sudan integrated environment project (siep) - unep · pdf filesudan integrated environment...

Sudan Integrated Environment Project (SIEP)

2012 Programme Consultation

Workshop report and draft programme strategy for consultation

This report is available online at: www.unep.org/sudan

Disclaimer

The material in this report does not necessarily represent the views of any of the organisations involved in the preparation and hosting of the workshop. It must be noted that some time has passed between the workshop and the dissemination of this report, during which some important changes have taken place, not least of which is the independence of South Sudan, a fact which greatly affects the national energy context. Critically, following the independence, the rate of deforestation in the Republic of Sudan has risen from 0.7% per year to 2.2% per year, making many of the discussions within this document all the more relevant. Whilst not directly affecting the production of LPG, which is largely derived from oil supplies north of the border with South Sudan, the wider context of the economics of the energy sector, and the economy as a whole, have changed. These changes are not reflected in this document. This being said, it is strongly asserted that this document still represents a useful contribution to the energy sector, particularly given its contribution to charting the breadth of perspectives on LPG in the Republic of Sudan.

UNEP Sudan 2012 Programme Consultation

UNEP Sudan project workshop report.pdf www.unep.org/sudan

1. SIEP and workshop objectives........................................................................................................1 1.1. Project background and rationale ...............................................................................................1 1.2. Workshop objectives ...................................................................................................................4

2. Workshop participation and design.................................................................................................6 2.1. Participation – an internal or an external workshop with partners? ............................................6 2.2. Workshop design ........................................................................................................................6

3. Workshop process ..........................................................................................................................9 4. Workshop results: Discussion and conclusions............................................................................10 5. Looking ahead – emerging SIEP follow-on strategy.....................................................................19 Appendix 1: Presentation list – see Annex online for flip chart records................................................22 Appendix 2: Reference material............................................................................................................24

Appendix 2.1. Population dynamics and land use...........................................................................24 Appendix 2.2. Rainfall and climate ..................................................................................................26 Appendix 2.3. Maladaptive livelihoods changes in response to conflict ..........................................28 Appendix 2.4. Economic changes....................................................................................................30 Appendix 2.5. Deforestation.............................................................................................................31 Appendix 2.6. Additional reference material ....................................................................................32

Appendix 3: Workshop participants ......................................................................................................34 Appendix 4: UNEP Log frame and provisional results for 2011............................................................35


UNEP Sudan 2012 project workshop report.pdf www.unep.org/sudan 1

1. SIEP and workshop objectives

1.1. Project background and rationale

UNEP’s Sudan Integrated Environment Project (SIEP) has the following overall purpose1:

To improve sustainable and equitable governance, management and use of environmental resources.

This statement describes the intended, combined outcome of all of the components of work undertaken within the project. It contributes to a bigger picture described by the project goal2:

To assist the people of Sudan achieve peace, recovery and development on an environmentally-sustainable basis

Implicit in these statements is the assumption that peacebuilding, recovery and development are happening concurrently in Sudan. Sudan has a changing context and therefore adaptation would be added to this list of concurrent processes that make up the context for the project. The idea that people are adapting their livelihoods in order to reach these higher goals runs right through the project. The project focusses on supporting the Government of Sudan in its effort to enable Sudanese communities to meet the environmental challenges confronting their livelihoods. This includes activities such as supporting other UN agencies and donor programmes to reduce their environmental foot-prints as these too can contribute to a culture of best practice on environment in Sudan. The major livelihoods and zones in which they are practiced are shown on a map in Figure 1.

Analysing livelihoods In order to organise these different concepts and enable relevant project interventions to be identified, the project uses a livelihoods-based approach with the model in Figure 2. Essentially, the model gives a framework in which people undertake a given livelihood strategy to achieve their personal goals. The ideas of “development” such poverty alleviation, aspects of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and enhanced food security, and other objectives (such as raising funds for a dowry) would be captured here. People undertake these strategies using the assets that they have access to such as natural resources, capital, skills etc. However, the whole undertaking occurs in the context of a set of processes that describe the context and the given institutional and policy framework.

The idea that livelihoods are adapting across Sudan underpins the purpose and goal statements of the project. Two challenges in particular emerge from this analysis. One is how to support the ongoing development and strengthening of the policy and institutional context of these livelihoods that are struggling to change. The second is to enable the competing groups of people making a living on the same basis of natural resources to do so equitably and peacefully. No livelihood group exists in isolation and the interaction between groups is particularly significant for the environment, especially when more than one livelihood is dependent on the same natural resources. Both of these challenges relate to the governance context, and the second one relates to conflict mitigation as well.

1 “expected outcome” 2 Or “expected impact”

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

2

Figu

re 1

: Nat

iona

l Liv

elih

ood

Zone

Map

Sou

rce:

US

AID

/FE

WSN

ET

(201

1) L

ivel

ihoo

ds Z

onin

g P

lus

Act

ivity

in S

udan



Figure 2: Livelihoods Analytical Framework

Source:3 Young, H., et al. (2009) Livelihoods, Power and Choice: The Vulnerability of the Northern Rizaygat, Darfur, Sudan, Feinstein International Centre, Tufts University.

Livelihoods, development and peace-building have strong linkages in areas of scarce natural resources. The question in these contexts becomes how equitable and sustainable policies and institutions can be strengthened to enable multiple livelihood groups to manage access to shared natural resources, whilst themselves undergoing processes of adaptation and development. This question lies at the heart of the SIEP.

The project has a major emphasis on capacity building focussing on policy and institutional development that enables communities to manage the challenges to their livelihoods. Finding the means to support peaceful and collaborative interaction of livelihood groups through the strengthening of institutions is what is meant by the references to ‘governance’ in UNEP’s work – where it relates to the environment, the term ‘environmental governance’ is used.

Some of UNEP’s activities relate directly to supporting policy and strengthening institutions, others relate to the implementation of activities. Both are linked: the practical activities are designed to be useful in themselves and to dovetail with the development of new approaches to the environment that inform policy and institutional strengthening. For example, the groundwater monitoring in IDP camps in Darfur is of vital importance to the wider relief programme, but also links to the strengthening of practices within the Groundwater and Wadis Department of the Ministry of Water Resources.

3 This model was used as the framework for a major consultation programme in Darfur underpinned much of the UNEP and Tufts programme in Darfur for the work undertaken 2007-2009 along with the research reports and assessments undertaken to that time. The workshops were highly significant in developing a common agenda on livelihoods and environment across Darfur. The two day workshops were held in 4 locations with over 160 Darfuri livelihoods professionals taking part. The record of the work is titled “Sharpening the Strategic Focus of Livelihoods Programming in the Darfur Region” Young et al 2007 UN / Tufts University. http://www.unsudanig.org/docs/Darfur%20Livelihoods%20Workshops_01%20Oct%202007.pdf



1.2. Workshop objectives

The overall objective of the workshop was:

“to achieve greater integration of the SIEP as a platform for multiplying the impact of the project”

This was made up of three specific objectives.

Objective One: To develop a shared problem analysis on environment with a focus on processes of change and the impact on livelihoods

In order to support an environment that enables adaptation within SIEP, partners need a nuanced understanding of the processes of change that are causing people to adapt their livelihood strategies and consequently their behaviour with respect to the natural environment. The main processes that are driving adaptation of livelihoods are considered under the following headings:

• population dynamics (growth, urbanisation, displacement etc) • climate change • economic changes • responding to the impacts of conflict

However, these broad processes of change are complex, impact on each other and are best broken down further into component processes. There are numerous ‘feedback loops’ between these processes and they operate in a variety of ways within the context of different livelihoods. Figures 1.1.1 to 1.3.5 in Appendix 1 record the problem analysis and the Figures A to P in Appendix 2 show a selection of the graphics that were circulated amongst participants to inform the analysis.

Objective Two: To develop a shared understanding of the implications of UNEP’s environmental governance research across the project themes.

The main themes4 of the project are:

• Climate change and forestry • Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) • Livelihoods – particularly pastoralist livelihoods • Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) – particularly Community

Environmental Action Plans (CEAPs)

The themes above have emerged as the key components of the project firstly because they have been strongly supported by the Sudanese project stakeholders (through energetic partnership and participation and via the consultations through which the project has developed); and secondly because they are mutually reinforcing – they all address the core questions of interaction between different groups managing the same natural resources together in a changing context. The role of both government and traditional leadership is important in managing these relationships, so forums for interaction of both groups are relevant to the work. These questions relate to how participatory processes are used to promote equitable management of resources and hence conflict mitigation.

The project provides information and case studies on approaches to these issues in the Sudanese context through research, consultations, study tours, and the implementation of projects. They then serve as models to be adopted, modified – or rejected – by Sudanese decision-makers in the development of policies and institutions. The combined effect is to strengthen and adapt overall approaches to environmental governance in Sudan.

UNEP has undertaken or commissioned three pieces of research relating specifically to the issue of environmental governance. A particular focus of this work has been on governance in the rural 4 In 2010 DFID requested the project be organised by theme rather than geographically and the logical framework was redrafted accordingly. This is presented in simplified form in Annex 5. The two themes focusing on South Sudan (Southern Sudan at the time) are not shown. Climate was addressed as a policy issue only and so comes under output 1 of this log frame. It has emerged as one of the 4 major pieces of work and so, in this report, is described as a project theme.



context at the interface of traditional and formal government systems. The three pieces of work are currently in the form of draft reports which were presented at the workshop. They are:

• “Governance for Peace over Resources – A review of transitions in environmental governance across Africa as a resource for peace-building and environmental management in Sudan”

• “Relationships and Resources” – this paper looks at how quality of relationships can be assessed and promoted amongst stakeholders in the environment. Stakeholders in this context refers to communities, government and other organisations.

• “Environmental Governance in Sudan – an Expert Review of Policies and Institutions”. This review, undertaken by two senior Sudanese environmental academics describes and reviews environmental policies and institutions in Sudan.

