poorest region, which has advanced signs of landdegradation and desertification. The activities alreadyunderway involving numerousministries seek productive and social inclusion, food and nutrition security, watersecurity,diversificationofproductionandaccesstomarkets,buttheycouldinvolvefullerconsiderationofforests,biodiversity,climatechangeandecosystemfunctions.b)AlignmentwithNAPA,NAPs,NBSAP,NIPsandNAMAOverall,theprojectisinlinewithinternationalcommitmentsofBraziltotheUNCCDandwith its Ten‐Year Strategy 2008‐2018, seeking to link the implementation of nationalinitiativeswithstrategicandoperationalobjectivesofthestrategyandtheconstructionof indicators to analyze the impacts of ongoing activities of living in harmony(convivência)withsemi‐aridity.Theproject'sactivitieswillbeaimedatstrengtheningtheimplementationofBrazil’sNationalActionPlan(NAP)toCombatDesertificationanditsnationalreporttoUNCCD,increasingthevisibilityoftheprogramthroughcross‐cuttinginitiatives.The following paragraphs explain how the REDESER project addresses the prioritygeographicalandthematicareasidentifiedinBrazil’srecentnationalreportstoUNCCD,CBDandUNFCC: UNCCD:4thReportofBraziltoUNCCD:http://www.unccd‐prais.com/Data/Reports

(seeBrazil2012) CBD:5threporttoCBD:https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br‐nr‐05‐en.pdf UNFCC: 2nd National Communication of Brazil to UNFCCC: http://unfccc.int/

national_reports/non‐annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/653.php(seeBrazil2010) and Biennial Update Report to UNFCCC: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non‐annex_i_natcom/reporting_on_climate_ change/items/8722.php(seeBrazil2014).

UNCCDIn Brazil’s report on the fourth UNCCD reporting cycle, 2010‐2011, there are prioritycommitmentsregarding family farming,agricultural foodsupply, theNationalForestryProgram, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and genetic resources,

40

integratedsustainabledevelopmentoftheSemi‐Aridandthefightagainstdesertification,amongothercommitmentslessdirectlyrelevanttotheREDESERproject.Theprioritiesmentioned are addressed by all the project components (integrated natural resourcemanagement in production landscapes, multiple‐use forest management, forest andlandscape restoration and coordination, communication and awareness‐raising). Itshouldbenotedthattheinstitutionwhichsubmittedthereportin2012istheDirectorateof the Department to Combat Desertification of the Secretariat of Extractivism andSustainable Rural Development at theMinistry of Environment, the same thatwill beresponsiblefortheREDESERprojectintheGovernmentofBrazil.CBDTherelevantgeographicalandthematicprioritiesinBrazil’sFifthNationalReporttotheConvention on Biological Diversity submitted by the Secretariat of Biodiversity andForests of theMinistry of Environment in January of 2015 are: 1)Revised legislation,focusing on effectiveness of public policies; 2)Protected areas, including globaldesignation and wetlands; 3) Restoration of vegetation cover, including restorationinitiatives and action plans for deforestation reduction; 4) Sustainable forestmanagement; 5) Integrated landscape management; 6) Conservation Action Plans; 7)Sustainabilityofagriculturalproductionanduseofnativebiodiversity,includingnativebiodiversityandtheNationalAgroecologyandOrganicProductionPlan(PLANAPO).TheREDESERprojectwillincludeactivitiesthatcontributedirectlytopoints1,3,4,5and7.Specifically: 1) Outcome 1.1 includes improved licensing processes making use oftechnicalguidance,whilecomponents2,3and4alsocontributetopolicyeffectiveness;3)RestorationofvegetationcoveristheobjectiveofComponent3;4)Sustainableforestmanagement(SFM)istheobjectiveofcomponent2;5)IntegratedlandscapemanagementistheobjectiveofComponent1,onIntegratedNaturalResourceManagement(IRNM);7)Sustainabilityofagriculturalproductionanduseofnativebiodiversityistheobjectiveofallcomponents.UNFCCIntheSecondNationalReporttoUNFCCin2010,desertificationisgivenspecificattentionas one of Brazil’s five special circumstances. The priorities for mitigation are: 1)Sustainabledevelopment;2)Mitigationassuch;3)Medium‐andlong‐termplanning;4)CleanDevelopmentMechanism.Withregardtosustainabledevelopment,theREDESERprojectwillhelpmitigationeffortsthroughthereductionofdeforestation.Theprioritiesforadaptationforeseen inthereport includespecificactivities inthesemi‐aridregion,energy,waterresources,forestsandagricultureandlivestock,allofwhicharerelatedtoREDESERcomponents1,2,3and4.ThefirstBiennialUpdateReportofBrazil,in2014,dealswithMonitoring,ReportingandVerification (MRV),REDD+andmeasurementofemissions. Thenew inter‐institutional arrangements at the federal level are indirectlyrelevanttotheREDESERproject.ItshouldbenotedthattheNationalSemi‐AridInstitute(INSA),whichwill be the decentralized base for the project, is part of theMinistry ofScience,TechnologyandInnovation(MCTI),whichisresponsibleforclimatereportinginBrazil.

41

ThecommitmentsofBrazilregardingdesertificationare:1)thefightagainstpovertyandinequality,strengtheninglandreform,basiceducationandfamilyfarmingandreducingfoodandnutritioninsecurity;2)capacitydevelopmenttoincreaseproductionintheASD;3) preservation, conservation and sustainable management of natural resources,including environmentalmanagement, protected areas,water resourcesmanagement,sustainableuseandrevitalizationtheSãoFranciscoRiver;4)democraticmanagement,institutionalstrengthening,civilsocietyparticipationandreportingandmonitoring.Themainactivitiesregardingdesertificationinclude:a)monitoringof implementation,quality and impact of the program; b) knowledge management, including Ecological‐Economic Zoning (ZEE), early warning systems, research and development and basicstudies;c)trainingandcapacitydevelopmentforgovernmentprograms;d)enhancementofinternationalcooperation,e)socialmobilization,f)trainingofcivilsocietyleaders.Theprojectalsofitsperfectlywiththedemandsofsocietyasdefinedinstateactionplans.AttheConferenceofthePartiesoftheUNFCCC(COP15)inCopenhagenin2009,Brazilpresented its voluntarymitigation plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between36.1% and 38.9% of projections for 2020. Federal Decree 7,390 of 2010 establishesofficialmitigationgoals.CurrentlythemainmeansofimplementationaretheActionPlanforPreventionandControlofDeforestationintheAmazonRegion(PPCDAm),theActionPlanforPreventionandControlofDeforestationintheCerrado(PPCerrado)andthePlanfor Low Carbon Emission in Agriculture (ABC). Other mitigation tools include CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) and the Climate Fund. Scenarios for greenhouse gasemissions are being developed by the ministries of Environment, Strategic Affairs,TreasuryandScience,TechnologyandInnovation,aswellastheClimateObservatory,theBrazilianForumonClimateChangeandtheAvinaFoundation.TheprojectproposalandstrategiescontributetoreachingAichiBiodiversityTargets5,7,14and18.

Byfocusingonseedandnurseryproductionandtherecoveryofdegradedforestsin ASD, also called “regreening,” Component 3 contributes to safeguardingthreatenedbiodiversityas foreseen inTarget5: “By2020, therateof lossofallnaturalhabitats, including forests, isat leasthalvedandwherefeasiblebroughtclosetozero,anddegradationandfragmentationaresignificantlyreduced.”

ThroughComponents1to4,theprojectcontributestosustainablemanagementon agricultural and forest land, as foreseen in Target 7: “By2020, areas underagriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuringconservationofbiodiversity.”

Likewise,theprojectcontributestoprovisionofecosystemservicesforvulnerablesegmentsofthepopulationasforeseeninTarget14:“By2020,ecosystemsthatprovideessentialservices, includingservicesrelatedtowater,andcontributetohealth, livelihoods and well‐being, are restored and safeguarded, taking intoaccounttheneedsofwomen,indigenousandlocalcommunities,andthepoorandvulnerable.”

By supporting active involvement and empowerment of local communities andindigenousand traditionalpeoples, theprojectpromotes traditionalknowledgeregardingsustainableuseofNTFP,landracesanddisseminationofagroforestryinlinewithTarget18:“By2020,thetraditionalknowledge,innovationsandpracticesofindigenousandlocalcommunitiesrelevantfortheconservationandsustainable

42

useofbiodiversity,andtheircustomaryuseofbiologicalresources,arerespected,subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fullyintegratedandreflectedintheimplementationoftheConvention,withthefullandeffectiveparticipationofindigenousandlocalcommunitiesatallrelevantlevels.”

c)AlignmentwithGEFfocalareasAsexplainedinmoredetailbelow,theREDESERprojectisconsistentwiththefollowingGEFstrategicobjectives:

Biodiversity Focal Area – Objective 2 (BD‐2): Mainstream BiodiversityConservation and Sustainable Use into Production Landscapes, Seascapes andSectors;

LandDegradationFocalArea ‐Objective2(LD‐2):ForestLandscapes:Generatesustainable flows of forest ecosystem services in drylands, including sustaininglivelihoodsofforestdependentpeople;

LandDegradationFocalArea‐Objective3(LD‐3):IntegratedLandscapes:Reducepressuresonnaturalresourcesfromcompetinglandusesinthewiderlandscape;

Sustainable Forest Management Focal Area/REDD+ Focal Area – Objective 1:(SFM/REDD+‐1)ForestEcosystemServices:Reducepressuresonforestresourcesandgeneratesustainableflowsofforestecosystemservices

Component 1 is aligned with the LD‐3 objective, Outcome 3.2: Integrated landscapemanagement practices adopted by local communities, Output 3.2 INRM tools andmethodologies developed and tested. Component 1 will support the increase anddiversification of smallholders’ incomes through the application and dissemination ofINRM in the territory of Caatinga. 1,567 rural people will be the direct beneficiaries.Component 1 will support the adoption and mainstreaming of INRM into productivesystemsin904,142hectares,increasingthespatialcoverageofINRMpracticesinwiderlandscapes.INRMtoolsandmethodologieswillbeintroducedintheprojectinterventionareas(i.e.3practices12).Component 1 will also contribute to the BD‐2 objective, Outcome 2.1: Increase insustainablymanagedlandscapesandseascapesthatintegratebiodiversityconservation,Output 2.2. National and sub‐national land‐use plans (number) that incorporatebiodiversity and ecosystem services valuation by incorporating BD conservation orsustainableuseofitscomponentsin904,142haofprojectdirectinterventionunderINRMpractices. Component 2 is aligned with the LD‐2 objective, Outcome 2.2: Improved forestmanagementindrylands,Output2.2TypesofinnovativeSFMpracticesintroducedatfieldlevel. Component 2 will support the increase in the number of hectares providingsustained flow of services in forest ecosystems in drylands (Baseline: 0; Target:618,062ha.offorestareas.85%offorestcoverinprojectarea),andwillincreasethetotalspatialcoverageofSFMpracticesand technologies(Baseline:1,712ha;Target:15,000ha). 1212 List of practices, according to the LD Tracking Tool: Sustainable production of non-wood forests and agriculture products; Forest and Landscape restoration; and Sustainable management of natural resources

43

Component 2 will also contribute to SFM/REDD+‐1 Objective, Outcome 1.2: Goodmanagement practices applied in existing forests, Output 1.2: Forest area (hectares)undersustainablemanagement,separatedbyforesttype,bypromotingtheincreaseofareascoveredbyforestmanagementplans(Baseline:1712ha;Target:+15.000ha–seeLD‐2).Inaddition,Component2willcontributetotheBD‐2Objective,Outcome2.1,Output2.2.by integrating biodiversity conservation criteria in specific management practices(Baseline: 1,712 ha managed under SFM practices with management plans. Target:15,000haunderSFMplans).Component3willaddresstheBD‐2Objective,Outcome2.1,Output2.2,byincreasingtheareaswherespecificmanagementpracticesthatintegrateBDareimplementedthroughrestoration with native species (Baseline: 0 restoration. Target: 30,000 ha. underrestorationwithnativespecies).Component3willalsocontributetotheSFM/REDD+‐1Objective,Outcome1.2,Output1.2by increasing the carbon stored in forest ecosystems and emissions avoided fromdeforestationandforestdegradationfromthisproject(Directlifetime):a)Conservation&enhancementofcarboninforests(Target:+30,000hasofforestrestored,+439,200tonCO2eq sequestered); and b) Avoided deforestation and forest degradation (Target:avoidedemissionsof696,219tonCO2eqin5,709ha).Aswell,Component3willsupporttherestoration/rehabilitationofdegradedforests(Baseline:0;Target:30.000ha).Component4iscross‐cuttingandalignedwiththeBD,SFM/REDD+andLDfocalareas.Itwillsupportawareness‐raisingamongfederalandlocalinstitutions,privatesector,andlocal producers in ASD on the importance of habitat preservation, sustainable forestmanagement,andthemanagementofnaturalresourcesfromanintegratedperspective.Aswell,Component4willpromote thedevelopmentofcapacitiesof localgovernmentstaff(in14municipalitiesofASD),policy‐makers,farmers,andeducationstakeholdersonFLR,reducing,reversingandpreventingdesertification,SFMandBDconservation.Component5 is also cross‐cutting and alignedwith theBD, SFM/REDD+andLD focalareas. Itwillpromotesynergywithcomplementary initiatives (suchas theUNDP/GEFProject in Sergipe13) to foster sustainable management and restoration benefits. Inaddition,Component5willsupporttheProjectM&EsystemthatwillgeneratelessonsandvaluabledatathatwillbepublishedanddisseminatedwiththesupportofFAOinotherdrylandecosystemsinBrazil,inLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,andinotherASDintheworld. d)AlignmentwithFAOStrategicFrameworkandObjectivesTheimplementationoftheREDESERprojectisanopportunitytoleveragenationaleffortsthatarecompatiblewiththeoverallstrategyofFAO.ItsStrategicFrameworkfor2010‐2019isbasedonavisionoftheworldwithouthungerandgoalsregardingeradicationofhungerandpovertyandthesustainableuseofnaturalresources.AllofFAO'sfiveStrategicObjectivesare contemplated, but themost relevant are: a) SO2: Increase and improve 13 Sustainable Land Use Management in the Semiarid Region of North-East Brazil (Sergipe), GEF ID 3066

44

provisionofgoodsandservicesfromagriculture,forestryandfisheriesinasustainablemanner;b)SO5:Increasetheresilienceoflivelihoodstothreatsandcrises.Moreover,theprojectiscoherentwithFAO’sregionalprioritiesforLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean and is alignedwith the priority area of Climate Change andEnvironmentalSustainability: “[provide assistance to governments for] strengthening nationalprogrammes for the sustainable management of natural resources, agro‐climatic riskreduction,mitigation of emissions and adaptation of the agriculture sector to climatechange,inthenewcontextoflow‐carbondevelopment.”TheprojectisinlinewiththeFAOCountryPriorityFrameworkinBrazil,agreedwiththeBrazilianGovernmentinMay,2013,foritspriorityresult4,“SustainableManagementofNatural Resources, Climate Change and Desertification”, output 4.2: “Demonstrativeexperiencesofsustainableuseofforests[…]implemented”.TheprojectstrategyisconsistentwiththezerodraftoftheMinisterialDeclarationoftheHigh‐Level Segment for the Eleventh Session of theUnitedNations Forum on Forests(UNFF11),whichstressesthemultiplerolesofforeststolifeandwell‐beingandtheirvitalrole inpovertyeradication,economy,health, foodandwatersecurity,genderequality,climatechange,biodiversityanddisasterriskreduction,inthecontextofimplementationoftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)for2015andbeyond.ItalsoalignsperfectlywiththegoalofLandDegradationNeutrality(LDN)establishedatthe12thConferenceoftheParties(COP12)inAnkara,Turkey,in2015.

45

SECTION2–PROJECTFRAMEWORKANDEXPECTEDRESULTS2.1PROJECTSTRATEGYTheproject strategy is topromote a shift in the current context of limitedknowledgeaboutandcapacityforpromotingintegratednaturalresourcemanagement(INRM)acrossmarket value chains (from production landscapes to market products), insufficientinstitutionalcapacitytopromoteSLMandSFM,lackofsustainedtechnicalsupportatthelocal level for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes and shortages inidentificationanddisseminationofbestpractices.ThisstrategyaimsataddressingthethreatstoglobalenvironmentalbenefitsthataredescribedinSection1.Theprojectwillsupport the mobilization of a wide range of federal, state and municipal authorities,research institutions, non‐governmental organizations, farmers, industries and otherstakeholders to identify, test and disseminate appropriate ways to halt and reversedesertification,withpotentialforreplicationinBrazilandotherdrylandcountries.ToachievebroadimpactinabiometwiceaslargeasFrance,theprojectwilllinkconcretetechnical interventions at specific sites with capacity development and knowledgemanagement activities involving civil society and government stakeholders over abroaderarea.TheprojectwilldisseminateawiderangeofsustainablelandmanagementandforestrypracticesintheASDandotherregions.Theapproachinvolvesamixtureoftraditionalandinnovativeimprovedpracticescapableofaddressingunsustainable landuseat largescale. In theASDofBrazil, these includesustainable harvesting of wood for fuel and fence posts, common pastures, livestockforaging in managed woodlands, long fallow systems, pruning, intensive mulching,biological control, sustainable use of native fruits and nuts, managed regeneration,enrichment, agroforestry, seed and seedling collection and planting, beekeeping,handicrafts, backyard home gardens, efficient cook stoves, drip irrigation, smallundergrounddams(zerobase)andrainwatercaptureandstorage,amongothers.The project will promote SLM, SFM and FLR to reduce deforestation and increasevegetationcoverthroughregeneration,supportingandenrichingthebiodiversityoftheCaatingabiome.TherestorationofdegradedareasinASDrequiresavarietyofsocialandtechnical approaches to conservation and restoration at a landscape scale with fullinvolvementoflocalcommunitiesandgovernments.The project will follow a market analysis and development approach to identifyopportunitiesforintegrationofbiodiversity‐basedproducts(non‐woodforestproducts,NWFP)intothemarketsandsustaintheirproductionthroughINRM.To help support economic and financial viability of sustainable production practices(INRM,SFM,FLR)inproductionsystems,theprojectwillpromoteavaluechainapproach.Improving the income opportunities derived from forest and agriculture productssourcedfromsustainablymanagedandrestoredlandsisonewayofprovidingincentivesforlocalstakeholderstoparticipateinsustainablemanagementpractices.Therefore,theprojectwill support thedevelopment and strengtheningof small‐scale tree and forestproduct enterprises to support livelihoods and helping broadening local income

46

opportunities. Capacity for owners andmanagers of such enterprises will be built tointegrateenvironmental sustainability, economicviabilityandsocial sustainabilityandprovideequitable,gender‐balancedbenefits.AtooldesignedtoassistinsuchintegrationisMarketAnalysisandDevelopment(MA&D)14,whichhasbeendevelopedbyFAOasaparticipatory trainingapproach toassist localpeople indeveloping income‐generatingenterpriseswhile conserving treeand forest resources.Thedevelopmentof small andmedium‐sizedenterprisescanbe facilitatedbymicroloansand/orcreditsandexistingGovernment policies and private supporting schemes, Supportive structures such asnetworks of producers and buyers and certification schemes will be explored anddevelopedfurther.

Theprojectwilladdressthelackofcapacitiesintermsof:i)INRMinthewiderlandscapeand the value chain approach; (2) SFM; 3) FLR, by supporting awareness‐raising andextensionactivities,aswellastheinterfacebetweenresearch/policyandfarmers‐whichatpresentisweakintheCaatinga.Regarding land degradation, the project will apply the "land degradation neutrality"approach, i.e.maintainingor improvingtheconditionofglobal landresourcesthroughsustainablelandmanagementandrestoration,withtheoverallgoalofconservinghealthyandproductivelandresourcesovertime,inlinewithnationalsustainabledevelopmentprioritiesrelatedtopovertyreduction,genderequity,foodandwatersecurityandclimatechangeadaptationandmitigation. Local implementing agencies will help disseminate best SLM, SFM and FLR practicesthroughouttheASD,beginningwiththepriorityareasidentifiedbystateactionplans.Theinvolvement of the states in implementing the project will strengthen institutionalcapacityandknowledgewithintheASDtopromotebestpracticesforlocaldevelopmentand“livinginharmony(convivência)withsemi‐aridity,”thenewphilosophyfordrylandsinNortheastBrazil,andtopromotewater,foodandenergysecurityandconservationofbiodiversityinaninclusivemanner.Theprojectwill strengthenenvironmentalgovernanceby involvinggovernments, civilsociety organizations and academia. It will use existing organizational structures andinstruments to strengthen the implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP) toCombat Desertification in Brazil, without establishing new and additional structures.AdministrationwillrequirecoordinationbetweentheNAPDirectorbasedinBrasíliaandcorresponding anti‐desertification structures in each of the states, especially the focalpointsofthestateactionplans.ThiswillstrengthentheoutreachandtheeffectivenessoftheNationalCommissiontoCombatDesertification(NCCD). In addition, the project will adopt a strategic integrated approach together with anongoingprojectoftheDepartmenttoCombatDesertification(DCD)oftheSecretariatofExtractivismandSustainableRuralDevelopment(SEDR)oftheMinistryofEnvironment(MMA)andtheInter‐AmericanInstituteforCooperationinAgriculture(IICA),aswellasthree other GEF projects through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),seekingsynergyandcomplementarityandtakingduecaretoavoidduplication:

TheGEF‐UNDPSmallGrantsProgram(SGP),knowninBrazilastheProgramadePequenosProjetosEcossociais(PPP‐ECOS),inoperationsince1995,isoneofthepossiblechannels

14 www.fao.org/forestry/enterprises/25492/en.

47

ofreplicationwithintheCaatinga,theCerradoandadjacentpartsoftheAmazon.Withsufficient funding, it could issue specific calls for proposals regarding desertification,biodiversityconservationandreductionofcarbonemissions.Ifpossible,thesecallscouldbe supported with resources from international donors, foundations, private sector,banksanddevelopmentinstrumentsoffederalandstategovernments.

TheUNDP/GEFProject“MainstreamingBiodiversityConservationandSustainableUseinto NTFP and AFS production practices in Multiple‐Use Forest Landscapes of HighConservation Value,” through the Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Center(CENARGEN)oftheBrazilianAgriculturalandLivestockResearchCompany(EMBRAPA),approvedin2015,willgeneratedetailedbiologicalandeconomicdata inthreebiomes(Caatinga,CerradoandAmazon),withoutspatialoverlapwiththeREDESERproject,butwithvaluabletechnicalinformationonsustainableuseofbiodiversity.

The UNDP/GEF Project “Sustainable Land UseManagement in the Semiarid Region ofNortheastBrazil(Sergipe)”whichisledbytheMinistryofEnvironment,hasbeendesignedbythesameprojectteamincoordinationwiththepresentproposal.Theprojectaimsatstrengtheningthegovernanceframeworkstrengthenedtoavoid,reduceandrevertlanddegradation in the State of Sergipe, and to strengthen extension services, support theavailabilityofbestpracticemodelsandfinancingtoincreasingSLMadoptioninSergipeandreducelanddegradation,especiallyintheAltoSertãoregioninthewesternpartofthestate.Sincefieldactivitieswouldnotbefeasibleinalltheninestatescovering734,478km2,thestrategyledtoselectionoffourtargetareasinaccordancewiththeprioritiespreviouslyidentifiedinthestateactionplans.Additionalselectioncriteriaforpurposesoftheprojectinclude: institutional support, biological diversity, being representative, potential forreplication,accessibility,partnershipsandinstitutionalarrangementsatthe local level.Theselectedclustersofmunicipalities,calledhereAraripe,Seridó,UauáandXingó,arelocatedinthedeephinterlandsoffivestates(Ceará,Paraíba,RioGrandedoNorte,AlagoasandBahia).Intheeightmicro‐regionscoveredbytheinfluenceoftheproject,thereare80municipalities,ofwhich14,with904,142ha,havebeenselectedforconcreteactivitiesat specific sites in the field, in four clusters (Table 2.1). Data are available formunicipalities,butnotforindividualpropertiesorareaswithinthem.Table2.1.Clustersofmunicipalitiesselectedfordirectprojectactioninthefield.

Targetedarea StateMunicipalityarea

(inkm2)Municipalityarea(in

hectares)

MRAlagoanaS.F

DelmiroGouveia AL 322.26 32,226

Olhod'ÁguadoCasado AL 608.49 60,849

Piranhas AL 408.11 40,811

Subtotal 1,338.87 133,887

MRAraripe

Crato CE 1,176.50 117,650

Barbalha CE 559.51 55,951

Jardim CE 552.42 55,242

48

Araripe. Themicro‐region of Araripe, located in the southern extremeof the state ofCeará, covers 36municipalities with an area of 16,250 km². The threemunicipalitiesselectedforfieldactivitiesareCrato,BarbalhaandJardim,withanareaof2,288km2.Theyare subject to deforestation pressure due to agricultural expansion, mainly for theformationofpastures,withseveresignsofsoildegradation.ThereareisolatedCerradoecosystems and transitions. The micro‐region is important to the regional economybecauseitsmaineconomicbaseisgypsum,accountingfor95%ofBrazil’sproductionofplaster.Itisalsosubjecttotheimpactsofceramicindustriesthatproducebricksandtilesandexertstrongpressureonnaturalresources,especiallybiomass(fuelwood),waterandclay.Thepopulationis203,439,ofwhich55,507areruraland103,987liveinpoverty.TheaveragemonthlyfamilyincomeisUSD282.Theregionalsocio‐economyalsoincludesextractiveactivitiessuchaswildharvestingofpequifruitforfoodandbabassupalmnutsfor oil. The production of cassava, combined with other informal economic activities,contributestotheprocessofdegradationofbiodiversity.TheFederalUniversityofCearáhas a campus in Crato. Project initiatives will promote sustainable developmentcombining forest production and biodiversity conservation in and around one of theCaatinga’s largestprotectedareas,ChapadadeAraripeEnvironmentalProtectionArea(EPA),covering972,590ha.,includingtheAraripe‐ApodiNationalForest.Seridó.TheSeridóregion,oneofthefourofficialnucleiofdesertificationintheNortheast,includespartsofthestatesofRioGrandedoNorteandParaíba.InRioGrandedoNorte,itincludestheWesternSeridó,EasternSeridóandSerradeSantanamicro‐regions,covering13,000km2,or25%ofthestate.TheadjacentSeridóofParaíba,acrossthestatebordertothesouth,iscomprisedoftwomicro‐regions,EastandWestSeridó,withatotalareaof

Subtotal CE 2,288.43 228,843.40

MRE.daCunha

Uauá BA 3,025.23 302,523.0

Subtotal BA 3,025.23 302,523

MRSeridó(PB)

SantaLuzia PB 455.97 45,597

SãoMamede PB 530.76 53,076

Várzea PB 190.30 19,030

Subtotal PB 1,177.02 117,702.30

MRSeridó(RN)

C.dosDantas RN 245.04 24,504

Equador RN 265.59 26,559

Parelhas RN 512.69 51,269

SantanadoSeridó RN 188.55 18,855

Subtotal RN 1,211.87 121,187.00

Subtotal(PB+RN) 2,388.89 238,889.30

Total 9,041.42 904,142.20

49

4,347km².ThePatosmicro‐regionincludesthemunicipalitiesofPatos,SantaTerezinhaand Cacimba de Areia. According to the Paraíba state action plan of 2011, the Seridóportions of the states of Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte are undergoing the samedegradation processes. For the REDESER project, the threemunicipalities selected inParaíbaareVárzea,SãoMamedeandSantaLuziaandthefourinRioGrandedoNorteareParelhas, Equador, Santana do Seridó and Carnaúba dos Dantas. These sevenmunicipalitiescoveranareaof2,388km2withapopulationis329,536,ofwhich74,344inhabitantsareruraland166,666liveinpoverty.TheaveragemonthlyfamilyincomeisUSD289.Uauá. In northeastern Bahia, the micro‐region of Euclides da Cunha has ninemunicipalitiesandanareaof19,500km2,whiletheprojectwillcarryoutfieldactivitiesspecificallyinthemunicipalityofUauá,withanareaof3,025km2.Themunicipalitywaschosenbecauseofstrongpressureonlanduse,advancedlevelsofdegradation,lowlevelsof human development and high potential for use of native fruits. The population is24,294,ofwhich13,533 inhabitantsare rural and16,397 live inpoverty.Theaveragemonthly family income isUSD218. In2010,Uauáwas ranked4,029among the5,565BrazilianmunicipalitieswithregardtotheMunicipalHumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI‐M). Themicro‐region has unique experienceswith traditional landscapemanagementbasedonextensivelivestockproductioncombinedwithNTFPssuchastheemblematicCaatingafruitscalledumbuandlicuri.Xingó. In the extreme west of Alagoas, where the micro‐region of the São FranciscoHinterland covers 1,203 km2, the project will carry out field activities in its threemunicipalities, which are Piranhas, Delmiro Gouveia and Olho d'Água do Casado. Thepopulationis79,632,ofwhich27,562areruraland45,742liveinpoverty.Theaveragemonthly family income is USD 218. The municipality of Piranhas has a sustainabilitytrainingcenterandDelmiroGouveiahasacampusoftheFederalUniversityofAlagoas.Fieldactivitieswillbecarriedoutprimarily inPiranhas,withanareaof408km2.ThedegradationoftheCaatingaisdueinlargeparttoharvestingofwoodforproductionofcharcoalaswellasburning toopenpasture for livestock(goats,cattleandsheep)andsubsistence farming. The state action plan of Alagoas concluded that the shortfall insustainablemanagementpracticesofvegetation,landandreforestationisduetothelackoftrainingofstakeholdersanddisseminationofbestpractices.ExtractiveactivitiesintheXingóareaaremarkedbyconflictsincetheinstallationofNaturalMonumentoftheSãoFrancisco in2009.NaturalMonuments(MONATs)areoneof thecategoriesof integralprotectionconservationunitstheNationalSystemofNatureConservationUnits(SNUC)establishedin2000.Theyareintendedtopreservenaturalsitesthatarerareoruniqueorhaveoutstandingscenicbeauty,asisthecaseoftheSãoFranciscocanyons. 2.2PROJECTOBJECTIVEThe project objective is to halt and reverse environmental degradation in areassusceptibletodesertification(ASD),ensuringtheflowofecosystemservices,promotingtheintegratedmanagementofnaturalresources,generatingenvironmentalbenefitsandcontributingtopovertyreduction. 2.3EXPECTEDPROJECTOUTCOMES

50

Theexpectedprojectoutcomesare:Outcome1.1:INRMhasbeenmainstreamedandscaledupatlandscapelevel.Thetargetedprojectvalueforthisoutcomeis904,142ha.,Nobaselineexist.Assessmentofthepracticesandexperiencesoftheproductionsystemsandacrossmarketvaluechain(in the project area will be undertaken at the onset of the project using appropriateassessmenttoolswithlocalexperts).Theprojectwillresultin20%increaseinpurchaseof NTFPs by institutional markets and technical guidance for state environmentalagencies.GuidelineswillbedevelopedforidentificationandevaluationofINRMsystemsand 100 technical staff trained and prepared to use the guidelines and conduct theassessment.Outcome2.1:Forestareasundermulti‐purposeSustainableForestManagement(SFM)havebeenincreasedThe targeted project value for this outcome is 15,000 ha under multiple‐use forestmanagement,startingfrom1,712haintheprojectarea.Outcome3.1:Seed/seedlingproductioncapacityimprovedtosupportrestorationofdegradedlandsinASDThetargetedprojectvalueforthisoutcomeisanincreaseby20%ofnurseriesproductionimproved and registered (legal), as well as capacity developed on seed and seedlingproduction good practices and registrations standards for 1600 personnel of the treenurserynetwork.Outcome3.2:Forestconnectivitysiteshavebeendefined,sustainablymanagedandrestored.The targetedproject values for thisoutcomeare30,000haofnew forest connectivitythrough restorationof degraded land, innovative and appropriate forest regeneration,enrichmentandplantingtechniques.Outcome4.1:ImprovementincapacityofkeystateandmunicipalinstitutionsaboutLDanddesertification.Thetargetedprojectvalueforthisoutcomeisincreasedcapacityandknowledgeofthe270personalworkinginthe14Municipalitiesandthe9ASDstatesandbeyondprojectsitesandastrongnetworkestablishedforinformationsharinganddisseminationonlanddegradationanddesertificationissuesandhowtoaddressthemthroughSLM,SFMandFLR.Outcome 4.2: Policy‐makers and farmers, private sector and educationstakeholders have capacity to implement SFM, FLR, INRM and biodiversityconservationThe targeted project values for this outcome are increased production and use ofeducation,extensionanddisseminationmaterials(3videos,48radiospots,9eventswithfamilyfarmers,distributionof5,000bookletstoeducationalinstitutions,neweditionsof5booksand10technicalorexchangeevents).Outcome 5.1: Synergy with complementary initiatives to promote sustainablemanagementandrestorationbenefits

51

Outcome 5.2: Project implemented with results‐based management andapplicationoffindings/lessonslearnt 2.4PROJECTCOMPONENTS,OUTPUTSANDACTIVITIESInordertoprovideaninitialoverview,alltheprojectcomponents,outcomes,outputsandactivities are listed in Table 2.2. The outputs and activities, as well as the respectivebaselines and targets, are explained in more detail in subsequent paragraphs and inAppendices1and2.Table2.2.Projectcomponents,outcomes,outputsandactivities.

Component1‐PromotingIntegratedNaturalResourceManagement(INRM)inProductionLandscapes

Outcome1.1–INRMmainstreamedandscaledupatlandscapelevel

Output1.1.1INRMbestpracticesidentified,evaluatedandup‐scaledatfarmandlandscapelevels(Target:904,142ha)

Activity1.1.1.1InventoryandanalysisofbesttraditionalandimprovedINRMpracticesActivity1.1.1.2Organizationandimplementationofageo‐referenceddatabaseofbestpracticesActivity1.1.1.3SeminaraboutINRMpracticesforASDprofessionalsdealingwithcredit,technicalassistanceandruralextensionregardingnaturalresourcemanagementActivity1.1.1.4Publicationanddisseminationoforganizeddataon‐lineandprintedActivity1.1.1.5Replicationofbestpracticesinselectedprojectareaswithinthe904,142ha

Output1.1.2Non‐TimberForestProducts(NTFP)fromINRMincorporatedingovernmentprogramsandprojectsandlocalagro‐industries

Activity1.1.2.1IdentificationandevaluationofmainNTFPsupplychainsinprojectareasusingFAO’sMarketAnalysisandDevelopmentmethodologyActivity1.1.2.2Identification ofthepotentialforcreatingaddedvalueforNTFPsupplychainsActivity1.1.2.3Strengtheninglocalorganizationsforthemanagementofagro/forestry‐basedindustriesActivity1.1.2.4Identificationandexecutionofmarketingstudiesandbusinessplansfordevelopmentand

52

strengtheningofmicroenterprisesbasedonsustainableproductionandmarketingofidentifiedNTFPsActivity1.1.2.5Regionalseminarsoncreditandfinance,includingagro‐industrial/NTFPsproductionandmarkets

Output1.1.3Capacityforidentification,evaluationandpromotionofINRMsystemsstrengthenedatstate‐leveldepartments,agenciesandbanks.

Activity1.1.3.1NaturalresourcemanagementcourseforextensionworkerswiththeparticipationofpubliceducationalinstitutionsActivity1.1.3.2Trainingseminarsonfederalandstateenvironmentallegislationaffectingnaturalresourcemanagement,includingthenewForestLaw

Component2‐PromotingMultiple‐UseForestManagement

Outcome2.1‐ForestareaunderSFMhavebeenincreased

Output2.1.1Innovativesmall‐andlarge‐scaleSFMpracticesidentified,evaluatedandreplicatedinselectedexperimentalareas(Target:+15,000ha)

Activity2.1.1.1SeminarswithprojectpartnerstodesignsustainabilitycriteriaforforestmanagementplansActivity2.1.1.2 ForuminvolvinggovernmentandcivilsocietystakeholdersaboutwaystosimplifyrulessoastoenableSFMup‐takeanddissemination

Activity2.1.1.3.Identificationof6sitesforSFMdemonstrationanddevelopmentofmanagementplansfortheselectedsites

Output2.1.2Supportforthedevelopmentofmultiple‐useSFMsupplychains

Activity2.1.2.1IdentificationofinnovativeSFMpracticesActivity2.1.2.2SeminarsonsustainabilitycriteriaandforestmanagementplanspreparationwithprojectpartnersActivity2.1.2.3PermanentforumsforSFMsimplificationprocessesandsupportfordevelopingmanagementplansActivity2.1.2.4ExpansionofthescopeoftheNationalFamilyandCommunityForestManagementProgramtocovermoreareasinASD

Output2.1.3GuidelinesdevelopedforSFMpracticesandmonitoringprotocolsatlocallevel

Activity2.1.3.1IdentificationandsystematizationofexistingguidelinesforSFMActivity2.1.3.2WorkshopstoreviewguidelinesandgeneratepracticalrecommendationsforSFMActivity2.1.3.3StrengtheningtheCaatingaForestManagementNetworkwithdatageneratedinthemonitoringofSFMactivitiesinprojectareas

Component3–ForestandLandscapeRestoration

53

Outcome3.1‐SeedandseedlingproductioncapacityimprovedtosupportrestorationofdegradedforestsandlandsinASD

Output3.1.1SmallholdersandpublicnurseriesinASDlegalizedwithimprovednativeseedandseedlingproduction

Activity3.1.1.1Workinggroupto identifyandupdatedataonforestseedcollectorsinASDActivity3.1.1.2.Assessmentofthe165nurseriesinASDaccordingtotreenurseriestechnicalandregistrationstandardsActivity3.1.1.3.Basedonoutcomesofactivity3.1.1.3.,selectionof35treenurseriesforsupportforregistrationandimprovementofproductionpracticesActivity3.1.1.2Supportformarketingofforestseedsandseedlingsthroughwebsites,informationbulletinsofseedproductionassociationsandparticipationinagriculturalandindustrialfairs

Output3.1.2SeedcollectorsandnurserypersonneltrainedandregisteredinNationalSystemofSeedsandSeedlings(SNSM)

Activity3.1.2.1IdentificationofagentsforprocessingofforestseedsandseedlingsActivity3.1.2.2TrainingforseedcollectorstoimprovetechnicalcapacitiesandcomplywithofficialstandardsActivity3.1.2.3InstallationofequipmentforseedcollectorsActivity3.1.2.4SupportforseedcollectioninordertocomplywithfederalrequirementsActivity3.1.2.5Trainingforseedcollectorsandnurserypersonnelonlegalissuesrequiredforprofessionalregularization

Output3.1.3PracticalguidelinesforFLRinASDaredevelopedandadoptedbystakeholders

Activity3.1.3.1SeminaronFLRinASDorganizedforthepresentationoftheFAOglobalguidelinesonrestorationofdegradedforestsandlandscapesindrylandsandtheiradaptationtothenationalcontextwithlocalexpertsandstakeholdersActivity3.1.3.2Compilationofgoodrestorationpracticesandcasestudiesfordissemination

Activity3.1.3.3DevelopmentofadaptedpracticalguidelinesforrestorationofdrylandforestsandlandscapesinASD

Outcome3.2‐Forestconnectivitysiteshavebeendefined,sustainablymanagedandrestoredOutput3.2.1Appropriatesitesidentifiedandrestorationplansunderimplementationforrestorationandestablishmentofforestconnectivityusingcost‐effectiveandadaptedrestorationtechniques(assistednatural

Activity3.2.1.1SelectionofpotentialsitesforpromotingcorridorsandconnectivityActivity3.2.1.2DesignoftherestorationplantogetherwithgovernmentandCSOforrestorationoftheselecteddegradedforesttoestablishconnectivityamongfragments

54

regeneration,enrichmentandplanting)Output3.2.2Participatoryprojectsforrestorationofdegradedlandsandimprovementofproductionlandscapesandland‐usepractices

Activity3.2.2.1MethodologicalproposalforsustainableproductionlandscapesthroughlocalparticipationActivity3.2.2.2TraininginagroforestrysystemsforlargelandownersandfamilyfarmersinordertoprovideconnectivityamongtheislandsofbiodiversityActivity3.2.2.3.IdentificationofpotentialareasforreplicatingassistednaturalforestregenerationinnovationsinlandreformsettlementsActivity3.2.2.4.Assessmentofcurrentinitiativescarriedoutbyruralextensionanddevelopmentinstitutions

Activity3.2.2.5SupporttointerestedframersandproducersindevelopingrestorationprojectsforfundingunderGovernmentandappropriateschemes

Component4–KnowledgeManagement,CapacityDevelopmentandAwareness‐RaisingOutcome4.1–ImprovementincapacityofkeystateandmunicipalinstitutionsaboutLDanddesertificationOutput4.1.1StrengthenedlearningandactionnetworksfacilitatingfieldexchangesinASD

Activity4.1.1.1Identificationofinstitutions,programs,projectsandnetworkspromotingactionstopreventandcombatLDanddesertificationthroughSFM,INRMandFLRinASDActivity4.1.1.2TrainingformultiplieragentsinpartnerinstitutionsinASD

Activity4.1.1.3.Establishmentofanon‐linedatabasenetworktobehostedatINSAforexchangeofinformation,knowledgeandprojectsrelevanttoASDissues

Outcome4.2‐Policy‐makersandfarmer,privatesectorandeducationstakeholdersarebetterinformedaboutSFM,FLR,INRMandbiodiversityconservationOutput4.2.1GuidelinesandbriefsdevelopedbasedonbestpracticesandlessonslearnedonSFM,FLRandINRMinASD

Activity4.2.2.1PromotionofeventsandexchangesfordiscussingtechnicalregulationsforSFM,FLRandINRMActivity4.2.2.2TransformationofbestpracticesintotechnicalguidelinesforSFM,FLRandINRM(linkedtoactivity3.1.3.3).

Output4.2.2ASDacademiccommunityengagedagainstLDanddesertification

Activity4.2.2.1InventoryofrelevantscientificpublicationsonLDanddesertificationinASDActivity4.2.2.2SeminarforpresentationofmaterialcollectedintheinventoryActivity4.2.2.3Organization,reprintinganddistributionofselectedmaterialstokeyeducationalinstitutionswithsuggestionstoincludethemincurricula

55

Component 1 ‐ Promoting Integrated Natural ResourceManagement (INRM) inProductionLandscapesIn this component, INRMpractices based on traditional aswell as innovative systemsincorporatingconservationandintegratedmanagementofbiodiversitywillbeidentifiedandevaluatedaccording to their suitability to theenvironmental, social andeconomicconditionsoftheCaatinga.Viableandsuccessfulproductionsystemswillbereplicated.In

Output4.2.3IncreasedAwarenessaboutSFMandFLRpracticesinASD

Activity4.2.3.1MediaproductiondocumentingapproachesandbestpracticesandimpactsinprojectselectedsitesActivity4.2.3.2ImplementationofmediaproductionintheprojectselectedsitesActivity4.2.3.3Systematizationofmediaproductionandpresentationofresultsattwoevents(micro‐regionalandASDregionallevel)

Component5‐CoordinationwithOtherInitiatives,MonitoringandEvaluationOutcome5.1.SynergyestablishedwithcomplementaryinitiativestopromotesustainablemanagementandrestorationbenefitsatlandscapelevelOutput5.1.1.Effectivecollaborationwithcomplementaryinitiative

Activity5.1.1.1:CoordinationmeetingswithotherGEF‐financedprojectsinASDofBrazil

Outcome5.2:Projectimplementedwithresults‐basedmanagementandapplicationofprojectfindingsandlessonslearned

Output5.2.1ProjectM&Esystemoperationalprovidinginformationonprogressinmeetingprojectoutcomeandoutputtargets

Activity5.2.1.1CoordinationamongprojectparticipantsandstakeholdersActivity5.2.1.2CollectionandorganizationofdataneededformonitoringandevaluationActivity5.2.1.3.Narrativeprogressandterminalreportspreparedon‐time

Output:5.2.2Mid‐termandfinalevaluationsconducted,projectbestpracticesandlessonslearnedpublishedanddisseminated

Activity5.2.2.1Mid‐termevaluationafterthefirst24monthsofprojectimplementationActivity5.2.2.2TerminalevaluationcompletedwithinthreemonthofprojectconclusionActivity5.2.2.3PublicationanddisseminationofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedActivity5.2.2.4Preparationofappropriateexitstrategyforcontinuityinthefuture

56

the dissemination strategy, the civil society and local state agencies described in Sub‐section1.1.3abovewillbe involved.Agriculturalandnon‐timber forestproducts fromareascarryingoutbestpracticeswillbechanneledintogovernmentprogramssuchastheNational Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF), the school lunchprogram(PNAE),thefoodacquisitionprogram(PAA)andtheMinimumPriceGuaranteeProgram for Family Agriculture (PGPM). They will also be promoted through localindustries, strengtheningmarket linkages as important drivers for further expansion.Theseactionswillgenerateassociatedeconomicbenefitsandincreaseconfidenceoflocalcommunities and farmers to adopt sustainable practices. According to the experiencegained,proposalsforpublicpoliciesandcriteriawillbedevelopedtoidentify,evaluateandadjustINRMsystems.

Outputs1.1.1,1.1.2and1.1.3willhelpachieveOutcome1.1.TheexpansionoftraditionalandimprovedINRMsystemswillincludeawiderangeofSLMandSFMsystemstogetherwithotherimprovedproductionpracticesthathavepotential togenerateandincreasepositive flows of ecosystem services and socio‐economic benefits, contributing tosustainableproductioninthediverseenvironmentalandsocialconditionsinASD.AnoverviewofthebestINRMsystemswillbepreparedinconnectionwitheachofthestateactionplansintheASD.Theprojectwillstrengthengovernmentdepartmentsandagencies by training personnel in the formulation and dissemination of appropriatetechnicalguidelinesforINRM.The process of making INRM available in ASD includes identification, analysis andevaluationoftraditionalandimprovedSFMandSLM.Theprojectwillmakeuseofabroadrangeofextensionpracticescarriedoutbynumerousinstitutionsandfarmers’networksdescribedinSub‐section1.1.3ofthisProjectDocument.

Output1.1.1‐INRMbestpracticesidentified,evaluatedandup‐scaledatfarmandlandscapelevels

InProjectYear(PY)1,thisoutputwillsummarizethestateoftheartofexistingtraditionalandimprovedINRMsystemsindrylandsandtheireconomic,socialandenvironmentalcostsandbenefits.Importantsourcesofdatawill includetheMandacaruandDrylandsChampions program carried out by the Brazilian Institute of Development andSustainability (IABS) and studies by the Inter‐American Institute for AgriculturalCooperation(IICA).DatawillbeincludedinINSA’sSystemforManagementofInformationandKnowledgeon theBrazilianSemi‐Arid (SIGSAB).SLMandSFMbestpractices (seeSection2.1below)willbesystematizedandanalyzed.Onekey issue in theCaatinga issustainabilityofharvestingoffuelwoodanditsimpactsonnetcarbonemissions.Anotherkeyissueisforagingforcattleandgoatsinforestandreforestedareasanduseofpruningtoreduceheight.Directsowingofseedsortransplantingofseedlingscollectedinthewildwillbecomparedwithplantingofseedlingsacquiredfromregisterednurseries.InPY2,PY3andPY4,theselectedsystemswillbetestedinatleastintwositestobeselectedineach project area in the interior of the ASD and adjusted taking into account themonitoringandevaluationofresults. Based on surveys among farmers, further replication of SLMand SFM in theCaatingahinterlandswillbeconductedinPY3andPY4inthesameorneighboringmunicipalities

57

in collaboration with local farmers and partner organizations, encouraging widedisseminationandexchangesamongcommunities,usingtechniquessuchasfarmer‐to‐farmertraining,actionresearchandthesustainablelivelihoodsapproach.Output 1.1.2 ‐ Non‐timber Forest Products (NTFP) from Integrated NaturalResourceManagement(INRM)incorporatedingovernmentprograms/projectsandlocalagro‐industriesPromotionofNTFPswillbebasedonguidelinesoftheNationalPlantoPromoteSocio‐BiodiversityProductsthatemphasize:a)conservationandsustainableuse;b)rightsofaccess of traditional peoples and communities and family farmers to biodiversityresources;c)fairandequitablesharingofbenefits;d)culturaldiversityandtraditionalknowledge.Output1.1.2willcoverthefollowingactivities:i)in‐depthassessmentofspecificitiesofNTFP supply chains and credit and financial mechanisms in ASD; ii) identification ofindustrialization options through partnershipswithMDA,MDS,MMA and CONAB; iii)assessmentofregulatoryframeworksthatlimitaccesstocreditandinvestmentforfamilyfarming,women,youthandtraditionalpeoplesandcommunities.Thetargetistoincreasegovernment purchases through the FoodAcquisitionProgram (PAA) and theNationalSchool Lunch Program (PNAE) by 20% by PY4, with 35 local organizations havingconsolidatedorinitiatedsalesflowtotheseinstitutionalmarkets.ItmaybenecessarytodisseminateNTFPsused forhouseholdconsumptionwidelyand toconcentrateNTFPssoldtomarketsinasmallernumberofareasinordertoachievescaleandavoidmarketsaturation.CombinationsofNTFPswillbechosenconsideringtheircompatibilityintermsofecology,demandsforlabor,marketsetc.ThestudyoncreditandfinancingandregulatoryframeworksofatleastfourNTFPswillbeconductedinPY1byashort‐termconsultantorexpertprovidedbyco‐financiers.Theassessmentswillbediscussedandvalidatedinregionalworkshopsandafinalseminartoformulatespecificrecommendationsforchangesinexistingprocesses.BetweenPY2andPY4,dialogwiththeMDA,MAPA,MDS,MMA,IBAMA,INCRA,BNDES,BNB,BB,ICMBio,SFB, cooperatives and local associations, municipalities, labor unions and privatecompanies will be undertaken to improve NTFP and agroforestry credit lines andregulatory frameworks. The project will support the dissemination of information onregulatoryframeworksandnewlinesofcreditforcooperatives,associationsandtradeunionstopromoteawarenessandincreasetheinterestofpotentialbeneficiaries.Thiswillbe done in close coordinationwith the EMBRAPA/UNDP/GEF project “MainstreamingBiodiversityConservationandSustainableUseintoNTFPandAFSproductionpracticesinMultipleUseForestLandscapesofHighConservationValue,”whichwillgeneratedetailedbiologicalandeconomicdatainthreebiomes.Output 1.1.3 ‐ Capacity for identification, evaluation and promotion of INRMsystemsstrengthenedatstate‐leveldepartmentsandagenciesOutput 1.1.3 will promote awareness among institutional personnel among keystakeholdersbyusingprojectfundsandleverageonothersourcesto:a)createhigh‐leveleducational opportunities through provision of scholarships and stipends; b) upgradeforestmanagementcapacitiesby integratingtraining thatemphasizessocial,economic

58

andculturalaspectsofASDs;c)providetrainingonforestlegislationandadministrationaccordingtothenewForestLaw;d)traingovernmentstaffatenvironmentalagenciesandCSOstodisseminateknowledgeonNTFPsandagroforestryandtherelevantregulations.Thetargetistoreach100technicalstaffinninestatesthroughINSAandtherespectivestateenvironmentalagencies.Additionalco‐financingfromothersourceswillbesoughtwhennecessary.Component2:PromotingMultiple‐UseForestManagementBasedonknowledgeaboutrelevantexperiencesofmultiple‐useforestmanagementintheCaatinga,aswellastheCerrado,AmazonandAtlanticForest,Component2willpromoteinnovativeSFMpracticesincoordinationwithcivilsocietyandextensionagencies(seeSub‐section 1.1.3 above). On‐farm technical assistance will be provided to ensuresuccessfulimplementationofbestpracticesandeffectivechangesinforestmanagementregimes.Throughexistinggovernmentprogramsandpolicies,theactivitiesforOutcome2.1willsupportwiderdisseminationofproductiveactivitiesthatgenerateglobalenvironmentalbenefits in terms of soil structure, levels of moisture content and biodiversityconservationaswellassocio‐economicbenefitssuchasincreasedfoodsecurity.Activities will help strengthen state environmental agencies’ capacities to improvelicensing,inspectionandtechnicalassistance,conditionswhichdeterminetheextenttowhich SFM can be sustainably implemented at broader scale. This component willpromotedisseminationoftherequirementsofthenewForestLawandtheneedtosubmitdeclarationsonlanduseinallruralpropertiestotheRuralEnvironmentalRegistry(CAR),whichwillbecomeaconditionforaccessingcreditin2017.Output2.1.1:Innovativesmall‐andlarge‐scaleSFMpracticesidentified,evaluatedandreplicatedinselectedforestmanagementandexperimentalareasInPY1,projectexperts,inconsultationwithspecialistsandpractitioners,willassessthetechnical,economicandsocialfeasibilityofSFMpracticesintheCaatingaandanalyzethevarious kinds of bottleneck that hinder their implementation. The most promisingpracticeswillbeimplementedinsixdemonstrationareasatfoursitesandlessonslearnedwillbeextracted.TheselectionofsitesforpromotionofSFMwilltakeintoaccountthefollowingcriteria:a)thecontributionofSFMplanstoreducingforestfragmentationandprovidingconnectivityamong forested areas; b) conservation of biodiversity hotspots in the Caatinga; c)potentialuseofSFMforsustainableenergyproduction;d) landreformsettlements;e)mitigationofandadaptationtoclimatechangeanddrought.InPY2andPY3,theSFMpracticesregardingfuelwoodwillbereplicatedinsixsitesinthesameoradjacentmunicipalities.ThewholeprocessofmainstreamingSFMwillpromotetheintegrationofextensionactivitiesinlandreformsettlements,familyfarmingandjointactivitieswithSFB,INCRAandstateenvironmentalagencies.

59

Output2.1.2:Supportforthedevelopmentofmultiple‐useSFMsupplychainsMain activities include identification of SFM innovations, sharing information onsustainability criteria that are necessary to improve government regulations for SFMprotocolsandsimplificationofSFMprocedures.Byimplementingthisoutput,theprojectwillexpandtheNationalProgramofCommunityandFamilyForestManagement(NFCFM)intheCaatingaandCerrado,supportingitsexpansionandqualifyingactivitiesaccordingtotheresultsoffieldassessmentsandtheprioritiesofNAPBrazilandstateactionplans.Technical support and policy cooperation will be provided for development andimplementationofmanagementplansfortheAraripe‐ApodiNationalForest,theChapadade Araripe Environmental Protection Area (EPA), and the São Francisco NaturalMonument(MONAT)bytheresponsibleenvironmentalauthoritiessothatbytheendoftheprojecttheNTFPsfromtheseprotectedareasandbufferzonescanbelicensedandmarketed.Output2.1.3:GuidelinesdevelopedforSFMpracticesandmonitoringprotocolsatlocallevelGuidelines regarding SFM best practice protocols for monitoring the results of theiradoptionwillbedevelopedinconnectionwithComponent1activitiesonSFMpracticesidentificationandassessment.Onthebasisofrecognizedexperienceandvalidation,extensionmaterialswillbepreparedto disseminate adapted SFM practices that are well‐suited to the peculiarities of theregion.TheprojectwillstrengthentheForestManagementNetworkdatabaseprovidinginputsofdatafrommanagedforestsinaccordancewithsustainableproductionprinciples.Component3‐ForestandLandscapeRestorationThiscomponentaimsatrestoringdegradedareassoastoprovideconnectivityamongforestfragmentsaswellasstrengtheningofaregionalforestseednetworktoprovideforthe sustainable supply of native seeds to meet restoration needs. This will beaccomplished through cooperationamong theMMA,DegradedLandRecoveryCenters(CRADs),theSemi‐AridNetwork(ASA)andinitiativessuchastheCaatingaandCerradoForest SeedsNetwork. The projectwill identify human resources for training of seedcollectorsandnurseryworkerssothattheycanbepartoftheNationalSystemofSeedsandSeedlings(SNSM).Thiscomponentwill identifydegradedareasforforestrestoration,takingintoaccountwhichareascanprovideconnectivityamongforestremnants.Participatoryplanswillbeprepared for landscape restoration. The socio‐economic needs of the communitiesinvolvedwillbetakenintoaccount.Carewillbetakentofavorchoiceofspeciesthatbestsuit the needs of local communities and the conservation of biodiversity. Forestrestoration techniques will include farmer‐managed natural regeneration, forestenrichment,directsowing,plantingofseedlingsorshootsanduseofnativespeciesthatfacilitate soil recovery and the return of native fauna, including pollinators and seed

60

dispersersaswellasproductionofNTFPsandothergoodsandservices.Speciesandareastoberestoredwillbeselectedwithlocalfarmersandstakeholdersasappropriate.Output3.1.1:Smallholdersandpublicnurseries inASD legalizedwith improvednativeseedandseedlingproductionThisoutputseekstoensuretheprovisionofseedsandseedlingsforCaatingaandCerradospecies forrestorationofdegraded landsandnaturalenrichment.Seedsareespeciallyimportantbecauseof lowercosts forproduction,acquisitionandtransportation, lowerlosses from mortality, potential for decentralization and suitability for poor soils indrylands.AworkinggroupwillbecreatedwithrepresentativesoftheMMAandReferenceCentersforRecoveryofDegradedAreas(CRADs),amongothers.Theworkinggroupwillidentify forest seed collectors and processors in the Caatinga, updating existinginformation on species, dissemination, handling procedures, cost and integration ingovernmentprogramsaswellasidentifyingstafftrainingneeds.InPY1,PY2,PY3andPY4,15seedcollectorswillbetrainedeachyear,oneforestseedareawill be implanted and one annual seed collector eventwill be supported through thevariousprojectpartnerships.Output3.1.2:SeedcollectorsandnurserypersonneltrainedandregisteredintheNationalSystemofSeedsandSeedlings(SNSM)ThisoutputseekstoensuretheproductionofseedlingsofCaatingaandCerradoforestspecies(includingtrees,shrubsandgrasses).Forthispurpose,surveysofforestnurseriesandtheircapacitieswillbecarriedoutintheASD.Withtheworkinggroup,thestateofthe art of nursery production will be examined to identify bottlenecks and ways ofimprovingseedlingproduction.ThesurveyswillprovideinputstosupporttrainingplansandcreationofatrainingprogramfortheproductionofnativespeciesaccordingtotherequirementsoftheSNSM. Output3.1.3:Practicalguidelines forFLR inASDaredevelopedandadoptedbystakeholdersThisoutputinvolvesaseminaronFLRinASDorganizedforthepresentationoftheFAOGlobalGuidelinesfortheRestorationofDegradedForestsandLandscapesinDrylandsandtheiradaptationtothenationalcontextwithlocalexpertsandstakeholders.Theoutputalso includescompilationofbestrestorationpracticesandcasestudies fordissemination,aswellasdevelopmentofadaptedpracticalguidelinesforrestorationofdrylandforestsandlandscapesinASD. Output 3.2.1 ‐ Appropriate sites identified and restoration plans underimplementationforrestorationandestablishmentofforestconnectivityusingcost‐effectiveandadaptedtechniques(assistednaturalregeneration,enrichmentandplanting)Potential areas for establishing biological connectivity among forest remnantswill beselected taking into account criteria such as biodiversity vulnerability, political and

61

economic feasibility and co‐financing opportunities. Additional co‐financing will besoughtfrompublicandprivatecompanies,includingthosethatarerequiredtoprovideenvironmental compensation, such as the São Francisco Project and the Trans‐NortheasternRailroad,asexplainedinSub‐section1.1.5ofthisProjectDocument.Output 3.2.2: Participatory plans for restoration of degraded land andimprovementofproductionlandscapesandland‐usepracticesUsingvarioussourcesofsupport,especiallythoserelatedtoimplementationofthenewForest Law, participatory restoration projectswill be defined for each of the selectedareasfollowingtheresultsoffieldsurveysaimedat:a)identificationofdegradedlandssuitableforrestoration;b)identificationoforganizedgroupsoflocalfarmersinterestedin restoration of ecologically sensitive sites; c) guidance on identifying, planning andformulatingparticipatoryprojectstoreversedeforestationandrestoredegradedareas.The projectwill promote replication of best practices by local projects related to therecovery of productive landscapes in different ecosystems in the ASD, combiningsuccessful experiences with potential local projects and available sponsorship or co‐financing.Component4 –KnowledgeManagement,CapacityDevelopmentandAwareness‐RaisingKnowledge management and communication are essential for all components of theproject,whichwillpromoteexchangeof informationamongthedifferentstakeholders,takingintoaccountbothtechnicalandlocalknowledgeaswellaslessonslearnedfrompreviousprojects.Itwillusetoolssuchasmeetings,videos,booklets,manuals,posters,radio,television,internetanddigitalmedia,accordingtothemostefficientandeffectivemeansforreachingspecificaudiences.Multiplieragentswillbeidentifiedineachregionin institutions that already work with farmers, government officials and localenvironmental agencies. Capacity development activitieswill include training throughshort‐term demonstration events, field trips, seminars, workshops and courses. Theprojectwill also generate inputs such as scientific papers and policy briefs, especiallythrough INSA, to influence decision‐makers. Academic institutions will be involvedbecause of their long‐term role in providing professional training and environmentaleducation to thepublicat large.These initiativeswillprovideabasis forapermanentknowledgeexchangenetwork.The communication strategy involves women and their organizations in all projectsactivitiessoastocreateawarenessandreducegenderinequality.Itwillsupportwomen'scontributions to themanagement of natural resources and ensure equity in access toinformation,knowledge,skills,resourcesanddecision‐making.Theprojectwillalsoreachouttoyouthandstudentsaswellasoldergenerations,bothmenandwomen.Component4willalsoprovidedecision‐makersandfarmers,privatesectorandeducationstakeholders with better information about best SFM, FLR, INRM and biodiversityconservation practices and the policies necessary for their dissemination, filling theexisting knowledge gaps. Other actions include specific training of policymakers and

62

production and distribution of publications, including manuals on best practices inaccessiblelanguage.Output 4.1.1: Strengthened learning and action networks facilitating fieldexchangesinASDTherelevantinstitutions,projectsandprogramsintheprojectareaswillbeidentifiedinorder to plan the training of professionals and communities about diffusion of bestexperiences.Atleast350multiplieragentswillbetrainedonhowtogivetalks,participatein workshops and seminars, carry out technical visits and undertake training. Theirtraining will be planned and implemented with local governmental and non‐governmentalagenciesandinstitutionsandwillbefundedbytheco‐financiersandotherpartner institutions. After four years, the project areas will have trained people in aposition todisseminate theknowledgeacquiredand lead the exchangeof experiencesthroughthenewnetwork.Output4.1.1willgenerateasustainedflowofappropriateinformationonbestpracticesincludingwebsites(INSA,CerratingaatISPN,websiteattheFederalRuralUniversityoftheSemi‐Arid)inPY1aswellasarticles,coursesworkshopsandforums.Output4.2.1:GuidelinesandbriefsdevelopedbasedonbestpracticesandlessonslearnedonSFM,FLRandINRMinASDManualsonbestpracticesforASDthatareeasytoreadandaccessibletobothruralpeopleand professionals will be published. For this purpose, partner institutions and otherchannelswillbeidentifiedtodistributethematerial.Itspreparationwillbebasedonaninventory of effective practices that can be replicated through integration of currentregulationswithbestSFMandINRMpractices.Thetargetaudienceswillbegovernmentinstitutions,ruralcommunitiesandcooperativesabletomakeuseofthemanualsintheirrespective regions. An additional benefit will be adjustments in the application ofregulationsofthestateenvironmentalagenciessoastopromotebestpractices.Output 4.2.1 will support the production and distribution of folders, videos, oneinstitutionalvideo,andradiospots.SeemoreinAppendices1and2.Output4.2.2:ASDacademiccommunityengagedagainstLDanddesertificationThe implementation of this output requires interaction with academic and researchinstitutionsandfacultyandstudentsworkinginASDinordertoachievetheirsupportforthedisseminationofbestpractices,whicharepoorlydocumentedanddiffusedinpublicandprivateinstitutions.Thisprocessinvolvesuniversities,institutesandfoundationsthatcanpublicizeLDanddesertificationissuesamongprofessors,studentsandthegeneralpublic.TheprojectwillundertakeaninventoryofpublicationsintheASDwithpotentialforachievingthispurposethroughreprintinganddistribution.High‐profilegovernmentagencies in the ASD such as National Department of Public Works against Droughts(DNOCS),BankofNorthEast(BNB),CompanyfortheDevelopmentofSanFranciscoandParaibaValleys (CODEVASF),Hydro‐powerCompanyofSanFrancisco(CHESF)willbeinvolved in the recovery of the most relevant scientific material. Courses will be

63

undertakenwiththeNationalProgramforAccesstoTechnicalTrainingandEmployment(PRONATEC)andtheNationalSeedNetwork(RENASEM).ThetargetforOutput4.2.2is1,000bookletsinPY1,1,500inPY2,1,500inPY3and2,000inPY4,aswellastwoneweditionsofbooksinPY2,twoinPY3andoneinPY4,aswellasthree events per year with researchers who do research on and interact with familyfarmers.

Output4.2.3:Increasedawareness‐raisingaboutSFMandFLRinASDThisoutputinvolvesgeneratingmediamaterialofhighqualityonforestandlandscaperestorationpracticesthathaveproventobeeffectiveintheregionalcontext.Thematerialshould continue to be produced even after the project is over. It includes folders,brochures,institutionalprintedmaterials,radioprogramsandvideos.Thedevelopmentofmediamaterialwillbecarriedoutwiththesupportofco‐financerssuchasgovernmentinstitutions, academia and civil society organizations, according to the demands ofbeneficiarieswhowillusetheinformation.ThetargetsforOutput4.2.3arefourmicro‐regionalevents,oneseminartoupdatemediainPY1,oneworkshoptoprepareavideoonruralwomenandyouthinPY2,oneradioprogramforeachmicro‐regioninPY3and,finally,exchangeamongmicro‐regionsinPY4.Component5:CoordinationwithOtherActivities,MonitoringandEvaluationOutput5.1.1:EffectivecollaborationwithcomplementaryactivitiesKindlyseedescriptionofrelatedinitiativesunderSection4.1below.Output5.2.1:ProjectM&EsystemoperationalprovidinginformationonprogressinmeetingprojectoutcomeandoutputtargetsThe targets for Output 5.2.1 are effective coordination of project activities withcomplementary initiatives and the local, state and federal levels so as to achieve theprojectobjectivesandprovidethenecessaryinformationformonitoringandevaluation.Output:5.2.2:Mid‐termandfinalevaluationconducted,projectbestpracticesandlessonslearnedpublishedanddisseminatedOutput5.2.2involvescarryingoutthemid‐termandterminalevaluationsasscheduled,as well as publication and dissemination of project results and preparation of theappropriateexitstrategies.2.5GLOBALENVIRONMENTALBENEFITS Theprojectwillprovidemultipleinterdependentglobalenvironmentalbenefits.Duringtheprojectlifetimeandinthefuturetheareasofavoideddeforestationwillcontainmorebiodiversity,providemoreconnectivity,regulatehydrologicalcycles,reduceerosionandstoreadditionalcarbon.Furthermore,theprocessofreversingdeforestationwillnotonlycontinueformanyyearstocome,butalsoexpandingeographicalscopetomanyother

64

areas of Brazil, including those that are now undergoing change in the direction ofbecoming subject to desertification. The subject of sub‐humidity, water scarcity anddesertification–becomingASDs–isnowamajorconcernincentral,southeasternandsouthernBrazil aswellaspartsofBolivia,Paraguay,UruguayandArgentina. In socialterms, this process provides various eco‐social synergies between environment andsociety,improvingtheresilienceoftheruralandurbanpopulationinASDs.Iftheregionalpopulationwere tomigrate to coastal cities, where the state capitals are located, theimpactsonbothruralandurbanemissionswouldbegreaterandtheywouldbesubjecttorisingsealevels.Landdegradation.ClearedlandintheCaatingaishighlysubjecttowatererosionintherainyseasonandtowinderosioninthedryseason.Clearingcontributestoaccelerationofsurfacerunoffandthereforefloodingdownstream,whichisnowaseriousprobleminvariouscitiesof theNortheast,especiallycoastalcities locatedat themouthsofrivers.Plant cover is also essential for evapotranspiration to form new clouds to carryatmosphericmoisturefromtheAtlantictothehinterlandpartsoftheCaatinga,evenwhenthereisnotseveredrought.TheprojecttargetforSLMbenefitssetbytheMMAis904,142hectares.The involved government institutions and their local staff, civil society, and small andmedium‐scaleruralfarmers(seeTable1.5)willbesupportedtodeveloptheircapacitiesonSLM,INRM,SFM,FLRandBDconservationandsustainableuse;andalongwiththeFAOtechnicalassistancewillhelpdeliverGEBsasdetailedbelow.TargetedprotectedforestsandbufferzonesintheCaatingaareareasofglobalimportance,asdescribedinSection1.The project will incorporate 904,142 hectares under integrated natural resourcemanagementthroughsustainablelandmanagementwithmaintainedorincreasedforestcover.Thisincludes:1)30,000hectaresofdegradedforestandlandsrestoredwithnativespeciesandassistednatural regeneration;2)15,000hectaresundersustainable forestmanagement plans; 3) 618,062 hectares of forest areas undermulti‐purpose SFM; 4)improvement of the conservation status of native fauna through restoration of forestconnectivitybetweenprotectedareas;5)reductionofthepressuresonforestecosystemsbyproductionsectorsthroughreductionofthedeforestationrate(by50%intheprojectareadirect influenceandby30% in the areaof indirect influence); 6) the increaseofcarbonstockduringprojectdirectlifetimethrough:i)conservationandenhancementofcarbon in forests (30,000 hectares restored, 439,200 ton CO2eq sequestered), and ii)avoided deforestation and forest degradation in project direct intervention areas(avoidedemissionsof696,219tonCO2eqin5,709hectaresandof2,472,347tonCO2eqinprojectindirectinfluencearea).Moreover, other GEBs to be accrued by the project will include: i) the integration ofglobally‐important BD conservation and sustainable use into specific managementpractices(i.e.restorationwithnativespeciesin30,000hectaresinComponent3);ii)theincreaseofconnectivityamongPAs(MONATandEPAs)withalandscapeapproach;iii)thereductionofdegradationof forests; iv) the increaseof stakeholders’awarenessonhow tomanage globally‐importantBD, through capacitydevelopment of stakeholders,participation, inter‐institutional and intersectoral coordination, setting the basis forsustainabilityafterprojecttermination;v)theinclusionofsustainablyproducedNWFPingovernmentprojectsandprogramsaswellaslocalagro‐industries.Thispilotexperience

65

may allow in the long‐term, the adoption of production best practices throughout thewhole Caatinga regions; vi) the financial sustainability of environmental‐friendlyproductionalternativesthroughthestrengtheningandarticulationofthefinancial(e.g.banks)andnon‐financial(e.g.publicpurchase) incentivemechanisms–expectedtobeup‐scaledinthewholeprovinceafterprojecttermination.

Biodiversity.Itishighlyprobablethatthemajorityofthe82threatenedspeciesintheCaatinga are still present in the project sites. They include the indigo macaw(Anodorhynchus leari), the little blue macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), found near Uauá,maracajáwildcats(Leoparduswiedii), suçuaranawildcats (Leoparduspardalis), three‐bandedarmadillos(Tolypeutestricinctus)andredbats(Myotisruber).ThethreatenedspeciesoffloraarelistedinAppendix8.Restorationwillspreadnativeplantspeciesandovercomeisolationoftheirgenepoolsinfragments,inadditiontoprovidingconnectivityamong fragments and reducing genetic erosion. Restoration will increase habitats,connectivity, forestcoverandreducecontaminationbypesticidesand fertilizers.Sincetheyareadaptedtoheatanddrought,theCaatinga’snativebiodiversityaswellasitsagro‐biodiversityaregloballystrategicinthecontextofglobalwarmingbecausetheycanbeplanted elsewhere, in areas that are already or are now becoming subject todesertification.TheprojectwillcontributetoincludetheINRMapproachinthegloballysignificantCaatinga,whichisuniqueintheworld.Table2.4summarizesthemainglobalbenefitstobeaccruedbytheproject.

Table2.4SummaryofglobalenvironmentalbenefitstobedeliveredbytheProject15

GlobalenvironmentalbenefitsBiodiversityandecosystemfunctions Increaseinconnectivityandhabitatsforbiodiversity Increaseinforestcoveranddiversityoftreespecies Reductionofpressuresovernativeforestsduetoexpansionoftheagriculturaland

livestockfrontier,andselectivelogging ConservationofforestseedsandfaunaspeciesofglobalimportanceCarbonbenefits AvoidedCO2eqemissions Carbonstored

CarbonbenefitsReducedCarbonEmissionsandIncreasedCarbonStocksNational and local institutions, local communities, NGOs and small-scale farmers will help deliver carbon benefits through the implementation of project activities. Therefore, the Project will have direct and indirect impacts on carbon stocks and will reduce CO2 emissions. The following estimation has been calculated by using a defensive methodology – see below.

15 Please find specific quantitative and qualitative indicators in the Project Results Framework, Appendix 1.

66

BaselineinformationDeforestationdataintheCaatingabiomefromMMA/IBAMA‐CSRwasusedtocalculatetheannualforestarealossinCaatinga.Thereisinformationfortheperiods2002to2008(annual forest lossesof0.33%oftotalarea)and2008to2009(annualforest lossesof0.23%oftotalarea).Thisimpliesadeforestationof15,893haperyearand11,077haperyear respectivelyduring2002‐2008and2008‐2009 in theareaof indirect impact (66municipalities)and2,984haperyearand2,080haperyearrespectivelyin2002‐2008and2009‐2010intheareaoftheprojectdirectimpact(14municipalities).ThedeforestationareasweredetectedbytheRemoteSensingCenter(CSR)ofIBAMAfortheperiod2002to2008,aswellas2008and2009.Themethodologyappliedtoassessdeforestationisavailableasdescribedathttp://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf_chm_rbbio/_arquivos/relatrio_tcnico_caatinga_72.pdf(fortheperiod2002‐2008)andhttp://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf_chm_rbbio/_arquivos/relatorio_tecnico_caatinga_2008_2009_72.pdf(fortheperiod2008‐2009).Thedecreaseinforestarealossesobservedin2008‐2009comparedto2002‐2008mightnotbesustainablesofortheestimatesbeyond2009,itwasconsideredmoreappropriatetouseanaverageannualforestarealossasestimateasfollows:(0.33*904,142*6+0.23*904.142)/7=2,855ha/yearfortheareaofdirectimpactand(0.33*4,816,060*6+0.23*4,816,060)/7=15,205ha/yearfortheareaofindirectimpact Basedonthisinformation,thedeforestationBAUscenariointheprojectarea(directandindirect)hasbeenestimatedasfollows:

Table2.5Deforestationscenario(business‐as‐usual)

(Estimationfortheprojectimplementationperiod:2015–2019)

2005(2002‐2008)

2009(2008‐2009)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Deforestation(ha/year)inareaofdirectimpact

2984 2080 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855

Deforestation(ha/year)inareaofindirectimpact

15,893

11,077 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205Note:theestimationofthedeforestationfrom2010onwardswascalculatedastheaverageofthedeforestationfortheperiods2002‐2008and2008‐2009asnoinformationisavailabletodemonstratethesustainabilityofthedecreasetrendsobservedin2008‐2009).

The forest carbon density was calculated by using estimates provided by the FAO(FRA2015‐Countryreport,Brazil) forCaatingabiome,whichusesvariousreferences,withaconservativevalueof33.3tC/ha,includingallcarbonpoolsbutsoil(aboveground

67

biomass,belowgroundbiomass,litteranddeadwood),andanequivalentof122.2tCO2eq/haapplyingafactorCo2eq/Cof3.66(sourceIPCC,2006).FAOFRA2015CountryreportforBrazilisavailableat:http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/6261857f‐c0da‐4f72‐98fd‐a18e9ca50509FRA2015‐Brazilreportcompilesthemostreliableandupdatedsourcesofinformationon forest area losses andbiomass estimates forCaatingabiome at publicationdate in2015. It is expected that the estimates can be improved using results of the ongoingnational forest inventory undertaken with support from GEF (StrengtheningNationalPolicyandKnowledgeFrameworkinSupportofSustainableManagementofBrazil´sForestResourcesproject),whenavailable.Based on this information, the baseline carbon and carbon dioxide emissions arepresentedintheTable2.6below.

Table 2.6: Carbon emissions and Carbon dioxide emission (business-as-usual)

2005

(2002 – 2008)

2009 (2008-2009)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Area of direct impact Deforestation (ha/year)

2,984 2,080 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855

Carbon emission (t C/year)

99,416 69,290 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112

Carbon dioxide emission (t CO2eq/year)

364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109

Area of indirect impact Deforestation (ha/year)

15,893 11,077 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205

Carbon emission (t C/year)

529,553 369,082 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629

Carbon dioxide emission (t CO2eq/year)

1,941,694

1,350,841

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261

1,854,261 1,854,261

Note: Using 33 t C/ha and a conversion factor of 3.66 for estimating CO2eq. TheprojectwillhelpreducethepressuresovertheforestsbyimplementingaSustainableForestManagementstrategythatincludes: Reductionintherateofdeforestationthroughi)sustainableforestmanagementplans

(15,000hectares),ii)forestrestoration(30,000hectareswithnativespecies),andiii)multi‐purposeSFMinforestareas(618,062hectares).

Avoideddeforestationandforestdegradation(696,219tonCO2eqin5,709hectares) Enhanced forest carbon sequestration through i) restoration of forest connectivity

sitesandii)recoveringtheforestcoverof30,000hectares(439,200tonCO2eq),

68

Inthealternativeprojectscenario,business‐as‐usualCO2emissionswillbereducedduetoprojectinterventions.Calculationsareasfollows: Direct impacts AvoidedEmissionsfromDeforestationThroughtheOutcome2.1:Forestareasundermulti‐purposeSFMhavebeenincreasedandtheOutcome 3.2: Forest connectivity sites have been defined, sustainablymanaged andrestored: These actions should half deforestation in the project area during theimplementation period, and avoid deforestation of 5,709 ha of forests conserved byproducersandcommunities,insideoraroundtheagriculturalsystems,Itisexpectedtopromoteareductionoftheemissionsinamountof696,219tCO2eq(5,709hax33.3C/hax3.66)asindicatedinthetable2.7below.

Table 2.7: Avoided carbon emissions and Carbon dioxide emission (scenario with SFM)

2005

(2002 – 2008)

2009 (2008-2009)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Business as usual Deforestation (ha/year)

2984 2080 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855

Carbon emission (t C/year)

99,416 69,290 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112

Carbon dioxide emission (t CO2eq/year

364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109

With SFM Deforestation (ha/year)

2984 2080 2955 2955 2955 2955 2955 2955  1,427 1,427 1,427 1,427

Carbon emission (t C/year)

99,416 69,290 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 47,556 47,556 47,556 47,556

Carbon dioxide emission (t CO2eq/year

364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 174,055 174, 055 174, 055 174, 055

Avoided emissionsAvoided carbon dioxide emissions (t CO2eq/year) 174, 055 174, 055 174, 055 174, 055

Total CO2eq  696,219

Totalavoidedemissionsduetotheproject interventionsinreducingdeforestationandforestdegradationaretherefore:696,219tCO2eq(projectimplementationperiod). Enhanced Forest Carbon Sequestration ThroughtheOutcome2.1 theprojectwillpromoteSFMandSLMpracticesinthewiderlandscape (904,142 hectares) through the adoption of NRM guidelines and capacitydevelopmentactivitiesandpromotionofSFMsupplychains.ThiswillcontributetoanenhancementofforestcarbonsequestrationhoweveratthisstageitisdifficulttogiveanyestimationandtheassessmentwillbecarriedoutduringPY1.

69

ThroughOutcome3.2itisexpectedthat30,000hawillberestoredasaresultofprojectimplementationduringfouryears.Thisrestorationwillbealsoyearlyexecutedinphases:33% inPY2 (10,000ha),33% inPY3 (10,000ha),33% inPY4 (10,000has).Takingaconservative value of enhanced forest sequestration of 2 t C/ha/year, it is estimatedadditionalsequestrationof439,200tCO2eq[(1/3*30,000hax3years+1/3*30,000hax2years+1/3*30,000hax1year)x2tC/ha/yearx3.66)],Totalenhancedsequestrationduetotheprojectinterventionstoincreasecarbonstockistherefore:439,200CO2eqasimpactofoutcome2.1willbeassessedlater.Overthe4‐yearlifetimeoftheproject,thiswillleadtoavoidedemissionsof696,219tCO2eqandadditionalsequestrationof439,200tCO2eq(seeTable2.8below).

Table 2.8: Direct avoided emissions and sequestration (4 years project implementation)

2005 (2002 – 2008)

2009 (2008-2009)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Business as usual (baseline) Carbon dioxide emissio(t CO2eq/year)

364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109

Emissions 11,418 Avoided carbon dioxide emissions (t CO2eq) 5,709 ha of forests will be conserved 696,218

Total: 696,218 Enhanced forest carbon sequestration (t CO2eq) 30,000 ha restored as a result of the implementation of the project during the four years 439,200

SFM in 904,142 ha No accounted for the time being Total: 878,400

IndirectImpactsInadditiontothedirectimpacts,theprojectisexpectedtogeneratesomeindirectpositiveimpacts. Themajor indirect impact would be the reduction of the deforestation rate.Duringthe4‐yearsproject,itisexpectedthattheprojectwillcreateindirectimpactsbyreducingat least30%ofthedeforestationrateintheareaofindirectimpact(avoidinglossof60,820ha).Thisindirectimpactisestimatedinanamountofavoidedemissionof2,472,347tCO2eqaspresentedinthetable2.9below.FurthermoretheprojectwillhaveanadditionalindirectimpactthroughSFMin618,062ha,leadingtoanestimatedcarbonenhancement of 2,058,146 t CO2eq calculated using a cautious estimated increase ofcarbonof0.5tC/ha/anthroughSFM(618062/3*0.5*3.33+618062/3*2*0.5*3.33+618062/3*3*0.5*3.33).

70

Table2.9:

Directandindirectavoidedemissionsandsequestration(4‐yearsprojectimplementation)

2005 (2002 – 2008)

2009 (2008-2009)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Business as usual (Direct impact ) 2984 2080 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855 2855

99,416 69,290 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 With SFM (direct impact)

Deforestation (ha/year)

2984 2080 2955 2955 2955 2955 2955 2955 1,427 1,427 1,427 1,427

Carbon emission (t C/year)

99,416 69,290 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 95,112 47,556 47,556 47,556 47,556

Carbon dioxidemission (t CO2eq/year)

364,524 253,600 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 348,109 174,055 174, 055 174, 055 174, 055

Direct avoided carbon dioxide emissions (t CO2eq/year) 174,055 174, 055 174, 055 174, 055 TOTAL 696,218

Business as usual (indirect impact) Deforestation (ha/year)

15,893

11,077 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205 15,205

Carbon dioxidemission (t C/year)

529,553

369,082 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629 506,629

Carbon dioxidemission (t CO2eq/year)

1,941,694

1,350,841 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261 1,854,261

Indirect avoided carbon dioxide emissions (t CO2eq/year) 618,087 618,087 618,087 618,087

TOTAL: 2,472,347+2,058,146tCO2eq

Adaptation Benefits Resilience.Theabilityoflocalcommunitiesandofbiodiversitytoadapttodesertification,highertemperatures,lessrainfallandmoreextremeeventsdependstoalargeextentonkeepingasmuchforestcoveraspossible.TheCaatingavegetationcanbeusedforkeepinglivestockbypruningtreesandshrubssotheycanbeusedforforage.Thepalmacactusisa key source of water for keeping livestock alive during droughts. Forest cover isimportant to maintain local hydrological cycles, with water for consumption andproduction,althoughincreasedconcentrationsofCO2intheatmospherecoulddecreasestreamflow.AlternativeusesoftheCaatingaincludeNTFPssuchasnativefruitsandnuts,honeyfromnativeandApismelliferabees,handicraftsandreproductivematerial(seedsandseedlings)ofnativeforestspeciesforrestorationrequiredbytheForestLaw.

2.6COSTEFFECTIVENESSThealternativestrategiesandmethodologiesconsidered,namelyapurelyfederalprojectorpureresearchandcommunication,werefoundnottobecosteffective.Theprojectasdesignediscost‐effectivebecauseoftheleverageongovernment,societyandknowledgemanagementinBrazil,changingthegameasit isnowplayed.Governmentbudgetsareextremelylimited,manyforeigndonorsnolongerconsiderBraziltobeaprioritycountryfordevelopmentassistanceandmostnon‐governmentalorganizationslackfundingandcapacityforcarryingoutaprojectwithwidegeographicalscope.Nonetheless,therearesubstantial resources and capacities in Brazil that can be mobilized when states,

71

municipalities, civil society and researchers are involved as partners. Many of thepartnerships established through the project will continue in the future. Also, theinvolvement of young people at this point in their lives will result in returns on theinvestmentfordecadestocome.Theproposedprojecthastheprimaryobjectiveofensuring long‐termsustainabilityoftheecosystemsandgloballyrelevantbiodiversityinBrazil’sASD.Toachievethisgoal,theprojecthasidentifiedfourcomponents,dealingwith:a)upscalingofINRMandNTFP;b)improvedSLMandSFMpractices;c)sustainableforestrecovery;d)institutionalcapacityregardingLDanddesertification.Thesefourcomponents,inadditiontoafifthcomponenton coordination, monitoring and evaluation, are cost‐effective ways to remove thebarriers and address the threats to global environmental benefits identified duringproject preparation. Thus, the project is cost‐effective because it complements thebaseline initiatives, capacity, infrastructure and national and local policies. Projectpreparation has identified the following strategies and methodologies that arecomplementaryandsynergic:

Participation of key stakeholders will ensure that decision‐making and projectimplementationwillbealignedwithnationalandlocaldevelopmentprioritiesandinitiatives.

Capacitydevelopmentwill improve intra‐ and inter‐institutional and intra‐ andinter‐sectorcoordination,whichinturnwillavoidduplicationofeffortsandreduceimplementationcosts.

Trainingandawareness‐raisingoffarmersandcommunitiesaboutSLM,SFMandFLRwill be supported to achieve a shift tomore favorable attitudes regardingsustainablemanagementofsoils,waterandforestsandadoptionofappropriatetechnologies.

Theselectiverecoveryof traditionalknowledgeofsertanejo family farmersandAfro‐descendant communities regarding the management and use of naturalresourceswillcontributetothesustainabilityofproductionpractices.

The value chain approach that links production to markets will increase cost‐effectiveness.

The feasibility analysis of monetary and non‐monetary incentives andcompensationschemeswillcontributetolong‐termfinancialsustainability.

Thecommunicationstrategyincludestoolsthatwillallowlow‐costdisseminationofprojectresults,reachingawideaudienceinappropriateandcost‐effectiveways.

Systematization of experiences and lessons learned will contribute to cost‐effective replication of project results throughout the ASD in Brazil and othercountries.

2.7INNOVATIVENESS TheREDESERprojectisinnovativeinthat,througharesearch‐in‐developmentapproach,itidentifiesanddisseminatesbestpracticesofSFM,FLRandSLMthatarenotyetwidelyadoptedinASD,butarepracticalandeffectivemeansofreversingdesertificationandlanddegradation over a vast area of Brazil, providing local, regional, national and globalbenefits.SomeofthepracticesalreadyexistinASDorinotherregionsorcountries,buttheiradaptationandwidediffusionconstitute innovation in theCaatinga.At the sametime,someofthetechniquesdevelopedinthedrylandsoftheNortheast,inparticularwith

72

regardtocapture,storageandmanagementofrainwater,arenowbeingtransferredtootherregions,wherewaterscarcityhasrecentlybecomeacauseofgreatconcern.Innovativepractices. Promising practices include rotation of pastures, redistributingcattleamongdifferentparcelsaccordingtotheirproductivity,integratedcrop‐livestocksystems,sustainablesilvopastoralandagro‐forestrymanagementpractices,useoffoliageas fodder (lowering and thinning), free‐range poultry, raising goats and sheep, fishfarming, beekeeping for honey and byproducts, rainwater catchment and storage forconsumption and for production, electric fences and ecological stoves, among others.Practices fromotherregionsthat favormaintenanceofforestcover insteadofclearingthatleadstolanddegradationincludesustainableuseofnativefruitspecies(likeumbu,licuri,mangaba,caju,muriciandmaracujáboi),nutsandfibers,aswellasmedicinalplants,wildlifemanagement,ecotourismandhandicraftswithwood.Theproject"Onelandandtwowaters(P1+2)”implementedbytheSemiaridAssociation(ASA)willcontributewithitsexperiencewithvarioustypesofrainwatercatchmentandstorage,including:1)cisternswith"sidewalks",2)undergrounddams,3)trenchtanks,4)stonetanksorcaldrons,5)popularwaterpumps,6)diversionofroadwater.Thesecanbeusedfor"productivebackyards.Further detailed good practices to be used are described in the guidelines for therestoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands (http://www.fao.org/3/a‐i5036e.pdf) as well as compiled by INSA(http://www.gndri.net/institution_insa_brazil_gn.php)

73

SECTION3‐FEASIBILITY 3.1ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTASSESSMENTFollowing FAO’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidelines for FAO FieldProjects, the proposed project is classified under category B,meaningminimal or noadverseimpacts.ThecorrespondingEnvironmentalandSocialReviewFormisattachedinAppendix7.3.2RISKMANAGEMENTREDESERprojectriskshavebeenidentifiedandanalyzedduringprojectpreparationandmitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design. The risks andmitigationmeasureshavebeenconsideredregarding:a)climatechange;b)biodiversity;c) support from public and governments; d) pressures from agribusiness; e) socio‐economicconditions.Theprobabilityofclimatechangeandpressuresfromagribusinessareconsideredhigh,whiletheprobabilitiesofrisksregardingbiodiversity,supportfrompublic and governments and socio‐economic conditions are considered medium. Thevarious mitigation strategies that the project will use to deal with these risks aredescribedintheRiskMatrixinAppendix4.WithsupportfromandunderthesupervisionofFAO,theProjectManagementCommittee(PMC)willberesponsiblefortheday‐to‐daymanagementoftheserisksandtheeffectiveimplementationofmitigationmeasures.TheM&Esystemwillmonitorprojectoutcomeand output indicators aswell as risks andmitigationmeasures. The PMCwill also beresponsible, in dialogwith other project partners, formonitoring the effectiveness ofmitigationmeasuresandadjustingmitigationstrategiesasneeded,aswellasidentifyingandmanaginganynewrisksnotforeseenduringprojectdevelopment.Thesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReports(seesection4.5.3)arethemaintoolsforprojectriskmonitoringandmanagement.Thereportsincludeasectiononsystematicfollow‐upofrisksandmitigationactionsidentifiedinpreviousreportingperiods.Theyalsoincludeasectionforidentificationofnewrisksorrisksthatstillneedattention,theirratingsandmitigationactions,aswellaswho isresponsible formonitoringthoseactionswiththerespectivetimelines.FAOwillmonitortheprojectriskmanagementcloselyandfollowupifneededbyprovidingsupportfortheadjustmentandimplementationofriskmitigationstrategies.ReportingonriskmonitoringandratingwillalsobepartoftheannualProjectImplementationReview(PIR)preparedbyFAOandsubmittedtotheGEFSecretariat(seesection4.5.3).

74

SECTION4–IMPLEMENTATIONANDMANAGEMENTARRANGEMENTS4.1INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTSBesidesFAOasGEFAgency,themaininstitutionsthataredirectlyinvolvedintheprojectandhavesignedco‐financinglettersare,inalphabeticalorderbytheirBrazilianacronymsinPortuguese:

1. AGENDHA–Socio‐environmentalNGO2. APNE‐NortheastPlantsAssociation3. CEPIS‐TechnologicalParkFoundationofParaíba4. FA‐AraripeFoundation5. FUNETEC‐TechnologicalandCulturalEducationFoundation6. IABS‐BrazilianInstituteofDevelopmentandSustainability7. ICRAF–WorldAgroforestryCentre8. INSA‐NationalSemi‐AridInstitute9. MDA‐MinistryofAgrarianDevelopment10. MMA‐MinistryofEnvironment11. SEAFDS‐Paraíbastateagriculturesecretariat12. SEAPAC‐RioGrandedoNortesocialorganization13. SEIHRMACT–Paraíbastateenvironmentsecretariat14. SEMA‐Cratomunicipalenvironmentsecretariat15. SEMARH–Alagoasstateenvironmentsecretariat16. SEPLAN‐RioGrandedoNortestateplanningsecretariat17. SFB‐BrazilianForestService

The amounts of co‐financing are on the cover page and in Table 4.2 of this ProjectDocument.Therolesoftheco‐financiersaredescribedinTable1.6insub‐section1.1.3.Additionalinstitutionsandorganizationswillbemobilizedduringtheprojectinceptionphaseandduringprojectimplementation.AsrequestedbytheGovernmentofBrazil,theFoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO)willbetheGEFImplementingAgencyintheDirectExecution(DEX)modality(seedescriptioninSection4.2).Theproject co‐executingpartnerswillbe responsible forensuringcoordinationof thefirstfourprojectcomponents,aswellascoordinationandcollaborationwithotherprojectstakeholders.TheMMAisthemainexecutingpartner,astheNationalFocalPointoftheUnitedNationsConvention to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNCCD), with responsibility forcoordinatingBrazil’sNationalActionProgram(NAP)toCombatDesertification.FAO,MMAandtheco‐financierslistedabovewillcollaboratewithimplementingagenciesofotherprogramsandprojects to identifyand facilitate synergieswithother relevantGEF‐financedprojects,aswellaswithprojectsfinancedbyotherdonors.Collaboration

75

willbeundertakenthroughcommunicationamongGEFagenciesandexecutingpartnersof otherprograms andprojects aswell as exchange of information anddisseminationmaterialsamongprojects.Inordertoguaranteeeffectivecoordinationandcollaborationamongdifferentinitiatives,specificresponsibilitieshavebeenassignedtotheProjectManagementCommittee(PMC)andincludedintheTermsofReferenceofprojectpersonnel.Overall,theprojectisinlinewiththeUNCCDTen‐YearStrategy2008‐2018andBrazil’sNationalActionPlan(NAP)toCombatDesertification.TheintegratedfundingstrategyforimplementationofthestrategyinBrazilincludestheClimateFund,theNationalForestryDevelopmentFund,theNationalEnvironmentFund,theBrazilianBiodiversityFundandtheFederalSavingsBank’sSocio‐environmentalFund,aswellastheBankofBrazilandtheBankoftheNortheast.Inadditionto federal initiatives, therearealsomanyviableoptions forsynergieswithstate governments. For example, the “Rio Grande do Norte Regional and GovernanceProject”(“SustainableRN”),fundedbyaloanofUSD360millionfromtheWorldBank,involves awide range of interventions in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, includingsupportforfamilyfarmersandtheirorganizationsandaregionalplatformofmorethan2,500 civil society organizations, many of which are located close to the projectinterventionareasinthestate’sSeridóregion.Likewise,theprojectwillcoordinatewiththe Secretariat for Environment and Water Resources (SEMARH) of Sergipe forimplementationof the “Sustainable LandUseManagement in the Semi‐AridRegion ofNortheast Brazil (Sergipe)” project (BRA/14/G32) regarding the Alto Sertão region,acrosstheSãoFranciscoRiverfromtheXingóregionofAlagoas,withtotalfundingofUSD21,148,208between2014and2019.ThisprojecthasUNDPasimplementingagencyandis also linked with the DCD of SEDR the Ministry of Environment. The Alagoas stategovernmentisveryactiveintheXingóregion.EMBRAPA,thefederalagriculturalresearchagency,withfundingfromUNDPandGEF,isresponsible for implementing the GEF project called “Integration of Conservation andSustainableUseofBiodiversity inProductivePracticesofNon‐TimberForestProductsandAgroforestry Systems in Productive Landscapes ofHigh ConservationValue.” Theproject,with total funding ofUSD33,279,452 for 2014‐2018, has selectedCitizenshipTerritories as areas of intervention. Of the total of six areas, four are located in theCaatingaandCerradoandtwointheAmazon.Theprojectwillfocusmainlyonsupportingextractive communities and traditional peoples located in Cerrado areas. ThecoordinatorsofbothprojectsinBrasíliaareinclosecontacttoavoidduplication.With respect to forestmanagement, theBrazilianForestService is responsible for theRuralEnvironmentalRegistry(CAR),aboutwhichitisconsultingsocietyregardingthedetails of implementation. The agency is responsible for the Federal Program ofCommunity and Family Forest Management. It also plans to promote best forestmanagement practices with emphasis on the Caatinga and Cerrado biomes. TheseinitiativesarecarriedoutindialogwiththeNAPandaresupportedbytheNationalForestDevelopmentFund(FNDF).

