Annual project review report

  • Doc File 421.50KByte



Implementing Agency/Agencies): Forestry Department

Project Title: Promoting Climate Resilient Community-based Regeneration of Indigenous Forests in Zambia’s Central Province

Project No(s):00088172

Fiscal Year: 2014

Reporting Period: January to June

Project Budget (US$) for the Reporting Period (Use annual budgets in quarterly reports):

| |Original Budget (US$) |Latest Signed Revision (US$) |

|Core/Trac Resources (UNDP): |64,000 |62,000 |

|LCDF GEF |100,000 |100,000 |

|Total Budget (US$): |164,000 |162,000 |

Submission Date:

Contact Details (IP)

Name of Contact Staff: Maureen Mwale (Ms)

Position of Contact Staff : Project Coordinator

Address (Physical and Postal): Forestry Department

Contact Telephone Number: 0978953058

Contact Email: mwalecm@

Contact Details (UNDP Prog. Officer):

Name of Contact Staff in UNDP: Winnie Musonda (Ms.)

Position of Contact Staff: Environment and Energy Advisor

Address (Physical and Postal): UNDP, United Nations House, Alick Nkhata Road, Lusaka

Contact Telephone Number: +260 211 250800/Mobile: 0966770405/0977770405

Contact Email: winnie.musonda@

1. Executive Summary

2. Background and Purpose of Programme/Project

3. Progress against Planned Results/Implementation

|Country Programme Outcome(s) the programme/Project contributes to (Just State the Outcomes as indicated in the CPD/CPAP): |

|Country Programme Output (s) wholly or partially attributed to the programme/project 4.2.3 Systems and skills developed in MLGEEEP has systems and skills for improved mobilization and management of non-ODA Climate funds from various|

|CC financing mechanisms including the carbon financing and pro-poor ecosystem service markets |

|Country Programme Outputs |Attribution (Partial/ |Output Indicator(s) |Baseline |Target |Progress Attained |Reasons if progress is below |Remedial measures/ Action |

| |Whole) | | | | |target | |

|4.2.3 |Partial |Number of Non-ODA climate |Zambia is benefiting from |Zambia continues to |Project document being |N/A |N/A |

| | |change adaptation and |PPCR and the Low Development|benefit from PPCR and |developed to access the LCDF | | |

| | |mitigation funds accessed by |Countries Fund on climate |the Low Development |funds | | |

| | |the country |Change |Countries Fund on | | | |

| | | | |climate Change and | | | |

| | | | |access Climate Change | | | |

| | | | |Adaptation and UNREDD | | | |

| | | | |Funds | | | |

|Programme/Project output |

|Output |Output Indicator(s) |Baseline |Target |Progress Attained |Reasons if progress is below |Remedial measures/ Action |

| | | | | |target | |

|1.1.1 Develop project document on Promoting |Complete project document with|Project Preparatory Grant |Project document |- Draft document on Forest |The process is on track |N/A |

|Climate Resilient Community-based |all the annexes. |Note signed | |Regeneration submitted by | | |

|Regeneration of Indigenous Forests in | | | |consultants. | | |

|Zambia’s Central Province. | | | |- Stakeholders consultation | | |

| | | | |meeting held to review the | | |

| | | | |proposed activities of the | | |

| | | | |project document. | | |

|1.1.2 | | | | | | |

|Progress on Implementation of Activities (Quarterly based on agreed quarterly workplan) |

|Main Activity |Target |Progress against planned |Planned Completion |Implementation Status |Reason (s) for slippage (if |Budget & Expenditure Monitoring Framework |

| | |activities and targets |Date |(Completed, Ongoing-On |progress and implementation is not| |

| | | | |Track, Ongoing-Off Track &|on track) and remedial measures | |

| | | | |Cancelled) |taken | |

| | | | |

Notes on Country Programme Outputs:

• Country Programme Outputs and specific programme/project outputs need to be stated with their indicators and baselines (as indicated in AWPs, in quarterly reports) to allow for linkages of stated activities to planned results. Updating the progress on performance on these outputs will be done in APR, Annual and End of programme/project reports. The End of programme/project reports should report cumulative results.

• In quarterly reports, the comparison is between the beginning and the end of the quarter in relation to annual targets. Baseline is at beginning of year.

• In annual reports, the comparison is between the beginning and end of the year in relation to the Life of Activity (programme life) targets. Baseline is at beginning of year.

• In end of programme/project reports, the comparison is between the beginning and the end of the programme/project. Baseline is at beginning of programme, project and CPAP cycle.

Progress towards achievement of results

Two Consultants, one National and one International were recruited to develop a Full-sized Project Document on “Promoting climate resilient community-based regeneration of indigenous forests in Zambia’s Central Province.” under GEF. The Inception Report was developed and submitted to stakeholders for validation.

Outcomes of the Inception Meeting

Component 1: Piloting of community-based, climate adaptive agro-forestry and Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) techniques and activities

• During the validation meeting the Participants observed that the value of ecosystems study under Forestry Department through ILUA II which was yet to be completed, would be of relevance to the scope of the initiative as such the consultants didn’t have to reinvent the wheel.

• Limitations observed by communities included the lack of seeds for Agro-forestry (AF) species, including the species selected. It was noted that there were opportunities for strategic positioning of ANR technologies to improve its adoption rates by addressing some of the limitations.

• The discussions reflected on technical misunderstanding about Crop forecasts being commonly advanced, indicating that ANR had extremely low yields, and how communities can be sensitized and empowered with the correct version. The issue of length of time for farmers to realize the benefit slows the adoption rate of ANR was observed as a factor.

• Other submissions included that ANR practices should look further than maize production. AF techniques appropriate for central province should be clearly addressed.

• The meeting lamented that there was inclination towards Conservation Farming rather than ANR which could offer a much more comprehensive resilience technologies to communities. The meeting called for more experiences on Zambian scenarios rather than international ones. It was noted that Kasisi Training Centre needed to be incorporated as stakeholders, as it had strong practical AF practices and information.

• The Provincial Extension Officer (Central Province) cautioned on the statistics to be used which should be segregated to establish volumes of charcoal being produced in Central Province from that being attributed as merely in transit from Copperbelt and Muchinga provinces.

• The discussions observed that there was various leadership structures in the communities associated with forestry resources management which could be explored, strengthened, integrated to avoid duplicating or creating new structures.

Component 2: Integrated Climate-resilient Fire Management

• The meeting cautioned that there was need to ensure that the activities reflected the capacity applicability of the technology by local communities rather than high technology models that would be difficult to actualize at local level

Component 3: Increased Knowledge about and uptake of Appropriate Supply-side, Biomass Energy Production Technologies

• It was also noted that improved charcoal kilns may not solve the charcoal problem but rather added value to other forest products since incomes are the real issues for communities. With this consideration, it was important to consider dealing with local communities rather than individuals.

• Consultants were advised to consult the Technology Development Advisory Unit (TDAU) of the University of Zambia (UNZA) who had done notable studies on charcoal and improved technologies relevant to the initiative.

• It was underlined that there was need to interrogate the broader charcoal value chain in order to appreciate what was at play beyond the producer. The meeting advised Consultants that Village Action Groups (VAGs) may not be applicable but rather use of other existing structures such as Village Resource Management Committees where they existed.

Site Selection

Multi-criteria Analysis and Performance Matrix

A stakeholders meeting was convened on 28th October 2014 at Tuskers Hotel in Kabwe to review the draft project document and select the project sites. A Multi-Criterial Analysis (MCA) using a performance matrix was applied to assess the suitability of the seven districts for a pilot under the proposed project. A performance matrix is a consequence table in which each row describes an option (in this case the districts) and each column describes the performance criteria against which the options are assessed. The criteria used in this analysis were guided by the Study Terms of Reference and requirements of the proposed project. A total of eight (8) criteria were applied in this study:

i. ANR experience – the degree to which the district has or has had experience with ANR; the higher the experience, the higher the score (the more the experience with ANR, the higher the score);

ii. Agroforestry/Conservation Agriculture experience and potential – the degree to which the district has or has had experience with Agroforestry/Conservation Agriculture and potential (the more the experience and potential with agroforestry/conservation agriculture, the higher the score);

iii. Experience with Forest Fire Management – the degree to which the district has or has had experience with forest fire management (the more experience with forest fire management at district level, the higher the score);

iv. Sustainable charcoal/energy experience and potential – the degree to which the district has or has had experience with sustainable charcoal production/utilization (e.g., improved kilns and stoves, briquetting, pelleting, etc.) and sustainable energy utilization (e.g., solar, biogas, wind, geothermal, mini-hydro, liquefied petroleum gas, etc.) – (The more the evidence on sustainable charcoal/energy experience and potential, the higher the score);

v. Existing institutional capacities – Existing capacities within the Forest Department and local institutions such as VAGs, CRBs, CBOs to effectively execute the required interventions under the proposed project (the more the institutional capacity at district level, the higher the score);

vi. Existence of partners – the existence of partners at the district level to assist in the various interventions of the proposed project (the more and diverse the partners, the higher the score);

vii. Environmental awareness and education – the degree to which environmental awareness and education have been promoted at district level (knowledge of previous or existing programs on environmental awareness and education programs, the higher the score); and

viii. Degree of forest degradation – the degree to which the district’s forest estate has been degraded (the higher the degradation, the lower the score).

Results

Criteria |ANR

experience |Agroforestry/

Conservation agriculture experience & potential |Experience with forest fire Management |Sustainable charcoal/energy experience and potential |Existing institutional capacities |Existence of partners at district level |Environmental awareness and education at district level |Degree of forest degradation |Total Score | |District

| | | | | | | | | | |Chibombo |0 |4 |2 |0 |1 |3 |4 |3 |17 | |Kabwe |1 |1 |2 |2 |1 |2 |1 |2 |12 | |Kapiri-Mposhi |3 |2 |2 |1 |3 |3 |3 |2 |19 | |Mkushi |3 |3 |1 |0 |3 |3 |3 |2 |18 | |Mumbwa |2 |2 |3 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |16 | |Serenje |4 |2 |4 |2 |3 |3 |4 |4 |26 | |Itezhi-tezhi |0 |1 |2 |1 |3 |2 |3 |3 |15 | |Chisamba[1] | | | | | | | | | | |Luano | | | | | | | | | | |Ngabwe | | | | | | | | | | |Chitambo | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------

[1] The shaded districts were not assessed in this study. These are new districts with incomplete institutional arrangements and administrative structures. Administratively, they rely on the nearest old district for their functioning.

-----------------------

[pic]

Republic of Zambia

Annual Project Report

[pic]

Project End Date:

Original: December 15th 2014

New: January 15th 2015

Project Start Date:

Original: December 15th 2013

Actual: January 2014

Zambia’s forests play a significant role in terms of contribution to GDP and poverty reduction, as well as potential for climate change adaptation and carbon management. However the increased frequency of fires and accelerated forest retreat in Zambia’s Miombo woodlands caused by climate change and exacerbated by deforestation has been estimated to cost Zambia loss of GDP of US $14 million per annum. While in the past the Miombo woodlands have been a resilient and balanced ecosystem, unsustainable anthropogenic land use and energy practices – combined with climate-induced impacts – are severely inhibiting the natural regeneration capacity of this ecosystem. These pressures are especially pronounced in the country’s Central Province, which has the largest number of commercial farming blocks in the country and is one of the major production areas for charcoal.

In an effort to address the problem statement above and its root causes, this project aims to increase the rate of forest regeneration and promote climate-resilient land management and energy practices among local communities in one area – Zambia’s Central Province – building on a variety of new national platforms and other province-level initiatives that are being piloted in other parts of the country.

Management of Zambia’s forests – both national forests and those on traditional lands – remains a continuing challenge. As noted in a new study funded by UN-REDD “Sustainable Forest Management Initiatives of relevance to REDD + in Zambia” National Forests are relatively protected – at least in theory. The law states that “... all land ... in a National Forest shall be used exclusively for the conservation and development of forests with a view to securing supplies of timber and other forest produce, providing protection against floods, erosion and desiccation and maintaining the flow of rivers:...” (Forests Act 1973, Part III, Section 12). No activities are allowed in the forest without explicit permission – including entering the forest.

The choice of Central Province as the geographic focus of this project was due to the fact that Finland, USAID and the UNDP/GEF MFA projects are already piloting (or have plans to pilot) Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) activities in several other provinces of the country with major Miombo stocks. Central Province is now benefitting from a broader influx of government funds to strengthen the forestry sector across the country and has benefitted from a variety of local-level initiatives on SFM approaches piloted by organizations like the Conservation Farming Union of Zambia. This project will use the new USAID activities in the province and UN-REDD as a foundational base to develop and massively scale-up a suite of interventions. The UN-REDD Stakeholder Analysis undertaken in Central Province highlighted a number of specific factors that contribute to deforestation and forest degradation in the province. There was a general agreement that poverty, illegal forest resource utilization (in particular, charcoal and timber production were singled out), unsustainable land use practices and commercial farming are key drivers of deforestation in Central Province. Lack of fire monitoring and fire management practices were separately confirmed as having a major negative impact on Miombo’s natural regeneration capacity. All of these core threats will be addressed as part of the project

The project will be addressing the direct and indirect consequences of climate change which lead to an increased frequency of forest fires and reduced regeneration capacities of Miombo forests on the one hand, and to enhanced encroachment of commercial farming into the forest and degradation through fuel wood production on the other hand. This imposes high costs and pressures on the economy by reducing the contribution of Miombo forests to the national GDP estimated to range around $5.5 billion and the role of the forest on poverty reduction and climate change mitigation itself, accompanied by a loss of resilience of the whole human-ecological forest system, particularly pronounced in Zambia’s Central Province.

Component 1: Piloting of community-based, climate adaptive agro-forestry and Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) techniques

This component is focused on capacitating foresters and communities in Central Province to implement appropriate climate-resilient agro-forestry and natural regeneration practices in designated zones. Agro-forestry is a land use system in which trees and shrubs are grown or managed in association with crops or animals in the same land unit and provide service and productive functions (Bashir et al. 2006, in Chidumayo 2009). Improved agro forestry systems comprise of a range of technologies, such as improved fallows[2] and alley cropping with nitrogen fixing plants, which improve the agro-ecosystem and support cost-effective permanent agriculture and microclimate management

Component 2: Integrated climate-resilient fire management

This component will address the second major climate-induced threat to Miombo’s natural regeneration capacity: fire. The component is focused on putting in place robust fire monitoring and management protection plans and measures in place in all districts in Central Province in order to maintain desired regeneration targets and reduce fire frequency, thus increasing the rate of forest regeneration in the Province. Similar to the approach taken in Component #1, it proposes to start with the required mapping activities, in this case funding the development of a geospatial fire occurrence dataset in Central Province based on satellite data and GIS mapping to ascertain burn severity classifications and climate change vulnerability of Miombo woodland.

Component 3: Increased knowledge about and uptake of appropriate supply-side, biomass energy production technologies to reduce

This component involves the deployment of wood-saving charcoal kiln technologies and the development of sustainable charcoal schemes in 20 VAGs with (i) charcoal producer groups formed and trained to operate kilns; (ii) Charcoal retort kiln pilots introduced (120 improved kilns to replace earth kilns); (iii) Monitoring, tracking and licensing system established for all improved kilns piloted. The Component will also pilot 50 charcoal or sawdust briquetting machines or presses piloted across 20 VAGs.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Online Preview   Download

To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.

It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.

Related searches