Set alongside these publications in the workshop was consideration of two major themes for UNEP’s policy work globally:

• Management of ecosystems • The green economy

These issues were presented and discussed along-side the major themes listed above on day two of the workshop. See Figures 2.1.1.1 to 2.3.4.3 in Appendix 1.

Objective Three: To enable multiplication of the impact of SIEP through mobilising the synergies among the project themes

In addition to linking the research and the thematic work, a major challenge in implementing the project is how each theme relates and reinforces each other. They all address the interaction between communities, natural resources and government.

The timing of the workshop is important: the SIEP is due to be completed in mid-2013. At the stage of the workshop in early 2012, each theme has had the opportunity to establish itself along with clear messages which need to be shared. Yet there is still enough time in the process for these messages to be influenced by, and adapted to, the messages emerging from the other themes. To be value for money, the project should produce results greater than the sum of the parts, but this can only be achieved through effective collaboration between the main themes. This is a challenging and a thrilling prospect – in addition to a multiplication of the impact in terms of quality, there is also potential for multiplication in terms of impact with each theme reaching the natural audiences of the others.

In addition to the themes listed above, the project addresses other issues on an ad hoc basis in response to requests from government partners and the UNCT. Given that major responses to these requests are not covered in programme funds, UNEP aims to be catalytic in its response, enabling new initiatives to be developed for the stakeholders involved to take forward – with or without ongoing supporting technical inputs from UNEP. Examples of this work would include energy programming (over and above that done in the climate and forestry theme) and work on population dynamics and the environment. These ad hoc pieces of work build on the analysis undertaken in the major themes and also contribute to them. See Figures 3.1.1.1 to 3.3.2 in Appendix 1.



2. Workshop participation and design

2.1. Participation – an internal or an external workshop with partners?

UNEP puts a major emphasis on its partnership with the government in Sudan. It is the government which faces the daunting challenge of supporting the people of Sudan to adapt to the multiple environmental challenges described in this report. UNEP works in partnership with government throughout the stages of problem analysis, research, synthesis, project development and implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is not to undermine UNEP’s independence or neutrality, but to emphasise the partnership. Civil society is also an important partner. This workshop was designed, however, to be an internal workshop – to address areas where we were falling short and acknowledge areas where we’d failed to achieve the degree of integration we aspire to – so the question arose as to the extent to which we should “put our own house in order” before sharing the process with partners. Should we have an “internal” workshop or should we invite partners? The involvement of UNEP’s principal donor, DFID, raised similar questions. One factor in this was that different parts of the programme felt they had made different degrees of progress and so had more or less to share with the other parts of the programme. In addition, a recent internal evaluation had identified that integrating the programme was currently a weakness. This was a disappointing conclusion for a programme with aspirations to help reverse the fragmentation of approaches to the environment within Sudan.

Following a useful period of dialogue on this, the compromise was helped by a constraint on the size of the workshop – there was enough room, physically, and in terms of managing the process for UNEP staff and consultants, and just a single representative from government for each of the themes to be invited to attend along with a small number of resource people from civil society. DFID’s lead technical advisor for the project had a track record of providing useful, but not intrusive, advice and was a valued member of the project team. Given the need to keep the workshop “internal” rather than a dissemination event, only a few UN partners were invited. UNEP fund a UNICEF position in the WASH cluster to integrate the IWRM work, and FAO have a representative on our pastoralist reference group and so both were included. UNDP were the only UN agency represented beyond our joint project participants given their key role on environment and the stated intention of both agencies to collaborate on environment. This turned into a useful process of team-building – we were not going to invite people with whom we were not ready to share our “internal” challenges, but our immediate partners are part of the solution to these challenges. Consequently, this stretched our notion of what we meant by the internal SIEP team and reinforced the sense of ‘team work’ among the partners we invited. A key aspiration in this was to establish stronger links between invitees – among partners working on issues such as climate, pastoralist livelihoods, water resource management etc.

The decision to include these partners worked well and the discussion was considerably enriched as a result, and laid a foundation to support integration of the government initiatives supported by UNEP in addition to integration of the programme itself.

2.2. Workshop design

As this workshop addressed the core of the programme with all of our main partners, it was an opportunity to develop a process of dialogue that could be replicated – both in the analysis of the environment and in the synthesis of the programme. Participatory processes and consultation are essential to equitable environmental governance, and it is therefore important to model best practice in the way in which the project itself is governed. This workshop builds on a strong track record of consultation and participation in the design of UNEP’s interventions5. For the workshop, the consultation began with its design. The three weeks’ run up to the workshop allowed a throrough process of sensitisation and feedback on the objectives and process of the workshop. The workshop design was shown on a flip chart on which feedback was received on sticky notes in the office or through email discussion arising out of the updates of the process, shown with photos of the flip chart. The final version – following two “zero drafts” is shown in Figure 3.

5 See the records of consultation on the UNEP web site: www.unep.org/sudan



Figure 3 Workshop process diagram

In addition, we were clear that we did not want three days of presentations, so we made the following decisions on how the workshop would be run:

• We would use flip charts not overhead presentations because o these would create a record that could be referred back to over the three days as

they were hung on the office walls; o presentations were shorter and more thoughtfully prepared, rather than reworking

earlier material; o they would form a basis of a workshop report that could be prepared relatively easily; o to achieve this, each session had a standard format for the flip charts with issues to

be addressed, but this still gave room for creativity in the presentation.

• We would maximise the time in groups because o we had assembled considerable expertise in the environment with all of our partners

represented so there was a need to emphasise detailed, cross-sectoral analysis rather than dissemination of key messages (these were on the flip charts);

o this acknowledged the complexity of the subject matter – we wanted to move beyond endorsing orthodox but oversimplified linear patterns of causality in linking environment and social issues. We acknowledged the complexity and gave people with the relevant expertise the opportunity to discuss cross-sectoral issues in depth.

o This enabled a shared vision for the programme to be established as the groups were designed with participants from across the project themes.



• We would use a ‘market place’ to identify linkages between themes – with each theme advertising what it could offer to other themes (selling) and theme leaders asking for collaboration (buying) from what they saw. The rationale for this was that:

o coordination would therefore become lateral, a web of interaction, rather than centralised through a top down coordination – passing through the programme coordinator. This removed a bottle neck and would enable a lot more interaction among the themes. (The benefits here are analogous to a free market of collaboration rather than a centrally planned economy/project);

o theme leaders and their teams could decide what collaboration would add value, and this would be of mutual benefit to the themes so would be more likely to be implemented;

o after the workshop, a record of transactions – actions for implementation - was made to follow up on these new initiatives. These are recorded on page 14.



3. Workshop process

The schedule of flipcharts for the short presentations and summarising the group work for these steps in the process is given in Appendix 1. The full record of these flip charts will be made available as a separate Annex to this report on line at www.unep.org/sudan under the “consultations” tab.

Day 1 – Problem analysis 1.1 Short flip chart presentations on key environmental drivers of change from experts in these

areas. The flip chart template included a column of facts that gave information about the breakdown of these processes and a corresponding column of implications of these facts.

1.2 Group work to investigate the interaction of the environmental changes in detail

1.3 Group work to review the impact of these changes on different livelihood groups across Sudan. This work referenced the model and the maps refered to in Figures 1 and 2. The group work focussed on the policies processes and institutions of the livelihood groups reviewed.

Day 2 – Environmental governance and major themes

2.1 Presentation and discussion of the major themes – IWRM, climate and forestry, pastoralism, CEAPs. The flip chart templates included the following headings: Aim; Key Objectives; Partners; Other information (eg contact details and key references); Context and National Discourse; Key Messages; Events, Milestones, Research, Outputs, Dates; and a blank area for people to contribute comments under the heading “Ideas for collaboration with other themes”. These covered three flip charts per theme.

2.2 Presentation and discussion of the environmental governance key concepts: • “Environmental Governance in Sudan – an Expert Review” • “Governance for Peace over Resources – A Review of Transitions in Environmental

Governance Across Africa as a Resource for Peace Building and Environmental Management in Sudan”

• “Relationships and Resources” • Management of ecosystems • The green economy

2.3 Working groups to integrate environmental governance ideas with project themes – these working groups were dedicated one per theme, but had representatives (“ambassadors”) from other themes

2.4 Plenary session to develop integration across the programme

Day 3 – Integration and impact 3.1 Introduction to minor themes – population dynamics and the environment; energy;

environmental mainstreaming; environmental scanning project. The same flip chart was used as per the format for the major themes above.

3.2 Theme market place

3.3 Joint planning



4. Workshop results: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 4 Flip chart presentation on population movement shown as part of the problem analysis

4.1. Shared problem analysis

The record of the inputs to this discussion, prepared by SIEP experts or resource people, provide a useful record of analysis across the project. The themes and sub themes addressed in the problem analysis is shown in Table 1 The flip chart presentations are shown in Figures 1.1.1 to 1.1.7. in Appendix 1 and an example is given in Figure 4 above. They identify seven major processes that relate to changes in the environment. These were broken down into a number of sub-processes along with the implications of these processes. The graphics in Appendix 2 were distributed to inform the analysis.

