Outcome 3. Over 50,000 ha of land across the Foothills, Lowlands and the Lower Senqu River Basin rehabilitated through operationalization of the climate-smart Land Rehabilitation Programme. Output 3.1. ecosystem rehabilitation and management interventions in Lithipeng, Khoelenya and Community Councils, including: i) protection of critical fens and bogs; ii) adoption of conservation agriculture and agro-forestry practices; and iii) strategic interventions in sensitive areas, including construction of check dams and rehabilitation of old gulleys and rills. MFLR, Community Councils, NGOs (e.g. CARE, World Vision, RSDA), local communities. Implement interventions – developed under Output 1.4 – in sites selected under Outputs 1.1 and 1.3. Develop and disseminate information on climate-smart ecosystem rehabilitation and management approaches (MFLR). Develop and implement strategies for community ownership of interventions beyond project termination to relevant stakeholders. Output 3.2. A long-term strategy for monitoring and evaluating ecosystem rehabilitation and management interventions for the MFLR and relevant departments, including an experimental design to evaluate the impact of interventions using grass cover as a proxy for rangeland productivity. MFLR, Community Councils, local communities. Undertake baseline assessments of soil erosion, grass cover and existing interventions to control soil erosion. Identify treatment and control sites, and implement experimental design treatments. Establish monitoring points at intervention and control sites as well as establish systems to collect data on the impacts of climate-smart ecosystem rehabilitation and management interventions. Collect long-term data on the impacts of climate-smart ecosystem rehabilitation and management interventions. Analyse data from pilot interventions and experimental design; collate the results; and disseminate to schools, media, public institutions and relevant stakeholders (MFLR). Outcome 4. National strategies for rangelands and wetlands management strengthened by the integration of climate change/variability and ecosystem management. Output 4.1. Policy guidelines for incorporating climate science in the review/formulation processes of national sectoral strategies by the Departments of Rangelands Management and Water Affairs. MFLR (DRM), MEMWA (DWA). Review existing rangeland and wetland management strategies and identify opportunities for strengthening policy support for climate change adaptation. Integrate climate change adaptation into the ongoing revision of the national wetland and rangeland management strategies. Conduct capacity assessments of DRM and DWA as well as other relevant stakeholders to
Key participants in coordinated management to ensure rehabilitation measures are implemented and impacts are monitored. Chiefs Traditional natural resource management authorities. Some have extensive technical knowledge. Two chiefs are elected by their peers as members of each Community Council and can play a formal role in Council’s natural resource management decision making. Some chiefs can contribute as Community Council members. All chiefs can contribute as leading and knowledgeable members of their communities. MFLR Through its Forestry, Soil and Water Conservation, and Range Management Divisions, the MFLR can provide technical knowledge and practical/programmatic experience. Domestic budget will be used for with GEF contribution. Leading technical agency. Chair of Steering Committee. Source of co-finance. Provide guidance and technical support to communities and stakeholders. Should actively participate in knowledge management and networking activities. MAFS Increasingly active in promoting soil and water conservation through soil fertility and soil structure management and conservation agriculture techniques. Responsible for agricultural extension services for both croplands and livestock services Responsible for promotion and advocacy of irrigation systems Should be an active member of project Steering Committee. Provide guidance and technical support to communities and stakeholders. Should actively participate in knowledge management and networking activities. MoLGCA Responsible for guiding the decentralisation process and the establishment of the new local government system in Lesotho. Consequently, responsible for assisting Community Councils’ with their natural resource management role. Should be an active member of project Steering Committee. Should actively participate in knowledge management and networking activities. Should advise and facilitate Community Council’s development of natural resource management bylaws, which must be approved by the Minister of Local Government. Provide guidance and technical support to Community Councils. Department of Environment nee National Environment Secretariat Policy coordination role, with particular reference to Lesotho’s global obligations and commitments. GEF Focal Point: key liaison role. Member of Project Steering Committee. UNDP Extensive experience of sustainable rural development strategies and challenges in Lesotho. Experience of GEF project delivery. Key agency for channelling and supervision of GEF resources and providing advice on GEF procedures. Key member of project Steering Committee. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Technical expertise in agriculture and natural resources including vast technical and sociological experience conservation agriculture and other climate change adaptation Coordinator of conservation agriculture network. Potential collaborator in networking and knowledge management, with
climate change. in decision- making? Are climate change risks as well as appropriate adaptation strategies and measures integrated into relevant institutional policies, processes and procedures? Does the institution have adequate resources to implement such policies, processes and procedures? Are there clear roles and responsibilities within the institution, and effective partnerships outside the institution to address adaptation? Is the institution equipped to monitor, evaluate and learn from its adaptation actions? Each question is answered with an assessment and score for the extent to which the associated criterion has not been met: not at all (=0), partially (=1) or to a large extent/completely (=2). An overall score is calculated, with a maximum score of 10 given five criteria. Risks The geo-based agro-ecological, climatic and hydrological information system is not sustained beyond the lifetime of the project. Poor uptake of training on climate-smart ecosystem rehabilitation and management measures Output 1.1 A geo-based climatic, agro-ecological and hydrological information system formulated, tested in pilot area and ready for upscaling to the rest of the districts in Lesotho. Lack of a coordinated information system that compiles GIS information on climatic, agro-ecological and hydrological variables. By the end of the first year, a geo-based climatic, and hydrological information system developed. Maps and vulnerability assessments generated utilising the geo-based climatic, and hydrological information system. Output 1.2 A socio-economics unit is established within the Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation. No dedicated unit considering social capital issues in the selection of intervention methods. By the end of the first year, a socio-economics unit is established. Socio-economics unit Project implementation report Assessments Cost benefit-analysis Output 1.3 Number of climate-driven vulnerability assessments and cost-benefit analyses of specific adaptation interventions undertaken No rigorous assessments of climate-driven vulnerability or cost benefit analyses of climate change adaptation interventions undertaken at By the end of the first year, at least 1 climate-driven vulnerability assessment and 1 cost-benefit analysis of specific adaptation Project implementation report