Evaluation Report on Strategic Objective D2 “Conservation ... Corporate Strateg… · and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), and functional tools such as livelihoods

Evaluation of FAO Strategic Objective D2 “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Environments at Greatest

Risk”

Final Report

May 2006

Evaluation of D2 Strategic Objective “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Ecosystems at the greatest risk”, final report

Table of contents List of Acronyms Executive Summary 4 I Introduction 8 II Origins of Strategic Objective D2 9 III Scope and Methodology for the Evaluation 11 IV Overview of FAO’s work related to Strategic Objective D2 15 IV.a Strategic Objective D2 in FAO planning framework 15 IV.b FAO normative work 17 IV.c FAO operational/field work 17 IV.d Institutional Arrangements for D2 areas 18 V Assessment of FAO’s work 20 V.a Monitoring systems and models for assessment of trends, impacts and threats 20 V.b Capacity building 24 V.b.1 Capacity Building, normative work 25 V.b.2 Capacity Building, operational/field work 26 V.c Promotion of sustainable development and ecosystem conservation and

rehabilitation 27 V.d Partnerships 29 V.d.1 Partnerships, normative work 30 V.d.2 Partnerships, operational/field work 32 VI Cross-cutting issues 33 VI.a Comparative Advantage 33 VI.a.1 Regular programme 33 VI.a.2 Field programme 36 VI.b Efficiency of project administration 38 VI.c Scaling up of projects 39 VI.d The value and potential of Strategic Objective D2 40 VII Conclusions and Recommendations 43 VII.a Overall Conclusions 43 VII.b Recommendations 45 Report of the External Peer Review Panel 47 Annex 1 Terms of Reference Annex 2 List of outputs and projects related to D2, by ecosystem Annex 3 Questionnaire Survey Results Annex 4 Assessment of fieldwork through country visits

2


List of Acronyms CA Conservation Agriculture CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management EU European Union FFS Farmer Field School FIGIS Fisheries Global Information System FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System FPMIS Field Programme Management Information System GCP Government Cooperative Programme GEF Global Environment Facility GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System GIS Geographic Information System ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre IDWG Interdepartmental Working Group IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFI International Financing Institutions IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LADA Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands programme MP Major Programme MoP Mountains Partnership MTP Medium Term Plan NT No Tillage OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAIA Priority Area for Interdisciplinary Action PBEE FAO Evaluation Service PE Programme Entity PNTD Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development Approach PWB Programme of Work and Budget RAPA FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific RB Regular Budget SARD Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development SF Strategic Framework SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SO Strategic Objective TCP Technical Cooperation Programme project TEP Technical and Economic Programme ToR Terms of Reference UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

3


Executive Summary

Background 1. “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Environments at Greatest Risk”, one

of FAO’s twelve strategic objectives (Strategic Objective D2), is aimed to address conditions where environmental capacity and system integrity are critical constraints. Strategic Objective D2, together with the Strategic Objective D1 “Integrated Management of Land, Water, Fisheries, Forest and Genetic Resources”, are set out as the key elements for FAO’s engagement in environment-focused issues, part of its broader responsibilities and interactions in the international agenda for development and environment.

2. The evaluation was carried out over the period March 2005 to March 2006, reviewing FAO normative programmes, and field programmes in nine countries in Latin America, Africa and Near East, and Asia, covering three generic environmental/ecosystem themes; drylands, mountain zone and aquatic systems. The evaluation was led by Dr Dunstan Spencer, with inputs from Dr Eduardo Fuentes (mountain zones and Latin America); Dr James Muir (aquatic systems, part of Asia and Near East); and Dr Bernard Toutain (drylands, part of Asia, Africa and Near East), all independent consultants. On behalf of FAO the evaluation was managed by Mr Robert Moore, who participated in the Asia mission and Ms Tullia Aiazzi, who took part in missions to Latin America, Africa and the Near East.

3. The draft final report was completed in March 2006, circulated to FAO units for comment, examined by an external peer review panel in April 2006 and finalised in May 2006. Terms of Reference are provided in Annex 1.

Methodology 4. The assessment of performance at the level of Strategic Objective is not a simple task;

partly because of the potential scope and diversity of interaction and outcome across a large and multi-disciplinary agency such as FAO, but also because of the generic characteristics of the D2 objective itself, covering a potentially massive geographical area, challenging bio-ecological conditions, diverse and complex socio-political and economic context, and a multiple-agency environment for response.

5. Within the time and resources available, the methodology adopted therefore had to be capable of attuning itself to the potential breadth and diversity of interaction, while at the same time focusing at sufficient detail to explore the relevance and quality of response. Given that partnerships are pre-requisite for engaging in issues such as those addressed by D2, relevance, focus, impact and the comparative advantages of FAO with respect to delivery of the substance of D2 also had to be considered.

6. The assessment was carried out using three approaches, each addressing the three D2 ecosystems: • In-situ appraisals of 32 projects and programmes in nine countries, in which FAO

had carried out or maintained current D2 related activity within the last six years. • A review of the normative programme carried out by FAO, primarily in

headquarters, but also linking with activities in regional and country offices. • A questionnaire to a range of stakeholders concerning FAO's visibility and

4


effectiveness in terms of projects, information products and other actions relevant to D2.

7. Definition of approach, selection of field programme countries, and assessment criteria

were developed in the initial stages of the work. The Evaluation Team held consultations with FAO stakeholders throughout the whole evaluation process. The assessment covers only the first six years of an intended 15 year period from 2000-2015, and so represents just the first phase of FAO’s action.

Findings 8. The findings of the Evaluation Team were that a wide range of D2-related activities has

been carried out at both normative and field programme level, in each of the three major ecosystems. Though Regular Programme allocations were modest, ranging from 2.9% to 3.4% of the MTP, this was considerably extended using diverse funding sources. However, very little of this was formally set out as a D2-targeted process, and there was very limited recognition within or outside of FAO of this sense of targeting with respect to D2 issues and strategic aims.

9. FAO’s delivery to D2 was variable in performance and quality. This partly reflects a difficulty of defining and applying a clear context and objectives, operationalising D2 in a systematic manner. It also reflects a generally low or declining level of performance of FAO in a number of related themes, evidence of a drift away from leadership.

10. The D2 strategic objective was not reflected in operational structures and approaches and was rarely considered by FAO staff to be a specific point of reference for priorities and actions. Thematic approaches, as typically taken up through Interdepartmental Working Groups (IDWGs) or Priority Area for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs) were present to only limited degree, and there were no centres of action specific for D2.

11. Normative outputs were sometimes relevant to D2, and though some were useful in generic terms; there was little specific analytical approach to the nature of resource use and development interaction, system resilience, etc. in D2 environments. Synoptic inventory tools and methodologies, generic initiatives such as the Mountain Partnership and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), and functional tools such as livelihoods approaches and the valuation of environmental goods, were well recognised and widely regarded, but were rarely specifically focused on D2.

12. The field programme was disconnected, with too many weak projects, little innovation and limited impacts. There was limited evidence of scale-up, and partnerships were variable but often ineffective and rarely extending beyond the life of specific projects. There was little sense of continuity – this was explicable in terms of constraints of short-term funding but also reflected the lack of strategic presence and the ability to set out compelling justifications for ongoing action.

13. There were limited responses from the questionnaire, but generally indifferent and inconclusive results, and subject to limitations of replies, there was little evidence externally of FAO’s strength of presence or impact in D2 related themes.

14. With respect to specific elements of the D2 Strategic Objective, the strongest delivery was seen in the development of monitoring and methodologies, primarily in the context of broader resource assessments, management approaches, guidelines and information productions. There was some capacity building, but rarely focusing explicitly on D2 issues, or only on specific topics without being set in a D2 context. The promotion of

5


sustainable development was also noted, and a limited number of rehabilitation activities, but there was little to be distinguished from more generic action. Support for Agenda 21 was noted, and for international conventions and programmes, in some of which, such as CCRF, Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands programme (LADA) and Mountains Partnership (MoP), FAO showed particular influence.

15. Comparative advantages for FAO in D2 issues were poorly defined and developed, though a small number of good examples occurred of this being demonstrated and applied. In other cases it appeared that advantages were either failing to be realised, or were becoming lost, particularly where FAO entered project level service function roles without maintaining higher-level national or regional engagement.

16. Administrative and operational constraints were noted in a number of cases, and considered to impact negatively on FAO’s performance, contrasting with a generally positive view of technical expertise and practical response to emerging issues.

17. FAO’s performance in terms of defining and leading the D2-related agenda was very modest; with only limited exceptions there was little evidence of strategic leadership, even when technical capability and prior standing would have provided opportunity. This was partly due to the absence of an operational framework for D2 but also reflects limited strategic priority setting.

18. Finally, though the D2 issues are clearly important in global terms, and are in the strict sense becoming mainstream drivers in development, as more of the biosphere becomes more critically impacted and potentially less resilient, D2 did not function effectively as a strategic objective. No specific advantage could be discerned in maintaining a separate D2 objective as currently structured. It has been, and will continue to be important to ensure that D2 issues and themes clearly feature in FAO’s resource allocations, capability and actions, but a stronger and more coherent approach is needed.

Recommendations 19. Recommendation 1: While the immediate performance related to D2 needs to be

addressed by better operational focus and more rational strategic methodologies, as set out in the following recommendations, the separation of D2 within FAO’s strategic objective framework needs to be questioned. Distinctions between fragile or endangered ecosystems and any others are becoming increasingly difficult to make in simple geographical terms, and an artificial divide may obscure rather than focus appropriate actions and responses related to human needs and impacts. FAO's engagement with D2 related issues is very important and will remain so, but unless it can be shown to create significant added value to FAO's delivery, it should not be kept separate. In a more comprehensive and more operationally effective restructuring of its strategic objectives, the functions of D2 should be absorbed into the broader aims of FAO.

20. Recommendation 2: The operational issues related to D2 need to be clearly considered,

with the aim of specifying them closely and integrating these effectively to meet current and anticipated development challenges. A comprehensive and structured approach should be employed to set production, resources, vulnerability and risk into context, from global to local levels, thereby establishing a framework for FAO and its partners to define priorities, establish goals and specify clear indicators. This should specifically enable the vulnerable features of the present D2 systems to be well defined and effectively addressed, while at the same time, in an increasingly fragile global

6


environment, creating an effective basis for FAO’s mainstream production and food security aims to be well secured within a sound development rationale. Opportunities should be sought for donor support in bringing this into being and developing strong and positive implementation partnerships. By doing so, this should also provide FAO with the means to demonstrate clear leadership in contemporary challenges.

21. Recommendation 3: Specific innovations relevant to D2 and related themes, such as

work in economic valuation and in the realisation of environmental values by local communities should be given greater emphasis and extended across a wider range of systems. This should be linked closely with related themes and applications amongst other agencies. By linking in and building on the in-house experience in resource management this could become a valuable part of FAO’s delivery.

22. Recommendation 4: For environmental and sustainable development, D2-type themes,

FAO should aim for longer duration projects. TCPs should not be used for addressing these issues unless their full requirements can be met, i.e. limited objectives or pilot activities with very strong assurance of up scaling. This implies that FAO should also be much more rigorous in its ex-ante analyses to ensure that the conditions exist or can be created for adoption of the approaches being proposed, i.e. closer collaboration with agencies, financial institutions, etc. to better ensure that all of the conditions for successful adoption and up-scaling of its field projects are present.

23. Recommendation 5: Following from Recommendation 2 and in conjunction with

public, private and civil society partner agencies, FAO should look at defining more specific and effective long term criteria and measures for the stewardship of key systems and for developing sustainable and effective livelihood approaches, capable of being applied to meet future challenges at major system and local action level. Working with partners, and agreeing on respective roles, an integrated approach should be taken in setting major goals, defining advocacy issues, investment needs, and management approaches.

24. Recommendation 6: The evaluation highlighted deficiencies in specifying how FAO’s

comparative advantages could be defined, and hence where these exist and why. For D2 related aims and others, this should be spelled out more clearly and used as a management tool to define and measure performance and to determine appropriate responses and priorities. Areas where FAO already shows leadership or has the potential to do so should be clearly defined and developed, noting also that strategic leadership may require FAO to pass on and build up capacity amongst other agents. Pathways of development process should be set out, moving from pioneering concepts, testing and scaling up, negotiating and developing partnerships, transferring skills and responsibilities for longer term engagement, and maintaining a strategic role in monitoring system function and delivery of welfare. Such an approach would define FAO more clearly and permit its function and performance to be more clearly recognised and valued.

7


I Introduction 25. FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000-2015 was approved by the 30th Session of the FAO

Conference in November 1999. Formulated after consultation among FAO Member Nations, development partners and the FAO Secretariat, it defines a set of strategies that are interdisciplinary and based on partnership. These are intended to give clearer focus to FAO’s work, allowing it to concentrate on areas in which it has comparative advantages. The subject of this evaluation, one of twelve Strategic Objectives, is “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Environments at Greatest Risk”.

26. This evaluation is the second to specifically examine one of FAO’s Strategic Objectives1 (SOs). Its theme is in keeping with the expressed desires of the FAO Governing Bodies for a focus in FAO’s evaluation work that emphasizes critical examination of priorities and strategies, while at the same time considering more traditional performance measures.

27. It must be noted that this evaluation covers only the first five years of a Strategic Objective that is intended to be pursued over a 15-year period. While the subject matter covered is not new to FAO, working on it within an interdisciplinary framework has presented challenges – both in pursuing the SO and in evaluating FAO’s work related to it. These are explored fully in the report that follows.

28. The evaluation team was led by Dr Dunstan Spencer (Sierra Leone), an independent external consultant. Dr Spencer guided the drafting of the terms of reference, participated in the regional missions to Asia and Africa and directed the preparation of this evaluation report. The other external consultants, who participated in regional missions and in the final report writing, were:

• Dr Eduardo Fuentes (Chile) – Latin America • Dr James Muir (UK) – Asia (part), Africa and Near East (part) • Dr Bernard Toutain (France) – Asia (part), Africa and Near East

29. On the FAO/PBEE side, the evaluation was managed by Mr Robert Moore, who

participated in the Asia mission and Ms Tullia Aiazzi, who took part in the missions to Latin America, Africa and the Near East. They also participated, under Dr Spencer’s direction, in the final report writing.

1 The first, on Strategic Objective A3 “Preparedness for, and effective and sustainable response to, food and agricultural emergencies”, was presented to the FAO Programme Committee in September 2002.

8


II Origins of Strategic Objective D2 30. When it was decided to embark on developing a Strategic Framework (SF) for FAO

over the period 2000 - 2015, the process included extensive consultation with member nations and other stakeholders, to establish a set of Global Goals. The Goals eventually adopted in the SF included access of all people to sufficient, nutritionally-adequate and safe food, with the number of hungry halved by 2015; the continued contribution of sustainable agriculture and rural development to economic and social progress; and the conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources. These Goals were translated into five corporate strategies, relating to food insecurity (Strategy A), regulatory frameworks (B), food supplies (C), conservation of natural resources (D) and knowledge and assessment (E). Each corporate strategy was then divided into two or three Strategic Objectives, all of which were intended to be interdisciplinary and involve partnership with other actors.

31. As with other theme areas, FAO’s work on sustainable resource management in drylands, mountains and coastal/marine ecosystems considerably pre-dates the Strategic Framework. For example, in the 1970s, following the UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm, FAO was involved with UNEP in implementing a programme on Ecological Management of Arid and Semi-Arid Rangelands (EMASAR), which included an ecological monitoring component. FAO has also had a long history of supporting watershed management projects with environmental protection components, in many countries around the world. Especially since the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) in 1995, resource and coastal areas sustainable management has been a key part of FAO’s work.

32. Corporate Strategy D is intended to address challenges emanating from the increasing pressure on natural resources, competition for use and resultant threats to the environment and future food supplies. It includes two Strategic Objectives. Under SO D1, “Integrated Management of Land, Water, Fisheries, Forest and Genetic Resources”, FAO intends to address integrated resource management systems to find solutions that are economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially and culturally acceptable. This is very broad in formulation and could be seen to cover all aspects of resource management. However, it was also felt necessary – after UNCED2 and the adoption of its Agenda 21 - to include a Strategic Objective specifically directed at the most fragile ecosystems, those considered to be at greatest risk.

33. SO D2 mentions the particular ecosystems that are considered to be fragile, i.e. drylands, mountains, coastal and marine ecosystems. These correspond to subjects covered in Chapters 12, 13 and 17 respectively of Agenda 21. According to the Strategic Framework, fragile ecosystems are in the “frontline of danger” due to land degradation, water scarcity and pollution and salinization, destruction of forests, overexploitation of the world's marine resources, growth in greenhouse gas emissions, and loss of genetic resources and biological diversity.

34. Nonetheless, there is a certain amount of duplication between D1 and D2 – both mention the need for monitoring and assessment of natural resources, for capacity building to effectively manage resources and to take into account costs, in a broad sense, as well as benefits of proposed developments. However, SO D2 differs from D1 in its focus on particular, defined types of ecosystems with a key emphasis on their

2 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 – the ‘Rio’ Conference on Sustainable Development.

9


fragility or vulnerability to threat. 35. The mandate of SO D2 is articulated in four components:

• monitoring and assessing the state of fragile ecosystems, developing criteria and indicators for their sustainable management and building capacity for environmental impact assessment and risk analysis;

• enhancing institutional and planning capacity at the local, national, regional and international levels and incorporating consideration of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of natural resource use into polices and programmes, in order to respond to degradation and competition for natural resources in fragile ecosystems;

• promoting the sustainable development, conservation and rehabilitation of fragile ecosystems and areas (dryland, mountain and coastal and marine ecosystems); and

• assisting in the practical implementation of those chapters of Agenda 21, and of international conventions and agreements, relevant to fragile ecosystems (e.g. desertification, mountain development, responsible fisheries).

10


III Scope and Methodology for the Evaluation 36. The first task of the Evaluation Team was to define the scope of the study, which

involved interpreting the intent of Strategic Objective D2 and outlining the specific areas to be covered in the evaluation. This was done through a series of consultations with key informants in all the technical departments concerned in FAO.

37. It was observed from the outset that defined by habitat, D2 potentially addresses issues concerning a significant portion of the Earth, in terms of resources (land for agriculture and livestock, water, forests, fisheries) and populations living in or using them:

• Drylands3 (arid, semi-arid and sub-humid) represent 41% of the global land area, excluding Antarctica and Greenland: 39% of Asia, 43% of Africa, 32% of South America, and 58% of Central America and the Caribbean are classified as drylands. More than two billion people live in drylands, approximately one-third of the world’s population in the year 2000, ranging from 42% in Asia to 41% in Africa and 30% in Latin America. On average, people living in drylands lag far behind the rest of the world in terms of well-being and human development indicators. However, although productivity is lower than in other ecosystems, drylands perform a number of important environmental, economic and cultural supporting services.

• Data from UNEP-WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) indicate that mountains cover 29 million km², or 22% of the total Earth land area4. Of these, 76% are in developing countries and 2% in transition countries. At sub-regional level, mountains are mainly in East Asia with 50% of its area classified as such, in North America and Mexico with 45%, Central America with 41%, South East Asia and Oceania with 35% and the Near East with 34%. Data for the year 2000 indicate that some 12% of the world population (720 million) lived in mountain areas of which about 90% were in developing and transition countries. A recent estimate is that about 40% of the latter group are vulnerable to food insecurity. Mountains play multiple environmental, productive and cultural services, ranging from being storehouses of genetic diversity, collectors of fresh water, guardians for unique natural assets including protection of down-stream and lowland settlements and productive activities, and sources of national income through a range of products and services, including tourism.

• Coastal systems include coral reefs, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, mangroves and sea-grass communities5. The category may also include small island states. These systems provide a wide range of highly valued resources and services including fisheries, wildlife habitat, nutrient cycling, flood and storm protection, and recreational opportunities. Coastal ecosystems are both highly productive and heavily threatened, supplying disproportionately important services relating to human well-being, but experiencing some of the most rapid degradation and loss. A recent study by UNEP (2006) recognised that corals and mangroves absorb up to 90 % of the energy of wind-generated waves and noted the disproportion between the

3 From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems, and Human Well being: Desertification Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington DC 4 From “Towards a GIS-based analysis of mountain environments and populations”, Poverty Mapping-IYM 2002, FAO, 2003 and “The economics of mountain resources flows”, Pratt J., Preston L. in FAO, Unasylva, 195, 1998/4 5 From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems, and Human Well being: Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington DC and UNEP, press release, 24 January 2006

11


estimated economic value of coral reefs (US$ 100,000 - 600,000 per km2), annual cost of their sustainable management (US$ 750 per km2) and the potential cost of building structures to provide the same type of protection (ranging up to US$ 10 million per km). Some 40% of the world’s population live within 50 km of a coast, in which nearly half the world’s cities of more than 500,000 people are located. Coastal population densities are 2.6 times as high as those of inland areas. The absolute number of people living in coastal areas is increasing through a combination of in-migration, high reproduction rates, and tourism. By all common measures, the well-being of coastal inhabitants is much higher than that for inland communities. However, the vulnerability of populations in low-lying coastal areas is increased by higher exposure to disasters such as floods, tsunamis, etc. In terms of habitat loss, pollution and nutrient enrichment, the greatest threats to coastal systems are through urban sprawl, resort and port development, aquaculture, agricultural intensification and industrial development,

• In association with both coastal and inland aquatic environments, wetlands6 deliver a wide range of ecosystem services, such as fish and fibre, water supply, water purification, climate and flood regulation, coastal protection, and recreational opportunities. When both marketed and non-marketed economic benefits are included, the value of unconverted wetlands is often greater than that of converted wetlands. More than 50% of wetlands (including lakes, rivers, marshes, and coastal regions to a depth of 6 m at low tide) in parts of North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand were destroyed during the 20th century, and many others degraded. The projected loss and degradation of wetlands will reduce their capacity to mitigate impacts and result in further reduction in human well-being (including an increase in prevalence of disease), especially for poorer people in lower-income countries, where alternative technological solutions are not as readily available. At the same time, demand for many services (such as nutrient cycling and flood and storm protection) will increase. Cross-sectoral and ecosystem-based approaches, such as river (or lake or aquifer) basin-scale management, and integrated coastal zone management, that consider trade-offs between different ecosystem services are required. Particularly important trade-offs involve those between agricultural production and water quality, land use and biodiversity, water use and aquatic biodiversity, and current water use for irrigation and future agricultural production.

38. It was clear in its presentation, and in initial discussions that SO D2 as developed in the

Strategic Framework was conceived to deal more specifically with those contexts where fragility was a key issue and where more generic threats were capable of causing most immediate negative impacts, particularly with poorer and more vulnerable resource-dependent communities. As such the Evaluation Team did not expect to address FAO’s coverage of the entire extent of the ecosystems in which D2 held relevance. However, the interface between areas of D2 focus and the other SOs deserved continued reflection and was retained for later discussion.

39. The product of the initial phase of the evaluation (April – May 2005), was the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the evaluation, prepared by the Team Leader with assistance from the FAO Evaluation Service. The ToR (attached as Annex 1) took as a point of

6 Wetland ecosystems (including lakes, rivers, marshes, and coastal regions to a depth of 6 meters at low tide) – source Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. reference as above.

12


departure the three types of major ecosystems mentioned in SO D2, i.e. drylands, mountains and coastal and marine ecosystems (including wetlands). They defined the characteristics of dryland and mountain areas to be reviewed, and for aquatic systems specified wetlands, together with eight subcomponents of Large Marine Ecosystems, as identified by FAO, for coastal and marine areas. The draft ToR was circulated extensively for comments within FAO before finalization.

40. The next step was identification of all work carried out by FAO, both under the Regular Programme and Field Programme, that was directed at or relevant to any of the specified fragile ecosystems. To be included, work had to have a notable and identifiable part aimed at one or more of the ecosystems under study. This was in keeping with the intent of D2, which brought a specific focus to FAO’s work relating to the most fragile ecosystems. The complete list of activities considered as falling under the scope of the evaluation is found in Annex 2.

41. The determination of the utility of FAO’s work to member countries is a key part of any thematic evaluation. The team assessed this in three ways. The most important was a series of field visits to selected Member Countries, carried out by external consultants with the FAO Evaluation Service staff members. Criteria for country selection were based largely on the volume of D2-related activities that had taken place over 2000-05 (the period of evaluation coverage) and the perceived degree of significance of natural resource-related issues in each country. Selection aimed to cover all the major ecosystems included in the evaluation and to include various country sizes and levels of development. FAO technical divisions were consulted, and the final choice made by the Evaluation Team. Three missions, each to three countries, were carried out in the period September – December 2005. Common report outline and scoring criteria7 were agreed and used by the different teams. Stakeholders met in the countries were from Government departments, projects, local communities, NGOs, donors, and FAO offices. The first mission went to Uzbekistan, Cambodia and Thailand; the second mission to Brazil, Bolivia and Cuba; and the third mission visited Madagascar, Kenya and Egypt. These visits primarily focused on operational/field work, defined as services provided by FAO directly to individual Member Countries and their sub-regional or regional organizations. A country report was prepared on each visit with scored outputs by project and overall country engagement, and comments were sought from technical divisions, FAO representations and key informants on these reports.

42. A second part of the evaluation was a review of FAO’s normative work, which is defined as indirect services provided by the Organization to its Members collectively. The evaluation of the outcome and impact of normative outputs usually poses a number of methodological issues, such as identification of potential and actual clients, measurement of their use of outputs, and the mainstreaming of these in policies and working practices. This part of the evaluation was thus based on an overview assessment of scope, quality and potential impact of the work by the independent consultants specialised in each major field, based on review of documentation and other outputs, plus interviews and discussions with key staff in HQ.

43. The third part of the evaluation, for a more generic assessment of FAO’s performance in addressing D2 issues, was the preparation of three questionnaires – one for each major ecosystem type – that were used to obtain the views of a larger number of FAO member

7 A five point scale was used in scoring projects and activities where 1 = zero impact/relevance/etc; 2 = low or poor impact/efficiency/quality/relevance/etc; 3 = satisfactory or average; 4 = good; and 5 = very good or excellent.

13


countries. These were prepared and sent to recipients identified by FAO Representatives and other sources in 23 countries (both developed and developing), again chosen with a view to the importance and extent of their fragile ecosystems8. Recipients were contacted directly by the evaluation team and requested to reply in their personal capacity. This was done in an effort to promote frank responses. Two follow-up reminders were sent as necessary. At least one reply was received from 17 of the 23 countries (74%). However, countries received an average of 5.4 questionnaires each, and the response rate at the level of individuals was disappointing (31 out of 124, or 25%). Results of the questionnaire are used as appropriate in the assessments presented in different sections of the evaluation report.

44. The final draft evaluation report was prepared during the period 16 January – 3 February, involving all the members of the evaluation team, under the direction of the Team Leader. During that period, further consultations were held with key FAO staff. The draft was then circulated within FAO and comments provided to the Team Leader for consideration in the final draft report.

45. An Independent External Peer Review Panel examined the report during the period 24-27 April 2006. The Panel consisted of: Dr Umid Abdullaev (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, Uzbekistan); Dr Paolo Bifani (environment expert, Chile); Dr Norberto Fernandez (UNEP); Dr Joachim Gratzfeld (IUCN); Dr Stein Hansen (environment expert, Norway).

46. The Team Leader of the evaluation attended the Panel and included their comments in the final report as appropriate. The Panel prepared its own report on the evaluation, which is submitted to the FAO Programme Committee, along with the Senior Management Response.

8 Countries included in the survey were: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, China, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen. Morocco, Peru and Tunisia were surveyed on two major ecosystem types, the other countries on one each.

14


IV Overview of FAO’s work related to Strategic Objective D2 IV.a Strategic Objective D2 in FAO planning framework 47. Links between FAO Strategic Objectives and resource allocations were made explicitly

for the first time in the Medium Term Plan (MTP) 2002-07. In this, Strategy D was shown to include 7% of total budget resources, and D2 received 2.9 % (US$ 29,001,000). This made it the second smallest of FAO’s Strategic Objectives in terms of resources (larger only than E3 – “A central place for food security on the international agenda”).

48. A two-part explanation for the seemingly low proportion of resources under D was provided in the MTP itself: (i) that its outputs often took place through external partnerships and (ii) since production and conservation were so closely linked, resources were often earmarked under Strategy C with its focus on “sustainable increases in supply”. Strategy C commanded 28% of total budget resources.

49. In the 2004-09 MTP, Strategy D was earmarked for 10% of total resources and D2 was increased to 3.8%. The MTP document stated that the increase “was due to the realization that a wrong message was being sent out to membership and other stakeholders” about the importance of natural resource conservation.

50. The current MTP 2006-11 specifically includes environmental threats as one of the major challenges FAO has to face. However, the share of Strategy D was decreased to 8%, and the D2 share went down to 3.4%. Table 1 shows the changes in resources allocation among all FAO Strategic Objectives between MTPs for 2002-07, 2004-09 and 2006-11.

Table 1: Percentage of FAO Resources by Strategic Objective Strategic Objective

Title Plan Period 2002-07 (% of resources)

Plan Period 2004-09 (% of resources)

Plan Period 2006-11 (% of resources)

A1 Sustainable rural livelihoods and more equitable access to resources

9.0 10.3 13.3

A2 Access of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups to sufficient, safe and nutritionally adequate food

3.0 2.5 2.8

A3 Preparedness for, and effective and sustainable response to food and agricultural emergencies

7.0 7.0 5.2

B1 International instruments concerning food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry and the production, safe use and fair exchange of agricultural, fisheries and forestry goods

7.9 9.1 8.7

B2 National policies, legal instruments and supporting mechanisms that respond to domestic requirements and are consistent with the international policy and regulatory framework

7.9 9.1 8.9

15


C1 Policy options and institutional measures to improve efficiency and adaptability in production, processing and marketing systems, and meet the changing needs of producers and consumers

13.6 9.3 9.3

C2 Adoption of appropriate technology to sustainably intensify production systems and to censure sufficient supplies of food and agricultural, fisheries and forestry goods and services

14.9 11.4 12.7

D1 Integrated management of land, water, fisheries and genetic resources

4.1 6.5 4.9

D2 Conservation, rehabilitation and development of environments at the greatest risk

2.9 3.8 3.4

E1 An integrated information resource base, with current, relevant and reliable statistics, information and knowledge made accessible to all FAO clients

22.4 23.3 23.5

E2 Regular assessments, analyses and outlook studies for food and agriculture

6.1 5.9 6.0

E3 A central place for food security on the international agenda

1.2 1.8 1.3

100 100 100 51. The Technical and Economic Programmes (TEPs) and Programme Entities (PEs) that

contribute to SO D2, either through the Regular Programme9 or through projects (field and normative), are shown in Annex 2.

52. All technical Major Programmes (MPs) contribute to D2. In the MTP 2004-09, a number of TEPs were said to contribute to D2 that were not indicated as doing so in the previous MTP. However, the team could not find much evidence of change in the formulation of the TEPs indicating a greater focus on D2 priorities. The apparent shift in resources can thus be accounted for only from resources previously accounted under SO C (see point (ii) in paragraph 50 above).

53. Annex 2 shows also that 63 PEs, plus four intra-departmental entities in MP 2.1, contribute to D2. However, 25 (40%) of these were identified through checking the Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) code in FAO Field Programme Management Information System (FPMIS) for projects which the evaluation team determined as being related to D2. These projects were coded as being linked to PEs that were not identified in the respective MTP as contributing to D2. At the same time, the Evaluation Team could not ascertain the resources devoted to D2 from PEs mentioned in the MTPs, since there is no method to disaggregate D2-related outputs from others in any given PE.

9 Regular Programme activities are funded through the Regular Budget of the Organization; projects, both field and normative, are funded through extra-budgetary resources.

16


54. Overall, this means that contributions of FAO work to D2 come from many different sources in the Organization and that they cannot be identified with precision. This in itself may not be surprising, considering that D2 is structured around particular ecosystems, and FAO's planning and organizational set-up is structured differently. How much the structure and modalities of planning in the Organization should be more explicitly related to its Strategic Objectives, would be the subject of another evaluation and would entail a more informed knowledge of the costs and benefits from doing so.

IV.b FAO normative work 55. Normative outputs which can be considered as contributing to D2 include global

regulatory frameworks, global and regional networks, international meetings and conferences, guidelines on ecosystem management, virtual platforms, economic and legislative studies, information and training materials and resource assessments. All of these were found to focus on single ecosystems, tackled and analysed from different perspectives and for different purposes. Annex 2 also lists all normative outputs identified by the Evaluation Team, by ecosystem.

56. In many cases, these outputs are produced by FAO units in collaboration and partnership with UN programmes, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) institutions, international organizations and financial institutions. FAO’s role in these partnerships is explored later in the report.

57. Normative activities are usually financed through FAO Regular Budget (RB), but in recent years the number of normative projects funded by external stakeholders (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, International Financial Institutions (IFIs), UN programmes, etc.) through extra-budgetary funds has increased substantially. As mentioned above, calculating resources devoted to normative outputs from the RB is almost an impossible task. On the other hand, contributions from extra-budgetary sources in support of these normative activities could be calculated: in the period under analysis, the total amount was in the range of US$ 16 million, through 13 project initiatives. These were mostly focused on marine ecosystems (six with 30% of funds) and mountains (five with 65% of funds), with drylands receiving less support (two projects with 5% of funds).

58. Besides the “D2-specific” work assessed below, a number of other FAO normative products contribute to the different components of D2. These include: GIEWS, FIGIS, Forestry Resources Assessments, Terrestrial Monitoring System, Poverty Mapping/ FIVIMS, etc. Since they do not focus on single fragile ecosystems, they were not assessed as such by the Evaluation Team. However, some of these are widely known and used in Member Countries for the management of these ecosystems. Appreciation of the relevance of these products and their impact on D2 objectives has been taken into account in the evaluation’s conclusions on FAO’s performance and achievement.

IV.c FAO operational/field work 59. The analysis of projects recorded in FPMIS identified 102 field projects operational

17


during the period analysed (2000-2005) as relevant to the D2 mandate10. Including normative extra-budgetary projects, this represents around 4% of the number of projects implemented by FAO during the period.

60. Most field projects are relevant to the component of D2, which aims at “Promoting the sustainable development, conservation and rehabilitation of fragile ecosystems and areas”, though many also contribute to the component on capacity building. A more limited number of projects tackle monitoring and information systems, in particular those dealing with marine ecosystems. Projects would not normally have a specific focus on development of partnerships, the fourth component, since at field level this is more often a means of action rather than an end in itself.

61. The analysis of field projects showed that 32% focused on drylands (33 projects, total budget US$ 42 million), 26% were in mountain areas (27 projects, US$ 36 million), 11% were in wetlands (11 projects, US$ 16 million), 8% aimed at coastal areas (8 projects, US$ 36 million), 12% focused on marine ecosystems (12 projects, US$ 22 million), 3% on mangroves (3 projects, below US$ 1 million) and 8% tackled several ecosystems at the same time (8 projects, US$ 30 million).

62. By project funding type, TCPs represent 40% of the total number, GCPs represent 36%, UNDP-funded projects are 17%, 4% are GEF funded projects, and 3% are Unilateral Trust Funds (UTF) projects. UNDP-funded projects and TCPs are most numerous in drylands, while GCP-funded projects predominate in mountains. For marine ecosystems, regional GCPs are the biggest group.

63. In financial terms, 68% of all project funds come from GCPs. UNDP is the second most important source, with 20%. The relatively large UNDP share is a reflection of the priority given by that organization to environmental issues. TCPs, although representing 40% of the projects by number, comprise only 8% of total funds, whereas the three UTF represent 3% of total funds. GEF, which provides less than 1% of total project funds, finances only regional projects, and does not intervene in drylands with field projects through FAO, apart from the normative project on Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands, LADA. Overall, regional projects represent 23% of total funds.

IV.d Institutional Arrangements for D2 areas 64. The MTP 2002-07 stated that in consideration of the wide dispersal throughout FAO

units of responsibilities and activities related to D2, the major thrust for this SO was initially through the PAIA11 "Strengthening Capacity for Integrated Ecosystem Management" (ECOM) which initially concentrated on drylands and mountains with a view to producing inter-sectoral guidelines and policy advice. The following areas were identified for improved inter-disciplinary collaboration:

• Monitoring and assessing the state of fragile ecosystems, jointly with other institutions, and providing strategic data on, and analysis of trends and major issues.

10 The first screening was by examining all projects in D2-related TEP. Projects were then analysed one by one at the level of objectives and area of intervention, and D2 related projects were thus identified. Different projects implemented at the same time or in sequence, aimed at the same activity in the same site were recorded as one initiative (TCPs recoded and second phases, TCP bridging between two GCPs in Haiti, TCPs integrating UTF in Brazil). In the case of multi-donor support to the same initiative, individual projects were counted separately. 11 Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIA) are working groups, comprised of various FAO units, addressing common priority work areas.

18


• Case studies, particularly when relating to cross-sectoral linkages. • Policy analytical frameworks and support tools for use at ecosystem level. • Methods for local stakeholder participation in co-management regimes. • The implementation of pilot action projects.

65. Strategy D is also supported through the PAIA “Integrated Management of Biological

Diversity for Food and Agriculture”, which had among its tasks “to operationalise the ecosystem management approach”. Normative work on the economics of environmental sustainability was also to contribute, along with support to environmental agreements and promotion of integrated environmental planning.

66. In 2004, it was considered that the ecosystem management approach was already mainstreamed within FAO to a good extent and that this overall task could remain as a responsibility of the Biodiversity PAIA. On the other hand, keeping together the work on mountains and drylands was detrimental to the visibility of each. Therefore the ECOM PAIA was split into two, one for Sustainable Management of Mountains and the other for Combating Desertification.

67. There are no other PAIAs or interdepartmental working groups specifically for other fragile ecosystems though a number of current PAIAs contribute in one way or another. Among these are the PAIAs on Climate Changes, Global Perspective Studies, Emergency Operations (prevention work), Gender and Food Security, HIV/AIDS, Integrated Production Systems, Organic Agriculture, Spatial Information Management, and Sustainable Livelihoods. Last, the Ad hoc Task Force on Small Island Developing States is intended to tackle the need for coordination within the Organization for these highly vulnerable ecosystems and economies.

19


V Assessment of FAO’s work 68. In this Chapter, the Evaluation Team provides its assessment of the four components of

SO D2. The assessment focuses on the responsiveness and efficiency of FAO in the execution of the different programmes and activities, including the extent to which FAO draws its areas of particular technical competence and multi-disciplinary strengths, the quality of FAO activities and outputs, the effectiveness and impact of FAO activities, including impacts on sustainability of outputs and on poverty alleviation.

69. The ET could not determine any systematic attempts to delineate recommendation domains or identify priority issues in the components of D2. This issue is discussed further in Chapter VI of this report.

V.a Monitoring systems and models for assessment of trends, impacts and threats 70. The first component of SO D2 is “monitoring and assessing the state of fragile

ecosystems, developing criteria and indicators for their sustainable management and building capacity for environmental assessment and risk analysis”

71. The contributions of FAO to the development of monitoring systems and models for trends, impacts and threats in each of the ecosystems addressed within D2, together with generic activities, are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of FAO’s outputs in monitoring systems and models Thematic D2 area

Monitoring system/model Notes

Drylands Soil and climatological, salinity assessment, crop yields, soil and crop management processes, irrigation planning, management.

Range of tools for defining levels/ extent of desert and desertification process, management of dryland soils for protection and food yield

Mountain areas

Soil, water, climatological, forest cover; forest/water interactions, crop/soil water management; integrated watershed approaches

Tools for measuring forest cover/ species, defining interactions with soil and water, crop and erosion management, links with downstream systems

Aquatic systems

Fisheries statistics, species data sheets, species introduction databases, fleet capacity data, mangrove cover and ecosystem description;

Baseline, status and trends of global and regional resource, commercial fishing capacity trends, inputs to aquatic biodiversity initiatives, coastal system health

Generic Satellite and remote sensing; Soil and water quality assessment; Land-use capability/agro-ecological zone definition; Food supply and food security

Non-specific tools for assessing land and water use, defining and measuring change in food supply and security, need to rehabilitate, potential for development

72. To these could be added various standards and guidelines developed for defining

potential food production, yields and productivity in different agro-ecosystems, and

20


hence the appropriate criteria for use and development of specific habitats and ecosystems. These apply broadly to crop production, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries sectors, but are not usually specifically targeted to D2 ecosystems.

73. Overall, although caution must be applied because of the limited number of respondents, questionnaire results on this area of FAO work indicate some familiarity among respondents from developing countries, and little familiarity among respondents from developed countries. Both groups nevertheless assess quality of these FAO outputs as satisfactory/good for coastal/wetland and dryland ecosystems and good/very good to excellent for mountain ecosystems (Annex 3).

74. With respect to normative actions related to aquatic components of D2, the quality of FAO’s outputs is generally very good at the specific and technical level. Indeed some products related to D2, such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), have been of key international significance in providing insights, guidance and awareness- raising at both public and policy levels. However, if a thematic perspective to addressing underlying D2 issues is applied, its quality suffers due to incompleteness and/or a relative lack of inter-linkage across Departments or Services.

75. Outputs relating to products such as the CCRF, the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAF), fisheries statistics and species identification sheets, are amongst the ‘flagship’ products of FAO, supported by dedicated and highly professional staff, so technical efficiency is high. Logistic efficiency in these areas is clearly subject to the constraints of funding, partnership requirements, and other demands on staff resource, but appears to have been acceptable. However, this performance applies more to the generic level, and specific focus on the D2 elements is less measurable.

76. The uptake and application of normative outputs is the primary factor in creating impact. Indirectly also, the more global data which might encourage better strategies for protecting key aquatic habitats such as mangroves could have major impact on nursery protection for fish and shrimp seed, and hence on the biodiversity and productivity of coastal and marine fisheries. Policy development and implementation methodology in aquatic ecosystem management more generally will have particular inclusive impacts on the subset of systems and issues representing D2. Overall, a useful range of guidelines and approaches, backed on occasion by workshops and other awareness-raising processes has been set out, though again more generically, rather than D2 focused.

77. More widely the Evaluation Team noted that all major third party documentation on global aquatic environments, ecosystem health, development and natural resources related to aquatic resources, make primary use of FAO production, resource and/or trade/commodity related data. While this is not specifically focused on D2 objectives, the framework in which global aquatic ecosystem issues are set out, and international policy development arises, owes much to FAO’s outputs.

78. With regards to the drylands ecosystem, the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) programme monitors the state of land and assesses land degradation and land rehabilitation and is the most significant regular programme/normative output directly linked to the D2 perspective for this system. Supported by the GEF, the programme makes a marked contribution to the knowledge of the state of the environment in the drylands ecosystem. A preliminary phase (PDF B) was implemented from January 2002 to December 2003 with a budget of US$ 1.4 million. It was developed to test an integrated methodology for land degradation assessment through pilot studies and to prepare a follow-up GEF project, which is expected to be implemented over 4 years, with a budget of US$ 15 million.

21


79. The LADA project is basically oriented to the assessment of land degradation, and is designed to develop assessment methodologies and apply them in six pilot countries representing six globally important regions, with the hope of an extension to other neighbouring countries by a natural diffusion of its application. The project has two principal objectives: 1) develop strategies, tools and standardised methods to assess and quantify the nature, extend and impact of land degradation and carbon storage in drylands, and 2) build assessment capacities to enable the planning of interventions to establish sustainable management practices.

80. LADA has provided FAO with the biggest opportunity to establish monitoring methodologies for the drylands of the world, to test them in actual situations, and then to develop a network of information systems to assess land degradation at national, regional and global level. It will focus on areas at greatest risk (hot spots) and areas where degradation was reversed (bright spots). The project considers all impacts of agriculture, including those resulting from the agro-pastoral, pastoral and sylvo-pastoral production systems. Technical advances have been mobilized for the project, especially studies and models integrating biophysical and socio-economic data, high-resolution remote-sensing and GIS techniques, the results and outputs being made to be incorporated in policy and institutional factors.

81. Since it is in its preliminary phase, the Evaluation Team could not fully assess the quality of its outputs, although these so far give great hope for achievement of significant results in the main phase, which is expected to commence soon. These will include the tracking of the underlying causes of land degradation, enabling countries to adopt policies attacking its root causes.

82. LADA is complemented by the data bases, maps, books and reports available on line and in the library, as well as the Global Land and Water Information Systems, the main systems for drylands and for water resources in dry countries being AQUASTAT (Global Information System of Water and Agriculture), SOTER (Global Soil and Terrain Database), AEZ (Agro-Ecological Zoning), AFRICOVER (Land Cover Assessment for Africa). In Africa, FAO participates as a partner in the multi-partner TerrAfrica initiative, aimed at building capacity and at strengthening the enabling environments for Sustainable Land Management. These are also in themselves very valuable resources, though not specifically targeted to D2 systems.

83. There is no specific mountain ecosystem monitoring and assessment programme in FAO. However, FAO was an important contributor to chapter 24 (Mountain Systems) of Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current States and Trends from the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. In addition, the Organization has a web page with a meta-database on agriculture related issues – Global Terrestrial Observing System/Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites (GTOS/TEMS)-Mountains, which contains information that is very heterogeneous in richness, format and quality. For some variables, e.g. biodiversity, census information over several years is scant, whereas for other variables such as rainfall, the information is more complete. Unfortunately, for some of the most important mountain ranges in the world there are almost no data.

84. In the view of the Evaluation Team, even a complete directory of web sites with papers and data on all mountainous areas would not adequately address the requirements for monitoring and assessment of the state and trends in mountain ecosystems, and could not be regarded as being capable of generating models (explanations) for the trends, as is stated in D2. A monitoring and assessment programme should at least have entries for the most important mountain ranges in the world using a few commonly agreed

22


indicators of status and trends, and including descriptions and analyses of these parameters through space and time. The Evaluation Team was informed that FAO contributed to a UN-wide exercise undertaken in 1995-1996 to generate mountain development indicators. However, these indicators are not used in GTOS/TEMS-Mountains.

85. Overall, most of FAO’s D2-related monitoring and modelling activities across these ecosystems have been related to trends, firstly in developing assessment tools and inventories, and secondly in establishing the means of measuring change. However, these rarely focused specifically on D2 issues. In terms of threats, there is a problem of defining these, partly because they need to be understood within the ecosystem context, which in turn depends on interactions of natural resources and social vulnerability. This was rarely addressed, though clearly scenario-testing applications such as GIS could be useful. This leads to limitations in defining system impacts, particularly in the absence of D2-specific baselines, or qualitative and process indicators.

86. With respect to the relevance of FAO’s work, much of it had inclusive relevance, i.e. the development of monitoring and modelling systems that included the D2 ecosystems, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus in some systems, particularly those for desertification, soil erosion in upland areas, and mangroves, these were specifically identifiable processes and features and could be linked to particular D2 concerns, while in others, such as land and water use mapping, fisheries stock assessments, and biodiversity, these were more generic, and though broadly relevant, did not produce definable D2 outcomes. However, apart from limited livelihoods-linked activities such as the Livelihoods Support Programme (LSP) there appeared to be few examples of complete ecosystem approaches, particularly those incorporating human, community and societal interactions, which would be required for fully relevant approaches.

87. Concerning the effectiveness of the monitoring systems and tools made available through FAO’s work, there was evidence of use at a general level by national governments, through specific project interventions, and more broadly for publications and various guideline documents. Again, much of this applied generically rather than specifically to D2, though there were some exceptions such as mangrove initiatives, where the area of action happened to coincide with D2 systems rather than being driven specifically by them. In most cases, where specific actions were carried out within departments or services, as part of their more broadly defined work programmes, effectiveness was relatively good, though often constrained by intermittency of resources and variable opportunities for developing partnerships.

88. Evidence from the evaluation shows that overall FAO has made useful contributions to the development of monitoring systems and models for trends, impacts and threats in each of the ecosystem areas addressed within D2. FAO’s contribution to other, e.g. inter-organisational initiatives has also been notable, often providing essential baseline data and information structures and frameworks from which characteristics and trends could be abstracted, whether or not by FAO itself. However, the focus on specific D2 issues and approaches was rarely distinguishable, and overall, it was difficult to discern significant impact. In the case of field projects, many of these were limited by the scope and context involved and by the limited opportunities made to extend/scale up findings and lessons, while for normative work, D2 related issues were commonly subsumed within wider themes.

89. In all cases therefore, achievement was compromised with respect to D2 targets by the absence of an operational, context-setting strategy in which goals and priorities for

23


doing so were clearly established. This resulted in four main weaknesses: • The lack of a clear definition of D2 ecosystems, their distinction from other

ecosystems, the implications of specific trends, and broader development relevance, particularly with respect to FAO’s primary mandate; this made it difficult to specify D2 type systems sufficiently to create definable baselines, monitoring procedures and trend development.

• The absence of specific focus on threats to such ecosystems, and hence on the consequence and implications of these, and the potential mitigation methods. This would apply both to the ecosystems themselves and to the people and communities associated with them.

• A fragmented coverage and depth of response with respect to monitoring and modelling, in which D2 objectives were commonly incidental to broader themes and issues; this meant that although there was an advantage of a generally consistent approach across all ecosystems, commonly defined with respect to natural resource production categories, there was little opportunity to create aggregate or comparative representations of highly vulnerable systems. As a result, trends and other indicators (e.g. vulnerability, resilience, impact levels and rehabilitation response) could not be effectively developed.

• Little coherence of approach for interaction, either within or across sectors, in developing and applying common approaches and standards for monitoring such ecosystems with potential partners or collaborators. This related also to the piecemeal approach described above, and meant that opportunities for developing a fully strategic perspective, creating common goals and clearly defined responsibilities, were not realised. This also meant that the significance and the need for response concerning highly stressed systems could not be adequately set out.

90. These constraints could be observed at both normative and field programme level, and

moreover added to problems of connecting across them. Thus both in addressing thematic issues and within countries, the potential synergies available from interconnecting ideas and concepts across ecosystems and/or “recommendation domains’’ and institutional contexts were rarely achievable. This is partly a reflection of the difficulties of allocating scarce budgetary resources, both within and across agencies, but the argument could be made that a better level of definition, of the critical issues involved, and their role in local and global value systems, would make a far more convincing case for investment and policy response.

V.b Capacity building 91. The second component of D2 Strategic Objective is as follows: “Enhancing

institutional and planning capacity at the local, national, regional and international levels and incorporating consideration of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of natural resource use into policies and programmes, in order to respond to degradation and competition for natural resources in fragile ecosystems.”

92. For this category, the respondents to the questionnaire tended to have limited familiarity with FAO work. Those who described themselves as knowledgeable assessed FAO’s quality as satisfactory to good overall, although with lower satisfaction in relation to drylands. This also holds for FAO technical publications, which can be regarded as

24


contributing to some extent to capacity building. On the other hand, familiarity with FAO-sponsored conferences, seminars and workshops is stronger and quality is scored overall good/very good, being excellent in a few cases (Annex 3).

V.b.1 Capacity Building, normative work 93. While, as discussed later virtually every field project has had a capacity building

component that targets local, national and or regional level capacity building, the Evaluation Team could find only a few examples of specifically D2-related training activities, including development of training materials, at global or international levels. Some examples, such as workshops developed by the FAO-RAPA office in forest cover and watershed management, have provided useful inputs, albeit not in a D2 targeted manner. This is particularly striking, as it is at the international and regional levels that one would expect FAO’s interventions, though as already noted, the lack of a D2 operational structure has resulted in the absence of thematic leadership.

94. While normative work activities have contributed usefully to more generic capacity building they have rarely done so with a specific focus on D2 targets. For example, as regards the aquatic ecosystem they have typically been at the level of training in planning and policy for coastal management, wetland and mangrove management, hatchery and nursery techniques, biodiversity, stock and ecosystem assessment, water quality analysis, livelihood surveys and environmental impact assessments – all at a more generalised level rather than specifically targeted to D2 aims. Nonetheless, capacity building activities provided are in many cases useful and have impacts on the subset of systems and issues representing D2.

95. A number of the generic areas of capacity building have been very valuable and could be developed further to address issues related to D2. A key area with respect to Agenda 21 criteria is that of developing approaches to valuing environmental services. While FAO has not extended significantly into the theoretical and policy-related aspects of non-market valuation, it is developing a very valuable body of experience within the Economic and Social Affairs Department in using practical approaches for building real markets for previously unrecognised goods and services. Much of this focus is on finding ways for these markets to benefit poor and marginal groups, creating the kind of incentives which could also reduce pressures on the vulnerable environments on which they depend. There would be good potential for further D2-specific capacity building, both at local and national/ regional level, addressing both the practical mechanisms and the policy level implications.

96. In relation to mountains ecosystems, FAO is the Task Manager for Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 on Mountain ecosystems. Utilizing Swiss and Italian trust funds, FAO acted as lead coordinating agency for the implementation of the International Year of the Mountain in 2002, the aim of which was to raise global awareness about the importance of mountains, and to highlight the threats posed to mountain populations and ecology. FAO supported the development of 78 national committees to initiate concrete action on mountain areas through an ecosystem approach. Some of these committees are active and operational, being also members of the Mountain Partnership. FAO also coordinates the International Mountain Day every year on December 11 since its initial celebration in 2003.Further, one trust-fund project is dealing specifically with capacity building on mountain systems world wide, the “Sustainable Agriculture and Development Project-Mountains” (SARD-M). It was developed with support from the Swiss Cooperation as a

25


follow-up to the WSSD Johannesburg Summit. With a three-year, US$ 1 million budget, the SARD-M project aims to: • increase public knowledge about mountain ecosystems and the need to improve

policies affecting them; • strengthen institutions to carry out critical policy analysis, examine positive and

negative externalities of mountain ecosystems vis-à-vis nearby lowlands and suggest needed policy reforms; and

• support implementation and strengthen critical institutions. 97. However, the Evaluation Team was informed that project formulation did not take into

account the D2 mandate. The project will work with existing institutions and thus expects that the execution time (four years) will not become a major hindrance. The Evaluation Team believes that to be an unrealistic expectation. However, there appear to be prospects for scaling-up the activities by mainstreaming results into the Regular Programme.

V.b.2 Capacity Building, operational/field work 98. Virtually all field projects have capacity building components, using a number of

techniques and methods. In a few cases, traditional capacity building and extension systems are strengthened by providing them with training materials and calling on them to provide services to projects. More often, traditional mentoring and learning-by-doing approaches are used, including provision of advice by FAO experts to counterparts and study tours by project staff to other countries. By far the most common mechanism is the Farmer Field School (FFS), used in over half of field projects visited.

99. In FFS, farmers are supposed to select among options offered to them as to what best fits their needs and capacities. The facilitator’s (extension officer) role is one of promoting knowledge building, and instead of relaying centrally developed extension messages, they relate to locally relevant problems emerging from the FFS field study. Participants (25-30 persons) meet regularly throughout the season from pre-planting to harvest, to learn about various activities and to decide how to manage activities chosen.

100. Capacity building on methodologies for participatory territorial planning and development (e.g. Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development Approach, PNTD) at micro and meso level introduced in Latin America through projects aimed at watershed and drylands management, have met with high success and interest among national institutions.

101. In most cases, capacity building components of all visited field projects have been successful. Of 29 projects assessed, 13 were scored as good and 10 rated as satisfactory on the five-point scale. Six had poor or no impact (Annex 4). In the view of the Evaluation Team, capacity building was most effective where the following conditions were fulfilled: • The capacity building methodology was being introduced or expanded. Such was the

case when the FFS and PNTD were an innovation in the country, or were expanded because they had been very well received by all levels of government, universities, and among target farmers (e.g. Uzbekistan, Brazil and Bolivia).

• Innovative or new technologies and management practices were being introduced into the country (as opposed to mere replication in a new area or institution in the country). Examples were found in the projects in the Tonle Sap Region of Cambodia

26


and the Prosopis control project in Kenya. 102. Capacity building appeared to be least effective in the following situations:

• Where existing national capacity in the topics being addressed by the project are already high, e.g. in Egypt and Thailand.

• Where methodologies are of dubious quality; and/or • Where recipients of training have limited or no capacity to adopt or apply the

methods or technologies taught. 103. All factors discussed above clearly raise issues of relevance and pertinence of proposed

technology transfer and technical assistance in a number of FAO projects. The Evaluation Team considers that more attention should be paid to real needs in recipient countries for capacity building, taking into account the fast changing profile of national competence available today in many countries.

V.c Promotion of sustainable development and ecosystem conservation and

rehabilitation 104. The third component of Strategic Objective D2 is “promoting the sustainable

development, conservation and rehabilitation of fragile ecosystems and areas (dryland, mountain, and coastal and marine ecosystems).” As noted in Chapter IV, although FAO’s normative programme addresses a number of the background context for “sustainable development, conservation and rehabilitation” most of this work as related to D2 is carried out through field projects.

105. In this section, the Evaluation Team has focused on assessment of the actual and potential impact of the sample of field projects examined. The projects aimed at various aspects of the promotion of sustainable development, ecosystem conservation and rehabilitation, where they could be recognised as occurring. Relevance to these issues was ranked in 77% of the cases as good and very good.

106. A primary issue in this part of the assessment has been to characterise “sustainable development, conservation and rehabilitation” in terms of agreed goals and measures for respective ecosystems. In line with earlier comments, the absence of an implementation framework has created a similar deficiency in appropriate aims and targets. As practical proxies for these, therefore, using themes that are understood in the broader FAO context, and potentially relate to these D2 aims, field projects were assessed with respect to three key criteria, i.e. actual and potential impact on the environment, on sustainable agricultural development, on food security and on poverty alleviation. Taking the three criteria together, 26% of the projects were rated as good and very good (score 4 and 5) and 43% was average or satisfactory (score 3). Best performance was on environmental impact (30% good and very good) (see Annex 4). These projects mostly addressed economically significant recommendation domains, and in many cases attempted to provide alternative income generating activity to target populations that could be adopted, so that further depletion of resources could be prevented.

107. Examples of potentially good impact on all criteria were found in projects implemented in all the ecosystems under review. In aquatic systems, a sequence of projects around the economically significant Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia identified and promoted innovative, community-based natural resource management systems together with

27


livelihoods diversification, offering the potential to sustain major benefit from aquatic resources without over-exploitation. The same, though at a more modest level, might be possible for the algae-production project in Brazil. In the drylands, the ET examined a regional Gums and Resins projects in Africa, where the rehabilitation of large tracts of degraded lands using appropriate large scale water harvesting techniques and the strengthening of community participation and management of the interventions, should have a positive effect on the environment in the semi-arid countries in Africa while also increasing the production of Acacias. In mountain ecosystems, a project in Bolivia had some success in diversification of production away from coca and improved the legal income of the farmers.

108. Impacts on the environment, sustainable agricultural development, food security and poverty alleviation were rated as poor or unsatisfactory in 31% of the projects, with poorest results in Africa. These were generally where social or economic conditions did not exist for widespread adoption of the technologies or systems being piloted, or where the recommendation domain had been of limited economic importance as discussed below.

109. For example, Conservation Agriculture (CA) offers much hope for reducing desertification in drylands. FAO has been involved in normative work and in promoting the technology in Africa for over 10 years and was a major force in creating and is the principal international partner in the African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT). The essential features of CA are well described as: “minimal soil disturbance restricted to planting and drilling; maintenance of a permanent cover of live or dead vegetal material on the soil surface; direct sowing; crop rotation combining different plant families (e.g. cereals and legumes); adequate biomass generation; and continuous cropland use” 12. However, the two CA projects visited in Africa and Asia introduced technology that is not easily adopted by farmers, because the institutional and other constraints they face that were not at the same time being addressed.

110. Testing of CA in the two projects involved intensification of production (increased levels of inputs such as seed and fertiliser), and improved management techniques such as timeliness of operations, and the use of essential tools and equipment such as jab planters and herbicides, crop rotations, keeping the soil covered, etc. Under such conditions, unless trials are poorly managed, soil degradation would be reduced, agricultural productivity would increase, and labour inputs would decline. However, the critical question for adoption of CA is not so much whether this can be achieved but whether it can do so under farmers’ conditions of capital scarcity for procurement of inputs and equipment, alternative use of crop residues, etc. These critical factors, which will play a determining role in whether farmers will adopt the technologies or not, had been insufficiently addressed to date in those CA projects, which were visited.

111. Projects aimed at rehabilitation of salt affected lands, particularly in irrigated zones where water logging and poor drainage are causing land degradation, were also assessed as having poor potential impact. Those visited were of very short duration as they were funded through TCPs. The tools for combating salinization of irrigated lands have been known for a long time: when compared to the enormity of the problem in some drylands, these projects were minuscule and often regarded as of minor significance locally. They commonly focused on the presumed insufficiency of technical knowledge of farmers and local agents and the facilitation of exchanges between farmers and

12 FAO, Earthscan, World agriculture towards 2015/2030: An FAO perspective, pp306-308.

28


official services (local and national level), but did not consider the many other constraints to having a significant impact on rehabilitation of degraded lands.

112. The Evaluation Team also observed that FAO projects tended to be small in comparison to the challenge of sustainable development of mountain ecosystems, since most of these were demonstrations or pilots for larger interventions. The mountain ecosystem projects also scored relatively less well on poverty alleviation, possibly due to the fact that most of them were working in areas characterised by relative high-income. This does not mean however that work was not potentially applicable also to areas with other income levels and higher poverty and food insecurity profiles.

113. A slightly more positive picture emerges when looking exclusively at GCP, possibly thanks to larger budgets and longer time-span for project implementation. Information comes from the evaluation of twelve GCP field projects related to this component of D2, carried out by independent tripartite teams in the period under analysis. Four of these were implemented in dryland areas, one was a coastal development project and all others were implemented in mountain areas, mainly in Central and Latin America. Overall, all projects were scored positively in terms of environmental impact. Attention to natural resource sustainability was lacking only in one case (drylands again), and environmental conservation was addressed specifically in all but for two projects (one dryland, one mountain).

114. Of the seven mountain projects evaluated, three were national projects funded under the umbrella of the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS)13 in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. In each country, project areas are considered vulnerable in terms of poverty and food security by national standards. In all three, although to different extent, projects’ actual and potential impacts on the four criteria identified by the present Evaluation Team were ranked on average “satisfactory to good” by the evaluators.

115. These three projects seem to be however somewhat exceptions within the SPFS umbrella. In fact, there is no evidence from previous evaluations and from interaction with the competent FAO Service, that D2-type of concerns were otherwise integrated into other SPFS projects, when these were implemented in fragile ecosystems, such as drylands.

116. One TCP aimed at elaborating the Armenian national strategy for sustainable mountain development had been assessed as part of the Independent Review of the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme in November 2004. The team ranked it very highly in terms of relevance, but too ambitious against available funds and time-frame and poorly designed. The project had started only a few months before the evaluation, therefore no results could be assessed then.

V.d Partnerships 117. The fourth component of the Strategic Objective D2 is “assisting in the practical

implementation of those chapters of Agenda 21, and of international conventions and agreements, relevant to fragile ecosystems (e.g. desertification, mountain development, responsible fisheries).” Here it is implicitly recognized that Agenda 21’s approach involves, and even requires partnerships, while international conventions by their nature

13 A fourth regional coordination component was also evaluated, but was not included in this list.

29


are expressions of purpose in working together to achieve common goals. However, this component of D2 highlights not just the connections, but also the processes of implementation. Thus, linkages should promote outcomes, not be an end in themselves.

118. The partnerships addressed in this evaluation cover UN agencies (e.g. UNEP, UNESCO), international financial institutions (e.g. IFAD, World Bank, GEF), NGOs and the private sector. However, since there has recently been a major evaluation of FAO’s partnership mechanism, the present evaluation draws on some of the results of that evaluation14, while widening the definition of partnership used in that context and focusing on activities specific to D2, in particular partnership arrangements with UN agencies which are important for Agenda 21 activities. Indeed, the latter were explicitly excluded from the recent partnership evaluation exercise.

V.d.1 Partnerships, normative work 119. In each of the major areas covered by SO D2 under the aquatic ecosystem (coastal

management, marine ecosystems, mangroves, wetlands), a range of partners is usually involved. However, there is little specific focus on “assisting in the practical implementation of those chapters of Agenda 21, and of international conventions and agreements, relevant to fragile ecosystems” unless within the wider (and very substantial) achievements in fisheries management and land/water planning.

120. A potentially positive example of partnership in implementation is the LADA programme, described above, supported by the GEF, UNEP, the Secretariat and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD and FAO. FAO is the executing agency.

121. Another potentially effective partnership initiative, the LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) programme is the continuation of a multi-donor initiative to assess the interaction between livestock and environment. LEAD has the mandate of facilitating the development of the fast changing global livestock sector so as to enable it to provide clean and safe animal products to consumers. The initiative targets the protection and enhancement of natural resources as affected by livestock production while alleviating poverty.

122. FAO has also contributed to the organization of the Mountain Partnership (MoP), participated in its launching at WSSD in Johannesburg in 2002, and now hosts its Secretariat. Switzerland and Italy, continuing a funding line initiated in the 1990s for FAO work on mountain ecosystems, are supporting the Partnership secretariat. Its members include 46 governments, 14 intergovernmental organization and 73 major groups including NGOs. Also FAO is a full member. The MoP is a major partnership with considerable implication for future FAO work on mountains, and is a specific implementation process relevant to Agenda 21. The core thrusts of the Mountain Partnership are networking and initiatives on the ground, tackling specific themes like policy and law, sustainable livelihoods, watershed management, research, gender, education, sustainable agriculture and rural development in mountains, in different geographic areas, including the Andes, Central America and the Caribbean, Central Asia, East Africa, Europe and the Hindu Kush Himalaya.

123. FAO-Mountains also work in partnerships with over 10 institutions including the Mountain Research Initiative, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the International Coalition on Landslides (ICL), the Mountain

14 FAO, PBEE, 2005. Evaluation of FAO’s cross-organizational strategy on broadening partnerships and alliances

30


Forum and the IUCN Mountains Initiative Task Force. 124. In its review of FAO’s programmes related to D2 in terms of organisational

connections, the Evaluation Team found no major gaps in the normative programme. In each of FAO global activities a range of partners is usually involved, demonstrating in a positive sense the ability of FAO to engage in partnerships in these issues. However, the quality of these partnerships was likely to vary with the resources and shared commitment involved, and there were few indicators in place to determine these quality features.

125. SO D2 states that “particular emphasis will be given to international, regional, national and local partners that are involved in the implementation of Agenda 21 chapters on fragile ecosystems and the related international conventions”. Here the Evaluation Team finds that while this is not neglected (the Mountain Partnership referred to previously being a particularly good example), neither does it appear to have been given specific emphasis, for example in setting out to achieve specific aims. This also reflects the broad absence of an operational strategy for D2, in which partnerships would be specifically sought and activated, with clear and targeted objectives.

126. The SO also states that “A strong partnership will be required with major UN agencies, such as UNEP and UNESCO, and IFIs such as IFAD, working in the areas of conservation and rehabilitation of fragile ecosystems.” Again, while there are examples of working with or indirectly contributing to UN agencies and IFIs, perhaps more on the generic issues of resource definition and methodology development associated with conservation, this is not a strong feature of engagement in D2.

127. SO D2 states that “FAO will also collaborate with research and academic institutions in developing methodologies for monitoring and assessment of fragile ecosystems”. There appear to be reasonable levels of collaboration in some themes related to aquatic issues. Links such as those with the World Fish/EU Fishbase system, are specifically notable, together with active use of fellowships, and though now relatively dormant, SIFAR (Strategy for International Fisheries Research) until recently hosted in FAO has been a useful linkage mechanism. Linkages in other ecosystems appear to be more variable, and FAO’s role varies with its resources and core relevance, from clear leadership to occasional collaborative input.

128. The SO also calls for FAO to “work closely with NGOs and civil societies in balancing conflicting demands on resources and fostering the participation of local communities in conservation and development”. This is a demanding, though highly important function in addressing D2 related objectives in many habitats, and is widely recognised as being an essential process in achieving positive longer-term outcomes. However it can often be perceived as too sensitive an area of engagement for FAO, as it may pit civil organisations against public sector or other interests, or be reflected in interdepartmental strife at national level. Clearly also, more threatened or endangered ecosystems are also often associated with conflict and governance challenges, whether as cause or consequence. Here, FAO offers normative resources in the form of guidelines on various themes, but in a relatively passive manner, whereas a more challenging and potentially much more valuable approach might be to engage more openly in processes of conflict resolution, as this will feature ever more strongly in future needs.

31


V.d.2 Partnerships, operational/field work 129. Although not a specific objective, a number of field projects reviewed have attempted to

establish or strengthen partnerships, whether at local or regional level as a way of enhancing the quantity and quality of their outputs. The quality and aims of such partnerships vary with the local context, and distinctions might be made between: • operational partnerships, in which links are made specifically to carry out the project,

essentially just for its duration; • extension partnerships, where specific opportunities are sought around projects to

scale up findings and potential impacts, normally only within the project life; • strategic partnerships, in which the project linkages are simply an element of an

intended longer-term engagement in meeting shared objectives and commitments. 130. The Evaluation Team graded 32% of the 28 projects assessed with scores that indicated

partnerships were good and very good, with the same percentage scored as having no or unsatisfactory partnerships . The remaining 36% were scored as satisfactory/average. Most of the partnerships were operational, and were specifically designed as such though some moved out to extension and strategic engagement, or were set up within a pre-existing partnership context.

131. Successful partnerships occurred in projects that were regional or inter-governmental. They include the CA-SARD projects which involves a partnership between 13 Kenyan, Tanzanian and international stakeholders, the Acacia project for Africa where strong partnerships are being established with the private sector (including a machinery manufacturer in Europe), international organisations (UNCCD, ICRAF, GEF), as well as with national and community organisations, including NGOs. Projects have also been successful in fostering meaningful partnerships when they are specifically designed for donor collaboration, e.g. in Cambodia where a Trust Fund was an important unifying activity which specifically was meant to reinforce partnerships.

132. While the evaluation found general satisfaction with FAO as a partner, and no specific issues of dissatisfaction, it came to the same general conclusion as the recent partnerships evaluation, that FAO has greater difficulties in partnering at the field than at headquarters level. Moreover, the absence of specific context for partnership, i.e. defining the nature and expectations of these, made it difficult to develop clear approaches and operational good practice.

32


VI Cross-cutting issues 133. In this Chapter the Evaluation Team reviews issues that are of a cross-cutting nature and

affect all aspects of FAO’s attempts to operationalise and implement SO D2. The first section examines how successful the Organization has been in exploiting its comparative advantage in its activities. Other topics addressed are the efficiency of implementation, particularly of field programmes, and the success in up-scaling of its many small projects. The final section asks the question of whether there is continued utility in maintaining a separate strategic objective that addresses fragile ecosystems as opposed to integrating the work within other strategic objectives.

VI.a Comparative Advantage 134. In this section the Evaluation Team presents its assessment of the overall comparative

advantage of FAO in the normative and field activities reviewed. Though the term “comparative advantage” is widely used in expressing and justifying the extent and nature of FAO’s role in development, no specific criteria had been set out to define this. The Evaluation Team therefore considered that FAO has a comparative advantage if one or more of the following conditions could be observed, in that FAO: • knows more, • has better connections, • is more efficient, • is more innovative, • is more respected, • or is more influential.

VI.a.1 Regular programme Aquatic Ecosystems 135. In the aquatic ecosystem theme areas, FAO has considerable and recognisable strengths,

at least some of which can be defined as comparative advantages. These include its capabilities, and its at times pioneering role in fisheries management and fishery ecosystem approaches, its key contributions to stock definition, species identification and biodiversity issues, its early inputs to understanding wetland and mangrove functions and management approaches, its important role in thematic resource mapping, particularly applying to ocean and coastal systems, to hydrology/watershed management, and to climatic and environmental risk assessment. Most recently, in ecosystems closely linked to D2 targets, these strengths were put to rapid and specific application in addressing post-tsunami recovery and rehabilitation issues.

136. In a number of the specific areas of aquatic D2 subjects, such as mangroves, fisheries and coral reef biodiversity, fishing impacts, FAO has established a specific role historically, which has then been largely taken up by others, with little practical prospect of FAO maintaining its earlier leadership. To some extent this is simply a reasonable and commendable progression from pioneering to handing over to wider networks of stakeholders, but there is concern about the constraints in moving onwards. This is partly attributable to the earlier noted lack of a D2 operational strategy, and to the inclusion of D2 issues within wider public agendas on development and

33


environment, but nonetheless reflects a more general constraint for FAO in addressing its mandate and moving forward in meeting challenges.

137. The specifics of the D2 statement with respect to aquatic themes are: i) “FAO is well positioned to address conservation and rehabilitation concerns with a multidisciplinary perspective and help public and private sector and civil society institutions and organizations in member countries adopt practical solutions for fragile ecosystems”. The multidisciplinary potential is there but rarely called on or developed; limitations to its partnership engagement are already noted, though again the potential is there. ii) “As a result of its institutional capacity and expertise for monitoring natural resources, FAO can also ensure compatibility of natural resource data with other related food and agricultural data”. This advantage is clearly present, and FAO continues to have an important role more generically in defining and harmonising international standards, but strategic linkages between resources, habitats and environments, and in turn with food production and livelihoods, are not nearly as developed as would be desirable. Moreover, with increasing pressure of human population, habitat and industrial development on aquatic environments, wider linkages at major system level are required.

138. With respect to the statement “In advising on practical measures to deal with environments at risk, FAO can rely also on its institutional role as depositary for a number of international conventions such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as well as the fact that it is a task manager or major partner in the implementation of the chapters of Agenda 21 relevant to fragile ecosystems”, this role with respect to the CCRF, and the related Fish Code programme is well regarded, though in aquatic issues, it does not have as large a position in Agenda 21 chapters as do other themes. FAO’s position with respect to these instruments is clearly recognised, but it is questionable whether it has been able to use this to major additional effect for D2 specific aims. Thus, there is only incidental evidence that this role has enabled FAO to advise on practical measures to deal with environments at risk.

Drylands 139. FAO has a number of important assets and interactions in which to demonstrate its

comparative advantages in addressing drylands issues, at a range of levels. At the international level FAO has collaborated closely with the UNCCD Secretariat in the implementation of the Convention, for which it created initially an IDWG, later transformed into a PAIA. This is an active interface with UNCCD bodies, including the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism, and with the new GEF Operational Programme on Land Degradation (OP 15), recently designated as the main funding mechanism for the UNCCD. As mentioned above, the PAIA Combating Desertification is the main FAO interdepartmental mechanism to implement SO D2 as it relates to drylands.

140. Here, the comparative advantage of FAO is clearly recognised by the Secretariat of the Convention, not only because of its global mandate for food and agriculture issues, but for the quality of its professional services and its contribution to the implementation of the Convention. FAO has been a very supportive and important partner in the Secretariat’s attempts to move desertification issues from local agendas to the global agenda.

141. Over the years, FAO has also been heavily involved in helping many member countries in the diagnosis of land degradation problems and in the preparation of national action

34


plans. The comparative advantage of FAO in these areas had been identifiable and well recognised and the Organization still appears to have an important role in defining international best practice, and in brokering experience, though with wider capacity building, national agencies and others have been able to engage more effectively in some of these issues. The Secretariat of the UNCCD regarded FAO’s response to the requests of countries as having been adequate and commendable except recently, when it was felt that FAO was often not able to respond adequately because of its financial constraints.

142. With the establishment of the special window for land degradation in the GEF, the demands on FAO to exploit its potential comparative advantage in integrating food and agriculture and poverty issues into major environmental initiatives at regional levels have increased. However, the UNCCD Secretariat feels that FAO is currently not taking sufficient advantage of the new opportunities to develop GEF projects for drylands.

143. Taking LADA as the flagship FAO programme on drylands, the Organization has displayed its comparative advantage at a number of levels in the implementation of the preliminary project: its international honest broker reputation in most of the counties in the developing world, access to and use of several data bases built during implementation of other projects (like the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies-WOCAT), its capacity, as an international organisation, to produce normative and standardised methodologies, its recognised capacity to use remote-sensing for land use mapping, and its involvement in the combat against desertification. The successful development of LADA, and the effective development of partnerships should be an important opportunity for FAO to demonstrate its ability not just to ‘live off the capital’ of its earlier reputation, but to build new areas of capability, reputation, and strengthen its comparative advantages.

Mountain Ecosystems 144. As already mentioned FAO has a tradition of mountain work and is recognized as a

leading agency in this field. Besides the work mentioned in connection with the International Year of Mountains and International Mountain Day, FAO played a key role in the adoption of several General Assembly resolutions related to sustainable mountain development, most recently resolution 60/198, which have continued to keep the international agenda focused on the importance of people living in mountainous areas. FAO’s comparative advantage with respect to mountains comes through its traditional expertise in forestry, marginal agriculture, soil and water management, and its role in developing mapping and land-use classification approaches.

145. FAO could play a more significant role by (i) taking a more active role in helping to guide an overall agreement where the major problems are and, more importantly, where solutions might be sought. This may require coordinating an international effort to classify mountain ecosystems on the basis of types of risk and development opportunities; (ii) developing a clearing house for information concerning mountain areas. Its role in the MoP, as a GEF executing agency, a technical partner for rural development, and its perceived position as an honest broker, all support this idea, but the potential could be better realised.

35


VI.a.2 Field programme 146. The picture for D2-related comparative advantage of FAO field work is rather less

favourable than that for the normative programme. In four of the nine countries visited, the Evaluation Team determined that overall the projects evaluated were not considered as sufficiently exploiting or showing FAO’s comparative advantage. Surprisingly two of the four countries in which FAO projects scored lowest in terms of comparative advantage were in Africa where one might expect FAO to have more opportunities to exploit its comparative advantage.

147. Poor scores on comparative advantage occurred in countries where national capacities are already high and FAO, if called upon, would be needed for highly specialised support, which in some cases might not be available either because of FAO’s lack of key staff expertise or comparatively low ceilings on consultancy emoluments. In countries where national capacities are high, FAO in some cases carried out trial/demonstration work through TCP projects using already established approaches – the claimed difference simply being that they were done on somewhat larger plots or in different areas. It is the view of the Evaluation Team that these experiments could have been carried out with little or no expenditure from FAO, i.e. from a technical perspective, they were not cost-effective.

148. Poor scores were also assigned in some countries where local capacity is not particularly high, but FAO has missed the opportunity for innovative and positive contributions by developing and implementing projects that simply go over well established grounds, or use questionable methodologies. While it is true that such projects may have introduced the technologies and methods in different areas of the country or to institutions previously not exposed to them, this is merely a dissemination activity which has limited impact in view of the small amounts of funding. This point was brought out by government officials in one country.

149. In Madagascar, an Integrated Catchments Area approach is being piloted. This has evolved from incomplete approaches in past work that either concentrated on irrigated perimeters in catchments or on improving the productivity of catchments with little attention to the linkages to their irrigated perimeters. Instead of making use of its existing capabilities, and hence its comparative advantages, FAO has not fully exploited the lessons of its earlier five-year UNDP financed project on four Catchment Areas. No attempt has been made to determine the residual affects of the project that ended ten years ago – an obvious laboratory to determine the sustainability of activities similar to those being piloted in the current project.

150. In the same country, FAO is missing opportunities of more involvement in areas in which it has a comparative advantage, e.g. by participating more fully in the national Environmental Programme Oversight Committee. This would enable it to develop more linkages and projects in the interface between the strict environmental protection ethos of many of the agencies working in the Programme, and the sustainable food security orientation which FAO is promoting, and by doing so create important added value as well as building from its traditional reputation.

151. Poor scores were also obtained in one case where FAO is now primarily performing the role of a project-implementing agency (service contractor) with the Asian Development Bank financing for a D2-related intervention. Though argued as a valuable option to maintain engagement in the absence of other funding, the comparative advantage of FAO in this case is highly questionable and is under possible threat of being devalued.

36


The project has started slowly for various reasons and unfortunately, other national programmes for FAO in the natural resources/food security/environment areas have not built up enough to allow FAO to develop sufficient critical mass to be applied in broader policy engagement.

152. The mission also saw examples where FAO has clearly exploited its comparative advantage. Such projects have successfully introduced innovative management, technologies and policies. They included the projects on “Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region” in Cambodia, which were excellent examples of FAO providing impartial and professional leadership in a complex and politically demanding environment, demonstrating key opportunities, linking natural resource use with emerging community processes, applying international standards of practice, providing advocacy, and giving guidance at a range of levels. Interactions with the broader development community were also very positive, and FAO’s role as a co-ordinator and facilitator of actions through the Donor Working Group Trust Fund were very well regarded. Here also the specific experience and background of the FAOR during that period were important in establishing and maintaining FAO’s role, while directed support from RAP and FAO Headquarters were also well appreciated. The personality of the previous Chief Technical Adviser, a passionate advocate of community management, was also clearly influential.

153. An interesting case of using FAO’s comparative advantage as a prestigious honest broker was provided in a shrimp-farming project in Thailand, where in spite of poor design and questionable results, the involvement of FAO in the project at a critical juncture in an increasingly conflicted situation had played an important political role. Here, the implementation of the project was one of the ways in which competing interests of farmers and shrimp producers could be defused, allowing the Government to set out a policy to control saltwater shrimp farming in inland areas. This was considered to be extremely valuable. The regional Livestock Waste Management project for Thailand, Viet Nam and China may prove to be similarly useful and there would be wide scope for useful FAO action in Brazil on sustainable environmental management of large-scale agri-business and rural settlements. This type of intangible benefit requires a platform that is served by the project interventions.

154. In some cases, the comparative advantages could be shown simply in the quality of FAO’s technical interventions, connecting well trained professionals with similar technical interests and perspectives, and hence being well appreciated, often representing a stage in ongoing interaction with FAO technical departments. Here however, the advantage was usually very specific, and arguably more based on individuals than on FAO’s strengths as an organisation. Nonetheless, the fact that key professionals were still able to operate positively and perhaps opportunistically within a loose structure is a potential advantage, although this could be much enhanced were these able to be part of an objective framework and build more effectively into organisational strength.

155. From the review above, it is clear that FAO has considerable and recognisable strengths, which can be defined as comparative advantages. Many areas of its normative work related to the D2 objective exploit its comparative advantage, although as clearly shown in all sections of this report they are of a general nature and not specifically designed or always perfectly suited to what would be required if programme specific activities were developed for D2. In contrast to much of the normative work reviewed, FAO does not appear to have always designed and been involved in the implementation of field

37


projects that exploit its comparative advantage. 156. While many of the issues above link across both normative and field programme themes

in all of the D2 ecosystems, and offer an opportunity for FAO to continue to build experience and knowledge, there was little evidence of this from the D2 perspectives. Further, the opportunities for cross-programme, regional and global lesson learning, or with strategic themes of climate, environment, human development and food, are as yet rather limited. A further concern is that many of the capacities are specifically linked to individual professional capabilities and external programme resource opportunities and are clearly at risk from staff changes and from uncertainties of budgetary and other resource allocations. This in turn increasingly tends to limit FAO’s position, and its comparative advantages to more of a secretarial role with respect to donor and government partnerships, rather than one in which it is actively stimulating and engaging in the development agenda.

157. Finally, though FAO was able to offer specific strengths in a range of technical applications related to D2 there is also some element of comparative weakness in using this to enter dialogue in the crucially important resource and environment challenges being faced in some countries. The lack of strategic presence, whether or not explained by a reluctance to enter arenas that might be politically charged, is sometimes a serious constraint. In this context, though FAO is well respected, and still apparently trusted for its institutional memory, access to technical knowledge, and its neutrality, these alone will be insufficient in projecting courageous debate and implementing effective responses concerning major environmental challenges.

VI.b Efficiency of project administration 158. A number of recent project, programme and strategic evaluations in FAO have provided

evidence and commented on heavy and cumbersome administrative procedures affecting the Organization’s performance. Major externally-led evaluation exercises such as the Evaluation of FAO Decentralization and the External Review of the TCP programme, brought together perceptions and evidence from both internal and external stakeholders and identified problems also in the administrative philosophy behind procedural set-up, and their consequences on overall efficiency of work.

159. During this evaluation, numerous stakeholders referred to FAO rules, regulations and procedures as being cumbersome and inefficient to the point of possibly jeopardizing future collaboration opportunities (e.g. World Bank in Brazil). The Evaluation Team assessment of efficiency of implementation for the D2 field projects visited showed overall that the efficiency of project implementation was regarded as slightly better than satisfactory (36% good and above, 40% satisfactory, 24% poor and very poor).

160. This more positive result could primarily be explained by the fact that this assessment focused on implementation efficiency, which was positively influenced by the commitment of staff to overcoming administrative hurdles and in some cases, the willingness of FAO’s implementation partners to find alternative solutions, including advancing funds.

161. Problems most frequently mentioned in relation to implementation, were long delays in recruitment of consultants and completion of budget revisions, and the use of Letters of Agreement, considered by many an inadequate contractual tool. Procurement procedure was criticized heavily in only one case, possibly due to the fact that it featured as an

38


important budget item in very few projects. There was no specific evidence that these issues were much influenced by the nature of the issues or implementation aims particular to D2 objectives.

VI.c Scaling up of projects 162. Most of the country-based initiatives addressed by this evaluation took the form of

technical assistance projects, aimed at demonstrating approaches to development while at the same time preserving or enhancing the natural environment. These technical assistance projects, many of which were financed through TCP, are usually small in terms of budgetary provision and, especially in the case of TCPs, short in duration.

163. Because of these constraints, technical assistance projects cannot usually offer a comprehensive solution to problems relating to D2 objectives of conservation, rehabilitation and development in key ecosystems. At best, if successful, they can demonstrate on a small scale, usually within a pilot area and with more generous level of inputs (technical and physical) than would be available in a “normal” situation. In the case of D2-related projects, the task is made even more difficult by the fact that improvement in the environment is often slow and results may not be considered as conclusive after one or two years.

164. The aim of pilot projects is to convince decision-makers of the utility of the approaches used, with a view toward larger scale replication in the future, generally through other sources of funding, whether the Government itself or another donor. Given the relatively short time frame of most D2-related projects, there would seem to be a clear need to associate those likely to be interested in scaling up the pilot activity with the design and progress of the project, starting as early as possible.

165. In several projects visited by the evaluation team, this has in fact happened, and scaling up was successful. Kenya, for example, participated in the regional TCP on production and marketing of gum arabic for dryland areas. With funding from Italy, a $4.19 million preparatory phase was developed for an eventual 10-year project for African producer countries of gums and resins. Other examples of follow-up, building on results from FAO projects were found in field missions to Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia and Uzbekistan.

166. However, many other pilot projects did not result in any scaling up after their completion. The principal reasons for this were: lack of a convincing demonstration (usually either technical or economic) and/or lack of partner interest, usually because it was not sought. In most cases where this happened, there seemed to be an implicit assumption that the success of the project would spontaneously generate follow-up interest. This may happen in some types of projects, if the innovation is low-cost, accessible and results of the pilot exercise are clearly visible. This will rarely be the case with interventions aimed at D2-type objectives. For these activities, follow-up seems dependent to a large extent on the perceived success and novelty, with interest from other parties nurtured almost from the outset.

167. For example, in Thailand, a project concerned with sustainable soil use under rainfed agriculture in the dry zone of the country had no discernible follow-up, despite the importance of agriculture and the important problems of salinity and water logging being addressed. The mission found that the experimental design in the pilot area was not satisfactory and that the cost-benefit ratio from adoption of the technologies being

39


demonstrated was not likely to attract the interest of poor farmers in the area. Generally, the lack of data about cost-benefit to farmers was a weakness in project design and implementation, noted in a number of the projects reviewed. There is little chance for promoting SARD or other approaches without this kind of information.

VI.d The value and potential of Strategic Objective D2 168. The themes of D2 are important and interlink with core issues within FAO’s mandate,

this being “to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.” It is clear that where people live in areas that are described as having fragile ecosystems, are engaged in food production and income generation, and are attempting to improve livelihoods in a sustainable manner, the provisions and approaches embodied in D2 are essential in achieving these aims. Moreover, where these ecosystems provide services to others, whether in rural or urban environments, the D2 engagement has the potential to generate highly important and often unrecognised multipliers. Thus, it is relevant for FAO to devote attention to the problems of fragile ecosystems, and potential impacts are great.

169. However, this must be set against a basic question of what can be said to constitute a fragile ecosystem, and how in practice should policy approaches, social and technical interactions differ for these, from the broader and globally important issues of sustainable development. Is it relevant and appropriate for FAO to consider in a selectively more specialised manner all of the areas and populations associated with mountains, drylands and coastal zones? Could other systems similarly claim such specialised attention? As noted earlier, the D2 theme areas actually account for the interests of huge numbers of people on areas covering substantial proportions of the earth’s surface. If not all of these, then which parts of these ecosystems should be targeted? Is there indeed a strategy that justifies such a division of perspective? While the UNCED Agenda 21, 14 years ago, drew attention very rightly to mountains and drylands, development systems thinking has understandably moved on. These “D2 systems” are highly significant and justify attention, but they cannot be isolated from others, nor be marginalised. Nor does a selective focus remove our responsibilities for similar concerns in other global ecosystems, many of which are under greatly increased environmental stress, with massive implications for human welfare.

170. A further and related issue concerns the D2 sub-themes of “conservation, rehabilitation and development”. At face value these are almost mutually exclusive objectives. Conservation is classically a matter of protection, with minimal levels of human intervention, extended possibly to ecosystem-relevant levels of hunting, foraging or grazing, while some views propose zero intervention. Rehabilitation implies an objective of restoring habitats to some definable state. It might relate to an aim to restore a severely impacted and degraded system to some degree of ecosystem integrity and perhaps productive capability. Development normally implies deliberate alteration of habitats and ecosystems towards a productive aim. Although Strategy D overall, and D2 for fragile ecosystems, acknowledge the challenge posed by striking a balance between these three objectives, they do not define the criteria or approaches for doing so. Across a continuum of ecosystem vulnerability and human impact there could be various levels at which ecosystem functions, the delivery of resource-based goods and services, and the livelihoods of households, might be mutually achievable. But this is

40


not proposed, explored or developed, and leaves D2 without a convincing context. 171. The clarity of purpose in implementing D2 must also be questioned. Across the

ecosystems defined, FAO responses are useful, but not notably coherent and more vitally, not significant in real impact. Clusters of small projects, each with limited focus and target grouping, with limited provision or potential for wider engagement, cannot make a strategic response. While the quality of specific interventions has at times been good, and the normative programme might offer valuable strategic tools, there is little thematic connection separating and distinguishing D2. This translates further into a lack of definable objectives, and a difficulty in establishing D2 specific normatives and measuring impact. This could be particularly critical for D2 habitats, ecosystems and livelihoods, as without clear objectives the prospects for addressing the challenges involved will be much reduced, and indeed outcomes may fail.

172. Other agencies also have specific mandates to deal with conservation and rehabilitation related to fragile or endangered ecosystems. It appears that FAO has not had a notable position, apart from a small number of technical secretariat roles, and contributions to synoptic resource assessments arising from FAO’s generic normative functions. These have clearly been useful to underpin the identification of target areas, intervention options, and the measurement of change. The development component of D2 is perhaps most relevant to FAO, but distinctions between D2 environments and those in its wider aims are not clear enough for it to be pursued independently, or indeed justified to be separate. This also has implications for FAO’s comparative advantages, or the potential for these to be demonstrated. Apart from major thematic programmes which overlap D2 themes, this is rarely shown, with very few cases for topics exclusive to D2.

173. Operationally also, there appears to be very little practical support at Departmental level for a separate D2 objective – technical units either have a more inclusive vision of a continuum of involvement in ecosystems of all types, or at other extremes, simply do not consider environmental goods and services to be a core remit. Amongst those taking a proactive approach to embracing natural resource issues within food security and livelihoods contexts, staff engaged in emerging issues of global governance in natural resources may well have a sound sense of appropriate directions, and how best “D2 type’” issues could be assumed within the FAO mandate. However, beyond general statements of the importance of these systems and the problems they face, there have not been any processes for these to be explored and set out, and they have not been evident in any aspects of our assessment.

174. We must also question if separation of D2 has added value to FAO’s function, and whether the D2 issues are sufficiently relevant and well defined to be addressed with sufficient impact. This would not appear to be the case. Although D2 may have provided a degree of “recognition factor” asserting FAO’s place at the table in dealing with these issues, delivery appeared to be either too indistinct or possessing insufficient impact. While FAO demonstrated a useful and apparently valued technical secretariat role in some areas, and was one of a number of recognised contributors to major generic products such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, these did not necessarily require a separate D2 entity. The lack of definition, objectives or achievement indicators for D2 was clearly a constraint, and while this also made it less easy to determine the value of FAO’s D2 outputs, there was little that could be described as a valuable D2 outcome attributable or related to the investments applied.

175. There is also the question of whether resources applied to D2, directly or indirectly, have generated sufficient benefits with respect to its themes, and whether this has

41


enriched the organisation and its stakeholders. Here also, outcomes are difficult to measure but show little striking evidence of impact. This is not to suggest that potential generic impacts, such as those through FAO’s contributions to the Mountain Partnership, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, or links with the UNCCD and others, are not notable and well valued. Such major intergovernmental initiatives are important, arguably essential, but not in themselves solutions to the underlying development challenges. The extent to which they mobilise action, promote change and deliver outcomes, particularly in a more complex institutional environment, requires vision, commitment and well focused practical intervention. There has simply been very little perception of achievement at a broader level, with respect to D2 aims, nor is this much evident amongst stakeholders.

176. These reservations also apply to the potential for identifying, making use of or developing FAO’s comparative advantages. As discussed earlier, for D2 related issues, as might often be expected, FAO has shown a better position in sub-regional and regional than for national activities. However, at neither level was there a strong sense of FAO being able to define, use or build on its comparative advantages. This is not itself a justification for removing the D2 focus, either with respect to FAO’s position, or in the implications for future development of mandate and funding base. However, the D2 strategic objective would appear to have offered little by which FAO could clearly distinguish itself, nor had it been a gathering point for innovation in development.

42


VII Conclusions and Recommendations VII.a Overall Conclusions 177. The evaluation has explored the areas and issues which FAO has sought to address

within D2 Strategic Objective, and in each of the ecosystem contexts has examined the relevance and impact of its actions. The delineation of a Strategic Objective which specifically addressed fragile ecosystems was an attempt by FAO to recognise that within its mandate there were certain conditions in which resources (land for agriculture and livestock, water, forests, fisheries) and populations dependent on them, were in more precarious association and required more targeted and sensitive approaches. While probably not originally conceived as a major part of the FAO remit, evidence suggests that much more significant areas of the world, supporting a large part of its poorest and most vulnerable people, could be considered to be at threat, primarily but not exclusively through the pressure of human population and development.

178. Links between FAO Strategic Objectives and resource allocations were made explicitly for the first time in the Medium Term Plan 2002-07, in which D2 received 2.9 % or the second smallest of FAO’s Strategic Objectives in terms of resources. Although the proportion rose slightly in the following MTPs and around 4% by number of projects implemented by FAO are related to the objective, the objective has received a minor share of FAO resources, mainly through TCP funds.

179. Activities related to D2 have been diverse, and dispersed, and varied in quality, relevance and impact. There has been little evidence of strategy, coherence or priority setting with respect to issues and aims. As stated in the MTP, an important gathering point should have been through the PAIA ECOM, later split into two, one for Sustainable Management of Mountains and the other for Combating Desertification, and a Biodiversity PAIA. However, no other PAIAs or IDWGs were specifically engaged. Neither was there much evidence of opportunistic benefit from D2 linkages into other PAIAs or IDWGs. Unfortunately, the lack of such an operational structure simply deprived initiatives across FAO or with partners from contributing to any higher order understanding or context setting for D2. This has been a substantially missed opportunity, and an inadequate response to the need for mechanisms to make the D2 Strategic Objective operational.

180. FAO has certain recognisable strengths and comparative advantages, and many areas of normative work related to the D2 objective exploited these and could contribute to their further evolution and enhancement. However these were of a general nature, and were not specifically designed or always well suited to the more specific requirements of a more exclusive D2 focus. It is worrying also that many of the important capacities are specifically linked to individual professional capabilities and external programme resource opportunities. These are clearly at risk from staff changes and from uncertainties of budgetary and other resource allocations.

181. However in relation to the field programme, D2-linked comparative advantage is much less clear. In four of the nine countries visited, projects reviewed did not sufficiently exploit or give FAO a comparative advantage. Surprisingly two of the four countries in which projects scored lowest were in Africa where one would a priori expect FAO to have more opportunities to exploit its comparative advantage. Most country-based initiatives took the form of technical assistance projects, aimed at demonstrating approaches to development while preserving, rehabilitating or enhancing the natural

43


environment. Projects were usually small, short in duration, and could not offer comprehensive solutions. At best, if successful, they demonstrated on a small scale, usually in a pilot area and with more generous inputs than in a “normal” situation. However improvements were often slow and results not sufficiently conclusive.

182. These observations all point to constraints for FAO’s delivery of D2, both conceptually and operationally. To implement the D2 theme effectively, it would be essential to define what is to be meant by “fragile ecosystems”, also described as “environments under threat” or “endangered environments”. While categorising them as mountain zones, drylands and coastal and marine ecosystems offers a spatial definition, it is insufficient to capture the essence of what is likely to be critical and important for FAO and its clients. Some parts of each of these systems are relatively robust, as equally there are highly sensitive aspects of ecosystems not covered in this spatial definition. Impacts may also be more critical beyond than within the defined ecosystems.

183. D2 issues require a convincing theoretical underpinning to provide a functional rationale – e.g. utility, vulnerability, key areas of sensitivity, and hence reasons for focus and prioritisation. There should also be a sense of costs and benefits, and the relative importance, directly or indirectly, in economic or social terms, of ecosystems, their services, risks, vulnerability, protection costs and local incentives. Much more effective approaches could be derived by focusing less on general classifications of habitat, and more on processes and potential outcomes at a range of scales. With leadership from FAO, an agency-wide context could be defined within which gradients of ecosystem vulnerability and development strategy could be applied, which would also have considerable power in addressing more global challenges.

184. Regardless of context, it would also be important to clarify key interaction areas or “entry points” for FAO’s engagement – whether wildlife, ecosystem, animal and human health, economic output, or livelihoods. There may also be more specific and no less important themes at global level, relevant for FAO but outside the D2 scope as defined, such as the role of crop management in carbon balances and/or other environmental offset development; integrated strategies for biodiversity in productive and protective zones, and the means of defining both spatial and quality dimensions of ecosystems and their productive security. Most of these themes are increasingly generic in development and considered to be beyond the need for discussion or justification, instead requiring sound and effective principles and strategies for implementation. Unfortunately, FAO does not appear to have addressed this coherently.

185. The lack of an operational approach for D2 also calls into question the extent to which strategy formulation in this area has in any way been a useful management tool. To be effective, there would have to be a purpose-aims approach for D2, with clear reasons for why it should be separated or otherwise differentiated from other parts of FAO’s mandate. The justification would have to be that D2 environments require different strategies from other ecosystems, or are different from other development challenges. However, this has not been strongly shown. This is not to criticise some good quality initiatives, but simply to observe that there is no “joined-up” rationale. There is a danger too that the lack of strategy may detract from effectiveness in major thematic drives of global development, and lessen also the critical links between short-term issues of vulnerability and longer-term issues of sustainable livelihoods.

186. It is clear then that the FAO response to the D2 objective has not been distinctive, primarily due to the disconnection between the objective and its implementation. For FAO to have executed its D2 mandate effectively would have required (a) clarity of

44


definition of target ecosystems, and definition of recommendation domains within each; (b) identification of priority issues where FAO has comparative advantage to intervene in a participatory manner; and (c) efficient implementation of priority actions in collaboration with the necessary partners to achieve impact.

187. The Evaluation Team concludes that there is no specific advantage in maintaining a separate D2 objective as currently structured and operationalised. It has been, and will continue to be important to ensure that D2 issues and themes clearly feature in FAO’s resource allocations, capability and actions, but a stronger and more coherent approach is needed and impact could be best delivered through a more inclusive approach within the major programmes of FAO’s actions.

VII.b Recommendations 188. Recommendation 1: While the immediate performance related to D2 needs to be

addressed by better operational focus and more rational strategic methodologies, as set out in the following recommendations, the separation of D2 within FAO’s strategic objective framework needs to be questioned. Distinctions between fragile or endangered ecosystems and any others are becoming increasingly difficult to make in simple geographical terms, and an artificial divide may obscure rather than focus appropriate actions and responses related to human needs and impacts. FAO's engagement with D2 related issues is very important and will remain so, but unless it can be shown to create significant added value to FAO's delivery, it should not be kept separate. In a more comprehensive and more operationally effective restructuring of its strategic objectives, the functions of D2 should be absorbed into the broader aims of FAO.

189. Recommendation 2: The operational issues related to D2 need to be clearly considered,

with the aim of specifying them closely and integrating these effectively to meet current and anticipated development challenges. A comprehensive and structured approach should be employed to set production, resources, vulnerability and risk into context, from global to local levels, thereby establishing a framework for FAO and its partners to define priorities, establish goals and specify clear indicators. This should specifically enable the vulnerable features of the present D2 systems to be well defined and effectively addressed, while at the same time, in an increasingly fragile global environment, creating an effective basis for FAO’s mainstream production and food security aims to be well secured within a sound development rationale. Opportunities should be sought for donor support in bringing this into being and developing strong and positive implementation partnerships. By doing so, this should also provide FAO with the means to demonstrate clear leadership in contemporary challenges.

190. Recommendation 3: Specific innovations relevant to D2 and related themes, such as

work in economic valuation and in the realisation of environmental values by local communities should be given greater emphasis and extended across a wider range of systems. This should be linked closely with related themes and applications amongst other agencies. By linking in and building on the in-house experience in resource management this could become a valuable part of FAO’s delivery.

45


46

191. Recommendation 4: For environmental and sustainable development, D2-type themes, FAO should aim for longer duration projects. TCPs should not be used for addressing these issues unless their full requirements can be met, i.e. limited objectives or pilot activities with very strong assurance of up scaling. This implies that FAO should also be much more rigorous in its ex-ante analyses to ensure that the conditions exist or can be created for adoption of the approaches being proposed, i.e. closer collaboration with agencies, financial institutions, etc. to better ensure that all of the conditions for successful adoption and up-scaling of its field projects are present.

192. Recommendation 5: Following from Recommendation 2 and in conjunction with

public, private and civil society partner agencies, FAO should look at defining more specific and effective long term criteria and measures for the stewardship of key systems and for developing sustainable and effective livelihood approaches, capable of being applied to meet future challenges at major system and local action level. Working with partners, and agreeing on respective roles, an integrated approach should be taken in setting major goals, defining advocacy issues, investment needs, and management approaches.

193. Recommendation 6: The evaluation highlighted deficiencies in specifying how FAO’s

comparative advantages could be defined, and hence where these exist and why. For D2 related aims and others, this should be spelled out more clearly and used as a management tool to define and measure performance and to determine appropriate responses and priorities. Areas where FAO already shows leadership or has the potential to do so should be clearly defined and developed, noting also that strategic leadership may require FAO to pass on and build up capacity amongst other agents. Pathways of development process should be set out, moving from pioneering concepts, testing and scaling up, negotiating and developing partnerships, transferring skills and responsibilities for longer term engagement, and maintaining a strategic role in monitoring system function and delivery of welfare. Such an approach would define FAO more clearly and permit its function and performance to be more clearly recognised and valued.

Report of the External Peer Review Panel on the

Evaluation of FAO Strategic Objective D2 Draft Report “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Environments

at Greatest Risk” 1. Under the overall management responsibility of the FAO Evaluation Service an

evaluation of FAO’s organisational Strategic Objective (SO) D2 “Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development of Environments at Greatest Risk” has been undertaken. The SO D2 is part of FAO’s Strategic Framework and is intended ‘to assist the global community in addressing natural resources management and conservation issues through the implementation of Agenda 21, and in particular through the promotion of sustainable agricultural and rural development’.

2. Part of FAO’s methodology for evaluations is the convening of an External Peer

Review Panel (EPRP). The EPRP was comprised of Mr. Paolo Bifani (EPRP chairman; Consultant on environment and development, Italy), Mr. Stein Hansen (Nordic Consulting Group AS, Norway), Mr. R. Norberto Fernandez (UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya), Mr. Joachim Gratzfeld (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland) and Mr. Umid V. Abdullaev (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management, Uzbekistan). The Panel met at the FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy, 24-27 April 2006.

3. The EPRP held detailed discussions with the Evaluation Team: Dr. Dunstan Spencer

(Evaluation Team Leader), Dr. James Muir, an independent consultant and member of the evaluation team; Mr. Robert Moore and Ms. Tullia Aiazzi of the FAO Evaluation Service (PBEE). The EPRP also held meetings with FAO staff (see footnote)1.

4. The EPRP was asked to vet and provide comments on the draft report produced by the

Evaluation Team on SO D2 (April 2006 draft report). 5. The EPRP considers that the Evaluation Team has conformed with the methodology

given to them in the Terms of Reference, and that have carried out a systematic, transparent and professional process.

6. The EPRP would have preferred to receive documentation earlier (including copies of

the country reports, copies of the written comments/replies from the different sections of FAO on the draft of the report) in order to analyse the draft report in-depth. This would have also contributed to fully capitalise on the insights of the staff involved in the evaluation process. While the EPRP acknowledges that in an evaluation as this one not all views will be exactly reflected, receiving the comments from the sections/division/departments in advance, would have helped the EPRP to make more informed questions and better understand the accuracy of the methodology and evaluation process.

1 SDRN: Jeff Tschirley, Alemneh Dejene, Dominique Lantieri; AGAL: Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel; AGLW: Sasha Koo, Freddy Nachtergaele; AGST: Josef Kienzle; ESA: Prabhu Pingali, Leslie Lipper; FIR: Serge Garcia; FORC: Jose Antonio Prado, Douglas McGuire

Peer Review Panel of D2 evaluation

48

7. The EPRP agrees in general with the Evaluation Team’s report and recommendations. Taking into account the strategic relevance of this report for FAO, the EPRP decided to focus its analysis on the report’s conclusions and recommendations section.

8. The EPRP noticed that the Recommendation 1 is the most contentious. During the

meetings with the FAO staff members the EPRP noted a clear divergence of opinions concerning maintaining a separate SO D2 or not.

9. It is the opinion of the EPRP that keeping the SO D2 could play a catalytic role in

financial resource mobilisation from both multilateral as well as bilateral institutions. 10. The report highlights that there is no observable evidence that SO D2 has added value to

FAO’s delivery. The external panel nevertheless has reservations on removing SO D2 as it could reduce the value of the efforts of FAO in the field of sustainable development and food security.

11. The EPRP believes that keeping such an objective will add visibility and thus enhance

the ability of FAO to demonstrate the food security – environment nexus, in line with the Millennium Development Goals and the recommendations of Agenda 21.

12. The EPRP concur with Recommendation 2 of the Evaluation Team. 13. The EPRP support Recommendations 3 to 6. In particular, the EPRP agrees with the

report on the need to enhance work on economic valuation and to extend these efforts across a wide range of FAO activities and to link these efforts with related themes amongst other agencies.

14. The EPRP suggests that SO D2 should be operationalised through more precise

targeting and to make best use of FAO’s comparative advantages. 15. The EPRP considers that sustainable development and environmental sustainability is a

central issue and that FAO should engage in these topics further. Towards this aim, the EPRP agrees with the Evaluation Team that it will be essential to clearly define “fragile ecosystems/environment at greatest risk”.