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

11

Tabl

e 1

Proc

esse

s an

d su

b-pr

oces

ses

driv

ing

or m

akin

g en

viro

nmen

tal c

hang

e in

Sud

an

Popu

latio

n G

row

thPo

pula

tion

Mov

emen

t C

limat

e C

hang

e C

onfli

ct

Econ

omic

and

po

litic

al c

hang

e D

efor

esta

tion

Urb

anis

atio

n

Gro

wth

in th

e to

tal

popu

latio

n R

ural

Urb

an

Mig

ratio

n In

crea

sing

ly

varia

ble

rain

fall

Ass

et s

tripp

ing

Sec

essi

on o

f Sou

th

Sud

an

Dec

reas

ed fo

rest

co

ver

Incr

easi

ng u

rban

po

pula

tion

Urb

an g

row

th

Pas

tora

l mig

ratio

n S

ever

ity o

f dro

ught

D

ispl

acem

ent

Eco

nom

ic

adju

stm

ent

Incr

ease

d en

ergy

de

man

d R

eal e

stat

e bo

om

Yout

h B

ulge

S

easo

nal l

abou

r Te

mpe

ratu

re

incr

ease

Li

velih

oods

and

ec

onom

ic c

hang

es

Stal

led

dece

ntra

lisat

ion

Cha

nges

in

livel

ihoo

ds

Neg

ativ

e en

viro

nmen

tal

cons

eque

nces

Sec

essi

on o

f Sou

th

Sud

an

Per

man

ent

urba

nisa

tion

for

labo

ur

Incr

ease

d flo

odin

g Lo

ss o

f gov

erna

nce

Sea

rch

for n

on-o

il re

venu

e P

hysi

cal

deve

lopm

ent

Dua

l eco

nom

y

R

ural

per

man

ent

labo

ur m

igra

tion

Varia

ble

river

flow

Inad

equa

te s

ervi

ces

P

ush

fact

ors

(mig

ratio

n aw

ay

from

are

as o

f en

viro

men

tal

decl

ine)

Cha

nges

in th

e co

asta

l env

ironm

ent

W

eak

natio

nal

stra

tegy

for

urba

nisa

tion

C

onfli

ct

disp

lace

men

t

Figu

re 1

.1.1

App

2.1

Figu

re 1

.1.2

App

2.1

Figu

re 1

.1.3

App

2.2

Figu

re 1

.1.4

App

2.3

Figu

re 1

.1.5

App

2.4

Figu

re 1

.1.6

App

2.5

Figu

re 1

.1.7

The

figur

es h

ere

refe

r to

the

flip

char

t pre

sent

atio

ns in

App

endi

x 1

/ Ann

ex 2

. Th

e A

ppen

dice

s re

fer t

o th

e gr

aphi

cs in

App

endi

x 2



Figure 5. Working group analysis on factors affecting the environment

The next step - identification of how these processes are related and impact each other - was more complex. The analysis here was done in groups, with experts representing technical areas from across the programme allocated into multi-disciplinary groups. This gave the opportunity for detailed discussion of nuanced linkages across different areas of environmental degradation. The building of a shared understanding was developed by the network of detailed discussion that took place across the five working groups. Participation was largest on the first day, with more representation of UNEP’s partners on this day – giving additional wealth to these discussions. After the flow diagrams (Figures 1.2.1 to 1.2.5 and Figure 5 above) were made, areas of particular significance were identified and fed into the discussion in the plenary session. The exchange of ideas was rich and the linkages made on environmental and social issues reflected the genuine complexity of the issues. Therefore, the process did not conclude with a simplified model of causality. The workshop would be at risk of producing a falsified picture if it had claimed to explain in simple terms the links between the issues identified. However, the theme of environmental governance features in the causal diagrams highly. This set up the discussion for day two and endorsed the focus on this within UNEP’s programme.

The processes combined to produce a shared problem analysis – on the one hand some key aspects have been recorded to give a shared baseline understanding across the project themes and programme partners. On the other hand, the depth and complexity of the linkages were explored collaboratively so that key shared aspects of analysis have been looked at in detail and the complex web of connections made by programme stakeholders builds a better sharing of understanding – reflecting the complexity of the subject.

The discussion of how these processes affect livelihoods ensured that the analysis was grounded in the reality of particular case studies rather than being too general. Differrent livelihoods are more or less vulnerable to different processes of change and therefore require targeted intervention in the policy and institutional arena for support. However some of the key themes run across them, for example the need to resolve issues relating to land tenure. The livelihood groups addressed, each by one of the working groups with the corresponding record in Appendix 1 (see the Annex on line)

• Rainfed Agriculture Figure 1.3.1 • Gum Arabic Production Figure 1.3.2 • Irrigated Agriculture Figure 1.3.3.1 and Figure 1.3.3.2 • Pastoralism Figure 1.3.4 • Urban Poor Figure 1.3.5



4.2. Environmental governance and main themes

Figure 6 Flip chart presentation of CBNRM / CEAP programming

For the main themes please see Figures 2.1.1.1 to 2.1.4.4

The main messaging on these issues will be shared in the final reports of the three environmental governance reports. The discussion in these groups fed into the process of finalising these reports. See figures 2.2.3 to 2.2.5.

Some of the key themes coming out of the group work included:

• the project focus on policy and institutional development was strongly endorsed; • there is a particular need to resolve problems of fragmented environmental policy. Cross

sectoral linkages were identified as being important (land and water, climate change and pastoralism etc.). The environmental concerns identified need to be internally consistent, reflect agendas across the themes addressed and then be embedded in wider policy and planning processes.

• a need exists to engage senior political decision-makers on environmental issues to enable change to be led from a high level within government;



• promote genuine collaboration between communities and government – this issue came up numerous times within the group. The research material drew attention to equitable “co-management” to describe systems of environmental governance of shared resources.

• An important issue emerged relating to the identification of appropriate representation of livelihood groups or other groups to engage in participatory processes governing access to natural resources;

• The issues addressed in the CEAP programme reflect practical challenges of participatory co-management approaches. These bear out the issues addressed in the research and also provide practical test cases for how participatory approaches could be strengthened in other aspects of the programme. The work on CEAPs emerges as work that could increasingly cut across all the other aspects of work.

4.3. Programme implementation

Figure 7 Market place results for the pastoralist livelihoods theme



The workshop bore out the importance of the need for the major themes to integrate their approaches. It was clear that as each component becomes more established, there are some areas where they approach similar issues from different perspectives. With immediate action, complementarity would serve to energise these themes. With action delayed, there would be a need to revisit approaches later after being established now in isolation. For example, all four of the major themes would address, to a greater or lesser extent, the question of how state water corporations, traditional leadership and communities interact to make decisions about siting water points – an issue core to the water programme; important to how climate change adaptation will be implemented in rural Sudan; a major concern in pastoralist livelihoods and an area where lessons learnt in CEAP programming can inform the development of working models of participation - all groups ‘bought’ participation from CEAP in the theme market place. See Figures 3.2.1 to 3.2.6 for the results of the theme market place.

Integration at this stage of the programme will allow a multiplication of the impact of the work carried out across each theme into the outcomes of the other themes. One of the important concerns was how to engage more broadly the voice of pastoralists in the other themes – in water, forestry, CEAPs, climate and in environmental-policy making. An understanding of the impacts of climate change emerged as an area in which there was some divergence of views – with the relative significance of the increasing variability of rainfall and the extent to which rainfall can be understood to be decreasing (or decreasing from the Fifties to the Eighties and some rebound having taken place since then).

In reviewing the minor themes, the following issues emerged:

• Energy has significant links with the climate and forestry work. Energy is therefore an activity that UNEP would continue to address where it links with climate and forestry. Improving efficiency and management of woodfuel and biofuels would be relevant to the UNEP programme, but issues such as rural electrification would be better taken up with agencies with mandates more closely connected with that field.

• The work on population dynamics and environmental change has links relating particularly to the participation of different groups – such as different livelihood groups, youth, women, pastoralists – in environmental governance. A related issue is the way these processes of engagement change in the context of migration into cities. In discussion across the themes, the importance of understanding population dynamics was identified as being important in developing policies and practices that were genuinely participatory.

• UNEP’s work on environmental mainstreaming is an important avenue for the results across the themes to feed into UN and NGO programming in Sudan. Therefore, results from the themes need to feed into humanitarian mainstreaming work so as to be able to inform annual work-planning in government, UN, donor and NGO project cycles.

The follow-up activities are recorded in Table 2 below.



Table 2 Follow-up activities for effective integration of the project themes

Who What By When

IWRM 1. Support to CEAP team by water resources officer

2. Meeting with pastoralist group

3. Stakeholders analysis for Wadi Nyala

(a) Shared pastoral stakeholder report;

(b) Meeting in management week;

(c) Link with facilitators.

1. Feb 2012

2. March 2012

3. April 2012

Pastoralist Livelihoods

1. Population: share draft on pastoralism and demography

2. Population: meeting to explore collaboration

3. Climate change: Further discussions

1. Management week (Feb 2012)

2. Management week (Feb 2012)

3. management week (Feb 2012)

Energy 1. Draft consultation energy concept note to share

2. Input for energy questions and relationships to key stakeholders

1. Ahead of next management week (Feb 2012)

2. Recurrent meetings

Climate Change

1. Gender, climate change and conflict

2. Forestry and energy

1. Feb 2012 Meeting

2. Feb/March 2012

Population Dynamics

1. Facilitation of meeting between national population council

2. Provide information and dates to energy

1. End March 2012

2. End Feb 2012

CEAP 1. Introduction on CEAP to IWRM partners/stakeholders and agree on training request needs

2. CEAP manual to include inputs from other themes

3. Meetings with NAPA focal points Darfur to explore and agree on usefulness and training options for NAPA in CEAP methods

1. End Feb 2012

2. Mid-March 2012

3. Ahead of next management week (Feb 2012)

Overall Programme

1. Develop common understanding including potential research collaboration between climate change, IWRM, environmental governance and forestry. This will be done through a network of bilateral meetings headed by the individual team leaders (IWRM, CC, forestry and governance) followed by a joint meeting in April

2. Update influencing strategy cards

3. Compile key data/ statistics related to UNEP programme (including population, deforestation rate etc.) and review every 3 months

1. March/April 2012

2. March 2012

3. Feb 2012



4.4. Conclusion

Overall, the workshop process worked. Day one endorsed the overarching problem analysis of concurrent processes of change whilst highlighting the complexity of the interaction of these. The relevance of environmental governance and livelihoods was reaffirmed. Day two drew out the relevance of the environmental governance research pieces to the major themes and their relevance to each other. Encouragingly, the workshop confirmed the relevance of the main themes of work to each other and to the problem analysis of the previous day. The strong links between these major themes reinforces them as the core focus of the project. Day three was a useful platform to show the significance of the other activities, and to develop concrete steps for promoting the integration of the project. In each of these three processes, we had an emphasis on mixing group work with people from across the themes so that the results represented shared views. The workshop therefore achieved its stated aim: “to achieve greater integration of the SIEP as a platform for multiplying the impact of the project”.

