Request for CEO endorsement/Approval
Project Type:
the GEF Trust Fund
Submission Date: 30 June 2008
Re-submission Date:
part i: project Information
Expected CalendarMilestones / Dates
Work Program (for FSPs only) / April 2008
Agency Approval date / July 2008
Implementation Start / June 2009
Mid-term Evaluation (if planned) / May 2012
Project Closing Date / May 2015
GEFSEC Project ID: 2631
gef agency Project ID: TBA
Country(ies): Jordan
Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Land and Water Management Practices in Jordan
GEF Agency(ies): IFAD
Other Executing partner(s): Ministries of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC), Ministry of Environment (MOE), Agriculture (MOA), and Water and Irrigation (MWI)
GEF Focal Area(s): Land Degradation, International Waters,
GEF-4 Strategic program(S): LD (SP1) and IW (SP3)
Name of parent program/umbrella project: MENARID
A. Project framework (Expand table as necessary)
Project Objective: To reduce land degradation and promote the integration of an ecosystem-based approach into public-supported productive and poverty reduction activities; the latter designed to improve economic productivity of land, increase water use and irrigation efficiency and support communities affected by land degradation and water scarcity, supporting SLM and IWRM best practices at the local level with contributing to SLM and IWRM mainstreaming at all levels /Project Components
/Invest, TA, STA
/ Expected Outcomes /Expected Outputs
/GEF Financing
/ Co-financing / Total ($'000) c=a+ b /($'000) a
/%
/($'000) b
/%
/1. Community
and Agro-Ecosystem Planning / INV, TA / Sustainable land and water management integrated into community-based natural resource planning / a) 13 Community Action Plans (CAPs) for local community development formulated within 3 Project Demonstration Agro-Ecosystems (PDEs)
b) 3 Agro-Ecosystem Action Plans (AEPs) formulated and under implementation in 3 PDEs (target areas), including support to the implementation of the National Water Strategy (NWS) and the NAPCCD through ecosystem-based planning approaches
c) 15 Spring Water User Associations’ (WUAs) established/strengthened for improved water management / 707 / 30 / 1,689 / 70 / 2,396
2. Public Awareness and Capacity Building for Scaling up SLM / INV, TA / Institutional structures and capacities enhanced at all levels to promote awareness, coalition building and scaling-up of SLM and IEM while improving climate-proofing of rural production systems / a) Design a strategy for public awareness, community mobilization and Environmental Education
b) Disseminate information about SLM and water management practices in target areas
c) Provide training to 15 WUAs (for improved IWRM practices (water harvesting, increased spring irrigation efficiency and water reuse for irrigation),
d) Develop and finance the implementation of one Action Plan for building capacity of local, sub-national and national stakeholders / 2,148 / 62 / 1,311 / 38 / 3,459
3. Best Practices for SLM Demonstration and Up-scaling Areas / INV, TA / Land and water users in replicable PDEs adopt sustainable land and water management practices that provide long term livelihood benefits / a) At least 6000 land and water users adopt SLM and IWRM leading to up-scaling of good SLM practices and improved irrigation efficiency
b) Increased area under INRM (9,000 ha of soil and water conservation and 5,000 ha of indigenous vegetation cover rehabilitated)
c) 35 springs protected and irrigation area of 700 ha rehabilitated and under increased efficiency
d) 2 model spring irrigation systems established
e) 3,000 water harvesting cisterns (each with capacity of 30 m3) for collection of rainwater and surface runoff into underground wells
f) Alternative livelihood activities implemented in areas within PDEs where land use pressures and groundwater overexploitation hinder SLM adoption (70 projects, 400 land-users) / 1,770 / 9 / 18,659 / 91 / 20,429
4. SLM Information Management at Project and National Levels / INV, TA / Effective information management to support decision making is developed and implemented from the project to the national levels / a) A National SLM and Env. Info System in place
b) Develop and upscale a participatory M&E system / 1,049 / 64 / 587 / 36 / 1,636
5.1. Support to Institutional and Financial Sustainability
/ INV, TA / 1. Directorates of Agriculture, Water and environment. following up and adopting activities beyond the international funding phase
2. Financial resources available to undertake activities and build up a funding mechanism for sustainability purposes / a) A strategy for institutional arrangements and financial support to the long-term implementation of key SLM and water mgmt activities developed, negotiated and tested in the 3 PDEs, with embedded scale-up plans
b) Capacity of national actors among Directorates of Agriculture, Water and Environment and communities is strengthened to address and follow-up national issues that affect up-scaling of good practices and long-term sustainability of natural resource use. / 220 / 80 / 55 / 20 / 275
5.2. Project management / 551 / 52 / 503 / 48 / 1,054
Total Project Costs / 6,445 / 22 / 22,804 / 78 / 29,249
B. Financing Plan Summary For The Project ($)
Project Preparation* a / Project Grantb / Total
c = a + b / Agency Fee** / For the record:
Project Grant at PIF
GEF / 350,000 / 6,445,000 / 6,795,000 / 676,000 / 6,445,000
Co-financing / 142,433 / 22,804,000 / 22,946,433 / 22,787,000
Total / 492,433 / 29,249,000 / 29,741,433 / 676,000 / 29,232,000
* PDFB funded under GEF-3.
** 10% fee rate applicable only on project grant with 9% advance received at preparatory grant.
C. Sources of confirmed Co-financing for project preparation and project
Name of co-financier (source) / Classification / Type / ProjectPreparation / Project / Total / %*
Project Government Contribution / Government / In-kind / - / 3,110,000 / 3,110,000 / 13.6
GEF Agency - IFAD / (select)NGOPrivate SectorBeneficiariesFoundationImpl. AgencyExec. AgencyNat'l Gov'tLocal Gov'tMultilat. AgencyBilat. AgencyOthers (specify) / In-kind & Cash/Loan / 117,433 / 9,826,100 / 9,943,533 / 43.5
FAO / (select)NGOPrivate SectorBeneficiariesFoundationImpl. AgencyExec. AgencyNat'l Gov'tLocal Gov'tMultilat. AgencyBilat. AgencyOthers (specify) / In-kind / - / 31,900 / 31,900 / 0.2
Others (OPEC Fund) / (select)NGOPrivate SectorBeneficiariesFoundationImpl. AgencyExec. AgencyNat'l Gov'tLocal Gov'tMultilat. AgencyBilat. AgencyOthers (specify) / Loan / - / 8,698,200 / 8,698,200 / 37.6
Beneficiaries / Beneficiaries / In-kind / - / 1,137,800 / 1,137,800 / 4.9
Others (GM) / (select)NGOPrivate SectorBeneficiariesFoundationImpl. AgencyExec. AgencyNat'l Gov'tLocal Gov'tMultilat. AgencyBilat. AgencyOthers (specify) / (select)GrantSoft-loanHard-loanGuarantee / 25,000 / - / 25,000 / 0.2
Total Co-financing / 142,433 / 22,804,000 / 22,946,433 / 100%
* Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.
D. GEF Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Focal Area(s) and Country(ies)
GEF Agency / Focal Area / Country Name/Global / (in $)
PDFB*
(a) / Project
(b) / Agency
Fee** ( c) / Total
d=a+b+c
IFAD / LD / Jordan / 350,000 / 5,000,000 / 531,500 / 5,881,500
IFAD / IW / Jordan / 0 / 1,445,000 / 144,500 / 1,589,500
Total GEF Resources / 350,000 / 6,445,000 / 676,000 / 7,471,000
* PDFB funded under GEF-3.
** 10% fee rate applicable only on project grant with 9% advance received at preparatory grant.
E. Project management Budget/cost
Cost Items
/Total Estimated person weeks/months
/GEF
($) /Other sources ($)
/Project total ($)
Local consultants*
/3,966
/ 358.0 / 264.7 / 622.7International consultants*
/ 0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications*
/ 81.2 / 152.3 / 233.5Travel* / / 89.4 / 53.7 / 143.1
Miscellaneous (meetings of PSC/national level, Regional Coord. Committee and Local Committees) / / 33.0 / 22.1 / 55.1
Total / 3,966 / 561.6 / 492.8 / 1054.4
* Details to be provided in Annex C.
f. Consultants working for technical assistance components:
Component
/Estimated person weeks
/GEF
($)
/Other sources ($)
/Project total ($)
Local consultants*
/ 11,238 (over six years) / 987.9 / 876.6 / 1,864.5International consultants*
/ 111 (over 6 years) / 502.0 / 64.7 / 566.7Total
/ 11,349 / 1,489.9 / 941.3 / 2,431.2* Details to be provided in Annex C.
G. describe the budgeted m&e plan:
This project will use a participatory approach to monitor and evaluate its progress. The FSP M&E Plan will rely on: 1) the assessment by stakeholders of the fulfillment of project objectives (including its impact on the project area; 2) the compilation and provision of timely information for determining if adaptations to the original project work plan are needed in order to fulfill its objectives.
The FSP M&E plan is building upon existing M&E’s in the project area, in particular that used by the ARMP-II project. Elements and experience on the development and implementation of such M&E have been considered as the foundation for this FSP M&E, these elements will be refined at initial stages of the project, with the participation of stakeholders.
The information needed for project monitoring and evaluation will be collected as part of the National SLM and Environmental Information System (National SLM and EIS) designed during the project, this will allow to consider both environmental indicators and project performance indicators (ad indicated in the logical framework, GEF strategic objectives and as determined by stakeholders), as well as to avoid duplication in data collection. Information generated from monitoring and evaluation activities will be fed into the National SLM and EIS and therefore available to project stakeholders.
The following are the major components of the FSP M&E Plan: i) Capacity building for participatory and formal M&E: This will allow project staff, national authorities and other civil society groups to familiarize with participatory and formal M&E. Trained stakeholders will be able to contribute and transfer knowledge to communities; ii) Refinement of the M&E with the participation of stakeholders, through two extensive consultations, to determine information needs (this will include indicators of project impact in the project area, at national level, global benefits and GEF strategic objectives), delineate responsibilities and formalize the M&E plan, ; iii) field visits by field project staff to monitor together with communities the project progress; iv) six month progress review reports- produced by the project management unit in conjunction with other responsible stakeholders; v) annual project reports by the project management unit, compiling information provided by stakeholders; vi) periodic review workshops for key project components, to determine needs for adaptive management, one a year for the first two years, after that, once every two years; vii) external evaluation carried out on year 3; viii) final evaluation of project success, documenting the findings of previous reviews, lessons learnt and recommendations for future monitoring of key areas.
More details on the National SLM and Environmental information system and the FSP M&E are included in the project brief and its Appendices 8 and 9.
M&E Costs (US$’000): Financial Summary
Project M &E(Sub-component 4.2) / Amount / %
Total M&E COSTS / 830,000 / 100.0
Total Investment / 672.4
Total Recurrent Costs / 157.6
Financing Sources
Government / 162,500 / 19.6
IFAD / 222,500 / 26.8
GEF / 430,300 / 51.8
FAO / 14,800 / 1.8
Expenditure Accounts
I. Investment Costs
Equipment and Vehicles / 79.3
TA/Consultancies / 340.2
Evaluation Studies / 252.9
II. Recurrent Costs
Salaries / 52.8
Vehicles and Equipment O&M / 104.8
part ii: project justification:
A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits:
Jordan is one of the world’s most water-deficit countries with only about 5% of the total land area considered arable. As a consequence it has few natural resources and agricultural productivity is greatly reduced. Therefore, a major challenge for the Government of Jordan (GOJ) is to promote the sustainable use of natural resources for agricultural purposes. This challenge is being made harder by the ongoing processes of degradation, which combine to undermine any social and economic development gains. About 41% (36,000 km2) of Jordan’s total land area is characterized as degraded, of which 22 percent of the total land mass is classified as moderately degraded.
In general, the land degradation (LD) types that prevail in Jordan are water and wind erosion, the decline of soil fertility and habitat degradation. The main causative factors are overgrazing, unsustainable agricultural and water management practices and overexploitation of vegetative cover. In addition, Jordan’s rapid population growth (2.8 percent per year) is exerting considerable pressure upon its lands. The prevailing poverty in the country’s arid and semi-arid areas is also a significant factor contributing to the rate of LD. There is considerable evidence that poverty is forcing dryland farmers and herders, in particular, into unsustainable practices to produce more food and meet their material needs, often leading to degradation of their land resources.
Jordan is classified as a chronically water scarce country with an annual renewable fresh water supply of only 175cubic meters per capita. With the increasing growth in population, demand for water has increased rapidly. Scarcity of water is a major constraint on growth and the demand for water already threatens serious depletion and sustainable use of groundwater, with over extraction reaching in some basins more than 200 % of their combined safe yields. Agriculture consumes more than 50% of the country’s available water resources. The National Water Strategy (NWS) includes a comprehensive set of guidelines and approaches for supply and demand management, to balance the water deficit by applying new technologies, decreasing consumption and improving resource management. The implementation of this Strategy is a high Government priority.
Prevailing LD Types in the Southern Highlands. Specifically, in the Southern Highlands (proposed project area), one of Jordan’s poorest regions, LD severity categories fall within the “moderate” to “severe” range, and the dominant features of LD are the high rates of erosion by wind and water; drastic reduction of soil fertility in general and of soil organic matter in particular; and loss of green habitat in terms of vegetation cover recession, low germination rate of plants and low intensity of plant cover. The project area is also affected by soil surface crust and substantial accumulation of calcareous silt on the soil surface that accelerates erosion by water and creates a soil compaction problem. In addition, there is much evidence that the over-exploitation of the water resources is resulting in water-related land degradation types.