16. The EPRP identifies the Ecosystem Approach as a primary instrument for addressing

integrated natural resource management and cross-cutting issues, particularly in the case of fragile ecosystems and environments at greatest risk. Therefore, the EPRP recommends promoting the Ecosystem Approach at a range of practical/operative levels.

17. The EPRP concurs with the recommendations of the report in terms of capacity

building, and emphasises the importance of doing so in close collaboration with national authorities and communities, and international organisations.

Rome, Italy, 27 April 2006

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE EVALUATION OF FAO CORPORATE STRATEGY D2

(Conservation, rehabilitation and development of environments at the greatest risk)

1. Background FAO’s evaluation programme is increasingly framed in the context of the Strategic Framework 2000-2015 and the Medium-Term Plan, as requested by the Governing Bodies. Such evaluations are intended to be formative, examining whether FAO’s response to strategic objectives is adequate to achieve the desired results and making recommendations intended to improve the design, implementation, results and follow-up of related activities. These evaluations cover both Regular and Field Programme activities. The evaluations are intended to examine questions from the point of view of utility of the work of FAO to member countries. Evaluation studies also include a component of review of TCP activities, since TCP represents a significant part of the Regular Programme of FAO and the Governing Bodies have expressed continuing interest in evaluation of the effective use of TCP. At its 89th session in May 2003, the Programme Committee selected Strategic Objective D2 as a topic for in-depth evaluation. Of all FAO’s strategic objectives, this one focuses on specific, identified ecosystems, those which are identified as being at greatest risk. Focused actions to support conservation, rehabilitation, and development of environments at the greatest risk are required to ensure a balance between immediate human needs for food and livelihoods and the need to prevent unnecessary and irreversible degradation of resources in these particularly sensitive environments. Adequate monitoring of fragile ecosystems and identification of trends and threats to these systems are major challenges that need to be addressed. Particularly in developing countries, there is also an urgent need to assess and address the economic, social and environmental costs of managing and developing these ecosystems. 2. Definition of Environments at greatest risk All of the earth’s ecosystems, including notably the oceans and forests, are at risk of environmental degradation. However, Strategic Objective D2 mentions particularly environments “at greatest risk”, i.e. the most vulnerable. For the purpose of this evaluation, environments at greatest risk are taken to be Fragile Ecosystems. Agenda 21 defines fragile ecosystems as “important ecosystems, with unique features and resources. Fragile ecosystems include deserts, semi-arid lands, mountains, wetlands, small islands and certain coastal areas.” Although the FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000-2015 refers specifically only to three of these, namely dry-lands (semi-arid lands), mountains and coastal/marine areas, this evaluation will also cover FAO’s activities in wetlands and small islands, since they fall within the Agenda 21 definition of fragile ecosystems. Drylands are defined as “Arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas" other than polar and sub-polar regions, in which the ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapo-transpiration falls within the range from 0.05 to 0.65. Mountain Areas are defined by the United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) as all elevations above 2,500m irrespective

Annex 1, Evaluation of D2 Strategic Objective

of slope, and areas above 300m with slopes or sharp changes in elevation within a small area. This classification puts mountain areas at 29 million km2 or 22% of the total land area of the earth. For the purposes of this evaluation, Coastal and Marine areas are taken as Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs), which are defined by FAO as regions of ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems. Particular areas identifed as being at greatest risk are: (1) Intertidal rocky and sandy shore areas in densely populated areas; (2) Coastal lagoons (3) Shallow subtidal seagrass meadows; (4) Coastal algal beds (e.g. laminaria) (5) Coastal (warm) coral reefs (6) Deep (cold) coral beds (7) Seamounts (8) Mangroves Wetlands, according to the Ramsar Convention, are areas where water is the primary factor controlling the environment and the associated plant and animal life. They have free water at or on the surface for at least the major part of the growing season. The water is sufficiently shallow to allow the growth of a wetland crop or of a natural vegetation rooted in the soil. Under the text of the Convention (Article 1.1), wetlands are defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peat-land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres". In addition, the Convention (Article 2.1) provides that wetlands "may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands". Small islands can be regarded as a subset of LMEs, defined above. 3. Components of the evaluation For each fragile ecosystem above, the evaluation will cover four components:

1. Component 1 – The monitoring systems and models developed by FAO for assessment of trends, impacts and threats from processes affecting the sustainability of fragile ecosystems.

Main processes taken into analysis will be:

a) Desertification, which means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities

b) Deforestation and forest degradation which mean respectively “change of land cover with depletion of tree crown cover to less than 10 percent” and “changes within the forest class (e.g. from closed to open forest) which negatively affect the stand or site and, in particular, lower the production capacity”. (FRA 2000)

c) Loss of biological diversity, wherein biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial,

2


marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. "Biological resources" includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity.

d) Impact of agriculture, forestry and fisheries related production and exploitation activities.

2. Component 2 - Capacity building for planning, environmental impact assessment and

risk analysis at local, national, regional and international level. The evaluation of this component will assess the degree of incorporation of social,

economic and environmental costs and benefits of natural resource use into policies, strategies and programmes in order to respond to degradation and competition for natural resources in fragile ecosystems.

3. Component 3 - Promotion of sustainable development, conservation and

rehabilitation of the ecosystem. In this area the focus will be on field activities by FAO to assist member countries in addressing the problems and making use of their fragile ecosystems.

4. Component 4 - Partnerships for assisting in practical implementation of Agenda 21

and international conventions. These are expected to cover:

a) UN agencies (UNEP, UNESCO, etc.) b) IFIs (IFAD, etc) and GEF c) NGOs

However, since there has recently been a major evaluation of FAO’s partnership mechanism, this evaluation will draw mainly from the results of that evaluation, except where it may be necessary to highlight activities specific to D2, in particular partnership arrangements with UN Agencies which are important for Agenda 21 activities but were explicitly exclude from the recent evaluation exercise.

For each of the four components above, the following will be covered: 1) Relevance to countries, including the:

a) degree to which FAO activities related to the SO D2 are focused on topics and problems assigned priority by countries;

b) relevance of FAO activities to individual country’s demands and needs, including complementarities to support provided by others.

2) The responsiveness and efficiency of FAO’s institutional capacity for provision of assistance related to fragile environments, including the: a) flexibility and speed of response; b) extent to which FAO is able to draw on its areas of particular technical competence; c) extent to which the Organization makes use of its multi-disciplinary strengths; d) ability to work with other international organizations; e) cost-efficiency in production of outputs.

3


3) The quality of FAO activities and outputs, including the: a) quality of process; b) quality of outputs in terms of such factors as technical foundation and analysis,

relevance to the national situations and implementability; c) comprehensiveness, in particular, the extent to which key concerns including gender

and poverty implications have been adequately included.

4) Effectiveness and impact of FAO activities. 4. Evaluation Team The evaluation will be carried out by a Core Team consisting of Lead Consultant, and two members of the FAO Evaluation Service. They will be assisted by Environment Specialists for Drylands, Mountain, and Coastal & Marine ecosystems, who will participate as appropriate in the desk studies, field trips and final report writing, as per the schedule below (number and degree of involvement of other specialists to be decided) 5. Methodology The evaluation will include 3 main steps: 1. Evaluation of FAO’s normative work in relation to Strategic Objective D2 This part consists in collecting and reviewing guidelines, manuals, and methodological materials aiming at developing norms, standards, best practices and providing support to field assistance activities in the fields related to fragile ecosystems. This will involve a review of materials produced by FAO and others, including an examination of relevant literature on the subject. The review of written materials will be complemented by interviews with technical officers of key lead units. 2. Evaluation of Country Needs and Performance of Field Assistance A major part of the evaluation will be field visits to 11 countries, for an in-depth assessment, including review of individual interventions, many of which will be TCP projects. Specific field activities to be reviewed are listed below. Countries to be visited during field trips have been selected against the following criteria; - co-existence of different fragile environments; - number of relevant projects, not previously evaluated; - balance of projects among different PEs; - regional representation; - state of advancement of projects. Evaluation missions (consisting of one or two external consultants and a PBEE officer) will conduct interviews with key informants in each country, with a view to obtaining information on country needs and capacity. Missions will also interview persons involved with the design, implementation and follow-up to project interventions in the selected countries, including intended beneficiaries on a sample basis. Missions will also meet with implementing partners to obtain their assessment of country needs and work carried out in the country, as well as with representatives of organizations dealing with environmental issues at

4


5

national and international level (IUCN, WWF, UNEP, etc.) to assess respective roles and comparative advantages and potential for synergies and collaboration. Missions will assess: 1) field interventions in each country (see attached project list). Evaluation missions will also assess to the extent possible whether any other FAO implemented project impacts positively or negatively on the ecosystems under analysis; 2) use made of normative ouputs related to fragile ecosystems; 3) country needs in this area and the convergence between country needs and FAO strengths. Each mission will prepare a regional report, including separate reports on each country and project intervention reviewed. 3. Evaluation of coordination of and linkages between activities under Strategic Objective D2 This part will examine coordination mechanisms to determine the extent to which synergies are reinforced between activities that are related to fragile ecosystems. In particular, this part will assess the effectiveness of existing institutional mechanisms for coordination as well as strategic and technical mechanisms (such as the PAIAs). This will be conducted through interviews with key units contributing to these mechanisms as well as through the review of selected cases where coordination was deemed to be effective. Final Output: At the end of these steps, an overall evaluation report will be prepared and vetted by an independent external peer review panel. The report, along with the comments of the review panel and a management response, will be presented to the Programme Committee at its May 2006 session and subsequently to the Council. 6. Workplan and Timetable for evaluation Dates Activity Participants March 14 - 24 Scoping, Preparation of TOR (Rome) Core Team March 25 – May 30 Assembly of documentation, Logistics (Rome)* FAO Team June 1 - 21 Desk Study (Rome) Core Team + Specialists July 10 – 30 Field Trips – 1 (3-6 Countries) Core Team + Specialists Sept 11 – Oct 2 Field Trips – 2 (3-6 Countries) Core Team + Specialists Oct 16 – Nov 6 Report Drafting (Rome) Core Team + Specialists Assembly of documentation will involve the identification and classification of FAO PAIAs/PEs/projects to be evaluated by ecosystem, and compilation of necessary reports, publications etc. PAIAs/PEs/projects to be included will be those with significant activities of relevance to fragile ecosystems as defined in Section 2 above. The list of Programmes to be covered includes: 2.1.1, Natural resources; 2.1.3, Livestock; 2.2.2, Food and Agriculture Information; 2.2.4, Agriculture, Food Security and Trade Policy; 2.3.4, Fisheries Policy; 2.4.1, Forest Resources, 2.4.3, Forestry Policy and Institutions; 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer; 3.1.1, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related Capacity Building.

Annex 1

PE Ecosystem Region Name

(UNDP) Country

Name Project Symbol

Project Title EOD NTE LTU Total Budget (DWH)

Field Projects

2.1.1, Natural resources

Watershed management

Africa Botswana (Angola, Namibia)

UNTS/RAF/010/GEF

Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin

2003-05 2006-04 AGLW $5,391,000


Drylands Africa Kenya KEN/01/003/ /08/12

Land Degradation Programmes in Kenya 2002-03 2002-12 AGLL $105,000

2.2.2, Food and Agriculture Information

Drylands Africa Kenya TCP/KEN/0166

Support for Drought Management and Early Warning System in the Semi-Arid Areas

2001-11 2003-10 ESAF $217,126



Piloting conservation agriculture to improve livelihoods and food security for small holder farmers

2003-1 2004-12 AGST $353,204



Management and control of Prosopis Juliflora in Kenya 2004-3 2005-10 AGPP $201,493


Drylands Africa Kenya KEN/99/200/01/99

Environment and natural resources management 2000-8 2005-12 AGPP $903,075

2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer

Several ecosystems

Africa Madagascar

UNTS/ MAG/001/GEF

Appui au Plan dÀction Environnemental (MAG/96/G31)

1998-01 2003-12 FIPP $1,155,903


Several ecosystems

Africa Madagascar

MAG/97/003/ /01/99

Appui au Plan d'Action Environnemental (Phase II) 1998-01 2003-12 RAFS $834,670




Africa Madagascar

TCP/MAG/3003

Appui à la valorisation des basins versants et des périmètres irrigués

2004-09 2006-01 TCIS $317,496



Africa Madagascar

MAG/88/032/V /01/12

Bassins versants 1989-11 2000-01 FORC $2,678,103

2.1.3, Livestock Several ecosystems

Africa Madagascar

GCP/INT/716/FRA

Aide à la décision concernant les interactions entre élévage et environnement. Initiative LEAD

1998-10 2001-10 AGAL $528,658

2.3.4, Fisheries policy

Fisheries Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/011/ASB

Improving the Regulatory and Management Framework for Inland Fisheries

2003-07 2004-07 FIPP $540,000

2.2.4, Agriculture, Food Security and Trade Policy

Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/023/GER

Support of the Donor Working Group Concerning the Management of Natural Resources in Cambodia

2004-03 2004-06 FAOR $60,000


Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/013/DEN

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia - Danish Contribution

2003-08 2005-09 FAO R $245,000


Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia TCP/CMB/0165 -3003

Information and Communications for Sustainable Natural Resources Management in Agriculture

2002-03 2004-12 SDRE $387,462


Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia UNTS/ CMB/002/GEF

National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan, First Nat. Report to the Conf. of Parties of the Biodiversity Convention

2000-01 2004-12 SDRN $341,380

7


3.1.1, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related Capacity Building

Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/014/SWE

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia - Swedish Contribution

2003-06 2004-05 FACMB

$25,000

3.1.1, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related Capacity Building

Several ecosystems

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/012/UK

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia- UK Contribution

2003-08 2005-08 FACMB

$568,564


Wetlands/ fisheries

Asia Cambodia UTF /CMB/015/CMB

Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Component 2: Organizing Communities for Natural Resource Management of the TSBR

2004-11 2007-10 FIPP $3,800,000

2.4.1, Forest Resources

Wetlands/ fisheries

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/002/BEL

Phase II of GCP/CMB/002/BEL TF 039950 1998-09 2001-08 FONP $1,411,462

2.4.3, Forestry Poliy and Institutions

Wetlands/ fisheries

Asia Cambodia GCP /CMB/008/BEL

Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region (Phase III)

2001-11 2005-04 $2,122,189


Coastal management

Asia Thailand TCP/THA/8922

Impact of Shrimp Farming on Arable Land and Rehabilitation of Resultant Salt Affected Soils

2000-02 2001-12 AGLD $242,077


Drylands Asia Thailand, TCP/THA/2906

Sustainable Use of Problem Soils in Rainfed Agriculture 2003-09 2005-08 AGLL $260,000

2.1.3, Livestock Coastal management

Asia Thailand (regional Asia)

GCP /RAS/203/WBG

Preparation of the Proposed Livestock Waste Management in East Asia

2004-03 2004-12 AGAL $700,000


Coastal management

Asia Thailand (regional Asia)

GCP/RAS/179/WBG +GCP/RAS/175/SWE

Sustainable Management of Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project

2001-1 2005-6 TCIP $349,800

8



Drylands Europe Uzbekistan

TCP/UZB/2901 -3003

Integrated Management for Sustainable Use of Salt-affected and Gypsiferous Soil (Recoded from TCP/UZB/2801 and second phase)

2002-09 2005-03 AGLL $361,207


Drylands Europe Uzbekistan

TCP/UZB/2903

Sustainable agricultural practices in the dorugh-affected region of Karakalpakistan

2003-10 2005-9 AGPC $386,895


Protected areas

Europe Uzbekistan (and others)

TCP/INT/2903 Revision and harmonization of Protected Area Legislation

2003-06 2004-08 LEGN $158,542


Drylands Latin America

Brazil TCP/BRA/2904

Capacity building approaches to improving food security of poor rural people in the North East

2003-04 2005-03 SDRE $380,694


Mountain Latin America

Brazil TCP/BRA/2801

Environmental Management in Agricultural Basins-human Rural Settlements - Advance Allocation

2002-02 2002-03 AGLW $22,363



Brazil TCP/BRA/2903

Gestion Ambiental en el Medio Rural de la Cuenca del Rio Ariranha

2002-10 2004-09 AGLW $361,334



Brazil GCP /BRA/061/WBK

Technical Assistance for the Preparation and Initiation of the Atlantic Forest Programme in Brazil (Mata Atlantica)

2004-06 2008-05 FORM $880,000


Protected areas

Latin America

Brazil GCP /BRA/054/WBG

Grant for the Preparation of the Expansion of a System of Strict Protected Areas in the Amazon Region of Brazil

1999-03 2000-02 FONP $300,111



Cuba TCP/CUB/2903

Fortalecimiento del programa integral de desarrollo de las montanas cubanas

2004-4 2005-10 FONP $240,288

2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology

Wetlands Latin America

Cuba GCP /CUB/011/NET

Natural Resources Conservation in the Cienaga Zapata Watershed

2000-06 2002-10 RLCO $556,227

9


Transfer


Coastal management

Near East

Egypt TCP/EGY/0168

Rehabilitation, Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Mangroves

2002-05 2003-12 FORM $197,351


Coastal management

Near East

Egypt TCP/EGY/0167

Development of an Information System for Operational Monitoring and Integrated Management of the Nile Delta Costal Zone

2002-04 2003-12 SDRN $223,448


Drylands Near East

Egypt TCP/EGY/2904

Capacity building in land management and soil productivity/fertility through FFS

2003-10 2005-06 AGLL $297,649


Drylands Near East

Iran IRA/97/004/A/01/99

Desertification Control Project 1999-09 2001-09 FORC $99,000


Several ecosystems

Near East

Iran IRA/03/006/ /08/12

Assessing the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Crisis in Iraq on Border Area Ecosystems of Iran

2003-02 2003-04 SDRN $15,000


Several ecosystems

Near East

Iran UTF /IRA/036/ IRA

Environment Component of the Irrigation Improvement Project (LIP), Iran

2000-01 2004-12 FORC $342,313



Near East

Iran IRA/03/005/ /08

Reformulation of Sustainable Management of Land and Water Programme

2003-04 2003-12 AGLW $30,000



Near East

Iran IRA/97/002/A /01/99

Hable Rud Watershed. 1997-07 2002-09 FORC $130,946

2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and


Near East

Iran UTF /IRA/051/ IRA

Technical Assistance for Soil Conservation and Watershed Management in Golestan Province

2003-8 2003-12 AGLL $50,000

10


Technology Transfer

Normative Projects


Coastal management

Interregional

Inter Regional

GCP /INT/935/ ITO

Promote the Convervation, Rehabilitation and sustainable management of Mangroves

2004-06 2005-05 FORM $50,000


Drylands Interregional

Inter Regional

GCP /INT/900/CCD

Land Degradation Assessment 2004-05 2004-12 AGLL $50,000

2.2.2, Food and Agriculture Information; 2.4.1, Forest Resources

Mountain Interregional

Inter Regional

GCP /INT/825/ ITA

Promoting, Coordinating and Implementing Observance of the International Year of Mountains - 2002

2001-11 2005-12 FORC $2,272,003



Inter Regional

GCP /INT/886/ FRA

Promotion et protection des produits locaux dans le cadre de la mise en valeur durable des régions de Montagne: Contribution to GCP /INT/887/MUL

2003-07 2005-02 FORC $299,790


Drylands Interregional

Global EP /GLO/002/GEF + EP /GLO/202/GEF

Dryland Land Degradation Assessment - Lada (Gf/1100-95-12)

2000-11 / 2002-03

2001-02 / 2004-05

SDRN $730,000


Several ecosystems

Interregional

Global UNTS/GLO/001/GEF + UNTS/GLO/002/GEF

Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS)- GLO/02/G41/A/1G/12

2002-05 / 2004-07

2003-10/ 2005-09

AGLL $725,000



Inter Regional

GCP /INT/706/ SWI

Watershed Management and Sustainable Mountain Development

1998-06 2005-03 FORC $1,975,695

11


12

Evaluation of FAO Strategic Objective D2

Annex 2

Contents: D2 in MTPs 2002-07 and 2004-09; All field projects; Various Ecosystems, field projects and normative outputs; Drylands, field projects and normative outputs; Wetlands, field projects and normative outputs; Mountains field projects and normative outputs; Mangroves field projects and normative outputs; Marine field projects and normative outputs;Coastal field projects and normative outputs

D2 in MTPs 2002-07 and 2004-09 Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Intra-departmental entities/ Technical and Economic Programmes, Programme Entities

MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11

Projects Programme Entity Objectives (from MTP 2002-07 and 2004-09)

Major Programme 2.1. X X X The major programme will further promote technologies to sustainably intensify and diversify agriculturalproduction; assist with reducing the effects of agriculture-related environmental degradation and market failureson vulnerable, food insecure households; and addressing the biosecurity risks of exchanges of agricultural inputsand products, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to facilitate expanding international trade. Newtechnologies and approaches, such as methods for increased productivity of land, water and labour, applicationsof biotechnology and sustainable use of genetic resources, will provide the basis for future increases inproduction to meet the projected demand for food beyond the medium term. Linking production increases withsustainable practices and consumer concerns, a framework for "good agricultural practices" will be developed,that reduce environmental degradation and contribute to safety in the food chain.

210A1, Sustainable Intensification of Integrated Production Systems

X To disseminate promising integrated production techniques and best management practices for several majoragro-ecological zones, and ensure coordinated approaches to the intensification of production systems.

210A2, Promotion of Conservation Agriculture

X X 2002-07: To achieve increased sustainable agricultural production through better land husbandry based onprinciples and practices of Conservation Agriculture.2004-09: A process for participatory development ofsustainable agricultural production methods following the conservation agriculture concept is firmly establishedwithin a defined region, leading to a progressive increase in the number of governments, projects and farmersusing and promoting CA.

210S1 Committee on Agriculture X Servicing of COAG, involving the preparation of issue papers

210S5, Central Support to PAIAs X X This entity provides for catalytic funds (centrally administered) to support effective implementation of thePAIAs. Subject to specific criteria, these resources are put at the disposal of the chairs of coordinationmechanisms to cover the cost of truly cross-sectoral activities, particularly where it would be impractical toexpect cost-sharing by too many concerned units.

2.1.1, Natural Resources X X X The programme essentially promotes the conservation and sustainable use of land and water resources and plantnutrient inputs. Areas of emphasis are: sustainable improvement of land and water productivity; soil and waterconservation and rehabilitation of degraded land and water resources; development of national and regionalstrategies; and the integrated planning and management of land, water and plant nutrition resources.

211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

X Availability of technologies for efficient use and conservation of water; participatory, equitable and effectivewater management; improved irrigation policy and related institutional reforms.

2



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


211A2, Land and Soil productivity X X In the framework of the post-UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) conventions and theland management cluster of UNCED Agenda 21, test and disseminate improved land, fertility and moisturemanagement options and support the rehabilitation of degraded land in different ago-ecological zones.

211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

X X X X To promote integrated, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches to the development and sustainablemanagement of land and water resources; Contribution US$ 1.5-3 million

211A5, Land and Water Quality Improvement

X X X Improved production systems and methods put in place to mitigate environmental effects from poor water qualityand natural disasters; improved drainage systems and irrigation schemes, and enhanced quality of treatedwastewater used in peri-urban irrigation.

211P7, Land and Water Information Systems, Databases and Statistics

X Better managed land and water resources through information systems for monitoring, and increased awarenessamong decision makers about the global status of such resources.

211S1, Direct Support to Member Nations and to the Field Programme

X X X This entity supports the formulation and implementation of an active portfolio of projects including SPFS andemergency and relief operations, from the perspective of land and water issues. In 2002-07 MTP, contribution toD2 was US$ 1.5 to 3 million.

211S2, International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID)

X X X A joint initiative of several partner institutions, IPTRID supports applied research and technology transfer ofirrigation and drainage in developing countries through analytical reports, thematic networks, formulation ofpolicies and projects, as well as information dissemination activities.

2.1.2, Crops X X The programme has been adjusted to address more fully emerging priorities relating to: intensification anddiversification of crop production; contributions to improved rural livelihoods; conservation and sustainable useof plant genetic resources in the context of the ITPGRFA; increased demand for policy and technical support top g ; p y ppnational IPM programmes; and the growing importance of phytosanitary standards and pesticide management intrade and environmental protection.

212A3, Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable Crop and Grassland Production Systems

X Strategies adopted, and technologies tested and disseminated for sustainable crops and grassland production andprotection systems.

212A5, "Mainstreaming IPM" by Enhancing Essential Ecological Processes

X IPM becomes, before 2012, the preferred pest management strategy for the majority of member countries, withthe farmers field schools becoming the leading model for community based participatory technologydevelopment.

212A8, Facilitating Plant Production and Protection Decision Making

X Extension systems ensuring demand-oriented, collaborative and timely delivery of technical advice and plantingmaterial, with improved quantity, quality and relevance of technical information and reduced transaction costsduring information collection and dissemination.

3



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


212A9, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources, including through Biotechnology, and Seed Sector Development

X X Wide dissemination and use, as well as conservation of plant genetic resources and related biodiversity, throughstrengthening of the seed sector and plant breeding capacities at national level, and effective implementation ofthe GPA for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of PGRFA.

212B1, Production and Biodiversity in Crop and Grassland Systems

X Increased access to sufficient and quality food produced in a sustainable manner, throughintegrated technologies and policies.

212B4, Facilitating Plant Production Decision Making: Policy and Technology

X Provision of demand-oriented and timely policy and technical advice.

2.1.3, Livestock X The Programme is designed primarily to provide decision support through information and to enhance capacitiesin animal production and health technologies and policies.

213A5, Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources

X To improve the management and conservation of farm animal genetic resources at local, country, regional andinternational levels, including the implementation of priority actions plans and programmes, and the ratificationof an international treaty on AnGR.

213A8, Technologies and Systems for Efficient Natural Resource Use in Livestock Production

X Policies are implemented to foster livestock development while protecting public health and the environment;national veterinary and livestock services and other grass-root projects promote GAPs for intensive and semi-intensive livestock systems.

213P1, Global Livestock Information X X X Improved decision making at local, national, regional and international level with respect to livestock policiesSystem and Knowledge Framework and technologies that enhance livelihoods and income opportunities for small scale livestock producers while at

the same time promoting sustainable natural resource use.2.1.4, Agricultural Support Systems X The programme focuses on commercialisation by small-scale farms, urban food security needs, provision of

commercial services including post-harvest processing and marketing, and support to small- and medium-scaleagribusinesses, in line with prevailing conditions of globalisation and economic reforms, where rapid changesaffect the incentives and opportunities available to farmers, local entrepreneurs and other agricultural serviceproviders.

214A1, Enhancing Small Farmer Livelihoods

X To improve the support provided by public sector and civil society organisations to small farmers, includingadjustments in their livelihood strategies, improved farm business management and income generation in thecontext of agricultural commercialisation and globalisation.

4



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


2.1.5, Agricultural Applications of Isotopes and Biotechnology

X This programme, implemented jointly with the IAEA83, benefits from revised collaborative arrangements agreedin late 2001, including for its technical cooperation component. It covers research, training and other services tofoster applications of nuclear and related biotechnologies to intensify and diversify agricultural productionsystems and improve food quality and safety, while ensuring efficient and environmentally sound resourcemanagement.

215A1, Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production Systems through Technologies and Capacity-Building

X X Advanced technologies, products and practices for soil, water and nutrients analysis, crop germplasmimprovement and risk assessment and management of major trade-related pests, usedby National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and plant protection authorities, and transferred to extensionservices, NGOs and concerned projects.

215P1, Capacity Building and Risk Analysis Methodologies for Compliance with Food Safety Standards and Pesticide Control and Strengthened Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures through Irradiation of Food and Agricultural

X Greater ability of food control laboratories in developing countries to sample and analyse products for residuesand contaminants covered by Codex standards; greater adherence to good agricultural and manufacturingpractices.

MP 2.2, Food and Agriculture Policy and Development

X X X Irradiation of Food and Agricultural Commodities

2.2.1, Nutrition, Food Quality and The fundamental objective remains assistance with access to, and consumption of nutritionally adequate and safeSafety diets by all. Priority is given to human nutrition requirements and dietary assessment for food quality and safety221P5, Food Quality Control and Consumer Protection

X To help countries organise and manage their food control systems, harmonise their food standards andregulations with the Codex Alimentarius, participate in the work of the Codex

2.2.2, Food and Agricultural Information

X The programme contributes largely to Strategic Objective E1. Corework covers statistics on agricultural inputs, production, trade and food supply and consumption,as well as socio-economic statistics related to agriculture. The information also forms the basisfor analyses and assessments undertaken throughout the Organization. At the national level, theprogramme provides assistance for strengthening statistical information systems.

222A3, FAO Country Profiles andMapping Information System

X Analysts, researchers, project formulators and policy makers will have a comprehensive,area-specific view of the state of agriculture, enabling them to take a coordinated approach acrosssectors, to identify specific target areas and/or populations in need of attention and to betterdefine technical or emergency assistance.

5



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11



X Priority is given to analytical work for assessing the impact of policies on agriculture and food security, as wellas on issues related to resource mobilisation for agriculture and rural development. Analyses of current andemerging issues in agricultural and rural development, coupled with comparative analyses of food security andagricultural development experiences, aim at informing policy assistance and advice, which is elaborated incollaboration with TCA101. The programme will support FAO's contributions to various environmentalconventions and agreements (224P3).

224P1, Agricultural Adjustment and Policy Reforms

X Policy makers and international organizations have increased awareness of the need to revise agriculturalpolicies, build their capacity to design, adjust and evaluate policies of relevance to agriculture and ruraldevelopment, and use this capacity to negotiate and implement enabling policy frameworks for agriculturedevelopment.

224P2, Agriculture, Poverty Alleviation, Rural Development and Food Security: Analysis of Linkages

X Strengthened awareness among decision makers at national and international levels about the importance ofreversing declining resource flows to agricultural and rural development andimproving the policy environment in order to fight hunger and poverty.

224P3, Economics of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability

X X X X Decision makers, increasingly aware of the economics of environmental degradation, propose, adopt andimplement agricultural policies and programmes taking environmental costsinto account; supporting the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and conventions.

MP 2.3, Fisheries X X X MP 2.3 will continue to give due prominence to the implementation of the Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, the International Plans of Action (IPOAs) endorsed, ( )by COFI103 and other international instruments which provide the framework for national policies to pursueresponsible and sustainable development in fisheries and aquaculture. Themajor programme covers a broad range of advisory services related to the management, development, marketingand use of fisheries and aquaculture resources.

2.3.1, Fisheries Information This programme provides Members and the international community at large with comprehensive informationand statistics on fisheries and aquaculture in support of status and trends monitoring and analysis, as well as forpolicy making and planning. The technical development of FIGIS, expected to be completed in 2003, will allowpursuit of expanding partnerships with regional fisheries bodies and national centres of excellence for thecontribution of information to the FIGIS module on FIRMS. This in turn will lead to systematic assembly ofconsistent and reliable information on status and trends of fishery resources. The programme will also seek tomotivate development partner agencies to support capacity building. In addition, it covers the development ofnorms and standards for collection and exchange of fisheries information and statistics.

6



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


231P1, Provision of FisheriesInformation and Statistics

X Availability of comprehensive, standardised global fisheries information and statistics and wide use bygovernments and other stakeholders to promote awareness of key fisheries issues and trends, as well as servepolicy formulation in the sector.

2.3.2, Fisheries Resources and Aquaculture

The Programme aims at ensuring the sustainable contribution of marine and inland fisheries and aquaculture tofood supplies, food security and general economic growth, including the maintenance of the resource base andproductive ecosystems.

232A1, Promotion of Responsible Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture

X

232A3, Marine Fisheries ResourcesIdentification and Biodata

X National policy makers of developing countries, international and regional fisheries bodies, and other keystakeholders active in the development of the fisheries sector, will make use of a more reliable information baseand improved tools for species identification and essential biological and ecological data of potentially exploitedmarine species.

232A4, Monitoring and Reporting on Global Marine Resources and RelevantEnvironmental and Ecological Changes

X National planners and policy makers, international and regional bodies and key commercial concerns enabled topursue policies and practices for sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries resources based on knowledge ofunderlying trends and understanding of environmental interactions.

232A5, Resources Assessment and Management of Fisheries Resources

X Increased national capacity, particularly in developing countries, to identify and implement operationalmanagement strategies, policies and practices for fisheries that take into account local resource andenvironmental profiles and accurately reflect key stakeholder goals and preferences.p y y g p

232S1, Advice on Marine Resources and Environmental Issues

X To cover technical services

232S2, Advice on Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Development

X

2.3.3, Fisheries Exploitation and Utilisation

X This programme supports enhanced fish production, utilisation and trade within the framework of the Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries. It will need to stay abreast ofdevelopments regarding safety and quality of fishery products, and how they relate to international trade. Besidessubstantial training in this area, a major initiative is to establish anInternet-based knowledge system, FishPort, within the more global EcoPort which operates under the auspices ofFAO.

7



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


233A1, Reduction of Discards andEnvironmental Impact fromFisheries

X X Improved national management practices, technologies and policy environment in support of the reduction ofdiscards and adverse environmental impact from fisheries, as well as an enhanced international awareness andenriched debate on the importance of the issue. In 2002-07 MTP, contribution to D2 was US$ 1.5 to 3 million

233A6, Impact of Fishing on the Environment

X Improved management practices, technologies and policies to reduce adverse environmental impacts from fishingoperations.

233A7, Implementation of MCS X Improved national MCS capacity and international cooperation on MCS.

233S1, Support and Advice in Fishing Technology, Fish Utilisation and Trade

X This entity covers support to field activities falling under Programme 2.3.3, advice to UN system and otherorganizations, and direct assistance to countries not otherwise addressed by the preceding entities.

2.3.4: Fisheries Policy X It will continue as a major priority to provide Members, IGOs107 and regional fisheries bodies with advice onfisheries policy and fisheries management. This advice is rooted in analytical studies, and ongoing monitoring ofthe implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. An important dimension is the social andeconomic analysis of major trends inaquaculture and capture fisheries production, coupled with other normative activities undertaken in interactionwith Members.

234A4, Promotion of Coastal Fisheries Management

X X X Countries will adopt methods, practices and management plans that better control access to, and exploitation oftheir coastal fisheries resourcesManagement their coastal fisheries resources.

234P3,Economic and Social Analysis of Fishery and Aquaculture Policy and Management

X The formulation of guidelines for the use of fisheries subsidies in fisheries development and list of various typesof fisheries subsidies that are capacity-enhancing. This would enhance capacities of policy-makers todiscriminate among the various effects of subsidies.

234S1, Promotion and Strengthening of Regional Fisheries Bodies and Arrangements

X Support to fisheries bodies and advisory services

234S2, Direct Support to Countries in Fisheries Policy and Management

X Advisory services

MP 2.4, Forestry X X X To enhance human well-being through support to countries in the sustainable management of the world's treesand forests.

8



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


241, Forest Resources X X This programme addresses the environmental and resources management dimension of forests, providing thetechnical basis for enhancing countries' capabilities to implement effective forest management and conservationstrategies. It provides information about forest resources, including wildlife resources and trees outside forests.

241A1, Sustainable Management of Natural Forests and Woodlands

X X X Improved local, national and regional forest management capacity leading to practices and policies that conserve,enhance and sustainably utilise natural forests and woodlands for a widevariety of goods and services.

241A4, Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

X X X X Improved national policies and practices, supported by international awareness and collaboration, for thesustainable use of forest and wildland resources and environmentalconservation; support of biodiversity, the protective role of trees, shrubs and other vegetation in fragileecosystems and sustainable arid land management. Contribution US$ 3 to 5 million.

241A7, Forests and Water X Enhanced national awareness and dialogue on, and enabling policy environment for the role of forests and trees,and related practices such as watershed management, in the conservation of water resources.

241A8, Forests and Climate Change X International climate change-related instruments, national programmes, implementation plans and mechanismsadequately address and safeguard the sustainable development of forests,forestry and forest products.

241P1, Assessment and Monitoring of Forests and Woodland Resources

X International and national initiatives, policies and programmes reflect and are facilitatedby a common and enhanced information base.

241S1, Technical Support and AdvisoryServices

X X X This entity covers the usual range of technical services as regards forest resource issues (including field projects).

2.4.2, Forest Products and Economics X In order to better address the economic dimension of sustainable forest management, the scope of the former"Forest Products" programme is being expanded to include forest sectoroutlook studies and economic analysis.

242S1, Support to Field Projects andAdvisory Services

X X This entity covers technical services related to various aspects of forest products' utilisation, as addressed byProgramme 2.4.2.

2.4.3, Forestry Policy and Institutions X X FAO's support to countries to address the social dimension of sustainable forest management will consolidatework on both the social and institutional aspects of forests.

243A3, Strengthening National Institutional Capacities

X National forestry institutions are more efficiently managed and better coordinated and the main stakeholders,including researchers, educators and policy makers are enabled to formulate and enforce policies which promotedevelopment of the forestry sector in a sustainable way.

9



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


243A4, Forest Policies and Governance

X Concerned stakeholders in countries will more objectively and rationally guide, implement and monitor forestrypolicies and programmes, promoting sustainable development as well as increased economic returns, productsand services from the sector.

243S1, Interaction with FieldProgrammes and AdvisoryServices

X This entity provides for the usual range of technical services related to the disciplines covered by Programme2.4.3, including policy formulation and participatory forestry.

2.4.4, Forestry Information and Liaison

X This programme covers FAO's key role in providing country-based forestry information at the regional andglobal levels, which will be further strengthened through partnerships with thecountries themselves and other international and regional organizations.

244A1, International Forestry Processes

X Increased consensus and action-oriented outcomes within various international forestrelated instruments andprocesses coupled with facilitation of the implementation of actionsagreed in these processes at national, regional and global levels.

244S1, Support to Statutory Bodies and Liaison with the Regional Offices

X This entity covers servicing of the Committee on Forestry (COFO), other statutory bodies in forestry such as theRegional Forestry Commissions, the Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products, the International PoplarCommission, Silva Mediterranea, Working Group of the African Forestry and Wildlife Commission, and thePanel of Experts on Forest Genetic Resources

MP 2.5, Contributions to sustainable development and Special Programme Thrust

X X X Major Programme 2.5 embodies the SD109 Department's mandate of promoting sustainability and other cross-sectoral issues, in countries and in FAO's own work. It includesFAO focal point responsibilities for follow-up to major UN Conferences with particular focus on UNCED110, aswell as extensive involvement with PAIAs


X This programme brings together important activities on research, human resources development and naturalresources and environmental management. It aims at making national institutions more effective in the generationof knowledge and in the adaptation of technologies relevant to national agricultural contexts. It promotesnational, regional and international cooperation in research and technology. It is the integrative point for mattersrelating to the environment, energy, natural resources information and monitoring, agro-meteorology andpromotion of eco-technologies.

251A1,Integrated Use of Information for Sustainable Development

X X Wide adoption by countries of more appropriate environmental, social and economic information tools, data andknowledge, to support sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) through improved national policymaking and more active participation in international environmental agreements and global/regional observingsystems.

10



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


251A4, Integrated Development and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge and Technology for Food Security and Sustainable Development

X More appropriate national policies and strategies aimed at strengthening and integrating agricultural research,extension, education and communication services through improved organisation, staff performance,communication, priority setting and sustainable funding.

251A6, Support to Environmental Agreements and Promotion of Integrated Environmental Planning and Management

X X Focusing on cross sectoral priority issues (e.g., biodiversity, climate change, desertification, organic farming,energy, ecosystem management), decision makers at national and sub-national levels will formulate or improvepolicies which relate to management of natural resources; national capacity for implementation of relatedprogrammes to be strengthened.

251P1, Environmental Geo-Information Infrastructure and Services

X To assist governments as well as international organizations and donor agencies in making timely and effectivescientifically-based decisions and formulating policies in relation tothe development of food production, natural resources management and the migratory pests situation, throughaccurate and timely geo-referenced information.

251P3, Information and Communication Technologies in Support of Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Systems

X To harness the potential of new information and communication technologies to assist countries in addressingmajor obstacles in agricultural and rural development.

251S1, Technical Support Services to Member Nations, the Field Programme, and Other Related

X X X This entity covers advisory services and backstopping in a wide range of technical disciplines, such asenvironment, geo-information infrastructure and services and integrated use of information.

g ,A i i i2.5.3, Rural Development X X Programme 2.5.3 actively fosters people's participation and supports food security objectives. Its entities and

their major outputs are directed principally at corporate strategy A: Contributing to the eradication of foodinsecurity and rural poverty as well as at supporting the PAIA on Local Institution Building to Improve Capacityfor Achieving Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. Theprogramme also supports the Secretariat for the UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security,and its national thematic groups.

253A2, Improved Rural Institutions and Services to Promote Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

X To build capacities of rural public institutions, private sector and civil society organizations at all levels toimprove the socio-economic and food security conditions of small farmers and other marginalised groups incountries.

253S1, Technical Support Services onParticipatory Approaches,Institutional Development andAccess to Land Resources

X This entity covers the usual range of technical services related to the disciplines or issues addressed byProgramme 2.5.3.

11



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


2.5.6, Food Production in Support of Food Security in LIFDCs

256P2, SPFS Formulation X X Assist countries, especially LIFDCs, in achieving food security through the formulation of an SPFS NationalProgramme Document and Plan of Action and of Phase I or extension/expansion of the programme.

256P3, SPFS Implementation X X X To provide essential financial support to food security enhancement of LIFDCs, through rapid increases inproductivity and food production in an economically- and environmentally sound basis; to improve people'saccess to food; to promote diversified food production on a self-reliant basis through better input supply servicesand access to village credit. Contribution US$ 3 to 5 million.

MP 3.1, Policy Assistance X X This major programme is central to: the development of the field programme; the provision of sound policyadvice to countries; and capacity building in the formulation and implementation of policies, strategies andprogrammes aimed at sustainable agricultural and rural development and food security. It ensures the interfacebetween the normative work of technical departments at Headquarters and policy advocacy and assistanceprovided to countries, particularly through an enhanced field programme. Close links between country focussedpolicy advice and field programme development will be promoted in the work of the policy assistance branchesand units at Regional and Sub-regional Offices.

311, Coordination of Policy Assistance

X X

and Field Programme Development

311P2, Coordination of Field Programme Development Activities

X Improved regional, national and local level conditions to achieve sustainable rural and agricultural development,through coordinated field programme development.

311P3, Development of Training Materials and Methods in Food and Agriculture Policy Analysis

X X Improved policy and institutional settings in countries for agricultural and rural development and greater nationalcapacities for sector, sub-sector and local policy making.

311P4, Coordination of Country Focus X Enhanced country knowledge in order to enable FAO to provide well-tailored technical assistance foragricultural development and food security.

311S2, Technical Support to Capacity Building in Food, Agriculture and Rural Policy Development Planning

d P li A l i

X This entity supports capacity building activities in policy areas of interest to countries (training courses,workshops, in-service training).

12



MTP 2002-

07

MTP 2004-

09

MTP 2006-

11


3.1.2: Policy Assistance to Various Regions

X

312P1, Enhancement of Country Focus X Enhanced country knowledge in order to enable FAO to provide well-tailored technicalassistance for agricultural development and food security.

312P2, Field Programme Development X Generation of a dynamic field programme, attuned to the requirements of recipientcountries and the expectations of funding sources.

312P3, Advice, Support and Training inAgricultural Policies

X Enabling policy and institutional frameworks at national and regional levels, conducive torural development and food security. Contribution betrween US$ 1.5 and 3 million.

312S3, Technical Support to Field Programmes

X This entity deals in the first instance with backstopping of projects with policy dimensions.

3.1.3, Legal assistance to Member Nations313S1, Provision of Technical Advice X This entity covers legal advisory services to countries, including backstopping of legal components of field

projects.

13

All field projects Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Country Name

Technical and Economic

Programme

Project Symbol

Project Title Project Objectives EOD NTE LTU Total Budget (DWH -US$)

Burundi 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

BDI/96/001/A /09/12

Appui a la Restauration et a la Gestion de l'Environnement

1999-05

2002-01 FORC 44,016.00

Burundi 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

BDI/96/001/E /01/12

Programme dÀppui au Programme National de Restauration/Gestion de lÈnvironnement

1997-05

2002-03 SDR 4,113,657.00

Burkina Faso 2.5.3, Rural development

BKF/95/002/D /01/99

Gestion des Terroirs: Appui a la Concertation/Coordination et la Promotion.

1996-12

2002-06 SDAR 1,354,508.00

Regional Africa


EP /INT/108/ GEF

Integrated Management of the Fouta Djallon Highlands (GF/2740-01-4333)

The PDF-B will also establish a framework for a consensus building process for which the long-term purpose is to secure global environmental benefits by ensuring the conservation, sustainable use and integrated management of the Fouta Djallon Highlands. A

2001-10

2006-03 FORC 529,000.00

Regional Africa


EP /INT/302/ GEF

Protection of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) - PDF-B

The primary objective of this PDF Activity is the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) to identify the principal shared problems and their root causes, as well as national, regional and, particularly, transboundary priorities in the re

2004-06

2005-11 FIRM 320,000.00

Region East-Southern Africa


EP /RAF/102/GEF

Alleviating land degradation through biodiversity conservation in the upper catchment

f i b i

2001-05

2001-09 SAFD 24,910.00



EP /RAF/401/GEF

Trans-boundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Programme for the Lower Kagera River

i ( )

The natural resources of the Kagera river basin, which rises in Burundi and flows through Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania into Lake Victoria, are facing increasing pressures and degradation as a result of population pressures, the intensification of agricultu

2004-10

2006-03 AGLL 700,000.00

Bolivia 2.4.3, Forestry Policy and Institutions

GCP /BOL/030/NET

Desarrollo Forest.Comunal en Altiplano Boliviano (Phase II)

Objectivos del proyecto fueron: El mejoramiento del nivel de vida de los campesinos de la zona altoandina del Departamento de Potosí, cuyas actividades están basadas en un manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales y del medio ambiente.

1997-01

2002-06 RLCO 6,095,967.00

14


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Bolivia 2.5.1, Research, Natiral Reosurces Management and

h l

GCP /BOL/034/ ITA

Información, comunicación y capacitación para el manejo de los recursos

l l i l

El presente proyecto tiene por objeto emplear capacidades, equipos y recursos humanos existentes en la cuenca del río Piraí, Bolivia, para crear servicios de información, comunicación y capacitación a favor del manejo de los recursos naturales y la agricu

2003-04

2006-04 SDRE 449,967.00

Brazil 2.4.1, Forest Resources

GCP /BRA/061/WBK

Technical Assistance for the Preparation and Initiation of the Atlantic Forest Programme in

il ( l i )

The general objective of the Atlantic Forest Project is to contribute to the protection, conservation and recovery of the Atlantic Forest. Its specific goal is to endow the Core Planning Advisory Group for the Atlantic Forest (�Nücleo Assessor de Planejam

2004-06

2008-05 FORM 880,000.00

Cambodia 2.5.3, Rural development

GCP /CMB/002/BEL + GCP /CMB/008/

Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region (Phase II and III)

This project supports continued development and strengthening of activities initiated under the 'second phase' of the project "Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region". The focus of the third phase is to establish community reso

1998-09/ 2001-11

2001-08/ 2005-04

FONP 3,542,720.00

Cambodia 2.3.4, Fisheries policy

GCP /CMB/011/ASB


The overall objective of the TSEMP is the sustainable management and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in the Tonle Sap basin. The objective of the TSEMP is to enhance systems and develop the capacity for natural resource management coord

2003-07

2004-07 FIPP 539,280.00

Cambodia 2.1.1 GCP /CMB/012/UK

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management ( ) i

The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the devel

2003-08

2005-08 FACMB

568,564.00

Cambodia 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

GCP /CMB/013/DEN


The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the devel

2003-08

2005-09 FACMB

245,000.00

Cambodia 3.1.1, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related

i

GCP /CMB/014/SWE


The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the develo

2003-06

2004-05 FACMB

24,996.00

Cambodia 2.2.4, Agriculture, Food Security and Trade Policy

GCP /CMB/023/GER

Support of the Donor Working Group Concerning the Management of Natural

i b di

The Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management has undertaken substantial work on reform issues. The Group, in part, has been effective in mainstreaming pressure on government for reform in key areas and are responsible for the forestry logging b

2004-03

2004-06 FACMB

47,808.00

15


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Colombia 3.1.1, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related

i

GCP /COL/026/NET

Programa de conservación y rehabilitación ambiental de la región del Macizo

l bi l

El objetivo del proyecto es fortalecer los procesos de concertación tanto interinstitucional como social y de apoyo a acciones de desarrollo sostenible con las comunidades asentadas en la Ecorregión del Macizo Colombiano. Generar las condiciones técnicas

2002-02

2005-03 RLCO 1,567,186.00

Cuba 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

GCP /CUB/011/NET


Frenar el deterioro de los recursos naturales del ecosistema de la Ciénaga de Zapata y mejorar las condiciones de vida de las comunidades que habitan en el área.

2000-06

2002-10 RLCO 556,227.00

El Salvador 2.1.1, Natural resources

GCP /ELS/005/NET

Agricultura Sostenible En Zonas De Ladera (Phase II)

Mejorar la eficiencia en el uso y manejo de los recursos naturales por parte de los pequeños productores y productoras y sus familias en zonas de ladera, para contribuir a la sostenibilidad de la agricultura y a la seguridad alimentaria familiar, mediante

1999-08

2003-05 AGLL 2,904,977.00

Haiti 2.1.1, Natural resources

GCP /HAI/015/NET + TCP/HAI/

Promotion de làgriculture durable et de la conservation des sols et des eaux dans les

h id

Le programme vise à renverser le processus de dégradation des ressources naturelles et à augmenter de façon durable la productivité des terres dans les régions montagneuses ciblées. Ce faisant le programme contribuera à la sécurité alimentaire, à l'allége

1999-01

2006-12 AGLL 4,115,733.00

Bolivia and International


GCP /INT/542/ ITA

Phase III of Project GCP/INT/542/ITA (Follow-Up) - Coordination + Tunisia,

li i d l

The overall aim was to progressively incorporate a participatory and integrated watershed management approach into national (and lower level) policies for rural development and natural resource conservation. To this end, the project was to disseminate inf

1997-12/ 2000-07

2000-06/ 2001-12

FORC 2,587,987.00

Regional Africa


GCP /INT/735/ UK

Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods (SFL) Programme

The immediate objective (purpose) is to support the development of a programme to promote sustainable livelihoods in fisheries in 24 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, through the application of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In this light, the

1999-10

2006-10 FIP 33,081,043.00

Regional Africa


GCP /INT/848/ ITA

Programme de Renforcement Institutionnel du Reseau d'Organisations de Base

d l f d

A travers la mise en oeuvre des stratégies et interventions planifiées au niveau des pays concernés, à savoir le Mali, le Sénégal, le Niger et le Burkina Faso, le présent programme vise l'objectif de développement suivant:�

ib l l l

2002-03

2003-12 FORC 771,064.00

Region Near East

2.3.1, Fisheries Information

GCP /INT/918/EC

Fisheries Statistics and Information System in the Mediterranean (MedFIsys)

The longer-term development objective is the maintenance of the Mediterranean ecosystem, of its living marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries management. The medium-term objective is to create a sustainable bas

2004-07

2005-06 FIRM 243,427.00

16


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Regional Africa


GCP /INT/956/WBG

Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in the Large Marine Ecosystems of Sub-

2004-11

2006-1 FIPP 285,000.00

Morocco 2.1.1, Natural resources

GCP /MOR/012/ITA

Restauration des Perimetres d'Irrigation par Epandage Descrues, Maroc

Les objectifs de développement agricole dans la région sont:• L’augmentation du niveau de production agricole vivrière; • L’amélioration des revenus agricoles des paysans;• Le maintien des populations sur leurs terres et la limitation de l’exode

1993-10

2001-12 AGLW 3,529,276.00

Morocco 2.1.2, Crops GCP /MOR/016/ITA

Gestion des ressources naturelles dans la Province de Taza

Le Gouvernement marocain est en train de poursuivre une politique environnementale qui vise à arrêter le processus de dégradation des ressources naturelles qui est en cours, en particulier les problèmes majeurs concernant la conservation des ressources en

1997-10

2004-07 AGPC 3,725,604.00



GCP /RAF/390/GER

Promotion of conservation agriculture for SARD and food security in Southern and

f i

Improved food security and rural livelihoods and build a foundation for the expansion of conservation agriculture (CA) to contribute to sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD).Immediate objective: The adoption of profitable conservation agric

2004-06

2006-05 AGST 1,101,076.00

Regional Asia 2.1.3, Livestock GCP /RAS/203/WBG


The objective of the project is to reduce the negative local and global environmental impacts of rapidly increasing livestock production in selected watersheds in the coastal areas of China, Thailand, and Vietnam. The proposed project and its replication

2004-03

2004-12 AGAL 700,000.00

East Asia The proposed project and its replication

Syrian Arab Republic

2.1.3, Livestock GCP /SYR/009/ ITA

Range Rehabilitation and Establishment of Wildlife Reserve in the Syrian Steppe ( lid i h )

Government and community institutions are prepared to ensure sustainability of introduced range rehabilitation techniques and the conservation management plan of Talila wildlife reserve is implemented through the adoption of participatory approaches in pl

2000-02

2004-12 AGPC 1,926,002.00

Tunisia 2.1.3, Livestock GCP /TUN/028/ ITA

Programme de Conservation des Eaux et des Sols dans les Gouvernorats de

i ili

Les objectifs de développement du project sont: -Améliorer la sécurité alimentaire dans les zones difficiles et procurer des revenus immédiats, surtout aux petits paysans; -Développer la production agricole et améliorer les revenus liés à l’intensif

1996-06

2006-05 AGLL 12,479,788.00

17


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Viet Nam 2.4.1, Forest Resources

GCP /VIE/023/ BEL

Participatory Watershed Management in the Hoanh Bo District (GCP/VIE/019/BEL) ( h )

The project development objective is to create a visible, measurable, and sustainable impact on the watershed conditions in the midland and upland areas of Hoanh Bo through the introduction of a cost effective and user friendly participatory watershed man

2000-03

2003-10 RAPO 1,503,253.00

Regional Asia 2.3.2, Fisheries Resources and Aquaculture

GCP/ RAS/175/ SWE


The ultimate objective of this proposal to develop a Strategic Action Programme is to enhance national and regional efforts in place under the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP) to protect the health of the ecosystem and manage the living resources of the Bay

2001-01

2005-12 TCIP 403,523.00

Regional Asia 2.3.2, Fisheries Resources and Aquaculture

GCP/ RAS/179/ WBG


The ultimate objective of this proposal to develop a Strategic Action Programme is to enhance national and regional efforts in place under the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP) to protect the health of the ecosystem and manage the living resources of the Bay

2001-01

2005-12 TCIP 349,800.00

Honduras 2.5.3, Rural development

GCP/HON/021/NET

Proyecto Lempira Sur (Phase II)

Al final de esta fase del proyecto, la sociedad del Sur de Lempira estará en un franco proceso de: Mejorar la sostenibilidad de las innovaciones tecnológicas introducidas en los sistemas de producción que les están permitiendo elevar la producción, transf

1999-02

2002-12 SDAR 4,886,997.00

Honduras 2.5.6, Implementation of the SPFS

GCP/HON/022/SPA

Asistencia para la Puesta en Marcha del Programa Especial para la Seguridad Alimentaria

El presente proyecto constituye la primera fase del Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria para Guatemala para cuyo desarrollo el GOH ha seleccionado la zona sur de los Departamentos de Francisco Morazán, Choluteca, EL Paraíso y Valle, una región con

1999-10

2006-12 TCOS 1,975,297.00

India 2.1.1, Natural resources

GCP/IND/ 174/NET

Promoting Livelihood Improvements in Dryland Farming on the Deccan Plateau

The ultimate project goal is stated as, Optimizing livelihoods, providing better food and income security for resource poor farmers in drought prone areas, through improved farming systems. Overall Objectives: -Enhancing bio-mass production by means of mo

2004-08

2008-10 AGLL 4,535,738.00

Nicaragua 2.5.6, Implementation of the SPFS

GCP/NIC/027/SPA

Modelo de atención productiva al sector de los pequeños productores de escasos

l

El presente proyecto constituye la primera fase del Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria para Nicaragua cuyo objetivo es brindar apoyo técnico al Gobierno de Nicaragua para el aumento sostenible de la producción y la productividad agrícola, mejorand

1999-06

2006-12 TCOS 1,751,359.00

Regional Europe


GCP/REM/057/SPA

Apoyo Tecnico y Creacion de Redes de Cooperat. que Faciliten la Coordinacion en

d l d i

Incrementar la competencia del SAC para tomar decisiones y facilitar recomendaciones; Una mayor actuación a nivel nacional en lo que se refiere a estudio y control de las pesquerías; Disponibilidad y uso de los datos generados por programas regionales del

1996-01

2005-05 FIRM 7,856,653.00

18


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Regional Europe


GCP/RER/010/ITA

Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Adriatic Sea (Adriamed)

Assist the participating countries to be able to establish and implement mechanisms for formulation and implementation of updated management plans for each specific fishery, through coordinated scientific investigation and data-gathering as well as throug

1999-10

2006-01 FIRM 4,880,000.00

Regional Europe


GCP/RER/010/ITA

Medsudmed - Assessment and Monitoring of the Fishery Resources and h i h

The objective of this project is to assist the participating countries to be able to establish and implement mechanisms for formulation and implementation of updated management plans for each specific fishery, through coordinated scientific investigation

2001-04

2006-10 FIRM 2,844,001.00

Region Latin America


GCP/RLA/140/JPN

Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Lesser Antilles including i i i h i

The longer-term development objectives is the maintenance of ecosystem functioning, marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries conduct.

2002-09

2006-09 FIRM 4,233,434.00

Guatemala 2.5.6, Implementation of the SPFS

GCSP/ GUA/009/SPA


El objetivo general del proyecto PESA-Guatemala puede enunciarse como "Contribuir a reducir la inseguridad alimentaria en las áreas de intervención, incrementando el acceso y la disponibilidad de los alimentos por medio de la mejora y diversificación de l

1999-10

2006-02 TCOS 4,106,063.00

Regional Africa

2.5.3, Rural development

GTFS/RAF/387/ITA

Acacia Operation - Support to Food Security, Poverty Alleviation and Soil

d i l i

Gum arabic, myrrh and frankincense are abundant in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa. These local resources present the way forward to sustainable management and development of the Sahel regions, which naturally have fewer options due to difficult en

2003-11

2006-05 FORC 4,190,057.00

Iran 2.1.1, Natural resources

IRA/03/005/ /08


The objective of this project is to reformulate the Sustainable Management of Land and Water Programme in line with the objectives of the second Country Cooperation Frameworks (CCF). The formulated programme should aim to develop a methodology that will

2003-04

2003-12 AGLW 32,403.00

Iran 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

IRA/03/006/ /08/12

Assessing the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Crisis in Iraq on Border Area Ecosystems

f

The main objective of this SPPD support is to identify the significant environmental consequences likely to occur in the five Iranian provinces neighbouring Iraq in the face of a potential war/refugee crisis within the latter country. This will be done th

2003-02

2003-04 SDRN 13,951.00


IRA/97/002/A /01/99

Hable Rud Watershed. 1997-07

2002-09 FORC 65,402.00

19


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol



IRA/97/004/A/01/99

Desertification Control Project

The project involves the preparation of a National Action Programme of Sustainable Management of Land and Water Resources. In addition, through desertification and other suitable measures, this pilot project will aim at the rehabilitation of a highly degr

1999-09

2001-09 FORC 99,000.00

Kenya, Republic of


KEN/01/003/ /08/12

Land Degradation Programmes in Kenya

This SPPD project will evaluate the status of progress to fight degradation and desertification since the Earth Summit (Rio, 1996) , present the lessons learnt to the international community at the WSSD in Johannesburg in 2002 and stimulate and accelerat

2002-03

2002-12 AGLL 73,633.00

Kenya, Republic of

2.1.2, Crops KEN/04/037/A/01/12

Promoting Farmer Initiatives through Farmer Field Schools

The immediate objectives that build toward achieving the overall goal are: Improved farmers decision making skills and farming, following a participatory research and extension process, and increased environmental knowledge for farmer empowerment and upta

2005-01

2006-01 AGPP 471,000.00

Kenya, Republic of

2.1.2, Crops KEN/99/200/01/99

Environment and Natural Resources Management (Farmer Innovation/New

h l /

In line with the objectives of the Environment and Natural Resource PSD agreed between UNDP and the Government of Kenya, the overall objective of the assistance is to increase the uptake of farmer innovations and new technology options at the community le

2000-08

2005-12 AGPP 849,519.00

Madagascar 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

MAG/97/003/ /01/99

Appui au Plan d'Action Environnemental (Phase II)

L'élaboration des plans et/ou systèmes integrés de gestion des activités dans la zone cotière des régions (pêche au poissons de récif, exploitation des mangroves et activités touristiques) de Toliara et de Nosy-Be.

1998-01

2003-12 RAFS 543,699.00

Myanmar, Union of


h l

MYA/99/007/ /09/12 +MYA/99/006/ /09/12

Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro Income Opportunities in

i i l h d

The immediate objectives of the project were to:enhance understanding among target beneficiaries and other project stakeholders of the project context, the status of the biophysical setting, the socio-economic situation and the problems to be addressed

1999-09

2002-03 RAPO 69,795.00

Argentina, Republic of


TCP/ARG/2902

Manejo Sustentable de Ecosistemas Forestales de la Cuenca los Pericos-Manantiales (recoded f / / )

Contribuir a mitigar y disminuir los procesos de deforestación, erosión y torrencialidad estacional que caracterizan a los ecosistemas de montaña del noroeste del país mediante la definición y la implementación de alternativas integrales de manejo y produ

2002-08/ 2004-01

2003-11/ 2004-07

FORM 245,155.00

Armenia, Republic of


TCP/ARM/2801- 3001

Sustainable Mountain Development

The main objective is to assist the Government of the Republic of Armenia in its efforts to implement sustainable development in its mountain areas.

2003-4/ 2004-03

2006-02 FORC 322,717.00

20


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Bolivia 2.1.2 TCP/BOL/9065

Manejo del Agua del suelo en Apoyo a la Seguridad Alimentaria en Tarija (recoded from

/ / )

La asistencia técnica tiene el propósito de capacitar a técnicos que trabajan atendiendo a los campesinos de modo que puedan enseñarles a manejar adecuadamente el agua de riego para su mejor aprovechamiento en el aumento de la productividad y a utilizar l

2000-1 2001-10 AGLW 230,736.00

Brazil 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/BRA/ 2801 + 2903 (I and II phase) +

/ /

Gestion Ambiental en el Medio Rural de la Cuenca del Rio Ariranha/Gestion

bi l

El objetivo general es fortalecer la capacidad técnica de la SQA para desarrollar, validar, transferir y difundir planes de gestión ambiental en el medio rural, para el desarrollo sostenible de los asentamientos humanos situados en ciertas cuencas hidrogr

2002-03 / 2002-10/

2004-09 /2006-03 /2006-05

AGLW 3,132,128.00

Brazil 2.3.2, Fisheries resources and aquaculture

TCP/BRA/0065+ TCP/BRA/2907

Small-Scale Seaweed Farming in Northeast Brazil

Within the general objective of supporting the social development of poor coastal populations through the promotion of sustainable aquaculture, the project’s immediate objectives are: The preparation of a project document, according to TCP format and guid

2001-06 2003-08

2003-05 2004-06

FIRI 381,845.00

Brazil 2.5.6, Implementation of the SPFS

TCP/BRA/2904

Capacity building approaches to improving food security of poor rural people in the North

The objective of the project is to develop and field test widely replicable approaches to building the capacity of poor people living in rural communities in the North East of Brazil to better cope with the effects of recurrent droughts on their livelihoo

2003-04

2005-03 SDRE 339,473.00

Cambodia 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources

TCP/CMB/0165 + TCP/CMB/

Information and Communications for Sustainable Natural

The overall objective of the project is to improve NRM in agriculture in Cambodia through targeted information/communication interventions designed to change negative attitudes and behaviours. To accomplish this,

2002-03

2004-12 SDRE 387,462.00

Management and h l

3003 Resources Management i i l

the project will strengthen the informatioCameroon, Republic of


TCP/CMR/2908

Gestion participative et conservation de la diversité biologique des mangroves

Objectif de développement: Assister le Gouvernement du Cameroun (MINEF) dans la définition d'une politique et d'une stratégie de gestion et utilisation durable de la biodiversité des mangroves dans l'intérêt des populations locales dont dépendent l'économ

2004-01

2005-12 FORC 377,073.00

China Peoples' Republic


TCP/CPR/ 0168 + TCP/CPR/ 3001

Introduction of Management Techniques and Pilot Demostrations for Improvement of Salt

ff d il i

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of The People's Republic of China in Heilongjiang Province to introduce appropriate integrated low-cost, low-risk management techniques for rehabilitation and improvement of salt-affected lands in s

2001-12

2004-11 AGLL 322,882.00

Cuba 2.4.3, Forestry Policy and Institutions

TCP/CUB/2903


El proyecto pretende apoyar la implementación de los Elementos Rectores para el Desarrollo de la Producción Agropecuaria y Forestal de la Montaña, con el fin de mejorar la calidad de vida y la seguridad alimentaria de los habitantes en las zonas montañosa

2004-04

2005-12 FONP 240,288.00

21


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


DPRK 2.4.1, Forest Resources

TCP/DRK/0169

Participatory Integrated Watershed Management in Upland Areas

The main objective is to assist the Government of DPR Korea in its efforts undertaken to reverse the degradation of land resources (soil, water and vegetative cover). The specific objectives include the following: identify the current situation of upland

2002-03

2003-12 FORC 333,458.00

Egypt 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/EGY/ 2904

Capacity building in land management and soil productivity/fertility through FFS

The objective of the project is to improve the productivity and fertility per land unit in degraded soils including salt-affected soils through Integrated Soil and Nutrition Management (ISNM) and farmers’ involvement through FFSs approaches, with the fina

2004-01

2005-12 AGLL 297,649.00

Egypt 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

h l

TCP/EGY/0167

Development of an Information System for Operational Monitoring and Integrated

f h il

The longer-term objective will be to provide the basis for the Government of Egypt through NARSS, to fully account for changes occurring in the Nile Delta Coastal ecosystem, as part of sectoral planning, in particular for agricultural and fisheries develo

2002-04

2003-12 SDRN 223,448.00

Egypt 2.4.1, Forest Resources

TCP/EGY/0168


The development objective is to assist the GoE to rehabilitate, conserve and sustainably utilise the mangrove resources in the country.

2002-05

2003-12 FORM 197,351.00

Guinea-Bissau


TCP/GBS/9067 (recoded from

/

Appui a la Maitrise de lÈau (Ex-Allocation Anticipee)

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'aider le Gouvernement Bissau-Guinéen dans la mise en oeuvre du PSSA pour l'augmentation durable de la production et de la productivité du système de riziculture de mangrove, par l'introduction des techniques performantes d

2000-12

2002-11 AGL 364,496.00

Regional Africa


TCP/INT/ 3005

Appui à la Commission sous-régionale des pêches pour l�opérationnalisation du

i l l

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'appuyer la CSRP dans la réalisation du programme d'appui régional à la promotion de la pêche responsable, à la préservation du milieu marin dans la zone de la CSRP (Programme ALPHA).�

l fi h d j

2004-10

2006-09 FIPP 368,154.00

Regional Europe

3.1.3 TCP/INT/ 2903

Revision and harmonization of Protected Area Legislation

The objective of the project is to assist the Governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in reviewing, revising and harmonizing their legislation on protected areas, with a view to creating suitable, updated and coordinated legal frameworks for

2003-6 2004-8 LEGN 115,263.00

Region Near East


TCP/INT/ 2904

Enabling Participation in the "Fishery Information System in the Mediterranean"-

The longer-term development objective is to contribute to the maintenance of the Mediterranean ecosystem, of its living marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries management. The medium-term objective is to create

2003-10

2005-10 FIRM 301,889.00

22


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Kenya, Republic of


TCP/KEN/ 0166


The overall objective of the TCP assistance is to promote long-term food security in drought-prone areas by: -Enabling the Kenyan Government to adapt its current system of drought monitoring and early warning to the semi-arid districts of the country; -Su

2001-11

2003-10 ESAF 217,126.00

Kenya, Republic of

2.1.0, Promotion of Conservation Agriculture

TCP/KEN/ 2904

Piloting conservation agriculture to improve livelihoods and food security for small holder f

The development objective is to ensure introduction and application of conservation agriculture methods on the small farms with a view to increased and sustainable food production and a decrease in agricultural production costs.The immediate objective of

2003-01

2004-12 AGST 329,631.00

Kenya, Republic of

2.1.2, Crops TCP/KEN/ 3002

Management and control of Prosopis Juliflora in Kenya

The overall objective of the project is to assist the Kenyan authorities concerned with forestry and plant protections in managing and controlling the spread of Prosopis juliflora. Specifically the project aims to: Establish a coordinated strategy for the

2004-09

2006-08 AGPP 201,493.00

Kyrgizstan 2.4.3, Forestry Policy and Institutions

TCP/KYR/ 3002

Institutional capacity-building in small-scale enterprise development in mountain regions

The development objective of the project is to assist the Government of Kyrgyzstan to establish viable income-generating activities that contribute to improved livelihoods of the rural population and create incentives for sustainable development of mounta

2005-04

2006-09 FORC 244,000.00

Lebanon 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/LEB/ 9065

Developpement Integre des Regions Montagneuses du Liban-Nord (recoded from

/ / )

Le but de ce projet serait double:�-Préparer et interpréter les données agronomiques, pédologiques, climatiques et hydrologiques sur une région, et les intégrer dans un système d'information auprès du Ministère de l'agriculture comme

l i d

2000-02

2002-04 AGLL 259,019.00

Madagascar 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/MAG/3003


L'objectif du projet est d'apporter des enseignements pour la préparation du Programme BV PI, afin de mieux lutter contre la pauvreté grâce à l'amélioration de l'exploitation durable des terres et des eaux en évitant la dégradation des ressources naturell

2004-09

2006-01 TCIS 317,496.00

Mauritania 2.3.4, Fisheries policy

TCP/MAU/0167 - 3001

Gestion durable des pêcheries artisanales et côtières + Phase II

L'objectif de l'assistance est de formuler les éléments d'un programme d'aménagement pour un développement durable des pêches artisanales et côtières, en collaboration étroite avec les diverses parties concernées et en référence au développement global du

2002-01

2004-07 FIPP 211,860.00

Mauritania 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/MAU/3002

Appui aux associations oasiennes

L'assistance vise à appuyer le Gouvernement afin d'assurer le niveau minimal d'activités nécessaire au maintien des acquis du Programme oasis jusqu'au démarrage de la prochaine phase prévue pour juin 2004. L'assistance vise en particulier à:-Évaluer la vi

2004-04

2005-12 AGLW 131,821.00

23


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Mexico 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/MEX/2905

Servicios ambientales en las políticas rurales territoriales

Objetivo general:�Contar con el diseño y ejecución de un modelo de gestión pública basado en políticas territoriales diferenciadas de acuerdo con los problemas productivos y ambientales que presenta la zona rural montañosa del Distrito Federal.�Objetivos

2003-10

2005-06 AGLL 253,385.00

Mali 2.2.4, Agriculture, Food Security and Trade Policy

TCP/MLI/ 2905

Appui à la mise en place des réformes institutionnelles et réglementaires pour une d li i d l

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'appuyer le Gouvernement dans la mise en place des réformes institutionnelles et réglementaires, déjà approuvées et relatives à la décentralisation de la gestion des ressources naturelles. Le projet contribuera à la réalisa

2003-05

2005-04 FONP 275,827.00

Niger 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/NER/ 2801

Appui a la Rehabilitation des Forages Artesiens dans les Departements de Diffa et Agadez

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'aider le Gouvernement dans l'évaluation des possibilités de conservation des ressources en eau artésienne des nappes du Pliocène et des Grès d'Agadez et l'examen des possibilités de réhabilitation et de mise en valeur des

2002-09

2003-10 AGLW 118,150.00

Niger 2.4.1, Forest Resources

TCP/NER/ 9066

Appui a la Relance de la Production et de la Commercialisation de la Gomme Arabique ( d d f

L’objectif de l’assistance est d’aider le Gouvernement, sur la base d’un bilan du potentiel actuel, à élaborer une stratégie pour la relance de la production et la commercialisation de la gomme arabique au Niger. Plus spécifiquement, le projet contribuera

2000-09

2002-04 FOP 259,741.00

Nicaragua 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/NIC/3001

Fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales en

i

Promover prácticas de manejo sostenible y uso racional de los recursos naturales en los Municipios de Quezalguaque, Posoltega y Telica, con el fin de reducir la amenaza de los riesgos de desastres naturales, así como contribuir a mejorar la rentabilidad y

2005-02

2006-07 AGLL 323,125.00

Poland 2.4.1, Forest Resources

TCP/POL/ 3002+TCP/POL/ 3004


The main objective is to assist the Government of Poland in its efforts to implement sustainable development activities in its mountain areas.

2004-03/ 2005-7

2004-04/ 2007-02

FORC 291,921.00

Regional Africa

2.2.1, Nutrition, Food Quality and Safety

TCP/RAF/ 2914

Strenghtening the Production and Quality Control of Gums and Resins in Africa

To improve the capacity of African producing countries in coordinating their potentiality to get increased benefits from the exported natural resources such as acacia gums and resins through a more efficient Network for Natural Gums and Resins in Africa.

2003-09

2005-05 ESNS 396,254.00

Tajikistan, Republic of


TCP/TAJ/ 2903


The main objective is to assist the Government of Tajikistan in its efforts undertaken to reverse the degradation of upland resources and deterioration of local people income. The project will provide assistance in establishing the prerequisites for the r

2003-09

2005-08 FORC 344,079.00

24


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Thailand, Kingdom Of


TCP/THA/2906

Sustainable Use of Problem Soils in Rainfed Agriculture

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Thailand in the Northeast Region, particularly in Nakhon Ratchasima and other salt-affected and low fertility status provinces to introduce and demonstrate appropriate integrated low-cost, low-ri

2003-09

2005-08 AGLL 257,426.00



TCP/THA/8922

Impact of Shrimp Farming on Arable Land and Rehabilitation of Resultant Salt Affected

il

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Thailand to study the impact of shrimp farming in fresh water arable land to demonstrate appropriate integrated techniques for rehabilitation of abandoned shrimp farms and for the improvement of

2000-02

2001-12 AGLD 242,077.00



TCP/THA/8922


The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Thailand to study the impact of shrimp farming in fresh water arable land to demonstrate appropriate integrated techniques for rehabilitation of abandoned shrimp farms and for the improvement of

2000-02

2001-12 AGLD 242,077.00

Uzbekistan 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/UZB/ 2801+ TCP/UZB/ 2901 + TCP/UZB/ 3003

Integrated Management for Sustainable Use of Salt-affected and Gypsiferous Soil (Recoded from TCP/UZB/2801 and

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan to introduce and demonstrate appropriate integrated low-cost, low-risk management techniques for rehabilitation and improvement of salt-affected and gypsiferous irrigat

2002-09 /2005-04

2004-09/ 2005-11

AGLL 395,401.00

Uzbekistan 2 1 0 Promotion TCP/UZB/ Sustainable agricultural The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate alternative 2003- 2005-10 AGPC 386 895 00Uzbekistan 2.1.0, Promotion of Conservation Agriculture

TCP/UZB/ 2903

Sustainable agricultural practices in the drought-affected region of Karakalpakistan

The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate alternative, profitable and more sustainable forms of agricultural production methods such as appropriate water and soil conservation practices and Conservation Agriculture (CA) for small independent

200311

2005 10 AGPC 386,895.00

Uzbekistan 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/UZB/ 3001

Enhanced productivity of cotton-wheat systems through the adoption of conservation agriculture

i

The overall objective of this project is to enhance the productivity of cotton through crop diversification in rotation with wheat and grain legumes and selected cover crops by means of Conservation Agricultural (CA) practices, including zero/minimum-till

2004-11

2006-04 AGLL 347,836.00

Zimbabwe 2.1.1, Natural resources

TCP/ZIM/ 0169 + TCP/ZIM/ 3001

Integrated Natural Resources Management, and second phase

Equip farmers with better farm management skills and decision-making capacity to overcome crop and livestock productivity limitations and to stabilise crop and livestock performance in highly variable and risky semi-arid environments.�

h

2002-06

2003-12 AGLL 320,835.00

25


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Bolivia 2.4.1, Forest Resources

UNO/BOL/723/DCP

Apoyo Al Manejo, Concervacion y Exploitacion de los Recursos Forestales en el

i d h b b

Por su relación con la Estrategia Boliviana de Lucha contra el Narcotráfico, el objetivo de control de drogas del proyecto es contribuir a los procesos de reducción anual de la hoja de coca en el Trópico de Cochabamba y a la Política Nacional de Desarroll

1997-10

2005-12 RLCO 20,956,427.00

Madagascar 2.5.1, Research, Natural Resources Management and

UNTS/ MAG/001/GEF


Contribution à l'amelioration des performances de systèmes des gestion des ressources naturelles et humaines pour une qualité de vie durable avec participation des parties prenantes à toutes les niveaux

1998-01

2003-12 FIPP 1,155,903.00



UNTS/RAF/010/GEF

Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River

i

The project objective is to alleviate imminent and long-term threats to the linked land and water systems of the Okavango River through the joint management of the Okavango River Basin water resources and the protection of its linked aquatic ecosystems, c

2004-11

2007-10 AGLW 5,390,998.00

Regional Africa


UNTS/RAF/011/GEF

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in the Benguela Current LME RAF00G32

Technical assistance 2005-04

2006-12 FIRM 90,272.00

Cambodia 2.3.4, Fisheries policy

UTF /CMB/015/CMB

Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Component 2:

i i i i

Natural resource management and environmental sustainability are essential to the livelihood of rural population in Cambodia and recognized as such by the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) and supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The project is

2005-03

2008-03 FIPP 3,800,000.00

Iran 2.1.2, Crops UTF /IRA/051/ IRA

Technical Assistance for Soil Conservation and Watershed Management in Golestan

i

The objectives of the assistance are to strengthen the national expertise and to promote the exchange of experiences in combating land degradation and watershed management. The project assistance has a double focus: Demonstrate and apply innovative techni

2003-08

2003-12 AGLL 46,437.00

Yemen, Republic of


UTF /YEM/024/YEM /B

TA to Land and Water Conservation Project - Water Resources Component, Yemen

1995-05

2001-04 RNEG 1,745,426.00

Yemen, Republic of


h l

YEM/97/100/D /01/99

Sustainable Environmental Management Programme

1997-06

2001-06 SDRN 1,462,142.00

Total 183,985,907.00

26

Various ecosystems, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Bolivia 241, Forest Resources

UNO/BOL/723/DCP

Apoyo Al Manejo, Concervacion y Exploitacion de los Recursos Forestales en el Tropico de Cochabamba (Ad/Bol/97/C23)Ph.II

Por su relación con la Estrategia Boliviana de Lucha contra el Narcotráfico, el objetivo de control de drogas del proyecto es contribuir a los procesos de reducción anual de la hoja de coca en el Trópico de Cochabamba y a la Política Nacional de Desarrollo Alternativo que pretende sustituir la economía generada por la coca y sus derivados por otra que busque fortalecer el desarrollo agropecuario en el marco del uso racional de los recursos naturales y lograr incentivos necesarios suficientes para la atracción de inversiones en las áreas industriales, agroindustrial, turística, artesanal, de transporte, de comunicaciones y de servicios, capaces de estructurar un sistema de producción eficiente y competitivo en los mercados locales, regionales, nacionales e internacionales que en conjunto, generen empleo e ingresos bajo las actuales reglas de la economía globalizada”. El objetivo inmediato es establecer las condiciones básicas para la sostenibilidad a largo plazo de los programas actuales de reducción de hoja de coca y diversificación agrícola en el Trópico de Cochabamba a través de la adopción, por los pequeños agricultores, de prácticas agroforestales y conservación de suelos, incluyendo el empleo racional de los recursos forestales nativos a

1997-10

2005-12 RLCO 20,956,427.00

Brazil 243A3, Strengthening National

GCP /BRA/061/WBK

Technical Assistance for the Preparation and Initiation of the Atlantic

The general objective of the Atlantic Forest Project is to contribute to the protection, conservation and recovery of the Atlantic Forest. Its specific goal is to endow the Core Planning Advisory Group for the Atlantic

2004-06

2008-05 FORM 880,000.00

Institutional Capacities

Forest Programme in Brazil (Mata Atlantica)

Forest (�Nücleo Assessor de Planejamento da Mata Atlântica � NAPMA�) with the managerial capacity to plan, implement and follow Brazilian Government policies directed towards the Atlantic Forest, by involving actors, disseminating information, and providing support, coordination and activity management.

Brazil 211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

TCP/BRA/ 2801 + 2903 (I and II phase) + UTF/BRA/060/BRA

Gestion Ambiental en el Medio Rural de la Cuenca del Rio Ariranha/Gestion Ambiental en Asentamientos en el Medio Rural del Brazil

El objetivo general es fortalecer la capacidad técnica de la SQA para desarrollar, validar, transferir y difundir planes de gestión ambiental en el medio rural, para el desarrollo sostenible de los asentamientos humanos situados en ciertas cuencas hidrográficas representativas de los diferentes ecosistemas de Brasil. Este objetivo se pretende alcanzar mediante el proyecto UTF. El objetivo inmediato del proyecto PCT es desarrollar, aplicar y validar un procedimiento metodológico apropiado para conseguir este fin en una cuenca piloto.

2002-03 / 2002-10/ 2003-04/ 2005-10

2004-09 /2006-03 /2006-05

AGLW 3,132,128.00

27


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Burundi 251, Research, Natural Resources Managementand Technology Transfer

BDI/96/001/A /09/12

Appui a la Restauration et a la Gestion de l'Environnement

1999-05

2002-01 FORC 44,016.00

Burundi 251, Research, Natural Resources Managementand Technology Transfer

BDI/96/001/E /01/12

Programme dÀppui au Programme National de Restauration/Gestion de lÈnvironnement

1997-05

2002-03 SDR 4,113,657.00

Iran 251A1,Integrated Use of Information for Sustainable Development

IRA/03/006/ /08/12

Assessing the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Crisis in Iraq on Border Area Ecosystems of Iran

The main objective of this SPPD support is to identify the significant environmental consequences likely to occur in the five Iranian provinces neighbouring Iraq in the face of a potential war/refugee crisis within the latter country. This will be done through conducting a rapid environmental Impact Assessment resulting in the production of an Impact Mitigation Plan, which clearly defines the short, as well as longer-term countermeasures to prevent/mitigate such impacts. The EIA report will provide the information background and a clear vision for all actors to

2003-02

2003-04 SDRN 13,951.00

p gcome up with preventive and remedial plans of action to safeguard the environmental resources and hence secure the livelihoods of the local communities.

REU 313S1, Provision of technical advice (legal)

TCP/INT/2903

Revision and harmonization of Protected Area Legislation

The objective of the project is to assist the Governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in reviewing, revising and harmonizing their legislation on protected areas, with a view to creating suitable, updated and coordinated legal frameworks for the sustainable conservation and management of ecosystems, natural habitats and biological diversity, at national level as well as region-wide.

2003-6 2004-8 LEGN 115,263.00

28


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Yemen, Republic of

251, Research, Natural Resources Managementand Technology Transfer

YEM/97/100/D /01/99

Sustainable Environmental Management Programme

1997-06

2001-06 SDRN 1,462,142.00

Normative outputs and projectsPublication

Publication

Guidelines for establishing audits of agricultural-environmental hotspots, Environment and Natural resources, Working paper No. 15, FAO, 2003

Climate and HIV/AIDS, UNDP, FAO, NCAR, 2004

29

Dry lands, field projects and normative ouputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Brazil 256P3, SPFS Implementation

TCP/BRA/2904

Capacity building approaches to improving food security of poor rural people in the North East

The objective of the project is to develop and field test widely replicable approaches to building the capacity of poor people living in rural communities in the North East of Brazil to better cope with the effects of recurrent droughts on their livelihoods and hence to increase farm income and productivity, leading to poverty alleviation and to reduced dependency on food assistance.

2003-04

2005-03 SDRE 339,473.00

Burkina Faso

253, Rural development

BKF/95/002/D /01/99

Gestion des Terroirs: Appui a la Concertation/Coordination et la Promotion.

1996-12

2002-06 SDAR 1,354,508.00

China Peoples' Republic

211, Natural Resources

TCP/CPR/ 0168 + TCP/CPR/ 3001

Introduction of Management Techniques and Pilot Demostrations for Improvement of Salt Affected Soils in Heilongjiang Province (Phase I and II)

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of The People's Republic of China in Heilongjiang Province to introduce appropriate integrated low-cost, low-risk management techniques for rehabilitation and improvement of salt-affected lands in support of food security programmes.

2001-12

2004-11 AGLL 322,882.00

Egypt 211A2, Land and Soil P d i i

TCP/EGY/ 2904

Capacity building in land management and soil

d i i /f ili h h

The objective of the project is to improve the productivity and fertility per land unit in degraded soils including salt-affected

il h h I d S il d N i i M (ISNM)

2004-01

2005-12 AGLL 297,649.00

Productivity productivity/fertility through FFS

soils through Integrated Soil and Nutrition Management (ISNM) and farmers’ involvement through FFSs approaches, with the final aim to increase the agricultural production in Egypt.

30


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


India 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

GCP/IND/ 174/NET

Promoting Livelihood Improvements in Dryland Farming on the Deccan Plateau

The ultimate project goal is stated as, Optimizing livelihoods, providing better food and income security for resource poor farmers in drought prone areas, through improved farming systems. Overall Objectives: -Enhancing bio-mass production by means of modifications in the production systems, resource management and environmental protection; -Empowering farmers as practitioners as well as other agents of development as enablers in practices and processes of ecological agriculture; -Promoting organizational processes and structures in the social systems, that are equitable, to facilitate and sustain developments in rainfed agriculture.

2004-08

2008-10 AGLL 4,535,738.00

Iran 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

IRA/03/005/ /08


The objective of this project is to reformulate the Sustainable Management of Land and Water Programme in line with the objectives of the second Country Cooperation Frameworks (CCF). The formulated programme should aim to develop a methodology that will have a policy impact and that uses an integrated and participatory approach for land and water management using Hableh Roud watershed as a pilot.

2003-04

2003-12 AGLW 32,403.00

Iran 241A4, Conservation in

IRA/97/004/A/01/99

Desertification Control Project The project involves the preparation of a National Action Programme of Sustainable Management of Land and Water

1999-09

2001-09 FORC 99,000.00Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

/A/01/99 Programme of Sustainable Management of Land and Water Resources. In addition, through desertification and other suitable measures, this pilot project will aim at the rehabilitation of a highly degraded ecosystem in Hable Rud Basin .

09

Kenya, Republic of

211P7, Land and Water Information Systems, Databases and Statistics

KEN/01/003/ /08/12

Land Degradation Programmes in Kenya

This SPPD project will evaluate the status of progress to fight degradation and desertification since the Earth Summit (Rio, 1996) , present the lessons learnt to the international community at the WSSD in Johannesburg in 2002 and stimulate and accelerate efforts through feeding the results of WSSD back into relevant country policies, programmes and action plans. �

2002-03

2002-12 AGLL 73,633.00

31


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Kenya, Republic of

212A3, Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable Crop and GrasslandProduction Systems

KEN/04/037/A/01/12

Promoting Farmer Initiatives through Farmer Field Schools

The immediate objectives that build toward achieving the overall goal are: Improved farmers decision making skills and farming, following a participatory research and extension process, and increased environmental knowledge for farmer empowerment and uptake of improved farming methods and innovations; and Facilitated establishment of a coordination and support system for FFS and PFI related programmes in the country increased sharing of experiences and collaboration among relevant stakeholders.

2005-01

2006-01 AGPP 471,000.00

Kenya, Republic of

212, Crops KEN/99/200/01/99

Environment and Natural Resources Management (Farmer Innovation/New Technology/Income Generation

In line with the objectives of the Environment and Natural Resource PSD agreed between UNDP and the Government of Kenya, the overall objective of the assistance is to increase the uptake of farmer innovations and new technology options at the community level for food production, combating desertification and income generation.

2000-08

2005-12 AGPP 849,519.00

Kenya, Republic of

211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

TCP/KEN/0166


The overall objective of the TCP assistance is to promote long-term food security in drought-prone areas by: -Enabling the Kenyan Government to adapt its current system of drought monitoring and early warning to the semi-arid districts of the country; -Supporting the MOARD to integrate its information on

2001-11

2003-10 ESAF 217,126.00

crops, livestock and animal health and contribute as required to the national drought management system; and -Strengthening the capacity of community, district and national-level structures to monitor and analyse food insecurity and poverty vulnerability information, within the National Poverty Reduction Programme.

32


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Kenya, Republic of

210A2, Promotion of Conservation Agriculture

TCP/KEN/2904

Piloting conservation agriculture to improve livelihoods and food security for small holder farmers

The development objective is to ensure introduction and application of conservation agriculture methods on the small farms with a view to increased and sustainable food production and a decrease in agricultural production costs.The immediate objective of this TCP project is to assist KCTI members, KENDAT and other stakeholders in the introduction of practices of conservation agriculture amongst smallholder farmers before the implementation of a longer-term programme.

2003-01

2004-12 AGST 329,631.00

Kenya, Republic of

212A5, "Mainstreaming IPM" by Enhancing Essential Ecological Processes

TCP/KEN/3002

Management and control of Prosopis Juliflora in Kenya

The overall objective of the project is to assist the Kenyan authorities concerned with forestry and plant protections in managing and controlling the spread of Prosopis juliflora.

2004-09

2006-08 AGPP 201,493.00

Mali 224P1 Agricultural Adjustment and Policy Reforms

TCP/MLI/ 2905

Appui à la mise en place des réformes institutionnelles et réglementaires pour une décentralisation de la gestion

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'appuyer le Gouvernement dans la mise en place des réformes institutionnelles et réglementaires, déjà approuvées et relatives à la décentralisation de la gestion des ressources naturelles.

2003-05

2005-04 FONP 275,827.00

des ressources naturelles

Mauritania 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

TCP/MAU/3002

Appui aux associations oasiennes

L'assistance vise à appuyer le Gouvernement afin d'assurer le niveau minimal d'activités nécessaire au maintien des acquis du Programme oasis jusqu'au démarrage de la prochaine phase prévue pour juin 2004. L'assistance vise en particulier à:-Évaluer la viabilité associations oasiennes et des mutuelles de crédit et identifier les mesures à prendre pour leur réhabilitation éventuelles;-Poursuivre la formation des membres des organes de gestion du système de crédit et assurer le suivi des mutuelles de crédit.

2004-04

2005-12 AGLW 131,821.00

33


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Morocco 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

GCP /MOR/012/ITA

Restauration des Perimetres d'Irrigation par Epandage Descrues, Maroc

Les objectifs de développement agricole dans la région sont:• L’augmentation du niveau de production agricole vivrière; • L’amélioration des revenus agricoles des paysans;• Le maintien des populations sur leurs terres et la limitation de l’exode rural; • La lutte contre la désertification;• L’approvisionnement en eau domestique. Objectif immédiat unique: La réduction des débits de pointe des crues qui cause des dégats aux infrastructures d’irrigation, l’étalement des crues, qui permet une meilleure utilisation de celles-ci dans les périmètres d’épandage, ainsi que la recharge de la nappe aquifère qui permet une exploitation plus intensive pour le maraîchage et l’approvisionnement en eau domestique.

1993-10

2001-12 AGLW 3,529,276.00

Morocco 212A9, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources, includingthrough

GCP /MOR/016/ITA

Gestion des ressources naturelles dans la Province de Taza

Le Gouvernement marocain est en train de poursuivre une politique environnementale qui vise à arrêter le processus de dégradation des ressources naturelles qui est en cours, en particulier les problèmes majeurs concernant la conservation des ressources en eau et la conservation de sols. Les mesures que le Gouvernement a déjà commencées à entamer sur ces «terres à risque » (bassins versants, parcours, terres en bour en général) sont fondées sur le principe du développement et aménagement

1997-10

2004-07 AGPC 3,725,604.00

Biotechnology, and Seed Sector Development

durable des espaces ruraux avec et par la participation des populations locales. Le présent projet adhère entièrement a cette philosophie.

34


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Myanmar, Union of

251A4, Integrated Development and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge and Technology for Food Security and Sustainable Development

MYA/99/007/ /09/12 +MYA/99/006/ /09/12

Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro Income Opportunities in Critical Watershead (Southern Shan State)

The immediate objectives of the project were to: enhance understanding among target beneficiaries and other project stakeholders of the project context, the status of the biophysical setting, the socio-economic situation and the problems to be addressed before designing appropriate project interventions leading to environmental regeneration, food security and income generation opportunities for the poorest; enhance understanding of options for environmental regeneration, food production and other land-based sustainable income-earning activities in forestry, agriculture, livestock and fisheries, on an individual or group basis, with special emphasis on helping the poor and the disadvantaged; strengthen the capacities of grassroots communities; strengthen local access to environmental regeneration, food production and farm-based income-generating inputs and services; and create sustainable food security and income-earning opportunities.

1999-09

2002-03 RAPO 69,795.00

Niger 211A1, Agricultural Water Use

TCP/NER/ 2801

Appui a la Rehabilitation des Forages Artesiens dans les Departements de Diffa et

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'aider le Gouvernement dans l'évaluation des possibilités de conservation des ressources en eau artésienne des nappes du Pliocène et des Grès d'Agadez et

2002-09

2003-10 AGLW 118,150.00

Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

Departements de Diffa et Agadez

artésienne des nappes du Pliocène et des Grès d Agadez et l'examen des possibilités de réhabilitation et de mise en valeur des forages artésiens existants.

Niger 241P1, Assessment and Monitoring of Forests and Woodland Resources

TCP/NER/ 9066

Appui a la Relance de la Production et de la Commercialisation de la Gomme Arabique (recoded from TCP/NER/0066)

L’objectif de l’assistance est d’aider le Gouvernement, sur la base d’un bilan du potentiel actuel, à élaborer une stratégie pour la relance de la production et la commercialisation de la gomme arabique au Niger.

2000-09

2002-04 FOP 259,741.00

35


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Region Africa

241A4 GCP /INT/848/ ITA

Programme de Renforcement Institutionnel du Reseau d'Organisations de Base et des Plates-formes des Organisations Paysanne dans le Cadre de la Lutte Contre la Desertification et la Pauvrete dans les Pays du Senegal Mali Burkina Faso

A travers la mise en oeuvre des stratégies et interventions planifiées au niveau des pays concernés, à savoir le Mali, le Sénégal, le Niger et le Burkina Faso, le présent programme vise l'objectif de développement suivant: Contribuer à la lutte contre la désertification et la pauvreté dans les pays du Sahel, en garantissant la pleine participation de toutes les parties prenantes

2002-03

2003-12 FORC 771,064.00

Region Africa

253, Rural development

GTFS/RAF/387/ITA

Acacia Operation - Support to Food Security, Poverty Alleviation and Soil Degradation Control in the Gums and Resins Producer Countries

Gum arabic, myrrh and frankincense are abundant in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa. These local resources present the way forward to sustainable management and development of the Sahel regions, which naturally have fewer options due to difficult environmental conditions. However, irregularity of supply accompanied by fluctuating prices and variable quality from some sources results in unfavourable long-term effects on the demand of these commodities. As a result, producing countries are experiencing problems in relation to commercialization and ensuring a value-added product in relation to international markets. A coordinated strategy among producer countries and partners is therefore needed to capitalize on the existing opportunities and address the constraints. The project seeks to address these areas and prepare a 10-year plan for development of

2003-11

2006-05 FORC 4,190,057.00

address these areas and prepare a 10 year plan for development of gum and resin production in the framework of the NGARA network.

Region Africa

221P5, Food Quality Control and Consumer Protection

TCP/RAF/2914

Strenghtening the Production and Quality Control of Gums and Resins in Africa

To improve the capacity of African producing countries in coordinating their potentiality to get increased benefits from the exported natural resources such as acacia gums and resins through a more efficient Network for Natural Gums and Resins in Africa.

2003-09

2005-05 ESNS 396,254.00

36


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Region East and Southern Africa

224P2, Agriculture, Poverty Alleviation, Rural Development and Food Security: Analysis of Linkages

GCP /RAF/390/GER

Promotion of conservation agriculture for SARD and food security in Southern and Eastern Africa

Improved food security and rural livelihoods and build a foundation for the expansion of conservation agriculture (CA) to contribute to sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD).Immediate objective: The adoption of profitable conservation agriculture practices in at least three districts in two countries.

2004-06

2006-05 AGST 1,101,076.00

Syrian Arab Republic

212A3, Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable Crop and GrasslandProduction Systems

GCP /SYR/009/ ITA

Range Rehabilitation and Establishment of Wildlife Reserve in the Syrian Steppe (Consolidation Phase)

Government and community institutions are prepared to ensure sustainability of introduced range rehabilitation techniques and the conservation management plan of Talila wildlife reserve is implemented through the adoption of participatory approaches in planning and implementation of the management plan, and thus through: -Field-tested techniques for rehabilitating rangeland under dry Badia conditions developed, ready for greater application in other areas of the Syrian Badia; -National counterpart institutions including local community institutions, national project staff and project target groups are prepared to take overfull responsibility for project follow-up after completion

2000-02

2004-12 AGPC 1,926,002.00

take overfull responsibility for project follow-up after completion of the second phase.


211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

TCP/THA/2906

Sustainable Use of Problem Soils in Rainfed Agriculture

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Thailand in the Northeast Region, particularly in Nakhon Ratchasima and other salt-affected and low fertility status provinces to introduce and demonstrate appropriate integrated low-cost, low-risk management techniques for rehabilitation and improvement of problem soils, particularly in rainfed agriculture in support of food security programmes in the country.

2003-09

2005-08 AGLL 257,426.00

37


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol




TCP/THA/8922


The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Thailand to study the impact of shrimp farming in fresh water arable land to demonstrate appropriate integrated techniques for rehabilitation of abandoned shrimp farms and for the improvement of salt affected lands (resultant from sea water intrusion and shrimp farming practices in arable lands), in support of food security programmes in the country.

2000-02

2001-12 AGLD 242,077.00

Tunisia 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

GCP /TUN/028/ ITA

Programme de Conservation des Eaux et des Sols dans les Gouvernorats de Kairouan, Siliana et Zaghouan

Les objectifs de développement du project sont: -Améliorer la sécurité alimentaire dans les zones difficiles et procurer des revenus immédiats, surtout aux petits paysans; -Développer la production agricole et améliorer les revenus liés à l'intensification agricole; -Protéger les sols, régulariser les écoulements, réduire l' envasement des barrages et mieux alimenter les nappes; Conserver la biodiversité et la séquestration du carbone.

1996-06

2006-05 AGLL 12,479,788.00

Uzbekistan 211A5, Land and Water Quality Improvement

TCP/UZB/2801+ TCP/UZB/2901 + TCP/UZB/3003

Integrated Management for Sustainable Use of Salt-affected and Gypsiferous Soil (Recoded from TCP/UZB/2801 and second phase)

The objective of the project is to assist the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan to introduce and demonstrate appropriate integrated low-cost, low-risk management techniques for rehabilitation and improvement of salt-affected and gypsiferous irrigated lands in support of food security in the country.

2002-09 /2005-04

2004-09/ 2005-11

AGLL 395,401.00

003

Uzbekistan 210A2, Promotion of Conservation Agriculture

TCP/UZB/2903

Sustainable agricultural practices in the drought-affected region of Karakalpakistan

The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate alternative, profitable and more sustainable forms of agricultural production methods such as appropriate water and soil conservation practices and Conservation Agriculture (CA) for small independent farmers in KK, where water is a very scarce, valuable and a diminishing resource.

2003-11

2005-10 AGPC 386,895.00

38


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Uzbekistan 211A3, Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning andManagement

TCP/UZB/3001

Enhanced productivity of cotton-wheat systems through the adoption of conservation agriculture practices"

The overall objective of this project is to enhance the productivity of cotton through crop diversification in rotation with wheat and grain legumes and selected cover crops by means of Conservation Agricultural (CA) practices, including zero/minimum-tillage and bed and furrow planting systems.

2004-11

2006-04 AGLL 347,836.00

Yemen, Republic of


UTF /YEM/024/YEM /B

TA to Land and Water Conservation Project - Water Resources Component, Yemen

1995-05

2001-04 RNEG 1,745,426.00

Zimbabwe 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

TCP/ZIM/ 0169 + TCP/ZIM/ 3001

Integrated Natural Resources Management, and second phase

Equip farmers with better farm management skills and decision-making capacity to overcome crop and livestock productivity limitations and to stabilise crop and livestock performance in highly variable and risky semi-arid environments.�In the process, sustainable and cost effective approaches for scaling up FFS that deal with integrated land management among smallholder farmers will be identified, and a sustainability plan that allows for independent continuation of farmer

2002-06

2003-12 AGLL 320,835.00

that allows for independent continuation of farmer experimentation and technology development and links to sources of technical information and advice, and strengthened networking will be developed.

Total 16,175,684.00

TCP 4,708,696.00

GCP 31,157,529.00

UNDP 2,949,858.00

39


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Global 211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

GCP/INT/ 900/CCD

Land Degradation Assessment Expand the Land Degradation Assessment in drylands (LADA) process to more developing countries and to provide specifically answers to a number of outstanding land degradation assessment issues: Develop a methodology to achieve a rapid and accurate assessment and monitoring of land degradation nationally; To define a general strategy for national stratification of dryland degradation and hot spot identification; Identify key criteria for pilot investigations at local scale; Assess economic impact and cost of land degradation; Identify the different scales (from global to local) at which LADA needs to operate, taking clearly into account the needs and interest groups at these different levels; and To clarify how to manage the different capacities and resources that individual countries and organisations have at their disposal to participate in LADA.

2004-5 2004-12 AGLL 50,000.00

Global 211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

EP /GLO/002/GEF + EP /GLO/202/

Dryland Land Degradation Assessment - Lada (Gf/1100-95-12)

The objectives of the project are (a) review and synthesis of data and information of relevance to the development of a land degradation assessment in drylands; (b) development, testing and revision of integrated land degradation assessment approaches

2000-11 / 2002-03

2001-02 / 2005-05

SDRN 730,000.00

Normative outputs and projects

Management /GLO/202/GEF

revision of integrated land degradation assessment approaches and methods; (c) capacity and network development for assessment of land degradation; (d) conducting pilot studies to calibrate and test methods for land degradation assessment in selected countries; (e) development of strategies for information communication, executive partnerships and co-financing and; (f) development of a GEF Project Brief. The PDF B will also develop a framework for a consensus building process for which the long-term purpose is to identify global environmental benefits accruing from addressing land degradation in drylands in terms of conservation of biodiversity and international waters, and sequestration of carbon.

03

40


Country Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Publication

Publication

Publication

Food security, sustainable development and desertification control, Perspectives for the drylandsTous ensemble pour l'avenir du Sahel,Systèmes agropastoraux et éducation pour la biodiversité et l'environnement, UNEP/FAO, 2004From indifference to awareness, Encountering biodiversity in the semi-arid rangelands of the Syrian Arab Republic, FAO IDWG on Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture/FAO, 2003

Know to move, move to know, Ecological knowledge and herd movement strategies among the Wodaabe of Southeastern Niger,FAO IDWG on Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture/FAO, 2003

World Soil Resources Reports 102, Carbon sequestration in dryland soils, FAO, 2004

AGL/MISC/38/2005, Agro-ecological zonins and GIS applications in Asia, with special emphasis on land degradation assessment in drylands (LADA), Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, 10–14 November 2003

AGL/MISC/39/2005, LADA degradation in the Caribbean, Proceedings of a subegional workshop, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 3–6 February 2004, FAO 2005

Publication

Publication

Workshop

Workshop

41

Wetlands, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Cambodia 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

GCP /CMB/002/BEL + GCP /CMB/008/BEL

Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region (Phase II and III)

This project supports continued development and strengthening of activities initiated under the 'second phase' of the project "Participatory Natural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region". The focus of the third phase is to establish community resource management as a policy and practice within the concerned government sectors of Siem Reap province.

1998-09/ 2001-11

2001-08/ 2005-04

FONP 3,542,720.00

Cambodia 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

GCP /CMB/011/ASB


The overall objective of the TSEMP is the sustainable management and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in the Tonle Sap basin. The objective of the TSEMP is to enhance systems and develop the capacity for natural resource management coordination and planning, community-based natural resource management, and biodiversity conservation in the TSBR.

2003-07 2004-07 FIPP 539,280.00

Cambodia 311P2, Coordination of FieldProgramme DevelopmentActivities

GCP /CMB/012/UK

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia- UK Contribution

The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the development of laws, sub-decrees, studies and monitoring implementation and management of NRM linking to the Group which will operate in a higher political context with representation at annual

2003-08 2005-08 FACMB 568,564.00

CG meetings.Cambodia 251, Research,

Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer

GCP /CMB/013/DEN

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia - Danish Contribution

The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the development of laws, sub-decrees, studies and monitoring implementation and management of NRM linking to the Group which will operate in a higher political context with representation at annual CG meetings.

2003-08 2005-09 FACMB 245,000.00

42


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Cambodia 311P2, Coordination of FieldProgramme DevelopmentActivities

GCP /CMB/014/SWE

Trust Fund to Support the Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management (DWGNRM) in Cambodia - Swedish Contribution

The establishment of a Trust Fund provides an opportunity to harmonise and deepen relationships between donors through the Group and recently formed sub-groups. These sub-groups will focus on key sectoral, policy and livelihood issues including the development of laws, sub-decrees, studies and monitoring implementation and management of NRM linking to the Group which will operate in a higher political context with representation at annual CG meetings.

2003-06 2004-05 FACMB 24,996.00

Cambodia 224P3, Economics of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability

GCP /CMB/023/GER

Support of the Donor Working Group Concerning the Management of Natural Resources in Cambodia

The Donor Working Group on Natural Resources Management has undertaken substantial work on reform issues. The Group, in part, has been effective in mainstreaming pressure on government for reform in key areas and are responsible for the forestry logging ban, cancellation of concessions and fishing lots, pressure for environmental and social impact assessments on land and forest concessions as well as maintaining coherence in donor representation to government. It represents a broad constituency of RGC, donors, NGOs and CBOs.

2004-03 2004-06 FACMB 47,808.00

Cambodia 251P3, Information and Communication

TCP/CMB/0165 + TCP/CMB/

Information and Communications for Sustainable Natural Resources

The overall objective of the project is to improve NRM in agriculture in Cambodia through targeted information/communication interventions designed to change negative attitudes and behaviours.

2002-03 2004-12 SDRE 387,462.00

Technologies in Support of Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Systems

3003 Management in Agricultureg g g

To accomplish this, the project will strengthen the information, communication and promotional capacities of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the national and provincial levels in order to support NRM efforts.

43


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Cambodia 234A4, Promotion of Coastal Fisheries Management

UTF /CMB/015/CMB

Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Component 2: Organizing Communities for Natural Resource Management of the TSBR

Natural resource management and environmental sustainability are essential to the livelihood of rural population in Cambodia and recognized as such by the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) and supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The project is also related to the national poverty reduction strategy. �The present project aims at organizing communities for natural resource management (with due emphasis on fisheries) and implementing measures for improved regulation and management in and around the Great Lake of Tonle Sap.

2005-03 2008-03 FIPP 3,800,000.00

Cuba 251, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer

GCP /CUB/011/NET


Frenar el deterioro de los recursos naturales del ecosistema de la Ciénaga de Zapata y mejorar las condiciones de vida de las comunidades que habitan en el área.

2000-06 2002-10 RLCO 556,227.00

SAFR 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

EP /RAF/401/GEF

Trans-boundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Programme for the Lower Kagera River Basin (PDF-B)

The PDF-B grant aims to improve knowledge and strengthen capacities at local, technical and policy levels for the preparation of an integrated agro-ecosystems and biodiversity management framework - the Transboundary Agro-ecosystems Management Programme

2004-10 2006-03 AGLL 700,000.00

g ( ) y g y g g(TAMP).

SAFR 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

UNTS/RAF/010/GEF

Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin

The project objective is to alleviate imminent and long-term threats to the linked land and water systems of the Okavango River through the joint management of the Okavango River Basin water resources and the protection of its linked aquatic ecosystems, comprising all wetlands, fluvial and lacustrine systems, and their biological diversity. A two-stage approach has been adopted. Stage 1, the subject of this intervention, will involve the preparation of the Strategic Action Programme. Stage 2, the subject of a subsequent intervention, will involve implementation of the Strategic Action Programme.

2004-11 2007-10 AGLW 5,390,998.00

Total 15,803,055.00

44


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Normative outputs and projectsPublication

Publication

FAO Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 4, Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin, A Situation Analysis, SAFR, 2004

The future is an ancient lake, Traditional knowledge, biodiversity and genetic resources for food and agriculture in Lake Chad Basin ecosystems, FAO 2004

45

Mountains, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name

Technical and Economic Programme

Project Symbol


Argentina, Republic of


TCP/ARG/2902

Manejo Sustentable de Ecosistemas Forestales de la Cuenca los Pericos-Manantiales (recoded from TCP/ARG/2802)

Contribuir a mitigar y disminuir los procesos de deforestación, erosión y torrencialidad estacional que caracterizan a los ecosistemas de montaña del noroeste del país mediante la definición y la implementación de alternativas integrales de manejo y producción rural sustentables, garantizando la seguridad alimentaria en el ámbito local y la restauración de los agroecosistemas en las zonas de los valles.

2002-08/ 2004-01

2003-11/ 2004-07

FORM 245,155.00

Armenia, Republic of

241A4, Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

TCP/ARM/2801- 3001


The main objective is to assist the Government of the Republic of Armenia in its efforts to implement sustainable development in its mountain areas.

2003-4/ 2004-03

2006-02 FORC 322,717.00

Bolivia 243, Forestry Policy and Institutions

GCP /BOL/030/NET

Desarrollo Forest.Comunal en Altiplano Boliviano (Phase II)

Objectivos del proyecto fueron: El mejoramiento del nivel de vida de los campesinos de la zona altoandina del Departamento de Potosí, cuyas actividades están basadas en un manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales y del medio ambiente.- la contribución al mejoramiento del nivel de vida de la población altoandina mediante el manejo sostenido de los recursos naturales renovables y otras fuentes alternativas de ingreso

1997-01 2002-06 RLCO 6,095,967.00

Bolivia 251A4, Integrated Development and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge and Technology for Food Security and Sustainable Development

GCP /BOL/034/ ITA

Información, comunicación y capacitación para el manejo de los recursos naturales y la agricultura sostenible

El presente proyecto tiene por objeto emplear capacidades, equipos y recursos humanos existentes en la cuenca del río Piraí, Bolivia, para crear servicios de información, comunicación y capacitación a favor del manejo de los recursos naturales y la agricultura sostenible. El proyecto creará un centro de capacitación y comunicación, una red de usuarios de información, capacitará a personal clave de la cuenca y realizará acciones para demostrar la forma en que la ICC y las TIC puedan ser empleadas para el desarrollo sostenible. El proyecto procura sentar las bases para formar un sistema de extensión informal en Bolivia, capaz de poner al servicio de los agricultores los más recientes avances en la tecnología de información.

2003-04 2006-04 SDRE 449,967.00

46


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Bolivia 212, Crops TCP/BOL/9065

Manejo del Agua del suelo en Apoyo a la Seguridad Alimentaria en Tarija (recoded from TCP/BOL/0065)

La asistencia técnica tiene el propósito de capacitar a técnicos que trabajan atendiendo a los campesinos de modo que puedan enseñarles a manejar adecuadamente el agua de riego para su mejor aprovechamiento en el aumento de la productividad y a utilizar los suelos con prácticas productivas sostenibles, que al mismo tiempo aumenten la productividad y eviten su deterioro. Se capacitará a técnicos de la Prefectura, alcaldías, ONG y asociaciones campesinas. Además, se capacitará en servicio a los técnicos en irrigación de la Prefectura de Tarija en identificar, diseñar y formular un proyecto de riego intercomunal a nivel de pre-factibilidad, para una futura inversión en infraestructura de riego que beneficie a un conjunto de comunidades campesinas de Tarija que actualmente no cuenten con adecuado aprovisionamiento de agua de riego

2000-1 2001-10 AGLW 230,736.00

Colombia 311, Coordination of Policy Assistance and Related C it

GCP /COL/026/NET

Programa de conservación y rehabilitación ambiental de la región del Macizo Colombiano en el marco del desarrollo sostenible

El objetivo del proyecto es fortalecer los procesos de concertación tanto interinstitucional como social y de apoyo a acciones de desarrollo sostenible con las comunidades asentadas en la Ecorregión del Macizo Colombiano. Generar las condiciones técnicas, de conocimiento y logísticas necesarias para desarrollar el Programa de C ió R h bilit ió A bi t l d l M i C l bi

2002-02 2005-03 RLCO 1,567,186.00

Capacity Building

Conservación y Rehabilitación Ambiental del Macizo Colombiano, en el Marco del Desarrollo Sostenible tomando en cuenta los factores interinstitucionales, sociales, económicos y ambientales que han constituido históricamente en fuentes objetivas de marginalidad y conflicto.

Cuba 243A3, Strengthening National Institutional Capacities

TCP/CUB/2903


El proyecto pretende apoyar la implementación de los Elementos Rectores para el Desarrollo de la Producción Agropecuaria y Forestal de la Montaña, con el fin de mejorar la calidad de vida y la seguridad alimentaria de los habitantes en las zonas montañosas.

2004-04 2005-12 FONP 240,288.00

47


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


DPRK 241, Forest Resources

TCP/DRK/0169+TCP/DRK/3002


The main objective is to assist the Government of DPR Korea in its efforts undertaken to reverse the degradation of land resources (soil, water and vegetative cover).

2002-03 2004-08 FORC 377,109.00

El Salvador 211, Natutal Resources

GCP /ELS/005/NET

Agricultura Sostenible En Zonas De Ladera (Phase II)

Mejorar la eficiencia en el uso y manejo de los recursos naturales por parte de los pequeños productores y productoras y sus familias en zonas de ladera, para contribuir a la sostenibilidad de la agricultura y a la seguridad alimentaria familiar, mediante la adopción de prácticas conservacionistas de uso y manejo de suelo y agua, el fortalecimiento institucional y el desarrollo de la gestión empresarial de las comunidades asentadas en microcuencas hidrográficas.

1999-08 2003-05 AGLL 2,904,977.00

Guatemala 256P3, SPFS Implementation

GCSP/ GUA/009/SPA


El objetivo general del proyecto PESA-Guatemala puede enunciarse como "Contribuir a reducir la inseguridad alimentaria en las áreas de intervención, incrementando el acceso y la disponibilidad de los alimentos por medio de la mejora y diversificación de los sistemas de producción en forma sostenible y con base en el fortalecimiento de la organización empresarial y la autogestión por parte de los participantes, en el marco de la equidad de género".

1999-10 2006-02 TCOS 4,106,063.00

Haiti 211A1, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

GCP /HAI/015/NET + TCP/HAI/ 2804+ GCP/HAI/016/CAN

Promotion de làgriculture durable et de la conservation des sols et des eaux dans les montagnes humides d`Haïti - Région Marmelade

Le programme vise à renverser le processus de dégradation des ressources naturelles et à augmenter de façon durable la productivité des terres dans les régions montagneuses ciblées. Ce faisant le programme contribuera à la sécurité alimentaire, à l'allégement de la pauvreté, à la création d'emplois dans les communautés rurales et indirectement à diminuer la pression sur les forêts restantes et les autres écosystèmes fragiles. Le TCP vise la consolidation des acquis de la phse I, alors que la deuxième phase vise l'amélioration du niveau de vie de la population à travers l'appui à la gouvernance locale, la promotion d'une agriculture durable et la gestion de l'environnement.

1999-01 2006-12 AGLL 4,115,733.00

48


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Honduras 253, Rural development

GCP/HON/021/NET

Proyecto Lempira Sur (Phase II) Al final de esta fase del proyecto, la sociedad del Sur de Lempira estará en un franco proceso de: Mejorar la sostenibilidad de las innovaciones tecnológicas introducidas en los sistemas de producción que les están permitiendo elevar la producción, transformación y comercialización de alimentos; Revertir el proceso de destrucción de sus recursos naturales garántizandose su manejo y uso racional de manera durable; y mejorar su calidad de vida en conformidad con los objetivos del Gobierno en materia de Seguridad Alimentaria, con base en la consolidación de sus Organizaciones de Base y de segundo nivel que están dando vida al proceso de municipalización en el acceso a los servicions básicos.

1999-02 2002-12 SDAR 4,886,997.00

Honduras 256P3, SPFS Implementation

GCP/HON/022/SPA


El presente proyecto constituye la primera fase del Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria para Guatemala para cuyo desarrollo el GOH ha seleccionado la zona sur de los Departamentos de Francisco Morazán, Choluteca, El Paraíso y Valle, una región con un agroecosistema seco de laderas, representativo de gran parte del trópico seco centroamericano. El objetivo fundamental es la identificación de una serie de tecnologías y acciones de apoyo que reduzcan la inseguridad

1999-10 2006-12 TCOS 1,975,297.00

tecnologías y acciones de apoyo que reduzcan la inseguridad alimentaria de la zona y que, en una fase posterior, se puedan extender al resto del trópico seco, no sólo de Honduras sino también de otros países centroamericanos.

International and Bolivia

241, Forest Resources

GCP /INT/542/ ITA

Phase III of Project GCP/INT/542/ITA (Follow-Up) - Coordination + Tunisia, Bolivia and Nepal

The overall aim was to progressively incorporate a participatory and integrated watershed management approach into national (and lower level) policies for rural development and natural resource conservation. To this end, the project was to disseminate information on the methods, techniques and tools validated by field experience.

1997-12/ 2000-07

2000-06/ 2001-12

FORC 2,587,987.00

Iran 241A7, Forests and Water

IRA/97/002/A /01/99

Hable Rud Watershed. 1997-07 2002-09 FORC 65,402.00

49


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Iran 212, Crops UTF /IRA/051/ IRA

Technical Assistance for Soil Conservation and Watershed Management in Golestan Province

The objectives of the assistance are to strengthen the national expertise and to promote the exchange of experiences in combating land degradation and watershed management.

2003-08 2003-12 AGLL 46,437.00

Kyrgizstan 243A3, Strengthening National Institutional Capacities

TCP/KYR/3002

Institutional capacity-building in small-scale enterprise development in mountain regions

The development objective of the project is to assist the Government of Kyrgyzstan to establish viable income-generating activities that contribute to improved livelihoods of the rural population and create incentives for sustainable development of mountain areas in Kyrgyzstan. The primary objective of this project is to build the institutional capacity at national, regional and local levels to develop viable small-scale enterprises in mountain communities through the implementation of a training programme based on the Market Analysis and Development (MA&D) methodology.

2005-04 2006-09 FORC 244,000.00

Lebanon 211P7, Land and Water Information Systems, Databases and St ti ti

TCP/LEB/ 9065

Developpement Integre des Regions Montagneuses du Liban-Nord (recoded from TCP/LEB/0065)

Le but de ce projet serait double:�-Préparer et interpréter les données agronomiques, pédologiques, climatiques et hydrologiques sur une région, et les intégrer dans un système d'information auprès du Ministère de l'agriculture comme exemple à suivre dans d'autres régions; etP d i t ti i t l' éli ti d l

2000-02 2002-04 AGLL 259,019.00

Statistics -Proposer des interventions qui assureront l'amélioration de la productivité des cultures actuellement pratiquées, évaluer le potentiel des terres et leur aptitude à de nouveaux types de cultures, et explorer des techniques de gestion novatrices pouvant aboutir à une majoration de la productivité, des revenus du fermier, du profit, tout en garantissant la sécurité alimentaire et une réduction de la détérioration des terres agricoles dans cette région.

50


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Madagascar 211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

TCP/MAG/3003


L'objectif du projet est d'apporter des enseignements pour la préparation du Programme BV PI, afin de mieux lutter contre la pauvreté grâce à l'amélioration de l'exploitation durable des terres et des eaux en évitant la dégradation des ressources naturelles.�L'objectif spécifique du projet est de tester une approche de gestion des bassins versants et des périmètres irrigués qui assure la durabilité dans la gestion des ressources en terres et en eaux tout en améliorant le bien-être des populations.

2004-09 2006-01 TCIS 317,496.00

Mexico 211A3, Integrated Land and Water Management

TCP/MEX/2905

Servicios ambientales en las políticas rurales territoriales

Objetivo general: Contar con el diseño y ejecución de un modelo de gestión pública basado en políticas territoriales diferenciadas de acuerdo con los problemas productivos y ambientales que presenta la zona rural montañosa del Distrito Federal.

2003-10 2005-06 AGLL 253,385.00

Nicaragua 256P3, SPFS Implementation

GCP/NIC/027/SPA

Modelo de atención productiva al sector de los pequeños productores de escasos recursos en apoyo al desarrollo de Nicaragua, como fase piloto en el marco del programa especial de

id d li i ( SA)

El presente proyecto constituye la primera fase del Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria para Nicaragua cuyo objetivo es brindar apoyo técnico al Gobierno de Nicaragua para el aumento sostenible de la producción y la productividad agrícola, mejorando la disponibilidad de alimentos y los ingresos como elementos importantes para reducir el nivel de inseguridad alimentaria y de pobreza en los sectores mas d f id d l bl ió i id d l l

1999-06 2006-12 TCOS 1,751,359.00

seguridad alimentaria (PESA) desfavorecidos de la población, con prioridad en las zonas rurales secas del país.

Nicaragua 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

TCP/NIC/3001

Fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales en microcuencas priorizadas en el noroeste de Nicaragua

Promover prácticas de manejo sostenible y uso racional de los recursos naturales en los Municipios de Quezalguaque, Posoltega y Telica, con el fin de reducir la amenaza de los riesgos de desastres naturales, así como contribuir a mejorar la rentabilidad y la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción y la seguridad alimentaria de las familias rurales.

2005-02 2006-07 AGLL 323,125.00

51


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Poland 241A4, Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

TCP/POL/3002+TCP/POL/3004


The main objective is to assist the Government of Poland in its efforts to implement sustainable development activities in its mountain areas.

2004-03/ 2005-7

2004-04/ 2007-02

FORC 291,921.00

RAF 241A1, Sustainable Management of Natural Forests and Woodlands

EP /INT/108/ GEF

Integrated Management of the Fouta Djallon Highlands (GF/2740-01-4333)

The PDF-B will also establish a framework for a consensus building process for which the long-term purpose is to secure global environmental benefits by ensuring the conservation, sustainable use and integrated management of the Fouta Djallon Highlands. All the activities to be implemented in the PDF B are designed as preparatory actions required to plan and execute a regionally co-ordinated integrated ecosystem management (IEM) programme.

2001-10 2006-03 FORC 529,000.00

SAFR 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

EP /RAF/102/GEF

Alleviating land degradation through biodiversity conservation in the upper catchment of Kagera river basin

2001-05 2001-09 SAFD 24,910.00

Tajikistan, bli f

241A4, C i i

TCP/TAJ/ 2903

Participatory Integrated h d i

The main objective is to assist the Government of Tajikistan in its ff d k h d d i f l d d

2003-09 2005-08 FORC 344,079.00Republic of Conservation in

Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

2903 Watershed Management in Upland Areas

efforts undertaken to reverse the degradation of upland resources and deterioration of local people income. The project will provide assistance in establishing the prerequisites for the rehabilitation and development of the country' s upland resources.

Viet Nam 243A3, Strengthening National Institutional Capacities

GCP /VIE/023/ BEL

Participatory Watershed Management in the Hoanh Bo District (GCP/VIE/019/BEL) (Phase II)

The project development objective is to create a visible, measurable, and sustainable impact on the watershed conditions in the midland and upland areas of Hoanh Bo through the introduction of a cost effective and user friendly participatory watershed management planning and implementation process that could ultimately represent a model for replication in other District and Provinces in Vietnam.

2000-03 2003-10 RAPO 1,503,253.00

Total 36,059,565.00

52


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Global 241A4, Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

GCP /INT/825/ ITA

Promoting, Coordinating and Implementing Observance of the International Year of Mountains -2002

The development objective of this project is to enhance the sustainable development of mountain regions and the well-being of mountain and lowland communities through a successful observance of the International Year of Mountains (IYM).

2001-11 2005-12 FORC 2,271,993.00

Global 241A4, Conservation in Forests and Fragile Ecosystems

GCP /INT/706/ SWI

Watershed Management and Sustainable Mountain Development

The objectives of the projects are:-To support the general efforts and initiatives taken at international level to facilitate the implementation of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21.-To support the FAO normative programme element on Watershed Management and Sustainable Mountain Development;-To support the preparatory activities to an international meeting on mountain ecosystems and probably the celebration of the planned International Year of the Mountains.

1998-06 2005-03 FORC 2,055,695.00

Global 243A3, Strengthening National Institutional Capacities

GCP /INT/886/ FRA

Promotion et protection des produits locaux dans le cadre de la mise en valeur durable des régions de Montagne: Contribution to GCP /INT/887/MUL

As part of a multi-donor programme, GCP/MUL/887/MUL, the project will contribute to the alleviation of poverty in mountain regions through the creation of new income-generating activities and the enhancement of traditional or alternative employment opportunities that will conserve the mountain environments, ensure

it d t th ll b i f t i iti

2003-07 2007-04 FORC 644,792.00


/INT/887/MUL equity and promote the well-being of mountain communities.

Global 244S1, Support to Statutory Bodies and Liaison with the Regional Offices

GCP/ INT/976/ SWI

Project for Establishing the Mountain Partnership Secretariat -Follow-up Phase of GCP/INT/706/SWI

Specific objectives: - To support the development of collaborative arrangements and processes (initiatives) between members for effective action on the ground in mountain regions; -To stimulate exchange of ideas and dialogue between initiatives and among members of the Partnership as a whole that builds up knowledge and to assist initiatives and members to solve problems related to the implementation of initiatives; -To help mobilise financial support for start-up as well as on-going initiatives through funding intelligence and brokerage; - To disseminate information about best practices in implementing and scaling up initiatives and interventions (communication and information network)

2005-06 2007-05 FORC 1,187,200.00

53


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Global 253A2, Improved Rural Institutions and Services to Promote Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

GCP /GLO/136/MUL

Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Mountain Regions (SARD-M)

Facilitate the improved formulation, review, implementation and evaluation of SARD policies for mountain regions at national, decentralized and community levels, taking into account global, regional and transboundary contexts and linkages, in order to enhance livelihoods in mountain regions.

2005-01 2008-12 SDAR 4,660,469.00

Support to Mountain Research Initiative

Publication

Networking, technical assistance

Networking, technical assistance

Publication

Publication

Servicing European Forestry Commission Working Party on the Management of Mountain Watersheds and publication of proceedings of 22nd/23rd/24th sessions, 2000, 2002, 2004

Watershed Management & Sustainable Mountain Development Working Papers, Watershed Management Case Study: No. 1 Burundi; No. 2 Nepal; No. 3. Latin America; No. 4 Mediterranean

Environment and Natural resources WP No.10, Towards a GIS-based analysis of mountain environments and population, Poverty Mapping/IYM, FAO,2003

Unasylva: Vol 53, N. 208, 2002 International Year of Mountains, 2002/1

Discovering the Natural Resources of the Hindu-Kush Himalayan Region, FAO/ICIMOD, 2002, + Teacher's Guide

FAO Legislative studies N. 75, Mountains and the law, emerging trends, 2202 Mountain Fisheries in Developing Countries, T. Petr, FAO, 2003

Publication

Publication

PublicationPublication

Publication

Site-specific grasses and herbs, seed production and use for restoration of mountain environments, FAO, 2004Environment and Natural Resources, WP No. 17, Towards sustainable agriculture and rural development in the Ethiopian highlands, 2004

Household food security and nutrition in mountain areas: an often forgotten story, Jenny A.L., Egal, F., ESNP, FAO, 10/2002

Publication

Publication Mountain people in Sustainable Development, GCP/INT/542/ITA, 2000

54


Region/ Country

Name


Project Symbol


Floods in Bangladesh in the context of highland-lowland linkages; Forests and Floods-Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts, RAPO

Determinants of cereal diversity in communities and on household farmers of the northern Ethiopian highlands, ESA WP, ESA/03-14FRA thematic studies on forest and water

Research, case studies

Publication


Promoting fair trade organic mountain coffee, Kenya Ministry of Co-operative Development and MarketingFAO Land and Water Bulletin No. 9, Land–water linkages in rural watersheds, Proceedings of the electronic workshop organized by the FAO Land and Water Development Division 18 September-27 October 2000International Mountain Day (11/12), database of field projects; collection of normative work; list of publications; website; brochures: Peace on High; etc

PAIA on Mountain

Workshop

Publication

55

Mangroves, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Cameroon, Republic of


TCP/CMR/2908

Gestion participative et conservation de la diversité biologique des mangroves

Objectif de développement: Assister le Gouvernement du Cameroun (MINEF) dans la définition d'une politique et d'une stratégie de gestion et utilisation durable de la biodiversité des mangroves dans l'intérêt des populations locales dont dépendent l'économie et la survie. Objectifs spécifiques: -Évaluer les ressources des mangroves et leur potentiel de contribution à la sécurité alimentaire et à la génération de revenus; -Analyser le contexte socio-économique et les capacités de gestion durable des mangroves par les populations et des services techniques et proposer des modèles appropriés; -Définir une politique et une stratégie multi-sectorielle pour la conservation et l'utilisation durables des mangroves du Cameroun.

2004-01 2005-12 FORC 377,073.00

Egypt 241A1, Sustainable Management of Natural Forests and Woodlands

TCP/EGY/0168


The development objective is to assist the GoE to rehabilitate, conserve and sustainably utilise the mangrove resources in the country.

2002-05 2003-12 FORM 197,351.00

Guinea-Bissau

211A1, Agricultural

TCP/GBS/9067

Appui a la Maitrise de lÈau (Ex-Allocation Anticipee)

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'aider le Gouvernement Bissau-Guinéen dans la mise en oeuvre du PSSA pour l'augmentation durable de la

2000-12 2002-11 AGL 364,496.00Bissau Agricultural

Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

9067 (recoded from TCP/GBS/0067)

Allocation Anticipee) dans la mise en oeuvre du PSSA pour l augmentation durable de la production et de la productivité du système de riziculture de mangrove, par l'introduction des techniques performantes de gestion des sols et eaux et l'utilisation des semences améliorées.

Total 938,920.00

56

Mangroves, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Global 241A1, Sustainable Management of Natural Forests and Woodlands

GCP /INT/935/ITO

Promote the Conservation, Rehabilitation and sustainable management of Mangroves

2004-01 2005-12 FORM 50,000.00


Publication

Publication

Publication

Publication

Publication

Publication

Rehabilitation, Conservation and sustainable utilization of mangroves in Egypt, Consultancy Report, TCP/EGY/0168, 2002Socio-economic assessment and econmic evaluation of mangroves in Egypt, 2004

Conservation and management of mangroves in India, with special reference to the State of Goa and the Middle Andaman Islands, R.Kumar, 2000

Impact of shrimp farming on mangroves along India's East Coast, L. Hein, 2000

In search of excellence, Exemplary Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific, Edited by Patrick B. Durst, Chris Brown, Henrylito D. Tacio and Miyuki Ishikawa, 2005Interactions between fish and aquatic macrophytes in inland waters, A review, T.Petr, 2000

57

Marine ecosystems, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


RAF 211A2, Land and Soil Productivity

EP /INT/302/ GEF

Protection of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) -PDF-B

The primary objective of this PDF Activity is the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) to identify the principal shared problems and their root causes, as well as national, regional and, particularly, transboundary priorities in the region. This will provide the basis for the subsequent development of an agreed regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the solution of the identified problems, and the development of the Full Project.

2004-06 2005-11 FIRM 320,000.00

RAF 234A4, Promotion of Coastal Fisheries Management

GCP /INT/956/WBG

Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in the Large Marine Ecosystems of Sub-Saharan Africa

2004-11 2006-1 FIPP 285,000.00

RAF 234A4, Promotion of C t l

TCP/INT/ 3005

Appui à la Commission sous-régionale des pêches pour l� é ti li ti d

L'objectif de l'assistance est d'appuyer la CSRP dans la réalisation du programme d'appui régional à la promotion de la pêche responsable, à l é ti d ili i d l d l CSRP (P

2004-10 2006-09 FIPP 368,154.00

Coastal Fisheries Management

l�opérationnalisation du Programme régional à la promotion de la pêche responsable, à la protection et à la préservation du milieu marin (Programme ALPHA)

la préservation du milieu marin dans la zone de la CSRP (Programme ALPHA).�

58


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


RAF 232A5, Resources Assessment and Management of Fisheries Resources

UNTS/RAF/011/GEF

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in the Benguela Current LME RAF00G32

Technical assistance 2005-04 2006-12 FIRM 90,272.00

RAS 232A3, Marine Fisheries ResourcesIdentification and Biodata

GCP/ RAS/175/ SWE


The ultimate objective of this proposal to develop a Strategic Action Programme is to enhance national and regional efforts in place under the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP) to protect the health of the ecosystem and manage the living resources of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem on a sustainable basis to improve the food and livelihood security of the region’s large coastal population.

2001-01 2005-12 TCIP 403,523.00

RAS 232A4, Monitoring and Reporting on Global Marine

GCP/ RAS/179/ WBG


The ultimate objective of this proposal to develop a Strategic Action Programme is to enhance national and regional efforts in place under the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP) to protect the health of the ecosystem and manage the living resources of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem on a sustainable basis to improve the food

2001-01 2005-12 TCIP 349,800.00

Marine Resources and RelevantEnvironmental and Ecological Changes

Large Marine Ecosystem on a sustainable basis to improve the food and livelihood security of the region’s large coastal population.

59


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


RER 232S1, Advice on Marine Resources and Environmental Issues

GCP/RER/010/ITA

Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Adriatic Sea (Adriamed)

Assist the participating countries to be able to establish and implement mechanisms for formulation and implementation of updated management plans for each specific fishery, through coordinated scientific investigation and data-gathering as well as through joint and multi-disciplinary analysis, undertaken in partnership with the industry.

1999-10 2006-01 FIRM 4,880,000.00

RER 232S1, Advice on Marine Resources and Environmental Issues

GCP/RER/010/ITA

Medsudmed - Assessment and Monitoring of the Fishery Resources and the Ecosystems in the Straits of Sicily (Module 2)

The objective of this project is to assist the participating countries to be able to establish and implement mechanisms for formulation and implementation of updated management plans for each specific fishery, through coordinated scientific investigation and data-gathering as well as through joint and multi-disciplinary analysis, undertaken in partnership with the industry.

2001-04 2006-10 FIRM 2,844,001.00

RER+RER 232A5, Resources Assessment and Management of Fisheries Resources

GCP/REM/057/SPA

Apoyo Tecnico y Creacion de Redes de Cooperat. que Faciliten la Coordinacion en Apoyo de la Ordenacion Pesquera

Incrementar la competencia del SAC para tomar decisiones y facilitar recomendaciones; Una mayor actuación a nivel nacional en lo que se refiere a estudio y control de las pesquerías; Disponibilidad y uso de los datos generados por programas regionales del proyecto para: mejorar la evaluación de pesquerías a nivel regional; incrementar la cooperación en investigación científica a nivel regional; utilizar herramientas estandarizadas de evaluación&gestión a nivel regional;

1996-01 2005-05 FIRM 7,856,653.00

Resources herramientas estandarizadas de evaluación&gestión a nivel regional; M j l fl j d i f ió l ió b í lRLA 232S1, Advice

on Marine Resources and Environmental Issues

GCP/RLA/140/JPN

Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Lesser Antilles including interaction with Marine Mammals and Other Top Predators

The longer-term development objectives is the maintenance of ecosystem functioning, marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries conduct.

2002-09 2006-09 FIRM 4,233,434.00

60


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


RNE 231P1, Provision of FisheriesInformation and Statistics

GCP /INT/918/EC

Fisheries Statistics and Information System in the Mediterranean (MedFIsys)

The longer-term development objective is the maintenance of the Mediterranean ecosystem, of its living marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries management. The medium-term objective is to create a sustainable basis for the operation of a Mediterranean Fishery Statistics and Information System, which will provide a concrete sound basis and contribute to the optimum management of living marine resources of the Large Marine Ecosystem of the Mediterranean.

2004-07 2005-06 FIRM 243,427.00

RNE 232A5, Resources Assessment and Management of Fisheries Resources

TCP/INT/2904

Enabling Participation in the "Fishery Information System in the Mediterranean"- MEDFISIS

The longer-term development objective is to contribute to the maintenance of the Mediterranean ecosystem, of its living marine resources and fish production, through sustainable and responsible fisheries management. The medium-term objective is to create a sustainable basis for the operation of a Mediterranean Fishery Statistics and Information System, which will provide a concrete sound basis and contribute to the optimum management of living marine resources of the Large Marine Ecosystem of the Mediterranean.

2003-10 2005-10 FIRM 301,889.00

Total 22,176,153.00


61


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Global 232S1 GCP/INT/730/NOR

International Cooperation with the NANSEN Programme: Fisheries Management and Marine Environment

In line with the relevant objectives of the Nansen Programme and the Medium-Term Plan for FAO's Department of Fisheries, the longer-term development objective of the present project aims at an enhanced self-sufficiency in fisheries management and research on the fish resources and their marine environment in the beneficiary partner countries, thus enabling them to achieve a rational utilization of the marine living resources, including improved protection of the marine environment, so as to be able to realize a sustainable supply of valuable fish products as a contribution to adequate food security, and as a source of regular employment for fisherfolk.

1999-09 2005-12 FIRM 1,914,256.00

Global 232A5 GCP/INT/919/JPN

Interaction between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an Ecosystem approach to Fisheries Management

The longer-term development objective is the contribution to improved and effective fisheries management and conservation of sea turtle populations at a global level, with minimum disruption to responsible fisheries through successful implementation of ecosystem approaches in fisheries. The development objective is to facilitate and enable policy makers at a global level to develop and implement improved management plans for conservation and use of their marine resources as a whole including sea turtles and with optimized social

2004-04 2009-03 FIRM 1,048,535.00

resources as a whole, including sea turtles, and with optimized social and economic benefits derived from utilization of marine ecosystems.

Global 232A5 GCP/INT/920/JPN

Capacity Building for an Ecosystem Approach: Considering Interactions, including with Marine Mammals

The longer-term development objective is the contribution to improved and effective implementation of ecosystem approaches in fisheries through sustainable and responsible fisheries conduct. The development objective is Development and availability to interested parties of improved approaches for the assessment and management of fisheries in accordance with the ecosystem approach, with particular emphasis on ecosystems with high species diversity and significant interactions between fisheries.

2004-05 2009-11 FIRM 1,212,842.00

62


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Global 234S1 GCP/INT/701/MUL

Contribution to the Organization of the Joint Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Ecosystem

2000-09 2001-11 FIID 464,000.00

Global normative framework


FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;

Two papers on EAF, focused on fishery-mammal interactions in Brazil and Southern Pacific

63

Coastal ecosystems, field projects and normative outputs Annex 2, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Brazil 232S1, Advice on Marine Resources and Environmental Issues

TCP/BRA/0065+ TCP/BRA/2907

Small-Scale Seaweed Farming in Northeast Brazil

Within the general objective of supporting the social development of poor coastal populations through the promotion of sustainable aquaculture, the project’s immediate objectives are: The preparation of a project document, according to TCP format and guidelines, to be done through a formulation mission, to launch a pilot phase seaweed farming project in Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraiba after ascertaining the situation in project areas previously pre-selected by PROCOOPES and the Ministry of Justice; The demonstration/evaluation of the technical, economical and social feasibility of different techniques for seaweed cultivation in support of local coastal fishermen communities; The establishment of institutional, technical, and administrative support to the farmers; An analysis of seaweed market opportunities and of strategies both at national and international (export) level; The organization of the future expansion of seaweed farming

2001-06 2003-08

2003-05 2004-06

FIRI 381,845.00

Egypt 251P1, Environmental Geo-Information Infrastructure and Services

TCP/EGY/0167

Development of an Information System for Operational Monitoring and Integrated Management of the

The longer-term objective will be to provide the basis for the Government of Egypt through NARSS, to fully account for changes occurring in the Nile Delta Coastal ecosystem, as part of sectoral planning, in particular for agricultural and fisheries development and management. A sound information basis would facilitate strategic planning and strengthen institutional capacities in formulating, co-ordinating, monitoring and reviewing policies for

2002-04 2003-12 SDRN 223,448.00

Nile Delta Costal Zone

sustainable development.

Madagascar 251, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer

MAG/97/003/ /01/99

Appui au Plan d'Action Environnemental (Phase II)

L'élaboration des plans et/ou systèmes integrés de gestion des activités dans la zone cotière des régions (pêche au poissons de récif, exploitation des mangroves et activités touristiques) de Toliara et de Nosy-Be.

1998-01 2003-12 RAFS 543,699.00

64


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


Madagascar 251, Research, Natural Resources Management and Technology Transfer

UNTS/ MAG/001/GEF


Contribution à l'amelioration des performances de systèmes des gestion des ressources naturelles et humaines pour une qualité de vie durable avec participation des parties prenantes à toutes les niveaux

1998-01 2003-12 FIPP 1,155,903.00

Mauritania 234A4, Promotion of Coastal Fisheries Management

TCP/MAU/0167 - TCP/MAU/3001

Gestion durable des pêcheries artisanales et côtières + Phase II

L'objectif de l'assistance est de formuler les éléments d'un programme d'aménagement pour un développement durable des pêches artisanales et côtières, en collaboration étroite avec les diverses parties concernées et en référence au développement global du secteur pêche et à la priorité nationale et sectorielle donnée à la lutte contre la pauvreté.

2002-01 2004-07 FIPP 211,860.00

RAF 234S1, Promotion and Strengthening of Regional Fisheries Bodies and Arrangements

GCP /INT/735/ UK

Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods (SFL) Programme

The immediate objective (purpose) is to support the development of a programme to promote sustainable livelihoods in fisheries in 24 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, through the application of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

1999-10 2006-10 FIP 33,081,043.00

RAS 213A5, Developing the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources

GCP /RAS/203/WBG


The objective of the project is to reduce the negative local and global environmental impacts of rapidly increasing livestock production in selected watersheds in the coastal areas of China, Thailand, and Vietnam. The proposed project and its replication would lead to an improvement of land-based pollution from livestock production of the international water of the South China Seas. Other global benefits would occur in the areas of biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change. In particular, the proposed project would lead to an environmentally sounder geographic distribution of livestock production and to a number of global and regional environmental benefits.

2004-03 2004-12 AGAL 700,000.00

Total 36,297,798.00

65


Region/ Country

Name


Programme

Project Symbol


RAF 234S2 EP /RAF/901/UEP

Coral Reef Action Network (Mt/1100-99-70)

1999-12 2000-06 237,835.00


Technical Guidelines on Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area Management

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;

GLCN-GTOS, ICAMS initiative: Development and Implementation of an Integrated Coastal Analysis and Monitoring;

Publication

Global normative framework

Monitoring system

66


Annex 3, Summary of replies to questionnaires

Summary of replies to questionnaires Annex 3, evaluation of S.O. D2

2

General Statistics Countries represented Cases

Mountains Coastal-Wetlands Drylands Mountains Coastal-Wetlands Drylands surveyed replied surveyed replied surveyed replied surveyed replied surveyed replied surveyed replied

Developing 6 4 8 4 8 6 7 4 8 Developed 3 3 1 1 0 0 8 3 0 0

Mountains

Coastal and Wetlands Drylands

surveyed replied surveyed replied surveyed replied Colombia Govt 1 Cameroon Govt 0 Burkina Faso Govt 1

Others 0 Others 0 Others 0

Total 3 1 Total 2 0 Total 2 1

Ethiopia Govt 2 China Govt 0 Cape Verde Govt 1


Total 7 3 Total 3 0 Total 3 1

Iran Govt 0 Ghana Govt 1 Mauritania Govt 0


Total 1 0 Total 11 (5 thru FAOR) 1 Total 2 (2 thru FAOR) 1

Italy Govt 0 Indonesia Govt 0 Morocco Govt 0


Total 6 3 Total 6 1 Total 2

Kyrgyzstan Govt 0 Morocco Govt 0 Pakistan Govt 0


Total 3 0 Total 0 Total 2

Peru Govt 1 Peru Govt 0 Syria Govt 1


Total 1 Total 1 Total 5 1

Poland Govt 2 Senegal Govt 0 Tunisia Govt 0


Total 5 4 Total 1 0 Total 4 (2 thru FAOR) 0

Slovakia Govt 1 Spain Govt 0 Yemen Govt 0


Total 5 2 Total 14 3 Total 4 (4 thru FAOR) 0

Switzerland Govt 0 Tunisia Govt 1

Others 1 Others 0

Total 4 1 Total 1


3

Question: Should fragile ecosystems have specific technical and management approaches and programmes?

Mountain Ecosystems Coastal and Wetland Ecosystems Dryland Ecosystems

Developing Countries

Number surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Mode: Yes (100%) Table of Frequencies:

Yes 6 No 0 No answer 1

Number surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: Number of countries represented: Mode: Yes (100%) Table of Frequencies:




Developed Countries



Number surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: Number of countries represented: 1 Mode: Yes (100%) Table of Frequencies:


Number surveyed: 0


4

Question: Comments (regarding the specificity of approaches to fragile ecosystems) Mountain/Developing ∗ Ethiopia has a considerable size of areas that exhibit fragile ecosystems with steep slopes, prone to soil erosion hazards, and require a lot of effort in constructing appropriate soil and water conservation measures, including biological and physical structures ∗ Fragile ecosystems are an important source of water, energy and biological diversity. They not only provide fresh water for drinking, irrigation and industrial works, but also wood fuel and other alternative sources of energy for millions of urban and rural households. They are also an important source such key resources as agricultural products (including diverse crops, animals and fishery), non-wood forest products (including honey, medicinal plants, crops, bamboo works, etc), minerals, and recreation (particularly tourism).However, almost all these are highly threatened and at greatest risk due to ever-increasing human influences largely through unsustainable utilization of natural resources, which includes deforestation and/or forest degradation (for agricultural expansion, timber exploitation and fuel wood&charcoal), voerfishing and overall environmental degradation associated with such activities including mining.In consequence, fragile ecosystems (particularly mountains), which are not only storehouse of biological diversity (that help feed the world) and endangered species but also on which about 12% of the world's population depend on their resources. For example, of the 20 plants that supply 80% fo humanity's food, not only 6 of them (corn, potato, barly, sorghum apples and tomatoes) originated in mountain ecosystems but also 7 of them(wheat, rice, beans, oats, grapes, oranges and rye)evolved into many different mtn varieties. Unfortunately and because of human and natural ecological unbalances, mtn ecosystems are face with the challenges of addressing the serious environmental degradation (including accelerated soil erosion, land slides and rapid loss of habitat and genetic diversity), and widespread poverty and loss of indigenous knowledge among mtn inhabitants; thus calling for immediate attention, by all concerned for the sustainable management of mtn resources and socio-economic dvpt of mtn inhabitants ∗ fragile mountain ecosystems, specifically headwater basins, are the most vulnerable and the world must provide for plans to protect and invest inthe care of teh population, the hydrological resource, the forest, the biological diversity, etc. Mountain/Developed ∗ As the issue is wide, it would be necessary to involve a big number of partners in the management ∗ It's absolutely necessary realizing a specific and shared policy for the government of the fragile ecosystems. ∗ Fragile ecosystems could be easily damaged by improper, irregular activities Redrees is difficult, often impossible ∗ Increasing population, poverty, food insecurity and increasing land use intensity in mountain regions of the developing world have serious consequences on natural resources, natural hazards and ecosystem services for the mountain population and for the lowland population. If we include the population of the surrounding lowlands which are connected and dependent on mountain resources (e.g. water), then it may be between 20 and 30% of the world population, even more. Coastal-Wetland/Developing ∗ It is fragile, so should be treated with care and specific ∗ Some ecosystems should be followed continuously and specific techncial interventions should be applied in order to start the biolical evolution Coastal-Wetland/Developed ∗ The point is defining "fragile", and grouping ecosystems in fragile and not Drylands/Developing


5

∗ Fragile ecosystems have their distinct characteristics which make them very important and special in world's ecological resources. One of themost important dimensions regarding fragile ecosystems is an acute poverty in which communities living inthese areas are trapped. As per Sustainable Livelihoods framework (DFID), communities in these areas mostly more vulnerable due to high risks (drought, flood, landslides, fires) these areas facing. Besides, the specific physical nature of these areas demand specific strategies and development/management approaches, hence these areas cannot be managed under nay blue-print existing strategy. A specific strategy much take into account the risks and the causes (natural or man-made) into account for defininf approahces which are appropriate for the resources as well as for the people who depend on them in one or the other way. ∗ FAO being a large global organisation, will need to take great care to avoid generalisations in its approach. While fragile ecosystems do need specific technical and management approaches: Any approach not accepted by communites living around the resources is flawed regradless of its technical and management soundness. Thus FAO will need to encourage approaches that are primarily focussed on improving management with technical backup at the micro level…..this will be at three levels: administratively(eg Union Council/Tehsil level), ecologically….lakes, wetlands, forest area, high alpine pastures, etc and people( eg local communities…villages, ethnic groups, etc). Thus any data developed for the 'monitoring and assessing the state of fragile ecosystems' will have to be developed at these micro levels. FAO is well reputed to give Macro figures, such as for forest cover in countries, but this is not much help for local decision-makers to actually help improve these ecosystems. Now GIS based monitoring techniques have greatly reduced the cost, effort and time needed to develop such monitoring tools….obviously with on the ground support too ∗ These ecosystems have their specificities, especially repeated droughts, excessive "prélèvements", fast and concerning degradation, poverty and lack of sensitization of users and communities regarding environmental aspects. This is why these ecosystems must be treated separately and dispose of a systemic and above all integrated approach. ∗ These ecosystems need not only specific but urgent technical and managerial approaches and programmes. However, this hsould not obscur our attention from addressing the issues of causes that have led to the present situation of such ecosystems, in order to prevent other ecosystems to reach the stage of irreversible degradation beyond their resilience stresholds. In fact, prevention is better than cure. ∗ The balance of fragile ecosystems is threatened by various interdependent factors and often difficult to monitor. This is way, the approaches in their management should have a specific character even if these approaches can cover different areas (ecobiology, sociology, chemistry, economics, anthropology, etc.) ∗ Various factors contribute to the degradation of fragile ecosystems, namely: climate change, inappropriate use of land and poor agricultural practices, increasing population density, conomic pressure and modification of land ownership regimes, etc. Taking these aspects into account, the approaches and techniques must be specific in order to better "aménager" this type of ecosystem ∗ If techniques and "aménagements" are not adapted to fragiile ecosystems, the results will be contrary to the those expected, because the contrary phenomenon could occur, ie, an irreversible degradation of these phenomena. Each ecosystems needs its technqieu and its "aménagement".


6

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s monitoring and assessment of the trends of fragile ecosystems



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Median: Somewhat familiar (3) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.43) Table of Frequencies:

1 = Not familiar at all 3 2 = Little familiarity 0 3 = Somewhat familiar 3 4 = Familiar 0 5 = Very familiar 1





Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 9 Number of countries represented: Median: Little familiarity (2) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.44) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Not familiar at all (1) Mean: Not familiar at all (1.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


7

Question: Quality of FAO’s monitoring and assessment of the state and trends of fragile ecosystems.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good 2.75 Table of Frequencies:

1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 1 3 = Good/Very good 3 4 = Excellent 0

Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good (2) Mean: Satisfactory/Good (2.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 8 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good (2) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.25) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5) Mean: Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 0

Total surveyed: 0


8

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s support to policy/regulatory framework/code of conduct formulation.





Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Little to some familiarity (2.5) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.75) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 8 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity (3) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.88) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries



Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: No familiarity (1) Mean: No familiarity (1.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


9

Question: Quality of FAO’s support to policy/regulatory framework/code of conduct formulation.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 5 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.6) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 2 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5) Table of Frequencies:




Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 5 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very Good (3) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.8) Table of Frequencies:



Total surveyed: 0


10

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s institution and capacity-building of Government institutions.







Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 8 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity (3) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.13) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries



Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: No familiarity (1) Mean: No to little familiarity (1.67) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


11

Question: Quality of FAO’s institution and capacity-building of Government institutions.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good (2) Mean: Satisfactory/Good (2) Table of Frequencies:






Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


12

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s institution and capacity-building of research institutions.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Median: Familiar (4) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.71) Table of Frequencies:






Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


13

Question: Quality of FAO’s institution and capacity-building of research institutions.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good ( 2.75) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5) Mean: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5) Table of Frequencies:




Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very good (3) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 1 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good (2) Mean: Satisfactory/Good (2) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


14

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s institution and capacity-building of extension systems, including NGOs.









Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


15

Question: Quality of FAO’s institution and capacity-building of extension systems, including NGOs.







Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 6 Number of countries represented: Median: Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2) Mean: Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair to Satisfactory/good (1.83) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 2 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very Good (3.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 1 Number of countries represented: Median: Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair (1) Mean: Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair (1.0) Attn: This respondent has little familiarity with these activities Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


16

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s institution and capacity-building of farmers and communities.









Developed Countries



Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: No familiarity (1) Mean: Familiar (2.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


17

Question: Quality of FAO’s institution and capacity-building of farmers and communities.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very good (3.0) Table of Frequencies:






Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


18

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s technical publications.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 6 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity to familiar (3.5) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.83) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity to familiar (3.5) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.5) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 8 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity to familiar (3.5) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.38) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies:7 Number of countries represented: Median: Little familiarity (2) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.43) Table of Frequencies:




Total surveyed: 0


19

Question: Quality of FAO’s technical publications.



Total surveyed: Total cases:7 Valid replies:4 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very good to Excellent (3.25) Table of Frequencies:






Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


20

Question: List of technical publications Mountains/Developing ∗ tropical forests development and protection related books, soil and water conservation technologies, sustainable agriculture and related books, manuals and periodicals ∗ SOFO05, Unasylva 209 (Forest Biological Diversity), FAO's Contribution to the Implementation of Agenda21 and UNCED Follow up, BAckground paper 16, 2nd preparatory session for WSSD, Global FRA 2000, Agro-forestry production systems: putting them into action, Decentralization and Devolution in forestry, Unasylva 199, the Future of Our Land (FAO+UNEP), Sustainable Development of Drylands and Combating Desertification Mountains/Developed ∗ Mountain Partnership ∗ vulnerability of mountain environments and people, 20002; watershed management, 2002; towards a GIS based analysis of mountain environments and populations 2003; forests and floods 2000, and others Coastal-Wetlands/Developing ∗ FIRI/R718 (en), FAO/CIFA/NACA Expert Consultations on the intensification of food production in low ???? food??? Drylands/Developing ∗ Technical issues about natural resources conservation, rehabilitation and the role of the communities in it ∗ State of Forests, Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices ∗ guides/manuals, approaches, notes and documents regarding the partical totality of the somains reltaed to fragile ecosystems ∗ Technical reports related to range land management, mostly produced within other contexts. ∗ Composition des aliments, Information et éducation nutritionnelle


21

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s training activities.







Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Median: Familiar (4) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.71) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


22

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s training activities.









Developed Countries



Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 1 Number of countries represented: Median: Excellent (4) Mean: Excellent (4) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


23

Question: List of training activities Mountains/Developing ∗ Far too many formal (up to PhD level) atrainings as well as sub-professional trainings and farmer level ones for which project based reports, training reports are available & not handy for me to list them here (see attached ulkist for some of these training activities plus pllications and/*or workshop proceedings) Coastal-Wetlands/Developing ∗ Study tours Drylands/Developing ∗ Include technical activities and the involvement of local communities in participatory and sustainable management of the natural resources ∗ Planning of agricultural projects, monitoring and evaluation, horticulture and improved production/preservation practices ∗ Farmer Field School Systems ∗ many study tours , moduls, workshops and training programs as a former FAO Project officer in Morocco and Yemen ∗ Have personally organized through FAO several training and even master degrees for technical staff working in various natural resources management projects ∗ Conservation et usage rationnel des ressources naturelles indispensables à un développemnt durable


24

Question: Familiarity with FAO-sponsored conferences, seminars and workshops.





Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 4 Number of countries represented: Median: No to little familiarity (1.5) Mean: Little familiarity (2.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Median: Familiarity (4) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.29) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries



Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: No familiarity (1) Mean: Little familiarity (2.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


25

Question: Familiarity with FAO-sponsored conferences, seminars and workshops.







Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 6 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Satisfactory/good to Good/Very good (2.83) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 5 Number of countries represented: Median: Excellent (4) Mean: Good/Very Food to Excellent (3.4) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 1 Number of countries represented: Median: Excellent (4) Mean: Excellent (4) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: 0


26

Question: List of FAO-sponsored conferences, seminars, workshops. Mountains/Developing ∗ Forest Fire Management Training; Workshop on Natural Gum an dIncese Production and Management ∗ world forestry congress, workshops on national forest management programs, biodiversity management workshops, etc. ∗ 2005 Review of Wood Fuel Reports from ACP African Countries ∗ Workshop to wind calamity in High Tatras Mountains/Developed ∗ Mountain Partnership, Adelboden Group ∗ SARD-M in the Carpathian Mountains ∗ Global Summit of Mountain Partnership ∗ All the Inter-agency meetings for the mountain chapter in Agenda21 since Rio 1992, conferences (Lima 1995, Johannesburg 2002, Bishkek 2002, Merano 2003, Cusco 2004, and others Coastal-Wetlands/Developing ∗ Conferences and workshops about related subjects of natural resources conservation ∗ I do not remember exact topics, I have attended events on rangeland management, food security, etc. Drylands/Developing ∗ gender (ASEG approach), Regional Meditarranean Forum on Forest Sector ∗ seminar related to aromatic and medical plants; gender approahces, mediteranean forests ∗ various workshops and seminars organized by FAO and other partners


27

Question: Familiarity with FAO’s assistance/partnership in getting funds from donors.



Total surveyed: Total cases: Valid replies: 5 Number of countries represented: Median: Some familiarity (3) Mean: Little to some familiarity (2.8) Table of Frequencies:




Total surveyed: Total cases: Valid replies: Number of countries represented: Median: Familiarity (4) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.67) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: Valid replies: Number of countries represented: Median: No familiarity (1) Mean: No familiarity (1.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 0

Total surveyed: 0


28

Question: Quality of FAO’s assistance/partnership in getting funds from donors.







Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very good to Excellent (3.33) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries


Total surveyed: 0

Total surveyed: 0


29

Question: Familiarity with the GTOS/TEMS website.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Median: Little familiarity (2) Mean: Little familiarity (2.0) Table of Frequencies:




Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 8 Number of countries represented: Median: No to little familiarity (1.5) Mean: Little familiarity (2.0) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


30

Question: Quality of the GTOS/TEMS website.









Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


31

Question: Familiarity with ecosystem-specific websites.

Mountain Ecosystems 1. Mountain management and watershed

2. SARD-Mountains

Coastal and Wetland Ecosystems 1. CoC Responsible Fisheries

2. Mangroves 3. FGIS

Dryland Ecosystems 1. LADA

2. Desertification 3. Conservation Agriculture


Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 7 Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Little familiarity (2) 2. Some familiarity (3)

Means: 1. Little to some familiarity (2.43) 2. Little to some familiarity (2.71)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 1 = Not familiar at all 1 3 2 = Little familiarity 3 0 3 = Somewhat familiar 2 1 4 = Familiar 1 2 5 = Very familiar 0 1


1. Little familiarity to familiar (3.5) 2. No to little familiarity (1.5) 3. Some familiarity (3)

Means: 1. Some familiarity to familiar (3.25) 2. Little familiarity (2.0) 3. Little to some familiarity (2.75)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Not familiar at all 0 2 1 2 = Little familiarity 1 1 1 3 = Somewhat familiar 1 0 0 4 = Familiar 2 1 2 5 = Very familiar 0 0 0

Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 7 (on LADA), 8, 8 Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Little familiarity (2) 2. Some familiarity (3) 3. Little to some familiarity (2.5)

Means: 1. Little to some familiarity (2.29) 2. Little to some familiarity (2.63) 3. Little to some familiarity (2.56)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Not familiar at all 2 1 2 2 = Little familiarity 2 2 2 3 = Somewhat familiar 2 4 1 3.5 = responded 3 & 4 0 0 1 4 = Familiar 1 1 2 5 = Very familiar 0 0 0

Developed Countries


1. Little familiarity (2) 2. Familiarity (4)

Means: 1. Little to some familiarity (2.56) 2. Some familiarity to familiar (3.11)


Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 3, 3, 2 (on the FGIS website) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Familiarity (4) 2. No familiarity (1) 3. Some familiarity (3)

Means: 1. Some familiarity (3.0) 2. Little familiarity (2.0) 3. Some familiarity (3.0)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Not familiar at all 1 2 1 2 = Little familiarity 0 0 0 3 = Somewhat familiar 0 0 0 4 = Familiar 2 1 0 5 = Very familiar 0 0 1

Total surveyed: 0


32

Question: Quality of ecosystem-specific websites.

Mountain Ecosystems 1. Mountain management and watershed

2. SARD-Mountains

Coastal and Wetland Ecosystems 1. CoC Responsible Fisheries

2. Mangroves 3. FGIS

Dryland Ecosystems 1. LADA

2. Desertification 3. Conservation Agriculture


Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 6 (Mtn Mgmt), 4 (SARD-M) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good/Very good (3) 2. Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5)

Means:

1. Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5) 2. Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.5)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 1 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 1 2 3 = Good/Very good 4 2 4 = Excellent 0 0

Total surveyed: Total cases: 4 Valid replies: 3 (CoC), 1 (Mangroves), 2 (FGIS) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Satisfactory/Good (2) 2. Good/Very good (3) 3. Good/Very good (3)

Means: 1. Satisfactory/Good to Good/Very good (2.33) 2. Good/Very good (3.0) 3. Good/Very good (3.0)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 0 0 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 2 0 0 3 = Good/Very good 1 1 2 4 = Excellent 0 0 0

Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 5 (LADA), 6 (Desertif.), 4 (Cons. Agr.) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good/Very good (3) 2. Good/Very good (3) 3. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.75)

Means: 1. Satisfactory/good to Good/Very good (2.6) 2. Satisfactory/good to Good/Very good (2.83) 3. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.38)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 0 0 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 2 2 1 3 = Good/Very good 3 3 0 3.5 = Very Good/Excellent 0 0 1 4 = Excellent 0 1 2

Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 4 (Mtn Mgmt), 6 (SARD-M) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5) 2. Excellent (4)

Means:

1. Good/Very good (3.0) 2. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.67)

Table of Frequencies:

1 2 1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 1 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 0 0 3 = Good/Very good 1 2 4 = Excellent 2 4

Total surveyed: Total cases: 3 Valid replies: 2 (CoC), 1 (Mangroves), 2 (FGIS) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5) 2. Good/Very good (3) 3. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5)

Means: 1. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5) 2. Good/Very good (3.0) 3. Good/Very good to Excellent (3.5)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 3 1 = Unsatisfactory/Poor/Fair 0 0 0 2 = Satisfactory/Good 0 0 0 3 = Good/Very good 1 1 1 4 = Excellent 1 0 1

Total surveyed: 0


33

Question: Familiarity with other FAO websites.



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 5 Number of countries represented: Median: Familiarity (4) Mean: Some familiarity to familiar (3.4) Table of Frequencies:




Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Familiarity (4) Mean: Familiarity (4.0) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries





Total surveyed: 0


34

Question: Quality of other FAO websites.





Total surveyed: Total cases:4 Valid replies: 1 Number of countries represented: Median: Good/Very good (3) Mean: Good/Very good (3.0) Table of Frequencies:


Total surveyed: Total cases: 8 Valid replies: 3 Number of countries represented: Median: Excellent (4) Mean: Good/Very good to Excellent (3.67) Table of Frequencies:


Developed Countries Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 0


Total surveyed: 0


35

Question: List of other FAO websites Mountain/Developing ∗ fao.org/forestry/fra; fao.org/forestry/fra2005 ∗ forest fire management programs ∗ fao.org/forestry Coastal-Wetland/Developing ∗ FORIS-FRA Dryland/Developing ∗ publication/knowledge management ∗ Recherches océanographiques


36

Question: Familiarity with the partnerships around mountain issues. 1. Mountain Partnership 2. SARD-Mountains




1. Some familiarity (3) 2. Little familiarity (2)

Means: 1. Little to some familiarity (2.71) 2. Little to some familiarity (2.43)


Not applicable Not applicable

Developed Countries


1. Familiarity (4) 2. Familiarity (4)

Means: 1. Some familiarity to familiar (3.89) 2. Some familiarity to familiar (3.56)


Not applicable

Not applicable


37

Question: Quality of the partnerships around mountain issues. 1. Mountain Partnership 2. SARD-Mountains



Total surveyed: Total cases: 7 Valid replies: 5 (Mtn. Pts.), 4 (SARD-M) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good (3) 2. Good (3)

Means: 1. Satisfactory to Good (2.8) 2. Good (3)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 1 = Unsatisfactory 0 0 2 = Satisfactory 1 1 3 = Good 4 2 4 = Excellent 0 1

Not applicable Not applicable

Developed Countries

Total surveyed: Total cases: 9 Valid replies: 7 (Mtn. Pts), 6 (SARD-M) Number of countries represented: Medians:

1. Good (3) 2. Good to Excellent (3.5)

Means: 1. Satisfactory to Good(2.79) 2. Good to Excellent(3.17)

Table of Frequencies: 1 2 1 = Unsatisfactory 1 0 2 = Satisfactory 2 2 3 = Good 1 1 3.5 = Very good 1 n/a 4 = Excellent 2 3

Not applicable

Not applicable


38

Question: Final comments. Mountains/Developing ∗ It is believed that modern information and communication technology is a vital tool in the fight against poverty. But internet access is still expensive in the country ∗ As Ethiopia is one of the hugely mountainous with frequent occurrence of drought and severe erosion hazard, a lot has to be done in sustainable agriculture and rural development in mountain areas, particularly community based integrated watershed management of environment in areas at greater risk ∗ I think more needs to be done in as far as enhancing stakeholders awareness on the availability of FAO's rich & diverse websites so that as many as possible could make good use of them especially those from the developing world. That way, FAO could really make their effective use and ultimate realization of the potential impacts towards the sustainable management of natural resources in these areas. ∗ FAO has lately reduced the number of projects Mountains/Developed ∗ Our Research and Extension institution is Mediterranean Focal Point to the SARD-M project ∗ Unfortunately I'm not familiar with FAO's work almost at all. I had some short meetings with FAO's representatives in the past, but I haven't been involved in any work in this field (Chief specialist, Nature Protection Department) ∗ I regret to say that in general I am not yet familiar with FAO's work on the environmental issues, or in the mountains. The common perception (at least in Poland) is that agriculture has been so far the main focus of FAO, so that I understand that it is very much the beginning of the SOD2 implementation? If yes, my recommendation will be to cooperate with organisations that have already gathered relevant experience on environmental or mountain issues. ∗ I am dealing with FAO mostly relating to the Mountain Partnership. Support, communication and personal relationship with the FAO mountain partnership team are, from my point of view, excellent ∗ Without the leadership of FAO, the mountain chapter of Agenda21 would never have made such a progress and would never have had such a success. This chapter was declared, besides the Oceans, as one of the first as an IYM. It is also surprising, the UN GA accepted about 6 resolutions concerning mountains since 1998. But even more important is the fact that thanks to FAO a lot of countries in the developing and the developed world realised the high significance of mountains, mountain watersheds and mountain resources for their future development. Looking into the future, water scarcity and food production will become serious problems in certain parts of our world. Mountain water resources will play a fundamental role and therefore itisi so important that FAO and its Mountain Partnership and Watershed Programmes keep and strengthen their leadership role as a preparation processes for the uncertainties of the future. Coastal-Wetlands/Developing ∗ although I'm and NGO for environment and working in fragile ecosystem (wetlands) but no familiar with what FAO really work on, except invited in some seminars or other meeting Coastal-Wetlands/Developed ∗ I am sorry for this very low familiarity, but I am not familiar at all and, consequently, I cannot answer questions regarding quality Drylands/Developing ∗ FAO must be congratulated on the excellent website they maintain. Hyperlinks to some important websites would add more value to this website. In addition, my overall assessment is that FAO has its niche at policy level, influencing macro level institutions and using its leverage to make a difference. It is, however, difficult to say whether the same quality is demonstrated in its field projects. FAO's effectiveness (mostly in government projects) at meso and micro level in the field is les popular. It would be worthwhile to consider partnering with local organizations for implementation in a multi-partner team. In


39

order to be more effective, coaching and facilitation services can be acquired within the host country. FAO's role should be providing the implementer with the policy/strategic guidelines and allow its leverage to influence the system for sustainable change. ∗ As an organisation, WWF-Pakistan has had very little formal interaction with FAO. There has been interaction at various seminars, etch arranged by both organisations. The most specific interaction has been through WWF-Pakistan's work with the National Agricultural Research Council for improving farming practices in growing cotton, and now with the cultivation of sugarcane. WWF-Pakistan has been adding environmental aspects such as reduction in use of Pestides, and reduction in use of irrigation water. WWF-Pakistan has been promoting the research already done through the joint work of NARC ad FAO in this regard. Since WWF-Pakistan has recently developed a partnership with the FAO Forest programme to develop an awareness and education strategy for the FAO, we expect to increase our familiarity with FAO to help contribute towards nature conservation objectives in Pakistan. ∗ In Morocco, FAO has the marit of launching programmes and pilot actions that have been taken on board and generalized very successfully in other arabic areas. Eg. of cases in which I was personally invovled include: Lutte contre l'ensablement des palmeriares sud Moracian (homologue), Projet Régional SAB Sand dunes stabilization and afforestation (regional coordinator), Projet pilote d'aménagement des bassins versants (Directeur national phase 2), Projet au Taza Gestion des ressources forestières. ∗ Over all I think personally that FAO is deeply involved in land degradation issues. The main aspects adressed are: Training and capacity building activities (gender, Forestry third cycle formation progam within the IAV Hassan II….); Projects conception and implementation though the "bureau of oinvestment" szuch as DRI foret, PDPEO…; Pilote projects really really realized throughout the FAO such as " projet de lutte contre l'ensablement dans les provinces du sud", " projet de gestion des ressources naturelles dans la province de Taza".

Project Assessments

Region Country Project 1. Quality 2. Efficiency 3. Relevance 4. Env't 5. Sust. Agric6. Food Sec.

& Poverty Allev.7. Capacity

Building8. Partnerships Total

TCP/0168 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2.250TCP/2904 4 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 3.000INT/2904 4 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 2.875TCP/0167 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.375Average 3.75 3.75 3.5 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 2.87596/G31 4 2 4 3 3 - 4 2 3.143TCP/3003 3 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 3.250Average 3.5 3 4.5 3 3 2 3.5 2.5 3.125TCP/2904 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 4 3.000TCP/3002 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3.500TCP/0166 4 3 5 2 3 3 4 3 3.375TCP/2914 4 2 4 5 3 4 4 4 3.750037/A/01/12 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3.500

01/003//08/12 3 - 3 - - - - - 3.000

Average 3.5 3 4 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.8 3.6 3.3883.583 3.273 3.917 2.909 2.727 2.600 3.273 3.000 3.160

TCP/2902 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 - 3.857GCP/011 4 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 3.625TCP/2903 2 3 4 2 2 2 3 - 2.571Average 3.333 3.667 3.667 3.333 3.000 3.000 3.667 3.000 3.333TCP/2904 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.500TCP/2907 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.250TCP/2903 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 2.375GCP/061 3 3 4 - - - 2 1 2.600Average 3 2.25 3.50 3.00 3.67 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.9997/C23 4 3 5 3 4 3 4 2 3.500GCP/034 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 3.125A 4 3 5 4 2 5 3 2 5 4 3 3 313

Cuba

Brazil

BoliviaLati

n A

meri

ca

Egypt

Madagascar

Kenya

Total

AFR

ICA

Average 4 3.5 4 2.5 3 2.5 4 3 3.3133.333 3.000 3.667 3.000 3.250 2.875 3.333 2.857 3.164

TCP/2801 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 4.375TCP/2903 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 3.625TCP/3001 - 1 3 4 3 2 3 2 2.571Average 3.500 2.667 4.333 4.333 4.000 3.333 3.667 2.667 3.563GCP/203 4 1 4 4 4 1 3 4 3.125TCP/2906 2 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 2.375TCP/8922 2 3 4 3 2 3 1 1 2.375Average 2.667 2.667 4.000 3.000 2.667 2.000 1.667 2.333 2.625GCP/001 4 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 4.000UTF/015 - 1 5 4 3 3 4 2 3.143TCP/0165 3 3 4 - - - 2 3 3.000GCP/012 5 4 5 - - - - 5 4.750Average 4.000 3.250 4.750 4.000 3.000 3.000 3.333 3.500 3.604

3.375 2.900 4.400 3.750 3.250 2.750 2.889 2.900 3.277

Cambodia

Total

Asi

a

Total

Thailand

Uzbekistan


Annex 4, Assessment of fieldwork through country visits

Summary of Project Assessments Annex 4, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Frequency Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 2 22.22% 4 13.79%3 5 41.67% 2 25.00% 2 22.22% 9 31.03%4 7 58.33% 3 37.50% 5 55.56% 15 51.72%5 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 1 3.45%

TOT 12 100.00% 8 100.00% 9 100.00% 29 100.00%AverageFrequency Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage

1 0 0.00% 3 30.00% 1 11.11% 4 13.33%2 2 18.18% 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 3 10.00%3 4 36.36% 3 30.00% 5 55.56% 12 40.00%4 5 45.45% 3 30.00% 1 11.11% 9 30.00%5 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 1 11.11% 2 6.67%


1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 1 8.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.23%3 1 8.33% 1 8.33% 4 44.44% 6 19.35%4 8 66.67% 4 40.00% 4 44.44% 16 51.61%5 2 16.67% 5 50.00% 1 11.11% 8 25.81%


1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 3 27.27% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 7 25.93%3 7 63.64% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 11 40.74%4 0 0.00% 5 62.50% 1 12.50% 6 22.22%5 1 9.09% 1 12.50% 1 12.50% 3 11.11%


1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 3 27 27% 2 25 00% 2 25 00% 7 25 93%

3

3.917 4.4 3.667

3

Africa Asia

Environment

Relevance

3.583 3.375

3.273 2.9

2.909 3.75

Efficiency

TOTAL

3.43

3.06

Latin America

Quality

3.333

Criterion SummaryRegion

3.99

3.22

2 3 27.27% 2 25.00% 2 25.00% 7 25.93%3 8 72.73% 3 37.50% 2 25.00% 13 48.15%4 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 4 50.00% 6 22.22%5 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 1 3.70%


1 1 10.00% 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 2 7.69%2 4 40.00% 2 25.00% 3 37.50% 9 34.62%3 3 30.00% 4 50.00% 3 37.50% 10 38.46%4 2 20.00% 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 4 15.38%5 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 1 3.85%


1 0 0.00% 2 22.22% 0 0.00% 2 6.90%2 2 18.18% 1 11.11% 1 11.11% 4 13.79%3 4 36.36% 2 22.22% 4 44.44% 10 34.48%4 5 45.45% 4 44.44% 4 44.44% 13 44.83%5 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%


1 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 1 14.29% 2 7.14%2 3 27.27% 3 30.00% 1 14.29% 7 25.00%3 5 45.45% 2 20.00% 3 42.86% 10 35.71%4 3 27.27% 3 30.00% 2 28.57% 8 28.57%5 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.57%


1 1 1.12% 7 9.86% 2 2.99% 10 4.41%2 18 20.22% 11 15.49% 13 19.40% 42 18.50%3 37 41.57% 18 25.35% 26 38.81% 81 35.68%4 30 33.71% 24 33.80% 23 34.33% 77 33.92%5 3 3.37% 11 15.49% 3 4.48% 17 7.49%

TOT 89 100.00% 71 100.00% 67 100.00% 227 100.00%Average

2.857

Total

3.16025 3.27675 3.164375

2.875

3.273 2.889 3.333

2.6 2.75

Sustainable Agriculture

Food Security andPoverty Alleviation

Capacity Building

Partnerships

2.727 3.25 3.25

3 2.9

3.17

2.92

3.20

3.08

2.74

g

Overall Country Assessments Annex 4, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Region Country1.

Government Ownership

2. FAO Comparative Advantage

3. Up-scaling of pilot activities

3. Strategic relevance

Average

Egypt 3 2 2 3 2.50

Madagascar 4 2 5 - 3.67

Kenya 4 4 4 - 4.00

Average 3.67 2.67 3.67 3.00 3.25

Cuba 5 4 2 3 3.50

Brazil 3 2 - 2 2.33

Bolivia 3 3 3 2 2.75

Average 3.67 3.00 2.50 2.33 2.88

Uzbekistan 5 2 3 - 3.33

Thailand 5 3 1 - 3

Cambodia 4 4 - 4 4

Average 4.667 3 2 4 3.417

Africa

L. America

Asia

Summary of the Overall Country Assessments Annex 4, Evaluation of S.O. D2

Frequency Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%3 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3 33.33%4 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 3 33.33%5 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3 33.33%

TOT 3 100.00% 3 100.00% 3 100.00% 9 100.00%

AverageFrequency Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage

1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 4 44.44%3 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 2 22.22%4 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3 33.33%5 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

TOT 3 100.00% 3 100.00% 3 100.00% 9 100.00%


1 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 14.29%2 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 2 28.57%3 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2 28.57%4 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 14.29%5 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 14.29%

TOT 3 100.00% 2 100.00% 2 100.00% 7 100.00%


1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 2 40.00%3 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 40.00%4 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00%5 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

TOT 1 100.00% 1 100.00% 3 100.00% 5 100.00%

Criterion SummaryRegion

Africa Asia Latin America

3 3

Up-scaling of Pilot Activities

3.67 2 2.5

TOTAL

4.00

2.89

2.72

Government Ownership

3.67 4.67 3.67

FAO's Comparative Advantage

2.67

Strategic Relevance


1 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 0 0.00% 1 3.33%2 3 30.00% 1 11.11% 4 36.36% 8 26.67%3 2 20.00% 2 22.22% 5 45.45% 9 30.00%4 4 40.00% 3 33.33% 1 9.09% 8 26.67%5 1 10.00% 2 22.22% 1 9.09% 4 13.33%

TOT 10 100.00% 9 100.00% 11 100.00% 30 100.00%

Average

3.11

Total

3.2525 3.4175 2.875 3.182

3 4 2.33

Documents

Evaluation Report on Strategic Objective D2 “Conservation ... Corporate Strateg… · and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), and functional tools such as livelihoods