The challenge now lies in building upon this platform towards the SIEP purpose: “to improve sustainable and equitable governance, management and use of environmental resources” for impact towards “assisting the people of Sudan achieve peace, recovery and development on an environmentally sustainable basis”. The outputs in each of the themes must coalesce to make a greater combined outcome and impact. For example, pastoralist livelihoods analysis must inform water resource management policy work and so on. In addition, all the outputs of the themes need to work through the humanitarian mainstreaming work to influence the humanitarian work plan and other planning processes for 2013.

Achieving higher-level project outcomes is about partnership. We were grateful that our partners attended the workshop and it endorsed UNEP’s approach to tackle fragmentation within the environmental sector, by multilateral collaboration. The workshop promoted a shared vision across the project stakeholders from government, civil society and the funding agency for the project. UNEP wishes to maintain the multilateral nature of the group that formed across government as part of promoting harmonisation of approaches to environment more broadly in Sudan.

This process of bringing a collective approach to an issue was a microcosm for the main theme of the workshop relating to governance. It served as a participatory approach to make decisions over how the UNEP programme should operate. It built consensus and developed a workable plan of action. This reflects core processes in the SIEP – the records of consultation and shared vision documents, key building blocks of the programme. They build on the foundation laid by the demonstration projects and the research reports. UNEP’s forthcoming report “Governance for Peace over Resources” defines environmental governance as: “the norms, rules and institutions that regulate the decisions, actions and interactions of government, civil society and the private sector in relation to the environment”.

The participatory process in developing shared ideas in this workshop does not obviate UNEP’s multiple accountabilities to its governing council, the UNCT, its government partners, project partners or the funding agency, but rather enhances these by promoting a shared vision amongst these stakeholders. This mirrors the ideas that link the project outcome (purpose) and the expected impact relating to peace and development. By promoting participatory, sustainable and equitable means of interaction between livelihood groups, the intention is to promote the conditions for peace and development. This emphasis on governance then is really about promoting good relationships between different users of natural resources and supporting the role of government in the challenging task of overseeing, enabling and promoting these relationships amongst resource users. UNEP’s report “Relationships and Resources” addresses this in more detail.

During the workshop, a clear challenge was laid down to translate the existing project themes into real action on the ground – to provide practical support for resource management in a number of key locations in Sudan. The importance of partnerships with local government and implementing agencies that are better placed to engage at the community level was acknowledged, but the challenge made remains. It is encapsulated in the item on the parking lot item “Um Dafoog or Blue Nile”. This refers to two large hafirs, Um Dafoog in South Darfur and Bout in Blue Nile State, where there is competition over water and the associated natural resources. The provision of these large water bodies has changed migration patterns, settlement and, above all, livelihoods. The suggestion



made in the workshop was that UNEP should be able to bring together the analysis and experience from across its themes and support government and civil society to work with communities to find real solutions for collaboration over sharing these resources.

The integration of the themes and the building of shared approaches with all of UNEP’s partners is a significant step in enabling this type of work to be realised and supporting integrated approaches to governance of the natural environment across Sudan.



5. Looking ahead – emerging SIEP follow-on strategy

The UNEP team are now working towards the completion of the current programme and inauguration of follow on and/or hand-over activities in mid-2013. This process will be informed by an evaluation of the work undertaken to date. The evaluation will look at outcomes of current and previous projects going back to the publication of the Post Conflict Environmental Assessment in 2007. The evaluation will be made in December 2012 and January 2013. Prior to that, during the autumn, a series of events to disseminate results of the programme will be made. This will allow the results coming out of the work during 2012 to be highlighted and to inform work planning process for government, international humanitarian and development agencies for 2013.

UNEP has developed a draft strategy based on the results of work to date and based on the areas of most fruitful collaboration with government partners so far. This will be developed and refined in wider consultation with environmental stakeholders in Sudan during 2012 and early 2013. UNEP’s proposed focus of activity builds on the core themes of the current programme – Climate Change, IWRM, Pastoralism, Community Environmental Action Plans. The following changes are proposed:

• Pastoralism becomes livestock and drylands to increase the emphasis on ecosystems and in acknowledgement of the environmental and economic importance of other livestock production systems.

• The role of forestry will be enhanced and addressed as a major theme.

• The Community Environmental Action Plans will use the more generic title of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). This work will be integrated across the other themes so that best practice in community engagement informs all aspects of the programme.

UNEP plans to maintain the role of responding to ad hoc environmental concerns and acting as focal point for environment within the UN system. The ad hoc environmental work includes catalytic work to develop activities taken forward by others and advice on issues that arise. Initiatives that this work has included so far include: providing advice for a national environmental laboratory; a strategic assessment that led to a major recycling project; a review of alternative energy options for Darfur; advice and brokering of a major urban water supply project for Darfur; advice and brokering work on environmental vulnerability mapping in Darfur; analysis and a workshop on scaling up LPG use to reduce deforestation; development of a policy agenda on population dynamics and the environment; advising on wetland ecosystems in Sudan and numerous other issues.

Acting as focal point for environment within the UN includes environmental screening of humanitarian work plans, the UNDAF and other programmes in addition to providing advice on issues that arise. An important component of this work has been brokering funding for other agencies to implement projects that build on UNEP’s research and policy work. Having an ambitious target for this has ensured UNEP’s active engagement with donor and UN project dialogue and to ensure relevance of the research agenda. A leading role in the Darfur International Water Conference was an example of this.

UNEP’s core mandate is to integrate science and policy in the area of environment to support development. Therefore, UNEP’s focus will be supporting government on policy and institutional issues in these core areas. UNEP plan to undertake this work based out of the existing office in Khartoum. This office would also undertake the role of responding to the ad hoc environmental issues that arise, lead the environmental mainstreaming activities as the UN environmental focal point and undertake advocacy and promotion of projects based on environmental best practice and research generated under the programme. In addition, this office would be able to provide liaison and support to regional UNEP work in which Sudan is a component, such as programmes on the Nile for example.

The work on IWRM is well advanced with a structure laid out that has been developed in partnership with MWR as well as MEFPD. It comprises policy development and capacity building and the implementation of catchment management in a number of degraded wadis across Sudan. Similarly the core work on climate change has been developed in partnership with HCENR and will run into the next project cycle. A joint project note has been developed with FNC for improving forest management



in Darfur. This needs additional work to be expanded to consider forestry issues at the national level. Supporting the emerging REDD+ agenda will be important. Details of these joint pieces of work are available at the UNEP website. On livestock and drylands, the future work will include other production systems such as ranching, group ranching, zero grazing systems etc. due to their economic significance in Sudan. This work will have strong linkages with other themes such as water resource management. Locating pastoralism within this broader context will enable stronger analysis of policy options.

Following the secession of South Sudan, a new baseline survey for the environment is needed. The Ministry of Environment Forests and Physical Development have requested UNEP undertake a follow up to the Post Conflict Environmental Assessment. UNEP looks forward to this task. Amongst other benefits this would support the growing need to emphasise the role of the environment in Sudan as the foundation of the economy. Having better data will support analysis of the contribution of the natural environment to the gross domestic product (GDP) and therefore promote investment into sustainable natural resources management. It would also enable new issues relating to environment to be addressed such as the emergence of gold mining and the increasing challenges of regulating the environmental performance of agricultural concessions. The role of the “Green Economy” is important in Sudan. Environmental impacts need to be accounted for in projects so that the negative impacts don’t undermine other groups who may be living in more marginal circumstances.

In addition to national projects run out of Khartoum, UNEP is planning to form partnerships with other UN agencies to implement regional projects. These projects would bring benefits of new approaches to environment to community contexts. They will mutually inform the policy development processes and be informed by them, improving the quality of both activities. By implementing projects through a number of strategic partnerships, UNEP and partners would support integration of emerging environmental best practice to different states in Sudan, and across key UN agencies. These projects will relate to integrated natural resource management, with different emphases according to the region and the UN partner. Management of wadi catchments will feature highly as a means of integrating natural resources management across the themes, supporting Sudan’s national initiative on IWRM. At the current time, the following major partnerships are under active consideration:

• UNEP/UNOPS work on water resources management in urban areas based on IWRM, Darfur and Eastern Sudan, building on the existing partnership in Darfur

• UNEP/FAO collaboration in Darfur on integrated natural resources management with a focus on agricultural livelihoods

• UNEP/UNDP collaboration on integrated natural resources management to support adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The location of the NAPA pilot projects is under consideration.

In general, UNEP would take a technical role on these projects since the other agencies have comparative advantages in implementing projects on the ground. This would enable UNEP to maintain a relatively light foot print and focus on maintaining the highest technical standards of environmental programming and analysis. For more remote water harvesting work, UNEP would be more likely to work with NGOs or government as implementing partners, in order to minimise costs of this work and therefore develop models of implementation that may be more viable in the longer term. A hybrid version of working with an NGO and with UNOPS is under consideration for Wadi El Ku in North Darfur.

The emerging format for the programme can be shown as having four main technical themes each of which works with 3 areas of activity: Policy & institutional strengthening; mainstreaming & advocacy (UN focal point); implementation of integrated projects. These are shown in Table 3 below.

UNEP’s work is governed by an agreement with its counterpart, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Physical Development. This ministry facilitates collaboration with other Ministries. This collaborative approach promotes integration of environmental concerns across government. By establishing steering committees for the relevant work streams (currently they exist for the work on climate adaptation and pastoralism and one has been proposed for the IWRM work), continuity and national ownership of these agenda are promoted. They also serve to integrate concerns between themes.



Table 3 Draft programme matrix for consultation

Core Activity Areas

Policy & Institutional

strengthening

Mainstreaming & Advocacy

(UN Environment focal point)

Implementation in integrated

projects (e.g. Wadi El Ku)

Demonstrate community

based approaches

(CBNRM)

Additional activities /

notes

Climate � � � �

IWRM � � � �

Groundwater data

management; wetlands

Livestock & drylands � � � �

Mai

n te

chni

cal t

hem

es

Forestry � � � �

Additional community

forest implementation

Additional activities

National Environmental Assessment / PCEA follow

up

Training and cross cutting

policy support. Ad hoc

assistance

Work plan screening;

advocacy; assist project design for

other UN / government

Training and advocacy for

other organisations

This strategy is discussed here for information and for feedback. It is shared so that it may be refined and modified with the feedback of others. UNEP welcomes your comments and suggestions.



Appendix 1: Presentation list – see Annex online for flip chart records

A list of the flip chart presentations and results of group work is made below. The long version of the report includes photographs of all these. This is an important record of the themes of the workshop, however it is not presented in this short version of the report in order to reduce printing costs and the environmental impact of producing the report. Please refer to the photographs under the “Consultations” tab at www.unep.org/sudan

Day 1 – Problem Analysis Processes of change affecting the environment – Flipchart Presentations Figure 1.1.1 Population Growth Figure 1.1.2 Population Movement Figure 1.1.3 Climate Change Figure 1.1.4 Conflict Figure 1.1.5 Economic and Political Change Figure 1.1.6 Deforestation Figure 1.1.7 Urbanisation Interaction of processes of change – Group Work Figure 1.2.1 Groupwork 1 Figure 1.2.2 Groupwork 2 Figure 1.2.3 Groupwork 3 Figure 1.2.4 Groupwork 4 Figure 1.2.5 Groupwork 5 Impact of processes of change on livelihood groups in Sudan – Group Work Figure 1.3.1 Rainfed Agriculture Figure 1.3.2 Gum Arabic Production Figure 1.3.3.1 Irrigated Agriculture (1) Figure 1.3.3.2 Irrigated Agriculture (2) Figure 1.3.4 Pastoralism Figure 1.3.5 Urban Poor Day 2 – Environmental governance and major themes Major SIEP themes Figure 2.1.1.1 IWRM (1) Figure 2.1.1.2 IWRM (2) Figure 2.1.1.3 IWRM (3) Figure 2.1.1.4 IWRM (4) Figure 2.1.2.1 Climate Change and Forestry (1) Figure 2.1.2.2 Climate Change and Forestry (2) Figure 2.1.2.3 Climate Change and Forestry (3) Figure 2.1.2.4 Climate Change and Forestry (4) Figure 2.1.3.1 Pastoralism (1) Figure 2.1.3.2 Pastoralism (2) Figure 2.1.3.3 Pastoralism (3) Figure 2.1.3.4 Pastoralism (4) Figure 2.1.4.1 CEAP (1) Figure 2.1.4.2 CEAP (2) Figure 2.1.4.3 CEAP (3) Figure 2.1.4.4 CEAP (4) Key environmental governance concepts Session 2.2.1 (No figure) “Governance for Peace over resources – A review of transitions in

environmental governance across Africa” - Presentation of upcoming report Session 2.2.2 (No figure) “Relationships and Resources” - Presentation of upcoming report Figure 2.2.3.1 “Environmental Governance in Sudan – an Expert Review” - Presentation of

upcoming report (1)



Figure 2.2.3.2 “Environmental Governance in Sudan – an Expert Review” - Presentation of upcoming report (2)

Figure 2.2.3.3 “Environmental Governance in Sudan – an Expert Review” - Presentation of upcoming report (3)

Figure 2.2.4 Ecosystem Services Presentation Figure 2.2.5 Green Economy Presentation Environmental governance ideas with project themes – Working group Figure 2.3.1.1 IWRM Working Group (1) Figure 2.3.1.2 IWRM Working Group (2) Figure 2.3.2.1 Climate Change and Forestry Working Group Figure 2.3.3.1 Pastoralism Working Group (1) Figure 2.3.3.2 Pastoralism Working Group (2) Figure 2.3.3.3 Pastoralism Working Group (3) Figure 2.3.3.4 Pastoralism Working Group (4) Figure 2.3.4.1 CEAP Working Group (1) Figure 2.3.4.2 CEAP Working Group (2) Figure 2.3.4.3 CEAP Working Group (3) Plenary session to develop integration across the programme – no Figures Day 3 – Integration and impact Minor SIEP Themes Figure 3.1.1.1 Population dynamics and Environmental Change (1) Figure 3.1.1.2 Population dynamics and Environmental Change (2) Figure 3.1.2.1 Alternative Energy (1) Figure 3.1.2.2 Alternative Energy (2) Figure 3.1.2.3 Alternative Energy (3) Figure 3.1.3.1 Environmental Mainstreaming (1) Figure 3.1.3.2 Environmental Mainstreaming (2) Figure 3.1.3.3 Environmental Mainstreaming (3) Figure 3.1.4.1 Environmental Resource Scanning Project Theme market place results Figure 3.2.1 IWRM Figure 3.2.2 Climate Change Figure 3.2.3 Pastoralism Figure 3.2.4 CEAPs Figure 3.2.5 Alternative Energy Figure 3.2.6 Population dynamics and Environmental Change Joint planning Figure 3.3.1 SIEP Theme Linkage Parking Lot Figure 3.3.2 UNEP Partners Mapping

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

24

App

endi

x 2:

Ref

eren

ce m

ater

ial

App

endi

x 2.

1. P

opul

atio

n dy

nam

ics

and

land

use

Fi

gure

A: S

udan

, Sou

ther

n Su

dan

and

Sout

h Su

dan

Popu

latio

n G

row

th

Sou

rce:

Sud

an N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

n C

ounc

il (2

011)

Nat

iona

l Pop

ulat

ion

Pol

icy:

The

Cur

rent

Situ

atio

n, C

halle

nges

and

Per

spec

tives

Fi

gure

B: S

udan

Ave

rage

Pop

ulat

ion

Gro

wth

Rat

e S

ourc

e: S

udan

Nat

iona

l Pop

ulat

ion

Cou

ncil

(201

1) N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

n P

olic

y: T

he C

urre

nt S

ituat

ion,

Cha

lleng

es a

nd P

ersp

ectiv

es

Fi

gure

C: P

erce

ntag

e of

Tot

al P

opul

atio

n by

Sta

te

Sou

rce:

200

9 P

opul

atio

n C

ensu

s

Figu

re D

: Nom

ad D

istr

ibut

ion

by S

tate

S

ourc

e: S

udan

Nat

iona

l Cen

sus

2008


UNEP Sudan 2012 project workshop report.pdf 25

Figure E: Deforestation in South Darfur – Um Chelluta Source: UNEP Sudan Post Conflict Environmental Assessment (2007)

This map shows changes in land use largely associated with population growth. Agricultural land has expanded considerably. Transhumant cattle herding is an important livelihood in the area. There are

challenges in managing these growing livelihoods together and there has been conflict in this area.


UNEP Sudan 2012 project workshop report.pdf 26

Appendix 2.2. Rainfall and climate Across the Sahel there is a general trend of rainfall declining from a wet period in the 1950s to a low point in the 1980s. Since then there has been some recovery in the overall trend, however the frequency of drought has been increasing. This pattern is seen in the rainfall records for El Fasher shown below, where 16 of the 20 driest years on record have taken place since 1972. The records from the Sahel also show an increasing frequency of drought since the 1970s.

Figure F: Mean Seasonal Rainfall In the Sahel 1900 - 2009

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NOAA NCDC) Global Historical Climatology Network data, 1900-2009. Averages over 20-10N, 20W-10E

Figure G: El Fasher Annual Rainfall Source: UNEP Water resource management in humanitarian programming in Darfur: The case for

drought preparedness (2008)

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

27

Fi

gure

H: A

vera

ge R

ainf

all I

sohy

ets

1941

-197

0, 1

971-

2000

S

ourc

e: D

ata

prov

ided

by

Suda

n M

eteo

rolo

gica

l Aut

horit

y (2

012)

The

decl

inin

g ra

in fr

om th

e 19

50s

to 1

980s

can

be

seen

in th

e pa

ttern

of I

sohy

ets

mov

ing

sout

hwar

ds d

urin

g th

e se

cond

hal

f of t

he 2

0th

cent

ury.

How

ever

, th

is S

outh

war

d tre

nd s

houl

dn’t

be e

xtra

pola

ted

and

assu

med

to a

pply

to e

ither

the

1990

s or

200

0s -

as c

an b

e se

en b

y th

e in

crea

sing

tren

d in

rain

fall

sinc

e th

e 19

80s

show

n in

Fig

ures

A a

nd B

abo

ve.

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

28

App

endi

x 2.

3. M

alad

aptiv

e liv

elih

oods

cha

nges

in re

spon

se to

con

flict

Figu

re I:

Mal

adap

tive

Live

lihoo

ds –

bric

k m

akin

g in

a m

ango

fore

st

Figu

re J

: Mal

adap

tive

Live

lihoo

ds –

ring

ing

trees

to a

ccel

erat

e de

fore

stat

ion

Sou

rce:

UN

EP

(200

8), D

estit

utio

n, d

isto

rtion

and

def

ores

tatio

n –

The

impa

ct o

f con

flict

on

the

timbe

r and

fuel

woo

d tra

de in

Dar

fur

Li

velih

ood

chan

ges

are

defin

ed a

s “m

alad

apta

tions

” if t

hey

eith

er u

nder

min

e th

eir o

wn

viab

ility

or a

dver

sely

affe

ct th

e im

pact

s of

oth

ers.

Fig

ure

K s

how

s an

ar

ea w

here

peo

ple

have

sta

rted

to m

ake

bric

ks in

a m

ango

fore

st.

This

sw

itch

of li

velih

oods

is m

alad

aptiv

e in

that

the

sust

aina

ble

prod

uctio

n of

man

gos

will

be lo

st a

s th

ese

trees

are

des

troye

d. T

he b

ricks

are

mad

e fro

m th

e so

il ex

cava

ted

from

aro

und

the

root

s of

the

trees

. Fi

gure

L s

how

s tre

es th

at h

ave

been

rin

ged

so th

at th

ey d

ie a

nd c

an b

e cu

t. T

his

is a

n ex

ampl

e of

whe

re tr

aditi

onal

rul

es fo

r th

e m

anag

emen

t of t

he e

nviro

nmen

t hav

e be

en s

et a

side

in th

e co

ntex

t of c

onfli

ct.

Con

flict

has

und

erm

ined

the

mea

ns b

y w

hich

nat

ural

reso

urce

s ar

e m

anag

ed a

nd a

lso

brou

ght a

dis

torte

d ec

onom

y th

at le

ads

to c

hang

es

in b

ehav

iour

.

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

29

Figu

re K

: Mal

adap

tive

Live

lihoo

d as

a re

sult

of C

onfli

ct –

Aba

lla

past

oral

ists

taki

ng u

p fir

ewoo

d co

llect

ion

Focu

s G

roup

3, 2

May

200

8, N

ur e

l Hud

a ne

ar G

oka,

Wes

t Dar

fur

Sou

rce:

You

ng e

t al (

2010

) Liv

elih

oods

, Pow

er a

nd C

hoic

e: T

he

Vul

nera

bilit

y of

the

Nor

ther

n R

izay

gat,

Dar

fur,

Sud

an

0

500

1,00

0

1,50

0

2,00

0

2,50

0

3,00

0

3,50

0

Pre

-con

flict

2005

2008

Price SDG for 20m3 load of firewood

Gen

eina

El F

ashe

r

Figu

re L

: The

driv

er fo

r liv

elih

ood

chan

ges

– in

crea

sing

pric

es fo

r fir

ewoo

d du

ring

the

Dar

fur c

risis

Sou

rce:

UN

EP

(200

8), D

estit

utio

n, d

isto

rtion

and

def

ores

tatio

n –

The

impa

ct o

f co

nflic

t on

the

timbe

r and

fuel

woo

d tra

de in

Dar

fur

An

exam

ple

of m

alad

aptiv

e liv

elih

oods

is s

how

n ab

ove

– on

in w

hich

pas

tora

lists

are

mov

ing

into

an

unsu

stai

nabl

e liv

elih

ood

base

d on

col

lect

ion

of fi

rew

ood.

Th

e pr

ices

for f

irew

ood

wen

t up

subs

tant

ially

dur

ing

the

cris

is.

This

ana

lysi

s m

akes

the

case

for s

uppo

rting

eith

er tr

aditi

onal

or n

ew o

ptio

ns fo

r liv

elih

oods

in

orde

r to

prov

ide

help

find

a ro

ute

out o

f con

flict

. C

aref

ul a

naly

sis

of th

e ec

onom

y, a

nd o

f the

mea

ns b

y w

hich

reso

urce

s ar

e m

anag

ed, i

s ne

eded

in o

rder

to

desi

gn a

ppro

pria

te s

uppo

rt.



Appendix 2.4. Economic changes Figure M: Economic Growth in Sudan (% change in Real Gross Domestic Product, IMF)

Source: IMF Data and Statistics Webpage: http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm

This graph shows a high degree of variability in GDP growth during the 1980s and 1990s, when Sudan had a predominantly agricultural economy. The variability was associated with variable rainfall and fluctuating international commodity prices. More recently Sudan has experienced strong and stable growth associated with oil production. However, as agricultural exports again become more important to the economy, rising climate variability is likely to increase the variability of economic growth once more. Investing in natural resource management such as water harvesting and forestry has potential to mitigate the impacts of some of this variability.

Figure N: State Populations and Poverty Source: 2010 Poverty Survey.

.

This chart shows, for each state, what percentage of the population is living below the national poverty line of 113.8 SDG/person/month, as assessed in the 2010 Poverty Survey

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

31

App

endi

x 2.

5. D

efor

esta

tion

Figu

re O

: Woo

dfue

l Sup

ply

and

Dem

and

Bal

ance

in S

udan

(200

0)

Sou

rce:

WIS

DO

M –

Eas

t Afri

ca. W

oodf

uel I

nteg

rate

d S

uppl

y/D

eman

d O

verv

iew

Map

ping

(WIS

DO

M) M

etho

dolo

gy. S

patia

l woo

dfue

l pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

anal

ysis

of s

elec

ted

Afri

can

coun

tries

. Pre

pare

d by

R D

rigo

for t

he F

AO

For

estry

Dep

artm

ent –

Woo

d E

nerg

y.

��

Fi

gure

P: W

oodf

uel S

uppl

y an

d D

eman

d B

alan

ce in

Sud

an fo

llow

ing

sece

ssio

n of

Sou

th S

udan

S

ourc

e: W

ISD

OM

Sud

an -

Pre

limin

ary

resu

lts. P

rese

ntat

ion

mad

e by

R. D

rigo

at th

e jo

int S

IFS

IA/F

NC

Wor

ksho

p, M

oAI,

Kha

rtoum

, on

1st M

arch

201

2.

The

two

map

s on

this

pag

e sh

ow th

e w

oodf

uel d

efic

it fo

r S

udan

bef

ore

and

afte

r the

sec

essi

on o

f Sou

th S

udan

. Th

e ra

te o

f def

ores

tatio

n in

the

Rep

ublic

of

Sud

an ju

mpe

d fro

m 0

.7%

to 2

.2%

per

yea

r as

a r

esul

t of s

eces

sion

of t

he

Sou

th.

In s

impl

ified

term

s, th

e se

para

tion

of S

outh

Sud

an r

emov

ed ¼

of t

he

popu

latio

n an

d ¾

of

the

fore

st r

esou

rces

, in

add

ition

to

¾ o

f th

e pe

trole

um

reso

urce

s.

In b

oth

case

s it

is c

lear

that

sta

tes

in c

entra

l Sud

an h

ave

a m

ajor

woo

dfue

l de

feci

t an

d im

port

woo

dfue

l fro

m p

erip

hera

l reg

ions

. C

ontro

l of t

he c

harc

oal

and

firew

ood

trade

is a

con

flict

dyn

amic

in th

e ar

eas

of s

uppl

y. D

efor

esta

tion

in S

udan

is

at c

risis

lev

els

and

a m

ajor

effo

rt is

nee

ded

to r

ever

se t

he

defo

rest

atio

n.



Appendix 2.6. Additional reference material Websites

UNEP Sudan: www.unep.org/sudan

Sudan Ministry of Environment Forestry and Physical Development (MEFPD): www.mepd.gov.sd

Sudan Ministry of Water Resources (MWR): www.moiwr.gov.sd

UNOPS Sudan http://www.unops.org/english/whatwedo/Locations/Africa/Pages/Sudan-Project-Centre.aspx

Tufts University, Sudan Environment and Livelihoods Programme: http://sites.tufts.edu/feinstein/program/sudan-environment-and-livelihoods

Darfur Development and Reconstruction Agency (DRA): http://www.dra-sudan.org/new/

SOS Sahel Sudan http://www.sahel.org.uk/sudan.html

Sudanese Environment Conservation Society (SECS): http://secs.org.sd/

ProAct Network http://www.proactnetwork.org/

DFID Sudan http://www.dfid.gov.uk/sudan

UNDP Sudan Environment http://www.sd.undp.org/focus_environment.htm

UNEP Environmental Mainstreaming in Humanitarian Action Resource Centre: http://postconflict.unep.ch/humanitarianaction/

UNEP Environment and Peacekeeping page: http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/Introduction/EnvironmentalCooperationforPeacebuilding/EnvironmentandPeacekeeping/tabid/54580/Default.aspx

UNEP Ecosystems Management Page: http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/

UNEP Green Economy Initiative: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

UNEP Disasters and Conflicts Page: http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/

UN Greening the Blue Initiative: http://www.greeningtheblue.org/

Global Water Partnership – for IWRM: http://www.gwp.org/en/The-Challenge/

Sudan National Adaptation Plan of Action http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/sdn01.pdf

Reports and articles

Bromwich, Brendan (2009). Analyzing resource constraints as one dimension of conflict in Darfur. In Environment and Conflict in Africa: Reflections on Darfur. Ed. Marcel Leroy. University for Peace, Africa Programme. pp. 110-122

Bromwich, Brendan (2009). Environmental Impacts of Conflict: The Loss of Governance and Routes to Recovery. In Environment and Conflict in Africa: Reflections on Darfur. Ed. Marcel Leroy. University for Peace, Africa Programme. pp. 309-319

Darfur Climate Change Vision Document - Climate Change Retreat on Adapting to Climate Change in the Three Darfur States, 23-24 March 2010, El Fasher

UNEP (2007). Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya



UNEP (2008). Destitution, distortion and deforestation – The impact of conflict on the timber and fuelwood trade in Darfur. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP (2008). Water resource management in humanitarian programming in Darfur: The case for drought preparedness. UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP (2007) Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP (2010) The Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Sudan

UNEP (2010) Demand for Woodfuel and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) – A Case Study of Khartoum in 2009

UNEP (2010) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) – Demand, Supply, and Future Perspectives for Sudan – Synthesis Report of a workshop held in Khartoum. 12-13 December 2010

ProAct Network (Forthcoming 2012) Darfur Alternative Energy Project (DAEP)

UN RCSO Sudan (2010) Beyond Emergency Relief: Longer-term trends and priorities for UN agencies in Darfur (UN RCSO)