76

4.2IMPLEMENTATIONARRANGEMENTSFAOwillbetheGEFImplementingAgencyresponsibleforsupervisionandprovisionoftechnical guidance during project implementation. FAO’s role and responsibilities isdescribedinsub‐section4.2.2below.412TheprojectwillbetechnicallyexecutedbytheMMA.AProjectSteeringCommittee(PSC) will be set up to provide oversight of and coordinate the planning of projectimplementation(seesub‐section4.2.3).Morespecifically,projectactivitieswillbecarriedout through a Project Management Committee (PMC)made up of the Director of theDepartment to Combat Desertification (DCD) of the Secretariat of Extractivism andSustainable Rural Development (SEDR), the FAO Representation in Brazil, tworepresentatives of the National Committee for Combating Desertification and threerepresentatives of the most relevant governmental co‐financiers. The PMC will beresponsible for decision‐making, providing guidance and supervising the ProjectExecutionUnit(PEU).Otherimplementationarrangementsaredescribedindetailinsub‐sections4.2.1,4.2.2and4.2.3below.

77

Figure4.1.InstitutionalArrangementsforProjectImplementation.

CoordinationFinancialreviewTechnicalreview

Regional Consultative Committee Local Focal Points

Implementing Partners Technical consultants

GEF TCID FAO GEF Project Steering Committee (PSC) MMA FAO Brazil Ministry of External

Relations (ABC), GEF Political Focal Point

SEAIN/MP, GEF Operational Focal Point Project Management Committee (PMC)

MMA Department to Combat Desertification FAO Representative in Brazil National Desertification Committee Co-financing partners

Project Execution Unit (PEU) - Project Technical Coordinator (SFM expert) (INSA) - Coordinators of the Project Components (INRM expert, Restoration expert, Awareness-Raising Expert) - Technical Assistant (INSA) - Budget and Operations Officer (Brasilia)

Project Task Force (FAO)

Project Management Unit (government side)

National level Regional level

Local level

78

4.2.1Rolesandresponsibilitiesoftheprojectco‐executingpartnersThe GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP) in the Secretariat of International Affairs(SEAIN)ofBrazil’sMinistryofPlanning,BudgetandManagement(MP)hasendorsedtheprojectandwillmonitortheannualProjectImplementationReviews(PIR).He/shewillbepartoftheProjectSteeringCommittee(PSC)andwillbeinvitedtothemid‐termandfinalevaluationsoftheproject.TheMinistry of Environment (MMA) is primarily responsible for coordinating theprogrammingofGEFresourcesintheLandDegradationandBiodiversityfocalareas,aswellassomeClimateChangeinitiativessharedwiththeMinistryofScience,TechnologyandInnovation. IntheREDESERproject, theMMAwillberesponsiblefor:(i) technicalimplementationofprojectactivities;(ii)day‐to‐daymonitoringofprojectprogressandachievement of results; iii) requesting to the FAO Representation in Brazil the procurementofgoods,minorworksandservices,whichwillbeundertakenbytheFAORepresentationinBrazil.TheMinisterofEnvironmentorhis/herrepresentativewillchairthePSCandtheannualmeetingsforprojectplanningandreview.Technicalexecutionofthe project will be the responsibility of the Department to Combat Desertification(DCD)/SEDR. The MMA will supervise preparation and submission to the FAORepresentation in Brazil of the six‐monthly Project Progress Reports (PPRs), detailedAnnualWorkPlanandBudget(AWP/B)andallthedocumentsnecessarytopreparetheProjectImplementationReviews(PIRs),asdescribedinsub‐section4.5.3.Various federal government agencies responsible for forestry, rural development,NTFPs, biodiversity, land regularization and extension programs will be involved inproject implementation. The most relevant institutions are: Ministry of AgrarianDevelopment(MDA),MinistryofSocialDevelopmentandtheFightAgainstHunger(MDS),state environment agencies, Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation(ICMBio),BrazilianForestService(SFB),NationalAgency forTechnicalAssistanceandRural Extension (ANATER), National Supply Company (CONAB) and Ministry ofAgriculture,LivestockandSupply(MAPA),manyofwhichareco‐financiers.Asummaryofalltheirrespectiverolesandresponsibilitiesispresentedinsub‐section1.1.3.A GEF‐financed Project Execution Unit (PEU) will be established. The mainresponsibilityoftheteam,followingthedirectivesanddecisionsofthePSCandtheProjectManagement Committee and under the supervision of FAO and theNPD, is to ensurecoordination and execution of the project through the rigorous and effectiveimplementation of the AWP/B. The PEU will be headed by the Project TechnicalCoordinator(PTC),tobefinancedbyGEFfunds. TheDirectoroftheDCD/SEDRoftheMMAwillactasNationalProjectDirector(NPD)andmainnationalcounterpart for theday‐to‐daymanagementof theproject.His/hertimewill be fully covered by theMMA andwill be counted as MMA’s co‐financing for theproject.He/shewillworktoensureachievementoftheprojectsoutcomes.He/shewillrepresenttheMMAonthePSC,chairtheRegionalConsultativeCommittee,keeptheMMAupdatedonprojectprogressandchallengesasneededandrepresenttheprojectathigh‐level national and internationalmeetings. TheNPDwill be responsible for requestingfrom FAO the timely disbursement of GEF resources that will allow the execution of

79

project activities, in strict accordance with the Project Results‐Based Budget (seeAppendix3)andtheapprovedAWP/Bforthecurrentprojectyear,butcandelegatetotheProjectTechnicalCoordinator(PTC)theresponsibilityforrequestingfromFAOthetimelydisbursementofGEFresourcesasforeseenintheAWP/B.Fortheexecutionofprojectactivities,aPTCwillbehiredwithprojectresourcesonafull‐time basis. He/she will be hosted at INSA in Campina Grande, Paraíba, and will beresponsible for the day‐to‐day management of the project and for coordinating theactivitieswithallprojectpartners.Specifically,he/shewillbeinchargeof:

Coordinatingandcloselysupervisingtheimplementationofprojectactivities; Ensuring collaboration among the participating national, state and local

institutionsandorganizations; Implementing and managing the project M&E plan and its communication

program; PreparingtheProjectProgressReports(PPRs)containinginformationonthe

activitiescarriedoutandtheprogressinachievingoutcomesandoutputs; Organizing annual project workshops and meetings to monitor project

progress; PreparingtheAnnualWorkPlansandBudgets(AWP/B)incoordinationwith

FAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),theFAOProjectTaskManager(PTM)atFAOBrazil,theFAO/GEFCoordinationUnit(TCI)andtheNationalProjectDirector(NPD);

Submitting PPRs together with the AWP/B to the Project ManagementCommittee (PMC) for approval and presentation to the Project SteeringCommittee(PSC)andFAO;

ActingassecretarytothePMCandthePSC; PrepareafirstdraftofPIRsandsupporttheorganizationofmid‐termandfinal

evaluations.ThenationalBudgetandOperationsOfficerwillberesponsible for theday‐to‐dayfinancial management and operation of the project including raising contracts andprocureotherneededinputsinaccordancewiththeapprovedbudgetandannualworkplans.TheBudgetandOperationsOfficerwillworkincloseconsultationwiththePTC,BudgetHolder (BH, see below), LeadTechnicalOfficer (LTO, see below) and projectexecutingpartners,particularlywiththeFAORepresentationinBrazil,andwilltaketheoperational responsibility for timely delivery of needed inputs to produce projectoutputs.

4.2.2FAO’srolesandresponsibilitiesoftheGEFagencyFAO’sroleintheprojectgovernancestructureFAOwill be the GEF Implementing Agency of the project aswell as the financial andoperationalexecutingagency.Asthefinancialandoperationalexecutingagency,FAOwillprovideprocurementandcontractingservicesandfinancialmanagementservicesofGEFresources.AstheGEFAgency,FAOwillsuperviseandprovidetechnicalguidancefortheoverallimplementationprocess.AdministrationoftheGEFgrantwillbeincompliancewith

80

therulesandproceduresofFAOandinaccordancewiththeagreementbetweenFAOandtheGEFTrustee.AstheGEFagencyfortheproject,FAOwill:

AdministerfundsfromGEFinaccordancewithFAOrulesandprocedures; Oversee project implementation in accordance with the project document,

work plans, budgets, agreements with co‐financiers and the rules andproceduresofFAO;

Provide technical guidance to ensure that appropriate technical quality isappliedtoallactivitiesconcerned;

Carryoutatleastonesupervisionmissionperyear; ReporttotheGEFSecretariatandEvaluationOffice,throughtheannualProject

Implementation Review (PIR), on project progress and provide financialreportstotheGEFTrustee.

BasedonarequestfromtheGovernmentofBrazil,FAOwillalsobetheexecutingagencyof the GEF resources including financial management, procurement of goods andcontractingofservicesfollowingFAOrulesandprocedures.Asthefinancialexecuter,FAOwillprovidesix‐monthlyfinancialreportsincludingastatementofprojectexpenditurestotheProjectSteeringCommittee(PSC)andtheProjectManagementCommittee(PMC).InaccordancewiththepresentProjectDocument,progressonthefinancialexecutionoftheprojectandtheAWP/BapprovedbythePSC,FAOwillpreparerevisionstomaintainthe budget updated in the FAO’s Field Programme Management Information System(FPMIS).ThebudgetrevisionswillbeprovidedtothePMCtofacilitateprojectplanningandexecution.FAOwill, in collaborationwith thePTCand thePMC,participate in theplanningandexecutionofcontractingandprocurementprocesses.FAOwillalsoprocesspaymentscorrespondingtodeliveryofgoods,servicesandproductsattherequestoftheNPD.All technical reportswillbepaidonce theFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer (LTO)hasapprovedthem.

FAO’srolesininternalorganization 

TherolesandresponsibilitiesofFAOstaffareregulatedbytheFAOGuidetotheProjectCycle,QualityforResults,2015,Annex4:RolesandResponsibilitiesoftheProjectTaskForceMembers,anditsupdates.TheFAORepresentation inBrazilwillbe theBudgetHolder(BH) responsible for themanagement of the GEF resources. As a first step in project start‐up, the FAORepresentation in Brazil will establish an interdisciplinary Project Task Force (PTF)withinFAOtoguidetheimplementationoftheproject.

ThePTFisamanagementandconsultativebodythat integratethenecessarytechnicalqualificationsfromtheFAOrelevantunitstosupporttheproject.ThePTMiscomposedofaBudgetHolder,aLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),theFundingLiaisonOfficer(FLO)andoneormoretechnicalofficersbasedonFAOHeadquarters(HQTechnicalOfficer).

In consultation with the LTO (see below), the FAO Representation in Brazil will beresponsiblefortimelyoperational,administrativeandfinancialmanagementoftheGEFproject resources, including in particular: (1) contracting and procurement processesbasedontherequestfromtheGovernment,accordingtoFAO’srulesandproceduresand

81

in accordancewith the approvedAWP/B; (2) process the payments corresponding todeliveryofgoods,servicesandtechnicalproductsbasedonthepriorclearanceofthesameby the NPD and the FAO LTO; (3)provide six‐monthly financial reports including astatementofprojectexpendituresandthePSC;(4)at leastonetimeperyear,ormorefrequently if required, prepare budget revisions for submission to the TCI/GEFCoordinationUnitthroughFPMIS.

TheFAORepresentationinBrazilwill,inconsultationwiththePTF,giveno‐objectiontoAWP/BssubmittedbythePEUaswellastotheProjectProgressReports(PPRs).PPRsmaybecommentedbythePTFandshouldbeapprovedbytheLTObeforebeinguploadedbytheBHinFPMIS.

TheFAOGEFProjectTaskManager(PTM)will,underthedirectsupervisionoftheFAORepresentationinBrazil,support theFAORepresentationinthesupervisionofprojectmanagementandprogress,procurementandcontractingprocesses,andontheprovisionof technical guidance to the project, in close consultation with the LTO and theinterdisciplinaryProjectTaskForce.ThePTMwillbepaidfromGEFfeeresourcesandwillhavethefollowingmaintasks:

ReviewandprovidecommentsontheProjectProgressReports(PPRs)preparedby thePTCandsubmit them theLTO for technical clearanceand to theBH forapproval.

Participateintheannualprojectprogressreviewandplanningworkshops;reviewandprovide commentson theAWP/Band recommend its approval to theFAORepresentation,inconsultationwiththeLTOandtheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit.

ReviewthecontractingandprocurementdocumentationforthosecontractsandprocurementstobefinancedbyGEFresourcesandrecommendtheirapprovaltothe FAO Representation, in consultation with the LTO and the FAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit.

Review the co‐financing reports submitted annually in June by the projectpartners.

Reviewandprovidecommentstothesix‐monthlyfinancialreportspreparedbythe Administrative Assistant FAO Representation in Brazil, previous to theirsubmittaltothePTCforpreparationofthePPR.

Undertake periodic supervision missions, support the results‐based projectmanagementandfacilitatetheprovisionoftechnicalguidancebyFAO;

SupportthePTCandLTOinpreparingtheannualPIRreport; Ensure that the PTC and the PEU have provided information on co‐financing

providedduringthecourseoftheyearforinclusioninthePIRs; When requestedby the FAORepresentation, participate in the Project Steering

Committee; Participate in theprojectpersonnel selection committees to interviewand give

adviceoncandidateselectionforkeypositionstobefinancedbyGEFresources.The committees compositionwill bedesignatedby theMMA, theFAOLTOandPTM,and inspecificcasesTCI/GEF,andotherpartnersasrequested inthePSCmeetings;

Prepare draft Terms of Reference for the mid‐term and final evaluations inconsultation with the FAO Evaluation Office, the LTO and the FAO‐GEFCoordinationUnitandprojectco‐executingpartners;supporttheorganizationof

82

theevaluations;contributetothedevelopmentofanyagreedadjustmentplaninprojectexecutionapproachandsuperviseitsimplementation.

The Lead Technical Officer (LTO) for the Project will be the FAO Forestry Officer(drylands) of the Forest Policy and Resources FOA(FOA) Division, with experience insustainableforestmanagementandrestorationinASD.TheroleoftheLTOiscentraltoFAO’scomparativeadvantageforprojects.TheLTOwilloverseeandcarryouttechnicalbackstopping to the project implementation. The LTO will support the BH in theimplementation and monitoring of the AWP/Bs, including work plan and budgetrevisions.TheLTO is responsibleandaccountable forprovidingorobtaining technicalclearanceoftechnicalinputsandservicesprocuredbytheOrganization. Inaddition,theLTOwillprovidetechnicalbackstoppingtothePEUtoensurethedeliveryof quality technical outputs. The LTO will coordinate the provision of appropriatetechnical support from PTF to respond to requests from the PSC. The LTO will beresponsiblefor::

Reviewingandgivingno‐objectiontoTORsforconsultanciesandcontractstobeperformedundertheprojectandtoCVsandtechnicalproposalsshort‐listedbytheProjectManagementCommitteeforkeyprojectpositions,goods,minorworksandservicestobefinancedbyGEFresources;

SupportedbytheFAORepresentationinBrazil,inparticularbythePTM,reviewingandclearingfinaltechnicalproductsdeliveredbyconsultantsandcontractholdersfinancedbyGEFresourcesbeforethefinalpaymentcanbeprocessed;

Assisting with review and provision of technical comments on draft technicalproducts/reportsuponrequestfromtheProjectManagementCommitteeduringprojectexecution;

Reviewing and approving project progress reports submitted by the PTC, incoordinationwiththeBH;

SupportingtheFAORepresentationinreviewing,revisingandgivingno‐objectiontoAWP/BsubmittedbythePTCforapprovalbytheProjectSteeringCommittee;

Ensurethetechnicalqualityofthesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReports(PPRs).The PPRswill be prepared by the PTC,with inputs from the PEU. The BHwillsubmitthePPRtotheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnitforcomments,andtheLTOfortechnicalclearance.ThePPRswillbesubmittedtothePSCforapproval twiceayear.TheBHwilluploadtheapprovedPPRtoFPMIS.

SupervisethepreparationandensurethetechnicalqualityoftheannualProjectImplementationReviewreport,supportedbythePTM.ThePIRwillbedraftedbythePTCwithinputsfromthePEU.ThePIRwillbesubmittedtotheBHandtheFAO‐GEF Coordination Unit for approval and finalization. The FAO/GEFCoordinationUnitwillsubmitthePIRstotheGEFSecretariatandEvaluationOfficeaspartoftheAnnualMonitoringReview(AMR)reportoftheFAO‐GEFportfolio.

Undertakingannual(orasneeded)fieldsupervisionmissions; ProvideinputsfortheTORsofthemid‐termandfinalevaluationsasrequestedby

FAOOfficeofEvaluation,developmentandfollow‐uptorecommendationsonhowtoinsuresustainabilityofprojectoutputsandresultsaftertheendoftheproject.

TheHQTechnicalOfficer isamemberofthePTF,asamandatoryrequirementoftheFAOGuide to the Project Cycle. TheHQTechnical Officer hasmost relevant technicalexpertise‐withinFAOtechnicaldepartments‐relatedtothethematicoftheproject.The

83

HQ Technical Officer will provide effective functional advice to the LTO to ensureadherence to FAO corporate technical standards during project implementation, inparticular:

SupportstheLTOinmonitoringandreportingtheidentifiedrisksandmitigationmeasures(Appendix4)inclosecoordinationwiththeprojectpartners.

Providestechnicalbackstoppingfortheannualworkplanandbudgets. Clears technical reports, contributes to and oversees the quality of Project

ProgressReport(s)(PPRs–seeSection4.5). MayberequestedtosupporttheLTOandPTFforimplementationandmonitoring. SupportstheLTOandBHinprovidinginputstotheTORoftheMid‐termandFinal

EvaluationsasrequestedbyOED.

The FAO‐GEF Coordination Unit will act as Funding Liaison Officer (FLO). TheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnitwillreviewProjectProgressReportsandfinancialreports,andwill review and approve budget revisions based on the approved Project Budget(Appendix3)andtheAWP/Bs.TheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnitwillreviewandprovidearatingintheannualPIRandundertakesupervisionmissionsifconsiderednecessary.The PIRs will be included in the FAO GEF AMR submitted to GEF by the FAO GEFCoordinationUnit.TheFAOGEFCoordinationUnitmayalsoparticipateinthemid‐termand final evaluations and in the development of corrective actions in the projectimplementation strategy if needed to mitigate risks affecting the timely and effectiveimplementationoftheproject.TheFAOGEFCoordinationUnitwill,incollaborationwiththeFAOFinanceDivision,requesttransferofprojectfundsfromtheGEFTrusteebasedonsix‐monthlyprojectionsoffundsneeded.TheFAOFinanceDivisionwillprovideannualFinancialReportstotheGEFTrusteeand,incollaborationwiththeFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit,requestprojectfundsfromtheGEFTrusteeonasix‐monthlybasis.4.2.3Projectdecision‐makingmechanismsThe Project Steering Committee (PSC) will take decisions on the overall projectmanagement and will be in charge of ensuring compliance with the project strategicapproach for the operational tasks. The PSC will be chaired by the Minister ofEnvironment or his/her delegatewith the participation of the FAO Representative orhis/her delegate. The PSCwill be composed by representatives of FAO, theMMA, theSecretariatofInternationalAffairs(SEAIN)oftheMinistryofPlanning(MP),theBrazilianCooperation Agency (ABC) of the Ministry of External Relations (MRE) and theirrespectivealternatemembers.ThePSCcanbeexpandedtoincludeotherrepresentativesuponmutualagreementamongtheparties.TheProjectTechnicalCoordinatorwillserveasPSCSecretariat,withnovotingrights.ThePSCwillmeetatleasttwiceayearanditsresponsibilitieswillinclude:(i)overalloversightofprojectprogressandachievementofplanned results as per the project document; (ii) taking decisions about the practicalorganization,coordinationandimplementationoftheproject;(iii)facilitatingcooperationamongMMA,FAOandprojectparticipatingpartnersandprojectsupportatthelocallevel;(iv) advising the PTC on other on‐going and planned activities and facilitatingcollaboration between the project and other programs, projects and initiatives; (v)

84

facilitatingprovisionofco‐financingis inatimelyandeffectivemanner;(vi)reviewingandapprovingthesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReportsandtheAWP/B.

TheProjectManagementCommittee(PMC), including some of the state governments, will be responsible for: (i) guiding project implementation as per the AWP/B; (ii) timelyachievementofprojectoutcomesandoutputs;(iii)effectiveandefficientuseofresourcesallocatedaspertheprojectdocument;iv)planningprojectactivities,givingguidanceandadvice to thePSC;v)providing technicaladvice to theProjectSteeringCommittee;vi)advisingthePSConotheron‐goingandplannedactivitiesandfacilitatingcollaborationbetweentheprojectandotherprograms,projectsandinitiatives.ThePMCmayalsobeinvolvedintechnicalevaluationofprojectprogressandoutputsanddevelopmentofanagreedadjustmentplaninprojectexecutionapproach,ifneeded.ThePMCwillincludetheDirector of DCD/SEDR/MMA or his/her delegate, the FAO PTM and the FAO LTO.Membership of the PMC will be defined at the Project Inception workshop in aparticipatorymannerandotherprojectpartnerswillbeinvitedaccordingly.ThePMCwillmeetatleasteverytwomonths.

ProjectAdvisoryBoard(PAB).TheProjectAdvisoryBoardwillserveasthepolitical‐technical body to support project planning and implementation, provide advice andfacilitateinter‐sectorcoordination.ThePABwillplayacriticalroleinprojectmonitoringandevaluationanduseofresultsforimprovementofprojectperformance,accountabilityandlearning.InconformitywithrequirementsforallinternationalcooperationprojectsinBrazil,thePABwillincluderepresentativesofMMA,ABCandFAOandwillmeetonceayearatTripartiteMeetings.TheProjectManagementUnit (PMU)will carry out the activities established in theAnnualWorkPlanandBudget(AWP/B).Inordertoprovidetransparencyandensureaparticipatoryprocessinthemanagementoftheproject,projectcoordinationwillincludenational,regionalandlocallevels,asfollows:

a) National Coordination will be the responsibility of the Ministry ofEnvironment (MMA), through its Department to Combat Desertification(DCD),whichisresponsibleforimplementationofNAPBrazil.MMAwillberesponsible for planning, national coordination and monitoring of theimplementationoftheproject.

b) RegionalCoordinationwillconsistofaspecifictechnicalcoreteamwith

federalandstatecivilservantsandprofessionalshiredspecificallytoworkon theproject.TheRegionalCoordinationwillbe responsible foroverallcoordination, planning, supervision and monitoring of activities to beperformed in project on‐site interventions, through interactionwith theimplementingpartnersresponsible for theseactivities.Thiscoordinationwill include representatives of theMinistry of Environment (MMA), theBrazilianForestService(SFB)andtheBrazilianInstituteofEnvironmentandRenewableNaturalResources(IBAMA),amongothers.

c) LocalCoordinationamongthevariouspartiesinvolvedinfieldoperationswillbecarriedoutinthefourfieldareasandwillexchangetechnicalandadministrativeinformationwiththeproject'stechnicalsupervision.

85

LocatedinBrasíliaandCampinaGrande(INSAOffice),theProjectExecutionUnit(PEU)will consist of the National Project Director (NPD), the Project Technical Coordinator(PTC)andatechnicalassistant.TechnicalandadministrativestaffoftheMMAwillalsoparticipateandprovidesupporttothePEU.Toobtainspecificoutputs,theincrementalsupportofGEFwillbeusedtohirespecializedconsultantsforspecificperiodsoftime.Fordelivery of relevant outputs, in particular those related to implementation of fieldactivities, letters of agreement (LoA) will be signed by FAO and selected local, state,regionalornationalnon‐profitorganizations,researchand/oracademic institutionsorcivilsocietyorganizations,accordingtothespecificneeds,complyingwithFAO’srules.ThePEUwilldevelopAnnualWorkPlansandBudgets(AWP/Bs)indicatingtheoutputsandactivitiesplannedfortheyear,theimplementationperiodsforeachactivityrolesandresponsibilities and the M&E plan. The AWP/Bs will be approved by the FAORepresentation(see4.2.2)andtheProjectSteeringCommittee.ThePEUorganizationalchartisillustratedbelow:Graphic1:OrganizationalchartoftheProjectExecutionUnit,BrazilREDESER

Project

The Project Technical Coordinator (PTC) will be responsible for the day‐to‐dayimplementationoftheproject,andforprovidingtechnicalsupervisionforComponent2(SFM). Under the general oversight of the NPD, the FAO PTF and the PTC, an INRMSpecialistwill be responsible for coordinating the implementation of Component 1; aForestRestorationSpecialistwillcoordinatetheimplementationofComponent3;andanAwareness‐raising specialistwill coordinate the implementation of Component 4. ThePTCandtheProjectComponentCoordinatorswillbehiredfor48monthsbyusingGEFresources.TheirdraftTORsaredetailedinAppendix5.Inaddition,GEFresourceswillbeinvestedinhiringpart‐timetechnicalconsultantswhowilldeliverspecificprojectoutputs:i)aValueChainSpecialist(24months);ii)anExpertinFLRinBrazilDrylands(14months);iii)anExpertinLDandDesertification(6months);

Technical Project Coordinator  

(SFM expert)

3 Project Component Coordinators (component 1, 3 

and 4) 

Technical consultants (part‐time)

(Legal specialist, FLR Expert, Value Chain specialist, LD specialist, M&E Expert, 

Media&Publishing, )

Local implementing partners

86

iv)anExpertinMediaandPublishing(12months);v)Legalspecialist(12months);vi)anM&EExperttodesigntheprojectM&Esystembymonth6thofPY1(6months).SeemoredetailsinAppendices1and2.Furthermore, FAO will sign Letter(s) of Agreement with local agencies to implementspecifictechnicaloutputsinprojectinterventionsites.TheseLOAswillbefurtherdefinedduringProjectinceptioninPY1.Project Governmental Liaison Officer (PGLO). The PGLO will be provided by theGovernmentofBrazil.He/shewillensurethattheprojectiscloselyalignedwiththeNAPstrategyandwithother governmentprogramsandprojects andwill contribute to theeffectivedisseminationoflessonslearnedatthenationalandinternationallevel.Regional Consultative Commission (RCC). The Regional Consultative Commission(RCC)will be constitutedby technical focal pointswhowill facilitate the coordinationamongthelocal,stateandnationallevelsinthedesignatedareasinthestatesofCeará,Bahia, Alagoas, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraiba. The RCC will be composed byrepresentatives of the local partner institutions and technical civil servants of stategovernments who are specialized professionals. The RCC will be responsible forsupervisingandmonitoringsite interventions,promotingcoordinationandexchanginginformation,methodologiesand fielddata.TheRCCwill support the identificationandparticipation of grassroots and state‐level organizations linked to family farming,agricultureandlivestock,waterresources,forestryandbiodiversityconservation.TheMMAwilldesignateFocalPoints(FPs)whowillbetheprimarycontactpointsforthecoordinationofstateandlocalactivitiesandwillserveaslinkswiththenationallevel.TheywillalsoberesponsibleforsupervisingtheworkofSFMimplementationinsitu.TheFPswillensuretheidentificationandparticipationofkeystakeholdersfromlocal,state,regional and national organizations, such as family farming, agriculture and livestock,waterresources,forestryandscienceandtechnology,aswellaslocal,stateandregionalrepresentativesofprogramsandprojectssuchasPRONAF,CitizenshipTerritories,BrazilWithout Misery and Ecological‐Economic Zoning, among others. The FPs will beresponsible for the implementation of project activities within their specific areas,informingtheProjectTechnicalCoordinatorofresultsobtainedandcontributingtothepreparation of quarterly and annual reports. Theywill maintain a registry of the co‐financingcontributions.WiththesupportofFAO,theprojectwillcarryoutapre‐selectionoflocalImplementingPartners (IPs) to identify organizations that are in a position to participate in theinitiative as institutional partners. Four local non‐profit organizationswill implementprojectfieldactivitiesintherespectiveselectedareas(Araripe,Seridó,UauáandXingó).LettersofAgreement(LoA)willbesignedbetweenFAOandselectedentities.ThecriteriaforselectionandregistrationaspartnerswillbedefinedduringtheInceptionPhaseoftheproject (first threemonthsof implementation).Themaincriteria include:a)eligibilityaccordingtoFAOrules(ManualSection507,onLettersofAgreement);b)experiencewithprojectsofthiskind;c)abilitytoinnovateandaddvaluetotheproject;d)accumulatedknowledgeaboutthesubjectoftheproject;e)technicalandspecializedcapacityneededtoachieveresults; f)potential forpartnershipswithother institutions in thearea.ThehiringofIPswillbecarriedoutthroughacompetitiveprocess.Aftertheselectionprocess,

87

theIPswillparticipateinaworkshopinwhichtheprojectgoalswillbeexplainedandguidelinestostandardizemonitoringandevaluationwillbedefinedforallIPs.NationalCommission toCombatDesertification (NCCD). TheNCCDwill coordinateactionsatthefederal,stateandlocallevels,including11ministries,6federalagencies,11stategovernments,theassociationofmunicipalenvironmentalagencies,11civilsocietyorganizationsand2privatesectorrepresentatives.4.3FINANCIALPLANNINGANDMANAGEMENTAs GEF implementing agency, FAO will be responsible for the execution of the GEFresourcesandFAOco‐financing.FinancialmanagementofandreportingonGEFresourceswillbecarriedoutbyFAOaccordingtoitsrulesandpolicies.ThetotalcostoftheprojectisUSD19,696,822,ofwhichUSD3,930,155willbefinancedbytheGEFgrantandUSD15,766,666willbeco‐financedby18co‐financiers,includingFAOandbeneficiaries.Table4.1includesthecostbycomponentandTable4.2includesthesourcesandtypesofconfirmedco‐financing. Table4.1.Costbycomponent.

Component Cost(USD)1 3,597,7472 6,742,6433 6,512,2934 1,995,7815 461,207

PMC 387,150

Total 19,696,822

Table4.2.Confirmedsourcesofco‐financing.SourcesofCo‐financing NameofCo‐financier(source) TypeofCofinancing Cofinancing

Amount($)NationalGovernment MMA–MinistryofEnvironment Grant 1,866,667

NationalGovernment SFB–BrazilianForestService Grant 2,666,667

NationalGovernment MDA–MinistryofAgrarianDevelopment

Grant 3,360,000

NationalGovernment INSA–NationalSemi‐AridInstitute

Grant 1,333,333

StateGovernment SEMARH– AlagoasSecretariatofEnvironmentandWaterResources

Grant 533,333

StateGovernment SEAFDS– ParaíbaSecretariatofFamilyFarmingandDevelopmentoftheSemi‐Arid

Grant 1,066,667

88

StateGovernment SEIHRMACT– ParaíbaSecretariatofEnvironmentetc.

Grant 800,000

StateGovernment SEPLAN‐ RioGrandedoNorteSecretariatofPlanning

Grant 1,066,666

MunicipalGovernment SEMA– CratoSecretariatofEnvironment

Grant 533,334

CivilSociety FUNETEC– TechnologicalandCulturalEducationFoundation

Inkind 800,000

CivilSociety IABS–BrazilianInstituteofDevelopmentandSustainability

Inkind 266,666

CivilSociety SEAPAC– ServiceforSupportofAlternativeCommunityProjects

Inkind 160,000

CivilSociety CEPIS– CenterforSustainableIndustrialProduction

Inkind 533,333

CivilSociety AraripeFoundation Inkind 160,000

CivilSociety APNE– NortheastPlantsAssociation

Inkind 160,000

CivilSociety AGENDHA– AdviceandManagementonNatureStudies,HumanDevelopmentandAgroecology

Inkind 160,000

CivilSociety ICRAF– WorldAgroforestryCenter

Grant 100,000

GEFAgency FAO–UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganization

Inkind 200,000

TotalCo‐financing 15,766,666

4.3.1Financialplan(bycomponent,outputsandco‐financier) The details of the financial plan, by component, outputs and sources of co‐financing,includingtheGEFinputs,governmentinputs,FAOinputsandotherco‐financinginputs,arepresentedbelow.

Financial Plan Brazil Redeser.xlsx

4.3.2GEFinputsTable4.3showstheGEFinputsforeachcomponent.

Component GEFinputs

1 937,7472 1,199,3093 992,2944 462,448

89

5 151,207PMC 187,150

Total 3,930,155

4.3.3GovernmentinputsThefederal,stateandmunicipalinputsforeachcomponentareshowninTable4.4andthefinancialplan.Component Federal State Municipal Total

1 700,000 1,333,333 266,667 2,300,0002 4,456,667 266,667 266,667 4,990,0013 3,760,000 1,599,999 5,359,9994 266,667 266,6675 310,000 310,000Total 9,226,667 3,466,666 533,334 13,226,667

4.3.4FAOinputsUnderComponent2,theBrazilianForestServicethroughFAOwillcontributethroughtheProject UTF/BRA/081/BRA “Consolidation of the National Forest Program (CNFP)”(startedon01/01/2011,NTE30/06/2016,budgetUSD3,299,527)tothevalidationofbestpractices inForestManagementadaptedto localconditions intheproject’stargetareas.FAO will provide co‐financing for an amount of USD 200,000, including an in‐kindcontributionofUSD172,000,originatingfromoneongoingproject.Inaddition,FAOwillcontribute in‐kind co‐financing of USD 28,000 in staff time, facilities, office space andinformation‐sharingplatformsthatwillco‐financetheProjectManagementCost.Thesecontributionswill bemanagedbyFAOand recorded eachyearby theproject team inaccordancewithGEFpoliciesandprocedures.FAO will also provide support by sharing communication and awareness‐raisingstrategies and methodologies developed at its Headquarters and tested in similarconditionsinothercountries.4.3.5Otherco‐financiersinputsTheinputsfromotherco‐financiersareshowninthefinancialplan(section4.3.1).4.3.6FinancialmanagementofandreportingonGEFresources FinancialmanagementandreportingonGEFresourceswillbecarriedoutinaccordancewithFAO’srulesandproceduresandtheagreementbetweenFAOandtheGEFTrustee.Onthebasisoftheactivitiesforeseeninthebudgetandtheproject,FAOwillundertake

90

alloperations fordisbursements,procurementandcontracting for the totalamountofGEFresources,aspertherequestoftheNPDandthePEU.FinancialRecords.FAOshallmaintainaseparateaccountinUnitedStatesdollarsfortheproject’sGEFresources,showingallincomeandexpenditures.ExpendituresincurredinacurrencyotherthanUnitedStatesdollarsshallbeconvertedintoUnitedStatesdollarsattheUnitedNationsoperationalrateofexchangeonthedateofthetransaction.FAOshalladministertheprojectinaccordancewithitsregulations,rulesanddirectives.FinancialReports.TheBHshallpreparesix‐monthlyprojectexpenditureaccountsandfinal accounts for theproject, showing the amount budgeted for the year, the amountexpendedsincethebeginningoftheyear,andseparately,theun‐liquidatedobligations,asfollows:

1. Detailsofprojectexpendituresonanoutput‐by‐outputbasis,reportedinlinewithproject budget codes as set out in the project document, as of June 30andDecember31ofeachyear.

2. Finalaccountsoncompletionof theprojectonacomponent‐by‐componentandoutput‐by‐outputbasis,reportedinlinewithwiththeProjectBudget(Appendix3ofthisProjectdocument).

3. AfinalstatementofaccountinlinewithFAOOracleProjectbudgetcodes,reflectingactual final expenditures under the project, when all obligations have beenliquidated.

FinancialStatements.Within 30working days of the end of each semester, the FAORepresentation in Brazil shall submit six‐monthly statements of expenditure of GEFresources to theProjectManagementCommitteeandProjectSteeringCommittee.Thepurposeofthefinancialstatementistolisttheexpendituresincurredontheprojectonasix‐monthly basis compared to the budget, so as to monitor project progress and toreconcileoutstandingadvancesduringthesix‐monthperiod.Thefinancialstatementshallcontaininformationthatservesasthebasisforperiodicrevisionofthebudget.TheBHwillsubmittheabove‐mentionedfinancialreportsforreviewandmonitoringbytheLTOandtheFAOGEFCoordinationUnit.Financialreportsforsubmissiontothedonor(GEF)willbepreparedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsintheGEFFinancialProceduresAgreementandsubmittedbytheFAOFinanceDivision.Responsibility forcostoverruns.TheBHshallutilize theGEFproject funds in strictcompliancewiththeProjectBudget(Appendix3)andtheapprovedAWP/Bs.TheBHcanmakevariationsprovidedthatthetotalallocatedforeachbudgetedprojectcomponentisnotexceededandthereallocationoffundsdoesnotimpacttheachievementofanyprojectoutputaspertheprojectResultsFramework(Appendix1).Atleastonceayear,theBHwillsubmitabudgetrevisionforapprovaloftheLTOandtheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnitthroughFPMIS.CostoverrunsshallbethesoleresponsibilityoftheBH.Audit. The Project shall be subject to the internal and external auditing proceduresprovided for inFAOfinancialregulations, rulesanddirectivesand inkeepingwith theFinancialProceduresAgreementbetweentheGEFTrusteeandFAO.TheauditregimeatFAOconsistsofanexternalauditprovidedbytheAuditor‐General(orpersonsexercisinganequivalent function)ofamembernationappointedby theGoverningBodiesof the

91

Organizationandreportingdirectlytothem,andaninternalauditfunctionheadedbytheFAO Inspector‐General, who reports directly to the Director‐General. This functionoperates as an integral part of the organization under policies established by seniormanagement, and furthermore has a reporting line to the governing bodies. BothfunctionsarerequiredundertheBasicTextsofFAO,whichestablishaframeworkforthetermsofreferenceofeach.Internalauditsofaccounts,records,bankreconciliationandassetverificationtakeplaceatFAOfieldandliaisonofficesonacyclicalbasis. 4.4PROCUREMENTAs per the request of the Government, FAOwill procure the equipment and servicesforeseeninthebudget(Appendix3)andtheAWP/B,inaccordancewithFAOrulesandprocedures.Carefulprocurementplanningisnecessaryforsecuringgoods,servicesandworksinatimelymanner,ona“BestValueforMoney”basis,andinaccordancewiththerulesandregulationsofFAO.Itrequiresanalysisofneedsandconstraints,includingforecastofthereasonable timeframerequired to execute theprocurementprocess.ProcurementanddeliveryofinputsintechnicalcooperationprojectsfollowFAO’srulesandregulationsfortheprocurementofsupplies,equipmentandservices,i.e.ManualSections502and507.Manual Section 502, on “Procurement of Goods,Works and Services,” establishes theprinciplesandproceduresthatapplytoprocurementofallgoods,worksandservicesonbehalf of the organization, in all offices and in all locations,with the exception of theprocurementactionsdescribedinAppendixA,onProcurementNotGovernedbyManualSection502.ManualSection507establishestheprinciplesandrulesthatgoverntheuseofLettersofAgreement(LoA)byFAOforthetimelyacquisitionofservicesfromeligibleentitiesinatransparentandimpartialmanner, takingintoconsiderationeconomyandefficiencytoachieveanoptimumcombinationofexpectedwhole‐lifecostsandbenefits(“BestValueforMoney”).The FAORepresentative in Brazilwill prepare an annual procurement plan formajoritems,whichwillbethebasisofrequestsforprocurementactionsduringimplementation.The plan will include a description of the goods, works or services to be procured,estimatedbudgetandsourceoffunding,scheduleofprocurementactivitiesandproposedmethodofprocurement. Insituationswhereexact information isnotyetavailable, theprocurementplanshouldatleastcontainreasonableprojectionsthatwillbecorrectedasinformationbecomesavailable.Beforecommencingprocurement,thePTCwillupdatetheproject´sProcurementPlanforapprovalbytheProjectManagementCommittee.ThisplanwillbereviewedduringtheinceptionworkshopandwillbeapprovedbytheFAORepresentationinBrazil.ThePTCwill update the Procurement Plan every six months and submit it to the FAORepresentationinBrazilforapproval. 4.5 MONITORINGANDREPORTING MonitoringandevaluationofprogressinachievingprojectresultsandobjectiveswillbecarriedoutbasedonthetargetsandindicatorsestablishedintheprojectResultsMatrix

92

(Appendix 1) and described in sub‐sections 2.3 and 2.4. The project monitoring andevaluation activities have been budgeted at USD 121,338 (see Table 4.7 below) .MonitoringandevaluationactivitieswillfollowFAOandGEFmonitoringandevaluationpoliciesandguidelines.Themonitoringandevaluationsystemwillalsofacilitatelearningandreplicationofprojectresultsandlessonsinrelationto integratednaturalresourcemanagement. 4.5.1Oversightandmonitoringresponsibilities Themonitoring and evaluation roles and responsibilities specifically described in theMonitoringandEvaluationtable(seeTable4.7below)willbeundertakenthrough:i)day‐to‐daymonitoringandprojectprogresssupervisionmissionsincoordinationwithlocalorganizationsandotherstakeholders;(ii)technicalmonitoringofindicatorstomeasuretheintroductionofbestpracticesandthesurfacecoveredbyincentivemechanisms,aswellasthenumberofpeopletrainedinbestpractices;(iii)specificmonitoringplansforimplementationofbestpractices(component2);(iv)mid‐termandfinalevaluationsbyindependentconsultantsandtheFAOEvaluationOffice;(v)monitoringandsupervisionmissions(FAO).MonitoringwillalsoincludecalculationsofavoidedGHGemissionsduetoprojectintervention.At the initiation of project implementation, thePTC and thePEUwill set upaprojectprogressmonitoringsystem.Participatorymechanismsandmethodologiesforsystematicdatacollectionandrecordingwillbedevelopedtosupportoutcomeandoutputindicatormonitoring and evaluation. During the inception workshop (see section 4.5.3), M&Erelatedtaskstobeaddressedwillinclude:(i)presentationandclarification(ifneeded)ofthe Project Results Framework with all project stakeholders; (ii)review of the M&Eindicatorsandtheirbaselines;(iii)draftingtherequiredclausestoincludeinconsultants’contracts to ensure they complete their M&E reporting functions (if relevant); (iv)clarificationoftherespectiveM&Etasksamongtheprojectstakeholders..TheM&EExpert(seeTORsinAppendix5)willprepareadraftmonitoringandevaluationmatrixthatwillbediscussedandagreeduponbyall stakeholdersduring the inceptionworkshop.TheM&EmatrixwillbeamanagementtoolforthePTCandthePEUto:i)six‐monthlymonitortheachievementofoutputindicators;ii)annuallymonitortheachievementofoutcomeindicators;iii)clearlydefineresponsibilitiesandverificationmeans;iv)selectamethodtoprocesstheindicatorsanddata.TheM&EPlanwillbepreparedbytheM&EExpertinthethreefirstmonthsoftheProjectYear(PY)1andvalidatedwiththePSC.TheM&EPlanwillbebasedontheM&ETable(seetable4.7)andtheM&EMatrixandwill include:i)theupdatedresultsframework,withclearindicatorsperyear;ii)updatedbaseline,ifneeded,andselectedtoolsfordatacollection (including sample definition); iii) narrative of the monitoring strategy,includingrolesandresponsibilities fordatacollectionandprocessing,reporting flows,monitoring matrix, and brief analysis of who, when and how will each indicator bemeasured.Responsibilityofprojectactivitiesmayormaynotcoincidewithdatacollectionresponsibility;iv)updatedimplementationarrangements,ifneeded;v)inclusionofthetrackingtoolindicators,datacollectionandmonitoringstrategytobeincludedinthemid‐termevaluationandfinalevaluation;vi)calendarofevaluationworkshops,includingself‐evaluationtechniques.

93

Theday‐to‐daymonitoringoftheProjectimplementationwillbetheresponsibilityofthePTCandwillbedrivenbythepreparationandimplementationofanAWP/Bfollowedupthrough six‐monthly PPRs. The preparation of the AWP/B and six‐monthly PPRswillreflectaunifiedplanningprocess involving themainprojectstakeholders.As tools forresults‐based‐management(RBM),theAWP/Bwillidentifytheactionsproposedforthecomingprojectyearandprovidethenecessarydetailsonoutputandoutcometargetstobeachieved,andthePPRswillreportonthemonitoringoftheimplementationofactionsandtheachievementofoutputandoutcometargets.SpecificinputstotheAWP/BandthePPRs will be prepared based on participatory planning and progress reviewwith allstakeholders,coordinatedthroughthePTCandfacilitatedthroughprojectplanningandprogressreviewworkshops.ThesecontributionswillbeconsolidatedbythePTCintheAWP/BdraftandthePPRs.An annual project progress review and planning meeting should be held with theparticipationoftheprojectpartnerstofinalizetheAWP/BandthePPRs.Oncefinalized,theAWP/BandthePPRswillbesubmittedtotheFAOLTOfortechnicalclearance,andtotheProjectSteeringCommitteeforrevisionandapproval.TheAWP/BwillbedevelopedinamannerconsistentwiththeProjectResultsMatrixtoensureadequatefulfillmentandmonitoringofprojectoutputsandoutcomes.FollowingtheapprovaloftheProject,thePY1AWP/Bwillbeadjusted(eitherreducedorexpandedintime)tosynchronize itwiththeannualreportingcalendar. Insubsequentyears,theAWP/Bswillfollowanannualpreparationandreportingcycleasspecifiedinsection4.5.3. 4.5.2Indicatorsandinformationsources To monitor project outputs and outcomes including contributions to globalenvironmentalbenefits,specificindicatorshavebeenestablishedintheProjectResultsMatrix(Appendix1).TheProjectResultsMatrixindicatorsandmeansofverificationwillbeappliedtomonitorbothprojectperformanceandimpact.FollowingFAOmonitoringproceduresandprogressreportingformats,datacollectedwillbesufficientlydetailedtotrack specific outputs and outcomes and provide early warning about project risks.Output target indicatorswillbemonitoredona six‐monthlybasis andoutcome targetindicatorswillbemonitoredonanannualbasis,ifpossible,oraspartofthemid‐termandfinalevaluations.Theprojectoutputandoutcomeindicatorshavebeendesignedtomonitorbiophysicaland socio‐economic impacts and progress in building and consolidating capacities forINRM,SLM,SFMandNTFPatthelegalandpoliticallevelaswellastheproductionlevelamongfamilyfarmers.The main information sources to support the M&E plan include: i) MMA and FAOmonitoringsystems;ii)participatoryworkshopswithstakeholdersandbeneficiariestoreviewprojectprogress;iii)on‐the‐groundmonitoringofbestpracticesofSLMandSFM;iv)progressreportspreparedbythePTCwithinputsfromtheMMA,projectspecialistsandotherstakeholders;v)consultants´reports;vi)trainingreports;viii)mid‐termreviewand final evaluation; viii) financial reports and budget revisions; ix) Project

94

ImplementationReviewspreparedbytheFAOLTOsupportedbytheFAORepresentationinBrazil;x)FAOsupervisionmissionreports. 4.5.3Reportingschedule Specificreportsthatwillbepreparedunderthemonitoringandevaluationprogramare:(i) Project InceptionReport; (ii) AnnualWork Plan andBudget (AWP/B); (iii) ProjectProgressReports(PPRs);(iv)AnnualProjectImplementationReview(PIR);(v)technicalreports;(vi)co‐financingreports;(vii)TerminalReport. Inaddition,assessmentoftheGEFTrackingTools(TTs)againstthebaselineswillberequiredatmid‐termreviewandfinalevaluation.Project Inception Report. After FAO internal approval of the project, an inceptionworkshopwillbeheld.Immediatelyaftertheworkshop,thePTCwillprepareaprojectinceptionreport inconsultationwiththePTMintheFAORepresentationinBrazilandotherprojectpartners.Thereportwillincludeanarrativeontheinstitutionalrolesandresponsibilitiesandcoordinatingactionofprojectpartners,progresstodateonprojectestablishmentandstart‐upactivitiesandanupdateonanychangesinexternalconditionsthatmayaffectprojectimplementation.Itwillalsoincludeadetailedfirst‐yearAWP/BandtheM&EMatrix(seeabove).ThedraftprojectinceptionreportwillbecirculatedtoFAO,thePSCandthePMCforreviewandcommentsbeforeitsfinalization,nolaterthanthreemonthsafterprojectstart‐up.ThereportwillbeclearedbytheFAOBH,LTOandtheFAOGEFCoordinationUnit.TheBHwilluploaditintoFPMIS.AnnualWork Plan and Budget(s) (AWP/Bs). The PTC will submit to the ProjectManagement Committee a draft AWP/B no later than 10December of each year. TheAWP/B should includedetailedactivities tobe implementedbyproject outcomesandoutputs and divided into monthly timeframes and targets and milestone dates foroutcomeandoutputindicatorstobeachievedduringtheyear.Adetailedprojectbudgetfortheactivitiestobeimplementedduringtheyearshouldalsobeincludedtogetherwithallmonitoring and supervision activities required during the year. The FAO PTMwillcirculate the draft AWP/B to the FAO interdisciplinary Project Task Force and willconsolidateandsubmittheFAOcommentstothePTC,whowillincorporatethecommentsof the Project Management Committee. The final AWP/B will be sent to the ProjectSteeringCommitteeforapprovalandtotheFAOforfinalno‐objection.TheBHwilluploadtheAWP/BsinFPMIS.ProjectProgressReports(PPR).ThePPRsareusedtoidentifyconstraints,problemsorbottlenecks that impede timely implementation and take appropriate remedial action.PPRs will be prepared based on the systematic monitoring of output and outcomeindicators identified intheProjectResultsFramework(Appendix1),AWP/BandM&EPlan.EachsemesterthePTMwillprepareadraftPPR,andwillcollectandconsolidateanycomments from the FAO PTF. The PTC will submit the final PPRs to the FAORepresentativeinBrazileverysixmonths,priorto10June(coveringtheperiodbetweenJanuary and June) and before 10 December (covering the period between July andDecember).TheJuly‐DecemberreportshouldbeaccompaniedbytheupdatedAWP/BforthefollowingProjectYear(PY)forreviewandno‐objectionbytheFAOPTF.Oncethesecommentshavebeenincorporated,theLTOwillgivehis/hertechnicalclearance,theBH

95

willapproveandremit the finalPPR to theProjectSteeringCommittee (PSC) for finalapproval.TheBHwilluploadthePPRsinFPMIS..AnnualProjectImplementationReview(PIR).ThePTC,underthesupervisionoftheLTOandBHand in coordinationwith thePTMand thenational project partners,willprepareadraftannualPIRreport16coveringtheperiodJuly(thepreviousyear)throughJune(currentyear)nolaterthan1Julyeveryyear.TheLTOwillfinalizethePIRandwillsubmit it to the FAO‐GEF Coordination Unit for review by 10 July. The FAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit,theLTO,andtheBHwilldiscussthePIRandtheratings17.TheLTOisresponsibleforconductingthefinalreviewandprovidingthetechnicalclearancetothePIR(s).TheLTOwillsubmitthefinalversionofthePIRtotheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnitforfinalapproval.TheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnitwillthensubmitthePIR(s)totheGEFSecretariatandtheGEFIndependentEvaluationOfficeaspartoftheAnnualMonitoringReviewof theFAO‐GEFportfolio. ThePIRwill be uploaded to FPMISby the FAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit.TechnicalReports.Technicalreportswillbepreparedaspartofprojectoutputsandtodocumentandshareprojectoutcomesandlessons learned.ThedraftsofanytechnicalreportsmustbesubmittedbythePTCtotheProjectManagementCommitteeandtheFAORepresentationinBrazil,whichwillshareitwiththeLTOforreviewandclearanceandtotheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnitforinformationandcomments,priortofinalizationandpublication.CopiesofthetechnicalreportswillbedistributedtothePSCandotherprojectpartnersasappropriate.ThefinalreportswillbeuploadedontheFAOFPMISbytheFAOPTM.Co‐financing Reports. The PTC will be responsible for collecting the requiredinformationandreportingonin‐kindandcashco‐financingprovidedbyalltheprojectco‐financiersandanynewpartnersthathavenotsignedco‐financingletters.Everyyear,thePTCwillsubmitthereporttotheFAORepresentationinBrazilbeforeJuly10,coveringthe period from July of the previous year through June of the current year. ThisinformationwillbeusedinthePIRs.GEFTrackingTools.FollowingtheGEFpoliciesandprocedures,thetrackingtoolsfortheLD,BDandSFM/REDD+focalareaswillbesubmittedtotheGEFSecretariatatthreemoments:(i)withtheprojectdocumentatCEOendorsement;(ii)at theproject’smid‐termevaluation;(iii)withtheproject’sterminalevaluation.TerminalReport.Within twomonthsbefore theenddateof theproject, thePTCwillsubmit to theProjectManagementCommittee and theFAORepresentation inBrazil adraft Terminal Report. The main purpose of the final report is to give guidance toauthorities(ministerialorseniorgovernmentlevel)onthepolicydecisionsrequiredforfollow‐upoftheProjectandtoprovidethedonorwithinformationonhowthefundswereutilized.Theterminalreportisaccordinglyaconciseaccountofthemainproducts,results,conclusions and recommendations of the project, without unnecessary background,

16PriortothepreparationofthePIRreport,theFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnitwillprovidetheupdatedformat

aseveryyearsomenewrequirementsmaycomefromtheGEF.17ThePTC,theBH,theLTOandtheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnitshouldassignratingstothePIReveryyear.

Theratingscanorcannotcoincideamongtheprojectmanagers. 

96

narrative or technical details. The target readership consists of persons who are notnecessarilytechnicalspecialists,butwhoneedtounderstandthepolicyimplicationsoftechnical findings and needs for ensuring sustainability of project results. Work isassessed,lessonslearnedaresummarizedandrecommendationsareexpressedintermsoftheirapplicationtothepromotionofSLM,SFM,INRMandNTFPinthecontextofthedevelopmentprioritiesatthenationalandstatelevels,aswellasinpracticalexecutionterms on the ground. This report will specifically include the findings of the finalevaluationasdescribedinsub‐section4.6.Afinalprojectreviewmeetingshouldbeheldto discuss the draft terminal report with the Project Steering Committee before it isfinalizedbythePTCandapprovedbytheBH,LTOandtheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit. 4.5.4Monitoringandevaluationsummary Table4.7providesasummaryofthemainmonitoringandevaluationreports,responsiblepartiesandtimeframes:Table4.7.Summaryofthemainmonitoringandevaluationactivities.

TypeofM&EActivity

ResponsibleParties Time‐frame Budget

InceptionWorkshop

PTC,FAO(PTMsupportedbyLTO,BHandFAOGEFCoordinationUnit)

Withintwomonthsofprojectstartup

USD6,500

ProjectInceptionReport

PTC,ExpertM&E andFAOPTM,clearedbyLTO,BH,andFAOGEFCoordinationUnit

Immediatelyaftertheworkshop

‐

Field‐basedimpactmonitoring

PTC,institutionsandorganizationsparticipatingintheproject

Continually USD14,285(projectcoordinationtime,technicalworkshopsforidentificationofindicators,M&Eworkshops)

SupervisionvisitsandratingofprogressinPPRsandPIRs

PTCandFAO(PTM,LTO.FAOGEFCoordinationUnitmayparticipateinthevisitsifneeded.)

Annualorasrequired

FAOvisitswillbefinancedthroughGEFagencyfeeandprojectcoordinationvisitswillbefinancedbytheprojecttravelbudget

ProjectProgressReports(PPR)

PTCwithinputsbyMMA,MDA,FAOandotherparticipatingpartners

Six‐monthly USD4,945

97

TypeofM&EActivity

ResponsibleParties Time‐frame Budget

ProjectImplementationReview(PIR)

DraftedbythePTM,withthesupervisionoftheLTOandBH.ApprovedandsubmittedtoGEFbytheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit

Annual FinancedthroughGEFagencyfee

Co‐financingReports

PTCwithinputsfromotherco‐financiers

Annual USD1,649  

Technicalreports PTC,andFAO(LTO,PTM) Asappropriate

Mid‐termEvaluation

ExternalconsultantsandFAOOfficeforEvaluationinconsultationwiththeprojectteamandotherpartners

Atmid‐pointofprojectimplementation

USD40,000forexternalconsultants

Finalevaluation ExternalconsultantsandFAOEvaluationOfficeinconsultationwiththeprojectteamincludingtheFAOGEFCoordinationUnit,andotherpartners

Attheendofprojectimplementation

USD40,000forexternalconsultants

TerminalReport PTCandFAO(PTM,LTO,FAOGEFCoordinationUnit,TSCRreportunit)

Twomonthsbeforetheenddateoftheproject

USD17,412

TotalBudget USD124,791

4.6PROVISIONFOREVALUATIONSAt the end of the first 24 months of project implementation, the BH will arrange anindependentMid‐TermEvaluation(MTE)inconsultationwiththePSC,thePEU,theLTOandtheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit.TheMTEwillbeundertakentoreviewprogressandeffectivenessintermsofachievingprojectobjective,outcomesandoutputs.Findingsandrecommendationsof this reviewwillbe instrumental forbringing improvement in theoverallprojectdesignandexecution strategy for the remainingperiodof theproject’sterm if necessary. The FAO Evaluation Office (OED) will arrange for the MTE inconsultationwithprojectmanagement.Theevaluationwill,interalia:

a) Reviewtheeffectiveness,efficiencyandtimelinessofprojectimplementation;b) Analyseeffectivenessofpartnershiparrangements;c) Identifyissuesrequiringdecisionsandremedialactions;d) Propose any mid‐course corrections and/or adjustments to the

implementationstrategyasnecessary;ande) Describethetechnicalachievementsandlessonslearnedderivedfromproject

design,implementationandmanagement.

98

An independent Final Evaluation (FE) will be carried out three months prior to theterminalreportmeeting.TheFEwillaimtoidentifytheprojectimpacts,sustainabilityofprojectoutcomesandthedegreeofachievementof long‐termresults.TheFEwillalsohavethepurposeofindicatingfutureactionsneededtoexpandontheexistingProjectinsubsequentphases,mainstreamandup‐scaleitsproductsandpractices,anddisseminateinformation to management authorities and institutions with responsibilities in foodsecurity, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, small‐scale farmeragriculturalproductionandecosystemconservationtoassurecontinuityoftheprocessesinitiated by the Project. Both theMTR and FEwill pay special attention to outcomeindicatorsandwillbealignedwiththeGEFTrackingtool(LD,BDandSFMfocalareas).4.7COMMUNICATIONANDVISIBILITYLearningandKnowledgeSharing.Resultsfromtheprojectwillbedisseminatedwithinandbeyondtheprojectareasthroughanumberofexistingnetworksandforums.Inaddition,theprojectwillparticipate,asrelevantandappropriate,inFAO‐sponsorednetworks.Itwillidentifyandparticipate,asrelevantandappropriate,inscientific,policy‐basedand/oranyothernetworks,whichmaybeofbenefittoprojectimplementationthoughlessonslearned.Itwillalsoidentify,analyzeandsharelessonslearnedthatmightbebeneficialinthedesignandimplementationofsimilarfutureprojects.Identificationandanalysisoflessonslearnedisanon‐goingprocessandshouldbedeliveredatleastonceevery12months.FAOshallprovideaformatandassisttheprojectteamincategorizing,documentingandreportingonlessonslearned.Specifically,theprojectwillensurecoordinationintermsofavoidingoverlap,sharingbestpracticesandgeneratingknowledgeproductsofbestpracticesaboutsustainablelandandforestmanagement.

99

SECTION5–SUSTAINABILITYOFRESULTS

Social,environmentalandfinancial‐economicsustainability,aswellassustainabilityofcapacities,allofwhichareinterdependent,willbeachievedthroughamulti‐facetedexitstrategy designed to ensure that positive results continue to flow after projecttermination. 5.1SOCIALSUSTAINABILITYSocialsustainabilitywillbesoughtthroughtrainingatthestateandnationallevel,ruralextensionwith farmers, capacitydevelopment, informationdissemination, civil societyparticipation and policy advocacy. Broad socialmovements and networks such as theSemi‐Arid Network (ASA) are already involved in government efforts to combatdesertification. Local NGOs will provide support for regional and national alliances,outreachandcontinuity.Theseconstituencieswillinfluenceelectedofficials,legislatorsand law enforcement agents as well as formulating demands regarding formulation,implementationandevaluationofrelevantpublicpolicies.Mainstreamingofgenderandgenerationissuescontributestosocialsustainabilityandresilience of family farming. In the REDESER project, participatory mechanisms willprovide for women’s empowerment in productive activities, family and communityrelationsanddecision‐makingatalllevels.Traditionally,ruralwomenplaycrucialrolesinfoodsecurity.ThereisnowincreasedparticipationofwomenasheadsofhouseholdsintheNortheastaswellasingovernmentanduniversities,althoughadvanceshavenotbeen sufficient to protect girl and women against health risks and gender violence,especiallyinconditionsofpoverty.Trainingongenderwillbeprovidedforprojectstaffandinstitutionsinvolvedintheproject.Implementationwillpromotetechnologiesthatprovide income for women. In connection with government and non‐governmentalinitiatives, the project will stimulate installation of more efficient cook stoves anddrinkingwater collection systems in rural households, reducingwomen’swork loads.Other beneficial innovations include tropical home gardens (peri‐domiciliaryagroforestry)andprocessingofsocio‐biodiversityproductsfromwildcollection.Anotherinteresting possibility for women's economic participation and empowerment isproductionofhandicraftsmadewithwoodandnon‐woodmaterial(fibers,flowers,nuts,seedsetc.)collectedinforestareas,includingbio‐jewelry.Itisalsoessentialtoprovideopportunitiesandcontributionsforyouthinthecountryside,especiallyasregardsuseofmoderntechnology,andfortheincreasingproportionofelderly,whooffertheirwisdombutneedsupportofmoremachinery.Moresustainableandresilientproductionsystemsprovide foodandnutritionsecuritydirectly,throughprovidingdiversesourcesofprotein,oils,carbohydratesandvitaminsandminerals fromcrops, livestockandwildcollection,evenindryseasonsandduringdroughts. They also contribute to food security indirectly by providing sources ofmonetary income throughout the entire year, not just at harvest time, and duringdroughts.

100

ThefamilyfarmersertanejosoftheASDinBrazilcanbeconsideredtraditionalpeoples.The project does not involve indigenous people or Afro‐descendant quilombolacommunitiesdirectly,buttheSLM,SFMandNTFPbestpracticescanbeadoptedbythevariousgroupsthatliveelsewhereintheCaatingaanditstransitionstootherbiomes.Sub‐section1.1.3onstakeholderanalysisprovidesmoredetailsonhowtheprojectwillensuresocialinclusion.5.2ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITYEnvironmentalsustainabilitywillbesought,firstofall,throughpromotionofuptakeofmoresustainablelandandforestmanagement,integratedwithagriculturalandanimalhusbandrypractices,especiallyintheareasmostsusceptibletodesertification.Theywillprovide benefits in terms of land degradation, biodiversity conservation and reducedemissionsofgreenhousegases.Theywill includepractices thatareadaptedtoclimatechangeimpactsandthatpromoteresilience,soastominimizefuturelossesanddamages.Thepracticesthattheprojectwill identify, testandadjust, ifneeded,canbereplicatedthroughoutthedrylandsoftheNortheastaswellastheotherBrazilianbiomesthatarestartingtoexperiencescarcityofwater.Inadditiontopractices,theprojectcancontributetoimprovedenvironmentalpolicies,orconsiderationofenvironmentineconomicandsocialdevelopmentpolicies,whichinvolvemoresubstantialresources.Itwillempowerconstituenciesthatcancontinuetoinfluenceformulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, programs and projects in thefuture.Lastingenvironmentalbenefitsonalargescaledependonstrengthenedlandusepoliciesandplanning,takingdueaccountoflanddegradation.Theydependonbetterintegrationofenvironmentintothegovernanceframework,coupledwithincreasedcapacityaswellas availability and accessibility of funding. The project’s combination of work at thegrassrootslevelwithinitiativesatthescienceandpolicylevelwillcontributetothisend.5.3FINANCIALANDECONOMICSUSTAINABILITYFinancialandeconomicsustainabilityrequireshigherlevelsofagriculturalproductivity,lower costs of inputs, greater use of local inputs, improved access tomarkets, higherfamily farm incomes,morediversificationand lessvulnerability to seasonaland inter‐annualvariations,includingmoresevereclimateimpactsinthefuture.Investments in new technologies must be affordable for small farmers and providesufficienteconomicreturn,bothmonetaryandnon‐monetary,especiallyiftheyinvolvethe use of credit. Family farmers living in or near poverty need tominimize risks ofindebtedness. The SFM techniques to be promoted will take into consideration theirfinancialviabilityforfarmers,i.e.costsandbenefitsintheshort,middleandlongterm.Thisincludes,forexample,thepossibilitiesofusingexoticspeciessuchaslegumesandbananasthatprovidesourcesoffoodandincomeforsmallfarmerswhilealsofacilitatingthereintroductionandreproductionofnativespecies.

101

Environmentalsustainability(lowerlevelsofdegradationanddesertification)dependstoalargeextentoneconomicsustainability,sothatpredatorypracticescanbeavoidedandinvestment in sustainable practices is financially feasible, even in the face of budgetrestrictionsornationalorglobaleconomiccrisis.Forexample,incomefromsaleofhoneycan substitute for income fromgrazingandcanbeused to invest inmorebeekeepingequipmentortopaybackloansforinvestingindripirrigation.FinancialsustainabilitywillbeassuredthroughthemainstreamingandincorporationofSFMcriteriaintolargeexistingbaselineprograms,whichinvolvebillionsofdollarseveryyearandthroughsupportforincreasedaccesstofundingforsuchactivitiesfromavarietyoftraditionalandnon‐traditionalsources.5.4SUSTAINABILITYOFCAPACITIESDEVELOPEDSustainabilityofcapacitiesdevelopedwillbepromotedthroughtheprojectemphasisonmechanismsfortrainingandcreationofhumancapitalonSFM,licensing,oversightandextension. The institutions that will become more involved are state and municipalsecretariats,INSA,universities,ruraltechnicalassistanceagencies,landreformagencies,socialmovements,otherMMAsecretariatsandotherministries,particularlyMDS,MDA,MCTIandMAPA.The project will influence the various members of the NCCD, which is a permanentstructure,tomakeprogressinthetransitionfromgoodintentionstoconcreteandspecificformsofaction.Institutionalcapacitydevelopmentthroughformalandinformaltraining,in addition to suggestions about relevant criteria for recruitment of new staff withappropriatequalifications,isanessentialelementofinstitutionalsustainability.5.5APPROPRIATENESSOFTECHNOLOGYINTRODUCEDAsmentionedinthethirdparagraphofsection2.1,thebestpracticesofSLMandSFMthataremostpromisingintheCaatingaincludesustainableharvestingofwoodforfuelandfence posts, common pastures, livestock foraging inmanaged woodlands, long fallowsystems,pruning,intensivemulching,biologicalcontrol,sustainableuseofnativefruitsandnuts,managedregeneration,enrichment,agroforestry,seedandseedlingcollectionandplanting,beekeeping,handicrafts,backyardhomegardens,efficientcookstoves,dripirrigation, small underground dams (zero base) and rainwater capture and storage,among others. These are appropriate technologies, known in Brazil as “social”technologies,withpositivesocial,economicandenvironmentalimpacts.The appropriateness of the various technologies will be analyzed regarding theireffectivenessandefficiency.Iftheyproducetoolittleortaketoolong,theeffortsoftheprojectcouldfailandresultinresistancetoanyinnovation.Thiscouldalsohappeniftherearenomarketsfornewproductsorifinappropriateapplicationofregulatoryframeworksresults in finesorpenalties.There isneed for legalsecurity,especially tocomplywithcomplexandambiguousrulesandregulationsabout theuseofareasprotectedby theForestLawaswellascollectionandsaleofseeds.

102

Appropriateness of technologies introduced depend on economic feasibility andaffordabilityforsmallfarmers.TheeconomicreturntoSLMandSFMrequiresanalysistodetermine what benefits can be derived as compared to the alternatives available,especiallyinscenariosofdesertification,climatechangeandmarketvolatility.Forforestrestoration, the costs and benefits of natural regeneration assisted by fencing, birdperches, beekeeping and control of fire will be compared with costs and benefits ofplanting seedlings, which faces risks of predation, fire andmortality. Likewise, directplantingofseedsmaybelesscostlyandrisky,especiallyinareasdistantfromhomesorwater.Thecostsofadministrationmustalsobetakenintoaccount.Theabilitiesofgovernmentagenciestohirestaffandprovidetransportationtoandlodginginremoteruralareasarelimited,especiallyintimesofeconomiccrisisandfiscaladjustment.Atthesametime,theabilityofsmallfarmerstogotomunicipalseatsorstatecapitalsinpoorregionsasneededtocomplywithrulesandregulationsisalsolimitedandinvolvesopportunitycosts.Thesedirectandindirecttransactioncostsmustalsobeconsidered.Biodiversitycorridorsinthesenseofcontinuousstretchesofnativevegetationbetweenoramongprotectedareasarenotalwayspossible.Asseeninsub‐section1.1.1,protectedareasare rare in theCaatinga.Mosaicsofprotectedareaswouldbedesirable,butnotnecessarilyappropriate,especiallyiftheyconcentrateconservationintheareasthatarealreadymostprotectedandneglectothers.Completephysical continuityamong forestremnants is not always necessary to maintain flows among gene pools. Possiblealternativesinclude"steppingstones"aswellastranslocationofseedsorseedlings,inthecaseofflora,orofbreedingstock,inthecaseoffauna.Agroforestrysystemsshouldnot limitedto isolatedpatches,butrathercanencompasstheentirefarm,includingedgesofroads,smallslopes,rockyareas,swamps,greenhedges,woodedpatches,areasaroundsprings,i.e.theentirefamilyfarmingproductionsystem(sistemas agrícolas familiares), establishing interrelations at the landscape level.AgroforestrysystemtechnologiesdevelopedintheAmazonorAtlanticForestneedtobeadaptedtoconditionsofheatanddrynessoftheCaatinga.WorkonthistopicisplannedinBrazilbyICRAFandIUCN.5.6REPLICABILITYANDSCALINGUPReplicationandscaling‐uptothelevelofallthestatesinASDwillbeachievedthroughdevelopment and proposition of adjustments in inappropriate legal frameworks,especially rules and regulations regarding licensing, inspection, rural extension andcredit.Forexample,itwillbeshownthatwell‐managedwoodharvestingandrotationofsmallclearedplotswithsufficientfallowcombinedwithextraction(wildcollection)forsustainableuseofbiodiversity,althoughtheymayatfirstsightbeconsidereddetrimentaltotheenvironment,are in factbeneficial,especiallyascomparedtomonoculturesandpastures,whichreplacesmall‐scalefamilyfarmingandareoftendegraded.Replicationandscaling‐upwithintheCaatingawillcommenceimmediatelybecauseoftheproximity of field sites to neighbors in similar circumstances, especially in the 92municipalities inandaroundthefourselectedareas.Trainingofhumanresourceswill

103

havebothimmediateandlastingresults,aswillthestrategyfordisseminationofprojectresultsinComponent4.InadditiontolargenetworkssuchasASA,thereisnowimprovedtransportation(automobiles,motorcycles,busesandairplanes)atthelocal,regionalandnational levels, in addition towidespread access tomodernmeans of communication(cellulartelephones,television,internet),eveninruralareas.Theimprovementsinsocialcapital,infrastructureandtechnologyfacilitatereplicationandscalingup.The GEF‐UNDP Small Grants Program, in operation since 1995, is one of the possiblechannelsofreplicationwithintheCaatinga,theCerradoandadjacentpartsoftheAmazon.Withsufficientfunding,itcouldissuespecificcallsforproposalsregardingdesertification,biodiversityconservationandreductionofcarbonemissions.Ifpossible,thesecallscouldbe supported with resources from international donors, foundations, private sector,banksanddevelopmentinstrumentsoffederalandstategovernments.Through the project, the Department to Combat Desertification will be strengthenedwithintheMMAandinitsrelationswithotheragenciesandministries,theNCCDandtheNationalEnvironmentCouncil(CONAMA).Thus,theprojectwillgrantmorevisibilitytoissuesofdesertificationandlanddegradation.Replicationandscaling‐uprequirenewsourcesoffunding,whicharenotaseasilyfoundnowthatBrazilisconsideredbyinternationaldonorstobeanemergingcountrythatnolongerdeservespriorityforinternationaldevelopmentassistance,whileatthesametimeeconomic growth is weak and the government is undergoing fiscal adjustment.Nonetheless, there are many new possibilities that the project will help identify anddisseminate.Thiswillbefacilitatedbythefactthatenvironmentalproblemsofwaterandclimate,whichtheprojectaddresses,arenowmajornationalandinternationalconcerns.

InadditiontoinputsintotheworldwideFAODrylandsprogramnetwork,allthisworkwithinBrazilwill createmanyopportunities for interactionwith other countrieswithareassubjecttodesertification.ThishasalreadybegunwithAfricancountriesthroughtheMMAworkingwiththeUNCCD.TherehasalsobeenexchangebetweenBrazilandChilethroughUNDPandtheGEF‐UNDPSmallGrantsProgram,whichnowoperates inmorethan130developingcountriesaroundtheworld.Withregardtoforests,theCenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),whichisactiveinBrazil,isanotheravenueforinteractionwithothercountriesaroundtheworld,asistheWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF).TheselectedsitesmaybeusedaspartofSouth‐SouthcooperationondrylandsbetweenBrazilandAfricaandpotentiallyCentralAmericatobedevelopedinpartnershipamongFAO’sprogrammeonActionAgainstDesertificationinsupportoftheGreatGreenWall,ICRAF,IUCNandtheWorldResourcesInstitute(WRI),whichnowhaveofficesinBrazil. WRI is working on the concept of up‐scaling landscape restoration through“regreening”inAfrica,acontinentwithwhichBrazilhasmanyties.FAOandWRIarealsopartnersintheimplementationoftheRomePromiseonmonitoringandassessmentofglobal drylands for Sustainable management and restoration and FAO has alreadyengagedworkwithINSAforstartingbaselineassessmentsinthisregard.

APPENDIX1:RESULTSMATRIXSummaryofprojectoutcomesandimpacts:

Objective/Impact Component Outcomeindicators Assumptions

ProjectObjective:Tohaltandreverseenvironmentaldegradationinareassusceptibletodesertification(ASD),ensuringtheflowofecosystemservices,promotingtheintegratedmanagementofnaturalresources,generatingenvironmentalbenefitsandcontributingtopovertyreduction.DevelopmentObjective:Increaseandimproveprovisionofgoodsandservicesfromsustainablemanagementandrestorationofdrylandforestandagroforestryproductionlandscapes.

Component 1: PromotingIntegratedNaturalResourceManagement(INRM)inProductionLandscapes

1,567smallholdersincreaseanddiversifyfarmingproductionbyadoptingandmainstreamingINRMwithinthe904,142haunderINRM

Stateenvironmentalagencies(OEMAs)adoptimprovedlicensingprocessesforlandclearingandlanduse.

Component 2: PromotingMultiple‐UseForestManagement

Directeffect:15,000haofforestareaofproject‐selectedsitesunderSFMpracticesIndirecteffectin618,062ha:4NTFPscommercializedwithstablepricesatprojectselectedsites3NTFPs(babassu,pequiandlicuri)fromselectedsitesincreasemarketvaluebyprocessing

EffortstosimplifySFMlicensingproceduresarecarriedouonapermanentbasisbyenvironmentalagencies.FinancialresourcesareavailableforNTFPandsmallholders.

Component 3: Forest andLandscapeRestoration(FLR)

Directimpact:30,000haidentifiedandunderrestorationinprojectselectedsites

Directimpact:GuidelinesonForestandLandscapeRestoration(FLR)forBrazilDrylandsaredevelopedandadoptedinsupportofrestorationeffortsbystakeholders

Landrestorationmethodsareimprovedtomakelarge‐scaleforestandlandscaperestorationattractive.

105

Indirectimpact:20localparticipatoryprojectsunderimplementationinotherdegradedareaswithPRONAFandotherfinancialsources

Component4: KnowledgeManagement,CapacityDevelopmentandAwareness‐Raising

Improvedinstitutionalcapacitiesofatotalof270staff(includingstaffworkingintheofficesofthe14municipalitiesand9states)affectdecision‐makinginfavorofsustainingecosystemservices

Aknowledgemanagementdatabaseestablishedcompilingtoolsandgoodpracticessupportedandcompiledbytheproject(SFM,INRM,FLR,NWFP)

OpportunitiesopenbyimplementationofRuralEnvironmentalRegistry(CAR)accordingtorequirementsofenvironmentalregulationunderBrazil'snewForestLaw.TheNortheastDevelopmentSuperintendency(SUDENE)supportscapacitydevelopmenteffortsincollaborationwithprojectteamandexperts(asexpectedandagreedduringprojectformulation).

Component5:CoordinationwithOtherActivities,MonitoringandEvaluation

106

Projectoutcomesandoutputs:

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baselin

e Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component1Outcome1.1INRMhasbeenmainstreamedandscaledupatlandscapelevel

#ofhectareswhereINRMisadoptedandmainstreamed1LD‐3ii):SpatialcoverageofINRMpracticesinwiderlandscape(inhectares)BD‐2.1:areaswheretheprojectdirectlycontributesto

0 904,142 ha. 271,243ha.

Additional271,243ha(totalof542,485ha.)

Additional 361,657ha.(totalof904,142ha.)

PAE2s/NAP3BrazilreportsMapsPhotosFieldsurveysofruralhouseholdsBiophysicalassessmentusingCollectEarthToolincollaborationwithINSA

INRMSpecialistandINSA

1 Intheprojectinterventionsites 2 Parsimony analysis of endemicity 3 National Action Plan, UNCCD

107

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baselin

e Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component1BDconservationorsustainableuseofitscomponentsLD‐3ii):#ofINRMtoolsandmethodologiesintroduced

0 3 goodpractices:i)sustainableproductionofnon‐woodforestandagricultureproducts;ii)ForestandLandscaperestoration;andiii)sustainablemanagementofnaturalresources.

3 goodpracticesappliedin30%ofthetargetareas

3goodpracticesappliedin60%ofthetargetareas

3 goodspracticesappliedin100%ofthetargetareasanddisseminatedincapacitydevelopmentactivities

INRMSpecialist(incoordinationwithAwareness‐RaisingSpecialist)ProjectTechnicalCoordinator(PTC)

Outcome 1.1(contd.)

#ofsmallholderswithincreasedanddiversifiedproductionbasedonINRM

negligible

1,567 people 470 people(30%ofhouseholdsarefemale‐led)

Additional 470people(totalof940people)(30%ofhouseholdsarefemale‐led)

Additional 627people(totalof1,567people)(30%ofhouseholdsarefemale‐led)

Householdincomesurveysincludinggender‐sensitiveindicators

PTCINRMSpecialist

108

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baselin

e Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component1%ofhouseholdsthatarefemale‐led

Output1.1.1:INRMbestpracticesidentified,evaluatedandreplicatedatfarmandlandscapelevels

%ofareasofprojectinterventionwherethebestpracticeshavebeenimplemented

Best practicesassessedandevaluatedin904,142ha,Sitesofgoodpracticesforup‐scalingareidentified

Good practicesareup‐scaledin30%ofthetargetareas

Goodpracticesareup‐scaledinadditional30%ofthetargetareas

Good practicesareupscaledinadditional40%ofthetargetareas(100%)

PTCINRMSpecialist

Output1.1.2NTFPfromINRMincorporatedingovernmentprogramsandprojectsand

IncreaseinproductspurchasedbyPAA21/PNAE22

Lessthan10productslistedbyPAAandPNAEatprojectsites

PurchasesbyPAA/PNAEincreasedby20%by2019

PAA/PNAEpurchasesboostedinprojectareasRuralhouseholdsintegratedto

First5localorganizationshaveconsolidatedsalesflowtoPAA/PNAE

Another10localorganizationshaveconsolidatedsalesflowtoPAA/PNAE

Another20localorganizationsrequestingaccesstoPAA/PNAE

PAA/PNAEannualreports

PTCINRMSpecialistValueChainSpecialist(part‐time)

21 National Purchase Program, for its acronym in Portuguese 22 National Program of School Feeding, for its acronym in Portuguese

109

localagro‐industries

PAA/PNAEwith15%purchaseincrease

PAA/PNAEpurchasesincreasedby20%

Output1.1.3Capacityforidentification,evaluationandpromotionofINRMsystemsstrengthenedatstate‐leveldepartmentsandagencies

GuidelinesdevelopedforidentificationandevaluationofINRMsystems#oftechnicalstaffpreparedtousetheguidelines

None 1setofguidelines100technicalstaffpreparedtouseguide‐linesandevaluateINRM

Workplansinitiatedby4stateenviron‐mentalagencies(OEMAs)

Specifictechnicalorientationsforfallowandpasturecommonsby4OEMAs100technicalstafftrained

Workplansreplicatedbyatleast5OEMAsofremainingASDstates

SpecifictechnicalguidelinesforlanduseinremainingASDstates

LicensingsystemsmakinguseoftechnicalguidanceTechnicalnotesissuedbyOEMAs

PTCINRMSpecialistExpertinlegalissuesrelatedtosustainablelocaldevelopmentAwareness‐raisingspecialist

Component2

Outcome2.1Forestareasundermulti‐purposeSustainableForestmanagement(SFM)havebeenincreased

LD‐2iii):i)#ofhectaresprovidingsustainedflowofservicesinforestecosystemsindrylands

0

618,062ha.offorestareas.(85%offorestcoverinprojectarea)

309,031ha.

618,062ha.offorestareas.(85%offorestcoverinprojectarea)

PTC(SFMExpert)Localimplementingagencies

110

SFM/REDD+‐1.2:a)Areacoveredbyforestmanagementplansb)withconservationandenhancementofcarboninforestthroughSFMBD‐2iii):SpecificmanagementpracticesthatintegrateBD:a)SFMplansLD‐2ii):TotalspatialcoverageofSFM

a)2manage‐mentplansexistcoveringatotalof1,712hab)0

a) +15.000haunderSFMplans

b) 618,062ha

correspondingto2,058,146tCO2eq(indirectimpact)

+2,000ha.withSFMplans

Additional4,000ha.withSFMplans

Additional4,000hawithSFMplans

a)Additional5,000hawithSFMplans.(Total:+15,000ha.underSFMplans)b)618,062hacorrespondingto2,058,146tCO2eq(indirectimpact)

SFMplanspreparedOEMAannualreports

PTC(SFMExpert)Localimplementingagencies

111

practicesandtechnologies23

Output2.1.1Innovativesmall‐andlarge‐scaleSFMpracticesidentified,evaluatedandreplicatedinselectedforestmanagementandexperimentalareas

DemonstrationareaswithselectedSFMpractices

None 6SFMdemonstrationareasinstalledin15,000ha.

WorkplanincludesinnovationsforSFMproductivechaininASD(fuelwood,transport,industrialprocedures)

First3SFMsitesadoptproductionchaininnovationsforfuelwood6,000ha.

Another3SFMsitesadoptproductionchaininnovationsforfuelwood10,000ha.

Availabledataandgeneralinformationdisseminatedthroughtechnicalstaffandagencies15,000ha.applyingSFMpractices

AnnualreportsandpublicationsofCEPISRedceramicsindustrialsegmentreports

PTC(SFMExpert)Localimplementingagencies

Output2.1.2Supportforthedevelopmentofmultiple‐useSFMsupplychains

#ofSFMplansformultipleusewithNTFPatAraripeEPA24andbufferareasofSãoFranciscoMONAT25

Oneknownexperienceinsilvo‐pastureinPernam‐buco

SFMplansformultipleusewithNTFPatAraripeEPAandbufferareasofSãoFranciscoMONAT

Bestpracticesidentifiedandproposedatprojectselectedsitestobe

2CUManagementPlansDemandforSFMtriggeredin

Sustainableuseprojectsdisseminatedandlicensingproceduresqualified

MarketingofNTFPofAraripeEPAandSãoFranciscoMONAT

ProjectProgressReports,Fieldsurveysandfieldbooksofextensionists

PTC(SFMExpert)Localimplementingagencies

23 Under: 1)Bestmanagementpractices/reduced Impact Logging; 2)Biodiversity conservation;4)Managementplanningandmultiscale land‐useplanning; 5)Participatoryforestry,and6)SustainedtimberandNTFPproduction,aspertheLDTrackingTool,IndicatorLD‐2iii). 24 APAistheacronyminPortugueseforÁreadeProteçãoAmbiental(EnvironmentalProtectionArea,EPA).InBrazil,anEPAisanextensivenaturalareaforprotectionandconservationofbioticattributes(faunaandflora),thereinaestheticorcultural,importantforthequalityoflifeoflocalpeopleandfortheprotectionofregionalecosystems.AlongdescriptionofEPAsisdetailedinSection1oftheProjectDocument. 25 NaturalMonuments(MONATasperitsacronyminPortuguese).AdescriptionofMONATsisdetailedinSection1oftheProjectDocument.

112

partofConservationUnit(CU)ManagementPlans

projectselectedsites Valuechain

specialist

Output2.1.3GuidelinesdevelopedforSFMpracticesandmonitoringprotocolsatlocallevel

#offorestryofficersandagencyusingtheguidelines

35forestryofficersusingSFMdirectivesin5states10ASDenviron‐mentalagenciesusingSFMdirectives

TechnicaldirectivesAtleast100forestryofficersqualified

LicensingproblemsidentifiedandevaluatedatselectedprojectareasTrainingplan(contentsandstrategies)

First50forestryofficersenabledtoapplyguidelinesforappropriateSFMatprojectselectedareas

Another50forestryofficersenabledtoapplyguidelinesforappropriateSFMatprojectselectedareas

SelectedSFMforfollow‐upproceduresatprojectsites50%ofOEMAsusingprojectvalidateddirectives

AnnualreportsofOEMAsProjectprogressreports

PTC(SFMExpert)Awareness‐raisingSpecialist

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component3

Outcome3.1Seed/seedlingproductioncapacityimprovedtosupport

BD‐2iii):SpecificmanagementpracticesthatintegrateBD:b)restoration

0restoration

30,000haunderrestorationwithnativespecies

10,000haunderrestorationwithnativespecies

Additional10,000ha

Additional10,000haMakingatotalof30,000haunder

SatelliteinformationMapsFieldreports

ForestRestorationspecialistFLRExpert

113

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

restorationofdegradedlandsinASD

withnativespecies

restorationwithnativespecies

LocalimplementingagenciesPTC

Output3.1.1Smallholdersand publicnurseries inASD legalizedwithimprovednative seedand seedlingproduction

#ofnurseriesregistered

90% of 165forestnurserieswithoutlegalregistration

Additional20%ofnurseriesareregistered

All 165 treeseed nurseriesare assessedaccording tonationalregistrationstandardsCorrectiveactions/registrationplans for atleast 35nurseriesdeveloped insupportoftheirregistrationduring projectimplementation

Additional 10tree nurseriesregistered

Another 10nurseriesregistered

Another 15nurseriesregistered

FieldreportsRegistrationdocumentsForest seedssalesMediaclips

ForestRestorationspecialistFLRExpertLocalimplementingagenciesLegalSpecialist

Output3.1.2Seedcollectorsandnurserypersonnel

Levelofcapacitiesofpersonnelworkingatnurseries.

Lowcapacitiesof1600personnel(workingin

1600personnelwithatleastmedium‐levelcapacities,

Capacityassessmentofthepersonneloftree

300personnelbenefitfromthetraining

Additional500personnelbenefitfromthetraining

Additional600personnelbenefitfromthetraining

NationalregistrySurveysdistributedthroughout

ForestRestorationspecialist

114

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

trainedandregisteredinNationalSystemofSeedsandSeedlings

CapacitydevelopmentmaterialspreparedandadaptedtoASRandthelocalsocialcontext

the165nurseries)

Modulartrainingcoursesforseedcollectorsandnurseryworkersdeveloped

nurseriesandseedcollectorsTrainingmodulesdeveloped

thecapacitydevelopmentprocesstoassessimprovementincapacities

LocalimplementingagenciesLegalSpecialistAwareness‐raisingSpecialist

Output3.1.3PracticalguidelinesforFLRinASDdevelopedandadoptedbystakeholders

#ofguidelines

NoguidelinesinBrazilFAOGlobalGuidelinesfortherestorationofdegradedforestsandlandscapesindrylandsjustlaunchedinOctober2015

GuidelinesdevelopedandadoptedforBrazilusingasabasistheFAOglobalguidelines

SeminaronFAOglobalguidelinesandadaptationtonationalcontextAgroupofexpertsestablishedtopreparetheFLRguidelinesindrylandsofBrazil

BestpracticesandcasestudiescompiledDraftguidelinespreparedandtested

BestpracticesandcasestudiesdisseminatedGuidelinesfinalizedandadoptedandtheirimplementationinitiated

Guidelinespublishedandcasestudiesshowingtheirusedeveloped

PublishedguidelinesValidationworkshopsreports

ForestRestorationspecialistFLRExpertPTCFAO

Outcome3.2Forestconnectivitysiteshavebeen

SFM/REDD+‐1.Carbonstoredinforestecosystems

Zerointheprojectinterventionarea(norestoration)

a)Conservation&enhancementofcarboninforests:

a)0

b)directimpact174,055tonCO2eq;

a)146,400 tonCO2eqb)directimpact:

a)Additional146,400tonCO2eq

a)Additional146,400tonCO2eqb)Additional

MapsStateagenciesreports

ForestRestorationspecialistFLRExpert

115

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

identified,sustainablymanagedandrestored

andemissionsavoidedfromdeforestationandforestdegradationfromthisproject(Directlifetime):a)Conservation&enhancementofcarboninforestsb)Avoideddeforestationandforestdegradation

+30,000hasofforestrestored,+439,200tonCO2eqsequesteredandadditionalenhancementofcarboninforestthroughSFM(target:618,062ha,2,058,146tCO2eq‐indirectimpact).b)Avoideddeforestationandforestdegradation(avoidedemissions(directimpact):696,219tonCO2eqhain5,709ha)Indirectimpact:avoidedemissionsof

indirectimpact618,087tonCO2eq

additional174,055tonCO2eqandindirectimpact:additional618,087tonCO2eq

b)Additional174,055tonCO2eq,andindirectimpact:additional618,087tonCO2eq

174,055tonCO2eq.AdditionalenhancementofcarboninforestthroughSFM(618,062ha,2,058,146tCO2eq‐indirectimpact).

Fieldsurveys PTC

LocalimplementingagenciesFAO

116

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

2,472,347tonCO2eqin60,820ha

SFM/REDD+‐1.2:b)Restoration/rehabilitationofdegradedforests

Zero

30.000ha. 10,000ha Additional10,000ha

Additional10,000ha(makingatotaltargetof30,000ha).

Output3.2.1Appropriatesitesidentifiedandrestorationplansunderimplementationforrestorationandestablishmentofforestconnectivityusingcost‐effectiveandadaptedrestorationtechniques(assistednatural

# of hectareswith restoredforestconnectivity

Noneinthedegradedforestsareaof104,169ha

30,000haselectedwithrestorationplansunderimplementation

30,000haselectedandrestorationplansdeveloped

First10,000hawithrestorationplanunderway

Another10,000hawithrestorationplansunderway

Another10,000hawithrestorationplanunderimplementation

MapsRestorationplansAnnualrestorationmonitoringreportsandsitesofASDOEMAsandMMA

ForestRestorationspecialistFLRExpertPTCLocalimplementingagenciesFAO

117

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

regeneration,enrichmentandplantingetc.)Output3.2.2Participatoryprojectsforrestorationofdegradedlandsandimprovementofproductionlandscapesandlandusepractices

#oflocalprojectspreparedforfinancing

None 8projectsin15,000ha.preparedandfinancingnegotiatedwiththeMMAandnationalbanks

Methodologydevelopedforparticipatoryprojects(4selectedareas)

Participatoryprojectformulationin4selectedareasAtleast2projectsinnegotiationforfinancing

Anadditional2ofselectedprojectswithfundsraised

Another4projectsdevelopedwithfundingsecured

ProjectsselectedResourcesnegotiatedProjectdocuments

PTCFLRSpecialist

Component4

Outcome4.1Improvementincapacityofkeystateandmunicipalinstitutions

#ofstaffwithimprovedcapacitiesatlocallevel#ofknowledgemanagement

ASDstateshaveverylimitedexchangeonLDanddesertification

Increasedcapacityandknowledgeofatleast270personnelfromthe14municipalitiesandthe9ASD

Capacitiesofthe270personnelareassessedCapacitydevelopmentplanbasedon

Atleast50peoplebenefitfromthecapacitydevelopmentplan

Additional150personnelbenefitfromthecapacitydevelopmentplan

Additional70personnelbenefitfromthecapacitydevelopmentplan

ProjectreportsSurveysOn‐linewebpage

Awareness‐raisingSpecialistMediaandPublishingSpecialist

118

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

aboutSLM,SFMandFLR

networksinASD

statesonLDanddesertificationissuesandresponsesAstrongnetworkestablishedinASDforknowledgeexchange

theneedsassessmentpreparedProjectsrelatedtoLDanddesertificationissuesidentifiedandconnected

Anon‐linedatabasedesignedonLDprojectsinASD,expertsandstakeholders

Anon‐linenetwork/databasedevelopedandhostedatINSAforexchangeofinformation,knowledgeandprojectsrelevanttoASDissues

ExpertinLDanddesertificationPTC

Output4.1.1StrengthenedlearningandactionnetworksfacilitatingfieldexchangesinASD

#ofactions None

SustainedflowofappropriateinformationonbestpracticesAnon‐linenetwork/databasedevelopedandhostedatINSAforexchangeofinformation,knowledgeandprojectsrelevanttoASDissues

PartnershipsdevelopedInternetportal(Cerratinga,RESAB)

First18articles,6courses,12workshopsandfora

Another18articles,6courses,12workshopsandfora

WorkshoptopresentresultsStrategytocontinueportal,networksandpublications

SiteoperationsPublications

Awareness‐raisingSpecialistMediaandPublishingSpecialist

Outcome4.2Policy‐makersand

Availabilityofgood‐quality

Poorinformationmaterials

Materialsforforestofficers,nurserystaff

Policymakersandpartnersfully

EnhancedproductionofmaterialonLD,

Enhancedproductionofmaterialon

Forestofficers,nurserystaff

Mediainformation

Awareness‐raisingSpecialist

119

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

farmer,privatesectorandeducationstakeholdershavecapacitytoimplementSFM,FLR,INRMandBDconservation

materialsatlocallevel.

anddelivery

andseedcollectorsisproducedanddistributedineachprojectsite

participatinginplanningandproductionofmaterialsonSFM,BD,FLR,LDandINRM

SFM,FLR,andBDfortrainingcoursesandotherevents

nurseriesandseedcollection

andseedcollectorshaveaccesstotechnicaldirectivesineachprojectselectedsiteandbeyond

SurveyMaterials

MediaandPublishingSpecialistFLRSpecialistPTCExpertinLDanddesertification

Output4.2.1GuidelinesandbriefsdevelopedonbestpracticesandlessonslearnedonSFM,FLRandINRMinASD

#ofinformationmaterials

ScarceinformationonSFM,FLRandINRM

IncreasedavailabilityoflocalandregionalinformationonspecificSFM,FLRandINRMpractices

ProjecteventwithmediatoexplainLDthreatsinASDandprojectpurposes1folderontheproject

1videoaboutSFMandFLR1videoaboutINRMFirst16radiospots

1institutionalvideoonthelearningandactionnetworkAnother16radiospots

1NTFPinformationvideo1videoonprojectresultsAnother16radiospots

FoldersVideosSpotsMediainformationPublications

SpecialistINSAAwareness‐raisingSpecialistMediaandPublishingSpecialist

120

OutcomesandOutputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Output4.2.2ASDacademiccommunityengagedagainstLDanddesertification

#ofpublication#ofbookletsdisseminated

ScientificpublicationsonLD,desertificationanddroughtoutofprintandnotavailable

Publicationanddistributionofbookletsandbooksthroughpartnerships(PRONATEC26,RENASEM27)

Analysisofstateoftheart5,000bookletsprinted

First3eventswithfamilyfarmersFirst1,500bookletsdeliveredtoeducationalinstitutionsFirst2bookswithneweditions

Another3eventswithfamilyfarmersAnother1,500bookletsdeliveredtoeducationalinstitutionsAnother2bookswithneweditions

Another3eventswithfamilyfarmersAnother2,000bookletsdeliveredtoeducationalinstitutionsAnotherbookwithnewedition

ProjectreportsPublications

ExpertinLDanddesertificationM&E

Output4.2.3IncreasedawarenessaboutsustainableforestmanagementandForestandLandscapeRestorationinASD

#ofeventstoimprovecommunicationaboutSFMandFLRinASD

Variousmaterialspublishedbyprojects,governmentandNGOsinASD

8events 1seminartoupdatemediainstrumentsatASD

1systematizationworkshopforvideoproductiononprojectinformationforruralwomenandyouth

1radioprogramforeachselectedmicro‐region

1finalworkshopExchangeamongruralcommunicatorsfrom3micro‐regionsSeminarofinnovatorsRegionalevent

26 NationalProgramofAccesstoTechnicalEducationandEmployment 27 Catholic Charismatic Association of Brazil

121

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component5Outcome5.1Synergywithcomplementaryinitiativestopromotesustainablemanagementandrestorationbenefitsatlandscapelevel

#ofinitiativeswithestablishedcollaboration

Poorsynergy

Majority ofrelevantstake‐holdersinteracting

Identificationofexistingandplannedinitiatives

Interactionwith10keyinitiatives

Interactionwith10keyinitiatives

Interactionwith10keyinitiatives

ProjectprogressreportsPIRs

M&EexpertPTCNPD

Output5.1.1Effectivecollaborationwithcomplementaryinitiatives

#ofworkplansjointlyformulated

NA Fullcollaborationwith3GEFprojects(Sergipe,EMBRAPA,RioGrandedoNorte)andotherrelatedinitiativeintheCaatinga

