REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL
PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project
THE GEF TRUST FUND
Submission Date: October 17, 2007
Re-submission Date:
PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION
GEFSEC PROJECT ID:2355
Expected Calendar
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: P088600
Milestones
COUNTRY(IES): Kenya
Work Program (for FSP)
PROJECT TITLE: Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable
GEF Agency Approval
Land Management (KAPSLMP)
GEF AGENCY (IES): World Bank
Implementation Start
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry
Mid-term Review
of Environment and Natural Resources
Implementation Completion
GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Land Degradation
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SP 1, 2 and 3 (OP15)
Name of parent program/umbrella project: Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project (KAPP)
Dates
Nov 20, 2005
Feb, 2008
Feb 01, 2008
Feb 01, 2011
Dec 31, 2013
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Expand table as necessary)
Project Objective: The global environment objective of the proposed project is to reduce and mitigate land
degradation in the targeted operational areas and to contribute to maintenance of critical ecosystem functions and
structures.
Project
Components
1.
Building
Capacity for SLM
Indicate
whether
Investment,
TA, or
STA**
TA
Expected Outcomes
- Micro-catchment
plans provide
planning framework
for community
investments in land
management
- Number of
communities with
capacity on SLM
- Percent of service
providers in the
operational area
trained in SLM
- Percent of SLM
service providers
rated satisfactory or
higher by clients
- Percent of SLM
service providers
trained who continue
to provide SLM and
services
Expected
Outputs
- Microcatchment plans
developed and
approved
- Menus of SLM
technologies for
land users in
project areas
developed and
localized
- Technical
assistance on
SLM
technologies and
methods
provided to
communities
- Competitive
service provision
(public and
private service
providers)
promoted
GEF
Financing*
($)
%
2.44
12
Co-financing*
($)
18.03
Total ($)
%
88
20.47
1
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
2. Investments in
Community SLM
Micro-Projects
Investments
3.
Strengthening
the
Enabling
Environment
TA and STA
- Increased adoption
of recommended
SLM practices by
land users
disaggregated by
gender and
operational areas
- Number of SLM
micro-projects
implemented and
rated as satisfactory
by the beneficiaries
disaggregated by
gender
- Kenya SLM
Investment
Framework (KSIF)
developed and a
national
coalition/institutional
mechanism for SLM
is established and
functioning
- A functioning
national SLM
information system
for decision making
is in place
- Capacity built on
PES
- Percent reduction in
sedimentation in the
PES pilot area
reservoir
- Finance
systems for
community
investments
established and
are working
- Proportion of
the approved
SLM microprojects funded
disaggregated by
gender and
operational area
3.62
17
17.73
83
21.35
- Percent
completion of
the required
SLM PER,
policy oriented
studies and
background
papers on SLM
- Percent of joint
work
programming on
SLM related
matters at the
district level
- Technical
studies required
for PES
completed
- Synthesis of
lessons for PES
up-scaling
completed
4. Project management, monitoring and support to the information resource center
Of which Project management only costs*
Total Project Costs
2.52
11
20.23
89
22.75
1.42
0.89
10.00
19
81
7.31
5.89
61.88
71.88
* List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.
** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.
B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Project Preparation*
GEF
Co-financing
Total
350,000
178,000
528,000
Project
10,000,000
61,882,000
71,882,000
Agency Fee
931,500
931,500
Total at CEO
Endorsement
For the record:
Total at PIF
11,281,500
62,060,000
73,341,500
n/a
n/a
* Preparation grants were approved for the project under GEF-3 on February 3, 2004 for an amount of US$350,000. See Annex D.
2
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG
Name of co-financier (source)
Classification
IDA
Government
Implementing Agency
National Government
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries
BNWPP TF
Total Co-financing
Bilateral Trust Fund
Type
%*
Amount ($)
Credit
Cash/Inkind
Cash/in
Kind
Grant
51,500,000
9,880,000
83.22
15.97
400,000
102,000
61,882,000
0.65
0.16
100%
* Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES) –N/A
GEF Agency
Focal Area
Country Name/
Global
(in $)
Project
Preparation
Project
Agency
Fee
Total
Total GEF Resources
* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.
E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST
Cost Items
Total
Estimated
person weeks
1448*
GEF
($)
0.70
0
0.32
Other sources
($)
3.85
0
1.46
Project total
($)
4.55
0
1.78
Local consultants*
International consultants*
Office facilities, equipment,
vehicles and communications**
Travel**
0.40
0.58
0.98
1.42
5.89
7.31
Total
* SW for GEF resources only. For detailed information regarding the consultants, see Annex C.
** Provide detailed information and justification for these line items. The project will support operational
travel of the project staff (project coordination, financial management, procurement, safeguards, Catchment
Area Coordinators) and other consultants (monitoring and impact evaluation etc.) to and within the project
operational areas to fulfill their mandates.
F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Estimated
Other sources
Project total
person weeks
GEF($)
($)
($)
Local consultants*
1.13
4.52
5.65
2825*
International consultants*
0
1.02*
1.02
34
1.13
5.54
6.67
Total
2859
* SW for GEF resources and BNWPP TF only. For detailed information regarding the consultants, see Annex C.
Component
G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN:
A customized MIS will be designed for project management and M&E. The system will be developed based on the
project Results Framework and focus on the results chain linking the PDO to project outcome and intermediate
outcome indicators, outputs, activities and inputs. This will be an effective tool for project management and
provide a feedback loop for the project team to detect and provide solutions to implementation problems as they
emerge. (See Annex 4 of the PAD for details on the MIS, M&E Plan and the project Results Framework).
3
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
The project will, in addition to the four other World Bank projects that Government is implementing (WKCDD/FM
Project, NRM, WKIEMP, WKCDD&FM and KAPP), be a part of a harmonized approach towards monitoring and
impact evaluation of current the physical and socioeconomic states and trends, operational progress, and outcomes.
These projects all have significant synergies involving sustainable SLM and NRM, CDD and community
empowerment, and poverty reduction through improving smallholder agricultural production. To harness these
synergies, exploit the economies of scale and avoid duplication, a central MIS will be established and will also act
the central repository of data and information. The central MIS will be based at the Kenya Soil Survey (KSS)
Geographical Information System (GIS) laboratory at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in Nairobi.
This facility will mainly provide support for monitoring particularly biophysical indicators related to agriculture,
rural development and environment, and will help to institutionalize M&E as an integral part of the Government by
offering necessary capacity building and technical backstopping activities to the SLM secretariat in MENR. It will
also help to promote standardization of the data collection instruments and methodologies to enable effective impact
evaluation of development programs. Institutionalization of M&E in the Government will also promote
sustainability of project activities as reference data and information will remain available beyond project closing.
Mechanisms for smooth information sharing between the KSS, SLM secretariat in MENR and the KAPP secretariat
will be established prior to the start of the project.
Additional baseline data will be collected after project effectiveness as this requires satellite maps and statistically
designed community and household level surveys, and some field based biophysical measurements. The data to be
collected will include market access, hydrological, water quality, soil erosion land use cover and GIS mapping of
degradation (based on data for vegetation and forest cover, water flows and quality and soil erosion). Overlays of
these maps with poverty and suitability assessments will help to prioritize activities and implementation and assist
local development of micro-watershed plans. In-turn, community based ground-truthing and local knowledge will
enrich the information base.
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION _ _
A. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT RATIONALE AND THE EXPECTED MEASURABLE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS:
Please see Section A and Annex 17 of the GEF project Document for details.
B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:
Please refer to Section A of the GEF project Document
C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
Please refer to Section A2, pgs 4-5 of the GEF project Document. It is however important to highlight that the
project precedes the GEF Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP); it is closely linked to
TerrAfrica initiative and the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) Comprehensive African
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) process and facilitates them through the development of the Kenya
SLM investment framework.
D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
Please refer to Section A2, Para 16 on coordination and complimentarity with other initiatives. It is however
noteworthy that the Government of Kenya, with assistance from NEPAD and the SIP Partners is in the process of
forming a National SLM Platform (comprising of a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder National Steering
Committee and Technical Committee, and supported by a Secretariat). All development partners operating in the
country (including Denmark, USAID, DFID, FAO, AfDB, IFAD, UNEP, UNDP and The Global Mechanism of the
UNCCD) will be encouraged to align their support with the SLM Framework through different delivery
mechanisms, based on their respective country dialogue and comparative advantages.
E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT:
4
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
Please refer to Annex 17 of the GEF Project Document for a detailed incremental Cost Analysis.
F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S)
FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:
Please refer to Section C4, Pg 20 of the GEF Project Document.
G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN:
An Economic and Financial analysis has been done for the project and provided in Annex 10 of the GEF project
Document which presents the cost-effectiveness for the project.
PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:
Please refer to Section C2 and Annex 6 of the GEF project Document for detailed implementation arrangements.
PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:
This section provides justification for the changes in the project since work program entry (November 2005).
During both the final review by GEFSEC and the project QER held on June 6, 2006, a number of issues regarding
the project design were raised. As a result there was a need to refocus and make changes to the project designs,
which are explained below:
a) KAPSLMP Basic Philosophy: The team noted that the initial concept was to link up the proposed project to the
agricultural technology agenda, which is being supported through the on-going Kenya Agricultural Productivity
Project (KAPP). The KAPSLMP design has maintained this link as there is merit and a lot of synergy to be derived
by linking the two operations especially at the implementation level rather than going for a free-standing SLM
operation. However, the project design was broadened in scope and linked to two other IDA projects, NRM and
WKCDD, to take into account the cross-sectoral nature of SLM agenda and the programmatic framework that will
assist in coordination of SLM activities in the country. The scope of the KAPSLMP was re-focused on activities and
areas that can have maximum impact and which can add-value to the interventions being supported under KAPP,
and other IDA financed operations such as Natural resources Management (NRM) Project and Western Kenya CDD
& Flood Mitigation project. The institutional arrangements were reviewed to take into account these linkages with
KAPP (please see Section C subsection 2 of the main GEF Project Document).
b) Project Development Objectives (PDO) and KPIs: Although the team found the PDO as stated was in line
with the project activities, the team made changes to the PDO and outcome indicators to reflect the underlying
project conceptual framework and focus on agricultural producers rather than natural resource users. The Project
document was also amended to reflect the new GEF strategic priorities for OP# 15. The team also noted that the
links between adoption of SLM practices and alternative livelihoods practices were not explicit and may present
difficulties in measuring impact. As such, the outcome indicators and results framework were adjusted to take into
account this challenge. The KPIs were also adjusted together with the GOK team to make them more measurable
and results based.
c) Selection of Operational Areas: As indicated in the comments to the GEF Council, the project was originally
designed to cover 5 catchment areas, namely Taita-Taveta, Kinale-Kikuyu, Cherangani hills, Turgen Hills and Yala.
During QER the team was advised that the justification for selection of these project sites was weak and needed to
be beefed up. The QER panel recommended that the project should focus on three of these catchment areas
(Cherangani, Kikuyu-Kinale and Taita hills) to avoid spreading the resources too thin while ensuring that there is
maximum overlap with KAPP operational areas and maintaining the same number of target communities and
coverage. It was also noted that the other two catchments (Yala, Turgen Hills) are covered by other Bank/GEF
funded projects, namely, WKCCDFL, Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (WKIEMP), and
5
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
the proposed Lake Victoria II project. In consultation with the Government counterparts, the team agreed upon the
reduction of sites recommended by the QER panel. It was also agreed by the team and the GoK that the number of
community interventions will be maintained at the original level. This means that the intensity of activities will be
increased in the three operational areas for higher impact (See Annex 4 of the GEF Project Document for details).
d) Co-financing: At WP entry the estimated total cost was estimated at US$82.80 with the most of the cofinancing expected to come from the IDA and GoK supported KAPP. However, since then KAPP has disbursed
around 55% of the IDA funds. Given this, a smaller set of baseline activities can be funded out of the remaining
funds. Furthermore, changes were made in the institutional structure and implementation arrangements of
KAPSLM, which are now, aligned more closely to the KAPP secretariat. Since KARI, where a significant portion
of investments from KAPP (particularly the GoK contributions) were directed, is no longer implementing the entire
KAPSLMP project but rather focusing on areas of its core-competency, there was a need to reassess whether all the
co-financing under KAPP was fully related to KAPSLMP. With the increasing specificity of KAPP during the
preparation of KAPSLMP, it was considered that there had been an overestimation during work-program entry of
the direct link between the SLM agenda under KAPSLMP with some of the activities under KAPP (such as the
broad Agricultural research reform agenda). It was now assessed that a segment rather the whole of KAPP can be
accurately considered as co-financing for KAPSLMP.
With the remaining IDA funds in KAPP and as indicated in the GEF Project Document the KAPSLMP will be
linked to KAPP implementation structures created to implement the SRA i.e. the inter-ministerial coordination
committee and steering committee, which will have an oversight of SLM activities and oversee the implementation
of a coherent over-all framework in the sector. The proposed project will be implemented through the KAPP
secretariat and the district service units. Apart from supporting the implementation arrangements, KAPP will
support complementary capacity building activities for communities and service providers (primarily on value
addition, commercialization and other related aspects) in half of the districts. Through the farmer grants, KAPP will
support community investments in agricultural sector growth and value addition. On the policy frontier KAPP is
supporting reforms in agricultural technology development and dissemination through the reforms in National
Agricultural Research system (NARS) and national extension policy. These reforms will have direct impact on
development of SLM technologies and their dissemination. KAPP is currently in the third year of implementation
and the current phase will close in December, 2008. Preparation for KAPP Phase Two is expected to start in early
2008 and will take on board, expand and mainstream SLM activities being supported by KAPSLMP. It is therefore
anticipated that IDA funds available to support baseline activities will increase significantly when the second phase
of KAPP is designed. The Phase two funds have not been factored in the baseline as the total amount (estimated at
US$50-60 million) and the actual activities are yet to be determined.
In addition to KAPP, KAPSLMP will also build on the baseline the IDA supported Natural Resources Management
(NRM) and Western Kenya CDD and Flood Mitigation (WKCDD &FM) projects. WKCDD&FM become effective
in August, 2007 and NRM is expected to become effective in November, 2007 The KAPSLMP implementation
will utilize the capacity of Water Resources Management Authorities (WRMAs) and Water Resources Users
Associations(WRUAs) that are being supported under the NRM project. The NRM project will strengthen the
WRMA nationally, in its seven Regional Offices, and in its twenty five sub-regional offices. The support will
enable the WRMA, established in July 2005, to equip its offices and undertake its core business, river and
groundwater monitoring, which in turn will enable it to administer and control the use of water by users and begin
to reverse the widespread degradation of catchments. The project will focus on two critical watersheds of the Tana
and the Nzoia Rivers. Project investments will concentrate on the upper catchment of the Tana River and two key
watersheds of the Nzoia river catchment, the Kakamega Forest and Mt. Elgon. The NRM project will also support
forest resources management in the country and in two KAPSLM operational areas (Kikuyu-Kinale and
Cherangani). The WKCDD&FM will support community capacity building in Western Kenya including areas
around Cherangani, which is one of the KAPSLM operational areas. The project will also support catchment
management activities in lower Cherangani. KAPSLMP and the other IDA supported projects will coordinate and
support joint M&E and management information systems.
6
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
During project design it was agreed that the beneficiaries should also be required to contribute 10% of the total
micro-project costs to enhance ownership. This is estimated to contribute around US$400,000. The team also
applied and received a grant of US$102,000 from the BNWP trust fund to finance the technical studies under the
PES pilot.
e) Project Components: The overall structure of the project in terms of the number of component remains the
same. However a subcomponent on PES has been introduced under Component Three. The PES pilot is considered
more of a development investment which will lead to development of a PES framework that will inform future
investments and policy.
A sub-component to support the GOK in the development of a programmatic approach to investment in SLM,
cutting across sectors and calling for stronger donor alignment has been introduced. This sub-component in
component 3 will support activities towards the development of the Kenya SLM Investment Framework (KSIF).
This subcomponent also includes support to capacity for agro-forestry and participatory forest management
f) Changes in Institutional and Implementation Arrangements: As a result of the shifts in the project’s
conceptual framework, the need to accommodate the multi-sectoral SLM agenda and the doubts raised on KARI’s
ability to implement a cross-sectoral project, KAPSLMP implementation and institutional arrangements will be
linked to KAPP. At the national level KAPSLM will be linked to KAPP Secretariat (KS). The capacity of KS will
be enhanced with appropriate staff to handle SLM technical matters as well as fiduciary responsibilities. The
envisaged independence/autonomy of KS as proposed under KAPP will be accelerated for the secretariat to gain the
necessary image of a shared institution. Plans will also be made to have KS physically move out of KARI. The
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) will be charged with the responsibility of implementing
the policy component (component 3). The capacity of the ministry will be enhanced to play this role. Financial
management arrangements will ensure that MENR will directly receive the necessary funds from the Special
Account to implement this component. Ministry of agriculture and KS will be responsible for all the other
components. At the lower implementation level, KAPSLMP activities will be implemented through the existing
KAPP arrangements, through the District Service Units (DSUs). The necessary capacity to deal with SLM activities
will be enhanced. Both private and private service providers and especially those with long-term interest in SLM
activities are promoted to assist the communities in the project areas. The detailed implementation arrangements are
documented in the GEF Project Document (Annex 6).
PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF
criteria for CEO Endorsement.
Steve Gorman
Executive Coordinator
The World Bank
GEF Agency Coordinator
Date: October 17, 2007
Christophe Crepin
Regional GEF Coordinator
Africa Region
Tel. and Email: x39727, ccrepin@worldbank.org
7
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
PDO
Project Outcome Indicators
Use of Project Outcome
Information
Project Development
Objective (PDO):
Facilitate agricultural
producers in the targeted
operational areas to adopt
environmentally-sound land
management practices
without reducing their
incomes.