Young, H., Osman, A.M, Abusin, A.M., Asher, M., and Egemi, O. (2009) Livelihoods, Power and Choice: The Vulnerability of the Northern Rizaygat, Darfur, Sudan, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University

Young H. et al (2007) Sharpening the Strategic Focus of Livelihoods Programming in the Darfur Region: A report of four livelihoods workshops in the Darfur region (June 30 to July 11, 2007) Feinstein International Center, Tufts University



Appendix 3: Workshop participants

Ms. Mona Abdelhafeez Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Physical Development

Mr. Fatah El Rahman Ahmed Ali Ministry of Water Resources Ms. Nahid Zaroog Ministry of Water Resources Ms. Sayeda Khalil Forestry National Corporation (FNC) Mr. Nagmeldin Goutbi Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources

(HCENR) Mr. Simon Narbeth UK Department for International Development (DFID) Dr. Ahmed Abusin Partners for Development (PFD) Mr. Elmardi Ibrahim Pastoralist Policies/FAO Dr. Abdelaziz Gaiballa Pastoralist Policies/ University of Sudan Ms. Hanan Mutwakil United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Mr. Ibrahim Sahl United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA) Dr. Atta Battahani University of Khartoum Dr. Abduljabar Fadule University of El Fasher Dr. Yagoub Abdalla Environmentalists Society Mr. Yousif El Tayeb El Nour Darfur Development and Reconstruction Agency (DRA) Mr. Salih Abdelmagid SOS Sahel Dr Laura James Independent Economic Analyst Mr. Abdel Elhafiz Tufts University Ms. Afaf Rahim Tufts University Ms. Helen Young Tufts University Mr. Abuelgasim Adam UNEP Dr. Mey Ahmed UNEP Ms. Corinna Bothe UNEP Mr. Robin Bovey UNEP Mr. Brendan Bromwich UNEP Ms. Margie Buchanan-Smith UNEP Mr. Altan Butt UNEP Mr. Tayalla Elmedani UNEP Ms. Alawiyya Jamal UNEP Mr. Fabian Kreuzer UNEP Mr. Ahmed Maneise UNEP Mr. Ernest Mutanga UNEP Ms. Magda Nassef UNEP Dr. Hamid Omer UNEP

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

35

App

endi

x 4:

UN

EP L

og fr

ame

and

prov

isio

nal r

esul

ts fo

r 201

1

The

outp

uts

on th

is ta

ble

have

bee

n re

num

bere

d as

the

orig

inal

out

puts

4 a

nd 7

app

lied

only

to S

outh

ern

Sud

an

SUD

AN

INTE

GR

ATE

D E

NVI

RO

NM

ENT

PRO

JEC

T IM

PAC

T Im

pact

Indi

cato

r 1

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

Plan

ned

6 P

CE

A re

cs

12 P

CE

A re

cs

18 P

CE

A re

cs

Num

ber o

f Pos

t Con

flict

Env

ironm

enta

l A

sses

smen

t rec

omm

enda

tions

im

plem

ente

d in

who

le o

r mod

ified

form

A

chie

ved

17

Impa

ct In

dica

tor 2

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 2

envi

ronm

enta

l iss

ues

3

envi

ronm

enta

l iss

ues

4 en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

s

To a

ssis

t the

peo

ple

of S

udan

to

achi

eve

peac

e, re

cove

ry a

nd

deve

lopm

ent o

n an

en

viro

nmen

tally

sus

tain

able

bas

is.

Leve

l of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l is

sues

into

Dar

fur a

nd N

orth

-Sou

th

peac

e pr

oces

s do

cum

ents

A

chie

ved

4

O

UTC

OM

E O

utco

me

Indi

cato

r 1

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

Plan

ned

5 ne

w c

olla

bora

tive

inst

itutio

nal r

elat

ions

hips

m

ade

effe

ctiv

e to

ena

ble

join

t im

plem

enta

tion

5 ne

w c

olla

bora

tive

inst

itutio

nal

rela

tions

hips

mad

e ef

fect

ive

to e

nabl

e jo

int

impl

emen

tatio

n

5 ne

w c

olla

bora

tive

inst

itutio

nal

rela

tions

hips

mad

e ef

fect

ive

to e

nabl

e jo

int

impl

emen

tatio

n

Num

ber o

f rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

gove

rnm

ent,

UN

and

civ

il so

ciet

y in

stitu

tions

dev

elop

ed to

"effe

ctiv

e"

leve

l with

con

ditio

ns th

at a

llow

co

llabo

rativ

e jo

int

prog

ram

min

g on

en

viro

nmen

t

Ach

ieve

d 5

Out

com

e In

dica

tor 2

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Impr

oved

sus

tain

able

and

eq

uita

ble

gove

rnan

ce,

man

agem

ent a

nd u

se o

f en

viro

nmen

tal r

esou

rces

, co

ntrib

utin

g to

MD

G n

o 7

Plan

ned

3 Pa

rtner

s de

fined

U

NE

P's

pro

gram

me

as

"Hig

hly

valu

ed"

5 Pa

rtner

s de

fined

U

NE

P's

pro

gram

me

as

"Hig

hly

valu

ed"

7 Pa

rtner

s de

fined

U

NE

P's

pro

gram

me

as

"Hig

hly

valu

ed"

Val

ue o

f UN

EP

's p

rogr

amm

e un

der

SIE

P to

its

partn

ers

and

stak

ehol

ders

Ach

ieve

d 10

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

36

OU

TPU

T 1

Out

put I

ndic

ator

1.1

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 2

4 6

Num

ber o

f new

pro

cess

es o

f gov

ernm

ent

polic

y or

stra

tegy

alig

nmen

t, re

form

or

deve

lopm

ent r

elat

ing

to e

nviro

nmen

t A

chie

ved

4

Out

put I

ndic

ator

1.2

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 1

2 3

Envi

ronm

ent p

olic

y In

tegr

atio

n of

en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

s in

to

polic

ies

of g

over

nmen

t at

stat

e an

d fe

dera

l lev

el.

Num

ber o

f new

nat

iona

l and

sta

te

gove

rnm

ent p

olic

ies

and

stra

tegy

that

in

tegr

ate

clim

ate

chan

ge a

nd p

artic

ipat

ory

envi

ronm

enta

l gov

erna

nce

issu

es

Ach

ieve

d 1

IMPA

CT

WEI

GH

TIN

G (%

) O

utpu

t Ind

icat

or 1

.3

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

P

artn

ersh

ip w

ith 2

new

S

MO

E/fe

dera

l or C

S

orga

nisa

tions

Par

tner

ship

and

4 s

taff

train

ed in

2 n

ew

SM

OE

/fede

ral o

r CS

or

gani

satio

ns

Par

tner

ship

and

4 s

taff

train

ed in

4 n

ew

SM

OE

/fede

ral o

r CS

or

gani

satio

ns

20%

Leve

l of c

apac

ity o

f Env

ironm

enta

l st

akeh

olde

r ins

titut

ions

Ach

ieve

d 6

OU

TPU

T 2

Out

put I

ndic

ator

2.1

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 1

2011

Don

or/U

N w

orkp

lan

scre

ened

, gui

delin

es

deve

lope

d

2 2

012

Don

or/U

N

wor

kpla

n sc

reen

ed, 1

EIA

en

able

d 20

% o

f UN

CT

use

guid

elin

es

2 20

13 D

onor

/UN

w

orkp

lan

scre

ened

, 3 E

IA

enab

led

40%

of U

NC

T us

e gu

idel

ines

Num

ber o

f scr

eeni

ngs,

ass

essm

ents

and

m

itiga

tions

of e

nviro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct o

f aid

pr

ogra

mm

es/p

roje

cts

Ach

ieve

d 4

prog

ram

mes

scr

eene

d

Out

put I

ndic

ator

2.2

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 2

initi

ativ

es la

unch

ed

$15

M le

vera

ged

3 in

itiat

ives

laun

ched

$2

5 M

leve

rage

d 5

initi

ativ

es la

unch

ed

$35

M le

vera

ged

Envi

ronm

ent

mai

nstr

eam

ing

Mai

nstre

amin

g of

the

envi

ronm

ent i

n U

N a

nd

othe

r don

or p

rogr

amm

es

and

proj

ects

, and

le

vera

ging

reso

urce

s to

im

plem

ent t

hese

N

umbe

r of e

nviro

nmen

tal i

nitia

tives

la

unch

ed a

nd a

dditi

onal

fund

s le

vera

ged

for e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rogr

amm

ing

Ach

ieve

d 9

Initi

ativ

es la

unch

ed, M

ore

than

$18

M b

roke

red

IMPA

CT

WEI

GH

TIN

G (%

) O

utpu

t Ind

icat

or 2

.3

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

Plan

ned

Stra

tegy

in c

ircul

atio

n,

dono

rs a

ppro

ache

d Fi

nal S

trate

gy a

gree

d,

dono

rs p

riorit

ised

Fu

ll co

ntin

uity

stra

tegy

un

der i

mpl

emen

tatio

n,

fund

s in

pla

ce

15%

Exi

sten

ce o

f a S

trate

gy fo

r UN

EP

co

ntin

uity

in S

udan

Ach

ieve

d S

trate

gy, e

mer

ging

with

go

vern

men

t, ta

rget

ed

shar

ing.

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

37

OU

TPU

T 3

Out

put I

ndic

ator

3.1

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 20

0,00

0 C

DM

10

4,00

0 be

nefic

iarie

s fro

m

dam

s [#

M, #

F]

400,

000

CD

M

168,

000

bene

ficia

ries

from

da

ms

[#M

, #F]

500,

000

CD

M

168,

000

bene

ficia

ries

from

dam

s [#

M, #

F]

Num

ber o

f add

ition

al b

enef

icia

ries

(dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y se

x) b

enef

iting

from

C

omm

unity

Dro

ught

Miti

gatio

n (C

DM

) and

da

m in

frast

ruct

ure

A

chie

ved

552,

442

CD

M

138,

000

bene

ficia

ries

from

da

ms

(M: 6

9000

, W: 6

9000

)

Out

put I

ndic

ator

3.2

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

N

umbe

r of b

enef

icia

ries

of IW

RM

m

aste

rpla

ns in

sta

te c

apita

ls a

nd W

adi

basi

ns

Plan

ned

0 be

nefic

iarie

s [3

sta

te g

over

nmen

ts

colla

bora

ting

with

IWR

M

mas

terp

lans

]

1.0M

ben

efic

iarie

s

[from

2 IW

RM

mas

terp

lans

] 1.

3M b

enef

icia

ries

[fr

om 3

IWR

M

mas

terp

lans

]

Inte

grat

ed W

ater

R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent

Intro

duct

ion

and

incl

usio

n of

IWR

M in

gov

ernm

ent,

UN

and

NG

O

prog

ram

mes

in D

arfu

r

A

chie

ved

0 / 3

IM

PAC

T W

EIG

HTI

NG

(%)

Out

put I

ndic

ator

3.3

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

N

umbe

r gro

undw

ater

and

sur

face

wat

er

site

s m

onito

red

Plan

ned

20 g

roun

dwat

er s

ites

0 su

rface

wat

er s

ites

40 g

roun

dwat

er s

ites

6 su

rface

wat

er s

ites

60 g

roun

dwat

er s

ites

6 su

rface

wat

er s

ites

15%

A

chie

ved

43

OU

TPU

T 4

Out

put I

ndic

ator

4.1

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d 3

CE

AP

pro

cess

es w

ith

plan

s es

tabl

ishe

d 3

CE

AP

Impl

emen

ting

proj

ects

Fu

rther

4 C

EA

P p

roce

sses

w

ith p

lans

est

ablis

hed

7 C

EA

P Im

plem

entin

g pr

ojec

ts

Com

mun

ity

envi

ronm

ent

man

agem

ent

Com

mun

ity e

nviro

nmen

tal

man

agem

ent p

roje

cts

dem

onst

rate

d an

d sc

aled

up

by

gove

rnm

ent a

nd U

N

Num

ber o

f mod

el U

NE

P C

EA

Ps

Ach

ieve

d 3

IMPA

CT

WEI

GH

TIN

G (%

) O

utpu

t Ind

icat

or 4

.2

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

Plan

ned

3 10

20

15

%

Num

ber o

f CE

AP

s of

gov

ernm

ent,

UN

and

ot

her a

genc

ies

Ach

ieve

d 3

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

38

OU

TPU

T 5

Out

put I

ndic

ator

4.1

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Li

velih

oods

Im

prov

ed n

atio

nal

awar

enes

s,

unde

rsta

ndin

g, p

olic

ies

and

prog

ram

mes

rela

ting

to p

asto

ralis

t liv

elih

oods

, m

arke

ts a

nd tr

ade

Pub

licat

ion

& d

isse

min

atio

n of

Sud

an-

spec

ific

info

rmat

ion,

ana

lysi

s an

d st

rate

gic

guid

ance

to p

asto

ralis

t-rel

ated

pol

icie

s an

d pr

ogra

mm

es

Plan

ned

** R

evie

w o

f pas

tora

lism

po

licy

in S

udan

and

at l

east

1

polic

y br

iefin

g pa

per

publ

ishe

d **

Fie

ldw

ork

unde

rway

for

first

pas

tora

lism

rese

arch

st

udy

** M

inim

um o

f 3 p

olic

y br

iefin

g pa

pers

pub

lishe

d

** 1

st P

asto

ralis

t Li

velih

oods

stu

dy

publ

ishe

d

** R

evie

w o

f em

erge

ncy

lives

tock

pro

gram

min

g in

Su

dan

** A

t lea

st 5

pol

icy

brie

fing

pape

rs p

ublis

hed

**

Fin

ding

s of

rese

arch

st

udie

s be

com

e ke

y re

fere

nces

for p

asto

ralis

t liv

elih

ood

polic

y an

d pr

ogra

mm

ing

deci

sion

-m

akin

g **

2 m

ajor

refo

rms

to k

ey

polic

ies

affe

ctin

g pa

stor

alis

m, w

hich

pr

omot

e an

d pr

otec

t su

stai

nabl

e liv

elih

oods

fo

r an

estim

ate

8 m

illion

pe

ople

(6m

in N

, 2m

in S

) fro

m p

asto

ralis

t co

mm

uniti

es a

cros

s Su

dan.

Ach

ieve

d 1.

5 s

tudi

es o

n re

view

of

past

oral

ism

pol

icy

in S

udan

in

dra

ft.

2

. Fie

ldw

ork

Und

erw

ay

UN

EP

Sud

an

20

12 P

rogr

amm

e C

onsu

ltatio

n

UNEP

Sud

an 20

12 pr

oject

works

hop r

epor

t.pdf

ww

w.un

ep.or

g/sud

an

39

O

utpu

t Ind

icat

or 5

.2

M

ilest

one

2011

M

ilest

one

2012

Ta

rget

(201

3)

S

treng

then

ed c

apac

ity o

f pas

tora

l le

ader

s, p

rofe

ssio

nals

and

oth

er

advo

cate

s to

arti

cula

te th

e ra

tiona

le

for p

asto

ralis

m a

nd a

rgue

for i

ts

incl

usio

n in

nat

iona

l pol

icie

s,

prog

ram

mes

and

pea

ce p

roce

sses

.

Plan

ned

** S

take

hold

er m

appi

ng a

nd

surv

ey re

port

of s

take

hold

er

perc

eptio

ns o

f pol

icy

issu

es

and

curr

ent c

halle

nges

. **

Adap

tatio

n Te

am a

nd

Pas

tora

l Ref

eren

ce G

roup

es

tabl

ishe

d an

d fu

lly

enga

ged

** D

evel

opm

ent o

f a

natio

nal (

north

and

sou

th)

stak

ehol

der n

etw

ork

of a

t le

ast 1

00 in

divi

dual

s an

d in

stitu

tions

influ

enci

ng o

r en

gage

d w

ith p

asto

ralis

m

** a

t lea

st 3

Sud

an s

peci

fic

best

pra

ctic

e ca

se-s

tudi

es

and

revi

ews

deve

lope

d fo

r in

corp

orat

ing

into

the

Sud

an s

peci

fic L

EG

S

train

ings

and

feed

ing

into

th

e gl

obal

trai

ning

**

Tra

inin

g of

3 tr

aine

rs a

s pa

rt of

the

'Pas

tora

lism

and

P

olic

y' c

ours

e tra

inin

g.

** A

dapt

atio

n of

Mod

ule

1 an

d M

odul

e 2

of

past

oral

ism

pol

icy

optio

ns

cour

se.

**Pa

stor

alis

m tr

aini

ng

mat

eria

ls (L

EG

S a

nd P

olic

y O

ptio

ns) t

aken

up

by a

t lea

st

two

univ

ersi

ties

or in

stitu

tes.

**

Act

ive

stak

ehol

der n

etw

ork

mob

ilize

d an

d ra

isin

g aw

aren

ess

on a

t lea

st tw

o sp

ecifi

c po

licy

issu

es.

** L

EGS

adop

ted

as th

e qu

ality

sta

ndar

ds b

y a

reco

gniz

ed n

atio

nal i

nstit

utio

n an

d at

leas

t tw

o re

gion

al

coor

dina

tion

fora

. **

Sud

an P

olic

y op

tions

co

urse

targ

eted

at s

enio

r go

vern

men

t dec

isio

n-m

aker

s

Ach

ieve

dS

take

hold

er m

appi

ng re

port

com

plet

ed. A

dapt

atio

n te

am

and

PR

G e

stab

lishe

d an

d en

gage

d

IM

PAC

T W

EIG

HTI

NG

(%)

Out

put I

ndic

ator

6.3

Mile

ston

e 20

11

Mile

ston

e 20

12

Targ

et (2

013)

Pl

anne

d *

Mar

ket m

onito

ring

netw

ork

esta

blis

hed

in N

Dar

fur

** M

arke

t mon

itorin

g da

ta

gene

rate

d an

d da

ta a

naly

sis

begu

n N

Dar

fur

** F

irst m

arke

t mon

itorin

g bu

lletin

pub

lishe

d N

Dar

fur

** D

arfu

r liv

esto

ck tr

ade

stud

y fie

ldw

ork

com

plet

ed

15%

Qua

lity

mar

ket m

onito

ring

data

and

an

alys

is a

vaila

ble

to g

over

nmen

t an

d in

tern

atio

nal a

genc

ies

Ach

ieve

d 3

Mar

ket M

onito

ring

Bul

letin

s pu

blis

hed;

all

else

com

plet

ed

**C

ontin

ued

advi

sory

su

ppor

t to

N D

arfu

r m

onito

ring

netw

ork

incl

udin

g 2

faci

litat

ed

wor

ksho

ps.

** A

dvis

ory

supp

ort t

o ne

w

mar

ket m

onito

ring

netw

ork

in W

Dar

fur i

ncl.

2 fa

cilit

ated

wor

ksho

ps.

** D

arfu

r liv

esto

ck t

rade

st

udy

publ

ishe

d

** 2

0 C

BO

s w

ith s

treng

then

ed

capa

city

to c

olle

ct a

nd a

naly

ze

mar

ket d

ata

in D

arfu

r and

to

influ

ence

live

lihoo

ds

prog

ram

min

g **

Loc

al p

artn

ers

supp

orte

d by

ot

her d

onor

s to

con

tinue

m

arke

t mon

itorin

g *

* F

indi

ngs

of re

sear

ch

stud

ies

beco

me

key

refe

renc

es fo

r liv

esto

ck a

nd

cash

cro

p po

licy

and

prog

ram

min

g de

cisi

on-m

akin

g

sudan integrated environment project (siep) - unep · pdf filesudan integrated environment...

Documents