3 annual workplans

3 annual workplans

3annual workplans

3 annualworkplans

ProjectprogressreportsPIRs

M&EExpertPTCNPD

Outcome5.2Projectimplement

ProjectdeliverycomplieswithFAO‐GEF

NA Fullcompliance

Project reports Project reports Projectreports

Projectreports

Projectprogressreports

M&EExpertPTC

122

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component5edwithresults‐basedmanagementandapplicationoffindings/lessonslearned

reportingrequirements

PIRs FAOPTMNPD

Output5.2.1Projectmonitoringandevaluationsystemoperationalprovidinginformationonprogressinmeetingprojectoutcomeandoutputtargets

M&ESystemestablishedandfullyoperational

NA M&Eoperational

M&EestablishedandfullyoperationalIndicatorschosenandaddedtoannualworkplan

Indicatorsarehelpfultoevaluateprojectprogressreports

Indicatorscontributetomid‐termevaluation

M&E resultscontributetofinalevaluation

Mid‐termevaluation/finalevaluationreports PTC

FAOPTMNPD

Output5.2.2Mid‐termandfinal

Projectresultsaretrackedonanannualbasis

NA Project resultsknowntoinstitutionsofASD

Nationalcommissionwellinformedaboutthe

OEMAs fullyinformedandparticipatinginprojectactions

ASDruraldevelopmentinstitutionsknowing

Technicalassistanceinstitutionsusingbest

Final report PTCFAOPTM

123

Outcomes&Outputs Indicators Baseline Target

Milestonestowardsachievingoutcomeandoutputtargets

DataCollectionandReporting

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Meansofverification

Responsiblefordatacollection

Component5evaluationconducted,projectbestpracticesandlessonslearnedpublishedanddisseminated

anddisseminated

project aboutprojectactionsandpurposes

practicesinASDProjectpublicationsdistributedtoruraldevelop‐mentandeducationalinstitutionsofASD

NPD

124

APPENDIX2:WORKPLAN(RESULTS‐BASED)

APPENDIX2–WORKPLAN(RESULTS‐BASED)

Output Activities Responsible

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Component1‐PromotingIntegratedNaturalResourceManagement(INRM)inProductionLandscapes

Output1.1.1INRM best practicesidentified, evaluatedandupscaledatlocalandlandscapelevels

Activity 1.1.1.1 Inventory of besttraditional and improved INRMpractices

INSA

Activity 1.1.1.2 Organization andimplementation of a geo‐referenceddatabaseofbestpractices

INSA

Activity1.1.1.3 SeminartointroduceINRM practices to ASD professionalsdealing with credit, technicalassistance and rural extensionregarding natural resourcemanagement

INSA

Activity 1.1.1.4 Publication anddissemination of organized data onlineandprinted

INSA

Activity 1.1.1.5 Replication of bestpractices in selected project areaswithinthe904,142ha

INSA

Output1.1.2

Activity1.1.2.1 Identification andevaluation of main NTFP supplychains in project areas using FAO’s

UNILAB/ASA/SDR‐BA

125

NTFP from INRMintroduced ingovernmentprograms/projectsand local agro‐industries

Market Analysis and DevelopmentmethodologyActivity 1.1.2.2 Identification of thepotentialforcreatingaddedvalueforNTFPsupplychains

Projectconsultancy

Activity1.1.2.3 Strengthening localorganization for the management ofagro‐industries

Projectconsultancy

Activity1.1.2.4 Identification andexecutionofmarketingstudiesplansfordevelopmentandstrengtheningofmicroenterprises based onsustainableproductionandmarketingofidentifiedNTFPs

Projectconsultancy

Activity1.1.2.5 Regional seminarsoncreditandfinance(includingagro‐industrial/NTFPs production andmarkets)

Projectconsultancies

Output1.1.3Capacity foridentification,evaluation andpromotion of INRMsystemsstrengthened atstate‐leveldepartments andagencies

Activity 1.1.3.1 Natural resourcemanagement course for extensionworkers with the participation ofpubliceducationalinstitutions

FederalUniversityofCariri

Activity1.1.3.2Trainingseminarsonfederal and state environmentallegislation affecting natural resourcemanagement, including the newForestLaw

INSA/DCD

Component2‐PromotingMultiple‐UseForestManagementOutput2.1.1Innovative small‐and large‐scale SFMpractices identified

Activity2.1.1.1 Seminars withproject partners to designsustainability criteria for forestmanagementplans

APNE

126

evaluated andreplicated inselected forestmanagement andexperimental areas(15,000ha)

Activity2.1.1.2 Forum involvinggovernment and civil societystakeholders about ways to simplifyrulessoastoenableSFMuptakeanddissemination

APNE/UniversityofPatos

Activity 2.1.1.3. Identification of 6sites for SFM demonstration anddevelopmentofmanagementplansfortheselectedsites

APNE

Output2.1.2Support for thedevelopment ofmultiple‐use SFMsupplychains

Activity 2.1.2.1 Identification ofinnovativeSFMpractices

APNE

Activity 2.1.2.2 Seminars onsustainability criteria and forestmanagementplanspreparation withprojectpartners

APNE/Universities

Activity2.1.2.3PermanentforumsforSFM simplification processes andsupport for developing managementplans

APNE/OEMAS

Activity2.1.1.4ExpansionofthescopeoftheNationalFamilyandCommunityForestManagementProgramtocovermoreareasonASD

SFB/ASA

Output2.1.3Guidelinesdeveloped for SFMpractices andmonitoring

Activity 2.1.3.1 Identification andsystematizationofexistingguidelinesforSFM

SFB

Activity2.1.3.2Workshopstoreviewguidelines and generate practicalrecommendationsforSFM

APNE

127

protocols at locallevel

Activity 2.1.3.3 Strengthen theCaatingaForestManagementNetworkwithdatageneratedinthemonitoringofSFMactivitiesinprojectareas

APNE

Component3‐ForestandLandscapeRestoration

Output3.1.1Smallholders andpublic nurseries inASD legalized withimproved nativeseed and seedlingproduction

Activity3.1.1.1 Working group toidentifyandupdatedataonforestseedcollectorsinASD

DCD/MMA

Activity3.1.1.2.Assessmentofthe165nurseries in ASD according to treenurseries technical and registrationstandards

DCD/MMA

Activity3.1.1.3.Basedonoutcomesofactivity 3.1.1.2., selection of 35 treenurseries for support for registrationand improvement of productionpractices

DCD/MMA

Activity3.1.1.4 Support formarketing forest seeds and seedlingsthrough websites, informationbulletins of seed productionassociations and participation inagriculturalandindustrialfairs

Projectconsultancies

Output3.1.2Seed collectors andnursery workers

Activity3.1.2.1Identificationofagentsfor processing forest seeds andseedlings

Universities of PatosandCaririandPronatec

128

trained andregistered in theNational System ofSeedsandSeedlings

Activity 3.1.2.2 Training for seedcollectors to improve technicalcapacities and comply with officialstandards

Universities of PatosandCaririandPronatec

Activity 3.1.2.3 Installation ofequipmentforseedcollectors

Universities of PatosandCariri

Activity 3.1.2.4 Support for seedcollection in order to comply withfederalrequirements

Universities of PatosandCaririandPronatec

Activity 3.1.2.5 Training for seedcollectors and nursery personnel onlegal issues required for professionalregularization

Universities of PatosandCaririandPronatec

Output3.2.1Appropriate sitesidentified and workplans made forrestoration andestablishment offorestconnectivity

Activity3.2.1.1 Selectionofpotentialareasforcorridorsandconnectivity

DCD/MMA

Activity 3.2.1.2 ActionplandesignedtogetherwithgovernmentandCSOforrestoration of degraded forest toconstitutebio‐corridors

DCD/MMA

Output3.2.2Participatoryprojects forrestoration ofdegraded lands andimprovement ofproductivelandscapes andland‐usepractices

Activity 3.2.2.1 Methodologicalproposal for sustainable productionlandscapesthroughlocalparticipatoryprojects

DCD/MMA

Activity 3.2.2.2 Training inagroforestry systems for largelandowners and family farmers inorder to provide connectivity amongthe islands of biodiversity in projectareas

DCD/MMA

129

Activity3.2.2.3.Assessmentofcurrentinitiatives carried out by ruralextension and developmentinstitutions

DCD/MMA

Activity 3.2.2.4 Support to interestedframers and producers in developingrestorationprojectsforfundingunderGovernmentandappropriateschemes

DCD/MMA

Component4–KnowledgeManagement,CommunicationandAwareness‐RaisingOutput4.1.1Strengthenedlearning and actionnetworks facilitatingfield exchanges inASD

Activity4.1.1.1 Identification ofinstitutions, programs, projects andnetworks promoting actions againstLDanddesertificationinASD DCD

Activity4.1.1.2 Training formultiplier agents in partnerinstitutionsinASD

DCD

Activity 4.1.1.3. Establishment of anon‐linedatabasenetworktobehostedatINSAforexchangeof information ,knowledge and projects relevant toASDissues

INSA/consultancies

Output4.2.1Guidelinesandbriefsdeveloped on bestpractices andlessons learned onSFM and INRM inASD

Activity 4.2.2.1 Promotion of eventsandexchangesfordiscussingtechnicalregulations for SFM FLR and INRM(linkedtoactivity3.1.3.3).

Projectconsultancies

Activity4.2.2.2 Transformation ofbest practices into technicalguidelinesforSFM APNE

Output4.2.2

Activity4.2.2.1 Inventoryofrelevantscientific publications on LD anddesertificationinASD

INSA/consultancy

130

ASD academiccommunity engagedagainst LD anddesertification

Activity4.2.2.2 Seminar forpresentation of material collected intheinventory

INSA

Activity4.2.2.3 Organization,reprintinganddistributionofselectedmaterials

INSA/BNB

Output4.2.3Awareness aboutsustainable forestrestorationinASD

Activity 4.2.3.1 Media productionaccording to project orientations inprojectselectedsites

INSA

Activity 4.2.3.2 Implementation ofmedia production in the projectselectedsites

INSA

Activity 4.2.3.3 Systematization ofmediaproductionandpresentationofresultsat twoevents (micro‐regionalandASDregionallevel)

INSA

131

APPENDIX3:RESULTSBASEDBUDGET

Brazil budget REDESER 25jan2016.

132

APPENDIX3:RESULTS‐BASEDBUDGET Brazil budget REDESER.xls

133

APPENDIX4:RISKMATRIX

Riskstatement Impact Likelihood28

Mitigationmeasures

Environmentalrisks:

Increasedfrequencyofdroughtsanddrasticreductioninrainfall.

Sequenceofclimatechangerelatedeventsaffectthetargetpopulation.

Accelerated destruction ofagriculturalactivitiesandproductioninthemostvulnerableareasoftheCaatinga.Disappearanceofnaturalwatersourcesanddryingupoflargesurfacewatersourcessuchasreservoirsanddamsresultinthelossofstaplecrops,deathoflivestock,increasedwoodextractionasalastresortforcash,increasedmigrationtourbanareasandclosureofschoolactivities.

HThe project willintroduce best practices for conservation of soil moistureandwateraccumulationbyinstallingundergrounddamsandsurfacewatercollectionsystemsanddisseminatingsystemsfavoringthepenetrationofwaterunderregionalconditionssoilstructure.Otherpreventiveormitigatingactionsareplannedtosupportsmallirrigationprojectsanddiversificationofinitiativesoffamilyfarmingforfoodsecurity,includingthedistributionandproductionoftraditionalseedswithgreaterresiliencetotheeffectsofclimatechange,andtheintroductionofagroforestryandsilvopastoralsystemscompatiblewithsemiaridenvironments.Theprojectwilluseformsofparticipatoryplanningtodealwithclimateuncertainty,supportingseminarsforexchangeofexperienceonappropriatepracticesforcropsinsemi‐aridconditions.

Increased fragmentation offorestintheselectedareas.Growingpollutionofwaterresourcesduetounsustainablelandandforestmanagementpractices.

Fragmentation of forests andpollutionofwaterresourcesbypesticidesresultsinsignificantbiodiversityloss,causingdamagetoproductionprocessesinASD.Disappearanceofbeesseriouslyaffectspollination,theproductionofhoneyandextra

MLTheprojectwillpromotebestsustainablelandmanagementpracticesandadoptionofsustainableforestmanagement.Regardingthemaintenanceofproductivelandscapemosaics,theprojectwillcontributetothetrainingofstaffinOEMAsforimplementingCARandthePRAasonewaytocomplywiththenewForestCode,ensuringcompliancewithrequirementsofAPPandRLthroughoutlandscapes.

28 Estimate of likelihood: High, Moderately High, Moderately Low, or Low, as per the FAO Project Cycle Guidelines. .

134

Riskstatement Impact Likelihood28

Mitigationmeasures

incomeforfarmers, extractiveandtraditionalpeoplesintheCaatinga,increasinglevelsoffoodandnutritionalinsecurity.Therecanalsobelossofbirdfaunaduetodeforestation.

Increasingpressurefromagribusinessresultingingrowingclearingofforestsinvulnerabletransitionareas

Increasedlanddegradationandlossofbiodiversityduetoclearingofforests.

H TheprojectwillexpandactionssupportedbyinternationalcooperationforcapacitybuildingandinstitutionalstrengtheningofOEMAsforimplementationofCARandPRA.TheprojectwillpromotesystematicactionsofthestaffofOEMAsforunderstandingadoptionofSFMasanalternativetotheremovalofallvegetationforalternativelanduse.

Institutional/financialrisk:

Participatingentitiesfailtomeetfinancialcommitments

PublicfundingissubjecttobudgetcutsandthegovernmentresourcesavailablearenotsufficienttocarryoutactionsagreeduponbetweentheprojectandgovernmentagenciesintheASD.

ML

Theprojectwillensurethatco‐financingismaintainedthroughprojectgovernancebodiessuchastheNationalCommitteetoCombatDesertification,insistingontheneedtokeepinternationalcommitments.Theprojectwillmaintainanongoingdialoguewithcivilsocietythroughtheirorganizationsinordertoensurethefulfillmentofcommitmentsbetweentheprojectandvariouspartners.Participatinginstitutionshavesignedco‐financinglettersfortheproject.TheseinstitutionsarealsomembersoftheProjectSteeringCommittee;thiswillhelptoensuretoagreaterextenttheircommitmenttotheproject.UnderthePSC,issuesrelatedtoco‐financingcontributionswillbecoordinatedtoensurethesecommitmentsintheannualbudgetaryallocationsofinstitutionsandcontributions,eitherincashorin‐kind,willbemonitored.

APPENDIX5:DRAFTTERMSOFREFERENCE(TORS)1

1. PROJECTTECHNICALCOORDINATOR&NATIONALEXPERTINSUSTAINABLEFORESTMANAGEMENT(TECHNICALCOORDINATOROFCOMPONENT2)

UndertheoverallsupervisionoftheFAORepresentativeinBrazil,theNationalProjectDirector(NPD)andtheFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),andinclosecoordinationwiththeHeadoftheProgramUnitatFAOBrazilandtheGEFProjectTaskManager(PTM)inFAOBrazil,theProjectTechnicalCoordinator(PTC)willberesponsibleforleading, supervising and coordinating all activities aimed at the successfulimplementation of the five REDESER components, budget execution, teammanagement, andmaintenance of institutional relationshipswith project partners.The PTC will be responsible for overall and annual planning, the preparation ofcontractsandagreementswithorganizationsandconsultants,technicalsupervisionoftheProjectExecutionUnit(PEU)membersandadvisers,andthedailymanagementoftheproject.

Mainresponsibilitiesi. Direct the execution of the project’s technical and administrative activities, in

cooperationwiththeProjectComponentCoordinators(PCCs)ofComponents1,3,and4under theLTO technical supervisionat theFAORegionalOffice andFAOHeadquartersinRome.

ii. Coordinateandparticipateinthestart‐upworkshop,andtheplanningworkshopswith local stakeholders and project partners for the preparation of the AnnualWorkPlan(s)andBudget(s)(AWP/B).

iii. Providetechnicalassistanceandguideprojectpartnersintheimplementationofactivitiesrelatedtotheproject.

iv. Periodically conduct supervisory visits in the field and advise the technicalpersonneloftheprojectpartners.

v. Permanentcoordinationandcommunicationwithprojectpartners’personnelinchargeofprojectactivities.

vi. Monitor risks according to the risk matrix (see APPENDIX 4) and ensure theimplementationofmitigationmeasures.

vii. Ensure that theSFMapproach is applied throughout the implementationof theprojectcomponents2,3and4.

viii. Prepare the Project Progress Reports (PPRs) and the Terminal Report (TR) incoordinationwiththeprojectteamandsubmititfortheconsiderationandreviewoftheLTO,theProjectSteeringCommittee(PSC),andtheProjectTaskForce(FAO).

1Consultants’TermsofReferencewillberevisedandvalidatedduringtheproject’sinception.

136

ix. PrepareadraftversionofAnnualProjectImplementationReview(s)(PIR)tobefinalizedbytheLTO,andclearedbythePSCandtheFAORepresentativeinBrazil,andsubmittedtotheFAO/GEFCoordinationUnit.

x. Adviseprojectpartners inthepreparationofreportson in‐kindand in‐cashco‐financingprovidedbyco‐financiersandotherpartnersthatwerenotforeseenintheProjectDocument.

xi. InconsultationwiththePSC,theFAOEvaluationOffice,theLTOandtheFAO‐GEFCoordinationUnit,assistinorganizingthemid‐termandfinalevaluations.

xii. Coordinate the review and approval of the terms of reference and technicalspecifications,inordertoproceedtothecorrespondingcontracts.

xiii. Coordinateworkplanswiththeconsultantshiredtoimplementtheproject.

xiv. OrganizeandserveasSecretaryforthePSCandProjectManagementUnit(PMU)meetings.

xv. Make the necessary arrangements to facilitate—through agreements andinteragencypartnershipswithlocalornationalgovernmentbodies,aswellastheprivate sector—the development of the project and the achievement of itsoutcomes.

xvi. Conduct,incooperationwiththePCCs,inventoriesofthecontractsagreedtofortheimplementationofprojectactivities.

xvii. Ensure technical compliancewithproject objective, outcomes and outputs, andfollowthemonitoringandevaluationplanpreparedbytheM&EExpert.

xviii. Coordinatethe implementationof theproject’scommunicationstrategyandtheinstitutionalstrengtheningactivities.

Requiredprofessionalprofile Professional with an advanced degree in the agricultural, forestry or

environmentaldisciplines. Atleast8yearsofexperienceinthemanagementofruraldevelopmentprojects

with a focus on the sustainable management of natural resources, sustainableforestmanagement,territorialdevelopment,andworkwithruralcommunities.

Minimum of three years’ experience in coordinating development projects orcomponentsfinancedbyinternationalorganizations.

Experienceinthecoordinationofmultidisciplinaryteams. Knowledge and experience on results‐based management, development and

implementation of budgets, preparation of technical and financial reports, andmonitoringandevaluation.

AbilitytoprepareconcisereportsaccordingtoUnitedNationsstandards. Knowledgeanduseofparticipatoryplanningtools. Extensive knowledge of the socioeconomic reality of Brazilian rural and

indigenousareasandtheproblemsofgenderequality. Provenabilitytoleadateamandcapacityforteamwork. Excellentoralandwrittenskills. ExperiencemanagingGEFprojectsdesired.

137

ExperienceinimplementationandevaluationofFAOprojectsdesired.Languages: Advanced knowledge of Portuguese and English. Knowledge of Spanishdesirable.Duration:48months.PlaceofWork:INSA(CampinaGrande,PB)

2. INTEGRATEDNATURALRESOURCESMANAGEMENT(INRM)SPECIALIST Under overall supervision of the FAO Representative in Brazil, the National ProjectDirector(NPD)andtheFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),andthedirectsupervisionoftheProjectTechnicalCoordinator,theINRMSpecialistAwareness‐RaisingandCapacityDevelopmentSpecialistwillberesponsiblefortheimplementationofComponent1oftheproject.Inparticular,he/shewilldevelopthefollowingactivities:Mainresponsibilitiesandfunctions

1) Contributetothedevelopmentofkeydocumentsandaninformationsystemthatiskeytotheproject’smanagementandpromotion(Component1)i. Providenecessaryinformationanddataforthe integrationoftheannual

work plans and budgets (AWP/B), co‐financing budgets, and quarterlyschedulesfortheprojectinthemicro‐regions(MRs).

ii. PrepareandmonitortheAWP/BatMRlevel.iii. Contributetotheimplementationofthemonitoringandevaluation(M&E)

systemfortheproject,includingthepreparationofthesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReport(PPRs)andtheAnnualProjectImplementationReview(s)(PIR).

iv. Contributetotheproject’scommunicationsstrategy. 

2) CoordinatetheimplementationandcofinancingoftheprojectComponent1 i. EnsureproperimplementationofactivitiesAWP/BsforComponent1.ii. Monitorandassesstheperformanceoftheactivitiesandexpectedresults

of the Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs), according to the Letters ofAgreementsignedwithFAO.

iii. Promote communication channels and transparency of the informationgenerated by the project with government institutions, municipal andagriculturalauthorities,producerorganizations,andtheLIAs.

iv. Coordinate field activities to deliver expected outcomes and outputs ofComponent1asdescribedinAppendix1oftheProjectDocument;

v. CoordinateactionsandsupervisethedeliveryoftheLocalImplementingAgenciesresponsibleforfieldactivitiesunderComponent1;

vi. SupportthePTCinpreparingtheTermsofReferencefortheconsultancyonNon‐TimberForestProducts(NTFP)ValueChainandparticipateinthesupervisionofthedevelopmentofthestudy;

vii. In coordinationwith theAwareness‐Raising andCapacityDevelopmentSpecialist, prepare information and training materials for awareness‐raisingandtrainingofthemanagerialandtechnicalstaffoftherelevantlocal institutionsandkeystakeholders involved in landscapepolicyandmanagement,includingenvironmentalauthoritiesofthefederalstatesof

138

NorthEasternBrazil,todeveloptheircapacitiesformainstreamingINRMcriteriainaccordancewiththeMMA’sandFAO’sguidelines

viii. Support theorganizationand implementationof trainingworkshopsonINRM and FLR/INRM integration, in coordinationwith the Awareness‐RaisingandCapacityDevelopmentSpecialist;

ix. Provide technical inputs on the risks that may arise during projectimplementationandproposethemitigationmeasuresthatmaybeneededtoreducetheirimpacts;

x. Collaborate with the Project Technical Coordinator, the ProjectComponentCoordinatorsofcomponents2and3,andtheM&EExpertasrequiredinthefieldofhis/hercompetencies.

Requiredqualifications:UniversitydegreeinGeographyspecializinginLandUsePlanning,orotherrelatedfields. Knowledgeandskills:KnowledgeandexperienceinINRMandpreparationoflanduseanddevelopmentplansatlandscapeorprotectedarealevel.Provencapacitytoconductfieldworkandabilitytowork in teams andestablishworking relationshipswith central and local governmentinstitutionsandcivilsocietyorganizations.Experience:Atleast5yearsofprofessionalexperienceinthefieldoflanduseplanningandmanagement.ExperienceintrainingprocessesinthedomainsrelatedtoINRM.Priorworkingexperiences in internationalcooperationprojects. Preferable tohaveworkingexperienceintheBrazilianNortheast. Excellentoralandwrittencommunicationskills.Languages:PortugueseandsomeunderstandingofEnglishandSpanish.Duration:48months.PlaceofWork:INSA(CampinaGrande,PB)

3. MONITORINGANDEVALUATIONEXPERT

UndertheoverallsupervisionoftheFAORepresentative inBrazil, theNationalProjectDirector(NPD)andtheFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),andthedirectsupervisionoftheProjectTechnicalCoordinator,theMonitoringandEvaluationExpertwilladvisetheProject Execution Unit (PEU) on the design and establishment of a monitoring andevaluation(M&E)systemfortheprojecttorecordprogressinmeetinggoals,assessingresults,andfacilitatingthesystematizationofexperiences.Mainresponsibilities

DesignanM&EsystemtakingintoaccounttheprojectResultsFramework,theGEFTrackingTools,andtheoutcomes,outputsandactivitiessetforthintheWorkPlan(Appendix 2 Project Document), and the Annual Work Plan(s) and Budget(s)(AWP/Bs)

Generatemonitoringtoolsthatcanbeusedineachmicro‐regionandconsolidatednationwide.

139

Developproposalsthatconsiderparticipatoryevaluationineachmicro‐regionasamethodtohelpstrengthenthecapabilitiesoflocalactorsinsystematizationandplanningandtoincludeyoungpeopleandwomen.

Functionsandactivitiesi. ReviewtheprojectResultsFrameworkandmakerecommendationstoadaptitto

theneedsoftheprojectandthemicroregions(MRs).ii. Completetheevaluationsmadeinthepreparatoryphaseoftheprojecttoensure

thatbaselinedatafortheprojectistakenintoaccount.iii. Based on the project Results Framework, the Work Plan, and the AWP/B for

Project Year 1 (PY1), create a tracking system for the physical progress of theprojectthatcanalsoberelatedtothecostsofthevariouscomponents.

iv. BasedontheResultsFrameworkoftheproject,createasystemtoassessprojectindicators and tools for recording information that the Local ImplementingAgencies (LIAs) and the Project Component Coordinators (PCCs) should use ineachMR.

v. DevelopthestructureofsemiannualProjectProgressReports(PPRs)thatthePCCsandtheProjectTechnicalCoordinatorshoulduse.

vi. DesignmethodologiesandtoolstobeusedforthedevelopmentofparticipatoryevaluationexercisestobecarriedoutineachMRandotherstakeholders.

vii. Design training processes aimed at PCCs and the LIAs to developM&E system,includingthemodelofparticipatoryevaluation.

viii. MakerecommendationssothattheM&Esystemanditsreportscanbedistributedeasily,atthenational,regionalandMRlevels.

ix. ReporttotheProjectTechnicalCoordinatorofthePEU,makingrecommendationsonthedevelopmentoftheM&Esystem.

Requiredprofessionalprofile Professional with higher education in institutional development, economics,

planningorrelatedsubjects. Minimum of 8 years’ experience in collaborating with research centers,

governmentinstitutions,orruraldevelopmentprojectsfortheimplementationofM&Esystems.

Experienceintheimplementationofmethodologiesforassessinggenderequity,the participation of indigenous peoples, capacity building, and the sustainablemanagementofnaturalresources,amongothers.

KnowledgeanduseofcomputersystemsforthedevelopmentofM&Etoolsthatcanbesharedbyseveralusers.

Duration:6monthsLocation:BrasiliaandCampinaGrande,PB.Language:PortugueseandEnglish

4. FORESTRESTORATIONSPECIALIST(COORDINATOROFCOMPONENT3)Dutiesand responsibilities:Under overall supervision of the FAORepresentative inBrazil,theNationalProjectDirector(NPD)andtheFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),andthe direct supervision of the Project Technical Coordinator, the Forest Restoration

140

SpecialistwillberesponsiblefortheimplementationofComponent3oftheproject.Inparticular,he/shewilldevelopthefollowingactivities:Mainresponsibilitiesandfunctions

1) Contributetothedevelopmentofkeydocumentsandaninformationsystemthatiskeytotheproject’smanagementandpromotion(Component3)i. Providenecessaryinformationanddataforthe integrationoftheannual

work plans and budgets (AWP/B), co‐financing budgets, and quarterlyschedulesfortheprojectinthemicro‐regions(MRs).

ii. PrepareandmonitortheAWP/BatMRlevel.iii. Contributetotheimplementationofthemonitoringandevaluation(M&E)

systemfortheproject,includingthepreparationofthesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReport(PPRs)andtheAnnualProjectImplementationReview(s)(PIR).

iv. Contributetotheproject’scommunicationsstrategy. 

2) CoordinatetheimplementationandcofinancingoftheprojectComponent3 i. EnsureproperimplementationofactivitiesAWP/BsforComponent3.ii. Monitorandassesstheperformanceoftheactivitiesandexpectedresultsof

theLocalImplementingAgencies(LIAs),accordingtotheLettersofAgreementsignedwithFAO.

iii. Promotecommunicationchannelsandtransparencyoftheinformationgeneratedby the project with government institutions, municipal and agriculturalauthorities, producer organizations, and the LIAs.Coordinate field activities todeliverexpectedoutcomesandoutputsofComponent3asdescribedinAppendix1oftheProjectDocument;

iv. CoordinateactionsandsupervisethedeliveryoftheLocalImplementingAgenciesresponsibleforfieldactivitiesunderComponent3:

v. Designfieldsurveysandrecordallrelevantinitiativesofrecollection,storageanddistribution/marketingofforestspecies(seeds/seedlings)intheregionoftheproject,inparticularintheinterventionareas;

vi. SupporttheregisteroftheproducersintheNationalNetworkofSeedstocks(RENAVAM)

vii. Disseminatesuitabletreatmentandstoragetechniquesofforestseedsviii. RescuelocalseedassetsinCaatingaregion;ix. Elaborateatrainingprogramfornurserytechnicianspromotingsuitablestorage

methodsandfacilities;x. Elaborateanddisseminationoftraining/extensionmaterialsovernurseriesand

forestseedstocks;xi. Contributetotheplanningstrategyaimedatconnectingpreservationareas;xii. CollaboratewiththeProjectTechnicalCoordinator,theProjectComponent

Coordinatorsofcomponents1and4,andtheM&EExpertasrequiredinthefieldofhis/hercompetencies.

3) Projectadministration i. According to the formats established in the MOP, report financial and

administrative information generated by the implementation of the ProjectComponent3incoordinationwiththeProjectTechnicalCoordination.

141

ii. EnsurethattheLIAsandothershiredbytheprojectintheMRsadequatelypreparereports that are delivered on time to theProject ExecutionUnit (PEU) and theProjectManagementUnit(PMU).

iii. Contributetoobtainingfinancialinformationregardinginvestmentandexecutionoffinancingobtainedfromtheco‐financiersdetailedinthe1stpageoftheProjectDocument,accordingtotheworkplansinComponent3.

Requiredqualifications:UniversitydegreeinForestEngineeringorrelateddiscipline.MasterinForestRestorationinsemi‐aridenvironmentsisdesirable.Knowledgeandskills:

Provencapacitiesinforestmanagementandrestorationinsemi‐aridareas,orareassusceptibletodesertification.

Provenskillsinforestnurserydesignandmanagement Capacityinknowledgemanagementandextension.

Experience:Atleast5years’workingexperienceinprojects/activitiesrelatedtoforestandlandscaperestoration.Languages:PortugueseandsomeunderstandingofEnglishandSpanish.Desirablequalifications:

Priorworkingexperiencesininternationalcooperationprojects; PriorcollaborationinforestresearchortechnologywithINSA

Duration:48months.PlaceofWork:INSA(CampinaGrande,PB)

5. AWARENESS‐RAISINGANDCAPACITYDEVELOPMENTSPECIALIST(COORDINATOROFCOMPONENT4)

Dutiesandresponsibilities:Under overall supervision of the FAO Representative in Brazil, the National ProjectDirector(NPD)andtheFAOLeadTechnicalOfficer(LTO),andthedirectsupervisionofthe Project Technical Coordinator, and in close coordinationwith the CommunicationOffice ofMinistry of Environment (ASCOM) andwith INSA Communication Office, theAwareness‐Raising and Capacity Development Specialist will be responsible for theimplementation of Component 4 of the project. In particular, he/shewill develop thefollowingactivities:Mainresponsibilitiesandfunctions

3) Contributetothedevelopmentofkeydocumentsandaninformationsystemthatiskeytotheproject’smanagementandpromotion(Component4)v. Providenecessaryinformationanddataforthe integrationoftheannual

work plans and budgets (AWP/B), co‐financing budgets, and quarterlyschedulesfortheprojectinthemicro‐regions(MRs).

vi. PrepareandmonitortheAWP/BatMRlevel.

142

vii. Contributetotheimplementationofthemonitoringandevaluation(M&E)systemfortheproject,includingthepreparationofthesix‐monthlyProjectProgressReport(PPRs)andtheAnnualProjectImplementationReview(s)(PIR).

viii. Contributetotheproject’scommunicationsstrategy. 

4) CoordinatetheimplementationandcofinancingoftheprojectComponent4 xi. EnsureproperimplementationofactivitiesAWP/BsforComponent4.xii. Monitorandassesstheperformanceoftheactivitiesandexpectedresults

of the Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs), according to the Letters ofAgreementsignedwithFAO.

xiii. Promote communication channels and transparency of the informationgenerated by the project with government institutions, municipal andagriculturalauthorities,producerorganizations,andtheLIAs.

xiv. Coordinate field activities to deliver expected outcomes and outputs ofComponent4asdescribedinAppendix1oftheProjectDocument;

xv. CoordinateactionsandsupervisethedeliveryoftheLocalImplementingAgenciesresponsibleforfieldactivitiesunderComponent4:

xvi. Support the Project Technical Coordinator and the other ProjectComponent Coordinators in all capacity development related activities,includingdesignofpropermaterials,capacityassessmenttools,surveysanddissemination,withagender‐sensitiveapproach.

xvii. Basedon the assessment raisedduring full projectpreparation, build amatrixofneedsandprioritiesthecurrentcapacitiesandfurtherneedsinterms of awareness‐raising and communication strategy for promotingINRM,SFMand restorationandmethods to reachdifferent stakeholdertargetgroups

xviii. DevelopanIntegratedNaturalResourcesManagement(INRM),SFMandrestoration awareness‐raising and communication programme to besupportedbytheproject.Theprogrammeshouldinclude:(i)awareness‐raising and communication methods and means targeted to differentstakeholdergroups;(ii)activitiesandtheircostsbyco‐financier;(iii)rolesandresponsibilitiesofinstitutionsinvolvedintheimplementationoftheprogramme;and(iv)targetsandbaselinefortheoutputsandoutcomesoftheimplementationoftheprogramme.

xix. Elaboratecommunicationmaterialssuchaspamphlets,folders,receivingtechnicalinputsfromtheprofessionalsoftherespectiveareasatProjectManagement Unit (PMU),Ministry of Environment (MMA) and partnerinstitutions,andcollaboratetotheelaborationoftechnicalmanualsgivingcontributions related to language and style suitable for the targetaudience/trainees.

xx. Promoteawarenesscampaignsdirectedtopolicy‐makersandkeyofficersand technicians in the state governments and their agencies aimed atenhancingtheconceptofSLM,SFMandforestrestorationintheCaatingaBioma.

xxi. Collaborate with the Project Technical Coordinator, the ProjectComponentCoordinatorsofcomponents1and3,andtheM&EExpertasrequiredinthefieldofhis/hercompetencies.

143

Requiredqualifications:UniversitydegreeinJournalism,SocialSciences,and/orCommunication.Genderstudiesareanasset.Knowledgeandskills:Communication with specialization in communication and awareness‐raising onenvironmentalissues.Experience:Atleast5workingexperienceinprojects/activitiesrelatedtocapacity‐developmentintheruralsector,communicationanddisseminationactivities,designofgender‐sensitiveactivitiesandindicators,surveysandmonitoringofsocio‐culturalvariables.Priorworkingexperiencesininternationalcooperationprojects.Languages:PortugueseandsomeunderstandingofEnglishandSpanish.Duration:48months.PlaceofWork:INSA(CampinaGrande,PB)

6. ADMINISTRATIVEANDOPERATIONSOFFICER

UnderthegeneralsupervisionoftheFAORepresentativeinBrazil(BudgetHolder)andtheGEFProject TaskManager–FAOBrazil, and in close collaborationwith theprojectexecutingpartners,theAdministrativeandOperationsOfficerwilltaketheoperationalresponsibility for timely delivery of the project outcomes and outputs. In particular,he/shewillperformthefollowingmaintasks:

Ensuresmoothandtimelyimplementationofprojectactivitiesinsupportoftheresults‐based work plan, through operational and administrative proceduresaccordingtoFAOrulesandstandards;

Coordinatetheprojectoperationalarrangementsthroughcontractualagreementswithkeyprojectpartners;

Arrange the operations needed for signing and executing Letters ofAgreement(LoA)andGovernmentCooperationProgramme(GCP)agreementwithrelevantprojectpartners;

Maintain inter‐departmental linkageswithFAOunits fordonor liaison,Finance,HumanResources,andotherunitsasrequired;

Day‐to‐day manage the project budget, including the monitoring of cashavailability,budgetpreparationandbudgetrevisionstobereviewedbytheProjectTechnicalCoordinatorandthePTM‐FAOBrazil;

Ensure theaccurate recordingofalldata relevant foroperational, financial andresults‐basedmonitoring;

Ensure that relevant reports on expenditures, forecasts, progress againstworkplans,projectclosure,arepreparedandsubmitted inaccordancewithFAOandGEF defined procedures and reporting formats, schedules and communicationschannels,asrequired;

Executeaccurateandtimelyactionsonalloperationalrequirementsforpersonnel‐relatedmatters,equipmentandmaterialprocurement,andfielddisbursements;

144

Participate and represent the project in collaborative meetings with projectpartnersandtheProjectSteeringCommittee,asrequired;

Undertake missions to monitor the outputs‐based budget, and to resolveoutstandingoperationalproblems,asappropriate;

Beresponsibleforresultsachievedwithinher/hisareaofworkandensureissuesaffectingprojectdeliveryandsuccessarebroughttotheattentionofhigherlevelauthoritiesthroughtheBHinatimelymanner,

Inconsultationwith theFAOEvaluationOfficeand theFAOProjectTaskForce,supporttheorganizationofthemid‐termandfinalevaluations,andprovideinputsregardingprojectbudgetarymatters;

Undertakeanyotherdutiesasrequired.Minimalrequirements:

UniversityDegreeinEconomics,BusinessAdministration,orrelatedfields. At least five years’ experience in project operation andmanagement related to

naturalresourcesmanagement,includingfieldexperienceindevelopingcountries. Provencapacitytoworkandestablishworkingrelationshipswithgovernmentand

non‐governmentrepresentatives. KnowledgeofFAO’sprojectmanagementsystems.

Location:BrasiliaDuration:48monthsLanguage:PortugueseandEnglish

APPENDIX6:BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thefollowinglistincludesthereferencestoliteraturethatwasconsultedandismostdirectlypertinenttotheprojectdesignandimplementation.ALVES FILHO, João. 1997. Nordeste; estratégias para o sucesso: propostas para odesenvolvimentodoNordestebrasileiro,baseadasemexperiênciasnacionaiseinternacionaisdesucesso.RiodeJaneiro:Mauad.

AMORIM,IsaacLucenade;SAMPAIO,EverardoValadaresdeSá;ARAÚJO,ElcidadeLima.2009.FenologiadeespécieslenhosasdaCaatingadoSeridó,RN.RevistaÁrvore,v.33,n.3.ANDRADE‐LIMA,D.de.1981.Thecaatingadominium.RevistaBrasileiraBotânica,v.4,p.149‐153.

ANGELO, Cláudio; FEITOSA, Cíntya. 2015. País poderá viver drama climático em 2040.ObservatóriodoClima,30out.

APNE.2008.PlanosdemanejoflorestalnaCaatinga.Recife:AssociaçãoPlantasdoNordeste.ARAÚJO,E.L.;FERRAZ,E.M.N.2003.Processosecológicosmantenedoresdadiversidadevegetalna Caatinga: estado atual do conhecimento. In: CLAUDINO‐SALES, V. (Ed.) Ecossistemasbrasileiros:manejoeconservação.Fortaleza:ExpressãoGráfica,p.115‐128.BARRETO,LilianSantos;CASTRO,MarinaSiqueirade.2010.Boaspráticasdemanejoparaoextrativismosustentáveldoumbu.Brasília:EMBRAPARecursosGenéticoseTecnologia.BEUCHLE,Renéetal.2015.LandcoverchangesintheBrazilianCerradoandCaatingabiomesfrom1990to2010basedonasystematicremotesensingsamplingapproach.AppliedGeography.v.8,p.116‐127.

BEZERRA,MariadoCarmodeLima (Coord.). 2004.CenáriosparaobiomaCaatinga.Recife:SECTMA,ConselhoNacionaldaReservadaBiosferadaCaatinga.

BRAGA, Osmar Rufino. 2004. Educação e convivência com o semi‐árido: introdução aosfundamentos do trabalho político‐educativo no semi‐árido brasileiro. In: KÜSTER, Ângela;MATTOS,BeatrizH.O.de.(Orgs.).Educaçãonocontextodosemi‐áridobrasileiro.Fortaleza:FundaçãoKonradAdenauer.

BULLOCK,S.H.;MOONEY,H.A.;MEDINA,E.(Eds.).Seasonallydrytropicalforests.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.CAMPELLO,GeraldodeAraújoBarreto;GODOY,OsaniGodoy.2004.Desertificaçãodosemiáridonordestino:umavisãoregionalista.Brasília:MMA.

CAVALCANTI, Clóvis. 1988. A seca do Nordeste brasileiro: uma visão de estudos e pesquisaselaboradosemumséculodeproduçãodeconhecimentos.RevistaEconômicadoNordeste,v.19,n.1,jan./mar.,p.97‐127.

CLAUDINO‐SALES,V. (Ed.). 2003.Ecossistemasbrasileiros:manejoeconservação.Fortaleza:ExpressãoGráfica.

146

CNRBD. 2004. Cenários para o bioma Caatinga. Recife: Conselho Nacional da Reserva daBiosferadaCaatinga.

DUQUE,J.Guimarães.1973.Soloeáguanopolígonodassecas.4ed.Fortaleza:DNOCS.

FAO. 1998. A new framework for conservation‐effective land management anddesertificationcontrolinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean:guidelinesforthepreparationandimplementation of National Action Programmes. Roma: Food and Agriculture Organization.<http://www.fao.org/docrep/W9298E/W9298E00.htm>.

FAY,Marianne;HALLEGATTE, Stephane;VOGT‐SCHILB,Adrien;ROZENBERG, Julie;NARLOCH,Ulf; KERR, Tom. 2015. Decarbonizing development: three steps to a zero‐carbon future.Washington:WordBank.

FERNANDES, A. 1992. Biodiversidade do semi‐árido nordestino. In: CongressoNacional sobreEssências Nativas ‐ Conservação da Biodiversidade, 2., 1992, São Paulo. Anais... São Paulo:Instituto Florestal, p.119‐124.FIORAVANTI, Carlos. 2015. Terra frágil: analises de imagens desatéliteindicamdesmatamentonoCerradoeCaatinga.RevistaPesquisaFAPESP,n.231,maio,p.46‐51.

FUNDAÇÃO ARARIPE. 2008.Mapeamento da vegetação potencial paramanejo florestal.Fortaleza:FundaçãoAraripe.

GEBRIM,Sophia.2013.EncontroemCampinaGrandediscutedesertificaçãonoBrasil: emdebate,oplanonacionaldeconvivênciacomasemidaridez.

HERINGER,Luiz.2004.Opapeldaprevidênciacialnosemi‐áridobrasileiroenocombateàpobreza.Brasília:MinistériodaPrevidênciaSocial.

HOLANDA,Nilson.1996.AlgumasreflexõessobreapolíticaregionalnoNordeste.In:Apolíticaregionalnaeradaglobalização.Brasília:FundaçãoKonrad‐Aenauer‐Stiftung;IPEA,p.191‐194.(Debates,12).

HORA, Karla; BUTTO, Andrea. 2014. Políticas públicas para mulheres rurais no contexto dosTerritóriosdaCidadania.In:NEAD.Mulheresruraiseautonomia:formaçãoearticulaçãoparaefetivarpolíticaspúblicasnosTerritóriosdaCidadania.Brasília:MinistériodoDesenvolvimentoAgrário.p.14‐45.

IBGE.2012.IndicadoresdedesenvolvimentosustentávelBrasil2012.RiodeJaneiro:InstitutoBrasileirodeGeografiaeEstatística.

IPC. 2015.AtlasdaextremapobrezanoNorteeNordestedoBrasilem2010: populaçãoresidente em domicílios agrícolas, pluriativos, rurais não agrícolas e urbanos não agrícolas.Brasília:CentroInternacionaldePolíticasparaoDesenvolvimentoInclusivo.KENNY,MaryLorena.2002.Drought,clientelism, fatalismand fear inNortheastBrazil.Ethics,PlaceandEnvironment,v.5,n.2,p.123‐134.

KIILL, LúciaHelena Piedade; RIBEIRO,Márcia de Fátima;DIAS, Carla Tatiana deVasconcelos;SILVA,PalomaPereira da; SILVA, JosemárioFranciscoMatosda. 2009.Caatinga: flora e faunaameaçadasdeextinção.MensagemDoce,n.100,mar.,p.63‐64.LEAL, I.R.; TABARELLI, M.; SILVA, J.M.C. (Eds.). 2003. Ecologia e conservação da Caatinga.Recife:UniversitáriaUFPE.

147

LENTI,Felipe.2015.EstimativadasemissõesevitadasesequestrosdecarbononoPPP‐ECOS:contribuições de projetos locais para a questão climática global. Brasília: Instituto Sociedade,PopulaçãoeNatureza.

LIMA,IsabelaLustzPortela.2010.Boaspráticasparaoextrativismosustentáveldamangaba.Brasília:EMBRAPARecursosGenéticoseTecnologia.LIMA,RicardodaCunhaCorreia;CAVALCANTE,ArnóbiodeMendonçaBarreto;PEREZ‐MARIN,AldrinMartin Eds.). 2011.Desertificação emudanças climáticasno semiáridobrasileiro.CampinaGrande:InstitutoNacionaldoSemiárido.

LINDOSO, Diego Pereira. 2013. Vulnerabilidade e adaptação da vida às secas: desafios àsustentabilidaderuralfamiliarnossemiáridosnordestinos.Brasília:CentrodeDesenvolvimentoSustentável,UniversidadedeBrasília.TesedeDoutorado.

MAGALHÃES,AntônioRocha.1993.DroughtandpolicyresponsesintheBrazilianNortheast.In:WILHITE,D.A.(Ed.).Droughtassessment,managementandplanning:theoryandcasestudies.Norwell,Massachusetts:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

MAGALHÃES, Antônio Rocha; BEZERRA NETO, Eduardo (Orgs.). 1991. Impactos sociais eeconômicos de variações climáticas e respostas governamentais no Brasil. Fortaleza:ImprensaOficialdoCeará.

MAGALHÃES, Antônio Rocha; REBOUÇAS, O.E. 1988. The effects of climatic variations onagricultureinNortheastBrazil.In:PARRY,M.L;CARTER,T.R;KONIJIN,N.T.(Eds.).Theimpactofclimaticvariationsonagriculture.Dordrecht:IIASA,UNDP,v.2,p.290.

MATALLO Jr., Heitor. 1997. A desertificação no Brasil: elementos para a formulação de umapolítica para seu controle. In: Anais do I Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Meio Ambiente eDesenvolvimento Sustentável do Semi‐árido. Mossoró‐RN, Fundação Vingt‐un Rosado.(ColeçãoMossoroense,SérieE,v.CMXLVIII.)

MATALLOJr.,Heitor.1999.AdesertificaçãonomundoenoBrasil.In:SCHENKEL,CelsoSalatino;MATALLOJr.,Heitor.Desertificação.Brasília:UNESCO.

MCTI. 2010. SecondNational Communicatin ofBrazil to theUnitedNations FrameworkConventiononClimateChange.Brasília:MinistryofScience,TechnologyandInnovation.

MENDES,BeneditoVasconcelos.1994.Condiçõesdeusoeconservaçãodabiodiversidadenosemi‐árido.Brasília:SecretariadePlanejamento,OrçamentoeCoordenaçãodaPresidênciadaRepública;InstitutoInteramericanodeCooperaçãoparaaAgricultura.

MILLENIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. 2005. Ecosystems and human well‐being:desertificationsynthesis.Washington:WorldResourcesInstitute.

MIRANDA,Carlos;BUARQUE,Sérgio;ARAÚJO,TâniaBacelarde;GUIMARÃESNETO,Leonardo.1999.Planejandoodesenvolvimentosustentável:aexperiênciarecentedoNordestedoBrasil.Brasília:InstitutoInteramericanodeCooperaçãoparaaAgricultura.

MMA.2004.ProgramadeAçãoNacionaldeCombateàDesertificaçãoeMitigaçãodosEfeitosdaSeca:PAN‐Brasil.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

MMA.2007.AtlasdeáreassusceptíveisàdesertificaçãonoBrasil.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

148

MMA. 2015. Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

MOREIRA, Emília (Org.). 2006. Agricultura familiar e desertificação. João Pessoa: EditoraUniversitáriaUFPB.

NAÇÕESUNIDAS.1997.ConvençãodasNaçõesUnidasdecombateàdesertificaçãonospaísesafetadosporsecagravee/oudesertificação,particularmentenaÁfrica.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

NAÇÕESUNIDAS.2012.MarcodacooperaçãodasNaçõesUnidasparaoDesenvolvimento(2012‐2015):Brasil.Brasília.

NOBRE,Carlos;BARROS,Hélio;MOURAFÉ,JosédeAnchieta.1993.Oclima,aáguaeasecanoNordeste brasileiro. Brasília: Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos Climáticos, InstitutoNacionaldePesquisasEspaciais.

OECD. 2015. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil, 2015. Paris: OECDPublishing.OLIVEIRA,WashingtonLuisde;SCARIOT,Aldicir.2010.Boaspráticasdemanejoparaoextrativismosustentáveldopequi.Brasília:EMBRAPARecursosGenéticoseTecnologia.

PADILHA,JoséArtur.2011.Aproveitamentonaturaldaságuascomenergiasagregadas:conceitobasezero–CBZ.Anaisda63aReuniãoAnualdaSociedadeBrasileiraparaoProgressodaCiência,Goiânia,julho.www.sbpcnet.org.br/livro/63ra/resumos/PDFs/arq_1393_402.pdf.

PAGLIA, A.P.; FONSECA, G.A.B.; SILVA, J.M.C. 2008. A fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção:síntesetaxonômicaegeográfica.In:MACHADO,A.B.M.;DRUMMOND,G.M.;PAGLIA,A.P.(Orgs.).Livrovermelhodafaunabrasileiraameaçadadeextinção.BeloHorizonte:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente;FundãçãoBiodiversitas,p.63‐70.

PAREYN,F.G.C.etal.2010.Aimportânciadaproduçãonão‐madeireiranaCaatinga.In:GARÍLIO,MariaAuxiliadora(Org.).UsosustentáveleconservaçãodosrecursosflorestaisdaCaatinga.Brasília:MMA.

PAREYN,Frans;VIEIRA,JoséLuiz;GARIGLIO,MariaAuxiliadora.2015.EstatísticaflorestaldaCaatinga,ano2,v.2.Recife:AssociaçãoPlantasdoNordeste.

PARRY,M.L; CARTER,T.R.; KONIJIN,N.T. (Eds.). 1988.The impactofclimaticvariationsonagriculture.Dordrecht:IIASA‐UNDP.(AssessmentsinSemi‐AridRegions.)

PAUPITZ, Júlio. 2010. Elementos da estrutura fundiária e uso da terra no semi‐áridobrasileiro. In: GARIGLIO, Maria Auxiliadora et al. (Orgs.). Uso sustentável e conservação dosrecursosflorestaisdaCaatinga.Brasília:ServiçoFlorestalBrasileiro.PAUPITZ,Júlio.2013.RelatórioNacionaldeImplementaçãodaUNCCD.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.PORTILLO‐QUINTERO,C.A.;SÁNCHEZ‐AZOFEIFA,G.A.2010.ExtentandconservationoftropicaldryforestsintheAmericas.BiologicalConservation,n.143,p.144‐155.

PRADO,D.2003.AscaatingasdaAméricadoSul.In:LEAL,I.R.;TABARELLI,M.;SILVA,J.M.C.(Eds.).Ecologia e conservação da Caatinga. Recife: Editora Universitária, Universidade Federal dePernambuco,p.3‐73.

149

PROBIO.2006.PROBIO ‐ProjetodeConservaçãoeUtilizaçãoSustentáveldaDiversidadeBiológicaBrasileira.Subprojeto:LevantamentodaCoberturaVegetaledoUsodoSolodoBiomaCaatinga.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

PROJETO ÁRIDAS. 1995.Nordeste: uma estratégia de desenvolvimento sustentável. Brasília:MinistériodoPlanejamentoeOrçamento.

RADA,NicholasE.2013.AssessingBrazil’sCerradoagriculturalmiracle:anupdate.FoodPolicy,v.38,p.146‐155.

RIBEIRO, S.C. et al. 2011. Above‐ and below‐ground biomass in a Brazilian Cerrado. ForestEcologyandManagement,n.262,p.491‐499.RODAL,Maria de Jesus; SAMPAIO, Everardo; PEREIRA, R.C. 1988. Revisão dos levantamentosflorísticosnodomíniodascaatingas.ResumosXIIReuniãoNordestinadeBotânica,SociedadeBotânicadoBrasil,JoãoPessoa.

RODRIGUES, Waldemar. 1987. Desertificação: as relações entre suas causas e as atividadeshumanas.Interciência,v.12,n.2.

RODRIGUES,Waldemaret al. 1992.AvaliaçãodoquadrodadesertificaçãonoNordestedoBrasil:diagnósticoeperspectivas.Fortaleza:FundaçãoGrupoEsquelBrasil,v.8.

SALES, Francisco das Chagas V. 2014. Manejo sustentável na Caatinga. Brasília. ProjetoBRA/PNUD/13/G42/2014.

SAMPAIO,EverardoV.S.B.1995.OverviewoftheBrazilianCaatinga.In:BULLOCK,S.H.;MOONEY,H.A.;MEDINA,E.(Eds.).Seasonallydrytropicalforests.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,p.35‐63.

SAMPAIO,EverardoV.S.B.etal.2003.DesertificaçãonoBrasil:conceitos,núcleosetecnologiasderecuperaçãoeconvivência.Recife:EditoraUniversitáriadaUFPE.

SAMPAIO,Everardo;RODAL,MariadeJesus.2000.FitofisionomiasdaCaatinga.In:Avaliaçãoeidentificaçãodeaçõesprioritáriasparaaconservação,utilizaçãosustentávelerepartiçãodosbenefíciosdabiodiversidadedobiomaCaatinga.Petrolina.DocumentoparadiscussãonoGTBotânica.SAMPAIO,MaurícioBonesso.2011.Boaspráticasparaoextrativismosustentáveldoburiti.Brasília:InstitutoSociedade,PopulaçãoeNatureza.SANTANA,MarcosOliveira(Org.).2007.AtlasdasáreassuscetíveisàdesertificaçãonoBrasil.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

SAWYER, Donald. 2000. Meio ambiente como fator de desenvolvimento do semi‐áridonordestino.Brasília:InstitutoSociedade,PopulaçãoeNatureza.

SAWYER, Donald. 2009. Entraves regulatórios na produção familiar agroextrativista:problemas,enfrentamentoesoluções.Brasília.NotaTécnicaelaboradaparaoCentrodeGestãode Estudos Estratégicos (CGEE), com apoio da Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos (SAE) daPresidênciadaRepública.

SCHWABE,Kurt;ALBIAC,Jose;CONNOR,JefferyD.;HASSAN,RashidM.;GONZALEZ,LilianaMeza(Eds.). Drought in arid and semi‐arid regions: a multi‐disciplinary and cross‐countryperspective.

150

SILVA,FernandoBarretoRodrigues e;RICHÉ,G.R.;TONEEAU, J.P.; SOUSANETO,F.H.B.B.da;SILVA,A.B.da;ARAÚJOFILHO,J.C.1993.ZoneamentoagroecológicodoNordeste;diagnósticodo quadro natural e agrossocioeconômico.Petrolina: Embrapa‐Cpatsa; Recife: Embrapa‐CNPS,CoordenadoriaRegionalNordeste.2v.

SILVA,J.P.F.;SOARES,D.G.;PAREYN,F.G.C.2009.ManejoflorestaldaCaatinga:umaalternativadedesenvolvimentosustentávelemprojetosdeassentamentosruraisdosemiáridoemPernambuco.RevistaEstatísticaFlorestal.

SILVA, JoséMariaCardosoda;TABARELLI,Marcelo;FONSECA,MônicaTavaresda;LINS,LíviaVanucci. 2003. Biodiversidade da Caatinga: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

SNEL, Mathilde; BOT, Alexandra. 2000. Some suggested indicators for land degradationassessmentofdrylands.In:GAWANDE,S.P.(Ed.).AdvancesinLandresourcesmanagementforthe20thcentury.NewDelhi:SoilConservationSocietyofIndia,p.35‐50.

SOARES, Sergei et al. 2015.Povertyprofile: the ruralNorth andNortheast regions of Brazil.Brasília:InternationalPolicyCenterforInclusiveGrowth.SPIELMANN, Katherine A.; NELSON, Margaret; INGRAM, Scott; PEEPLES, Matthew A. 2011.Sustainablesmall‐scaleagricultureinsemi‐aridenvironments.EcologyandSociety,v.16,n.1.

TENDLER,Judith.1991.DynamicsofruraldevelopmentinNortheastBrazil:newlessonsfromoldprojects.Washington:WorldBankOperationsEvaluationDepartment.

TNC; APNE. 2001. Resultados do Seminário de Planejamento Ecorregional da Caatinga:ecorregiõespropostasparaoBiomaCaatinga.Aldeia,Pernambuco:TheNatureConservancydoBrasil;AssociaçãoPlantasdoNordeste.<http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/index>.

UNEP/GEF. Carbon benefits methodology. http://www.unep.org/ClimateChange/ carbon‐benefits/cbp_pim/.FUNBIO.2015.TFCA: a experiênciabrasileira; theBrazilianexperience.Riode Janeiro:FundoBrasileiroparaaBiodiversidade.

VALENTE, Ana Lúcia E.F.; FAVARETO, Arilson da Silva; GOMES Jr., Newton N. 2008.Biodiversidade e geração de trabalho e renda: o caso dos produtos do Cerrado. Brasília:UniversidadedeBrasília.DissertaçãodeMestradoemAgronegócios.

VASCONCELOSSOBRINHO,João.2002.DesertificaçãonoNordestedoBrasil.Recife:FundaçãoApolônioSallesdeDesenvolvimentoEducacional,UniversidadeFederalRuraldePernambuco.

WEID, JeanMarc vonder. 2004.Agricultura familiar,segurançaalimentareprocessosdedesertificaçãonosemi‐áridonordestino.Brasília:MinistériodoMeioAmbiente.

151

APPENDIX7:ENVIRONMENTALANDSOCIALREVIEWFORM

Environmental and Social Review Form.p

152

APPENDIX8:THREATENEDSPECIESOFFLORAINTHECAATINGA

ThethreatenedspeciesoffloraintheCaatingaaccordingtothelistissuedbythe

MinistryofEnvironment(MMA)inNormativeInstruction6ofSeptember23,2008,are:1. AmaranthaceaeGomphrenachrestoidesC.C.TownsendBACaatinga2. AnacardiaceaeMyracrodruonurundeuva(Aroeira‐do‐sertão)Engl.BA,DF,GO,MA,

MG,MS,MT,SPCerrado/Caatinga3. Anacardiaceae Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. BA, CE, DF, GO, MA, MG, MS, PI, TO

Cerrado/Caatinga4. ApocynaceaeBlepharodonhirsutumGoyderBACaatinga5. ApocynaceaeCynanchummorrenioidesGoyderBACerrado/Caatinga6. BignoniaceaeJacarandarugosaA.H.GentryPECaatinga7. BignoniaceaeTabebuiaselachidentataA.H.GentryBACaatinga8. BromeliaceaeAechmeacariocaeL.B.SmBACaatinga/MataAtlântica9. BromeliaceaeAechmeaeurycorymbusHarmsPA,PECaatinga/MataAtlântica10. BromeliaceaeOrthophytumamoenum(Ule)L.B.Sm.BACaatinga11. CactaceaeBrasilicereusmarkgrafiiBackeb.&VollMGCaatinga/Cerrado12. Cactaceae Cipocereus pusilliflorus (F.Ritter) Zappi & N.P.Taylor MG Caatinga /

Cerrado13. Cactaceae Coleocephalocereuspurpureus(Buining & Brederoo) F.Ritter MG

Caatinga14. CactaceaeEspostoopsisdybowskii(Rol.‐Goss.)Buxb.BACaatinga15. CactaceaeFacheiroacephaliomelanasspestevesii(P.J.Braun)N.P.Taylor&Zappi

BACaatinga16. CactaceaeMelocactusazureusBuining&BrederooBACaatinga17. CactaceaeMelocactusdeinacanthusBuining&BrederooBACaatinga18. CactaceaeMelocactusglaucescensBuining&BrederooBACaatinga19. CactaceaeMelocactuspachyacanthusBuining&BrederooBACaatinga20. Cactaceae Micranthocereus auriazureus Buining & Brederoo MG Caatinga /

Cerrado21. CactaceaeMicranthocereuspolyanthus(Werderm.)Backeb.BACaatinga22. CactaceaeMicranthocereusstreckeriVanHeek&VanCriekingeBACaatinga23. CactaceaePilosocereusazulensisN.P.Taylor&ZappiMGCaatinga24. CactaceaeTacingabrauniiEstevesMGCaatinga25. CyperaceaeRhynchosporawarmingiiBoeck.BACaatinga26. EriocaulaceaeSyngonanthusbahiensisMoldenkeBACaatinga27. EriocaulaceaeSyngonanthusharleyiiMoldenkeBACaatinga28. Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum bezerrae (Pirunga, maçarenga) Plowman CE, PI

Caatinga29. Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum pauferrense (Guarda‐orvalho, pau‐crioulo)

PlowmanPBCaatinga30. ErythroxylaceaeErythroxylumtianguanumPlowmanCECaatinga31. IsoetaceaeIsoetesluetzelburgiiU.WeberPA,PBCaatinga32. LamiaceaeHyptiscarvalhoiHarleyBACaatinga33. LamiaceaeHyptispinheroiHarleyBACaatinga34. LamiaceaeHyptissimulansEplingCE,MG,PECaatinga

153

35. Orchidaceae Cattleya labiata (Catléia, parasita‐roxa) Lindl. AL, CE, PB, PE, SECaatinga/MataAtlântica

36. OrchidaceaeCattleyatenuisM.A.Campacci&P.L.VedovelloBACaatinga37. Orchidaceae Phragmipedium lindleyanum (Sapatinho) (R.H.Schomb. ex Lindl.)

RolfeAL,BA,PECaatinga/MataAtlântica38. OrchidaceaeThelyschistaghillanyi(Pabst)GarayBACaatinga39. RicciaceaeRicciaridleyiA.GeppPECaatinga40. VerbenaceaeLippiabromleyanaMoldenkeBACaatinga41. ViolaceaeHybanthusalbus(A.St.‐Hil.)Baill.BA,MGCaatinga42. XyridaceaeXyrisalmaeKral&Wand.BACaatinga43. XyridaceaeXyrismoriiKral&L.B.Sm.BACaatingaIt can be seen that themost numerous threatened flora species are the cacti. Theknowledgebaseisnotoriouslyincomplete,asismadeclearinthecontinuationoftheMMAlist,aboutspecieswithinsufficientknowledge.ItseemsthatresearchhasbeenconcentratedinthestateofBahia.Sampaio(1995)reportsthatamong38publishedstudiesontheCaatinga,339woodyspecieswerefound,belongingto161generaand48families(Rodal,Sampaio,Pereira1988). The families with most species or subspecies were Caesalpinoideae,Mimosoideae,Euphorbiaceae,PapilionoideaeandCactaceae,with45,43,32,30and14species, respectively, and themaingenerawereCassia,Mimosa andPithecellobium(14,10and9species,respectively).Thereisgreatvariationbylocation,drynessandsoiltypes.Thissuggeststhatfragmentationisleadingtoisolationandthatconnectivityamongfragmentsisimportant.Amorim et al. (2009) studied ten woody species (Capparis flexuosa, Erythroxylumpungens, Erythroxylum pungens, Aspidosperma pyrifolium, Tabebuia impetiginosa,Mimosa acutistipula, Amburana cearensis, Anadenanthera colubrina, PithecellobiumfoliolosumandTabebuiaimpetiginosa)andfoundthatdrynessaffectedfloweringandfruiting.Thissuggeststhatincreasingdrynessanddroughtduetoclimatechangemayhinderreproductionoftreespecies,aswellasthefaunawhichdependontheirflowersandfruitsanddispersetheirpollenandtheseeds.

154

APPENDIX9:MAPS

Figure1.ProjectInterventionAreas

155

Figure2.ProjectInterventionAreas(MunicipalityofChapadadoAraripe)

156

Figure3.ProjectInterventionAreas(MunicipalitiesintheUauáregion)

157

Figure4.ProjectInterventionAreas(MunicipalitiesofSeridóregion)

158

Figure5.ProjectInterventionAreas(MunicipalitiesoftheXingóregion)