% increase in average income of
households from SLM related
intervention in the project operational
areas.
Global Environmental
Objective (GEO): Mitigate
land degradation in the
targeted operational areas
and to contribute to
maintenance of critical
ecosystem functions and
structures.

% completion of a national institutional
framework for SLM planning,
implementation and coordination

Percent increase in vegetative cover in
non-cultivated fields in the project
operational areas.
Percent increase in cultivated area in
which promoted SLM technologies and
practices have been adopted in the
project operational areas

Help to evaluate the
impact of the project

Help determine/assess
if component outcomes
are successfully
translated into desired
outcomes at PDO/GEO
level.
8
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
Intermediate Outcomes
Use of Intermediate
Outcome Monitoring
Component 1: Building capacity for sustainable land management
 Capacity of the
communities’ to
systematically plan and
execute sustainable land
management interventions
enhanced.
 Service providers
enhanced to deliver
demand driven SLM
services.
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
 Percent completion of the development
of menus for appropriate SLM
technologies for land users in project
operational areas

Indicate whether
community capacity
building is translated
into effective SLM
planning.

To evaluate the
sustainability of
demand driven SLM
service provision
 Number of micro-catchment plans
approved
 Percent of service providers working in
the project operational area trained in
SLM
 Percent of SLM service providers rated
satisfactory or higher by clients
.
 Percent of SLM service providers
trained who continue to provide SLM
and services
Component 2 Investment in SLM micro-projects and promotion of alternative livelihoods systems
 Communities in targeted
watersheds are empowered
to implement SLM
practices
 Percent of land users who have adopted
recommended SLM practices by
disaggregated by gender and operational
areas

 Proportion of the approved SLM microprojects funded disaggregated by gender
and operational area.
Determine whether the
capacity building
efforts are translated
into increased adoption
of SLM practices.

 Number of implemented SLM microprojects rated as satisfactory by the
beneficiaries disaggregated by gender.
Assess the satisfaction
of the land users with
SLM service provision

Help flag unsuccessful
implementation of
SLM micro-projects
and take corrective
measures.
Component 3: Strengthening the enabling environment for SLM
9
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc


A strong policy
environment for SLM
established and SLM
relevant regulations
harmonized and
strengthened
 Kenya Country SLM Investment
Framework (KCSIF) developed and a
national coalition/institutional
mechanism for SLM is established and
functioning
 Determine the changes
needed in SLM -related
policies to facilitate
adoption and
mainstreaming
 Percent completion of the required SLM
PER, policy oriented studies and
background papers on SLM
A functional
implementation
framework for PES
established with lessons
for up scaling
 Percent completion of the development
of a national SLM information system
for decision making
 Demonstrate the
commitment of policy
makers to addressing
SLM issues

 Percent of joint work programming
undertaken on SLM related matters at the 
district level
 Synthesis of lessons for PES up-scaling
completed
Help in the development
of a national SLM
program
Draw lessons to inform
replication and strategy
for scaling-up of PES
programs.
 Percent reduction in sedimentation in the
PES pilot area reservoir
Component 4: Project Coordination and Monitoring

Enhance affective
fiduciary and M&E
support to the project
implementation team for
improved project
management.

Percent of project activities identified in
the annual work plans completed by the
end of each project year

Percent of annual progress reports from
CBOs and supporting stakeholders
delivered on time to the KS

Percent of procurements completed
according to annual procurement plans

Percent financial disbursements
completed on schedule

Percent of the project management
information system operational at the
KS and other implementing units

Percent of micro-projects for which
community-based M&E has been
undertaken
 Evaluate performance of
the project coordination
unit and make
appropriate adjustments
where necessary
 Evaluate
implementation of a
decentralized and
participatory M&E
system.
 Evaluate efficiency of
resource use.
10
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to
Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)
a) COUNCIL
Response to German Council Comments at Work program
(i) GEF Council Comment: “We would like to reiterate our comment made on project No. 20; Investments in SLM
seem to be considered as incremental costs per se. We therefore suggest to take into account the economic
dimension of SLM at the local level and to further elaborate the concept of incremental costs.”
Response: The economic dimensions of SLM at the local level have been taken into account – the proposed project
includes a component on Community capacity building activities and investments in micro-projects that will
directly offer technological solutions for SLM. A detailed economic analysis has been conducted and at the local
level, economic costs of SLM have been examined. The analysis shows the existence of a barrier to the adoption of
SLM in the form of high initial investment costs in SLM that include environmental externalities. The proposed
project overcomes this barrier by supporting these incremental costs, thus making such investments more attractive
in the short term, before their benefits come into place. The GEF Project Document has been strengthened to reflect
this – please see the economic analysis in Annex 10, Page 92.
(ii) GEF Council Comment: “With a concentration on the integrated land use management of five watersheds and
the focus on improving the livelihood of targeted producers and resources users, the point is not yet made very
clearly how this will contribute to ‘global benefits’. This point can still be argued more convincingly.”
Response: The proposed project will focus on three critical ecosystems (down from five for greater impact and
closer coordination with Baseline activities) and will support investments in integrated land use management that
will contribute to significant global benefits included avoided deforestation, carbon sequestration, maintenance of
hydrological flows and biodiversity, and reduced sedimentation in rivers. The project will enhance baseline
activities under KAPP, which supports income generation through agricultural and related value addition, by
improving the environmental sustainability of farming systems in production areas and by managing and restoring
common property environmental resources around forests and in the three key watersheds in coordination with the
NRM and WKCDD projects – improving the resilience of ecosystems and maintenance of ecosystem services.
Thus, the focus of the GEF Project Document has shifted more towards environmental sustainability of agriculture
and resource management while linking synergistically with IDA projects KAPP, WKCDD and NRM for issues
related to alternate livelihoods, service delivery and commercialisation. The GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT reflects
these issues throughout – notable sections include paras 15-16, 21, 23-25, the section on component description,
para 85, Annex 4, paras 26-33 and the ICA in Annex 16.
(iii) GEF Council Comment: Watershed selection process - “More detail is needed on the selection process of the
targeted micro-watersheds, this from a biodiversity conservation and a socio-economic impact perspective.”
Response: The operational areas for the KAPSLMP have been reduced but the scale of activities has not changed.
Initially, five catchments were selected but two catchments (Tugen Hills and Yala) were dropped during further
preparatory work. This decision was based on the need to concentrate the project activities on a few areas for
maximum impact – thus, the number of communities and coverage has not changed and will be concentrated in
three as opposed to five operational areas. The selection of the watersheds was based on a number of criteria
including ecological significance and variety, poverty and coverage by other projects for similar activities. The two
dropped catchments are covered by other on-going Bank supported projects; Western Kenya Community Driven
Development—Flood Mitigation Project (WKCCD/FM), Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management
Project (WKIEMP), as well as the proposed Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project (LVEMP II). The
KAPSLM project now covers the following three catchments/operational areas: Cherangani, Kinale- Kikuyu and
Taita-Taveta.
11
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
These operational areas are of high ecological and bio-physical importance, including being among the ‘watertowers’ of Kenya and containing high biodiversity and forested areas, and they face high erosion and land
degradation hazards that are closely linked to high poverty prevalence. Furthermore, the three KAPSLMP
operational areas will cover a total of 11 administrative districts, half of which are KAPP operational districts. This
overlap with KAPP ensure that the SLM investments complement and add-value to the agricultural technology
investments being supported through KAPP. There will be also reduction in operational costs for KAPSLMP as
most of the implementation structures will be mainstreamed within the already existing KAPP structures. The
justification for the selection of the operational areas has been elaborated in the relevant sections/annexes of the
GEF Project Document (see para 24 and Annex 4 for details).
(iv) GEF Council Comment: Land Tenure - “The proposal does not provide sufficient information on the
implications of land tenure problems in the selected areas.”
Response: A review of the policy framework revealed several concerns related to land tenure in general in the
country, primarily focused on the lack of a comprehensive policy on land tenure, access and rights. Various policies
address this issue in multiple ways and the Forest and Water Acts are important among them as they recognize the
rights of communities in accessing and managing natural resources. The dominant land tenure system is freehold
(land surveys and title registration available). Land is either family owned, rented, solely owned and or jointly
owned. While the shamba system and grazing in the forest have been abolished, encroachment is an ongoing issue.
Land fragmentation through customary inheritance practices has resulted in increasingly smaller plot sizes that have
led in part to mining of land. Increasing pressure due to population, climate variability and land degradation has led
to conflicts related to land use, access and tenure rights. The GEF Project Document has been strengthened to
reflect this issue – please see para 8.
(v) GEF Council Comment: Indicators – “Although the preference for quantifiable indicators (page 5) is laudable,
it is not clear how applicable the indicators are in measuring the success of the proposed interventions on a
producer level (small plot size).”
Response: Success of the proposed interventions at the producer level will be captured at three levels. The initial
focus will be on building the capacity of the land users and helping them to develop micro-catchment management
plans. The success of this will be measured using indicators that capture the quality of the micro-catchment
management plans, the quality of provision of SLM related services and the development of a menu of land use
options for the land users within a micro-catchment. Secondly, success of the proposed interventions will be
measured through the rate of adoption of the recommended SLM practices contained in the plans, the funding rate
of the approved micro-catchment management plans and by measuring beneficiary satisfaction with the microcatchment projects disaggregated by gender and catchment. Finally, an indicator has been developed for measuring
the increase in vegetative cover in the intervention areas. This is considered particularly relevant in the areas where
participatory community forest management approaches will be promoted. Please see para 25, section 3 – paras 7073 in the GEF Project Document and Annex 3 (Results Framework).
(vi) GEF Council Comment: Micro-project profiles –“More detail on the elaboration, selection/screening and
approval process of micro-project profiles is required (Component 2). Who will assist the communities in the
preparation of the documents?”
Response: Component 1 and 2 are elaborated further to show the link between capacity building for communities
involving the development of micro-catchment plans and the identification of micro-projects to be supported under
component 2. Microprojects will be based on the micro-catchment plans and in consultation with the
producers/communities. Service providers will provide technical assistance to communities in developing the
micro-catchment plans and in identifying related micro-projects. The site selection report referred to above highlight
the appropriate criteria for selecting communities and micro-projects mainly based on the micro-catchment plans.
The criteria for selection of communities to participate have been detailed in the GEF Project Document while the
criteria for micro-projects are further elaborated upon in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP). The institutional
mechanisms for selection, screening (including screening for environmental and social safeguards) and for support
12
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
for communities have been clarified and spelt out in the revised GEF Project Document. Please see component 1
and 2 in project description as well as paras 65-66.
(vii)
GEF Council Comment: M&E – “The proposed M&E system does not convincingly show how to
measure the sustainability of methods applied and, equally, of how to assess the productivity increase as a result of
the proposed interventions on individual plots.
Response: The project M&E has been revised to reflect a strong focus of building the capacity of the Government
of Kenya in M&E of SLM investments. At an operational level, KAPSLM is partnering with five other World Bank
supported projects to support the establishment and running of a Centralized GIS Management Information System
based at the Kenya Soil Survey (KARI). The facility will be responsible for providing technical backstopping to the
projects on SLM related biophysical assessments. This approach is envisaged to ensure sustainability of the
approaches and methods developed by the project beyond the lifespan of individual project. Special attention has
been paid to the development of results indicators that measure sustainability of the methods under different
components and are elaborated in the Results Framework and M&E Plan in Annex 3 in the GEF Project Document.
Specifically, the project will measure the increase in income that accrue to the land users due to adoption of the
SLM interventions, satisfaction of the land users with the micro-catchment projects and rate of adoption of the
promoted SLM practices. As elaborated in the M&E Plan, data on this will be collected through surveys and
progress reports. An MIS will be developed for the project and is envisaged to improve project M&E particularly in
monitoring implementation progress and providing useful information for decision making. Please see paras 70-73
and Annex 3.
(viii)
GEF Council Comment: Timeline – “The proposed timeline of 6 years appears too short for achieving
the ambitious goals of this very complex project.”
Response: While appreciating that the SLM agenda is longterm in nature, the team has adressed this concern in two
ways
1. Given that KAPP is 12 year Adaptable Program Loan (APL), the link of the proposed project to KAPP will
ensure that the SLM agenda can be taken on board in the wider reform agenda in a more sustainable manner. At the
same time, KAPSLMP is also being linked closely with NRM and WKCDD projects which will run concurrently
(see paras 15-16, and 22).
2. The proposed KAPSLM will not only support adoption of SLM/agricultural technologies in conjunction with
KAPP but will also play a catalytic role in the formulation and implementation of a programmatic SLM approach in
the country. It is envisaged that the SLM programmatic approach and development of the KSIF will lead, in the
short and medium terms, to improved coordination and increasingly joint planning among the various GoK and
donor supported interventions and in the longer term to an integrated GoK lead (and as necessary, donor supported)
SLM program that sets the agenda for up-scaling SLM action towards greater impact on the ground (see component
3).
3. Finally, the project has been simplified to focus on areas where greatest impact is most achievable and to put in
place measures that promote longer-term interventions that build and enhance the results of this project.
b)
GEF SECRETARIAT
(ix) Comment-Presentation of Baseline for the Project and complete arrangements for results Monitoring.
Response: The baselines have been presented as are the arrangement for results monitoring. The details are attached
in annex 3 of the GEF Project Document and the attached results framework.
(x) Comment-Written Confirmations of agencies supporting the project with co-finances have to be presented.
Response: The project will be financed from four sources. These sources are: (a) GEF, to provide US $ 10 million;
(b) GoK, to provide US$ 2.07 million, (c) beneficiary communities, to provide US$400,000, and (d) The Bank-13
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
Netherlands Water Partnership Program (BNWPP) Trust Fund to provide US$102,000. Baseline financing is from
three IDA supported projects namely, Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project (IDA US$16.2m and GoK US$
7.81m), Natural Resources Management (NRM) project (US$20.29m) and Western Kenya CDD and Flood
Mitigation Project (US$16.20m). The baseline commitments have been discussed and will be clearly recorded for
confirmation as part of the negotiations minutes.
(xi) Comment -Information has to be provided on the status of the collaboration agreements with the mentioned
institutions (e.g MoA, or other formal and /or informal cooperation agreements.
Response: The collaboration, and institutional and implementation arrangements have been clearly spelt out in the
GEF Project Document (section C, sub-section 2) and in annex 6. The main collaborating institutions are Ministry
of Agriculture (MoA) and Ministry of Environment and Natural resources (MENR) - as main implanting agencies.
Other sector ministries will be members of the project steering committee and other oversight organs. The National
project implementation organs already exist and will be expanded where necessary. The KAPP secretariat (already
existing) and the SLM secretariat under MENR will be collaborating in implementation of the various project
components. The PES piloting component will be contracted out and the International Centre for Agro-Forestry
(ICRAF) has been identified as likely candidate. ICRAF will collaborate with local university, the Nairobi Water
Company and National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). Mechanisms for this collaboration are
partially in place and will be formalized where necessary. Other collaborators are Kenya Forestry Service (KFS)
and NGOs, and CBOs at the operational level. Through KAPP most of the collaboration is already formalized.
STAP Review Comments
STAP reviewer comments were already addressed at work-program entry.
14
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT
$/
person
week
Estimated
person week
(total for life of
project)
Project Coordinator
700
90
SLM expert /manager
500
158
Director of Programs (SLM)
600
180
Deputy Director SLM
400
120
Catchment Area Coordinators
(3)
Social and Environmental
Safeguards Officers (2)
400
540
300
360
400
2825
3000
34
Position Titles
Tasks to be performed
For Project Management
Local
Overall Project coordination (80% of costs paid
by KAPP)
Lead technical expert and project coordination,
planning and implementation
Overall implementation of Component 3, KSIF
and technical support to Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources
Implementation of Component 3; Coordination
and Secretariat management tasks (MENR)
Planning, implementation and monitoring of
project activities in the three operational areas
Planning, implementation and monitoring of
social and environmental safeguards according
to ESMF and IPPF (to be cost-shared with
KAPP)
For Technical Assistance
Local
Experts on Community
Training, public-private
partnerships, M&E etc.
Capacity building training for beneficiaries and
service providers, and the development of
micro-projects proposals, including alternate
livelihood options and monitoring of resources
and impact evaluation
International
PES experts
To undertake technical and scientific studies
under the PES pilot
15
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc
ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS
A EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN.
The PDF Block B TF#054108 for the preparation of the KAPSLMP was approved on February 3, 2004 with a
funding of US$350,000. The PDF Block B grant was utilized to support 2 international and six local consultancies,
three workshops, purchase of computers and GPI equipments and for catering for operational costs (travel and other
related costs).The recipient has successfully completed all the activities funded under the PPG (PDF Block B), and
all the stated outputs are satisfactory. The Objective as set out was therefore achieved, albeit with some delays in
implementation. (The submitted PDF-B completion report gives more details on the specific activities).
B DESCRIBE IF ANY FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION.
None
C PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN THE
TABLE BELOW:
GEF Amount ($)
Project Preparation
Implementati
CoAmount
Amount
Amount
Uncommitted
Activities Approved
on Status
financing
Approved
Spent
Committed
Amount*
($)
To-date
Consultancy Services and Successfully
212,000
167,891
00
44,108
7,112
Audits
Completed
Training &Workshops
Successfully
74,350
39,007
000
35,342
000
Completed
Goods
Successfully
37,550
35,355
000
2,214
3,533
Completed
Operating Costs
Completed
26,100
25,790
000
309
2,579
268,025
000
81,924
19,085
Total
350,000
* Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund
transaction to Trustee.
16
CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc