KAGERA TRANSBOUNDARY AGROECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Kigali, 20th April 2011

Theobald Mashinga, National Project Manager KAGERA TAMP, Rwanda

Presentation outlinesPresentation outlines

1. Introduction (background policy context Project Funding )1. Introduction (background, policy context, Project Funding,)2. Challenge (agriculture, environment)3. Project goal (objectives, outcomes and expected results)4 M h i f P j t Fi i4. Mechanism of Project Financing5. Project approaches 6. Status Implementation7. Challenges8. Implementation Arrangement9. End of Presentation9. End of Presentation

Kagera River Basin:• 4 countries share the• 4 countries share the

basin • 16.5 million people (in

2006) mainly depending on agriculture

• Area 59,700 km2• Av. density: (~270

persons/ km2)• 24% of inflow into Lake

2

• 24% of inflow into Lake Victoria

• Most upstream t ib t i f th Niltributaries of the Nile

Policy Context Global and country commitments• Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) & its National Action Programmes (NAPs)& its National Action Programmes (NAPs) •Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and its National Biodiversity Strategies and Action y gPlans (NBSAPs)• Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto protocol and national(UNFCCC) and its Kyoto protocol and national Mitigation and Adaptation plans NAMAs and NAPAs

R C ti• Ramsar Convention

Regional Policy context (Kagera river basin)• East African Community (EAC) strong framework for• East African Community (EAC) strong framework for extensive political cooperation and integration • Nile Basin Initiative - Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme (NBI-NELSAP) and its TransboundaryAction Programme (NBI-NELSAP) and its Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management Project of the Kagera River Basin (TIWRM)• Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) manages theLake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) manages the entire basin area, including the Kagera and L.V. Environmental management plan (LVEMP-II)• NEPAD’s Environment Programme and Action PlanNEPAD s Environment Programme and Action Plan • NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP): pillar on SLM • Other Regional programmes supported by GEF World• Other Regional programmes supported by GEF, World Bank, FAO, donors...

National Policy context:• National Environment Action Plans (NEAPs), • National Agricultural and Livestock gStrategies and related plans/programmes•Economic Development & Poverty Reduction Strategies (EDPRS)Reduction Strategies (EDPRS)•Vision 2020• Many other linkages:Land Law, National Environment Law, National Forest Policy, Forestry Action Plan, Action Plan on Soil Fertility, National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources etcand Management of Wetland Resources, etc

The Challenge: resource base and ecosystems facing increasing pressures as a result ofincreasing pressures as a result of • rapid population growth, • agricultural and livestock intensification progressive g p greduction in farm sizes and • unsustainable land use and management practices.

Degraded land and water resources- quality and

Severe Environmental Impacts of LDReduced ecosystem services- regulating & supporting

Degraded land and water resources quality and quantity

• Erosion, nutrient mining, pollution• Reduced rainfall use efficiency and drought

L f tl d d di t ti / t hi ti• Loss of wetlands and sedimentation/eutrophication of aquatic systems

• Reduced ground and surface water supply

Climate change and variabilityClimate change and variability• Reduced carbon stocks/GHG emissions:

deforestation.• Variability ;extreme events flood, drought, stormsy g• Reduced resilience (e.g. deforestation; droughts)

Loss of biodiversity• animal species: wild &domestic animals threatened,• plant species: extinct; & threatened.

Severe socio-economic Impacts of LD in Subsaharan AfricaReduced ecosystem services -provisioning & sociocultural

Land degradation + Poor management practices

Stagnant yields

Economic losses (1989-2000)

• Productivity/agricultural worker: -16% • Cereal availability/capita: -15% • Agricultural GDP loss: US$ 3-5 billion/year

Abandonment and migration• 7.3% land area non-reclaimable. By 2015: est. 65 million people migrate

Project Goal: To adopt an integrated ecosystems approach for the management of land resources to generate localfor the management of land resources to generate local, national and global benefits :

• restoration of degraded lands and improved productivity• carbon sequestration and climate change adaptation / mitigation• agro-biodiversity conservation and sustainable use• increased food security and improved rural livelihoodsy pand thereby, • contribute to the protection of international waters

In accordance with UN Conventions and NationalIn accordance with UN Conventions and National agricultural + environmental strategies and programmes and NEPADs CAADP and Environmental Plan and MDGs:

• #1 eradicate extreme poverty and hunger• #7 ensure environmental sustainability

Project FinancingProject Financing

• Total Budget for four countries = 32,012,910 US$;g• GEF Grant for four Countries = 6,363,000 US$;• Project Co-financing = 24,509,210 US$• Co-funding USD (Govts. $18.7M & basin partners

$5.5M• FAO in Kind = 351 000 US$• FAO in Kind = 351,000 US$• Starting and completion of the project:• Effective starting date of the project is June 2009 • Project submitted to all 4 countries for signature and started in

April 2004 • Estimated completion date in February 2014st ated co p et o date eb ua y 0

Environmental objective :• to address causes of land degradation• to address causes of land degradation

and restore ecosystem through introduction of adapted agro-ecosystem management approachesmanagement approaches.

Development objective : • to improve livelihoods contribute to p

reduced poverty of rural communities through more productive and sustainable resource management practicespractices

Outcomes :Outcomes :1. Transboundary coordination, information sharing and

monitoring and evaluation2 E bli li l i d l i l ti diti2. Enabling policy, planning, and legislative conditions3. Enhanced capacity and knowledge (all levels) for

promotion of and technical support to sustainable land and agro-ecosystem management (SLaM)

4. Improved land management practices implemented and benefiting land usersbenefiting land users

also5. Project management structures operational and effective.

Expected results• SLaM on 100 000 hectares• SLaM on 100,000 hectares.• 10% increase in crop, livestock and other products by trained farmers/

herders ( thereby improved nutrition, income, food security)• 20% increase in carbon stores on 30 500 ha through organic matter and20% increase in carbon stores on 30,500 ha through organic matter and

vegetation management (biomass) improved soil health and nutrient and water cycles)

• Control of soil erosion demonstrated (target micro-catchments and farmer l ) d R d d di l d d i 4 i hplots) and Reduced sediment loads assessed in 4 micro-catchments

• Capacity developedo 120,000 community members and decision makers sensitized; o 3,600 FFS members trained and adopting SLM,

o 300 technical staff and 200-250 policy makers upscaling SLM

• Enabling environment for regional cooperation supporting joint SLM actionEnabling environment for regional cooperation supporting joint SLM action plans

How will land resources management help to

KAGERA TRANSBOUNDARY AGROECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

B di 5 P ig p

address the critical development challenges of Kagera basin countries and contribute to global environmental benefits?

Burundi, 5 Provinces, Muramvya, Mwaro, Karuzi, Gitega, KirundoRwanda, 6 Districts, a da, 6 st cts,Nyagatare, Kayonza, Kirehe, Bugesera, Kamonyi, RulindoT i 4 Di t i tTanzania, 4 DistrictsBukoba, Karagwe, Ngara, Missenye

Uganda, 4+2 Districts, Kabale, Ntungamo, I singiro, Rakai and possibly parts ofpossibly parts of Mbarara and Kiruhura

Project Approach • Improved information base on natural resources status and trends (landImproved information base on natural resources status and trends (land

degradation, biodiversity loss), human pressures and impacts (vulnerability -food insecurity, climate change) and responses (current uptake of SLM practices in the basin for monitoring)

• Improved land use and agro-ecosystem management practices tested and adapted through Farmer Field School approaches

• Participatory land management plans developed and implemented in target communities, micro-catchments and wider land units (to address issues of tenure, access to resources, conflicts, etc).

• Capacities built on improved SLaM practices through farmer-farmer exchange visits, communications, training materials and workshops etc.

• Market opportunities and other cost-benefit sharing mechanisms for provision of environmental services (financial, non) identified, demonstrated and promoted for SLaM scaling up

all these leading to wide adoption /replication by farmers and herders.

Ecosystem approach to optimise goods and services y pp p gprovided through land use management in the basin

• Provisioning services: food, fodder, energy, fiber...• Regulating services: water regulation and purification carbon and• Regulating services: water regulation and purification, carbon and

nutrient cycling, climate regulation, pollination, disease regulation,... • Socio cultural services: landscape (shade, etc.), recreation,

ecotourism spiritual heritageecotourism, spiritual, heritage...• Supporting services: necessary for the production of all other

ecosystem services such as soil formation, primary production (photosynthesis)(photosynthesis)...Biodiversity contributes to all 4 services

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

District land use planning - land degradation and SLM evaluation (LADA) priority setting- SLM best practices documented (WOCAT technologies and approaches databases)- regulations/ bye laws and conflict resolution

Community-based land /NR management- Decentralized participatory land planning, land tenure and y gresource management- Participatory Catchment Approaches to Soil and Water Conservation- Community Investment (grants, micro-credit, income y (g , ,generating activities and improved livelihoods).- PES: Incentives to rural communities for preserving environmental services (e.g. forestry/pasture management carbon sequestration, agrobiodiversity management, upstream l d d )land-downstream water management).

Status Implementation of the Kagera TAMP

Recruitment of RPC& 4 NPMS;Established NPSC&RPSC;Regional & National Project Launching;Farmer Field school pilot activitiesL d U t /L d d d ti /SLM A tLand Use system/Land degradation/SLM Assessment;WOCAT QT&QA Approaches;Facilitated internship student to produce report on PESFacilitated internship student to produce report on PES (Davina Berttrand);

• Land Use System (LUS)– Type– Area trend– Area trend– Intensity trends

• Degradation per LUST ( il i d )– Type (soil, vegetation and water)

– Relative extent (area)– Degree and Rate– Impact on ecosystem services (type and level)Impact on ecosystem services (type and level)– Trend in provision of ecosystem services– Direct causes of land degradation– Indirect causes (population pressure, tenure, poverty)

• Sustainable Management per LUS– Name / SWC category– Relative extent (area) ( )– Impact on ecosystem services (type and level)– Trend in provision of ecosystem services.

• Evaluation• Evaluation– Recommendations– Suggestions and remarks

Ch llChallengesLack of national tailor made Annual Work plans &Budgets, hence d d Fi ld Di b t R t (FDR) Thi it tidependency on Field Disbursement Rate (FDR). This situation constraints monitoring of financial expenditures in consonant with project activities (soon be resolved);Co-funding arrangement is very difficult approach and yet the biggerCo funding arrangement is very difficult approach, and yet the bigger portion of the total budget relies on this arrangement;Lack of national based indicators makes difficult to plan;Lack of Baseline information might create problem of monitoring g p gactivities determining the achievement of project objectives;Delay of starting project activities may deny completion of project activities, but hopefully this will be addressed during the mid-term review;Project intervention area is the same with that of LVEMP, NELSAP and in some cases with similar activities, that is why synergy is of vital importance;vital importance;Harmonisation of policies, laws and regulations in the four countries will not be an easy task.

END OF PRESENTATION

Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention