PIMS 2891 for November Council, Re-Submitted 27 Sept. 05

PIMS 2891 for November Council, Re-submitted 27 Sept. 05

Project Executive Summary

GEF Council Intersessional Work Program Submission

Agency’s Project ID: 2891

GEFSEC Project ID: 2379

Country:Argentina

Project Title: Sustainable Management of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems to Combat Desertification in Patagonia

GEF Agency: UNDP

Other Executing Agency(ies):

Duration: 5 years

GEF Focal Area:Land degradation

GEF Operational Program: OP-15 (Sustainable Land Management)

GEF Strategic Priority: SP1 with a SP-2 component

Pipeline Entry Date: November, 2003

Estimated Starting Date: December 2005

IA Fee: $498,057

Financing Plan (US$)
GEF Project/Component
Project / 5,183,966
PDF B / 350,000
Sub-Total GEF / 5,533,966
CO-FINANCING
UNDP / 50,000
Government / 25,288,905
Multilateral Donors / 1,231,550
Global Mechanism (PDF-B Project Preparation) / 30,000
Sub-Total Co-financing: / 26,600,455
Total Project Financing: / 32,134,421
Financing for Associated Activities If Any:
Leveraged Resources If Any: N/A

*Details provided under the financial modality and cost effectiveness section

Contribution to Key Indicators of the Business Plan: increase in land under sustainable livestock management from 2,000,000 Ha. to 6,000,000 Ha. –increase by 4,000,000 Ha.

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government(s):

Embajador Raúl Estrada Oyuela
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
GEF Political Focal Point
Juan Carlos Garaguso
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
GEF Operational Focal Point / Date: August, 2005
Date: August, 2005
Approved on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion.

Yannick Glemarec
UNDP-GEF Deputy Executive Coordinator / Helen Negret
RTA for UNDP-GEF LAC RCU
Email:
Date: 2005 / Tel: (507) 302-4508

1

PIMS 2891 for November Council, Re-submitted 27 Sept. 05

1. Project Summary

PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES

Project Rationale

1. Patagonia is a vast, cold, semi-desertic region, that spans more than 780,000 km2 covering more than 330 in latitude and ranging from 0 to 3,800 m.a.s.l. with considerable physical heterogeneity and a mosaic of arid and semi-arid areas. Patagonia’s globally significant arid and semi-arid ecosystems (Dinerstein et al 1995; Global 200 programme, WWF, 1997), which make-up 30% of Argentine territory, are subject to broad-scale land degradation processes due to anthropogenic threats on fragile and un-resilient ecosystems. Patagonian range has been famous for the wool and meat produced for over a century. Reaching its peak in 1950, breeders have witnessed a steady decline in the profitability of the livestock industry from 20 M head to almost 8 M head in the last decade, severely affecting both the local economies and the environment. Due to rising costs, low prices, and declining ecosystem services of the Patagonian steppe and meadows, between 12 to18% of the breeders have been forced to abandon their ranches, resulting in a 47% reduction in rural employment in the 6 Patagonian provinces with significant negative environmental and social effects.
2. Livestock management tactics were transplanted via immigrant breeders from humid ecosystems in Europe and from the humid Pampa region without the knowledge of the limits and characteristics of the new environment. Indigenous pastoral knowledge became outdated as these peoples were settled into progressively smaller areas. As stocking rates exceeded the availability and capacity of the local ecosystems, more livestock were concentrated into lesser areas of quality pasture, resulting in a spiral of land degradation that compromises ecosystem functions and services and that makes breeders more vulnerable to market fluctuations.
3. Overgrazing leads to the loss of the most palatable and diverse grasslands, causing the expansion of shrubs that are less palatable and of lower grazing value, resulting in simplified ecosystems of reduced species diversity and composition. Seventy-five plant species have been recorded as endangered due to degradation of grazing environments (Soriano, et al, 1995), many of these are paradoxically the preferred species for livestock and among those most tolerant to disturbance (Oliva, et al, 1998). The corresponding changes in ecosystem structure and integrity lead to changes in water capture characteristics, water balances, and infiltration and run-off patterns critical to ecosystem function and services, resulting in drying of natural meadow areas (mallines), exposure to wind and water erosion, loss of cover, and ultimately in structural failure, such as sinkholes and cave-ins in areas where overgrazing is most acute. The formation of dunes, gullies and desert pavements further disrupts ecological functions and severely impedes the ability of the ecosystems to recover. It is now understood that the most severe vegetation and soil transitions are irreversible. Almost 12% of Patagonian territory (10,000,000 Ha.) has surpassed the ability of the ecosystem to recover.
4. The pattern of land degradation is therefore not uniform nor is it related to herd size per se. but rather based on livestock distribution patterns. Studies on changes in plant composition associated with grazing in Patagonia show that the numbers of species can be maintained, or even rise slightly with moderate or intermittent grazing, but not when this disturbance or the grazing systems are intense or permanent (Paruelo et al, SAyDS, 1999, DHV Consortium, 1999). The land degradation witnessed in the remaining 85% of Patagonia is recoverable through sensible and scientifically validated management. In response, The GoA has developed range management technologies appropriate to small, medium, and large grazing systems that will both sustain production and maintain the diversity and function of the local ecosystems. Denominated extensive management technology, (TME) (see PRODOC Section IV Part VI) these practices conform to the extensive nature of the production systems by providing management guidelines that are adaptable to the situation of the individual producer and to the characteristics of the local ecosystem. These practices involve objective forage evaluation, stocking adjustments based on range and weather conditions, better protection of ewes and lambs at critical times, and other good production practices that have enabled both large and small breeders to obtain 18-33% higher net income while contributing to the improvement of local ecosystems.
5. At present, 4 to 28% of Patagonia is eroded[1] amounting to a surface area larger than many countries. Using FAO parameters for desertification[2] processes[3], figures are still more disturbing, desertification processes affect an estimated 625,000 km2 or 85% of Patagonia (DHV Consortium, 1999). Land degradation is Argentina’s most urgent issue in the fight to combat desertification and alleviate poverty.
6. Unfortunately, only 3% of the breeders have adopted TME practices on about 2 M ha. In response, the GoA has created the Patagonian Sheep Development Programme (PDGOSP) with financing through a fiduciary mechanism established by the “Sheep Law” (LO) that provides financing and opportunities for improved management incorporating TME techniques. Broad-scale adaptation of the improvements hindered by persistent barriers that limit the participation of the breeders such as: (i) limited extension services, (ii) the disperse nature of the small-scale producers that limits participation, lobby, and feedback, (iii) lack of understanding of the perceptions of the numerous breeders and subcultures on management, (iv) missing tools for environmental analysis of incentives, (v) the lack of a common vision on SLM between institutions, programs and projects, and (vi) the negative economic results that prevented farmers from seeking technical advice. Broad-scale application of improved management is required to counteract land degradation processes and reduce the losses to ecosystem services (available water, fertility, and nutrient availability) and functions such as Hydrologic cycling, carbon capture and storage[4] and habitat for globally important species.
7. The GEF alternative will reduce the effects of land degradation by adding SLM concerns to the baseline situation and by removing the barriers to SLM through: i) development of institutional capacities to incorporate SLM into decision-making processes, ii) the development of local capacities to incorporate SLM into production processes and (iii) mainstreaming SLM concerns into on-the-ground investments and programs. The GEF increment (See Annex A) will: i) develop tools, structures, and capacities to incorporate TME and SLM concerns into a multi-sector, integrated decision-making framework with improved access of all sectors; ii) install social capital and technical capacities to promote TME and facilitate access to information and incentive programs for TME and alternative production methods; iii) implementation of policies, controls, and tools to mainstream SLM concerns into on-the-ground investments in livestock and sector economic development programs.

1. The benefits (see PRODOC page 31) of the GEF alternative will be realized on the National level through the increase in the application of LO programs to a wider segment of the breeder population. The sharing of information and lessons learnt from 8 important projects will provide Argentina with an example of how to link federal and provincial agencies, politicians, and the private sector, within a forum for information, policy debate, and lobby to support sustainable land management. Although the system boundary of this project is limited to the pastoral aspects of Patagonian land-use, the region will have the awareness, structures and a forum for dialogue on the other important land degradation issues, such as mining and oil and gas exploration. Equally, pastoralists will be connected upstream creating a more effective lobby and a better perception of pastoralist concerns at all levels. The establishment of incentives by provincial governments will generate an important local experience in planning and sustainable financing for sustainable land management.

1. Locally, breeders will enjoy increased access to the tools and credit necessary to improve their livelihoods and preserve the natural capital on which their flocks/herds and livelihoods depend. Increases in the capacity of local organizations, especially cooperatives will improve the access to programs and technical assistance and qualify groups for programs that would be inaccessible to individual small breeders, providing them with inputs and information needed to increase their profitability. The implementation of on-the-ground demonstrations will provide locally validated information for extension services and information on the economies of alternative modes of production and the perceptions of the breeders.

1. Globally, the project will result in improved ecosystem resilience and productivity in one of the world’s most important dryland ecosystems. The project will establish environmental criteria and tools that will contribute to the generation of additional indirect global benefits to on-the-ground investments in pastoral systems. Secondary global benefits will be the reduction in soil desiccation to wind with corresponding increases in soil organic matter, nutrient recycling, and moisture that will lead to increased carbon storage and absorption. Although further work is necessary to correlate carbon capture and land degradation processes, preliminary work by INTA indicates what the indirect relationship might be. Poor management of these rangelands would induce a loss of 8.6 tonnes C/Ha. Maintenance of the range condition in 6M Ha would therefore avert the loss of approximately 51.6 M tonnes of C (see analysis in PRODOC, Section IV, Part III). Further secondary biodiversity benefits will be improvement of habitat conditions for endemic and migratory species as a result of improved ecosystem structure and function.

Project goal, objective, outcomes and output/activities (see paragraphs 71-86 of the PRODOC and the Logical Framework in Annex B for more details)

1. The project goal is to contribute to the sustainable development of the Patagonian region within the context of the Argentine NAP to combat desertification. The project objective is to apply SLM in livestock production systems to improve the structure, integrity, and function of Patagonia’s arid and semi-arid ecosystems. The following outcomes will ensure the elimination of the barriers that impede the broad-scale responses to the root causes of land degradation and improve the living conditions of the breeders and their families. In order to remove knowledge and institutional gaps and to enhance the connectivity of thousands of groups distributed over 700,000 Km2, the project will integrate SLM into decision-making processes (outcome 1) by developing stakeholder and institutional capacities to access, use, and manage information, structures, and tools that integrate SLM concerns as they relate to the livestock sector. Information will support the policy debate through a consolidated Patagonian Network (REPAM) (output 1.1) comprised of existing local information exchange networks that will be built into a broad, accessible platform based on negotiated agreements with stakeholders.

1. The result will be a political framework and strategy for incorporation of SLM concerns into the decision-making process by legislators and breeders using a range of tools. These will include a Decision Support System (DSS) (output 1.2) whose components are: 1) a Geographical Information System (GIS) with biophysical and socio-economic information, 2) Simulation Models of the principal production systems in Patagonia, 3) an Early Warning System that will provide information on pasture conditions, droughts, snowfalls, and fires, enabling users to minimize risk by modifying flock size or making adjustment in pastures or set aside reserves and 4) a Range Monitoring System that will provide an objective evaluation of results in the long-term. The DSS will provide decision makers (SAGPyA, SAyDS, Provincial governments, INTA, NGOs and Breeder’s Associations) with up-to-date information regarding sustainable land use management, policy design, programs, projects, credit, incentives, etc., and will promote up-streaming of SLM in the decision making process. Training and technical assistance in the organizational aspects and in SLM is provided within output 1.3.

1. Outcome 2 will develop the local level capacities to apply SLM in different ecosystems and production systems developed by different scale producers through a wide range of actions. This will be achieved through investments to counter social capital limitations (output 2.1) that limit the accessibility of the small producer to programs, training, in combination with the PSA or PRODERPA projects. GEF financed activities would include capacity assessments and training for leaders and promoters (output 2.1). To facilitate the flow of information, an integrated participatory extension and technology transfer system (SITT) (output 2.2) will provide assistance to farmers. These activities will benefit from (and contribute to) guidance and advocacy generated by WISP (World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism). Farmers would be trained in the adoption of TME and additional surveys (KAP) would be completed to better understand the perception of different regions and cultures of livestock management technology (output 2.3). In addition, the families will participate in consciousness-raising activities that will increase their knowledge and awareness of the land degradation problems and SLM practices (output 2.4).

1. Livestock management activities funded through the Sheep Law would be complemented with GEF funding in the implementation of demonstration or model projects (output 2.5) in each of the important areas of the participating provinces. The demonstrative projects will facilitate the adoption of TME by a broad range of producers and enable the adoption and adaptation of the technology in diverse eco-regions and diverse cultures, including transhumants. In areas that have higher carrying capacity potential but that have suffered particularly high levels of land degradation, some pilot projects may include the testing of different forms of rehabilitation to determine potential models that could later be applied to enable previous unproductive land to be restored for other uses. On-the-ground models for conservation (output 2.6) within private lands will be validated through a regional survey of potential conservation sites (wetlands, areas with high number of endemic species, etc) on rangelands in each of the main ecological areas of Patagonia. Conservation demonstrations areas excluded from grazing, or with special management, will be established, the legal framework analyzed, and procedures experimented to qualify them for government incentives.

1. Within Outcome 3, SLM will be mainstreamed into livestock promotion and incentive programs and into on-the-ground investments in livestock pasture management. This would be achieved by mainstreaming TME into the planning and approval process of the principal sector development plans and projects. Criteria, norms, and tools will be developed (output 3.1) and training (output 3.2), on guidelines for field technicians and decision-makers to enable implementing institutions to use guidelines and protocols as part of the approval process for credits, subsidies, or incentives to producers. Additional revenues must be generated to assure a continued source of investment once the sheep law has expired. Potential reward systems that are considered for implementation are: certificates for TME implementers, prizes for model breeders, recognition for federations with the most certified ranchers. The actual packages will be elected upon completion of the first annual work plan. These incentive systems to be developed will involve tax incentives, subsidies, and promotional interest rates and will be developed with respect to the characteristics of each province and linked to performance in the implementation of TME. The GEF alternative will include the information, technical assistance, and lobby to establish the tax incentives.
2. Outcome 4 will achieve adaptive project management through learning, evaluation, and incorporation of lessons learnt into project management. Lessons learnt will be disseminated (see Project Document, Replicability Sec. I Part II) and adapted for implementation (Output 4; with sound management of project resources (output 4.2). Through adaptation and dissemination of lessons learnt (Output 4.3) by implementing partners, the results of the project will reach across Patagonia, other regions in Argentina, and internationally, through the GEF funded WISP project (see Replication).

Project Strategy and Approach (see Project Document Section I Part II)

1. The project strategy is to create the conditions for broad-scale acceptance and uptake of TME technology and thereby create indirect global benefits on a regional scale. The specific strategies are: (i) enhance the connectivity of all stakeholders and strata of producers, (ii) create efficiencies and reduce costs by utilizing existing structures and mechanisms wherever possible, (iii) assure the political buy-in of the provincial parliaments and focus the sustainability mechanisms and investment opportunities at the provincial level, (iv) create the conditions and attitudes to create a dialogue on SLM at the policy level that will eventually enable discussion on other land degradation themes. The project logframe and associated activities were developed taking into account these strategies.

KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS (see logframe Annex B)