Government of Zambia - undp.org · Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in...

Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in Agro-ecological Regions I and II in Zambia

1


2

Government of the Republic of Zambia

United Nations Development Programme

PIMS No. 3942

Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in Agro-ecological

Regions I and II in Zambia

Brief description

The majority of Zambia’s farmers lack the capacity, resources and financial assistance to

adapt to and overcome worsening climatic conditions. The Zambia National Adaptation

Programme of Action (NAPA) highlights that Zambian communities are vulnerable to

climatic hazards (such as drought, flooding, extreme temperatures and prolonged dry spells)

which precipitate widespread crop failure, negatively impact food and water security and,

ultimately, affect the sustainability of rural livelihoods. Indeed, within the last 20 years,

prolonged dry spells and shorter rainfall seasons have reduced maize yields to only 40% of

the long-term average. Furthermore, based on a CO2 doubling scenario in these regions,

estimates predict a yield reduction of approximately 66% under rain-fed conditions. The

ability of the agricultural sector in Zambia to cope with increases in temperature and

potential reductions in rainfall is negligible. Reasons include: i) low levels of investment ii)

land degradation; iii) limited access to agricultural inputs such as fertilizer; and iv) a

reduced labour force due to HIV/AIDS. To reduce the vulnerability of communities in AER

I and II to climate change impacts, the project will take a two pronged-approach: i)

mainstream adaptation into agricultural planning at national, district and community levels

to make the case for increased investment in adaptation in the agricultural sector ii) test and

evaluate the adaptation value of interventions that protect and improve agricultural incomes

from the effects of climate change. Capacity and systems to anticipate assess and prepare for

climate change risks will be developed at community, regional and national levels.

Adaptation learning generated from the pilot projects will be used to guide mainstreaming

of adaptation in national fiscal, regulatory and development policies, to support adaptive

practices on a wider scale. The following four outcomes will be delivered:

1. Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-making processes for

agricultural management at the local, sub-national and national levels

2. Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts

of climate change

3. National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation

responses in the agricultural sector

4. Knowledge and lessons learned to support implementation of adaptation measures

compiled and disseminated

The project will address the barriers that prevent the scaling up of successful interventions

and the adoption of profitable activities by local entrepreneurs. Barriers that will be

overcome by the project include: i) limited access to markets ii) limited climate risk

information used in agricultural planning iii) limited institutional capacity to adequately

address climate change; and iv) limited public awareness of climate change and the need to

adapt.


3

Acronyms ADC Area Development Committee LDC Least Developed Country

AER Agro-ecological Region LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund

APDD Agriculture Policy Planning Department MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

APR Annual Project Report MDG Millennium Development Goal

ASIP Agriculture Sector Investment

Programme

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

AWP Annual Work Plan MEWD Ministry of Energy and Water Development

BEO Block Extension Officer MT Metric tons

CAC Camp Agricultural Committee MTENR Ministry of Tourism, Environment and

Natural Resources

CAP Conservation Agriculture Project NAIS National Agricultural Information Services

CASPP Conservation Agriculture Scaling up from

Increased Productivity and Production

NAP National Agricultural Policy

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

CCFU Climate Change Facilitation Unit NAPSSFZ National Association for Peasant and Small

Scale Farmers of Zambia

CEO Camp Extension Officer NCSA National Capacity Self Assessment

CF Conservation Farming NDMP National Disaster Management Policy

CFU Conservation Farming Unit NEX National Execution

CIF Cost Insurance and Freight NGO Non-governmental Organisation

COMA

CO

Community Markets for Conservation NGOCC NGO Coordinating Committee

DAC District Agriculture Committee NIP National Irrigation Policy

DACO District Agricultural Coordination Officer NPE National Policy on Environment

DDCC District Development Coordination

Committee

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

DMMU Disasters Management and Mitigation

Unit

PAC Project Appraisal Committee

DOA Department of Agriculture PACO Provincial Agricultural Coordination

Officer

DOF Department of Fisheries PAM Programme Against Malnutrition

DSSAT

3

Decision Support System for Agro-

Technology Transfer

PB Project Board

DWA Department of Water Affairs PDCC Provincial Development Coordination

Committee

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment PIF Project Identification Form

EPPCA Environmental Protection and Pollution

Control Act

PIR Project Implementation Report

ERC Evaluation Resource Centre PM Project Manager

EWS Early Warning System PPG Project Preparation Grant

FMU Financial Management Unit PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

FNDP Fifth National Development Plan PS Project Secretariat

FSP Food Security Pack PTC Project Technical Committee

GCM Global Circulation Model PTR Project Terminal Report

GDP Gross Domestic Product RCU Regional Coordination Unit

GEF Global Environmental Facility RMG Results Management Guidelines

GNP Gross National Product SADC Southern African Development Community

GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia SCCI Seed Certification and Control Institute

HADC

M3

Hadley Centre Coupled Model Version 3 SNC Second National Communication

HDI Human Development Index SRF Strategic Results Framework

HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Countries TPR Tripartite Review

HPI Human Poverty Index TTR Terminal Tripartite Review

IDA International Development Agency UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological

Diversity


4

IDRC International Development and Research

Centre

UNCCD United Nations Convention on Combating

Desertification

INC Initial National Communication UNDAF United Nations Development and

Assistance Framework

IPD Irrigation Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

ITCZ Inter-Tropical Convergence AER UNDPCA

P

United Nations Development Programme

Country Programme Action Plan

IR Inception Report VAC Vulnerability Assessment Committee

IW Inception Workshop ZARI Zambia Agriculture Research Institute

JASZ Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia ZMD Zambia Meteorological Department


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE ......................................................................... 8

PART I: Situation Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8 Zambian context ................................................................................................................................... 8 The Problem ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Root causes ......................................................................................................................................... 14 LDCF Alternative Scenario ................................................................................................................ 16 Barriers .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Institutional baseline .......................................................................................................................... 19 Stakeholder analysis ........................................................................................................................... 20

PART II: STRATEGY ........................................................................................................................... 22 Project Goal, Objectives, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities .............................................................. 24 Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 49 Expected national and local benefits ................................................................................................. 52 Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness .................................................... 52 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Replicability ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Linkages with other programmes and action plans at regional and sub-regional levels .................. 55

PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................ 59

PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget ........................................................................ 63 Monitoring and Reporting .................................................................................................................. 63 Monitoring Responsibilities and Events............................................................................................. 64 Independent Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 67 Learning and Knowledge Sharing ...................................................................................................... 68 Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget.................................. 68

PART V: Legal Context ........................................................................................................................... 69 SECTION II: Strategic Results Framework .......................................................................................... 71

PART I: Strategic Results Framework ................................................................................................... 71

PART II: Cost-effectiveness Analysis .................................................................................................... 75 SECTION III: Total Budget and Workplan .......................................................................................... 76 SECTION IV: Additional Information ................................................................................................... 85

PART I: Terms of Reference for Key Project Groups, Staff, and Sub-Contractors ............................... 85 A. Project National Steering Committee ............................................................................................ 85 B. Project Executive ........................................................................................................................... 85 C. Project Manager ............................................................................................................................ 86 D. Administrative and Financial Assistant ......................................................................................... 86 E. Site Level Managers ....................................................................................................................... 87 F. Monitoring and evaluation expert ................................................................................................. 88 G. Knowledge Management Expert ................................................................................................... 89

PART II: Stakeholder Involvement Plan ................................................................................................ 89 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 92 ANNEX A - The major impacts of the four main climatic hazards within Zambia and the main

coping strategies adopted by the local communities. ............................................................................. 92 ANNEX B – Analysis of mean temperature over the last three decades from 32 meteorological

stations in Zambia ..................................................................................................................................... 94 ANNEX C – Vision setting and site selection workshop report. ........................................................... 95 ANNEX D – Checklist for field trip data collection to inform site selection ....................................... 98


6

ANNEX E – Site selection criteria. ........................................................................................................ 101 ANNEX F – Strategic Results Framework: Outcomes, outputs, indicators and targets ................. 103 ANNEX G: Cost calculations for outputs ............................................................................................ 114 ANNEX H - List of stakeholders consulted during the PPG phase of the project ............................ 130 ANNEX I – A brief description of policies that address environmental issues. ................................ 136 ANNEX J – Current fertilizer distribution schemes and irrigation schemes in place in Zambia ... 139 ANNEX K – Kataba Community Fish Farming Initiative, Senanga District, Western Province ... 140 ANNEX L – List of people who attended the Draft Project Review Workshop on the 15

th July 2009

and the PAC meeting on 7 August 2009 ................................................................................................ 141 ANNEX M – National Agricultural Information Services budget breakdown for the dissemination

of lessons. ................................................................................................................................................. 143 ANNEX N – Capacity assessment for project implementation........................................................... 147 ANNEX O – LPAC Minutes .................................................................................................................. 152 SIGNATURE PAGE ............................................................................................................................... 154


7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Main crop zones within Zambia_________________________________________________ 13

Figure 2: Map indicating the districts in which the selected pilot sites are situated_________________ 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Ministries and departments involved in the project and their specific roles. ....................... 20 Table 2. Co-financing donors and amounts per project Outcome. ...................................................... 24 Table 3. Project outputs and the corresponding pilot sites in which the outputs will be implemented.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4. Risks that could potentially affect the success of the project. ................................................ 50 Table 5. Additional projects in progress in the pilot sites. .................................................................... 56 Table 6. Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget. ................. 68 Table 7. Strategic Results Framework of the project. ........................................................................... 71 Table 8. Total budget and workplan. ...................................................................................................... 76 Table 9 Budget notes for Outcome 1: Climate change risks integrated into critical decision making

processes for agricultural management at the local, sub-national and national levels. ...................... 79 Table 10. Budget notes for Outcome 2: Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to

the anticipated impacts of climate change. ............................................................................................. 80 Table 11. Budget notes for Outcome 3: National fiscal and development policy revised to promote

adaptation responses in the agricultural sector...................................................................................... 82 Table 12. Budget notes for Outcome 4: Lessons-learned and knowledge management component

established. ................................................................................................................................................. 83 Table 13. Budget notes for Project Management. .................................................................................. 83 Table 14. References for Budget Notes. .................................................................................................. 84 Table 15. Stakeholder Involvement Plan. ............................................................................................... 89


8

SECTION I: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE

PART I: Situation Analysis

Zambian context

1. Zambia is a landlocked sub-Saharan African country with an estimated population of 11.8 million

and is characterised by an annual growth rate of 1.63% (2009 estimate)1. When compared to its seven

neighbouring countries2, Zambia exhibits the lowest life expectancy (38.6 years), which can be partly

attributed to its devastating HIV/AIDS epidemic. The UNDP’s 2008/2009 Human Development Index

(HDI) ranks Zambia as 163rd

out of 179 countries, whilst the Human Poverty Index (HPI) places it 124th

out of 135 developing countries3. Approximately 39.2% of the population is concentrated in urban areas

making Zambia one of the most urbanized countries within the Southern African Development

Community (SADC) region4.

2. Despite Zambia having a stable and peaceful multi-party democratic system characterised by a

free press and an active civil society, development and economic success is currently marred by a number

of factors, including: i) high levels of poverty (73% of Zambians are classified as poverty-stricken5 with

rural poverty as high as 78% in 20086 – defined as a daily income of less than 1 US dollar); ii) food

insecurity (over 70% of the population is food-insecure7); iii) insufficient economic diversification; iv)

insufficient investment initiatives and savings; and v) debilitating levels of HIV/AIDS and malaria8.

3. Four decades ago, Zambia was a prosperous middle-income country with a per capita income of

$752 (1965). However, per capita income fell as low as $351 in 2002. The main reason behind the

economic decline was the reduction in the purchasing power of copper, Zambia’s primary export at that

time. During the 1970s, oil prices escalated whilst international copper prices dropped, resulting in severe

economic hardship in Zambia9. As a result, Zambia’s economic development has been adversely

influenced by declining copper prices leading to a steady decrease in all development indicators since the

1990s. In response, and with short-term interests in mind, the Government of the Republic of Zambia

(GRZ) borrowed heavily which rendered Zambia one of the most heavily indebted countries in sub-

Saharan Africa. Investment into human development was replaced with interest repayments on foreign

debts and, as a result, Zambia was granted debt relief in 2000 as part of the Highly Indebted Poor

Countries (HIPC) initiative. Despite the debt relief, Zambia remains heavily dependent on foreign donors

at present10

.

4. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has exacerbated the poverty and food security situation in Zambia.

HIV/AIDS prevalence was as high as 15.2% in 200711

. As a result, The HIV/AIDS disease burden has

1 CIA World Fact Book 2009 (https://www.cia.gov).

2 Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

3 UNDP 2008 Statistical Update (http://hdrstats.undp.org/2008/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_ZMB.html).

4 WHO Country Cooperation Strategy Zambia (2002 – 2005) (http://www.who.int).

5 2002 – 2005 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).

6 Central Statistical Office (2006) Statistical Fact Sheet.

7 Jorgensen, S.L. & Loudjeva, Z. 2005. A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of Three Reforms in Zambia: Land,

Fertilizer and Infrastructure. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49 8 World Bank – Zambia Country Brief (http://web.worldbank.org) 9 Jorgensen, S.L. & Loudjeva, Z. 2005. A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of Three Reforms in Zambia: Land,

Fertilizer and Infrastructure. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49 10

Jorgensen, S.L. & Loudjeva, Z. 2005. A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of Three Reforms in Zambia: Land,

Fertilizer and Infrastructure. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49 11

CIA World Fact Book 2009 (https://www.cia.gov).


9

increased to adversely impact on inter alia household incomes, the health system, the labour force and

overall economic development. Malaria is also endemic in Zambia with an estimated three million

clinical cases reported each year12

, with major repercussions for economic development in Zambia.

5. Zambia experiences a predominantly sub-tropical climate characterised by three distinct seasons,

namely a hot and dry season (mid-August to the end of November), a rainy season (November through to

April) and a cool dry season (May to mid-August). Rainfall is strongly influenced by the movement of the

Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) as well as the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

phenomenon and varies from an annual average of 600 mm in the lower south up to 1300 mm in the

upper north of the country. Due to the variation in rainfall, the country has been divided into three agro-

ecological regions (AERs) according to rainfall, namely:

Agro-ecological Region I: this region covers the western and southern part of Zambia and receives

less than 800 mm of rain annually. It was once considered the bread basket of the nation but it has

experienced low, unpredictable and poorly distributed rainfall over the last 20 years. The observed

meteorological data indicates that it is currently the driest region in Zambia. In addition, the region is

particularly drought-prone and has limited potential for crop production. AER I has a growing season

spanning between 80 and 120 days. The soils are highly erodible and agricultural production is

concentrated on bulrush millet (Pennisetum glaucum), sorghum and livestock.

Agro-ecological Region II: this region covers the central part of the country, extending from the east

through to the west. It is the most populous region with over 4 million inhabitants and has the

greatest agricultural potential. The region receives about 800–1000 mm of rainfall annually, which is

evenly distributed throughout the crop growing season and its soils are relatively fertile. AER II has a

growing season of between 100 and 140 days. The central plateau of AER II has productive soils,

allowing permanent cultivation of sorghum, maize, groundnuts, cow peas and a range of cash crops

including tobacco, sunflowers, irrigated wheat, soybeans and horticultural crops. The aggraded

Western plateau is characterized by infertile, coarse sands. Cassava, bulrush millet and Bambara nuts

(Voandzeia) predominate on the upland with some maize and sorghum. Maize, rice and sorghum are

grown in the flood plain.

Agro-ecological Region III: this region spans the northern part of the country and has a population

of over 3.5 million. It receives over 1000 mm of rainfall annually. As a result, the soils within this

region are highly leached and acidic. AER III has a growing season of 160 days. The main crops,

grown by traditional slash and burn farming systems, are finger millet (Eleusine coracana), beans

and cassava. Cash crops include maize, sunflowers, coffee, tea, tobacco, irrigated wheat and

soybeans13

.

The Problem

6. The majority of Zambia’s farmers lack the capacity, resources and financial assistance to adapt to

and overcome worsening climatic conditions. Agricultural production within Zambia is dominated by

small-scale farmers14

, the majority of whom farm on less than two hectares of land. With very little

infrastructure for water collection, many farms lack irrigation systems15

and rely solely on rain-fed

agriculture, rendering them particularly vulnerable to variations in climatic conditions and to predicted

12

Zambia Country Profile: Overview of malaria control activities and programme progress. (http://rbm.who.int) 13

Aregheore, E.M. Country Pasture/ Forage Resource Profiles. (http://www.fao.org). 14

Crops cultivated include maize, groundnuts, roots and tubers. 15

Of the country’s irrigation potential, conservatively estimated at 2 750 000 hectares, only about 100 000 hectares

is currently under irrigation mostly by commercial farmers who account for about 52 000 hectares (Ministry of

Agriculture and Cooperatives. 2004. Irrigation Policy and Strategy).


10

climate change. To further aggravate the situation, poverty is endemic among small-scale farmers, with an

incidence of 84%16

.

7. The Zambia National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) highlights that Zambian

communities are vulnerable to climatic hazards (such as drought, flooding, extreme temperatures and

prolonged dry spells) which precipitate widespread crop failure, negatively impact food and water

security and, ultimately, affect the sustainability of rural livelihoods. AER I and II are particularly prone

to such climatic hazards (the impacts of which and the communities’ associated coping strategies are

listed in Annex A). Since the 1980s, agricultural production within both AER I and II has been hampered

by a later onset and shortening of the rainy season. Furthermore, drought and flooding episodes across

Zambia have become more frequent and of increasing intensity, which is believed to be a manifestation of

long-term climate change17

. The negative impacts of such events have adversely impacted inter alia water

quality, soil quality, agricultural production, food security, water security, wildlife and infrastructure and

resulted in the displacement of human populations18

. Predicted climate change is likely to exacerbate this

situation. For this reason, this LDCF project (hereafter referred to as “the project”) has chosen to focus on

adapting AER I and II to drought and other predicted climatic changes, including variability.

Climate change projections and expected impacts

8. Climate change projections outlined in the NAPA show an increase in temperature and a change in

rainfall patterns, leading to prolonged droughts, localized flooding and a shortened growing season in

Zambia19

. As a result, AER I and II are predicted to experience strong water deficits at critical periods of

the cropping calendars, resulting in severe decreases in crop yields20

. Without the implementation of

timely adaptation measures, all of the abovementioned impacts will drastically reduce food security,

particularly in rural communities in AER I and II. Climate change is also expected to impact

disproportionately on women. As such, understanding how the different social expectations, roles, status,

and economic power of men and women affect, and are affected differently by, climate change will

improve actions taken to reduce vulnerability and combat climate change in the developing world. For

example, climate change is predicted to reduce crop yields and food production in certain regions.

Women are responsible for 70 – 80 % of household food production in sub-Saharan Africa. They achieve

this despite unequal access to land, information, and inputs, such as improved seeds and fertilizer. In

Zambia, the agricultural sector, which has been identified as one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate

change, is the main source of employment for rural women who constitute 65% of the total rural

population.

9. Climate projections reported by the IPCC AR421

indicate that Africa is very likely to warm by 3 to

4oC during this century

22, which is predicted to be greater than the global mean temperature increase.

16


Fertilizer and Infrastructure. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49. 17

Jain, S.2007. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia. The

World Bank Development Research Group. Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team. 18

Zambia National Adaptation Programme of Action, September 2007. 19

Zambia Project Preparation Grant, 2008. 20

Results of an assessment of the economic costs of climate change on agriculture in Zambia undertaken by the

World Bank, with support from FAO, IWMI, Yale University and the University of Pretoria. 21

Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A. et al. 2007. Regional Climate Projections. - In: Solomon, S., Qin, D.,

Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 848-940. 22

Under the A1B scenario i.e. projected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 850 parts per million in 2100.

This prediction is based on a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-

century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies, with a balance of

fossil intensive and non-fossil energy sources.


11

Climate change assessments for Zambia suggest that projected mean temperatures (between 2010 and

2070) are set to increase relative to baseline mean temperatures (between 1970 and 2000) by

approximately 2°C (HADCM3 Global Circulation Model, GCM)23

. Projections of mean annual rainfall

are less certain. IPCC projections indicate that rainfall in the southern African region may decline by

between 10-20% by 2050 as a result of climate change24

. Within Zambia, seasonal changes in rainfall are

predicted with a reduction in rainfall envisaged for the hot, dry season (in particular from September to

October) and an increase in rainfall expected for the rainy season especially in AER III (in particular from

December to February)25

. Heavy bouts of rainfall are projected to increase annually26

, which is likely to

cause additional flooding events. However, rainfall predictions are frequently inconclusive, partly because

the GCM’s are unable to reproduce the mechanisms largely responsible for precipitation (such as sea

surface temperatures, dust aerosols, deforestation and soil moisture). Ambiguity also exists as to how

climate change may affect ENSO, which exerts a strong influence over rainfall variability within

Zambia27

. Any increase in rainfall, however, is likely to be offset (potentially entirely) by warming and

loss of water via evapotranspiration. In short, projections of future climate indicate that within AER I and

II there will be a trend of increasing temperatures (with concomitant increases in evapotranspiration rates)

and alternating periods of drought and flooding28

.

10. Analysis of the observed mean temperature trends over the last 30 years from 32 meteorological

stations29

in Zambia (see Annex B) supports the predicted trend of warming, and indicates that summer

temperatures have been increasing at a rate of approximately 0.6°C per decade. Similarly, baseline data

shows that rainfall in the southern African region has been decreasing over the last 25 years30

. Analysis of

observed rainfall data from all of Zambia’s meteorological stations reflect that of the 14 years between

1990/1991 and 2003/2004, at least ten years experienced below normal rainfall in each AER. AER I was

also shown to have experienced more severe dry seasons than AER II over the past two decades31

.

11. Currently, Zambia experiences an average annual potential evapotranspiration (ranging from 1394

to 1892 mm) that exceeds average rainfall (estimated at 684 mm between 1970 and 2000) resulting in a

precipitation deficit of up to 1100 mm each year32

. This already has serious implications for agricultural

productivity and water availability and management. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this situation

with additional negative consequences for the agriculture and water resources sectors.

12. Since the 1990s, crop production in Zambia has been exposed to more extreme events such as

drought and flooding. Although Zambia has historically been affected by drought and flooding, the

frequency, intensity and geographic distribution of such incidents have increased over the past two

decades. Over the last 16 years, for example, six droughts have affected the country during the growing

23


Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A. et al. 2007. Regional Climate Projections. - In: Solomon, S., Qin, D.,

Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 848-940. 25

McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizacana, G. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Zambia. (http://country-

profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk). 26

McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizacana, G. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Zambia. (http://country-

profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk). 27

Hulme, M, RM Doherty, T Ngara, MG New, and D Lister. 2001. African climate change: 1900-2100. Climate

Research 17:145-168. 28


Jain, S. 2007. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia. The


Hulme, M, 1996. Climate change and Southern Africa. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK. 31

Jain, S. 2007. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia. The


Zambia National Adaptation Programme of Action, September 2007.

http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/





12

seasons. The 2004/2005 drought, which coincided with the critical flowering period for major cereal

crops, resulted in two thirds of the country receiving little or no rainfall. Following this event, the

Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) (June 2005) reported some 1.2 million starving people and

estimated that at least 120 000 tons of food aid was required to ensure their survival until the 2006

harvest33

. Maize production failures as a result of the drought were estimated at 740 000 metric tons (MT),

the largest production loss in recent history34

. In addition, the 2006/07 floods affected almost 1.5 million

people in 41 out of 72 districts in the nine Zambian provinces and for several of those districts it was the

first time that they had been affected by flooding35

.

13. The Zambian NAPA process and the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) have established

that climate change and variability will have detrimental effects on Zambia’s agricultural sector beyond

the current baseline pressures. In light of the heavy reliance of small-scale farming on rain-fed agriculture,

the agricultural sector is highly vulnerable to increasing temperatures and variable precipitation in the

coming years. Overall, climate change (the impacts of drought, flooding and increased evapotranspiration)

is likely to have numerous adverse consequences within Zambia including inter alia: i) reduced

agricultural productivity (crop and livestock production); ii) reduced fisheries production iii) reduced

water availability for human consumption iv) human welfare impacts in urban areas due to increased

migration from rural to urban areas; v) reduced hydro-electric power generation; iv) human health

impacts; and vii) biodiversity impacts. These risks are discussed in detail below.

i) Reduced agricultural productivity

14. Agriculture is an integral part of Zambia’s economy and seen as one of the driving forces for the

anticipated economic growth that is required to reduce poverty36

. Agriculture contributes between 18-20%

to GDP37

, employs approximately 67% of the labour force and remains the principal source of income and

employment for women in rural areas38

. Assessments using the Decision Support System for Agro-

Technology Transfer (DSSAT3) have indicated that the predicted shortening of the growing season will

prevent key crop varieties, particularly maize39

, from reaching maturation in AER I and II. Furthermore,

the Zambia NAPA highlighted that the area suitable for staple crop (such as maize) production under rain-

fed conditions is likely to decline by 80% by 2100 as a result of climate change. Consequently, food

security will be undermined nationwide because these two regions are the primary maize producers (see

Figure 1) 40

. Indeed, within the last 20 years, prolonged dry spells and shorter rainfall seasons have

reduced maize yields to only 40% of the long-term average41

.

33


Umetsu C., Thamana L., Sakurai T. District Level Analysis of Drought Response and Resilience Index

(http://www.chikyu.ac.jp). 35


Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2006. Fifth National Development Plan, 2006-2010. 37


Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, 2004. National Agricultural Policy, 2004-2015. 39

Maize is the major staple food in Zambia and accounts for over 87% of the caloric intake. 40

Maize dominates the area dedicated to crops in AER I and II by 84% and 72%, respectively. Maize is only planted

across 18% of AER III’s cropping area (Jain, 2007). 41

Jain, S.2007. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia. The

World Bank Development Research Group. Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team.


13

Figure 1. Main crop zones within Zambia, indicating that maize is predominantly grown in AER I and II,

cassava in AER III, millet in AER I and III, sorghum in AER I and II and wheat in AER II and III42

.

15. Furthermore, vulnerability assessments indicate that agricultural production in AER I and II will

exhibit severe yield deficits at critical periods of the cropping calendar as a result of climate change43

.

Based on a CO2 doubling scenario in these regions, estimates predict a yield reduction of approximately

66% under rain-fed conditions compared to 16% under irrigated conditions44

.

16. Apart from being the major maize producing belts, AER I and II are also the major livestock

producing regions in the country. Communities in AER I, for example, are largely dependent on livestock

as a source of livelihood, food and draught power45

. The livestock industry is increasingly becoming an

important component of Zambia’s economy as it contributes approximately 7.45% to GNP and accounts

for approximately 35% of the total agricultural production46

. However, the livestock sector is particularly

vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because livestock numbers are strongly correlated with

rainfall and temperature47

. As such, the anticipated variability in rainfall and increase in temperatures in

AER I and II are likely to impact negatively on the livestock industry with additional consequences for

food security.

42

Source: The IDL Group. 2002. Trends in the Zambian Agriculture Sector. 43

Results of an assessment of the economic costs of climate change on agriculture in Zambia undertaken by the

World Bank, with support from FAO, IWMI, Yale University and the University of Pretoria. 44



Policy Advisory Note on Enhancing Livestock Development in Zambia. 47

As temperatures rise, population size is reduced and vice versa. Livestock population size improves during

periods of high rainfall as a result of the effect rainfall has on pasture. The opposite is true during periods of low

rainfall.


14

ii) Reduced fisheries productivity

17. The productivity of fisheries is also at risk of climate change impacts48

. The potential reduction in

rainfall in AER I and II will reduce nutrient levels in lakes and rivers thereby negatively impacting fish

breeding activity and depleting fish populations in the long-term. Bream and sardines were identified as

being the fish species most vulnerable to the impacts of drought within AER I and II49

. Overall, the

envisaged reduction in agricultural (crops and livestock) and fisheries production is likely to have various

negative impacts on all sectors of the economy and may affect political stability within Zambia.

iii) Reduced water availability for human consumption

18. Both flooding and drought events are likely to impact on the availability of safe and clean drinking

water for human populations within Zambia. Flooding events have the ability to spread disease and

thereby reduce the availability of safe drinking water. Drought directly reduces the amount of drinking

water available, with additional health impacts. Furthermore, drought affects surface water reserves by

lowering water tables and causing boreholes and streams to dry up. In rural communities, women and

children frequently have to travel long distances in order to collect water50

. The distances to be walked in

the future are likely to increase as climate change effects continue to manifest, and surface water reserves

begin to dry out, resulting in a vastly reduced quality of life for many people. The time taken to collect

water by these vulnerable groups also has a negative economic effect in that the water bearers are unable

to contribute to economic productivity.

iv) Human welfare impacts

19. Floods and droughts have additional socio-economic consequences, such as migration. The

increased frequency of floods and droughts in the Gwembe Valley in AER I, for example, has resulted in

increased migration to the nearby cities51

. Already considered a highly urbanized country compared to its

neighbours, the increase in rural-urban migration is likely to increase the stress on the GRZ’s ability to

provide basic services and amenities for these migrants.

V) Forestry impacts

20. Climate change poses a significant threat to the forestry sector within Zambia. For example, the

regeneration of the Miombo Woodland52

, which usually occurs relatively rapidly, has already been

hampered by drought and excessive temperatures53

. Over 80% of Zambian households rely on the

Miombo Woodland for charcoal and fuelwood and it is vital that their use of the woodlands is rapidly

curtailed in order to manage for lower precipitation levels and to avoid unsustainable harvesting of the

woodlands (e.g. clearing of forest for agriculture and charcoal production). The negative effects of

climate change within Zambia will be superimposed on the effects of current unsustainable land-use

practises including the clearing of forests for agriculture and charcoal production amongst other practises.

Root causes

21. There are various factors driving Zambia’s poor agricultural performance. These factors include: i)

low levels of investment ii) land degradation; iii) limited access to agricultural inputs such as fertilizer in

the last two decades; iv) a reduced labour force due to HIV/AIDS.

48

Brander, K. 2006. Assessment of Possible Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries.

49 Data is based on the Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments conducted under the United States Country Study

Programme, 1992. 50


Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee (2004) Zambia Livelihood Map Rezoning and Baseline Profiling. 52

The Miombo Woodland covers approximately 60 % of Zambia’s total surface area and thus is the most important

vegetation type. 53



15

i) Low levels of investment

22. The ability of the agricultural sector in Zambia to cope with increases in temperature and potential

reductions in rainfall is negligible given the limited investment in this sector and the minimal amount of

supporting infrastructure (e.g. storage depots, transport networks). Despite the fact that over 60% of the

population derives their livelihood from agriculture54

, government spending on the sector is less than 5%

of the government budget and only approximately 1% of GDP55

. This low level of investment into

agricultural-related developments has resulted in the deterioration of agricultural support infrastructure,

high incidences of livestock diseases and extension service delivery operating at only 40% of its potential

capacity56

.

23. Despite holding about 40% of the water in the SADC region, irrigation has not been promoted in

Zambia57

. Less than 5% of arable land in Zambia is currently irrigated58

, rendering small-scale farmers

particularly vulnerable to the predicted increase in temperature and rainfall variability as a result of

climate change. The development of the irrigation sector has been limited by the lack of infrastructure

available for extracting and distributing water, the lack of appropriate technologies to facilitate water

extraction, and inadequate access to markets and financial resources59

. In addition, water resources are

often mismanaged as a result of insufficient knowledge concerning appropriate maintenance and

management techniques60

. For example, to ensure sustainable management of community irrigation

schemes and dams, the establishment of management committees as well as establishment of maintenance

funds are required. However, in most of the districts visited during the preparation of this document,

neither of these was in place.

ii) Land degradation

24. After Zambia achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1964, its agricultural policy

focused on promoting maize production through large-scale marketing support and provision of extensive

fertilizer subsidies. Maize marketing guarantees provided further incentive for the adoption of high-input

maize packages by farmers. Following decades of heavy application of nitrogen fertilizers and extensive

ploughing, many agricultural landscapes in Zambia (particularly in AER I and II) became acidic by the

1990s, thereby reducing land quality and productivity61

. Consequently, agricultural production in Zambia

is strongly reliant on fertilizer use and liming to improve yields. Zambia’s agricultural sector is also

largely reliant on cash crops, with tobacco and cotton being particularly important to the economy. This

has a major impact on farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change as promoting cash crops is, to a large

extent, the endorsement of monocultures62

. Because monocultures tend to be vulnerable to pest and

disease outbreaks, the canopy cover of crops can be rapidly and markedly reduced during the rainy season,

exposing the bare soil to raindrop impact. Such raindrop impact degrades the structure of the soil by

breaking up aggregates and also increasing dispersion of clay. The clay dispersion causes soil crusting

54

Adverse Impacts of Climate Change and Development Challenges: Integrating Adaptation in Policy and

Development in Zambia. A Least Developed Countries for Adaptation to Climate Change (CLACC) project. 55




UNDP Initiation Plan: Adaptation to the Effect of Drought and Climate Change in Agro-ecological Zone I and 2

in Zambia. 59

MACO, 2004, Zambia Irrigation Policy Review and Strategy. 60

During field missions in the four pilot provinces for the purpose of site selection, the field mission teams came

across some poorly managed silted dams in some of the districts. 61 Haggblade, S. and Tembo, G. 2003. Conference Paper No. II: Conservation Farming in Zambia. Paper presented

at the InWEnt, IFPRI, NEPAD, CTA conference “Successes in African Agriculture”. 62 Ikeme. J. 2003. Climate change adaptation deficiencies in developing countries: the case of sub-Saharan Africa.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 8(1): 29-52.


16

which dramatically reduces infiltrability of the soil, increasing runoff and soil erosion as a result63

. The

effect of monocultures can thus, unless managed carefully, greatly increase the agricultural sector’s

vulnerability to climate change64

.

iii) Limited access to farming inputs

25. Although there are fertilizer support programmes in place in Zambia (details contained in Annex H),

they reach a very small proportion of farmers, despite the fact that support for the programmes constitutes

80% of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives’s (MACO) budget65

. Fertilizer imported for

government distribution programmes, for example, has declined from over 100 000 MT in the early 1990s

to less than 40 000 MT. Furthermore, the price of fertilizer has increased more than two-fold whilst

delivery has become progressively less reliable. As a result, agricultural productivity across Zambia

suffered as subsistence farmers, who constitute 75% of the farming community, have struggled to access

agricultural inputs66

. Although early maturing and drought-resistant seeds are distributed to farmers in

AER I and II, suitable seed is also frequently unavailable and delivery is often late. As a result, farmers

plant inappropriate crops, resulting in below-optimum yields.

iv) HIV/AIDS prevalence

26. Zambia’s agricultural sector has been significantly affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. One in six

Zambians between 15 and 49 years of age is estimated to be infected with HIV, with four times as many

females between 15 and 24 years of age infected than males67

. The higher infection rate in females, the

primary caregivers, adversely affects food security and income streams because women, who are more

involved in food provision at the household level, cannot participate as much as they used to in

agricultural activities68

. In general, labour is constrained by the incidence of disease and sickness. Malaria,

for example, is endemic during the rainy season and prevents numerous able-bodied men and women

from taking part in farm activities. Not only does sickness inhibit time spent in the fields, but it also

increases medical costs.

LDCF Alternative Scenario

27. To reduce the vulnerability of communities in AER I and II to climate change impacts, the project

will take a two pronged-approach: i) mainstreaming of adaptation into agricultural planning and national,

district and community levels to make the case for investment in adaptation in the agricultural sector ii)

test and evaluate the adaptation value interventions that protect and improve agricultural incomes from

the effects of climate change. Capacity and systems to anticipate assess and prepare for climate change

risks will be developed at community, regional and national levels. Adaptation learning generated from

the pilot projects will be used to guide mainstreaming of adaptation in national fiscal, regulatory and

development policy, to support adaptive practices on a wider scale. The following four outcomes will be

delivered:

1. Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-making processes for agricultural

management at the local, sub-national and national levels

63 Mills, A.J. and Fey, M.V. 2004. Effects of vegetation cover on the tendency of soil to crust in South Africa. Soil

Use and Management 20:308-317. 64

Salinger, M.J., Stigter, C.J. and Das, H.P.: 2000, ‘Agrometeorological adaptation strategies to

increasing climate variability and climate change’. Agric. Forest Meteor. 103: 167–184. 65

Slater, R. 2007. Climate change: implications for DFIDs agricultural policy. Overseas Development Institute. 66 Jain, S. 2007. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia. The


United Nations Development Assistance Framework for the Republic of Zambia 20007 – 2010 (2005). 68

World Food Programme (2006) Country Programme-Zambia (2007-2010)


17

2. Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of climate

change

3. National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation responses in the

agricultural sector

4. Knowledge and lessons learned to support implementation of adaptation measures compiled and

disseminated

28. The pilot interventions implemented in the eight pilot sites will test the extent to which agricultural

productivity; income streams and quality of life are protected and improved under changing climatic

conditions.

29. The results of the pilot interventions will be used to promote policy and budgetary adjustments so

that successful pilots are scaled up and catalysed throughout Zambia.

30. Importantly, local capacity will be strengthened (through extensive training and involvement in the

implementation of interventions) to facilitate effective project management, generate community

ownership and to ensure that project interventions are sustainable beyond the project lifespan. In

particular, the project will focus on overcoming barriers that prevent the upscaling of successful

interventions and the adoption of profitable activities by local entrepreneurs. The adaptation rationale

here is that successful adaptation to climate change across the country can only be achieved if adaptation

interventions are profitable for local communities and are thus spontaneously adopted by local businesses.

A policy environment needs to be created that facilitates such entrepreneurship. In order to address

inequalities, the project will promote gender equality and empowerment of women through affirmative

action.

Lusaka Province: Kabeleka (Chongwe District) and Zalapango (Luangwa District).

LEGEND

Shangombo

Luangwa

Senanga

Kazungula

Chongwe

Chama

Mambwe

Siavonga


18

Figure 2. Map indicating the districts in which the selected pilot sites are situated.

Barriers

31. There are a number of barriers that are likely to hinder adaptation in the agricultural sector in

Zambia, which the project will address. These are set out below:

Limited access to markets limits farmers’ ability to sell goods and their ability to source goods

such as fertilizers, equipment and extension advice. One of the largest determinants of fertilizer

price is the high cost of transportation over Zambia’s deteriorating roads69

. Furthermore,

information on current market prices is rarely available and, in most cases, trade is through a

barter system.

Limited climate risk information hampers decision makers’ ability to make informed policy

changes. At the farmer-level, planning tools are lacking for the planting and harvesting season. At

the national level, strategic decisions on agricultural planning over the medium term are

prevented by a lack of national-level long-term projected changes in climatic parameters.

Although there is an early warning system (EWS) in place in Zambia to disseminate climate risk

information, there are a number of key weaknesses associated with the system, namely: i) a lack

of agro-meteorological stations70

; ii) forecasting institutions are inadequately equipped and have

little capacity; iii) inadequate communication to stakeholders (such as water managers, extension

officers, other agricultural/hydrological stakeholders) and, in particular, farmers (including

packaging the information in a format that is not easily understood or accessible)71

; iv)

insufficient institutional processes in place to ensure effective distribution of information due to

ineffective links between the MACO and the District authorities72

; and v) limited capacity to cater

for effective adaptation support at all levels (national, district, and local community levels).

Limited institutional capacity to adequately address climate change: climate change is not

properly integrated into planning processes73

. Certain planning processes and policies within

Zambia, such as the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Irrigation Policy (NIP),

do not explicitly acknowledge the impact climate change is likely to have on their ability to

achieve their objectives (see Institutional, Sectoral and Policy context). In addition, apart from the

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act, Zambia lacks a clear and specific legal and

policy framework to address climate change concerns.

Limited public awareness of climate change. The public within Zambia have a limited

understanding of how climate change will potentially impact on socio-economics, livelihoods,

resources and ecosystems. This dearth of awareness hinders public participation in shaping

climate change policy and legislation74

. In Zambia, there is also a lack of private sector

involvement on issues related to climate change.

69


Fertilizer and Infrastructure. Social Development Papers. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49. 70

Presentations during the Inception Workshop by ZMD revealed that there are only 9 agro-meteorological stations

in Zambia and none are situated within AER I. 71

Information from consultations with MACO as well as with the ZMD during the Project Identification (PIF) phase. 72

Information from consultations with MACO as well as with the ZMD during the Project Identification (PIF) phase. 73


National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA), Draft. 2006 (http://ncsa.undp.org/docs/237.doc).

http://ncsa.undp.org/docs/237.doc


19

Institutional baseline

32. Zambia is vulnerable to present climatic hazards, which significantly affect food security and

poverty. In response, the GRZ has set in motion a number of policies and programmes, detailed below,

aimed at mitigating the impacts of these hazards.

33. A prominent example is the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP, 2002-2004), which was

succeeded by the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP, 2006-2010). A large proportion of the

development fostered by these two strategies lies within the agricultural sector, which has been bolstered

by an improved provision of seed, fertiliser, livestock, equipment, training and land development as well

as the establishment of new investment opportunities and disease control. Other sectors being further

developed by the PRSP and FNDP include the infrastructure, education, health, tourism and mining

sectors. Through the FNDP, the government plans to raise expenditure on agriculture from less than 5%

of the government budget to approximately 9% by 2010. The FNDP programmes for the agricultural

sector are aimed at:

a. Attaining food security for the majority of households with at least 90% of the population

being food secure by 2010;

b. Increasing the contribution of the agricultural sector to total foreign exchange earnings from

current 3-5% to 10-20 % by 2010;

c. Attaining growth in the agricultural sector of 10% per annum from 2006 onwards;

d. Increasing the overall agricultural contribution to GDP from 18-20% to 25% by 2010;

e. Increasing incomes for those involved in the agricultural sector.

34. Other policies relevant to adaptation include the National Disaster Management Policy (NDMP,

2005), the National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2004-2015) and the National Irrigation Plan (NIP, 2006-

2011). The NDMP was put in place in an effort to respond to local, regional and national disasters related

to flooding, drought and other climatic hazards. The purpose of Zambia’s NAP and the NIP is also to

enhance agricultural productivity and thereby reduce poverty by means of inter alia capacity building,

sustainable agricultural practices, soil conservation measures and increasing the extent of irrigated

agriculture.

35. The National Environment Policy (NPE, 2004) identifies 11 government ministries involved in

environmental affairs75

. Nine of these ministries have policies that include environmental matters

(nineteen policies in total, the details of which are contained in Annex G). The draft NPE also highlights

current shortfalls in these nineteen policies including ineffectual mechanisms for community-based

natural resources management, lack of informal inter-sectoral links, limited up-to date baseline data and

limited national guidelines for effective integration of international environmental conventions76

. In

addition, intra and inter-sectoral institutional arrangements are limited and few coordination mechanisms

exist for effective multi-sectoral integration of legislation, and of adaptation into such legislation.

36. Furthermore, Zambia has a Gender Policy, which was adopted in 2000. This policy recognizes the

gender disparity that exists between men and women, where women remain a disadvantaged and

vulnerable group. In this regard, the policy advocates for gender equality and women’s empowerment in

all sectors. This is also captured in the FNDP where gender concerns are regarded as a sectorial as well as

a cross-cutting issue. Furthermore, the strategic plan for the implementation of the gender policy has

prioritized five sectors and agriculture is one of these sectors where affirmative action has to be

undertaken in the planning and implementation of projects/programme.

75

These ministries are: Finance and National Planning; MACO; Mines and Mineral Development; Health;

Education; Local Government and Housing’ Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources; Community

Development; Lands; and the Cabinet Office. 76

NPE (2004)


20

37. Although climate change is likely to have serious impacts on Zambia’s ability to meet its

development targets as outlined in the FNDP and attain the MDGs, climate change has not been

integrated into any of the abovementioned policies, apart from the FNDP. However, the policies do

acknowledge that present climatic variability is, to a large degree, responsible for crop failure and

associated food, water and health insecurity. As a result of this acknowledgement, most of the policies

emphasise the need for an improved EWS that is effective at a local level. Due to the fact that climate

change is not adequately taken into account, the policies’ mitigation and development strategies are likely

to be less effective and potentially maladaptive in the future. For example, the NAP and the NIP promote

an increase in irrigation to reduce the reliance on rain-fed agriculture. While irrigation is a viable option at

present due to Zambia’s substantial groundwater reserves, this may not be the case in the future due to

climate change. With increasingly variable rainfall, increasing temperatures and concomitant increasing

evapotranspiration, the rate of depletion of groundwater reserves may outstrip the recharge rates.

Although the FNDP recognizes climate change as a problem and highlights the importance of

incorporating climate change considerations in development planning, it does not propose how to address

the situation.

Stakeholder analysis

38. Project interventions will range from the level of national government to that of village farmer. In

order to foster ownership of the project, the project document was formulated with the help of stakeholder

consultations from the outset. These consultations included:

The Project Preparation Grant (PPG) Pre-Inception Workshop held from 2-6th February 2009;

The PPG Inception Workshop held on 2nd

March 2009;

The Vision Setting workshop held on 3rd

April 2009;

Consultations with Agricultural and Natural Resources subcommittees of the Provincial Development

Coordination Committee (PDCC) and District Development Coordination Committee (DDCC),

which were held between 28th April and 10

th May 2009;

Consultations with the communities in which the interventions are to be piloted, which were held

between 28th April and 10

th May 2009, and;

A site selection workshop held between 14 and 15th May 2009;

A draft review workshop where all the stakeholders from the government departments; non-

governmental organisations; provincial, district and site level representatives as well as the

international consultant were present. This was held from the 14th to 17

th of July 2009.

A PAC meeting was held on the 7th of August 2009.

39. Reports of the consultation meetings and workshops, including the list of stakeholders involved, are

included in Annex C and J. Annex F contains a summary of PPG activities as well as a list of stakeholders

consulted during the PPG phase. Table 1 below contains the list of key Ministries/Departments and their

role in the project.

Table 1. Ministries and departments involved in the project and their specific roles. Ministry/ Department/

Organizations

Role in Project

Ministry of Agriculture

and Cooperatives

(MACO)

Will serve as the Government Cooperating Agency.

Will be directly responsible for government’s participation in the project.

Will designate a representative for the project who will perform the role and

functions of either the Executive or Senior Beneficiary on the project board.

Department of Agriculture

Will serve as the implementing Department and will, therefore, be responsible for

executing the project.

Will chair the Project Technical Committee (PTC).

Served as the resource institution during PPG for technical aspects related to

agricultural production.

Will delegate implementation responsibilities to other departments such as ZARI,


21

Department of Fisheries (DOF), NGOs and others which are still to be identified.

A National Project Coordinator will be appointed from within the Department.

Will house the Project Secretariat (PS).

Will implement project activities through its extension network.

Department of Policy and

Planning Will be a member of the PTC.

Will be responsible for reviewing existing policies to ensure the incorporation of

climate change considerations.

Will facilitate the sharing of lessons and experiences at a national level as

resources permit.

Served as a resource institution during the PPG for policy-related issues.

Responsible for M&E.

Department of Veterinary

and Livestock

Development

Will be a member of the PTC.

Served as a resource institution during the PPG for technical aspects related to

livestock development.

Will provide the PS with technical assistance on livestock related matters during

project implementation.

Departmental staff will be engaged at a local level to implement certain livestock

related interventions.

Department of Fisheries

(DOF) Will be a member of the PTC.

Served as a resource institution during the PPG for technical aspects related to

aquaculture development.

Will provide the PS with technical assistance regarding fisheries related matters.

Departmental staff will be engaged at a local level to implement certain fisheries

related interventions.

Zambia Agricultural

Research Institute Will be a member of the PTC.

Researches the feasibility of drought-resistant crops, horticulture and agro-forestry

for livelihood diversification.

Will provide field-level technical support to farmers in the project areas where

necessary.

Will conduct field-level adaptation research concerning crop diversification

options.

Will be responsible for adaptive technologies demonstrations in AER I and II.

Will provide training to project staff and farmers concerning the adoption of

suitable drought-tolerant crop varieties that have been tested and proven suitable

for AER I and II.

National Agricultural

Information Services Will be a member of the PTC.

Will disseminate climate change information.

Serves as a channel for disseminating weather data from Zambia Meteorological

Department (ZMD) to local farmers.

Serves as a channel for disseminating information concerning improved climate

resilient practices through radio and television programmes.

Ministry of Energy and

Water Development

(MEWD) (Department of

Water Affairs, DWA)


Provide technical assistance concerning water-related activities such as dam

building.

Will assist with the revision of water-related policies to ensure that they

incorporate climate change considerations.

Served as a resource institution during the PPG for activities related to water

resources.

Responsible for collection of hydrological data at the pilot sites.

Ministry of

Communication and

Transport (Zambia

Meteorological

Department)


Served as a resource institution during the PPG for activities related to

meteorology.

Supervises and provides technical assistance on climate modelling and

downscaling of climate information.

Will be responsible for coordination and implementation of activities related to


22

meteorological information production and dissemination.

Office of the Vice

President [Disaster

Management and

Mitigation Unit (DMMU)]


Served as a resource institution during the PPG for activities related to the impacts

of climatic hazards.

Will be a recipient of project information and input from the project to incorporate

climate change projections into disaster management plans, policies and projects.

Ministry of Tourism,

Environment and Natural

Resources


Served as a resource institution during the PPG for activities related to the

environment.

Departmental staff (Forestry Department) will be engaged at a local level to

implement certain environment-related interventions.

United Nations

Development Programme

(UNDP) Country Office

Served a technical advisory role during the PIF and PPG processes.

Provided technical support to the Project Manager during the site selection

workshops and project preparation phase.

Will provide support to the National Project Coordinator and the PS concerning

the implementation of project components.

Will be responsible for reporting project progress to GEF.

Will participate in the PTC.

Will be responsible for monitoring (technically and financially) the use of project

funds.

Will mobilize and coordinate support from international partners through a global

network.

Will facilitate the international dissemination of project knowledge and lessons.

Local Communities/

CBOs/ NGOs Was consulted during the PPG process.

Participated in the site selection at the National, Provincial, District and

Community levels.

Members of the field mission teams.

Will participate in the planning and implementation of the project interventions at

the community-level.

Agricultural and Natural

Resources Subcommittee

of the PDCC and DDCC

Participated in the site selection at provincial, district and community levels.

Served as a resource institution during the PPG phase regarding local knowledge

and relevant interventions.

Will facilitate effective coordination of the project at the provincial, district and

community levels.

Will be responsible for supporting and monitoring the project at provincial,

district and community levels.

Will be responsible for community mobilization.

Gender in Development

Division Will be a member of the PTC.

Served as resource institution for promoting gender equality and women

empowerment.

Will serve as resource institution on gender-related issues during the project

implementation.

PART II: STRATEGY

40. To reduce the vulnerability of communities in AER I and II to climate change impacts, the project

will take a two pronged-approach: i) mainstreaming of adaptation into agricultural planning and national,

district and community levels to make the case for investment in adaptation in the agricultural sector ii)

test and evaluate for adaptation value interventions that will protect and improve agricultural incomes

from the effects of climate change. The metric to be used with be percentage increases in agricultural

incomes. Capacity and systems to anticipate assess and prepare for climate change risks will be developed

at community, regional and national levels. Adaptation learning generated from the pilot projects will be


23

used to guide mainstreaming of adaptation in national fiscal, regulatory and development policy, to

support adaptive practices on a wider scale. The following four outcomes will be delivered

41. Outcome 1 of the project will improve capacity to use climate risk information to inform planning

processes in the following ways:

Training will be provided to ZMD in order to capacitate them to provide seasonal and long-term

weather forecasts. This will be used to inform decision-making by government planners and farmers;

An economic impact assessment evaluating the benefits of climate risk information will be

undertaken to guide further investments in climate risk information services.

Equipment for the collection and monitoring of water and weather data will be provided for the pilot

sites. Staff within pilot sites will be trained on how to operate equipment and how to collect water and

weather information.

Existing EWS’s will be evaluated and strengthened where necessary and, based on assessments

within the pilot sites, new EWS(s) will be developed so that climate risk information is effectively

communicated to end-users.

42. Outcome 2 of the project will implement priority interventions identified through consultation with

communities within the eight pilot sites. These interventions will be closely monitored and their cost-

effectiveness will be determined. Barriers to the upscaling of successful activities will also be identified.

Results of the interventions will be documented and disseminated to all key stakeholders (e.g. the

community, policy- and decision-makers, and the public). In addition, lessons learned will be formulated

in order to catalyse upscaling and entrepreneurship. Interventions to be implemented in the eight pilot

sites (all of which are situated within AER I and II) include:

Implementation of soil and water conservation techniques.

Promotion and introduction of crop diversification practices.

Promotion and introduction of alternative livelihoods

Water storage and irrigation systems improved or developed to ensure adequate water provision to

crops and livestock.

43. Outcome 3 will use the results of Outcome 1 and 2 to encourage adjustments of the strategies and

policies that reduce the resilience of rural communities to climate change impacts. Central to this

argument for adjustments will be information regarding the economic benefits offered by adaptation

investments. The activities of Outcome 3 will sensitise decision-makers and sectoral planners of the

benefits associated with mainstreaming adaptation into planning in the agriculture sector.

44. Outcome 4 will ensure that the project lessons are adequately disseminated to stakeholders (at all

levels) and to other African countries that are experiencing a situation similar to that of Zambia.

45. For all of the above outcomes the project will contribute to an understanding of how adaptation

responses can be designed to strengthen gender equality. To achieve this, the project will ensure that

women attend workshops and are part of interventions and management committees. Disaggregated

indicators will be used to monitor the project performance on this.

46. Overall, the project will improve food security in the most vulnerable regions of Zambia (with the

potential for upscaling), which will contribute towards attaining MDG 1 (“Eradicate extreme poverty and

hunger”). The resultant improved nutritional status of Zambians will lead to better health outcomes,

thereby positively affecting MDGs 4 and 6 (“Reduce child mortality” and “Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria

and other diseases”, respectively). In addition, the project will promote environmental sustainability of all

interventions, thus contributing towards MDG 7 (“Ensure environmental sustainability”).

Project Financing


24

47. Table 2 includes the project’s co-financing amounts and donors according to project Outcomes. The

GRZ, with support from cooperating partners, is implementing the CCFU, ZMD and CASPP projects

(detailed in forthcoming sections).

Table 2. Co-financing donors and amounts per project Outcome.

Outcome Support Type Donor Amount

(US$) Outcome 1: Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-

making processes for agricultural management at the local, sub-

national and national levels

In-kind ZMD 500,000 In-kind CCFU 250,000

Outcome 2: Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made

resilient to the anticipated impacts of climate change In-kind FAO (CASPP) 5,000,000 Cash GRZ (MACO) 809,000

Outcome 3: National fiscal, regulatory and development policy

revised to promote adaptation responses in the agricultural sector In-kind CCFU 2,020,000 Cash UNDP-CO 15,000

Outcome 4: Knowledge and lessons learned to support

implementation of adaptation measures compiled and disseminated In-kind CCFU 330,000

Project management In-kind GRZ

(MACO)77

720,000

Cash UNDP-CO 160,000

TOTAL 9,804,000

Note: The GRZ is presently in dialogue with the Japanese Government with respect to undertaking the African

Adaptation Programme (AAP) within Zambia. A decision had at the time of completion of this document not been

taken and consequently the AAP is not recorded in the budget as contributing co-financing to this LDCF project.

Project Goal, Objectives, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities

48. A number of responses will be employed in order to reduce the anticipated impact of climate

change on the agriculture sector in Zambia. The implementation of NAPA priorities will largely be

adding to and expanding on present government and donor projects.

49. The overarching goal of this project is to “to improve food security through enhanced adaptive

capacity to respond to the risks posed by the effects of climate change (including variability) in AER I and

II of Zambia 78”. The objective of the project is “to develop adaptive capacity of subsistence farmers and

rural communities to withstand climate change in Zambia”. As a result, the project’s expected outcomes

are:

a. Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-making processes for agricultural

management at the local, sub-national and national levels.

b. Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of climate

change.

c. National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation responses in the

agricultural sector.

d. Lessons learned and knowledge management component established.

50. The PIF outcomes and expected outputs have been slightly revised during the project preparation

process. The content remains the same as in the PIF, but the order of presentation and the wording have

been altered to improve the structure of the project. The order of the new structure is summarised as

follows: 1) risk assessment and early warning systems; 2) on-the-ground piloting of proposed

interventions; 3) policy review and revision; and 4) dissemination of results.

77

This will be in form of office space, staff and vehicles, for example. 78

See the Vision Setting Report in Annex B.


25

Outcome 1: Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-making processes for agricultural


Rationale

Baseline Situation

51. To date, climate change management efforts have not been aligned with mainstream development

processes in Zambia. This is largely due to a shortage of human, technical and institutional capacity in the

field of climate change and adaptation79

. In particular, knowledge gaps have been identified as a particular

barrier to the mainstreaming of climate change risks into agricultural planning. There are, for example,

few planning tools available which can assist communities in adapting to the increasing threats of climate

change. Such technical barriers are constraining climate change adaptation.

52. Weather forecasting is another example of a technical capacity barrier to adaptation. Rural

communities in Zambia are inadequately equipped with the weather forecast information required to

inform agricultural planning. Indeed, the lack of accurate downscaled information on predicted climate

scenarios for the AERs hinders adaptation planning at all levels (local, provincial and national). In

addition, forecasts that are generated are not adequately disseminated to relevant stakeholders. There are

programmes, such as the RANET80

Zambia Project, that aim to assist rural communities by providing

climate and weather information in a timely manner. However, assessments show that many communities

have not been able to access this information, and those that do access RANET programme information

via radio are unsure how to firstly, interpret the information and secondly, react appropriately81

. These

shortcomings may be due to the design of the programmes, which are currently targeted at building

capacity of the ZMD and tend to overlook the needs of the end-users of the information such as local

farmers and policy makers. Overall, the agriculture sector lacks adequate forecast tables, planting

calendars and advice on which crops to plant, leaving farmers without planning tools for the planting and

harvesting season.

53. Zambia’s NDMP of 2005 observes that the present disaster management strategy in place in

Zambia requires improvement82

. The NDMP identifies crucial gaps affecting its functionality including: i)

the lack of an overarching disaster management policy, which has led to ad hoc management efforts; ii)

the lack of a legal framework to authorise management actions; ii) inadequate coordination and therefore

duplication of activities; and iii) insufficient up-to-date information available on risks, vulnerabilities and

resources. Further barriers to effective risk reduction and management in Zambia are that risk monitoring

information is not widely distributed, and is not packaged in a format that is understandable, to small-

scale farmers in particular, limiting the ability of vulnerable communities to respond to warnings.

54. The NDMP therefore aims to enhance national capacity to: i) prepare for, ii) respond to, iii)

mitigate against and iv) prevent the impacts of disasters. To do this, the NDMP outlines a series of actions

and measures to be undertaken to develop an improved disaster management regime, which will

incorporate an effective over-arching early warning system (EWS)83

. These actions include building

capacity for: i) disaster preparedness and timely response; ii) disaster prevention; iii) disaster mitigation

79


RANET refers to the Radio and internet communication mediums that will be targeted by the RANET Zambia

Project, for disseminating information. 81

Ziervogel, G., Taylor, A., Hachigonta, S. and Hoffmaister, J. 2008. Climate adaptation in southern Africa:

Addressing the needs of vulnerable communities. Oxfam and Stockholm Environment Institute. 82

Zambia is party to a number of regional and international EWS’s, including the SADC regional famine EWS and

the international Famine EWS Network (FEWSNet), but there are no EWS’s specific to Zambia. 83

Zambia NDMP. 2005. Zambia National Disaster Management Policy. Lusaka, Zambia.


26

and restoration of livelihoods; and iv) coordination. In formulating these actions, the NDMP has produced

a solid foundation for establishing a people-centred EWS84

.

55. The NAPA confirms the strengthening Zambia’s disaster management regime as a first priority and

stipulates the need for: i) an EWS for floods (which includes a health/malaria as well as a crop loss

warning); and ii) a strengthened EWS for agricultural/food security (warning of floods, drought,

shortened growing season, and agricultural disease outbreaks). Entry points that the NDMP can utilise in

addressing the NAPA priorities and developing country-wide EWS(s) include: i) the Malaria Control and

Prevention Programme, part of the Public Health Sector Strategy (PHSS, 2006-2010) under the FNDP,

which needs, but does not include, a climate-driven warning system85

; and ii) the Integrated Disease

Surveillance network (also part of the PHSS), which could form the foundation of a health EWS in

Zambia86

.

56. No economic assessments of the value of improved climate risk information for the protection and

improvement of livelihoods have been undertaken in Zambia, which limits understanding of how much to

invest in climate information services.

Adaptation Alternative

57. The capacity of rural farmers to manage climate change, including variability, will be strengthened

by providing short-term and seasonal forecasts and training farmers to use this information to assist in

agricultural planning. Furthermore, staff within pilot sites will be provided with equipment (and trained

on how to use the equipment) to collect and monitor weather data within the pilot sites. As such, the

project will capacitate staff within the eight pilot sites to provide key data to MACO, ZMD and the Water

Department.

58. The ZMD requires technical capacity in the form of staff training to downscale information from

global and regional climate models to a format relevant and appropriate for Zambian farmers. In addition,

the capacity of end-users to access, interpret and use the information also needs strengthening. The

project will collaborate with the ZMD project (“Capacity development for effective early warning

systems to support climate change adaptation in Zambia” to co-produce the outputs (see para 155 for

more details). This collaboration will complement the support ZMD have to develop EWS(s) to ensure

that these are driven by user needs and are ultimately useful to decision-makers.

59. Building on the foundations Zambia already has in place for people-centred EWS, the project will i)

build further technical and human capacity to incorporate climate risk considerations into disaster

reduction; ii) increase access by disaster reduction planners to up-to-date information including climate

risk data; and iii) increase public and private sector participation, to ensure the implementation of

effective EWS(s). Based on assessments at each of the eight pilot sites, the appropriate EWS(s) will be

implemented to reduce the climate-related risks faced by vulnerable communities by allowing them

adequate time to react to impending hazards.

60. An economic assessment of the value of climate risk information to protecting and improving

agricultural incomes from the effects of climate change will be undertaken pre- and post seasonally at

least twice during the project, to guide policy makers’ understanding about appropriate levels of resource

allocation to climate information services.

61. Co-financing amounts for Outcome 1:

84

People-centred EWS’s are comprehensive, integrated warning systems in which a multi-stakeholder network is

responsible for forecasting the warnings and then ensuring that a pre-determined, well-rehearsed response is

activated (Basher 2006). 85




27

ZMD: US$ 500 000

CCFU: US$ 250 000

LDCF Project Grant Requested: US$ 350 000.

Outputs and activities

Output 1.1. Number of government planners and private sector trained on climate risk management for

improved agricultural productivity.

62. The above output incorporates the PIF outputs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, which pertain to seasonal weather

forecasts, training in the agricultural and water sectors, and partnerships with the Meteorological Services,

respectively.

Indicative activities under Output 1.1:

1.1.1. Provide equipment for the collection and monitoring of water and weather data for the pilot

sites. Staff within pilot sites will be trained on how to operate equipment and how to collect

water and weather information.

1.1.2. Train ZMD staff to provide short-term and seasonal forecasts, from downscaling of

available data, in a format that is suitable for use by small-scale farmers and planners in the

agriculture sector. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the ZMD under their

project, entitled “Capacity development for effective Early Warning Services to support

climate change adaptation in Zambia”. The training will be ongoing for the duration of the

project and will entail consultants, who will work directly with ZMD staff, to: i) develop

and/or configure the appropriate software and databases; and ii) use the software, databases

and training to produce regular short-term and seasonal forecasts that are accessible to the

end-users. This new approach to forecasting and to dissemination of information will be

incorporated into the day to day activities of the ZMD.

1.1.3. Train farmers, extension staff, and the Agricultural and Natural Resources subcommittees

of the DDCC/PDCC on how to access, interpret and apply ZMD forecasts for planning

purposes in collaboration with their project, entitled “Capacity development for effective

Early Warning Services to support climate change adaptation in Zambia”.

Output 1.2. Effective EWS(s) developed to enhance preparedness and reduce climate-related risks.

63. The above output pertains to the PIF output 1.4 on revising the national approach to disaster

management.


1.2.1 Assess and document the EWS needs of the eight pilot sites to safeguard investments in

alternative livelihoods and protect the interventions to be implemented at pilot sites. This

will be undertaken in collaboration with the ZMD under their project, entitled “Capacity

development for effective Early Warning Services to support climate change adaptation in

Zambia”.

1.2.2 Develop EWS(s) based on the needs assessment undertaken in activity 1.2.1 for all the pilot

sites. This will require the help of a consultant and will be undertaken in collaboration with

the ZMD under their project, entitled “Capacity development for effective Early Warning

Services to support climate change adaptation in Zambia”.


28

Output 1.3: Economic impact assessment on the adaptation value of climate risk information to protect

agricultural incomes from climate change effects.

64. The above incorporates the PIF outputs 1.5.


1.3.1 Conduct annual pre- and post-season farmer surveys to evaluate incomes gains from the use

of seasonal weather forecasts.

Outcome 2: Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of

climate change.

Rationale

Baseline Situation

65. Today in AER I and II, maize cultivation still covers the majority of cropped land, averaging 84%

in Southern Province and 72% of total cropped area for Central and Eastern Provinces, yet climate change

is predicted to result in the contraction of suitable maize-growing areas in AER I and II by more than

80%87

.

66. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), FNDP and the NAP have highlighted numerous

non-climatic factors that have undermined the agricultural sector’s ability to contribute to national

development and increased food security. As such, the GRZ, in its FNDP, has formulated a plan to tackle

these problems so as to make the agricultural sector an engine for economic growth.

67. The ‘baseline’ activities (i.e. activities that would be implemented in the absence of climate change)

outlined in the FNDP are aimed at increasing agricultural productivity between 2006 and 2010. These

activities include: i) crop research into drought-resilient crop varieties; ii) improved seed distribution

services; iii) improved and extended irrigation; iv) increased agricultural extension advice; v) increasing

the availability of micro-finance to rural farmers; and vi) improving market and trade conditions88

. In the

fisheries sector, the Zambian fisheries department has a number of initiatives underway including a strict

fisheries licensing system89

and the promotion of aquaculture and aquaculture research90

. To provide an

alternative livelihood in drought years, the department plans to promote the stocking of fish in farm dams.

68. The challenge remains to scale up those interventions that have high adaptive value and to

implement new types of interventions that would help communities become resilient to climate change.

Many of the interventions being tested currently, such as planting early maturing crops and crop

diversification are potentially sustainable under climate change conditions, but better information on

sustainability and cost effectiveness is needed to help decision-makers allocate resources to scaling these

up. A more informed and integrated policy approach to adaptation is required to support and promote the

sustainability of current coping strategies.

69. The GRZ plans to increase funding in the agriculture sector from 1.6% of GDP to at least 2.3% of

GDP by 2010, in light of the FNDP statement that agriculture is to be the key driver of economic

development in Zambia. The GRZ, with support from the donor community, has allocated a total of

US$93 950 200 for the irrigation support development project; US$89 607 200 for agricultural

infrastructure and land development; US$107 120 600 for agricultural services and technical development;

87


Zambia’s Initial National Communication (2002). 89

To improve the ability to monitor fisheries exploitation and maintain the sustainability of fish resources. 90

Zambia’s Initial National Communication (2002).


29

and US$100 515 200 for the fertilizer support programme, for the period 2006 to 2010 (see below). These

programmes are specifically designed to improve food security through increased productivity but do not

consider how climate change risks could damage investments or where investments could yield greater

benefits by promoting those projects that help the economy to adapt to climate change.

70. Current projects underway in the pilot sites are detailed in Table 5.

71. The following is a list of relevant baseline activities outlined in the FNDP that have been

implemented in the agriculture and water sectors in Zambia that, although not focused on adaptation per

se, have assisted Zambians in coping with changing climatic conditions.

The Irrigation Development and Support Project

This project is managed by MACO and funded by concessionary credit from the International

Development Agency (IDA). Its focus is on increasing the income of small-scale farmers by

developing reliable irrigation schemes. In this way, the project aims to promote a well-regulated and

profitable irrigation sub-sector, attractive to both private and public sectors. Another facet to the

project is the establishment of an irrigation development fund allowing farmers access to loans to

purchase irrigation technology.

Agricultural Infrastructure and Land Development

Managed by MACO, this project aims to improve agricultural infrastructure and the land available for

agricultural production in a sustainable manner in order to improve food security. By achieving this,

the project aims to create employment opportunities, augment food production and enhance the

standard of living within rural areas. Activities undertaken by the project include the development of

farm blocks. Development will involve the supply of electricity, improvement of surrounding

infrastructure, provision of irrigation materials (dams and boreholes) and social amenities

surrounding the farm block. The main objectives of the programme include: i) commercializing

agricultural land; ii) exploiting land to its full potential in order to attain economic diversification and

growth; iii) enhancing food security through production of adequate food; iv) utilizing undeveloped

rural areas; v) reducing poverty; and vi) minimizing migration from rural to urban areas. The project

will cost the GRZ approximately US$28 million.

Livestock Development Programme

This programme falls under MACO and aims to improve the livestock sector and thereby enhance

food security and increase the income of farmers. A central feature of this programme will be the

development of an EWS to reduce the negative impacts of disease outbreaks.

Agricultural Services and Technology Development

This programme is also managed by MACO. It aims to improve agricultural production by

developing technology and transfer services. Activities include crop diversification schemes and the

promotion of sustainable agricultural technologies.

Fertilizer Support Programme

Operating since 2002, under the guidance of MACO, this programme aims to augment household

food security and incomes. To achieve this, the programme provides small-scale farmers with seed

(early-maturing seed for drier areas such as Agro-ecological Zones I and II) and fertilizer, 50% of

which is subsidized. The programme currently supports 120 000 small-scale farmers.

Conservation Agriculture Project

Managed by MACO, this programme seeks to conserve soils, water and nutrients under variable

rainfall conditions. The programme’s objectives are inter alia to promote early preparation of land,

reduce the cost of land preparation and improve crop growing conditions through soil, nutrient and

water conservation methods.

72. In addition, other programmes implemented by various cooperating partners are currently underway

in Zambia. These include:


30

IUCN climate change and development project

This project commenced in 2007 and will finish in 2009. It is funded by the Government of Finland

and has a budget of US$2 700 000. The pilot phase of the project was implemented in Zambia

between January and September 2007. The full-size project will expand project activities within

Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique. The key objective of the project is to mainstream climate change

adaptation into natural resources management and poverty reduction related development

interventions. The project supports the collection of site-specific data for climate change in order to

develop tools to enable stakeholders to assess vulnerability.

Conservation Farming In a bid to reverse declining productivity among smallholder farmers, a growing coalition of

stakeholders from the private sector, government and donor communities has been promoting in-situ

water harvesting techniques such as conservation farming (CF) since 199691

. CF systems involve dry

season land preparation, retention of crop residues and planting in fixed stations, thereby enabling

farmers to plant with the first rains so that seeds benefit from the nitrogen flush and to buffer the

effects of shortened rainy seasons. By breaking pre-existing plough-pan barriers, the CF rip lines and

basins improve water infiltration, water retention and plant root development. Research has shown

that despite the fact that CF is labour intensive, CF farmers produced 1.5 tons more maize per hectare

compared to those using conventional tillage implying that the technology has the potential to

improve food security92

. This is a six year project which has been running since 2005 and is

implemented by FAO, MACO and the Conservation Farming Unit (CFU). The aim of the project is to

support sustainable farming practices within the southern, eastern, central and western provinces of

Zambia. In so doing, the project aims to achieve an increase in agricultural production and build the

capacity of farmers. The project budget is estimated at US$29 000 000.

ZNFU/CFU Agro Dealer Programme This programme supports improved availability and timely delivery of agricultural equipment and

inputs for conservation farmers. The programme is funded by the Norwegian government (with a

budget of US$405 000) and commenced in 2008 for a period of two years. The programme area

involves the eastern, western, central and southern provinces of Zambia.

COMESA Climate Change Project This project is also funded by the Norwegian Government and has an estimated budget of

US$2 200 000. The project aims to enhance adaptive capacity and knowledge concerning climate

change. Furthermore, it sets out to promote the engagement of civil society in climate change matters

and concerns. Its main objective, however, is to develop an African political platform on climate

change to support policy dialogue.

Second National Communication to the UNFCCC The objective of this four year project (implemented in 2007) is to prepare the Zambian Second

National Communication to the UNFCCC. This is undertaken by a number of implementers including

the Environmental Council of Zambia and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural

Resources (MTENR). Included in the document will be a complete Green House Gas inventory,

progress reports on vulnerability assessments and adaptation interventions and information

concerning the dissemination of climate change information at a national level.

Ground Water Resources for Southern Province This on-going project funded by the German Government seeks to establish a complete groundwater

database, including hydro-geological maps. The objective is to develop a comprehensive management

programme for ground water resources, which are likely to be negatively impacted by climate change.

Project areas include the Southern Province, the Kafue Basin and Lusaka.

Gender Support Programme

91

Haggblade, S. and Tembo, G. 2003. Conference Paper No. II: Conservation Farming in Zambia. Paper presented

at the InWEnt, IFPRI, NEPAD, CTA conference “Successes in African Agriculture”. 92

Haggblade, S. and Tembo, G. 2003. Conference Paper No. II: Conservation Farming in Zambia. Paper presented

at the InWEnt, IFPRI, NEPAD, CTA conference “Successes in African Agriculture”.


31

Managed by the Gender in Development Division, this programme seeks to strengthen the capacity of

line ministries for gender analysis, accountability and mainstreaming. Through this programme, it is

envisaged that the skills of the staff in MACO, particularly at the district level will be enhanced for

undertaking affirmative action for the purpose of women’ empowerment in the implementation of the

project activities.

73. Current fertilizer distribution schemes and irrigation schemes in place within Zambia are detailed in

Annex J.

74. Although the abovementioned baseline interventions will enhance adaptive capacity by improving

livelihoods and reducing food insecurity, concerns remain regarding their long-term effectiveness and

sustainability as the frequency and intensity of climatic hazards increase. As such there is a clear need to:

i) develop strategies for adaptation supported by a coordinated mix of policy and financial instruments

and based on evidence of best practice; ii) develop political will for policy change to upscale cost-

effective adaptation measures and to adjust national spending plans where appropriate. Understanding

current as well as projected levels of climate risk in affected regions in Zambia is essential to these

objectives.


75. An indicative 31 interventions will be implemented under Outcome 2, which will be spread across

eight pilot sites. It is estimated that these interventions would benefit a total of 7629 people within the

eight pilot sites. The number of beneficiaries per output is included in Annex G, Table 1. This table also

shows the interventions individually to be small scale - all will be community-based and managed. The

tables in Annex G also illustrate the areal extent and spread of activities across the eight pilot sites.

76. The project will implement high priority interventions within the pilot sites, the effective

implementation of which will contribute towards boosting agricultural productivity under changing

climatic conditions and improving the income streams of vulnerable farmers. For example, crop

diversification is an important response to the impacts of climate changes on maize (80% loss of suitable

croplands, see paragraph 14). Fish farming and rice growing are both important potential adaptation

options, as they could become more viable with climate change (i.e. using harnessed floodwater). Other

interventions (such as soil and water conservation and soil improvement techniques) will rehabilitate

degraded lands, allowing the expansion of agricultural activity, and alternative livelihoods will be

investigated, tried and tested. To effectively mitigate the effects of drought in the pilot sites, water storage

and irrigation facilities will be developed (and rehabilitated where necessary). This will also serve to

improve agricultural productivity under changing climatic conditions by providing water to humans,

livestock and crops.

77. These interventions will be tested at the pilot sites to identify the interventions that can be upscaled

catalytically to other areas of AER I and II, based on their demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Furthermore,

the interventions will aim to build local capacity to ensure that the adaptation measures are sustainable

beyond the project lifespan.

78. The approach taken to identify the interventions that can be catalytically upscaled to other areas of

AER I and II is as follows:

Undertaking “economic experiments” i.e. implementing the priority adaptation interventions

identified by pilot sites in a scientifically controlled manner.

Assessing the profitability of interventions (cost-benefit analyses) and using this information to

revise policy and catalyse entrepreneurship. This will be done after the first year of operations

(likely to be in Year 2 of the project).

Determining which interventions are most successful in terms of profitability and feasibility.


32

Determining which interventions will be spontaneously adopted by entrepreneurs within the

communities given the right economic and regulatory environment (policies will be amended to

facilitate this). Barriers to this and to the upscaling of interventions will be determined and

documented. This information will be used to catalyse policy revision. In addition, during the

analyses, incentives for interventions will be identified and provided should the intervention fail.

Training management committees in order to equip them with the ability to train neighbouring

communities in the adoption of profitable interventions. Training management committees

consisting of community members to oversee implementation of successful interventions will

ensure ownership and longevity of the interventions at the local level. Training will not only

involve the actual intervention but will also include financial, administrative and business

management training in order to facilitate entrepreneurship involving interventions. A strong

focus of the project will be to sufficiently capacitate members of the management committees in

order to promote that the committees become permanent features within each pilot sites. Each

pilot site will establish one management committee and sub-committees where necessary for

managing specific interventions. For example, Kataba requires two management committees,

one for fish farming and one for rice farming. Therefore, the project will establish one

management committee with two sub-committees for these two interventions.

79. Additionally, in order to ensure that the pilot interventions are successful and sustainable after the

project lifetime, the following activities will be undertaken at all the pilot sites for all of the interventions

under Outcome 2:

Market access will be improved for the products produced from the pilot sites as well as to

improve farmers’ access to input markets. A consultant will be hired to review the existing

agricultural marketing arrangements at the pilot sites to identify gaps. In addition, he/she will

review existing interventions more broadly to extract lessons and promote partnership linkages.

Based on these gaps, an improved marketing system will be developed, which will assist in

boosting the income streams and introduce farmers to sources of high yielding inputs (such as

fertilizers). This will shift the focus of existing agricultural production from subsistence

activities and maximise benefits from the pilot interventions and promote their sustainability.

Access to weather forecasts will be improved to allow farmers and input suppliers to make

informed pre-production decisions (i.e. to ensure that the appropriate seed will be planted

depending on anticipated seasonal weather). This will minimise losses and protect investments.

Continuous monitoring of the i) progress; ii) productivity; iii) feasibility and profitability (using

cost-benefit analyses); and iv) acceptability by the farmers of each intervention.

Capacity will be built (through training) within the management committees to ensure

continuous monitoring and improved management above and beyond assistance received from

extension officers.

Lessons will be continually captured during the process by knowledge management experts.

These will be documented in the form of technical reports as well as in a feasibility analysis,

which will be used for lobbying for policy change and catalysing upscaling.

Public awareness on the benefits of adaptation will be increased though continuous capturing of

lessons and their dissemination to the general public by the NAIS. This will be achieved using

newsletters, television programmes, radio programmes, and brochures and newspaper articles.

This increased awareness will assist all stakeholders when lobbying for policy changes.

80. The evidence generated under Outcome 2 will be used in work undertaken in Outcomes 3 and 4 on

policy development and the strengthening of national awareness of the need for adaptation.

81. Annex G set out the financial feasibility of the outputs proposed under Outcome 2. The

interventions will be implemented through the already existing MACO extension structures, which are

well represented from the national to the village (site) level. The extension system has representation at


33

the district level in the development decision bodies (DDCC). At each of the pilot sites there are block

extension officers and camp extension officers who live within the communities. Furthermore, experts in

different interventions (e.g. agronomists and fisheries experts) will be visiting the pilot sites and selecting

and overseeing feasible interventions. Overall, there is sufficient staff within the districts represented by

the eight pilot sites in order to ensure that the interventions are correctly implemented and monitored.


FAO (CASPP): US$5 000 000

GRZ (MACO): US$ 809 000

LDCF Project Grant Requested: US$2 641 038.

Outputs and activities

Output 2.1. Techniques for soil and water conservation as well as soil improvement tested for their ability

to improve the productivity of small-scale agriculture.

83. This output is a subcomponent of the PIF outputs 2.1. and 2.2. pertaining to technologies on water

storage and land management techniques for maintaining yields and income levels in rural areas despite

climate change effects.

84. In several districts, restoring land degraded by water erosion and poor farming practises has been

identified as a priority. For example, in districts characterized by hills with steep gradients, heavy rainfall

on slightly vegetated or bare soils causes extensive soil erosion and gully formation. Gully erosion, in

particular, enhances the water stress caused by irregular rainfall by channelling rain water away from

fields as surface runoff, preventing infiltration. Furthermore, poor farming practises have mined the soils

of nutrients in many regions, leaving a legacy of nutrient-poor, acidic and largely unproductive lands.

85. To restore degraded farmland for crop production, soil and water conservation methods will be

introduced, which are mostly included in the practice of CF. Restoration of soil nutrient levels will be

achieved by several soil improvement methods including inter-cropping with leguminous crops,

agroforestry techniques involving leguminous trees/shrubs, mulching, and the judicious application of

fertilisers. Water harvesting methods such as potholing93

, tied ridging94

and bunds will be implemented to

relieve water stress. Baseline interventions involving CF are mainly taking place in AER II where return

on investment is greatest95

. Due to climate change, there is a need to scale up these interventions to other

regions, especially the relatively dry AER I. The project will facilitate this expansion and experiment

with interventions in this latter region. In this way the project is different from the baseline and is

responding specifically to climate change risks.

86. Pilot sites which will participate in Output 2.1 are Lusitu, Chikowa, Mundalanga-N’ganjo, Sioma,

Kataba and Zalapango. In total, soil and water conservation and soil improvement techniques will be

implemented across 245.25 ha (see Annex G for details on costs and coverage).


93

Potholing involves digging holes between the planting rows in order to trap excess water to potentially reduce

runoff. 94

Tied-ridging is a form of micro-basin tillage which involves forming ridges in order to trap water. A ridge is a

long, narrow elevation of land aimed to create a micro-catchment for retention of water during heavy rainfall events.

This results in more water available for crop production due to reduced runoff. 95

The CASPP Project, for example, is underway in both AER I and II, but of the 12 districts in which it is

underway, nine are entirely in AER II and the other three fall within both AER I and II (two of which are

predominately within AER II).


34

2.1.1. Train agricultural extension staff and community development staff from the pilot sites on

soil and water conservation and soil improvement techniques, and task them with extending

the training received to surrounding communities’ extension and development staff (to be

undertaken by the PS, PTC and consultants).

2.1.2. Form farmer/user groups96

and train them on soil and water conservation and soil

improvement techniques97

designed to protect agricultural yields against climate change

(such as potholing; tied ridging; mulching98

; contour ridges; planting of Sesbania sesban99

and Winter Thorn; grass fencing; terracing; bunds; planting of indigenous plants; and

conservation farming techniques) via training workshops given by the government

extension staff. The project will ensure that at least 50% of the farmers who attend and

participate in the training workshops will be women.

2.1.3. Provide farmers with an input pack, which will comprise 5kg early maturing maize (or

cassava/ sweet potato equivalent), 50kg fertilizer, 10kg of legume, a bag of Faidherbia,

herbicides and a chaka hoe, after successfully completing the workshops. This input pack

will be supplied once and will serve as a “starter pack” to assist farmers. In the year

following the training workshops and the provision of the input pack, farmers will be linked

to local suppliers.

2.1.4. Identify and assess which techniques are applicable at each site. This will entail undertaking

an economic analysis and performing cost-benefit analyses to ascertain which techniques

are most suitable for each site.

2.1.5. Establish and train management committees of at least 10 members at each pilot site to

oversee and encourage sustainable soil and water conservation techniques. Five of the

management committee members will be women. (To be undertaken by the PS and the

extension officers).

Output 2.2. Crop diversification practices tested for their ability to improve resilience of farmers to

drought.

87. This output is a subcomponent of the PIF output 2.2. Pertaining to land management techniques for

maintaining yields and income levels in rural areas despite climate change effects.

88. For the last two and half decades following independence, Zambian agricultural policy has focused

on the promotion of maize farming. Large-scale marketing support coupled with extensive fertilizer and

input subsidies encouraged farmers to devote large areas to maize. Consequently, other crops such as

cassava, sorghum, millet (especially in AER I and II), and others that may be better adapted to changing

climate conditions, were neglected. Increasing water scarcity, shortening of the growing season and

increased temperatures will alter crop yields as their ideal climatic zones (in which their optimum

growing conditions are found) shift. In order to maintain agricultural productivity, alternative crops which

are more suited to changing conditions will be identified (e.g. drought-tolerant, early maturing or tolerant

of water-logging), and cropping practices will be diversified (e.g. planting several different crop types and

96

These groups will comprise the farmers within the pilot sites who will be involved in and benefit from the project

intervention. The management committees formed will be a subset of these groups. 97

Both Mundalanga-N’ganjo and Chikowa have identified contour ridges, bunds, vetiver grass and drought-resilient

crops as priority measures to restore degraded lands within those sites. Lusitu has identified soil improvement as a

priority, and Zalapango has prioritized water harvesting. 98

Mulching may also be used to trap water in the field. It involves the spreading of leaves, straw, peat moss or

remains of crop residues on the ground around the crops to prevent water evaporation from the soil. Moreover, it

lowers the speed of runoff across fields. As a result, it helps to maintain the soil stability and fertility by reducing

erosion and trapping nutrients that would be washed away with runoff.

99 Sesbania sesban is a leguminous nitrogen-fixing shrub/tree which can be used in inter-cropping, improving soil

nutrients and stability, and providing high-nitrogen forage.


35

planting different varieties of the same crop), to insure against widespread crop failure. These measures

are of critical importance for improving the adaptive capacity and resilience of communities to climate

change.

89. The crop diversification activities will be undertaken at all eight pilot sites. In total 315 ha will be

dedicated to crop diversification (see Annex G for details on costs and coverage).


2.2.1. Train farmers at all the pilot sites on the importance of crop diversification as well as crop

diversification techniques as an adaptive measure to climate change (e.g. planting drought

tolerant crops, early maturing crops as well as adopting multiple cropping techniques to

spread risks).

2.2.2. Supply farmers with an input pack after successfully completing the training on crop

diversification. Each input pack will comprise 5kg early maturing maize (or cassava/sweet

potato/sorghum equivalent), 50kg fertilizer, 10kg of legume, a bag of Faidherbia, herbicides

and a chaka hoe. Each farmer will only receive one input pack. During the following years,

farmers should be able to produce their own seed (training will help is this regard) as well

as source other inputs from local suppliers.

2.2.3. Conduct farm trials to demonstrate drought resilient and/ or alternative crops as climate

change adaptive techniques. ZARI will select farmers in the pilot sites on whose farms

researchers will conduct the farm trials.

2.2.4. Facilitate the production of drought-resilient and improved seeds within the communities in

order to boost accessibility to seed. This will be achieved by training the local cooperatives

and farmers on seed production methods so that they can produce seed for sale to the

community. This will be undertaken by the staff from Seed Certification and Control

Institute, SCCI, and ZARI, who will also be responsible for preservation of genetic

resources.

2.2.5. Assess the suitability of techniques in the pilot sites. This will entail undertaking an

economic analysis and performing cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether crop

diversification or the use of drought-resilient crops are suitable at each site. In addition, this

will identify suitable crop species.

2.2.6. Form farmer/user groups on crop diversification and establish and train management

committees of at least 10 members at each site to facilitate and oversee the adoption of

drought-resistant and alternative crops by the wider community. Five of the committee

members will be women. In addition to production methods, training of the committees will

include financial, administrative and general business management.

Output 2.3. Alternative livelihoods tested for their ability to diversify incomes away from maize

production.

90. The above output is a subcomponent of the PIF outputs 2.2. Pertaining to land management

techniques for maintaining yields and income levels in rural areas despite climate change effects.

91. Coping mechanisms when food shortages are experienced (because of floods or droughts), include

engaging in alternative livelihoods that directly provide communities with food or with income to

purchase food. Increasingly unpredictable climate conditions as a result of climate change require the

development of alternative livelihoods that communities can rely on in case of crop failure or simply to

augment low yields. Alternative livelihoods are likely to become an important source of cash for families

to meet basic requirements such as food and health. However, barriers exist to the upscaling of activities

(such as insufficient market linkages). The project will test the feasibility of certain alternative livelihoods

to act as financially sustainable income streams that are resilient to changing climatic conditions.


36

Furthermore, the project will focus on capacitating community members to manage and market the

alternative livelihoods in order to ensure their sustainability beyond the project lifetime and market

linkages will be developed in order to improve income streams. In this way, the project will make these

alternative livelihoods profitable, which will potentially offset losses experienced by farmers as a result of

changing climatic conditions.

Output 2.3a. Bee keeping tested for its ability to diversify incomes away from maize production

92. Traditional honey collection is unsustainable as a coping mechanism, as it involves chopping down

trees, on an ad hoc basis, where honey combs are sighted. In improved practices, hives are manufactured

from planks and set near homesteads or in the forest. The honey collected by these techniques is usually

sold locally. These improved bee keeping activities will be upscaled and further refined, with the

establishment of management committees and standard bee keeping procedures (based on best practises

and lessons-learned).

93. This demonstration project will be carried out in Kasaya, Chikowa and Mundalanga-N’ganjo.

Indicative activities under Output 2.3a:

2.3.1. Establish and train a “bee keeping group” at each of the three pilot sites that identified bee

keeping as a priority intervention. The group will comprise at least ten farmers. Five of the

farmers will be female. The groups will be trained in bee keeping, honey processing, forest

management and basic business skills.

2.3.2. Assess the suitability of beekeeping in the sites as well as establish the most suitable

beekeeping techniques. This will entail undertaking an economic analysis and performing

cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether bee keeping is an economically viable option and

which techniques are most suitable for each site.

2.3.3. Assist farmers in identifying and engaging a local carpenter to manufacture at least 4

beehives per farmer.

2.3.4. Provide technical assistance to the groups on setting up of beehives and construct firebreaks

where necessary to protect the beehives.

Output 2.3b. Fish farming tested for its ability to diversify incomes away from maize production

94. Fish farming can provide supplementary food and income where crop loss due to adverse climatic

conditions (flooding and drought) has negatively affected food security and financial resources, and

current coping strategies are not effective in ensuring sustainability of community livelihoods. Fish

farming was initiated in Kataba once before with numerous problems, the key ones being (see Annex K

for more details):

poor cost recovery;

poor technical design and construction so that floods were poorly managed;

limited technical backstopping.

95. Capacity will be built in community members to handle all aspects of fish farming from pond

construction to harvesting. Management committees, set up by the community and trained during the

course of the project, will oversee the running and monitoring of the project. Technical backstopping will

be provided by Fisheries Officers to ensure that management and fish harvesting is done in accordance

with set standards.

96. Kataba will be the only pilot site carrying this demonstration project.

Indicative activities under Output 2.3b:


37

2.3.5. Establish and train a “fish farming group” at the Kataba pilot site. The group will comprise

at least 20 farmers. Ten of the farmers in the group will be female. The training will cover: i)

feed formulation; ii) pond stocking, construction and management; iii) AquaSilviculture;

and iv) integration of fish with livestock and v) fingerling production. Training will be

undertaken by the PS, MACO and DOF.

2.3.6. Assess the suitability of techniques as well as production methods, and certain fish breeds.

This will entail undertaking an economic analysis and performing cost-benefit analyses to

ascertain whether fish farming is an economically viable option and which methods and

breeds are most suitable at Kataba. In addition, suitable sites for fish ponds will be selected.

2.3.7. An appropriate management plan, including cost recovery, agreed by all stakeholders will

be put into place.

2.3.8. Rehabilitate existing drainage canals in the selected sites using local labour (The project

will only supply manual excavation equipment, such as shovels).

2.3.9. Construct breeding and growing fish ponds, this will entail: i) digging and building of

embankments; ii) curing of ponds; iii) filling them with water; and iv) construct water inlet

and outlet channels.

Output 2.3c. Rice farming tested for its ability to diversify incomes away from maize production.

97. At present, the demand for rice in Zambia exceeds supply and deficits are met by imports. The

national demand for rice is estimated at 54 107 MT annually. For example, the 2008/09 crop estimates

indicate that although there was a 39% increase in rice production compared with the previous season,

Zambia will still have to import approximately 22% (12 000 MT) of the commodity to meet the national

demand. The flood-prone areas in Eastern (where Mundalanga is located) and Western (where Kataba and

Sioma are located) Provinces have comparative advantage and approximately 24% and 37%100

of the

households, respectively, are engaged in rice production. However, despite this comparative advantage,

production has not been upscaled as a result of the following constraints:

The tendency of local people (particularly in Western Province) to focus on maize growing

even in areas where maize no longer performs well, remains a constraint to the upscaling of

rice production101

. This is likely due to insufficient knowledge on rice farming.

Inputs, particularly improved seeds, for non-maize crops such as rice are not usually supplied

as part of the government input programmes.

A lack of specialized equipment for processing rice exists in Zambia. This results in the poor

quality of the product and, consequently, lower prices, which discourages production.

98. Flood waters (the incidence of which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change) can be

harnessed in order to form paddy fields for rice farming. Rice farming is therefore one option for

recouping losses of maize during floods, and is a potential opportunity presented by climate change.

During times of minimal rainfall and drought, rice paddies can be irrigated using the rehabilitated and

newly formed irrigation and water storage facilities at the pilot sites (see below). The project will

therefore test the feasibility of rice farming under changing climatic conditions and determine the barriers

to the upscaling of the activity. In addition, the project will identify and provide incentives to farmers to

facilitate the adoption of rice farming activities. For example, if the crop fails, farmers should be provided

with compensation for the economic cost of the failure. Local capacity will be developed to manage all

aspects of rice farming, from land preparation to harvesting and marketing. Rice farming groups and

management committees will be established to ensure sustainability and ownership of the project and

pilots sites will be equipped with specialised equipment for rice processing (dehullers). All farmers in the

groups will actively participate in establishing rice training fields, where all community members will

100

Central Statistical Office 2003, Agriculture Analytical Report, Zambia 2000 Census of Population and Housing. 101

A report in the Times of Zambia newspaper

(http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=10&id=1035879825)


38

learn how to grow rice. This demonstration project will be undertaken in Sioma (areal extent: 100 ha) and

Kataba (areal extent: 200 ha).

Indicative activities under Output 2.3c:

2.3.10. Establish and train a “rice farming groups” at each of the two pilot sites that identified rice

farming as a priority intervention. The group will comprise at least 40 farmers. Twenty of

the farmers in the group will be female farmers. The training will cover land preparation,

sowing, transplanting, tendering and harvesting.

2.3.11. Distribute rice seeds and fertilizer as starter packs. Thereafter, farmers will be linked to

local input suppliers where they will obtain inputs.

2.3.12. Assess the suitability of rice growing, varieties of rice to be grown as well as techniques for

growing the rice. This will entail undertaking an economic analysis and performing cost-

benefit analyses to ascertain whether rice farming is an economically viable option and

which varieties and methods are most suitable for each site. In addition, incentives will be

identified and provided.

2.3.13. Facilitate the farmers’ harvesting of the rice, and the marketing of the product (this will

include purchasing rice milling equipment).

Output 2.3d Integrated fish and rice farming activities tested for its ability to diversify incomes

away from maize production

99. With increased flooding predicted as a result of climate change, an opportunity is presented to

increase or introduce the practice of fish or rice farming. Intensification of production to produce greater

yields per hectare may be possible by combining fish and rice farming. The project will capitalise on this

opportunity by conducting trials to test the feasibility of such intensification. Rice fields will be stocked

with locally grown fingerlings. Initially five farmers will volunteer for trials in the first year. Each farmer

will allow one basin for fish farming trials. Of the five, at least two will be female farmers. If successful,

the number of basins and participating farmers will be upscaled in the following years.

100. The site will be at Mundalanga-N’ganjo (areal extent will be 30 ha). Technical backstopping will be

provided by the District Fisheries extension officer.

Indicative activities under Output 2.3d:

2.3.14. Establish and train an “integrated fish and rice farming group” at the Mundalanga-N’ganjo

pilot site. The group will comprise at least 20 farmers. Ten of these farmers will be female.

The training will cover basin preparation for integrated rice and fish farming, stocking,

feeding and harvesting.

2.3.15. Assess the suitability of integrated fish and rice farming and identify appropriate sites and

varieties/species. This will entail undertaking an economic analysis and performing cost-

benefit analyses to ascertain whether integrated fish and rice farming is an economically

viable option and which varieties and methods are most suitable at Mundalanga-N’ganjo.

2.3.16. Supply the fingerlings and distribute rice seeds, fingerlings and fertilizer. Trial sites will be

formed on farms within Mundalanga-N’ganjo.

Output 2.3e. Additional Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) promoted and tested for their ability

to diversify incomes away from maize production


39

101. Despite 39% of Zambia still being forested102

, reports show that Zambia has one of the largest

annual area deforestation rates at 850 000 ha (8500 km2) in the world

103, mainly because of timber

extraction and clearing for agricultural production. Indeed, during the consultations undertaken to

determine priority interventions to be implemented by the project, the Kasaya community proposed

degazetting the forest to allow the locals exploit it for timber as one of the means of improving incomes in

the area. To a small degree, in order to diversify household income and increase community resilience to

climate-related shocks, rural communities harvest high value non-timber forest products (NTFPs). NTFPs

frequently used include: i) harvesting seasonal mushrooms; ii) collecting Mopane worms; iii) harvesting

Mungongo nut for its oil; iv) carrying out traditional bee keeping; v) collecting baobab fruit and Mubuyu

fruit to sell in Lusaka and other urban markets; and vi) harvesting thatch and palm fronds for basket and

mat making. There is also potential for developing local crafts and tourism. However, constraints exist

that prevent the upscaling of NTFP production include:

Lack of knowledge concerning the benefits and uses of NTFPs.

Lack of business development services in the area, especially regarding NTFPs.

Lack of personnel with appropriate expertise on exploitation of NTFPs in the district.

Lack of financial services for procuring equipment such as oil presses for extracting oil from

forest nuts, such as Mungongo nuts.

Lack of knowledge on value addition for some of the products.

Lack of market access for the products.

102. The project will focus on mushroom and mopane worm harvesting. (Scaling up of bee keeping is

tackled in Output 2.3a). Capacity building activities will encompass production and quality control, value

addition and market access and linkages. The project will facilitate linkages to marketing mediums such

as Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO), which links NTFPs to local markets and abroad.

OXFAM is involved in similar activities. Details will be fine-tuned and inserted after the Inception

Workshop. The potential for generating additional benefits for communities through carbon trading or

eligibility for benefits from the United Nations Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

(UN-REDD) programmes will also be determined.

103. Community participation in the project will be through producer groups and will be demand driven.

Group level management and performance monitoring will be done by community members while

technical backstopping will be by the District Agricultural Extension Staff (camp extension and block

extension officers).

104. Kasaya is the only pilot site that will be implementing this Output.

Indicative activities under Output 2.3e:

2.3.17. Identify suitable and viable NTFPs and assess the feasibility of the identified NTFPs as

sources of income and alternative livelihoods. Develop NTFP production system/value

addition and market linkages.

2.3.18. Undertake feasibility assessments of the techniques and identify suitable methods of

extraction.

2.3.19. Establish and train producer groups within Kasaya once relevant NTFPs have been

identified. Training will include information concerning the NTFPs (including harvesting,

collection and storage) and how to market each product.

Output 2.4. Community-based water storage and irrigation systems improved or developed to test their

ability to raise agricultural productivity.

102

CIA World Fact Book 2009 (https://www.cia.gov). 103

http://www.africanconservation.org/content/view/1271/405/

http://www.africanconservation.org/content/view/1271/405/


40

105. The above output is a subcomponent of the PIF output 2.1. Pertaining to technologies on water

storage.

106. Zambia holds approximately 40% of the water in the SADC region, in groundwater reserves as well

as five major river systems (the Zambezi, Luangwa and Kafue Rivers in the Zambezi River basin, and the

Chambeshi and Luapula Rivers in the Congo River basin), several wetlands and numerous dambos104

.

Yet, despite having access to such water resources, less than 5% of arable land is currently irrigated105

.

As a result of the reliance of the agriculture sector on rain-fed agriculture, increasing climate variability is

causing a greater frequency of crop failure and concomitant food insecurity.

107. Furthermore, climate change projections outlined in the NAPA point to a continued increase in

temperature and a change in rainfall patterns, leading to more frequent prolonged droughts and a

shortening of the rainy season106

. Assessments of the economic costs of climate change on agriculture in

Zambia indicate that AER I and II will exhibit strong water deficits at critical periods of the cropping

calendars, resulting in severe yield decreases for crops such as maize107

. Increasing and improving

existing rain water storage capacity and irrigation systems to insure against crop failure are therefore a

priority.

108. In Zambia, past experience of smallholder irrigation schemes show that implementation problems

arising from poor planning, lack of ownership and other socially related problems108

(such as inequitable

access of the resource, use of improper water extraction methods and allowing cattle to graze too close to

the dams which loosens the soil leading to siltation of the dams) exist. Where irrigation systems are in

place they are often in disrepair, and water storage facilities are compromised (e.g. earth dams are

breached or leaking because of low levels of maintenance), predominantly as a result of poor management

arrangements (including cost recovery). Furthermore, the NIP identifies that lack of participatory

rehabilitation of shared irrigation schemes as one of the reasons for farmer’s failure to operate and

maintain these schemes. In addition, the lifespan of water small dams is estimated at about 10 years.

Some dams have therefore exceeded this estimated lifespan and require rehabilitation. However, this has

not yet been undertaken as a result of resource constraints (financial and technical). The project will

address these issues by ensuring farmer participation (to establish community ownership) in all activities

by forming and training management committees and farmer user groups. Training will be centred on

water management, irrigation techniques (such as scheduling), appropriate water extraction methods,

irrigated crop production, fish farming, livestock production as well as usage of communal water

resources. Additionally, management arrangements (including cost recovery) will be developed for each

intervention in participation with the farmer/user groups. In this way, farmers will be participating

actively in decision making on how the interventions are developed. Furthermore, where possible, local

community members will supply manual labour to the project in order to build the water storage facilities,

for example. The World Food Programme has offered to supply food to locals in exchange for manual

labour109

. This will also create community ownership of project interventions.

109. Many of the pilot sites have some form of irrigation and water storage facilities, which will be

improved and expanded upon by the project110

. Extensions and improvements undertaken by the project

104

Dambos are natural wetland areas, usually in valley bottoms, and are used by many farmers for crop cultivation. 105

UNDP Initiation Plan: Adaptation to the Effect of Drought and Climate Change in Agro-ecological Zone I and 2

in Zambia. 106


World Bank with support from FAO, IWMI, Yale University and University of Pretoria. 108

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2004. Irrigation Policy and Strategy: Strategy for the Development of

Zambia’s Irrigation Sector 109

This linkage has not yet been fully approved; the details will be finalized during the Inception Workshop. 110

For example, the Kasaya community is already utilizing an abandoned road construction pit for water catchment

and storage.


41

will include: i) building a series of weirs, gabions and dams to capture surface runoff; ii) building

reservoirs to store captured water and supply irrigation systems; iii) increasing the capacity of and

improving existing irrigation systems and iv) connecting irrigation canals to fields. Community members

in many villages have offered to partially finance these plans (established during consultations with

community members at the pilot sites).

110. Capacity building of the communities will include training in dam, reservoir, weir and irrigation

management. Management and performance monitoring will be done by community members while

technical backstopping will be by Technical Services Branch of the District Agriculture and Cooperatives.

The participation of community members in all activities and the training provided will establish

ownership and ensure that interventions will not fall into disrepair as has previously occurred.

Indicative activities under Output 2.4a:

Output 2.4a. Community-based multipurpose dams in Kasaya, Sioma, Zalapango and Kabeleka

constructed and irrigation systems tested for their ability to improve agricultural productivity.

2.4.1. Form farmer/user groups, facilitate the formation of four dam management committees in

four pilot sites (which will comprise at least 10 members, of which at least five will be

women) and train the communities and the committees within the pilot sites on group

formation and management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from the DWA and

MACO).

2.4.2. Train the farmer/user groups on water management, irrigation techniques (such as

scheduling), appropriate water extraction methods, irrigated crop production, fish farming,

livestock production as well as usage of communal water resources. (To be undertaken by

the MACO DOA and DWA.)

2.4.3. Assess the suitability of techniques (e.g. undertake all relevant feasibility (environmental,

social and cost-benefit assessments to determine the types of dams suitable to the sites). (To

be undertaken by the MACO DOA and the DWA.)

2.4.4. Construct multipurpose dams. (This will be undertaken by local contracted companies under

the supervision of MACO and DWA. The types of dams will depend on the sites. However,

they will be multipurpose and be used for fish farming, livestock watering, irrigation and

household water supply.)

2.4.5. Construct canals or other suitable water extraction methods as well as watering points for

livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation. (This will be

undertaken by the DWA, MACO and PS.)

2.4.6. The project will ensure that an appropriate management and sustainability plans, including

cost-recovery, agreed by all stakeholders, is in place.

Output 2.4b: A community-based earth dam in Chikowa constructed and irrigation systems tested

for their ability to improve agricultural productivity.

2.4.7. Form a farmer/user group, facilitate the formation of a dam management committee (which

will comprise at least ten members, of which at least five will be women) at the Chikowa

pilot site, train the communities and the committees at Chikowa on group formation and

management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from DWA and MACO.)






42

2.4.9. Assess the suitability of techniques (e.g. undertake feasibility and cost-benefit assessments

to determine which type of dam is most suitable to the site111

). (To be undertaken by the

MACO DOA and DWA.)

2.4.10. Construct an earth dam (or other, if appropriate). (This will be undertaken by local

contracted companies under the supervision of MACO and DWA.)

2.4.11. The project will ensure that an appropriate management plan, including cost-recovery,

agreed by all stakeholders, is in place.


livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation. (This will be

undertaken by the DWA, MACO and PS.)

Output 2.4c: A community-based storm water dam in Kasaya constructed and irrigation systems

tested for its ability to improve agricultural productivity.

2.4.13. Form farmer/user groups, facilitate the formation of a dam management committee at the

Kasaya pilot site (which will comprise at least ten members, of which at least five will be

women) and train the communities and the committees at Kasaya on group formation and

management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from DWA and MACO.)






to determine the types of dams suitable to the site). (To be undertaken by MACO DOA and

DWA).

2.4.16. Construct storm water dams. (To be undertaken by local contracted companies under the

supervision of MACO and DWA. The types of dams will depend on the sites. However,

they should be multipurpose and be used for fish farming, livestock watering, irrigation and

household water supply.)




livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation. (To be

undertaken by MACO DOA and DWA).

Output 2.4d: A community-based reservoir in Lusitu constructed and irrigation systems tested for

its ability to improve agricultural productivity.

2.4.19. Form farmer/user groups, facilitate the formation of a reservoir management committee at

the Lisutu pilot site (which will comprise at least ten members, of which at least five will be

women) and train the communities and the committees at Lusitu on group formation and

management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from the DWA and MACO.)






to determine the types of reservoirs suitable to the sites). (To be undertaken by the MACO

DOA and DWA.)

111

Earlier assessments are not thought by stakeholders to have been detailed enough. Undertaking this assessment

will ensure that the most suitable type of dam is constructed.


43

2.4.22. Construct reservoirs. (To be undertaken by local contracted companies under the

supervision of MACO and DWA. The types of reservoirs will depend on the sites. However,

they should be multipurpose and be used for livestock watering, irrigation and household

water supply.)




livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation (This will be

undertaken by the DWA, MACO and PS).

Output 2.4e: A community-based weir in Kasaya constructed and irrigation systems tested for its

ability to improve agricultural productivity.

2.4.25. Form farmer/user groups, facilitate the formation of a weir management committee at the

Kasaya pilot site (which will comprise at least ten members, of which at least five will be

women) and train the communities and the committees within the pilot sites on group

formation and management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from the Department of

Water Affairs (DWA), and MACO).






to determine the types of weirs suitable to the sites). (To be undertaken by the MACO DOA

and DWA.)

2.4.28. Construct weirs. (To be undertaken by local contracted companies under the supervision of

MACO and DWA.)




livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation. (To be

undertaken by DWA, MACO and PS.)

Output 2.4f: Irrigation systems in Lusitu rehabilitated and tested for its ability to improve

agricultural productivity.

2.4.31. Form farmer/user groups, facilitate the formation of a dam management committee at the

Lisutu pilot site (which will comprise at least ten members, of which at least five will be

women) and train the communities and the committees at Lusitu on group formation and

management. (To be undertaken by technical staff from the DWA and MACO.)






to determine the types of irrigation systems suitable to the sites). This will be undertaken by

the MACO (DOA) and the DWA.

2.4.34. Rehabilitate irrigation systems that require rehabilitation. (To be undertaken by local

contracted companies under the supervision of MACO and DWA.)




44


livestock. This may include supply of manual pumps and pipes for irrigation (To be

undertaken by the DWA, MACO and PS).

111. Outputs and sites for identified interventions are summarised in Table 3. The details of the

interventions to be implemented at each pilot site are included in Annex G. Indicators and targets for the

outputs are available in Annex G.

Table 3. Project outputs and the corresponding pilot sites in which the outputs will be implemented. Outputs Pilot sites

Output 1.1. Institutional capacity to support climate risk

management in the agricultural sector at the national,

district and village level developed.

All eight pilot sites.

Output 1.2. Effective EWS(s) developed to enhance

preparedness and reduce climate-related risks.


Output 2.1. Techniques for soil and water conservation

as well as soil improvement implemented to reduce

erosion and improve the productivity of small-scale

agriculture.

Lusitu, Chikowa, Mundalanga-N’ganjo, Sioma,

Zalapango, Kataba.

Output 2.2. Crop diversification practices promoted to

improve the resilience of farmers to drought.

All eight pilot sites

Output 2.3. Alternative livelihoods introduced.

Output 2.3a. Bee keeping implemented and/or

upscaled.

Kasaya, Chikowa, Mundalanga-N’ganjo.

Output 2.3b. Fish farming implemented. Kataba.

Output 2.3c. Rice farming implemented. Sioma, Kataba.

Output 2.3d Integrated fish and rice farming

activities implemented.

Mundalanga-N’ganjo.

Output 2.3e Additional Non-Timber Forest Products

(NTFPs) identified and promoted. Kasaya.

Output 2.4. Water storage capacity and irrigation

systems improved or developed to ensure adequate water

provision to crops and livestock.

Kasaya, Chikowa, Lusitu, Sioma, Zalapango, Kabeleka.

Output 2.4a. Construct multipurpose dams in

Kasaya, Sioma, Zalapango and Kabeleka.

Kasaya, Sioma, Zalapango, Kabeleka.

Output 2.4b: Construct an earth dam in Chikowa Chikowa

Output 2.4c: Construct storm water dams in Kasaya Kasaya

Output 2.4d: Construct reservoirs in Lusitu Lusitu

Output 2.4e: Construct weirs in Kasaya Kasaya

Output 2.4f: Rehabilitation of irrigation systems in

Lusitu

Lusitu

Output 4.1. Knowledge and lessons learned to support

implementation of adaptation measures compiled and

disseminated.


112. The eight pilot sites (in which priority interventions will be implemented) were identified through

an intensive consultative process at the national, provincial, district and community levels (see Annexes

C,D and E). At the national level, a team of stakeholders from different sectors identified the Zambian

provinces most vulnerable to climate change impacts. Four of the nine Zambian provinces were selected,

namely the Southern, Eastern, Western and the Lusaka provinces. Missions to each of the four chosen

provinces were undertaken by four teams of consultants to facilitate the selection of districts and pilot

sites. Based on the information gathered and the selection criteria (see Annex E), the provincial level

selection process, undertaken by the Agriculture and Natural Resources subcommittee of the Provincial

Development Coordinating Committee (PDCC), identified candidate districts within each province (see

Figure 2). The target districts then nominated their most vulnerable communities. The community level


45

selection process was used to assess the vulnerability of target communities as well as to assess the

existing community capacity available to implement project activities. Priority interventions (i.e.

appropriate adaptation responses) were identified for each pilot site by the application of climate risk

assessments. The eight pilot sites that were selected are as follows:

Western Province: Kataba (Senanga District) and Sioma (comprising two closely situated villages,

Kabula II and Kandiyana, in the Shangombo District).

Southern Province: Kasaya Catchment (Kazungula District) and Lusitu Catchment (Siavonga

District).

Eastern Province: Mundalanga-N’ganjo (comprising two closely situated villages, Mundalanga and

N’ganjo, in the Chama District) and Chikowa (Mambwe District).

Outcome 3: National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation

responses in the agricultural sector.

Baseline Situation

113. Despite the serious impacts climate change is likely to have on Zambia’s ability to meet its

development targets as outlined in the FNDP and the MDGs, adaptation has not been mainstreamed into

the national policy framework. The draft National Environment Policy112

identifies 11 government

ministries involved in environmental affairs. Nine of these ministries have policies referring to the

environment. In addition, intra and inter-sectoral institutional arrangements are limited and few

coordination mechanisms exist for effective multi-sectoral integration of policies, or for the integration of

adaptation into such policies. The draft NPE also highlights current shortfalls in these policies including

ineffectual mechanisms for community-based natural resources management, lack of informal inter-

sectoral links, limited up-to-date baseline data and limited national guidelines for effective integration of

international environmental conventions into the policies113

.

114. Baseline activities being implemented in the FNDP include policy formulation and regulation in the

agriculture sector, and policy, institutional and legal reforms in the communication and meteorology

sector. Although considerable funding has been set aside for these reforms, adequate consideration of

current and projected climate risks has not been taken. As such, without the project interventions, climate

change impacts will remain largely overlooked. This is likely to result in ineffective use of the funding.

115. A limitation to adaptation responses being incorporated into Zambian policy114

. is that there have

been no comprehensive analyses on adaptation measures, their impacts and their cost-effectiveness. It is

difficult to make the case for realignment of budgets and adjustments to policy if the costs and benefits of

adaptation versus other public policy investments are unknown.


116. Policy support is critical to promote replication of pilot adaptation measures. The project will

review existing and proposed national fiscal, regulatory and agricultural development policies (such as the

NPE, the NAP and the NIP), and develop policy recommendations that promote long-term adaptive

capacity in the agriculture sector. The activities in Outcome 3 include identifying the most pertinent

information needed by policy- and decision-makers in order to fast-track policy revision. An improved

evidence base will be used to formulate and motivate for the adoption of national fiscal, regulatory and

development policies that promote climate change risk management.

117. This top-down approach will complement the bottom-up approach taken in Outcome 2, (which

establishes adaptive farming practises), to generate the evidence base on what constitutes effective

adaptation responses. The project will introduce regular dialogue between key stakeholders implementing

112

Zambia National Policy for the Environment, 2004. 113

Zambia National Policy for the Environment, 2004. 114



46

adaptation responses and policy- and decision-makers to sensitise the latter to the economic benefit of

adaptation.

118. The project will build institutional capacity to formulate climate-resilient policies and strategies to

support adaptation measures in Zambia’s agriculture sector. Training workshops will promote awareness

of the importance of adaptation, and build administrative and planning skills at both national and local

levels. Trained stakeholders will then be tasked to utilise their new skills, e.g. sectoral planners will be

capacitated to incorporate climate risk information into agricultural planning, and community members

will be empowered to implement the strategies resulting from the agricultural planning. This awareness-

raising and importantly tasking of government staff to incorporate climate change risks into planning will

ensure stakeholder buy-in.

119. In addition, resources (technical and financial) will be provided to the Agriculture and Natural

Resources subcommittees of the DDCC and the NGOCC in the eight pilot districts to equip them to act as

the local climate resource and support centres, which would coordinate different stakeholders on

adaptation policy. The financial support will be used to monitor the progress and success of the adaptation

measures in Outcome 2 (monitoring will be undertaken by the DDCCs). In addition, the financial support

will facilitate meetings and reviews of community-based adaptation initiatives to identify complementary

activities and mandates. Staff within the centres will hold meetings and develop strategies to incorporate

climate change considerations into district and provincial planning.


CCFU: US$2 020 000

UNDP-CO: US$ 15 000


Output 3.1. Awareness of climate change risks and to the economic value of adaptation responses raised

among policy- and decision-makers.

121. The above output incorporates components of the PIF outputs 3.1 and 3.2 which pertain to national

policy dialogues and agricultural investment planning, respectively.


3.1.1. Develop and conduct national training seminars on climate-resilient agricultural planning

(including the results of activity 1.1.1.) involving all the departments in MACO, ZMD,

DWA, DMMU and MTENR. (To be undertaken by the PS, in collaboration with the CCFU.)

At least 60 government officials working in the planning section of the relevant

ministries/department, including the ministries mentioned above, will be trained. Of these

officials, as many women as possible will be included.

3.1.2. Develop awareness and training materials (such as briefing notes, fact sheets and cross-

sectoral guides) for sectoral planners on the need to incorporate climate change

considerations into agricultural planning, including the economic benefits thereof based on

lessons from the pilot sites. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the ZMD under

their project, entitled “Capacity development for effective Early Warning Services to

support climate change adaptation in Zambia”. These materials will be used for capacity

development and policy advocacy by the CCFU. (To be undertaken by PS, ZMD and

CCFU.)

3.1.3. Design and conduct training workshops in each of the eight pilot districts for Agricultural

and Natural Resources subcommittees of the DDCC, the Non-Governmental Coordinating

Committees (NGOCC) and other relevant district level stakeholders. The workshops will


47

include information on assessing, planning and implementing community-based adaptation

measures (see Outcome 2), and strengthening linkages between key institutions, such as

government officials and NGOs, to avoid duplication of activities. This will be undertaken

in collaboration with the CCFU.

3.1.4. Provide technical and financial support to the Agricultural and Natural Resources

subcommittees of the DDCC and the NGOCC in the eight pilot districts to equip them to act

as the local climate resource and support centres, which will ensure coordination among

different stakeholders. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU.

Output 3.2. National policy dialogues conducted to discuss project findings in relation to cost-

effectiveness of piloted adaptation options.

122. The above output incorporates components of the PIF outputs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 which pertain to

national policy dialogues, policy revision and agricultural investment planning.


3.2.1. Assess barriers that may be hindering institutional coordination among government

ministries and departments and suggest mechanisms for integrated and synergistic

approaches to achieve joint climate-resilient development planning in AER I and II. (To

be undertaken by CCFU, PS, PTC and consultants.)

3.2.2. Establish regular dialogue between the members of the DDCC, PDCC and the District

NGOCC to enable coordinated and climate-resilient development planning in the

vulnerable provinces. (To be undertaken by PS and PTC.)

3.2.3. Monitor the institutional coordination process over the project lifetime and communicate

monitoring results to policy stakeholders.

Output 3.3. Policies that require adjustments to promote adaptation identified and reviewed.

123. The above output incorporates components of the PIF outputs 3.2 and 3.3 which pertain to

agricultural investment planning and policy revision, respectively.


3.3.1. Analyse sectoral policies that promote or impede the resilience of communities within

AER I and II to climate change, such as the National Irrigation Policy, Land Policy,

National Agricultural Policy, Water Policy and Meteorological policies, with a focus on

livelihoods and financial impacts at the community level. This activity will follow on

from evidence collected under Outcome 2 on cost effective adaptation interventions and

will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU.

3.3.2. Identify gaps in the existing policies, relating to climate change using evidence collected

at the pilot sites. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU.

3.3.3. Develop policy notes for each sectoral policy analysed outlining and describing the

impacts, costs and benefits of a particular sectoral policy on the resilience of livelihoods

in AER I and II. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU and hired

consultants.

Outcome 4: Lessons-learned and knowledge management component established.

Baseline Situation

124. At present in Zambia, very little knowledge is disseminated to the public regarding climate change

and the need for adaptation. Disseminating project results is useful in order to: i) inform future enterprises


48

in best practises; ii) effectively overcome informational barriers to the uptake of adaptation measures; iii)

prevent duplication of efforts.


125. The project will establish a knowledge platform that will serve as a resource base for current and

future projects to publish their lessons-learned, and obtain lessons-learned from other projects. A project

website will be established to make all project reports accessible to a wider audience. Appropriate

platforms are the web-based UNDP’s ALM, and WikiADAPT. The ALM hosts lessons-learned from

UNDP projects, while WikiADAPT is a website that hosts lessons-learned from diverse institutions and

agencies from various adaptation activities. Other means of communication are to be utilised to reach

those sectors of the public that do not have access to the internet (e.g. pamphlets, workshops, seminars,

and radio broadcasts). This will be undertaken in conjunction with NAIS, who produce agricultural

programmes for television, radio and print media in seven local languages for dissemination at the pilot

sites (see Annex K). Other means of developing awareness of the project results and enabling replication

are developing knowledge products, holding public and government consultations and implementing

awareness campaigns.


CCFU: US$330 000


Output 4.1. Knowledge and lessons learned to support implementation of adaptation measures compiled

and disseminated

127. Indicative activities under Output 4.1:

4.1 Document lessons-learned from the project on a continual basis and compile the results of

activities under Outcomes 1 and 2. Present the lessons in a summary document that is

distributed to all stakeholders. In addition, collate and submit all technical reports and

documents on lessons-learned to the ALM and WikiADAPT.

4.2 Post project information, including all project reports, regularly on the CCFU website. (To

be undertaken by PS, CCFU and UNDP.)

4.3 Develop a briefing paper on lessons-learned from the project for publication in a peer-

reviewed journal and for presentation at an international conference on adaptation to

climate change as well as for use as technical evidence by the CCFU in lobbying for policy

adjustments. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU.

4.4 Conduct one national workshop and one regional workshop targeting neighbouring

countries to facilitate the dissemination of project lessons to countries potentially facing

similar climate change problems. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the CCFU.

4.5 Publish workshop proceedings and distribute as hardcopies and electronic copies (including

publication on a CCFU climate change website, see activity 4.2.). This will be undertaken

in collaboration with the CCFU.

4.6 Develop newsletters, television and radio programmes, newspaper articles, booklets and

pamphlets highlighting the lessons-learned during the project and sensitizing the general

public on climate change adaptation. The newsletter will be produced at least once a month

to maintain project visibility and momentum. The television and radio programmes will be

broadcast at least once a month. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the NAIS.

4.7 Conduct community workshops in the eight pilot sites in order to disseminate project

lessons to farmers.


49

Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions

Indicators

128. The project indicators will rely largely on the Vulnerability Reduction Assessment115

(VRA), which

is an important element of UNDP’s “Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Climate Change

Adaptation”. This has been implemented in a growing number of GEF initiatives under UNDP’s

Community Based Adaptation (CBA) Programme. VRA is designed to measure the changing climate

vulnerabilities of communities, and to be comparable across vastly different projects, regions, and

contexts making it possible to determine if a given project is successful or unsuccessful in reducing

climate change risks.

129. At the level of the four Outcomes, indicators are:

Outcome 1: Climate change risks integrated into critical decision-making processes for agricultural


Indicators:

1. Number of Government planners and extension staff that include climate risk information in their

decision processes

3. Early Warning Systems developed and applied effectively in 3 pilot sites.

Outcome 2: Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of

climate change

Indicators:

1. Number of interventions in selected pilot sites implemented, with appropriate management (including

cost recovery) plans in place, agreed by all stakeholders, for sustainability beyond the project grant.

2. Percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the pilot sites.

4. Number of women involved in interventions in the pilot sites.

Outcome 3: National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation

responses in the agricultural sector.

Indicators:

1. The number of policies that are adapted to take into account climate change risks.

2. Awareness level of rural population in pilot sites and local/national government of climate change and

its impacts improved.

Outcome 4: Lessons learned and knowledge management component established.

Indicators:

1. Number of proposals, papers and other documents that incorporate learning from the project.

2. Number of lessons included in the ALM.

3. Number of regional and national workshops conducted for dissemination of project lessons.

4. The number of awareness campaigns conducted on the need to incorporate adaptation needs in policy.

115

Droesch, A.C. Gaseb, N. Kurukulasuriya, P. Mershon, A. Moussa, K.M. Rankine , D. and Santos, A. 2008. A

guide to the Vulnerability Reduction Assessment. United Nations Development Programme Community –Based

Adaptation Programme.


50

130. These indicators track progress in achieving project Outcomes, and the degree of their collective

achievement will be a measure of the degree of progress in meeting the project objective. For more

information and for indicators at the Objective and Output level, refer to the Strategic Results Framework

in Section II, Part I and in Annex F. Baseline values for these indicators will be gathered within the first

six months of project implementation.

Assumptions and Risks

131. Key assumptions underlying the project design include:

The GRZ remains committed to implementing baseline activities complemented by the

additionality interventions the project aims to implement.

Stakeholders such as NGOs and CBOs remain committed to implementing baseline activities

complemented by the additionality interventions the project aims to implement.

Pilot sites are best placed to demonstrate the benefits of measures to adapt to climate change.

The major implementing agents at the community level (extension workers and community

workers) remain committed to the project during the entire duration.

Climate change concerns are not overshadowed by other emergency matters on the government

agenda such as the expected 2011 Presidential and Parliamentary elections.

132. Risks that could potentially affect the success of the project are included with recommended

mitigation measures in Table 4.

Table 4. Risks that could potentially affect the success of the project. Risk Risk

Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure

Private sector and communities do not respond

positively to improved policies/incentives.

Low Sound business planning in the planning

stage will ensure only profitable ventures are

undertaken

The slow pace of policy modification may mean

that identified policy changes are not

implemented in a timely fashion.

High The project will take advantage of the current

impetus within the GRZ on mitigating

climate change impacts.

Identify and work with champions for policy

change in GRZ.

Research-based evidence and systematic

feasibility assessment reports will be supplied

to the CCFU to enhance their lobbying

capacity and speed up the process.

Continuous sensitization on the benefits of

adaptation through NAIS programmes on

radio and television will also ensure full

support of the general public for policy

adjustments

Conflicts among stakeholders as regards roles in

the project leading to uncoordinated approach in

tackling climate change impacts.

High Clear statement of each stakeholder role in

the stakeholder involvement plan. Also the

newly formed CCFU will ensure coordinated

approaches as regards climate change

projects

Poor co-ordination among implementing

institutions leading to delays in deliverables.

Medium The project has been designed with full

involvement of all the stakeholders from

identification to implementation

The strengthened M&E system would

provide an early warning to enable the

project management team to resolve the

issues


51

Inadequate staffing in the MACO extension

system limiting the project’s upscaling potential.

Medium Continuous training of management

committees so that they continually take up

the extension officers roles during the

upscaling process

The slow implementation of baseline projects by

the GRZ may imply that they may not be

complete within the pilot phase negatively

impacting on project outcomes.

Medium Continuous lobbying and sensitization of the

policy makers based on evidence from the

pilot sites to secure cooperation and

commitment

Agricultural and water management interventions

at the pilot sites are not cost effective.

Low Interventions will be designed according to

affordable levels of cost recovery.

Cost recovery analysis of water management

measures will be a central component of the

cost-effectiveness analyses. Cost recovery

should be clearly linked to agricultural

productivity increases.

Limited human resources in the country may limit

project implementation.

Medium The project will focus on capacity building in

the relevant departments of the GRZ as well

as at the community level. The PPG phase

will identify and develop human resources

capacity as required.

International experts will be recruited where

there are gaps.

Farmer acceptability of risky adaptation measures

may limit project implementation.

Low The pilot interventions to be implemented are

demand-driven through wide stakeholder

consultation.

Difficulties in getting support for the project due

to the number of competing challenges.

Low Increased sensitization of stakeholders and

potential support systems on climate change

adaptation.

Lack of commitment from the community. Medium Intensive awareness raising campaigns

through the NAIS radio and television

programmes, CCFU awareness campaigns

and extension officers should prevent this

from occurring

Avoiding a top down approach throughout

the project processes

A change in donor interest could result in

government interests changing and reduce

momentum on implementation.

High High risk but very low probability of

occurrence given the increased focus on

climate change by the donor community

Delays in the release of funds could impede

progress and prevent deliverables being achieved

on time.

Medium Effective administrative planning will

overcome this risk.

High illiteracy levels in villages may hinder the

progress of pilot interventions and/or

dissemination of lessons learned.

Medium Management committees and farmers

involved in various interventions will

undergo extensive training to ensure that they

understand the task at hand.

Project lessons will also be disseminated via

workshops, television and radio programmes

to ensure that they reach a larger audience.

Failure to address gender equity and women’s

empowerment.

Medium Capacity building in gender analysis,

accountability and mainstreaming.

Adopting gender affirmative action in all

project activities.


52

Expected national and local benefits

133. Zambia is highly dependent on climate-sensitive sectors for food and income. The predicted

increases in temperature and rainfall variability are, therefore, likely to impact negatively on the nation’s

ability to maintain and improve agriculture productivity. Investment in adaptation will address a number

of the major barriers identified in the FNDP as preventing the agriculture sector’s optimal contribution to

economic growth. These barriers include: i) the high dependence on rain-fed agriculture; ii) deficiencies

in the EWS’s; and iii) environmental degradation due to unsustainable agricultural practices.

134. The project will focus its “on the ground” interventions at strengthening the adaptive capacity of

vulnerable small-scale farmers within the eight pilot sites in AER I and II to changing climatic conditions.

The project will benefit local communities by equipping with the tools to improve crop yields and income

streams. The dependence of vulnerable communities on rain-fed irrigation will be alleviated by ensuring

year-round provision of water following the implementation and rehabilitation of irrigation systems as

well as water capturing and storage facilities. Alternative livelihoods will be promoted to boost income

streams of vulnerable groups. Local government and management institutions will be more accountable

and transparent, and will alter long-term development strategies and polices to encourage adaptation and

reduce the risks posed by climatic hazards. Lessons learned from the implementation of “on the ground”

interventions will be documented and disseminated to other regions and countries embarking on similar

adaptation projects in order to refine project strategies to ensure the early achievement of project results.

Overall, a better understanding of adaptation mechanisms will be achieved.

135. Other national benefits of the project include increased food security thereby positively affecting

MDG 1, better healthy outcomes (as a result of better nutritional status) thereby positively affecting

MDGs 4 and 6. Furthermore, the anticipated improved farming practices will lead to increased

environmental sustainability, which will positively affect MDG 7. Overall, the project will contribute to

building adaptive capacity to climate change in the agriculture sector in Zambia. At the national level,

capacity will be strengthened to integrate climate change risk reduction strategies into development

policies and programmes.

Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness

136. As a Least Developed Country (LDC) and a Landlocked Developing Country (LLDC)116

, Zambia

recognizes that it has limited resources to effectively lower the risks that climate change poses to hard-

won development gains. As a result, the GRZ is making efforts to address climate change and is

committed to ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable communities are supported by programmes

that enhance their long-term adaptive capacity. The GRZ’s resolve to tackle climate change is evident

from efforts such as creation of the Climate Change Facilitation Unit (CCFU) (See paragraph 152 for

details).

137. The GRZ ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and

its Kyoto Protocol (KP) in 1993 and 2006, respectively. As a result, a number of activities have been

undertaken (detailed below), which the project will build upon and complement, including the work

achieved under the INC and the National Capacity Self Assessment.

116

“Landlocked developing countries are generally among the poorest of the developing countries, with the weakest

growth rates, and are typically heavily dependent on a very limited number of commodities for their export earnings.”

UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and

Small Island Developing States. (http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm).


53

National Communications. The GRZ produced the Initial National Communication (INC) and is in

the process of preparing the Second National Communication (SNC). The SNC will also serve as a

management tool, as well as indicating the gaps in the current national capacity to address climate

change.

National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). The MTENR prepared the NAPA to

specifically identify and highlight urgent adaptation intervention targeting selected vulnerable groups

(such as small-scale farmers, the poor, women and children) that require implementation in Zambia.

It was submitted in October 2007.

Climate change awareness campaign. The GRZ has also undertaken a comprehensive national

climate change awareness campaign in line with the commitments originating from the UNFCCC

membership. The objective of the campaign is to ensure national ownership and the success of future

climate change-related efforts, through sensitization of stakeholders and national consensus building.

National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA). The NCSA was completed by the Ministry in 2007 to

assist in the implementation of the Rio Convention. The assessment identifies the national capacity

and development gaps hindering the effective implementation of the United Nations Conventions on

biodiversity (UNCBD), desertification (UNCCD) and climate change (UNFCCC), and proposes a

strategy and an action plan to address such gaps, in the short- and long- term.

138. The LDCF was created with the objective of funding urgent and immediate adaptation needs in the

LDCs as identified in the NAPAs. The project conforms to the LDCF’s eligibility criteria, namely: 1)

country drivenness; 2) implementing the NAPA priorities; and 3) supporting a “learning-by-doing”

approach.

Country drivenness: Four sets of consultations were undertaken in the PPG phase: i) pre-

inception workshop, attended by 11 staff from variousi ministries; ii) inception workshop,

attended by 29 staff, primarily from MACO, but also with representation from ZMD and Ministry

of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR); iii) vision setting and site selection

workshop, attended by 14 national government staff primarily from MACO, but also with

representation from ZMD and MTENR, together with site selection visits where 114 staff from

district-level government were consulted; iv) a draft review workshop, attended by 27 people

from MACO primarily, ZMD, MTENR and NGOs and v) two appraisal committee meetings.

Implement NAPA priorities: Five of the NAPA priorities are directly addressed by this project,

see Section A.

Supporting a “learning-by-doing” approach: Pilot interventions will test the cost effectiveness of

different approaches to adaptation to generate understanding of how GRZ could best support

adaptation across the economy. This information will be used to faciliate policy and budgetary

adjustments.

139. The project will support climate-resilient water management and agricultural practices and, in this

way, will implement NAPA priorities one, two, three, six and seven, namely:

NAPA Priority 1: “Strengthening of early warning systems to improve services to preparedness and

adaptation to climate change in all sectors”.

NAPA Priority 2: “Promotion of alternative sources of livelihoods”.

NAPA Priority 3: “Adaptation to the effects of drought in the context of climate change in AER I and

II of Zambia”.

NAPA Priority 6: “Adaptation of land use practices (crops, fish, and livestock) in light of climate

change”.

NAPA Priority 7: “Maintenance and provision of water infrastructure to communities to reduce the

human-wildlife conflict”.

140. The project is based on UNDP’s comparative advantage in capacity building. The UNDP-CO has

strong links with the GRZ. Furthermore, UNDP is a partner in the Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia


54

which ensures the effectiveness of aid and is aligned with Zambia’s FNDP. The project will seek

opportunities to ‘bolt onto’ other relevant initiatives for broader adaptation mainstreaming (e.g. the

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme).

Sustainability

141. The sustainability of the project’s benefits will largely depend on the willingness of stakeholders to

adopt interventions and continue with them beyond the duration of the project grant, and the long-term

political and financial commitment of policy-makers to provide enabling investment environments for

scaling up of successful adaptation measures. Adequate technical, legal and institutional capacity and

expertise - all part of adaptive capacity -is required at both levels for sustainability.

142. Adaptive capacity will be strengthened in the following ways:

Improving institutional coordination between government ministries and departments117

.

Building awareness and a greater understanding of climate change risks and adaptation benefits at all

levels (i.e. from community members at the local level to policy-makers at national level).

Enhancing the capacity of stakeholders to implement adaptation measures.

Developing the evidence base to make the case for greater levels of investments in adaptation, and to

develop national understanding of which policies and strategies can be expected to provide overall

net benefits to economic growth.

143. Under Outcome 2, the project will prioritize interventions with sustainable operational models that

involve: (i) attachments to on-going programmes of existing line ministries; and (ii) a strong focus on

designing interventions based on farmers’ levels of affordability, so that they can be sustained beyond the

duration of the LDCF grant.

144. Finally, the global flow of information on climate change has greatly increased national

consciousness concerning climate change risks. A positive attitude revolved around “doing something” to

address climate change is evident at all levels on a global scale. This will improve the likelihood of

success of the proposed interventions.

Replicability

145. The project is being piloted in eight pilot sites within eight districts in AER I and II. The project is

designed to pilot adaptation in districts in Zambia subjected to the broadest possible range of climate

vulnerabilities precipitating a range of agricultural problems, but which have reasonable capacity in terms

of infrastructure and human resources. By developing systematic capacity while demonstrating adaptation

measures on the ground, the project will determine the conditions necessary for replication and upscaling.

Project results will not only be replicable in the other districts within AER I and II but also in other

countries such as Malawi, Zimbabwe and Mozambique which share similar AERs.

146. The project will support a “learning-by-doing” approach by using the pilot projects to demonstrate

climate-resilient methods of development in Zambia with the intention of informing national development

plans and policies. This will include generating evidence on the cost-effectiveness of adaptation options

117

The project formulation process was based on extensive consultations from the national to the community level.

At the national level, stakeholders from various government departments (namely MACO, MTENR, Department of

Water Affairs, ZMD and DMMU) were involved in the PPG phase. The implementation process will also involve

these departments and the long-term viability of the project will depend on institutional coordination between these

departments.


55

in order to faciliate policy and budgetary adjustments. The close involvement of government agencies and

departments demonstrates potential for future incorporation of the project’s approaches into their on-

going planning and strategies. Furthermore, the project will build capacity for documenting lessons learnt,

establishing a mechanism for replication and initiating policy dialogue for formulation and review of

policy and legal frameworks for adaptation initiatives. Learning will be ensured through Outcome 4,

including contributions to the ALM and wikiADAPT so that government ministries, other organizations

and the general public will have access to new knowledge on effective adaptation.

Linkages with other programmes and action plans at regional and sub-regional levels

147. The project will contribute to meeting UNDAF Outcome 3, namely “by 2010, institutions, systems

and processes in support of national development priorities strengthened”. In addition, by meeting its

outcomes and outputs, the project will contribute towards attaining the energy and environment for

sustainable development component in the UNDP Country Programme118

(UNDP CP, 2007-2010). The

UNDP CP acknowledges that the changing climate, specifically the increasing frequency of floods and

droughts, is adversely impacting the agriculture, water resources, natural resources and health sectors in

Zambia and that the quality of human development is tied to the state of the natural environment. The

UNCP CP aims at ensuring that sustainable management of environment and natural resources is

incorporated into national development frameworks and sector strategies. The project will complement

this aim by building the capacity to conduct and apply climate risk assessments to planning processes.

The UNDP Country Programme for Zambia (CP) acknowledges that the quality of human development is

tied to the state of the natural environment. As such, one of the outputs in the CP and Country Programme

Action Plan (CPAP) is “systems, processes and scenario planning for climate change adaptation and

mitigation strengthened”. The project will link to this output by providing lessons from the pilot sites that

will be used to strengthen the systems and processes for climate change adaptation within Zambia.

148. The FNDP states that the environment is considered to be a crosscutting national priority by the

GRZ. This is appropriate given the relationship between environmental sustainability and the overall

objectives of the FNDP. Under the Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia (JASZ), UNDP is a co-leader

with Finland in the environment sector.

149. The project will also assist in meeting UNDP outcomes in the UNDAF and UNDPCAP relating to

food security. In particular, the project will address UNDAF outcome 4 “by 2010, the proportion of food

secure households increased from 35 to 75%”119

, and also by 2010, the proportion of food secure

households among female-headed households increases to 60%”. The project will also complement

planned and on-going projects in the FNDP, NAP and NIP by boosting the sustainable productivity of the

agriculture sector. In this way, the project will assist the agriculture sector in becoming one of the major

drivers of Zambia’s economic development.

150. The project will complement other on-going projects being implemented by the GRZ, donor

community and other NGOs in the pilot sites. One of the first activities to be implemented in Outcome 1

and 2 will be to work out how the LDCF project will collaborate with existing relevant initiatives in the

pilot areas, and how it might draw on lessons learnt and partnerships with similar pilot interventions

outside the pilot sites.

151. Table 5 lists some of these projects operating in the pilot sites.

118

GRZ/UNDP (2007) Country Programme Action Plan for 2007-2010 of the Government of the Republic of

Zambia and the United Nations Development Programme. 119

UNDP (2007) United Nations Development Assistance Framework for the Republic of Zambia, 2007-2010.


56

Table 5. Additional projects in progress in the pilot sites. Site Project Description

Kataba Kataba Multipurpose Cooperative

This is a community initiative supported by the Ministry of

Community Development. They run a hammer mill.

Parent-Teachers Association This association looks at the education needs of the

community and oversees the running of local schools.

Kataba Crush Pen Association This is the management committee that looks after the

maintenance and management of the cattle crush pen.

Kataba Area Development

Committee

This is a community-based organization that promotes

development in terms of agricultural productivity, youth

skills and gender equality projects.

AIDS Committee The AIDS committee is responsible for sensitization of the

community on HIV/AIDS and related preventative

measures.

Keepers Zambia Foundation,

OXFAM, PUSH

These are international NGOs which run developmental

projects in the area. They promote agricultural development

and the maintenance of health standards.

Kabula

(village within

Sioma pilot

site)

Parents Association This association looks at the education needs of the

community and oversees the running of local schools.

Area Development Committee This is a community-based organization that promotes



Neighbourhood Watch Committee This committee is responsible for ensuring security in the

neighbourhood.

Agriculture Committee This committee oversees the development of agriculture in

the Community.

Nutritional Group and Home

Based Care

This group handles health-related problems, such as caring

for the HIV patients.

Bee Keeping Association This is a farmer group comprising of bee-keepers. The

association organizes training, market linkages and other

bee-keeping requirements for its members.

Catholic Relief Services This is an international NGO that has various interests, such

as improving the nutritional status of the community

through increasing agricultural productivity and combating

health problems.

Heifer International This is an international NGO that promotes livestock

production.

Zambia Wildlife Authority This is a government body that protects wildlife. They also

promote alternative livelihoods as well as control animals to

reduce human-animal conflict.

Kandiyana

(village within

Sioma pilot

site)

Participatory Village Development

in Isolated Areas (PAVIDIA)

project

This is a JICA/ MACO project that promotes development

in isolated areas through the provision of extension support

to increase agricultural productivity.

Nutritional Support Group This group handles health-related problems, such caring for

the HIV patients.

Area Development Committee This is a community-based organization that promotes



Catholic Relief Services

Hernwood Foundation

This is an international NGO that has various interests, such



health problems.

Lusitu Mwanahapone Project This project focuses on improving the health status of

children in the area.

Lusitu Parish Development

Association

This is a community-based organization that promotes



57


Kayuni Cooperative This is a community initiative supported by the Ministry of

Community Development. They run a hammer mill.

Heifer International This is an international NGO that promotes livestock

production.

Gwembe Tonga Valley

Development Project

This is a government supported project aimed at assisting

the communities that were displaced during the construction

of the Kariba Dam.

Kasaya Care International Promotes the resilience of communities through the

promotion of dry season cropping.

Africa Wildlife Foundation Assists with the control of problem animals, to reduce

human-animal conflict.

Catholic Relief Services This is an international NGO that has various interests, such



health problems (e.g. HIV and maternal health problems).

Sekute Community Development

Trust

Community development.

Mambwe

(District in

which

Chikowa pilots

is located)

Community Resource Board Community Development.

Village Area Group Community Development.

Lutheran World Federation Targets vulnerable communities and focuses on improving

food security and soil conservation.

Wildlife Conservation Society Promotes wildlife conservation.

CARE International Aims to improve maternal health.

Dunavant and Cargill Private out-grower schemes for cotton.

Zalapango Churches Health Association of

Zambia (CHAZ)

This association focuses on establishing HIV and health

programmes.

Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) This fund provides support and assistance to HIV patients.

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Provides anti-retroviral treatment to HIV positive people

and promotes bee keeping for income generation.

Wildlife Conservation Society Provides training on Conservation farming and erosion

control.

Department of Social Welfare Supports agriculture through input distribution.

Programme Against Malnutrition

(PAM)

Implements the FSP programme.

Zalapango Multi-purpose

Cooperative

Operates hammer mills and promotes maize production.

Zalapango Women’s Association Involved in tailoring and embroidery.

Kabeleka World Vision Zambia Provides support to enhance agricultural productivity.

Kabeleka Village Productive

Committee

This committee teaches farming skills, and aims to improve

access to fertilizer.

Mububa Women’s Group Running hammer mills/green house vegetable production.

Micro Bankers Trust Micro Bankers Trust is a Non-Bank Regulated Financial

Institution established in 1996. It provides financial services

to vulnerable women and men for enterprise development

and improved quality of lives. The trust is under the

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services.

Its products include training, consulting, voluntary savings

and loans.

152. The project will also have linkages with other projects aimed at addressing environmental and

climate change concerns. Among these are:

Climate Change Facilitation Unit (CCFU). This is an initiative of the MTENR. The major

objectives of the CCFU include assisting the MTENR to develop a comprehensive strategy for


58

addressing climate change concerns and subsequently to develop the necessary policy and legal

framework. CCFU outcomes include:

− Develop a comprehensive National Climate Change Response Strategy;

− Develop a climate change response policy and legal framework;

− Develop a communication and advocacy strategy on climate change;

− Develop a strategy for the effective participation in regional and international

conferences;

− Develop of a profile on data sources for analytical work (conducting information needs

assessments/catalyse and facilitating relevant minor research)/create an information

management system (including hosting and popularising a climate change website);

− Train the ZMD staff on EWS and forecasting;

− Conduct workshops to sensitize sectoral planners to the threats posed by climate change

and how to overcome them.

153. The project will link with the CCFU by co-producing some outputs as well as supplying

information from the project to the CCFU to use when lobbying for policy revisions, and to bolster

presentations at national and international conferences. In addition, the project will provide the CCFU

with adaptation information (specifically lessons learned from the project) to post on their website. In turn,

the CCFU will finance certain project activities that are related to its own outcomes (see above).

Building Adaptive Capacity to Cope with Increasing Vulnerability due to Climate Change

Project. This is a three year international project being undertaken by ZARI and is funded by the

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The general objective of the project is “to

develop education, research and extension competencies to be able to create strategies that facilitate

rural communities to increase their adaptive capacity to cope with risks and opportunities associated

with climate change and variability”. Specific objectives of the project include:

− Establish and document the existing preconceptions of drought risk held by poor

smallholder farmers that can be used by change agents and meteorological services to

better target their interventions;

− Determine how rural communities have coped with existing climate variability and

extremes and develop appropriate strategies for adapting to future climatic change;

− Build capacity and competency within Zambian and Zimbabwean institutions to use

simulation and climatic forecasting tools for predicting climate variability in order to

facilitate rural communities in developing and evaluating improved coping strategies;

− Use farmer participatory research approaches linked with simulation and climate

forecasting methods to develop and evaluate scenarios with farmers that enable

adaptation of their agricultural production systems to climate variability;

− Develop, test and disseminate climatic risk communication materials and appropriate

delivery interventions to all stakeholders.

154. The project will link with the ZARI project by using the staff trained under this project to conduct

the adaptation trials in the pilot sites and to produce technical reports on the benefits of adaptation that

will be used for lobbying and awareness creation purposes.

Conservation Agriculture Scaling Up for Increased Productivity and Production (CASPP). This

is a two year project being implemented by MACO and managed by the Food and Agriculture

Organisation (FAO). The project aims to upscale the Conservation Agriculture Programme (CAP)

funded through the Royal Norwegian Embassy’s Climate Change Facility. As part of upscaling CAP,

CASPP intends to rapidly upscale proven technologies (through MACO extension systems) to

beneficiary farmers. CASPP Outcomes include:

− Upscale of the phased out conservation agriculture project model;

− Build capacity of MACO’s district structures;


59

− Implement an information, education and communication strategy;

− Undertake adaptation research and training;

− Develop market linkages;

− Develop national policy dialogues on conservation agriculture and information education

communication.

155. The project will link with the CASPP project by co-producing certain activities, such as training

extension workers and farmers on conservation farming in some pilot sites.

Capacity Development for Effective Early Warning Services to Support Climate Change

Adaptation in Zambia. This project is being implemented by the ZMD and is supported by the

UNDP. They have made funds available to support GRZ regarding upgrading the current EWS’s to

accommodate adaptation concerns of the different sectors of the economy adversely impacted by

climate change. Among the project’s outcomes include:

− Strengthen institutions to facilitate the establishment of effective EWS’s that consider

climate change impacts;

− Develop capacity for the provision of effective early warning services to support climate

change adaptation;

− Build capacity and sensitize relevant sectors to highlight the relevance of early warning

services for climate change adaptation.

156. The project will co-produce some of the outputs with the ZMD project. Additionally, the project

may link with the World Food Programme. However, this has not yet been finalised and the details will

be determined during the Inception Workshop.

PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

157. The project will be implemented over a four year period three months after CEO endorsement to

allow for recruitment. MACO will be the government cooperating agency directly responsible for the

government’s participation in the project. They will also form the implementing partners/executing entity.

In addition, MACO will be responsible and held accountable for managing the project, which will include:

i) monitoring and evaluation of project interventions; ii) ensuring the achievement of project outputs; and

iii) ensuring the effective use of UNDP resources. Furthermore, MACO will designate a representative

who will undertake the role of Executive or Senior Beneficiary120

on the Project Technical Committee

(PTC). MACO will also provide office space for the project secretariat.

158. The implementation arrangements will seek to establish a bridge between: i) national authorities

responsible for formulating and integrating climate change policies; ii) national, regional and local

authorities responsible for project implementation; and iii) on-the-ground practitioners of agricultural

resource management. Continuous monitoring of project progress at all levels will ensure the project

activities are always aligned with project goals.

159. MACO will manage the project through a Project Secretariat (PS) and will delegate specific project

activities to appropriate ministries and departments, such as the ZMD, Zambia Agricultural Research

Institute (ZARI), Department of Agriculture, Department of Forestry, Department of Fisheries,

Department of Veterinary and Livestock Development and the DMMU. The responsibilities of each

department are detailed in Table 1.

120

United Nations Development Programme, 2006. The UNDP Results Management Guide: A process-based

description of required minimum programming methods articulated as policies, tasks, and deliverables, for use in the

effective planning and execution of development programmes and projects.


60

Project National Steering Committee (Project Board)

160. The PNSC will meet at least once a year. It will be the highest oversight body and will ensure that

the project is consistently aligned with GRZ’s broader climate change, environmental and development

objectives as well as complementary to the implementation of the FNDP and the MDGs. The Director of

the Department of Agriculture or the Director of the Policy and Planning Department (if the Director of

the Department of Agriculture is not available) will chair the PNSC meetings. The director MACO will

hold the position of Executive and will represent the project ownership while chairing the PNSC.

Members of the PNSC will include directors from MTENR (Forestry and Environment Departments),

Department of Water Affairs, ZMD, ZARI, Environmental Council of Zambia, Department of Veterinary

and Livestock Development, DMMU, UNDP, FAO and a Board member or representative from the

Zambia National Farmers Union.

161. The Senior Supplier role will be held by a representative of the MACO (Chief Agricultural

Specialist, Land Husbandry) whose role will be to provide guidance regarding the technical feasibility of

the project. The Senior Beneficiary role will be held by the President of the National Association for

Peasant and Small Scale Farmers of Zambia (NAPSSFZ). His/her role will be to ensure the realisation of

project benefits from the perspective of project beneficiaries. Project Assurance will be the responsibility

of UNDP, who will recruit and pay for a Programme Officer (Project Support). Among his/her functions

will include provision of objective and independent oversight, monitoring and ensuring appropriate

project management milestones are managed and completed.

Project Technical Committee (PTC)

162. The PTC will meet once per quarter or more frequently as deemed necessary by the project

Secretariat and the UNDP CO. They will form the main decision-making body of the project. In

consultation with other implementing partners MACO, as the government cooperating agency, will

designate a representative who will perform the role and functions of executive and will chair the PTC.

Representatives from other relevant ministries and government departments will be members of the PTC

(see Table 1). In addition, the PTC will make policy decisions (in line with agreed project document as

well as UN and GRZ rules and regulations) as well as guide and oversee the progress of the project and

review delivery targets and budgetary issues. Furthermore, the PTC will oversee that all the ministries and

departments are complying with the project commitments.

163. The PTC will also be responsible for making management decisions (which will be done by

convening a meeting with all board members and reaching consensus on decisions) for the project when

guidance is required. This will include approval of project revisions. The PTC will also be consulted by

the PM to assist in making critical decisions that the PM cannot make by him/herself, such as when an

activity is running behind schedule and the workplan requires adjusting.

Project Secretariat (PS)

164. The role of the PS in this project will be to: i) co-ordinate meetings between the implementing

government departments; ii) manage finances; iii) undertake all reporting commitments; iv) undertake

budget revisions; v) undertake monitoring and evaluations; and vi) co-ordinate the day-to-day operations

of the project. The PS will comprise of the Principal Land Husbandry Specialist responsible for land

management and conservation farming. This person will act as PM and will be responsible for the day-to-

day management of the project. Other key persons in the PS include a nominee from the Monitoring and

Evaluation Unit in the Agriculture, Policy and Planning Department (PPD). This person will be

responsible for the project monitoring and evaluation. A nominee from the donor section of MACO’s

Financial Management Unit (FMU) will also be a member of the PS and will be responsible for the


61

project’s finances. The members of the PS will report to the Chief Agricultural Specialist- Land

Husbandry.

Programme Implementation Technical Support Team

165. The Programme Implementation Technical Support Team will consist of short-term and medium-

term experts from different fields, who will be engaged to assist in the delivery of different outputs and

outcomes in the project. These include:

Experts

Experts on climate modelling who will be responsible for developing a communication channel that

will ensure climate data is properly packaged and delivered in a timely manner to the end users such

as policy makers and farmers. This will be undertaken with input from the ZMD.

Experts on climate change adaptation, who will help undertake the economic impact assessments

investigating the value of using climate risk information to inform agricultural planning.

Experts on policy will be hired to review and revise the current policies in the relevant ministries to

include climate change considerations.

Experts will also be hired to undertake the economic analyses.

Other experts will include: one knowledge management expert for Outcome 4; one Monitoring and

Evaluation Expert to develop the overall progress monitoring system and one communications expert.

Provincial Level Staff

166. At the provincial level, the Agricultural and Natural Resources sub-committee of the Provincial

Development Coordinating Committee (PDCC) will be the main project decision-making body at the

provincial level. The Provincial Agricultural Coordination Officer (PACO) will assign an officer from the

provincial office to coordinate the involvement of other departments at the provincial level and to be

responsible for incorporating climate change in provincial development plans.

District Level Staff

167. At the district level, the Agricultural and Natural Resources sub-committee of the District

Development Coordination Committee (DDCC) will be the main project decision-making body at the

district level. The District Agricultural Coordination Officer (DACO) will appoint an officer from the

district office to coordinating the involvement of other departments at the district level, and be responsible

for incorporating climate change in district development plans. The person will also be responsible for the

monitoring of the project’s activities at the district level.

Field Staff

168. In the project areas, the Department of Agriculture will provide space to accommodate field-based

staff. The field-based staff will facilitate activities at the local site level and report to the PS. These may

include Block and Camp Extension Officers (BEO and CEOs), Community Development Officer and

Forestry/ Fisheries Officers where available. These officers will work closely with the Area Development

Committees (ADCs) and the Camp Agricultural Committees (CACs) were available. These will act as the

site level technical committees. The BEOs and CEOs will interact with the interest/user groups through

the management committees that will be formed at the community level to oversee the management and

operations of the investments that will be piloted at the sites. Traditional leaders will also be represented.

Organigram of the project management arrangements


62

169. See Terms of Reference for the above positions and managing bodies in Section IV, Part I.

Results of MACO’s capacity assessment

170. The detailed assessment is attached as Annex N. Below is a summary of the gaps identified in the

assessment:

1. National institution capacity for project management:

a. Managerial: generally sufficient except in the area of disseminating lessons learned and

knowledge management which needs strengthening.

b. Technical: capacity exists in the domain of agriculture management except for the project

management, agro-meteorology, forest and ecosystem management, climate modelling,

climate change adaptation techniques, policy and economic analysis

2. National institution capacity for administrative and financial management: this is not adequate

particularly in management and maintenance of infrastructure and equipment as well as in

financial management.

National Steering Committee

Project Technical Committee

Interest groups/ User groups/ Livelihoods

Provincial Agricultural and National

Resources Sub Committee

District Agricultural and National

Resources Sub Committee

Area Development

Camp Agricultural

Management Committee at the pilot sites

Project

PACO Office

DACO Office

Block/ CAMP extension

Project Implementation Technical Support Team


63

PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

171. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established GRZ and

UNDP procedures and will be undertaken by the PS and the UNDP-CO with support from UNDP. The

Strategic Results Framework (SRF) in Section II provides performance and impact indicators for project

implementation along with other corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which

the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system will be built.

172. The following sections outline the principal components of the M&E Plan and indicative cost

estimates related to M&E activities, based on the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation for

Results. The project’s M&E Plan will be presented and finalized in the Project Inception Report following

a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification and full description of project staff M&E

responsibilities.

Monitoring and Reporting

Work Plans and Progress Reports

173. Work Plans will be the main management instruments governing the implementation of the project.

The project will prepare the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with well-defined result indicators, using the

standard format for UNDP supported projects. AWPs will be appraised and endorsed by MACO and

UNDP. Upon approval, the work plan will be an instrument of authorization to the PM for

implementation of the project. Human resources mobilization and procurement plans will be added to the

AWP as annexes and be subject to review and endorsement by MACO and UNDP. Quarterly progress

reports (short reports outlining main updates in the project’s progress) will be provided quarterly to the

PTC by the PS who in turn will submit to the UNDP-CO.

Project Inception Phase

174. A Project Inception Workshop (IW) will be held within the first 2 months after the project starts

and will comprise those with assigned roles in the project organization structure (see Project Organigram,

Section IV, Part I), staff from the UNDP CO, regional technical policy and programme advisors, if

appropriate/feasible, and other stakeholders. The IW is crucial to building ownership for the project

results and to plan the first year Annual Work Plan.

175. The IW should cover and address a number of key issues, including:

Assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project.

Detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and Regional

Coordination Unit (RCU) staff vis- à-vis the project team.

Discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures,

including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of

Reference for project staff will be discussed again as needed.

Based on the project results framework, finalize the first Annual Work Plan. Review and agree on the

indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks.

Provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements. The M&E

work plan and budget should be agreed and scheduled.

Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for the annual audit.


64

Plan and schedule Project Board meetings. Roles and responsibilities of all project organisation

structures should be clarified and meetings planned. The first Project Board meeting should be held

within the first 12 months following the inception workshop.

176. An IW report is a key reference document and must be prepared and shared with participants to

formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting.

Monitoring Responsibilities and Events

177. The PS in conjunction with the PTC will develop a detailed schedule of project review meetings,

which will be incorporated into the inception workshop report. This schedule will include time-frames for

Tripartite Reviews, PTC Meetings and other relevant advisory and coordination mechanisms. Day-to-day

monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the PM based on the AWP and its

indicators. Project team members will inform the PM and UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced

during the implementation so that appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely

and remedial manner.

178. The PM and UNDP-CO will undertake the quarterly progress monitoring of the project

implementation. Although this should be undertaken quarterly, it may also be undertaken when deemed

necessary. This will allow the parties to take stock and troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the

project in a timely manner to ensure the smooth implementation of project activities. This monitoring will

be based on the project’s performance indicators which would have been fine-tuned in consultation with

the stakeholders during the IW. Specific targets for the first year of implementation, which will be

included in the AWP, will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the planned pace.

The targets and indicators may be revised annually as part of the internal evaluation process.

179. UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to the pilot sites based on the agreed schedule in

the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Other members of

the Project Board may also join these visits. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and

UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project

Board members.

180. Annual monitoring will occur through the tripartite review (TPR). This is the highest policy level

meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of the project (i.e. MACO and UNDP-CO).

The project will be subjected to TPR at least once every year, the first one to be held within the first

twelve months since the start of full implementation. With support from the PM, the National Coordinator

(Project Executive) will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO at least two

weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments.

181. The APR will serve as the basis for assessing the performance of the project in terms of its

contribution to the intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The APR will provide an

accurate update on the project results, identify major constraints and propose future directions. The APR

will be prepared by the PS and used for performance assessment, learning and decision making. It will be

a brief report and will contain the basic minimum elements required for the assessment of results, major

problems and proposed actions. These elements include an analysis of project performance over the

reporting period, including: i) outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the

outcome; ii) constraints in progress towards results and reasons behind the constraints; iii) three (at most)

major constraints to achievement of results and; iv) lessons learned and clear recommendations for future

approaches, including addressing the main problems restricting progress.


65

182. The Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR) will be held in the last month of operations. The TTR

considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project

achieved its objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any

actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle

through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects.

183. MACO, with the assistance of the PM will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the

following reports which will form part of the monitoring process:

Inception Report (IR)

184. The project IR will be prepared immediately following the IW. It will include a detailed First Year

AWP divided into quarterly timeframes detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide

implementation during the first year of the project. The AWP will include dates of specific field visits,

support missions from the UNDP-CO or consultants as well as timeframes for project’s decision-making

meetings. The report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation

and any M&E requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted twelve months.

185. The IR will also include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities,

coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project partners. In addition, a section will be included

on progress to-date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external

conditions that may affect project implementation. When finalized, the report will be circulated to project

counterparts who will be given a period of one month in which to respond with comments or queries.

Annual Project Report (APR)

186. The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP-CO’s central oversight, monitoring, and

project management. It is a self-assessment report compiled by PS to the UNDP-CO and it also provides

input on the UNDP-CO’s reporting process, as well as providing key input to the TTR. This key report is

prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period

(30 June to 1 July). The APR/PIR (see below) combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.

187. The APR/PIR includes, but is not limited to, reporting on the following:

Progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - each with indicators, baseline data and

end-of-project targets (cumulative).

Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual).

Lesson learned/good practice.

AWP and other expenditure reports.

Risk and adaptive management.

ATLAS QPR.

Portfolio level indicators are used by most focal areas on an annual basis as well.

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

188. The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by GEF. It is an essential management and

monitoring tool for PMs and offers a means of extracting lessons from on-going projects. Once the

project has been going for a year, a PIR must be completed by the UNDP-CO together with the PS. The

PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June), although it would be ideal to prepare it prior to

the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been

agreed upon by all the parties.

Quarterly Progress Reports


66

189. Short reports based on the AWP outlining main updates in project progress will be provided

quarterly to the local UNDP-CO and MACO by the PM or national consultants. Progress made shall be

monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform.

190. Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, the risk log shall be regularly updated in ATLAS.

Risks become critical when the impact and probability are high. Note that for UNDP projects, all

financial risks associated with financial instruments such as revolving funds, microfinance schemes, or

capitalization of ESCOs are automatically classified as critical on the basis of their innovative nature

(high impact and uncertainty due to no previous experience justifies classification as critical). Based on

the information recorded in Atlas, a Project Progress Reports (PPR) can be generated in the Executive

Snapshot. Other ATLAS logs can be used to monitor issues, lessons learned and so on. The use of these

functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive Balanced Scorecard.

Periodic Thematic Reports

191. As and when called for by UNDP-CO or the GEF Secretariat, MACO will prepare Specific

Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will

be provided to the MACO in writing by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be

reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learned exercise, specific oversight in key

areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered.

UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such reports are necessary

UNDP is requested to allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

Project Terminal Report

192. During the last three months of the project, MACO will prepare the Project Terminal Report (PTR).

This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the project, lessons

learnt, objectives not met or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, and thus provide an

assessment of the project’s performance during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any

further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s activities.

Technical Reports

193. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific

specializations within the overall project. As part of the IR, the PS will prepare a draft Reports List

detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course

of the project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary, this Reports List will be revised and updated,

and included in subsequent APRs. Among the key technical reports expected to be produced by the

project in the first year is the synthesis document on cross-cutting issues including financial mechanisms,

based on materials generated during the PPG phase. Elements of this report will be disseminated widely

among the key stakeholders involved in the project.

194. Technical reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive,

specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and pilot

sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project’s substantial contribution to

specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local,

national and international levels.

Project Publications


67

195. Project publications will be a key method for disseminating the results and achievements of the

project. These publications should be scientific (i.e. published in peer-review journals) as well as popular

texts on the activities and achievements of the project. These publications can be based on technical

reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of technical reports and other research. The

project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication and will also (in

consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these

publications in a consistent and recognizable format. It is anticipated that a minimum of one major

publication synthesizing key lessons from the project and experiences of the case sites will be produced in

the last year of the project. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as

appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project budget. Other publications will include

shorter policy briefs.

Independent Evaluation

196. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:

Mid-term Evaluation

197. The project will undergo an independent Mid-Term Evaluation at the mid-point of project

implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made toward the achievement

of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency

and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will

present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this

review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the

project’s term.

198. The organization, Terms of Reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after

consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term

evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit

and UNDP. The management response and the evaluation will be uploaded to UNDP corporate systems,

in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC).

Final External Evaluation

199. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final Project Board

meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance. The final evaluation will

focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term

evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability

of results, including the contribution to capacity development. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation

will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-

GEF.

200. The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and

requires a management response which should be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office

Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC).

201. The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the final evaluation.

202. During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This

comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons

learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out

http://erc.undp.org/index.aspx?module=Intra




68

recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability

of the project’s results.

Auditing

203. The project will be audited annually, using the National Execution Modality by the Office of the

Auditor General. Audit reports and follow up action plans will be endorsed and monitored by UNDP.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing

204. Results from the programme will be disseminated within and beyond the programme interventions

zone through a number of existing informal sharing networks, in particular, the ALM and wikiADAPT.

The ALM lessons learned template will be adapted for use by the project.

205. The project will identify, analyze and share lessons learnt that might be beneficial in the design and

implementation of similar future projects. Identifying and analyzing lessons learned is an on-going

process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project’s central contributions is a

requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP will provide a format

and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a

percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget

206. The following table (Table 6) provides the outline of the M&E framework. More information can

be found in Table 12 (Total budget and workplan).

Table 6. Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget. Type of M& E Activity Responsible Parties Budget (US$)

(Excluding Project team

Staff time)

Time Frame

Inception Workshop PTC

PS

UNDP

15,000121

Within two months after

the project has

management unit has

been setup.

Inception Report PS None A month after the

inception workshop

Measurement of Means

of Verification or

project results

PTC

PS

UNDP-CO

To be finalised at the

inception phase and

workshop

Start, mid and end of

project (during

evaluation cycle) and

annually when

required).

Measurement of Means

of Verification for

Project Progress on

outputs and

implementation

PTC

PS

UNDP-CO

To be determined as part

of the AWP’s

preparation

Annually prior to

APR/PIR and to the

definition of annual

workplans

Annual Project Review

(APR) and Project

Implementation Review

PTC

PS

UNDP-CO

15,000 Annually

121

Based on the assumption that 50 people attend. This includes accommodation for 2 nights and transport refunds

for those from other places outside Lusaka.


69

(PIR)

Tripartite Review (TPR) MACO

UNDP

PTC

PS

15,000122

Annually

Terminal Tripartite

Review (TTR) PS

PTC

MACO

20,000123

At the end of the Project

Project Technical

Committee Meetings PS

PTC

UNDP-CO

30,000 Following the Inception

workshop and at least

once a year

Periodic Status/Progress

Reports PM

PS

15,000 Quarterly

Technical Reports/

Publications PS

PTC

MACO

Individual Consultants

20,000 To be determined during

the Inception Report

Mid-Term External

Evaluation MACO

PS

PTC

External Consultants

(i.e. evaluation team)

40,000 Midway during the

project Implementation

Final External

Evaluation MACO

PS

PTC

External Consultants

(i.e. evaluation team)

40,000 At least 3 months before

the end of project

implementation

Lessons Learned and

shared (both local and at

international level)

PS

UNDP

0124

Every year of the project

implementation from

year two.

Audit CO

PS

Indicative cost per year:

10,000

Yearly

Field Visits to the Sites PS

PTC

UNDP-CO

30,000125

Yearly

Project Terminal Report

(PTR) MACO

PS

None Start three months

before the project ends.

Total Indicative Cost

Excluding project

team staff time and

UNDP staff time and

expenses

280,000

PART V: Legal Context

207. This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic

Assistance Agreement between GRZ and the UNDP.

122

This will be some kind of a workshop. The costs will be mainly venue hire and refreshments annually. 123

The PS and the PTC will hire a consultant to conduct the TTR. The cost includes consultancy fees and logistical

support for the field work. 124

The cost of lessons learned is covered by Outcome 4. 125

The allocation for field visits was reduced from US$90,000 to US$30,000 since the cost of other monitoring

includes the cost of travel as well.


70

208. Revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP Resident

Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document have

no objections to the proposed changes, that is to say revisions which do not involve significant changes in

the outcomes, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by rearrangement of inputs agreed to or by

cost increases due to inflation.

209. The GRZ will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and

with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds

according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will

be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged

by the Government.

210. This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and the UNDP which is

incorporated by reference constitute together a Project Document as referred to in the Standard Basic

Assistance Agreement and all CPAP provisions apply to this document.

211. Consistent with the Article III of the standard Basic Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and

security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP ‘s property in the

implementing partner’s custody, rests within the implementing partner.

The implementing partner shall:

a) Put in place appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the

security situation in the country where the project is being carried;

b) Assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full

implementation of the security plan.

212. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and suggest modifications to the

plan when necessary. The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that

none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to

individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP

hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to

resolution 1267(1999).


71

SECTION II: Strategic Results Framework

PART I: Strategic Results Framework

Table 7. Strategic Results Framework of the project.

Project Strategy

Indicators

Baseline Value

Targets and benchmarks

Sources of

verification

Risks and

Assumptions

Objective: to

develop adaptive

capacity of

subsistence

farmers and rural

communities to

withstand climate

change in Zambia

1. Number of

subsistence farmers in

the rural communities

who have successful

adopted adaptation

measures.

2. No of policy-level

activities that enable

policy adjustments for

replication of cost-

effective adaptation

measures.

3. No of knowledge

products generated

that promote

replication of cost-

effective adaptation

approaches.

1. At present, adaptation

measures have not been

adopted by subsistence

farmers.

2. Limited mainstreaming of

adaptation into national

planning processes and

policies.

3. Limited documented

information on cost-

effectiveness of adaptation

responses, and promotion of

adaptation.

By the end of the project, at

least 1000 subsistence

farmers adopt at least one

adaptation measure.

2. By the end of the project,

5 key sectoral policies and 2

provincial and district plans

are revised to promote

adaptation.

3. By the end of the project,

at least 20 key project

lessons are documented and

disseminated in local,

national and international

fora and media.

Field Surveys.

Consultants’

reports.

Government

policies and

plans; minutes

of meetings.

Knowledge

products,

workshop

proceedings.

Outcome 1:

Climate change

risks integrated

into decision-

making processes

for agricultural

management at

the local, sub-

national and

1. Number of

government planners

and extension staff

that include climate

risk information in

their decision

processes.

2. EWS developed

At present, climate risk

information is not included

in decision-making

processes.

Zambia’s National Disaster

By the end of the project,

250 government planners and

extension staff trained to

routinely include climate risk

information in their decision

processes.

Farmers’ incomes in 3 pilot

sites protected against the

Surveys and

interviews with

sectoral

planners.

Review of legal

texts for

agencies

Availability of

technical

expertise and

equipment for

downscaling

international

climate data to

AER level.


72

national levels and applied

effectively in three

pilot sites.

Management Policy

identifies gaps affecting its

functionality and measures

that need to be undertaken to

improve disaster risk

management.

effects of extreme weather

events.

concerned.

Outcome 2:

Agricultural

productivity in

the pilot sites

made resilient to

the anticipated

impacts of climate

change

1. Number of

interventions in

selected pilot sites

implemented, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in

place, agreed by all

stakeholders, for

sustainability beyond

the project grant.

2. Percentage increase

in agricultural

incomes in the pilot

sites.

3. Number of women

involved in

interventions in the

pilot sites.

At present, although there

are a number of measures

that the government and

other donors are

implementing. However,

these do not take climate

change into consideration;

neither are they monitored

for their adaptation value.

10% increase in agricultural

incomes.

At least 50% of the people

involved in the interventions

at each pilot site are women

(this includes management

committees).

Surveys, end of

project

evaluation

reports

Private sector

and

communities do

not respond

positively to

improved

policies/incentiv

es.

Poor co-

ordination

among

implementing

institutions

leading to

delays in

deliverables.

Agricultural and

water

management

interventions at

the pilot sites

are not cost

effective.

Farmer

acceptability of

risky adaptation

measures may

limit project

implementation.

Lack of

commitment

from the

community.


73

High illiteracy

levels in villages

may hinder the

progress of pilot

interventions

and/or

dissemination of

lessons learned.

The current

momentum on

climate change

does not fade or

is not overtaken

by events such

as global

financial crisis.

Outcome 3:

National fiscal,

regulatory and

development

policy revised to

promote

adaptation

responses in the

agricultural

sector.

1. The number of

policies that are

adapted to take into

account climate

change risks.

2. Awareness level of

rural population in

pilot sites and

local/national

government of

climate change and its

impacts improved.

At present, the national

policies as well as the

provincial and district

development plans that are

available do not address

climate change and

adaptation issues in an

integrated manner.

At present, rural

populations’ understanding

of climate change and its

impacts is minimal.

By the end of the project, 2

provincial plans and district

plans and 5 key national

policies are revised to

promote sustainable climate

resilient development.

By the end of the project,

rural populations within the

eight pilot sites will have

been exposed to climate

change information and

adaptation training with

catalytic intentions.

Policies, action

plans, policy

briefings and

communication

reports

The project

interventions are

able to generate

convincing

benefits.

Policy

stakeholders are

willing to make

changes in

policies within

the time-frame

of the project.

Government

remains stable

and climate

change remains

a policy priority

throughout the

project.

Outcome 4.

Lessons learned

and knowledge

management

component

established.

1. Number of

proposals, papers and

other documents that

incorporate learning

from the project.

2. Number of lessons

Development projects

currently do not

systematically benefit from

learning practices and

project lessons on

community-based

adaptation.


least four proposed or

ongoing projects draw on

lessons and knowledge

generated by the LDCF

project.

ALM platform

Papers,

proposals and

other

documents.


74

included in the ALM.

3, Number of regional

and national

workshops conducted

for dissemination of

project lessons.

4. The number of

awareness campaigns

conducted on the

need to incorporate

adaptation needs in

policy.


least 20 key project lessons

are captured and

disseminated in the ALM.


least 1 national and 1

international workshop on

adaptation to effects of

drought and climate change

is conducted.


least two campaigns have

been conducted


75

PART II: Cost-effectiveness Analysis

213. The measures implemented through this project were identified during the NAPA process. Multi-

criteria analysis was used to prioritise the list according to potential for positive effects on economic

development, social capital and environmental management. Cost effectiveness was one of the criteria

measuring economic development. The actions proposed are not only the most urgent and most pressing,

but are also judged to be cost effective.

214. Detailed cost information for the indicative 31 interventions in the eight pilot sites within AER I

and II in Zambia has been included in Annex G. The effectiveness of these measures in increasing

resilience to climate change will be tested and measured during the course of the project. This will

involve undertaking an economic analysis and performing cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether each

activity is an economically viable option given climate change. The most successful interventions will be

prioritized in policy-level work (Outcome 3) to promote upscaling to other areas of AER I and II

215. The following measures will also ensure that the proposed project is cost effective:

1. The project will be managed within the existing MACO extension frameworks. This will

ensure cost sharing with other projects and reduce on the overheads.

2. The project will closely with existing projects (see paragraphs 151-156) to co-produce

outputs. The project will benefit from $809,000 cash co-financing from the Government for

Outcome 2, and $175 of cash co-financing from UNDP

3. The technical and financial support for the management communities, which is an integral

component in all the proposed interventions, will ensure capacity is developed within the

communities. This will ensure cost effectiveness in terms of monitoring and enhance

sustainability beyond the project lifespan.

4. Strengthening of market linkages in the pilot sites will ensure that the farmer groups will be

able to acquire inputs on their own (as the project progresses).


76

SECTION III: Total Budget and Workplan

Table 8. Total budget and workplan.

Award ID: 00058205

Award Title: PIMS 3942 CCA FSP: Zambia NAPA Follow up (LDCF)

Business Unit: ZMB10

Project Title: Adaptation to the Effect of Drought and Climate Change in Agro-ecological Zone 1 and 2 in Zambia

Project ID: 00072197

Implementing Partner

(Executing Agency)

Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives

LDCF Outcome

Responsible

Party

Fund

ID

Donor

Name

ATLAS

Budgetary

Account

Code

ATLAS Budgetary

Account Code

Year 1

(US$)

Year 2

(US$)

Year 3

(US$)

Year 4

(US$)

Total

(US$)

Budget

Notes

OUTCOME 1: Climate

change risks integrated

into critical decision

making processes for

agricultural management

at the local, sub-national

and national levels

Ministry of

Agriculture &

Cooperatives 62160

GEF 71300 Local Consultant 40,000 20,000 60,000 1

GEF 72200 Equipment 30,000 30,000 2

GEF 74500 Miscellaneous 60,000 60,000 3

GEF 72100 Contractual Services 40,000 60,000 60,000 160,000 4

GEF 71200

International

Consultant 40,000 40,000 5

GEF Subtotal

OUTCOME 1 80,000 150,000 60,000 60,000 350,000

OUTCOME 2:

Agricultural productivity

in the pilot sites made

resilient to the

anticipated impacts of

climate change

Ministry of

Agriculture &

Cooperatives 62160

GEF 72300 Materials & Goods 29,640 266,340 216,620 203,180 715,780 6

GEF 72100 Contractual services 22,000 1,070,916 140,916 66,916 1,300,748 7

GEF 71600 Travel 110,940 150,570 164,850 115,350 541,710 8

GEF 74200 Audio Visual 15,000 27,600 27,600 12,600 82,800 9

GEF Subtotal

OUTCOME 2

177,580 1,515,426 549,986 398,046 2,641,038


77


78

OUTCOME 3: National

fiscal and development

policy revised to promote

adaptation responses in

the agricultural sector

Ministry of

Agriculture &

Cooperatives

62160

GEF 71200 International Consultant 40,000 40,000 80,000

10 GEF 71300 Local consultants 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000

GEF 72100 Contractual Services 30,000 18,962 30,000 78,962 11

GEF 71600 Travel 30,000 10,000 40,000 12

4000

UNDP-

CO 74500 Miscellaneous 43,750 43,750 43,750 43,750 175,000 13

Subtotal GEF 120,000 38,962 100,000 258,962

Subtotal UNDP-CO 43,750 43,750 43,750 43,750 175,000

SUBTOTAL

OUTCOME 3 43,750 163,750 82,712 143,750 433,962

4. Lessons-learned and

knowledge management

component established

Ministry of

Agriculture &

Cooperatives 62160

GEF 71300 Local Consultant

10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 14

GEF 72400 Comm. & Audio Visual 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 15

GEF 74200

Audio Visual & Print

Prod 20,000 20,000 60,000 100,000 16

GEF 71600 Travel 20,000 20,000 17

Subtotal OUTCOME 4 35,000 35,000 95,000 165,000

5. Project Management

Ministry of

Agriculture &

Cooperatives 62160

GEF 71200 International Consultants 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 18

GEF 71300 Local Consultant

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000 19

GEF 71600 Travel

20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 20

GEF 72500 Office Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 21

GEF 72200 Equipment 60,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 100,000 22

GEF 74500 Miscellaneous 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 23

Subtotal GEF 135,000 95,000 75,000 75,000 380,000

SUBTOTAL

MANAGEMENT 180,000 220,000 190,000 90,000 540,000

Grand total GEF 392,580 1,915,426 758,948 728,046 3,795,000

Grand total UNDP-CO 43,750 43,750 43,750 43,750 175,000

GRAND TOTAL 436,330 1,959,176 802,698 771,796 3,970,000


79

Summary of Funds:

126

Donor Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

GEF 392,580 1,915,426 758,948 728,046 3,795,000

UNDP 43,750 43,750 43,750 43,750 175,000

ZMD 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 500,000

CCFU 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 2,600,000

FAO (CASPP) 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 5,000,000

GRZ(MACO) 382,250 382,250 382,250 382,250 1 529 000

TOTAL 2,843,580 4,366,426 3,209,948 3,179,046 13,599,000

Budget notes pertaining to Total Budget and Workplan

Table 9. Budget notes for Outcome 1: Climate change risks integrated into critical decision making processes for agricultural management at the local,

sub-national and national levels.

Budget Description Ref

A consultant will be hired to:

1) Undertake economic impact assessments on the adaptation value of using climate risk

information to inform agricultural planning. The cost to the project is estimated at US$25,000

2) The ZMD project intends to engage a local consultant to develop a National Early Warning

System (NEWS). The consultant who will do the EW needs assessment will also develop the

EWS for the sites based on the needs assessment.

3) The CCFU will hire consultants to revise the policies to incorporate climate change

considerations. The proposed project will use lessons learnt from the pilots as inputs to the

process.

1

The project will purchase equipment for water monitoring and weather data monitoring such as rain

gauges for collecting and monitoring water and weather data in the project sites.

2

The project in collaboration with the DWA and ZMD will conduct trainings in the project sites

1) For staff DWA staff, ZMD and extension staff on how to monitor water and weather data. This

will complement the trainings under the ZMD project “capacity development for effective early

3

126 Summary table includes all financing of all kinds: GEF financing, co-financing, cash, in-kind, etc.


80

warning….) the ZMD will conduct capacity enhanced of agro/met staff in agroshell software at

provincial level in order to develop capacity for the provision of effective early warning services

to support climate change adaptation. The budget is US$190,000. Similarly, the CCFU, as one of

its planned activities will train ZMD staff in early warning forecast and modelling as well as

training in data interpretation for agricultural and DMMU staff. The budget is US$50,000. This

makes a total of US$240,000

2) On early warning targeting the local communities/ PDCC and DDCC will be conducted at the

project sites. This is estimated to cost US$5000 at each site per year. This will be covered under

the cross-sectoral sensitization and capacity building on the relevance of early warning for

climate change adaptation by the ZMD.

The Following undertakings will be done through DDCC and CCFU:

1) The DDCC will be facilitated with financial and technical assistance to act as climate change

resource centres. Each will be provided with US$5000 annually.

2) The CCFU, under its development of a communication and advocacy strategy on climate change

intends to disseminate information through the Ministries such as the education ministry. They

will spend US$53,500. The project will conduct trainings in the project sites for the school

children on climate change. 4

The ZMD project intends to engage an international consultant for technical assistance for the

establishment of cross sectoral early warning services for climate change adaptation as well as technical

assistance for the evaluation of a suitable legal framework and financial system for sustainability of EWS.

The entire process will cost US$60,000. The project will engage a consultant to conduct site specific early

warning needs assessments in all the project sites. This will cost the project US$30,000

5

Table 10. Budget notes for Outcome 2: Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Budget Description Ref

In order to implement successful demonstration of Techniques for soil and water conservation as well as

soil improvement implemented to reduce erosion and improve the productivity and income of small-scale

agriculture, farmers in the pilots will be provided with free inputs in the first year so as to properly

implement the trainings. This will facilitate comparisons and enhance adoption of diversified seeds. To

achieve this Local dealers and companies will be Contracted:

1) To supply rice dehullers [4] to the rice producing groups. The groups will operate the machine

which farmers will use at a fee. The funds raised should assists in meeting the repair costs and

other group operating costs. The estimated cost of the machine with capacity of 3-5MT/h is

US$5000. Each site will have two machines.

2) To supply fingerlings, rice seed and fertilizers. Each of the 20[5] farmers will be supplied with a

rice-fish input pack for 2 acres (0.80937 hectares). This will consist of 5X50kg D-compound

fertilizer at US$62 and 3X50kg Ammonium Nitrate at US$62 and rice seed whose cost is to be

determined later. Fingerlings estimated at 100 per pond will also be supplied. These costs of rice

and fingerlings for the 20 farmers are estimated at US$5000 annually making an approximate

total annual cost of US$15,000. Estimated yields per hectare for this type of farming are

1,517kg/ha for rice and 196kg/ha of fish in Zambia [6].

6


81

Local manufacturers/Construction companies will be contracted or their Equipment hired for the following

Undertakings:

1) Local manufacturers/ carpenters will be contracted to manufacture modern beehives to be

supplied to the farmers.

2) Local engineering firms will be contracted to construct new dams for supplying water for

domestic use, animal watering and irrigation. The dam size will depend on the number of

households in the catchment area. The cost of construction [7] is estimated at US$0.33/m3 while

household demand for domestic, livestock and irrigation usage is estimated at 200m3 per year

[8]. To account for loses8 due to evaporation and seepage each household needs 800m3 in total

from the dam. Each dam will be equipped with water extraction mechanism for irrigation as well

as animal watering points to prevent direct extraction by animals and people which leads to

silting. Each household in the sites is expected to have sufficient water for irrigating 1000m2 of

land for vegetables for 90 days, water 35 animals for 180 days as well as domestic water use for

a family of six[9].

3) Local construction companies will be contracted to construct fish ponds. 3 production ponds

constructed each year at US$4,000 each labour inclusive (2,000M2 @ US$2/M2 for earthen

ponds and US$6/M2 for concrete ponds. Earthen are preferred, for they are cheaper to construct)

[1] .Three rearing ponds (166M2 @ US$332 each) will also be constructed each year to supply

the production ponds with fingerlings (2.5 fingerlings per metre squared [2]). One breeding pond

will be constructed each year. A 200M2 will supply fry to all the three rearing ponds. This will

cost US$400. The total cost of pond construction annually will be US$14,196. Assuming that the

fish will be under supplementary feeding, estimated harvest per year on average is 1800kg for

the three production ponds (30kg/M2 )[3] . With fish costing approximately US$2/kg.

4) The construction of earth dam in Chikowa and the six storm water dams in Kasaya will be

constructed by the communities with technical assistance from the DWA and MACO staff.

These will need fuel and DSAs for a maximum of 10 days per dam where necessary machinery

may be hired. Two storm water dams will be constructed each year in Kasaya from year two

using community labour and technical assistance from the DWA and MACO. In second year, 2

storm water dams in Kasaya and the earth dam in Chikowa will be constructed. This implies 3

sites by 2 officers at each site.

5) Local communities under the supervision of DWA and MACO staff will construct 3 weirs in

Kasaya and 2 holding reservoirs in Lusitu. These should be designed with mechanisms to extract

water to protect them from silting. The cost of a weir/ sand-dam 175ft long and 9ft high expected

to hold 2000m3 of water is estimated at US$5,600 plus the community labour [10].

7

Travel costs (DSA and Fuel) for all field trips for Consultants, project staff and technical personnel will be

partly covered by project funds

8


82

Audio Visual Equipment and Publication/demonstration Materials will be needed for the following

undertakings

1) MACO and DWA staff will be conducting regular trainings and providing technical advice on

high value irrigated crop production and marketing to ensure increased productivity from the

irrigated crops in all the sites with irrigation projects. The DWA staff will be conducting regular

monitoring to provide technical advice on dam maintenance to prevent siltation of dams. The

training and routine monitoring will be done at least 3 times in a month each year by two officers

(one from DWA and the other from MACO). These will require DSAs amounting to US$60/

day, and fuel allowances amounting to US$24 per day (20 litres per day at US$1.2/litre).

2) Department of Water Affairs technical staff from the provinces together with MACO (TSB)

officers will conduct trainings on river bank control on the Bazimu River. They will also select

the suitable sites where check dams and gabions will be constructed to realign the river. They

will also conduct training on construction of impounding structures and basins. The expenses

will include fuel and DSAs for a maximum of 10 days.

9

Table 11. Budget notes for Outcome 3: National fiscal and development policy revised to promote adaptation responses in the agricultural sector Budget Description Ref

The CCFU will hire consultants to revise the policies to incorporate climate change considerations. The

proposed project will contribute lessons learned to the CCFU for use in sensitization campaigns and policy

advocacy. The project will hire consultants who will conduct barrier analysis based on the project

objectives; conduct seminars to disseminate project specific information. All the analyses supported by the

project will be done in project areas and will also feed into the larger CCFU objectives

10

Funds earmarked for:

1) National training seminars on climate resilient agriculture

2) Seminars/Workshops meant to foster dialogue between DDCC, PDCC and the communities

3) Development and production of awareness and training materials

11

Consultant travel costs (DSA & fuel) on policy revision and Climate change mainstreaming related

business

12

UNDP-CO will contribute US$175,000 to support outcomes under outcome 3. This will be in form of cash

financing. The distribution of the money will be decided during the inception workshop when the

stakeholder involvement plan is finalized. Particularly the rows between CCFU and the project as regards

outcome 3 will be finalized during the IW.

13


83

Table 12. Budget notes for Outcome 4: Lessons-learned and knowledge management component established.

Budget Description Ref Consultancy Services-Individuals: One Knowledge Management Expert will be engaged to document

lessons learnt from the project on a continuous basis and present the lessons in summary to all

stakeholders; collate and submit all technical reports and documents on lessons learnt to the ALM and

WikiADAPT; and Develop a briefing paper on lessons-learnt from the project for publication in a peer

reviewed journal. The total cost for this activity will be US$30,000 for the project duration.

14

The CCFU will establish a climate change website and regularly update and popularize it through

electronic and print media to ensure that it is accessible to the general public. They will spend US$15,000.

The project will use the same website.

15

In order to raise awareness on the lessons learnt

1) The CCFU will conduct climate change workshops at district, provincial and national level. The

project will benefit by disseminating its information through these workshops.

2) The project will work in collaboration with the National Agricultural Information Services who

will coordinate the dissemination of information through broadcasting on both radio and

television and publications in the national dairies and posters. An indicative budget submitted by

NAIS for these activities is attached.

16

Travel costs for Community workshops in the pilot sites to disseminate project lessons 17

Table 13. Budget notes for Project Management.

Budget Description Ref The mid-term evaluation and the final evaluation will cost the project a total of US$80,000. These will be

conducted by an international consultant. UNDP-CO will contribute US$40,000 to supplement the GEF

contribution of US$40,000.

18

The UNDP-CO will facilitate for the hiring of a project officer who will hold the role of project assurance.

The annual budget for this is US$60,000. The person will be employed for two years.

19

PMU staff travel on project management and programme coordination related business 20

Office supplies-stationary and sundry

21

Hardware and software equipment for PCU and office furniture

22

Includes telecommunications and internet connection 23


84

Table 14. References for Budget Notes.

Notes.

[1] Estimates for cost of pond construction were supplied by Dr. Harris Phiri, Chief Fisheries Research

Officer, Department of Fisheries, MACO

[2] Mwale, M., Chizyuka, C.H., Sokotela, S.B, Banda, K.P and Matsuda. A. 2007 PaViDIA Field Manual

(Volume 3): Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives/ Japan

International Cooperation Agency.

[3] Mwale, M., Chizyuka, C.H., Sokotela, S.B, Banda, K.P and Matsuda. A. 2007 PaViDIA Field Manual

(Volume 3): Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives/ Japan

International Cooperation Agency

[4] Machine for milling rice to remove the husks. This will improve the quality of rice as traditional

systems of dehulling result in broken grains which are not accepted by some retailers.

[5] Although the facilitators report recommended 5 farmers for trial purposes, this is uneconomical as the

monitoring costs are likely to be high. Also to gauge the impact, a larger sample is required.

[6] Nilsson, H. and Blariaux, D. 1994. Rice-Cum Fish Trials in Luapula Province, Zambia. Downloadable

at http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AD004E/AD004E00.HTM

[7] Mati, B.M., Malesu, M. and Oduor, A. 2005. Promoting Rainwater Harvesting Eastern and Southern

Africa: The RELMA Experience.

[8] Niessen-Petresen, E. 2006 Water from Small Dams, A handbook for technicians, farmers and others on

site investigations, designs, cost estimates, construction and maintenance of small earth dams. Danish

International Development Assistance

[9] Niessen-Petresen, E. 2006 Water from Small Dams, A handbook for technicians, farmers and others on

site investigations, designs, cost estimates, construction and maintenance of small earth dams. Danish

International Development Assistance

[10] http://thewaterproject.org/kalwa.asp

[11] Sivanappan, R.K. Technologies for water harvesting and soil moisture conservation in small water

sheds for small-scale irrigation. Downloadable at http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7314E/w7314e0q.htm

[12] Estimates from Eastern Province Field Report

[13] Southern Province Facilitators Report

[14] Southern Province Facilitators Report


85

SECTION IV: Additional Information

PART I: Terms of Reference for Key Project Groups, Staff, and Sub-Contractors127

A. Project National Steering Committee

216. The PNSC will be established by MACO and will meet at least once a year, though they may meet

more frequently if the need arises. The PNSC will be made up of the following members (their role in the

PNSC is included in italics):

1. Director, Department of Agriculture (MACO) – Chairperson.

2. Director, Policy and Planning Department (MACO).

3. Director, Forestry Department (MTENR) – Member.

4. Director, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) – Member.

5. Director, DWA (MEWD) – Member.

6. Director, ZMD (MCT) – Member.

7. Director, ZARI (MACO) – Member.

8. Director, Environmental Council of Zambia (MTENR) – Member.

9. Director, DOF (MACO) – Member.

10. Director, Department of Veterinary and Livestock Development (MACO) – Member.

11. Representative, UNDP.

12. Director, DMMU (Office of the Vice President) – Member.

13. Representative, FAO.

217. The PNSC will be chaired by the Director of the Department of Agriculture. However, if the

Director of the Department of Agriculture is absent, the Director of the Policy and Planning Department

(MACO) will chair the PNSC.

Responsibilities

Establishing policies to define the functions, responsibilities, and delegation of powers for the

implementing agencies and the PS.

Providing overall guidance on budget management and project activities.

Facilitating coordination of project activities across institutions.

Making decisions on issues brought to its attention by the PTC and PS.

B. Project Executive

218. MACO will appoint a Project Executive (MACO Climate Change Focal Point Person) who will be

responsible, on behalf of the government, for the project. The project executive will be responsible for the

overall administration, management, coordination, implementation, monitoring, and reporting. The

Project Executive will chair the PTC and will head the PS with support from the PM.

Responsibilities

Ensuring effective partnership between the implementing ministries.

Ensuring that project activities are integrated and coordinated with the established operations of

the MACO at the national level.

127

Details of the terms of reference as well as qualifications will be finalized during the inception workshop


86

Developing and maintaining close linkages with relevant sectoral government agencies, UNDP,

NGOs, civil society, international organisations and implementing partners of the project.

Supervising and leading the project team in carrying out their duties at an optimum level through

ensuring efficient and effective resource utilization.

219. With the support of the PM, the Project Executive shall:

Oversee establishment of the PS.

Prepare detailed annual breakdowns of the work plan for all project objectives.

Identify resource requirements, responsibilities, tasks outlines, performance evaluation criteria

and work plans.

Prepare quarterly work plans.

Prepare and finalize detailed terms of reference and qualifications short term consultants.

Submit all project reports as required.

Approve quarterly status and financial reports for comments and approval by the PNSC.

Oversee implementation of the PNSC directives.

C. Project Manager

220. The PM will report to the Project Executive and will lead the project team through the planning,

implementation, and delivery of policies, reports, knowledge products, and other results approved in the

project document and annual work plans. The PM will provide overall operational management for the

successful execution and implementation of the programme. The PM will be responsible for financial

management and disbursements, with accountability to the government and UNDP. The PM will also

work closely with the staff from inter alia ZMD, MTENR, DMMU, DWA and DOF.

Responsibilities

Facilitating the day-to-day functioning of the PS.

Managing human and financial resources in consultation with the Project Executive to achieve

results in line with the outputs and activities outlined in the project document.

Leading the preparation and implementation of annual results-based work plans and logical

frameworks as endorsed by the management.

Coordinating project activities with related and parallel activities both within MACO and with

external implementing departments.

Monitoring project activities, including financial matters, and preparing monthly and quarterly

progress reports, and organising monthly and quarterly progress reviews.

Supporting the Project Executive in organising PTC meetings.

Coordinating the distribution of responsibilities amongst team members and organising the

monitoring and tracking systems.

Reporting and providing feedback on project strategies, activities, progress, and barriers to UNDP

and the PTC.

Managing relationships with project stakeholders including donors, NGOs, government agencies,

and others as required.

D. Administrative and Financial Assistant

221. One administrative and financial assistant will report to PM and the Project Executive.

Responsibilities


87

Standardize the finance and accounting systems of the project while maintaining compatibility

with the GRZ and UNDP financial accounting procedures.

Prepare budget revisions of the project budgets and assist in the preparation of the annual work

plans.

Comply and verify budget and accounting data by researching files, calculating costs, and

estimating anticipated expenditures from readily available information sources, in particular

partner agencies.

Prepare status reports, progress reports and other financial reports.

Process all types of payments requests for settlement purposes including quarterly advances to the

partners upon joint review.

Prepare periodic accounting records by recording receipts, disbursements (ledgers, cash books,

vouchers, etc) and reconciling data for recurring or financial special reports and assist in

preparation of annual procurement plans.

Undertake project financial closure formalities including submission of terminal reports, transfer

and disposal of equipment, processing of semi-final revisions, and support professional staff in

preparing the terminal assessment reports.

Assist in the timely issuance of contracts and assurance of other eligible entitlements of the

project personnel, experts, and consultants by preparing annual recruitment plans.

E. Site Level Managers

222. Site Level Managers will mainly be Block and Camp Extension Officers (BEO/CEO). They will

report to the PM and receive technical guidance on day-to-day project activities from the PS, the PACO

and the DACO. They will be responsible for facilitating community mobilization and coordination of all

project activities at the site level and will act as focal points for community mobilization. The site level

managers will be guided by the DACO and will get technical assistance from technicians from the

different departments in the province.

Responsibilities

Coordination

Coordinate participating agencies/ partners at the site level.

Work with site level partners to implement project activities and complement ongoing activities.

Serve as the site level project representative.

Organise and conduct monthly meetings, workshops, seminars, and other meetings

Present monthly progress reports to the Agricultural and Natural Resources subcommittee of the

DDCC.

Liaise with local service providers and contractors.

Training and Awareness Programmes

Conduct training courses as per work plan to strengthen and sustain the management committees,

producer groups and local input suppliers.

Prepare periodic awareness programmes in consultation DACO.

Assist field-level workers and other project partners in organising awareness campaigns and

workshops at the district and village levels.

Institutional Development

Assist in formation of farmer/ user groups where they are not in existence.

Assist in formation of community level management committees.

Help the farmer groups build capacity to prepare adaptation initiatives and to access and make the

best use of project funds.


88

Support farmer groups to improve their capacities to effectively raise issues of concern at local

level.

Act as an advocate for community members during decision making processes in the DDCC

meetings.

Support project staff to monitor district project accounts and provide financial management

guidance.

Facilitate farmer groups to build strong relationships with other projects in the area as well as

with the local authorities.

Monitoring and Reporting

Prepare concrete and verifiable targets for project activities, including awareness campaigns,

monitoring surveys and institution building.

Prepare monthly, quarterly, and annual work plans for the project activities.

Prepare and submit monthly and all other types of progress reports at the site level.

F. Monitoring and evaluation expert

223. The M&E expert will report directly to the Project Executive. He/she will lead the project team

(including implementing partners) through the planning, implementation, and delivery of policies, reports,

knowledge products and other results approved in the project document and annual work plans. Together

with a contracted Knowledge Management expert (see G below), the M&E expert will design and

implement a system to identify, collect, analyze, document and disseminate lessons learned. The M&E

expert will be responsible for collecting and collating information from the pilot sites and submitting it to

the CCFU website manager for uploading on the climate change website. The M&E expert will also

provide support on the ground, which is needed to closely evaluate progress and barriers and to prepare

detailed quarterly, annual, and other monitoring reports. The M&E expert’s work will be guided by the

strategic results framework, a draft which is provided here-in (see Table 6) but will be refined and agreed

upon by all the stakeholders during the IW. This will provide performance and impact indicators for the

project along with their corresponding means of verification.

Responsibilities

Establish the overall results-based M&E strategy in accordance with M&E plans outlined in the

project document.

Provide timely and relevant project performance information to the PS and the PTC.

Together with the hired Knowledge Management Expert, design a system for collecting

information on project lessons to be used in preparing lessons learnt documents periodically by

the expert.

Together with subject matter specialists, develop questionnaires and other data collection tools

that will be used to collect information during the project period for writing technical reports.

Guide and coordinate the review of the project Strategic Results Framework, including:

a. Provide technical advice for the revision of performance indicators.

b. Together with a hired expert, conduct a baseline study at project initiation.

c. Identify sources of data, collection methods, who collects data, how often, cost of

collection and who analyses the data.

d. Ensure all critical risks are identified.

Coordinate the preparation of all project reports. Guide project staff and executing partners in

preparing their progress reports in accordance with the approved reporting formats and ensure

their timely submission. This includes quarterly progress reports, annual project reports, inception

reports, and ad-hoc technical reports.


89

Foster participatory planning and monitoring by training and involving primary stakeholder

groups in the monitoring and evaluation of activities.

G. Knowledge Management Expert

224. This expert will be contracted periodically and when the need arises.

Responsibilities

Develop a mechanism for capturing lessons learned and consolidating a culture of lessons

learned involving all project staff.

Ensure all the ToRs for project consultants recruited also incorporate mechanisms to capture

and share lessons learned through their inputs to the project, and ensure that the results are

reflected in the M&E reporting system and the adaptation learning mechanism.

Document, package, and disseminate lessons learned at least every 12 months.

Facilitate exchange of experiences by supporting and coordinating participation in any

existing networks of UNDP projects sharing common characteristics. These networks would

largely function on the basis of an electronic platform but would also entail other methods

and tools such as workshops.

Together with the M&E expert, design a system that will be administered by the M&E expert

for capturing lessons learned from the project on a continual basis and synthesize results of

activities under outcomes 1,2, and 3 for use by CCFU and other stakeholders.

Collate technical reports and other documents from the project and contribute to the ALM.

Guidelines for extracting lessons learned will be drawn from the ALM.

Advise on the hiring of a consultant to develop and publish (in a peer-reviewed international

journal) a briefing paper on lessons learned from the project.

MACO’s Financial Management Unit will undertake the accounting role for the project.

PART II: Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Table 15. Stakeholder Involvement Plan. Outcome Output Lead Institution Partners Key Responsibilities

Outcome 1:

Climate Change

risks integrated

into critical

decision making

processes for

agricultural

management at the

local, sub-national

and national levels

1.1 Institutional capacity to

support climate risk

management in the agric

sector at the national,

district, village level

developed

ZMD MACO, CCFU Preparation of awareness

and training materials for

sectoral planners

Provision of weather

collection equipment

Training of extension staff

on how to collect weather

data.

Training for ZMD staff to

conduct seasonal forecasts

Training workshop in

project districts on EWS for

DDCC

1.3 Effective EWS(s)

developed to enhance

preparedness and reduce

climate related risks

ZMD PS, CCFU Assessing the EWS needs of

the sites

Development of an EWS for

the sites

1.2 Economic impact ZMD MACO Selection of communities


90

assessment of the value of

climate risk information to

farmers

Design of questionnaires

Selection of consultants and

review of outputs

Outcome 2:

Agricultural

productivity in the

pilot sites made

resilient to the

anticipated impacts

of climate change

2.1 Techniques for soil and

water conservation as well

as soil improvement tested

for their ability to improve

the productivity of small-

scale agriculture.

Department of

Agriculture

(MACO)

PS, ZARI,

Consultants (CFU),

Local Communities

Formation of farmer groups

Training on conservation

farming

Linking farmers to input

suppliers

Assessment of suitability of

techniques

2.2 Crop diversification

practices tested for their

ability to improve resilience

of farmers to drought

Department of

Agriculture

(MACO)

ZARI, SCCI, PS,

Local Communities

Formation of farmer groups

and training on crop

diversification

Linking farmers to input

suppliers


techniques

Conducting of farm trials to

gather scientific evidence

on CC adaptation

Training farmers on seed

multiplication

2.3 Alternative livelihoods

tested for their ability to

diversify incomes away

from maize production.

Forestry

Department (FD)

PS, MACO, Local

Communities,

Local suppliers

Group formation and

technical training and

business skills


techniques

Supply of inputs

Technical assistance for

implementation

2.4 Community-based water

capacity and irrigation

systems improved or

developed to test their

ability to raise agricultural

productivity.

DWA/ MACO

(DOA)

Local communities

local contractors

Formation of management

committees

Trainings on water

management, group

dynamics etc.

Assessments and surveys

Technical assistance for

implementation

Outcome 3: National fiscal,

regulatory and

development policy

revised to promote

adaptation responses

in the agricultural

sector.

3.1 Awareness of climate

change risks and to the

economic value of

adaptation responses raised

among policy- and decision-

makers.

CCFU DMMU, MACO

PPD, ZMD, PS

Barrier analysis, policy

analysis and gap

identification

Training seminars for

government officials

3.2. National policy

dialogues conducted to

discuss project findings in

relation to cost-effectiveness

of piloted adaptation

options.

CCFU DMMU, MACO

PPD, ZMD, PS

Review experiences from

other countries

Consultation of stakeholders

for input in policy revision

Production of concept paper

3.3. Policies that require

adjustments to promote

adaptation identified and

reviewed.

CCFU PS, MACO PPD,

ZMD, PS

Workshop seminars

(consensus on gap analysis)

Workshops and seminars to

disseminate lessons

Outcome 4:

Lessons-learned

4.1 Knowledge and lessons

learned to support

National

Agricultural

CCFU

Capturing and documenting

lessons learnt


91

and knowledge

management

component

established

implementation of

adaptation measures

compiled and disseminated.

Information

Service (NAIS), PS

CCFU

National

Agricultural

Information

Services (NAIS)

PS, MACO, DWA,

DOF, FD,

MTENR, DMMU

Dissemination of project

information to the public

through the media.

Development and posting

project information on the

CCFU website.

CCFU will be responsible

for organizing local and

regional workshops.

The PS will ensure lessons

learned are captured and

packaged for presentation

during these workshops.

The NAIS will undertake to

produce programmes for

television, radio, and

newspapers to be

broadcasted on a monthly

basis.


92

ANNEXES

ANNEX A - The major impacts of the four main climatic hazards within Zambia and the main

coping strategies adopted by the local communities128

.

DROUGHT FLOODING EXCESSIVE

TEMPERATURES

SHORTENED RAINY

SEASON

Impacts

Crop damage/loss

Water shortages

Reduced fish stocks

Income loss

Increase in the

extent of diseases

Decreased water

quality

Increased soil

erosion

Decreased soil

fertility

Increased honey

production (if

drought is not too

severe)

Crop damage/loss

Loss of pasture and

arable land

Decline in fish

catches

Increases in the

extent of diseases

Destruction of

infrastructure

Loss of life (human

and livestock)

Interference with

energy production

due to change in

energy flow

Loss of life

Increase in the extent of

diseases

Decreased human

capacity to do work

Crop damage/loss

Reduced fish stocks

Reduction in livestock

feed

Reduction in water

quality

Increase in the risk of

crop failure

Crop damage/loss

Reduction in income

from the selling of

crops

Crop seeds do not reach

maturity (thereby

negatively affecting the

next crop generation)

Reduction in forest

regeneration

Coping Strategies

Income

diversification

(charcoal making,

fishing, honey and

beer production,

selling grass and

livestock, casual

labour)

Trading other

commodities for

food

Gathering and

selling wild food

Food rationing

Selling fewer crops

to keep more for

household

consumption

Shifting agricultural

production from

highlands to lower

lands

Earlier crop planting

Growing more

drought-resistant

crop varieties

Incorporation of

crop residues instead

of burning

Crop rotations,

Income

diversification

(charcoal making,

fishing, honey and

beer production,

selling grass and

livestock, casual

labour)

Trading other

commodities for food

Gathering and selling

wild food

Shifting agricultural

production, livestock

and houses to higher

land.

Using medicinal

plants to treat

diseases

Boiling water or

treating it with

chlorine

Bury ditches to

prevent waterborne

diseases

Early evacuation

when water levels

increase

Improve drainage

around houses

Using medicinal plants

to treat diseases

Boiling water or

treating it with chlorine

to prevent diseases

Going to the medical

clinic

Buying and using

mosquito nets and

repellents

Starting work earlier in

the morning

Purchasing medicines

for cattle

Income diversification

(e.g. agricultural

production to cope with

decreased fish stocks

and charcoal production

to cope with crop loss)

Trading other


Planting crops earlier

Taking animals out

early in the morning

Using zero-grazing

methods for some

animals

Using medicinal plants

to treat diseases

Buying and using

mosquito nets and

repellents

Working earlier in the

morning

Trading other


Earlier crop planting

Taking animals out to

graze in the early

morning

Using zero-grazing for

some livestock

Income diversification

(selling charcoal,

livestock or grass,

casual labour)

Selling less crops to

keep more for

household consumption

Gathering wild food

Buying seeds for the

following growing

season

Exchanging crop seeds

between community

members or between

villages

128



93

intercropping, and

cover cropping

Irrigation (practised

by very few)

Sinking wells

Walking longer

distances to fetch

water

Using medicinal

plants to treat

diseases

Boiling water or

treating it with

chlorine to prevent

diseases

Fitting roofs with

plastic

If houses are

destroyed, people

either build

temporary shelters or

live temporarily with

neighbours


94

ANNEX B – Analysis of mean temperature over the last three decades from 32 meteorological

stations in Zambia

Mean temperature between November to December within AER I (Source: Jain, 2007).

Mean temperature between November to December within AER II (Source: Jain, 2007)


95

ANNEX C – Vision setting and site selection workshop report.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATIVES

VISION SETTING AND SITE SELECTION

WORKSHOP REPORT ON THE

“ADAPTATION TO THE EFFECTS OF DROUGHT/FLOOD

AND CLIMATE CHANGE/ VARIABILITY IN AGRO-ECOLOGICAL

REGIONS I AND II IN ZAMBIA”

SURVEYOR GENERAL’S CONFERENCE ROOM,

MULUNGUSH HOUSE

3RD

APRIL, 2009

1. Introduction

In a follow-up meeting to the inception129

which was held at the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

(MACO) on the 3rd

of March, 2009 it was suggested and agreed upon that the site selection criteria and

the site selection should only be done after the project vision had been set up. Consequently, a two day

vision setting workshop was planned (activity 1.7 in work-plan) for the first week of April. However, this

was later changed to a half day workshop.

2. Objectives of the Workshop

The workshop which was attended by the National based key stakeholders aimed at implementing sub-

activity 1.7 in the work plan which is “selection of pilot catchments and project pilot sites”. It also aimed

at coming up with a vision that would provide guidelines, objectivity and focus during the project

preparation phase in order to guide the project site selection at both provincial and district levels.

2.1 Specific objectives

The workshop had the following specific objectives, to:

1. Refine the draft project vision and objectives.

2. Develop the criteria for selection of pilot sites.

3. Select pilot provinces at National level and determine the provisional number of pilot sites

per province and/or district.

3. Expected Outputs

The vision setting workshop had the following expected outputs:

1) The project vision, general objective as well as specific objectives clearly spelt out.

2) Guided by the project vision, site selection criteria as well as number of possible pilot sites

developed.

129

The follow-up meeting was chaired by MACO Climate change/ variability Focal Point Person Mr. Martin N.

Sishekanu and attended by the Chief Irrigation Engineer, Mr. George W. Sikuleka, Agricultural Specialist Mapping

and Remote Sensing, Mr. Rasford Kalamatila the Chief Crops Agronomist, Mr. Mathias Kanyemba, the

International Consultant Dr. Anthony Mills, the PM Mr. Richard Bwalya and the UNDP representative Ms. Annalisa

Lodato.


96

3. Provinces to be assessed for pilot sites selected.

4. Workshop Proceedings

The workshop was opened and chaired by the Deputy Director Agriculture (DOA) Mr. Henry Sichembe

who emphasized the need to move quickly as time was running out.

Project Vision and Objectives fine tuning

The Chief Agricultural Specialist (MACO climate change focal point person) Mr. Martin Sishekanu gave

an overview of the project. He pointed out that there was need to adjust the project title by replacing the

word Zone with Region. This is because the project is targeting AERs.

The PM Mr. Richard Bwalya briefed the meeting on the progress in the preparation of the

project document. The progress constituted of the desktop activities scheduled for March in the

work plan as well as contacting the Meteorological Department as regards the climate modelling.

During the questions and answer session, Mr. Henry Sichembe suggested that the meeting be

availed with the pending activities so that a way forward can be discussed. After deliberations, it

was concluded that the issues concerning the Request for Direct Payment with UNDP had been

cleared and the Ministry would facilitate for the signing of all the relevant documents by

Monday. UNDP should receive these documents latest Tuesday.

The Chief Agricultural Specialist –Land Husbandry (MACO Climate change/ variability Focal

Point Person) Mr. Martin Sishekanu gave an overview presentation and analysis of the current

project vision which was supposed to be fine-tuned. This activity was combined with the

identification of possible interventions required to meet the vision. After a series of

deliberations, the following were suggested as possible vision statements for the project

“climatic resilient farming practices in Agro-ecological Regions I and II by Dr. Masuhwa” and

“Food security and incomes enhanced through climate resilient farming practices in Agro-

ecological Regions I and II by 2012 from Mr. Sishekanu”. As a way forward, Dr. Masuhwa and

the PM were given the task to come up with a fine-tuned vision statement from the suggestions.

This will be circulated to all the meeting participants through e-mail for comments and adoption.

This should be done by Thursday 9th April.

Concerning the project objectives, it was observed that the project overview clearly outlined the

project objectives. What was to be done was to just rearrange them and separate them into main

objectives and specific objectives for inclusion into the project document. As such, Mr. Martin

Sishekanu, Mr. Rasford Kalamatila, Mr. Reynolds Shula and the PM were assigned this task.

The product should also be circulated to all the members by e-mail for comments and adoption.

1. Project Site Selection Criteria

The Chief Agricultural Specialist –Land Husbandry (MACO Climate change/ variability Focal Point

Person) Mr. Martin Sishekanu led the team in developing the selection criteria for pilot areas. The

following criteria for site selection was presented and later adopted by the meeting:

In broad terms site selection would be determined by the feasibility of:

Water harvesting for either or both irrigated and rain-fed agriculture as well as rangeland natural

pasture enhancement,

Irrigation systems development and efficient application,

Improved land and water management practices, and

Crop diversification options

Specifically the criteria will include:

Likelihood of generating adaptation benefits,

Vulnerability of the beneficiary community,

Implementation capacity of local institutions,

On-going investment programmes that the project can bolt onto,


97

Geographical/catchment characteristics,

Agro-ecological region,

Physical characteristics,

Social-economic activities,

Resource endowments of the area,

Settlement pattern,

Replicability of the adaptive interventions nationally.

2. Selection of pilot sites at national level and number of sites

The Deputy Director (DOA) Mr. Henry Sichembe led process of selecting pilot provinces as well as

determining the number of pilot sites to be visited and evaluated in each province. It was agreed from the

start that there was no need to spread the investment thinly and as such, there was need to go for areas

where the project had higher chances of success - “success breeds success”.

Of the nine provinces in Zambia, five which are in Agro-Ecological Regions (AER) I and II

were picked. These include Western, Eastern, Southern, Lusaka and Central Provinces. These

are the ones identified in the NAPA as being most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change/

variability. AER II, though not as vulnerable as AER I, was included because actions in this

AER had an impact on the livelihoods of the people in AER I. Examples were given of floods

and siltation of rivers in AER I as a result of actions such as deforestation in AER II.

Of these five provinces, Central province was eliminated because the vulnerable communities in

this province were located in the game management areas and the people there are hunters/

poachers rather than farmers and thus the probability of success for the agricultural pilots was

likely to be low (a more detailed description of site selection backed by statistics will be

produced for inclusion in the project document).

Considering the time constraint, it was agreed that four teams will go into the four provinces to

work with the Provincial Development Committees in selecting the districts. Then they will

work with the District Development Committees in choosing the pilot sites. A maximum of

three sites will be selected per province giving a total of twelve sites nationally. The importance

of looking at all possible potential interventions such as in livestock and other crops instead of

concentrating on maize was highlighted.

After the field trips, the team shall convene a workshop/ meeting in which the selected sites will

be screened using the agreed upon criteria to come up with four sites in which the pilots shall be

set.

To ensure that uniform information is collected from the provinces and districts for site

selection, a checklist shall be developed. A checklist development team was appointed which

would be led by Mr. Nicholas Mwale. Other members include Dr. Masuhwa, Mr. Shishekanu,

Mr. Lenganji Sikaona (or any other person from DMMU and the PM. Work on the checklist

should start by Monday 6th and be complete by Friday 17th).

The meeting was closed by Mr. Sichembe at 12:45 hrs. He reiterated that the Department of Agriculture

was doing everything possible to ensure that the necessary documents required by the UNDP are signed

on Monday and delivered to the UNDP immediately after.

ANNEX D – Checklist for field trip data collection to inform site selection

CHECKLIST FOR FIELD TRIP DATA COLLECTION

(Sources of information: Desk study or visits at province, district or

community level)

Sources of information

1.0 CLIMATE CHANGE/ VARIABILITY CONTEXT AND

CLIMATE RISKS

1.1 What are the observed changes in the climate in this area in the last

10 years?

Desk

1.3 What are the anticipated climate change/ variability impacts in the

area?

Desk

1.2 What are the observed climatic changes/ climate variability in the

area? List the climate related hazards that affect the area (e.g. floods, excess

heat, droughts etc).

Desk/Province/District

1.4 List the associated impacts of these climate hazards (e.g. crop

damage, disease spread, accelerated soil erosion, reduced soil fertility etc).

District/Community

1.5 What are the coping strategies currently being employed (e.g. food

rationing, rainwater harvesting, dambo cultivation, supplementary

irrigation, winter irrigation, crop diversification, non-traditional farm

enterprises etc).

Community

2.0 LIVELIHOOD RESOURCES

2.1 Which are the most important NATURAL RESOURCES in the

area? (E.g. Natural resources upon which people depend for income, food

etc such as forests, wetlands, land, livestock, fisheries, wildlife etc).

District/Community

2.2 Which are the most important PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE in

the area? (E.g. basic infrastructure such as buildings, roads, bridges, storage

sheds, dams, etc).

Province/District

2.3 Which are the most important FINANCIAL RESOURCES in the

area? (E.g. stocks and flows of cash that allow people to achieve their

livelihood objectives such as access to markets, access to credit, loans etc).

Province/District/

Community

2.4 Which are the most important HUMAN RESOURCES in the area?

(E.g. the sources of skills and knowledge that allow people to achieve their

livelihood objectives such as agricultural management, water management,

animal husbandry skills etc. Need to probe for available skills such as

bricklayers, herbalists, bankers etc).

District/Community

2.5 Which are the most important SOCIAL RESOURCES in the area?

(e.g. formal and informal institutions from which people draw in pursuit of

livelihood objectives such as NGOs, farmer associations, local government

institutions etc).

District/Community

2.6 Which are the most important PRODUCTIVE ASSETS in the area

(e.g. Livestock, oxen, ploughs, hammer mills, farm implements).

District/Community


99



community level)


3.0 PROPOSED PROJECTS/ INTERVENTIONS, SYNERGIES AND

BARRIERS

3.1 What are the proposed adaptation projects for the area? Province/District/

Community

3.2 What issues or developments in the area might hinder the

implementation of the project? (E.g. local needs, local capacities, financial,

political, institutional support etc).

Province/District/

Community

3.3 What issues or developments in the area might support the

implementation of the project? (E.g. local needs, local capacities, financial,

political, institutional support etc).

Province/District/

Community

3.4 Provide information on the on-going projects/ programs as well as the

implementing institutions in the area that (for each project provide the

following information – focus and ability):

a) increase crop production/ productivity,

b) increase livestock production,

c) Increase fish production,

d) Increase clean water supply,

e) Increase market access.

Province/District/

Community

a. For each of the identified project/ intervention in 3.4, also provide the

following information

a) Coverage of these programs,

b) Core intervention activities,

c) implementation approach/modalities,

d) What are the existing barriers to the effective implementation of

these activities?

e) Potential for upscaling of activities (analyzed in relation to area

available for this and management challenges),

f) Community demand for upscaling of these activities (e.g. required

increase in area),

g) What is the cost of undertaking the activities (e.g. per hectare or per

household/annum).

Province/District/

Community

4.0 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

4.1 Do any of the farmers in the area use drought-adapted crop

varieties? If so, which ones and how successful are they?

District/Community

4.2 Do any of the farmers in the area practice water and land

management practices in the area? (E.g. tied ridges, contour ploughing, pot-

holes etc)? If so, which ones and how successful are they?

District/Community

4.3 What are sources of water supply in the area and what is the state of the

water infrastructure in the area (for supplying communities and livestock

with water for drinking and/or irrigation, fisheries?)

a) Is it regularly maintained?

b) Does it need rehabilitation?

c) What is the capacity?

District/Community


100



community level)


4.4 Are there schools in the area?

a) What percentage of the children in the area receives formal education?

b) Do the children receive any lessons on climate change/ variability

effects in school?

Province/District

4.5 What sort of income-generating activities are undertaken by the

community?

Community

4.6 What opportunities does the community see to increase these activities? Community

4. 7 What opportunities exist for starting new activities if agricultural

production in the future were to decrease?

Community

4.8 How are women involved in the community? Are there obvious gender

issues?

Community

4. 9 How does the community manage communal resources, input

acquisition, agricultural production and sale of produce? Are there

committees overseeing these activities? Is there a need for this sort of

capacity?

District/Community

4.10 Is erosion a problem in the area?

a) How is erosion tackled?

b) Is there a need for up scaling the prevention of erosion or

rehabilitation of eroded areas?

District/Community

4.11 Is deforestation a problem in the area?

a) How is deforestation tackled?

b) Is there a need for up scaling the prevention of deforestation or

rehabilitation of deforested areas?

c) If so, in what way and how often?

District/Community

4.12 Is the community often affected by flooding events?

a) If so, in what way and how often?

b) What, if any, measures are in place to reduce the impacts of

flooding?

District/Community

4.13 Is the community aware of the predicted impacts of climate change/

variability on crops, livestock, fisheries and water supply?

Community

4.14 Is the community aware of actual climate change/ variability on

agriculture, fisheries, livestock and water supply?

Community

4.15 What is the approximate population for the selected pilot

catchment?

District

4.16 What are the HIV/ AIDS prevalence rates in the catchment? Clinic


101

ANNEX E – Site selection criteria.

Site selection at provincial level

The Agricultural and Natural Resources Sub-Committee of the Provincial Development and Co-

coordinating Committee will be consulted and engaged as a vital link to facilitate and authenticate the

selection of respective district(s) for piloting the interventions.

Site selection at district level

The District Agricultural and Natural Resources Sub-Committee of the District Development

and Co-coordinating Committee (including District Planner) will facilitate and coordinate the

selection of communities and physical catchments using the District Development Plan and its

situational analyses.

A representative community will then be selected. The selection team would then go and agree

with the chosen community for the Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) exercise in the selected

physical catchment area. The CRA should be conducted with 2 to 3 communities in order to

have a fair feel and analysis of the challenges and possible interventions.

Broad selection criteria

In broad terms site selection would be determined by the feasibility of:

Water harvesting for either or both irrigated and rain-fed agriculture as well as rangeland natural

pasture enhancement,

Irrigation systems development and efficient application,

Improved land and water management practices, and

Crop diversification options.

Selection of pilot sites

The following criteria were agreed up-on by the stakeholders:

Likelihood of generating adaptation benefits,

Vulnerability of the beneficiary community,

Implementation capacity of local institutions,

On-going investment programmes that the project can bolt onto,

Geographical/catchment characteristics,

Agro-ecological region,

Social-economic activities,

Resource endowments of the area,

Settlement pattern,

Replicability of the adaptive interventions nationally.

Selection of the actual interventions

The following criteria were used for selecting the interventions to be piloted:

During the consultation workshops with the communities, after the project had been introduced

and the Climate Risk Assessment Framework administered, the community was asked to list the

priority interventions (in order of priority) they would like to have to address their current

problems.

The top three were recorded by the facilitators and were presented in Lusaka during the site

selection workshop. Therefore, during the workshop, we had three districts from each of the

four provinces. Also, each district had two pilot sites with each project site having a maximum

of three interventions.

During the site selection workshop, the teams that went to the field were tasked to select the two

districts which they judged to have a lot of potential based on the site selection criteria above.

They were then asked to present to the stakeholders the reasons why they had selected those

districts. During this process, the stakeholders ranked and scored the sites.


102

The rationale behind this was to come up with four sites based on the scores by the stakeholders.

However, after reviewing, Dr Anthony Mills advised that it would be preferable to include all of

the sites.

Then the groups were asked to develop the budgets for each site. The rationale was that from the

budgets, we would sum up and see if the proposed budgets were within the project’s budget.

However, since the budgets were also within the allocated amount, all the interventions have

been picked except for those like bee-keeping, which are not climate-proof.


103

ANNEX F – Strategic Results Framework: Outcomes, outputs, indicators and targets

Goal: to improve food security through enhanced adaptive capacity to respond to the risks posed by the effects of climate change (including

variability) in AER I and II of Zambia

Objective: to develop adaptive capacity of subsistence farmers and rural communities to withstand climate change in Zambia

Project Strategy

Indicators

Baseline Value

Targets and benchmarks

Sources of

verification

Risks and

Assumptions

Outcome 1:

Climate change risks integrated into decision-making processes for agricultural management at the local, sub-national and national levels

Output 1.1.

Number of

government

planners and

private sector

trained on climate

risk management

for improved

agricultural

productivity.

Number of ZMD staff

trained to provide

short-term and

seasonal forecasts,

from downscaling of

available data, in a

format that is suitable

for use by small-scale

farmers, agricultural

sector planners and

water managers.

Number of farmers,

agro-business dealers,

extension staff, and

Agricultural and

Natural Resources

subcommittees of the

DDCC/PDCC trained

on how to access,

apply and interpret

forecasts for planning

purposes.

Number of local

weather stations

installed.

At present, very few ZMD

staff members are capable of

conducting forecasts from

downscaling of international

data.

To date, few people have

undergone training on how

to apply forecasts to

decision-making. Farmers, in

particular, are not exposed to

accurate forecast data.

At present, only two districts

targeted by the project have

their own weather stations.

By year 2, at least 30% of the

ZMD staff are able to

provide forecasts by

downscaling available

international data

By year 2, at least 250 people

trained on how to access,

apply and interpret forecasts

for planning purposes, by the

end of the project.

By year 4, all 8 pilot sites

have their own functioning

weather stations developed to

collected and monitor

weather data.

Consultants

reports, Field

surveys, Reports

and training

reports.

Availability of

technical

expertise and

equipment for

downscaling

international

climate data to

AER level.

Output 1.2

Effective EWS(s)

developed to

enhance

preparedness and

reduce climate-

related risks.

Number of pilot sites

where their EWS

needs have been

documented and

assessed.

EWS(s) developed

based on the needs

assessment

undertaken in

activity.

At present, EWS needs of

the pilot sites have not been

documented and assessed.

Zambia’s National Disaster

Management Policy

identifies gaps affecting its

functionality and measures

that need to be undertaken to

improve disaster risk

management. Improved

EWS is central to this.

By year 1, the early warning

needs of the pilot sites

assessed and documented

By year 3, at least 1 EWS is

developed and applied in at

least 3 pilot sites.

Experts reports

on assessments,

Field surveys

against baseline

targets, Revised

policies

Availability of

technical

expertise and

equipment,

Political will by

policy makers to

revise the

policies,

Sufficient

awareness on

climate change

by farmers

Output 1.3

Economic impact

assessment on the

adaptation value

of climate risk

information to

protect

Economic impact

assessment on the

adaptation value of

climate risk

information to protect

agricultural incomes

from climate change

At present, no economic

impact assessment on the

adaptation value using

climate risk information

have been undertaken for

AER I and II.

By year 3, a report of the

adaptation value of using

climate risk information.

Consultant

report, farmer

surveys against

baseline

information.


104

agricultural

incomes from

climate change

effects.

effects.

Outcome 2:

Agricultural productivity in the pilot sites made resilient to the anticipated impacts of climate change

Output 2.1. Soil

and water

conservation and

soil improvement

techniques tested

for their ability to

improve the

productivity of

small-scale

agriculture.

Percentage increase in


in the pilot sites.

Number of

agricultural extension

staff and community

development staff

from the eight pilot

sites trained on soil

and water

conservation

techniques.

Number of farmers

trained on soil and

water conservation

techniques.

Number of farmers

who adopt

techniques.

Number of

management

committees at each

pilot site trained to

oversee and

encourage sustainable

soil and water

conservation

techniques.

Poor land productivity. Land

degraded by water erosion

and poor farming practices.

Gully erosion channels water

away from field as surface

run-off, preventing

infiltration. Soils are

depleted of nutrients.

Most of the extension staff

in the pilot areas need

refresher training on water

and soil management

techniques

At present, farmers in the

pilot sites are not exposed to

soil and water conservation

techniques.

At present, the communities

do not have management

committees to oversee and

encourage sustainable soil

and water management

techniques.


incomes

By year 1, all agricultural

extension workers covering

the 8 pilot sites are trained on

improved water management

practices.

By year 2, 900 farmers are

trained on soil and water

conservation techniques.

By year 3, 900 farmers have

adopted soil and water

conservation techniques.

By year 2, 80 people,

including 40 women, have

been trained to form 8

management committees

(one at each site).

Farmer surveys

Physical

inspections

Field reports

Annual reports

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


105

Output 2.2 Crop

diversification

practices tested to

improve the

resilience of

farmers to

drought



in the pilot sites.

Number of farmers

trained on crop

diversification

Number of farm trials

undertaken in the

pilot sites.

Number of local

cooperatives and

farmers trained on

seed production

methods so that they

can produce seed for

sale to the community

as an additional

source of income.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained at each site to

facilitate the adoption

of drought-resistant

and alternative crops

by the wider

community.

Poor crop productivity.

Maize farming has been

promoted at the expense of

cassava, sorghum and millet

– crops that are better suited

to drier conditions and

higher temperatures.

At present, most farmers are

not trained on climate

resilient crop diversification

practices.

At present, one of the major

impediments to increased

agricultural productivity has

been inaccessibility of

suitable seeds/ inputs in

remote communities


incomes

By year 2 1000 farmers at

the 8 pilot sites are trained on

crop diversification.

By year 3, 2 farm trials have

been undertaken at each of

the 8 pilot sites.

By year 2, 300 people are

trained on how to produce

and market drought resistant

seed locally.





(one at each site).

Farmer surveys

Technical

reports from

experts.

Annual reports

Field surveys

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.3: Alternative livelihoods tested for their ability to diversify livelihoods away from maize production.

Output 2.3a. Bee

keeping tested for

its ability to

diversify incomes

away from maize

production.



in the pilot sites.

Number of “bee

keeping groups”

established and

trained at each of the

pilot sites that

identified bee keeping

as a priority.

Number of bee hives

manufactured from

sustainable sources.

Traditional bee keeping

practices, where they exist,

are unsustainable as they

involve the ad hoc cutting

down of trees where honey

combs are sighted.


incomes

3 bee-keeping groups

established.




management committees at

each of the site where this

was identified as a priority.

By year 3, each farmer in the

bee-keeping groups has at

least four bee hives

manufactured from

sustainable sources.

Technical

reports from

experts.

Annual reports

Field surveys

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.3b. Fish

farming tested for

its ability to

diversity incomes

away from maize

production.



in the pilot sites.

Number of “fish

farming groups”

Fish farming was initiated in

Kataba once before, with

numerous problems, the key

problems being:

i) poor cost recovery

ii) poor technical design and


incomes

By year 1, establish a fish

farming group at Kataba

pilot site.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


106

established and


pilot sites that

identified fish

farming as a priority

intervention.

Total area dedicated

to fish farming.

Number of breeding

ponds constructed,

with appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders.

Number of growing

ponds constructed,

with appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders.

Number of production

ponds constructed,

with appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders.

construction so that floods

were poorly managed

iii) limited technical

backstopping

The project has since failed

(details are contained within

Annex I).



been trained to form a

management committee at

Kataba.

By year 3, at least 18 000 m2

is dedicated to fishing

farming.

By year 2, 1 breeding pond is

constructed.

At year 2, 9 growing ponds

are constructed.

Training

protocols.

Output 2.3c. Rice

farming tested for

its ability to

diversify incomes

away from maize

production.



in the pilot sites.

Number of “rice

farming groups”

established and


pilot sites that

identified rice

farming as a priority.

Number of farmers

who undertake rice

farming.

Number of dehullers

in operation within

the pilot sites that

Flood waters can be

harnessed for rice farming,

diversifying away from

maze which will become less

viable with climate change.

Although rice farming is

underway in parts of

Zambia, productivity is low

and upscaling of the activity

is prevented by a lack of

inputs (i.e. fertilizer and

improved seed), insufficient

knowledge on rice farming

and the lack of specialised

equipment (i.e. dehullers)

(see paragraph 114).

Demand for rice in Zambia

exceeds supply and deficits

are met by imports.


incomes

By year 1, establish 2 rice

farming groups in 2 pilot

sites.



been trained to form


each of the pilot sites that

identified rice farming as a

priority.

By year 3, 400 farmers are

partaking in rice farming,

with the help from inputs

(e.g. seed and fertilizer)

provided by the project.

By year 2, Kasaya and Sioma

will be equipped with two

dehullers each and the

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


107

identified rice

farming as a priority.

farmers will have undergone

training on the operation of

these machines.

Output 2.3d

Integrated fish

and rice farming

activities tested

for its ability to

diversify incomes

away from maize

production.



in the pilot sites.

Number of

“integrated fish and

rice farming groups”

established and


pilot sites that

identified this as a

priority intervention.

Number of farmers

who undertake

integrated fish and

rice farming.

To date, integrated fish and

rice farming has not been

implemented in AER I or II.


incomes

By year 1, 1 integrated fish

and rice farming group

established at 1 pilot site.



been trained to form


each of the pilot sites that

identified integrated fish and

rice farming as a priority.


undertaken integrated fish

and rice farming.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.3e.

Additional Non-

Timber Forest

Products (NTFPs)

tested for its

ability to diversify

incomes away

from maize

production.



in the pilot sites.

Number of suitable

NTFPs identified

Number of feasibility

assessments on

extraction methods

undertaken.

Number of people

trained on NTFP for

use as an alternative

livelihood.

Improved market

linkages established.

Potential to access

carbon finance

assessed.

Zambia has one of the

largest annual deforestation

rates in the world, mainly

because of timber extraction

and clearing for agriculture.

Community members within

Kasaya do partake in the

harvesting of NTFPs but

these are currently practiced

on a small scale and market

linkages are lacking.

Constraints exist that prevent

the upscaling of NTFP

production (see paragraph

118).


incomes

By year 2, 3 NTFPs have

been identified.

By Year 2, 3 feasibility

assessments have been

undertaken

By year 2, 60 people have

been trained on the benefits,

uses and sustainable

exploitation methods of

NTFPs.

By year 3, all identified

NTFPs are linked to

marketing mediums such as

COMACO.

Report that recommends

action to access carbon

finance.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Report.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.4: Community-based water storage and irrigation systems improved or developed to test their ability to raise agricultural

productivity,

Output 2.4a.

Community-level,

multipurpose

dams in Kasaya,

Sioma, Zalapango

and Kabeleka

constructed and

irrigation systems

tested for their

ability to improve



in the pilot sites.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Zambia holds c. 40% of

water in Southern Africa, but

less than 5% of land is

irrigated. Agriculture in

AER I and II is largely rain-

fed and therefore susceptible

to drought, which climate

change is expected to

worsen.


incomes

By year 1, establish 4

management committees in 4

pilot sites.



Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


108

agricultural

productivity.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,

irrigation techniques

(such as scheduling),

appropriate water

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock

production as well as

usage of communal

water resources.

Number of dams

constructed, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for


the project grant.

Extent of area under

irrigation as a result

of project.

Water storage facilities in

the pilot sites are in poor

condition or lacking

altogether, mostly as a result

of a lack of ownership and

insufficient knowledge on

the management of facilities


Irrigation facilities are most

often in disrepair and require

rehabilitation, as a result of

poor management

arrangements, including cost

recovery, improper water

extraction methods and a

lack of ownership (see

paragraph 125).



(one at each site).

By year 2, 1000 farmers

trained.

By year 3, 4 dams are

constructed.

By year 3, at least 227 ha are

under irrigation.

Output 2.4b: A

community-level

earth dam in

Chikowa

constructed and

irrigation system

tested for its

ability improve

agricultural

productivity.



in the pilot sites.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,



appropriate water

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock


usage of communal

water resources.

Number of dams

constructed, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for










worsen.












poor management





paragraph 125).


incomes

By year 1, establish one


the Chikowa pilot site.





Chikowa.

By year 2, XX farmers have

been trained.

By year 3, 1 earth dam has

been constructed.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


109

the project grant.



of project.

By year 3, 80 ha are under

irrigation.

Output 2.4.c. A

community-level

storm water dam

in Kasaya

constructed and

irrigation system

tested for its

ability to improve

agricultural

productivity.



in the pilot sites.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,



appropriate water

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock


usage of communal

water resources.

Number of storm

water dams

constructed, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for


the project grant.



of project.









worsen.












poor management





paragraph 125).


incomes

By year 1, establish one


the Kasaya pilot site.





Kasaya.


been trained.

By year 3, 6 storm water

dams have been constructed.


irrigation.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.4d: A

community-level

reservoir in

Lusitu

constructed and

irrigation system

tested for its

ability to improve

agricultural

productivity.



in the pilot sites.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,



appropriate water









worsen.











incomes

By year 1, establish a


the Lisutu pilot site.





Lusitu.


been trained.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


110

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock


usage of communal

water resources.

Number of reservoirs

constructed, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for


the project grant.



of project.



poor management





paragraph 125).

By year 3, 2 reservoirs have

been constructed.


irrigation.

Output 2.4e:

A community-

level weir in

Kasaya

constructed and

irrigation system

tested for its

ability to improve

agricultural

productivity.



in the pilot sites.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,



appropriate water

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock


usage of communal

water resources.

Number of weirs

constructed, with

appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for


the project grant.



of project.









worsen.












poor management





paragraph 125).


incomes



the Kasaya pilot site.





Kasaya.


been trained.

By year 3, 3 weirs have been

constructed.


irrigation.

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.

Output 2.4f:

A community

level irrigation

system in Lusitu



in the pilot sites.

Agriculture in AER I and II

is largely rain-fed and

therefore susceptible to

drought.


incomes

Field Surveys

Annual Reports.

Refer to risks

listed under

Outcome 2.


111

rehabilitated and

tested for its

ability to improve

agricultural

productivity.

Number of

management

committees

established and

trained.

Number of farmers

trained on water

management,



appropriate water

extraction methods,

irrigated crop

production, fish

farming, livestock


usage of communal

water resources.

Number of irrigation

systems rehabilitated,

with appropriate

management

(including cost

recovery) plans in


stakeholders, for


the project grant.



of project.




poor management





paragraph 125).



the Lisutu pilot site.





Lusitu.


been trained.

By year 3, 2 irrigation

systems have been

rehabilitated.


irrigation.

Evaluation

reports.

Training

protocols.

Outcome 3: National fiscal, regulatory and development policy revised to promote adaptation responses in the agricultural sector.

Output 3.1.

Awareness of

climate change

risks and to the

economic value of

adaptation

responses raised

among policy-

and decision-

makers.

Number of awareness

and training materials

(such as briefing

notes, fact sheets and

cross-sectoral guides)

developed for sectoral

planners on the need

to incorporate climate

change considerations

into agricultural

planning, including

the economic benefits

thereof.

Number of training

seminars on climate

resilient agricultural

planning developed

and conducted for

MACO, ZMD, DWA,

DMMU and MTENR

Number of training

workshops designed

and conducted in each

of the eight pilot

districts for

agricultural and

natural resources

At present, the different

sectors and institutions have

been addressing climate

change issues in an ad hoc

manner

At present, there are no

awareness and training

materials that are developed

based on actual adaptation

practices in Zambia

At present, only a few senior

staff have attended seminars

or trainings on climate

resilient agricultural

planning in the government

departments.

Only a few of the members

of the Agricultural and

Natural Resources

Subcommittees of the PDCC

and DDCC are trained on

climate change

considerations for planning

purposes

By year 4, at least 1 national

workshop is conducted to

discuss the project findings

and recommendations

By year 4, the PDCC and the

DDCC are able to coordinate

climate change activities to

ensure coordinated approach

By year 4, at least 3 briefing

notes, 3 fact sheets and one

cross sectoral guide

produced.


training seminars on climate

resilient agriculture planning

developed and conducted for

planners from the MACO,

ZMD, DWA, DMMU and

MTENR

By year 4, at least 60

government officials

working in the planning

section of the relevant

ministries/department,

including the ministries

Number of

workshops

conducted

Field surveys

Field reports

The project

interventions are

able to generate

convincing

benefits.

The current

interest in

climate change

issues among

planners in the

ministries is

sustained.


112

subcommittees of the

district development

coordinating

committee (DDCC),

the Non-

Governmental

Coordinating

Committees

(NGOCC) and other

relevant district level

stakeholders.

Functional climate

resource and support

centres in the eight

pilot districts.

mentioned above trained.

By year 1, all the members of

the PDCC and 50% of the

members of the DDCC

Agriculture and Natural

Resources subcommittees are

trained on incorporating

climate change

considerations in planning

processes.

Output 3.2.

National policy

dialogues

conducted to

discuss project

findings in

relation to cost-

effectiveness of

piloted

adaptation

options.

Number of meetings

or workshops

conducted between

the members of the

DDCC, PDCC and

the District NGOCC

to enable coordinated

and climate-resilient

development planning

in the vulnerable

provinces.

At present, there is a lack of

coordination and dialogue

processes on climate change

adaptation.


meetings/workshops have

been conducted.

Project reports

Project reports

The project

interventions are

able to generate

convincing

benefits.

Support and

coordination

from other key

stakeholders

Policy

stakeholders are

willing to make

changes in

policy based on

emerging issues

and community

needs

Output 3.3.

Policies that

require

adjustments to

promote

adaptation

identified and

reviewed.

Number of sectoral

policies that promote

or impede the

resilience of

communities within

AER I and II to

climate change

analysed.

Number of policy

notes developed for

each sectoral policy

analysed outlining

and demonstrating the

impacts, costs and

benefits of a

particular sectoral

policy on the

resilience of

livelihoods in AER I

and II.

Number of gaps in the

existing policies,

relating to climate

change identified.

The current policies and

provincial/ district plans do

not exclusively address

climate change

By year 4, 2 provincial plans

and district plans and 5 key

national policies are revised

to promote sustainable

climate resilient

development.

By year 2, recommendations

developed for at least 5

sectoral policies.

By year 3, at least 5 policy

notes developed.

Project reports.

Outcome 4. Lessons learned and knowledge management component established

Output 4.1.

Knowledge and

Number of lessons

systemized.

Development projects at

present, do not

By Year 3, at least 1 good

practice fact sheet produced

Project

documents,

The ALM is

functional to


113

lessons learned to

support

implementation

of adaptation

measures

compiled and

disseminated.

Number of lessons

included in the ALM.

Number of lessons

included on

wikiADAPT.

Number of project

documents included

on the CCFU website.

Number of briefing

papers documenting

lessons learned

developed and

published in peer-

review journals.

Number of regional

and national

workshops conducted

for dissemination of

project lessons.

Number of radio and

television

programmes

developed to convey

project lessons.

Number of

newsletters produced.

Number of

community

workshops conducted.

The number of

awareness campaigns

conducted on the

need to incorporate

adaptation needs in

policy.

systematically benefit from

learning practices and

project lessons on

community-based adaptation

Zambia, is at present, not

contributing to the ALM

At present, there is no

systematic knowledge

transfer on climate change

adaptation in Zambia

for each pilot intervention

and distributed.

All monitoring and

evaluation reports are

screened for inclusion in the

ALM by six months after end

of the project.

By year 4, at least 20 key

project lessons are captured

and disseminated in the

ALM and on wikiADAPT.

By year 4, all project

documents are available on

the CCFU website, on a page

dedicated to the project.


and 1 international workshop

on adaptation to effects of

drought and climate change

is conducted.

By year 4, at least 2 radio

and 2 television programmes

have been developed and

aired.

By year 4, at least 1 work for

each of the 8 pilots has been

held.


campaigns have been

conducted

proposals,

research papers,

ALM platform,

and Workshop

proceedings

facilitate

learning

The

communities

and regional

actors are

interested in

knowledge

sharing.

Other regions

and countries

believe

experiences

from the project

are applicable to

their situations.


114

ANNEX G: Cost calculations for outputs

Table 1: A summary of the number of beneficiaries per activity in Outcome 2 and the cost of the activity

per beneficiary.

SUMMARY TABLE: COSTS OF INTERVENTIONS OVER ALL SCOPED PILOT SITES

2.1 Soil conservation techniques

Number of beneficiaries 900

Cost of intervention per farmer (US$) [1] 313

Number of sites 6

Total cost 281 340


Number of beneficiaries 1 260


Number of sites 8

Total cost 496 140

2.3a Beekeeping



Number of sites 3

Total cost 75 690

2.3b Fish Farming


Cost of intervention per household (US$) 219

Number of sites 1

Total cost 74 448

2.3c Rice farming in flood-prone areas


Cost of intervention per farmer (US$) 649

Number of sites 2

Total cost 194 720

2.3d Integrated fish and rice farming



Number of sites 1

Total cost 47 640

2.3e Additional Non-Timber Forest Products Introduced



Number of sites 1

Total cost 23 660

2.4 Expansion of area under irrigation

2.4a Dam construction

Number of beneficiaries 2 272


Number of sites 4

Cost of intervention 856 560

2.4b Earth dam construction


115



Number of sites 1


2.4c Construction of storm water dams



Number of sites 1


2.4d Construction of reservoirs



Number of sites 1

Cost of intervention for the site 138 140

2.4e Construction of Weirs



Number of sites 1


Irrigation systems rehabilitated


Number of dams 1

Number of sites 1



TOTAL COST 2 641 038

Table 2: A breakdown of output costs to achieve Outcome 2

UNIT COST

(US$)

NUMBER

OF UNITS/

PERSONS

ANNUAL

TOTAL

COST

(US$)

OVERALL

TOTAL

COST (US$)

2.1 SOIL CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES

Formation of farmer groups and training of

farmers in soil conservation techniques for 3

years

Fuel costs per site 300.00 7 2 100.00 6 300.00

Other allowances for trainers per site 300.00 7 2 100.00 6 300.00

Training materials per site 300.00 7 2 100.00 6 300.00

Participants meals per site 300.00 7 2 100.00 6 300.00

Trainers DSAs per site 480.00 7 3 360.00 10 080.00

Support to management committees at US$3000

per group each year 3 000.00 7 21 000.00 63 000.00

Training 32 extension officers

Transportation (return) 60.00 32 1 920.00 1 920.00

Lodging for 32 extension officers for 5 days @

US$80/day 400.00 32 12 800.00 12 800.00

Consultants fees (lump sum) 10 000.00 1 10 000.00 10 000.00


116

Training of farmers on conservation farming

Contract for trainers @US$15/ farmer/ session

for 4 sessions 60.00 300 18 000.00 54 000.00

Purchase of input packs for trained farmers

5kg maize/ cassava/ sweet potato seed @ US$10 10.00 300 3 000.00 9 000.00

50kg fertilizer @US$62 62.00 300 18 600.00 55 800.00

Legume seed @US$12 12.00 300 3 600.00 10 800.00

Faidherbia for crop rotation @US$2 2.00 300 600.00 1 800.00

Herbicides @ US$8 8.00 300 2 400.00 7 200.00

Chaka hole @US$7 7.00 300 2 100.00 6 300.00

Assessment of suitability of techniques at the six

sites

DSAs for seven days at each site @ US$60/

person for 4 people (per site) 1 680.00 7 11 760.00 11 760.00

Fuel costs estimated at 200 litres per site

(US$1.2/ litre) for six sites 240.00 7 1 680.00 1 680.00

Subtotal 6 119 220.00 281 340.00

2.2 CROP DIVERSIFICATION

Formation of farmer groups and training of

farmers crop diversification for 3 years

Fuel costs per site 300.00 8 2 400.00 7 200.00

Other allowances for trainers per site 300.00 8 2 400.00 7 200.00






0.00

Assessment of suitability of techniques at the

sites




(US$1.2/ litre) for six sites 240.00 8 1 920.00 1 920.00

Training of farmers on crop diversification

Contract for trainers @US$15/ farmer/ session

for 4 sessions for 1260 farmers 60.00 420 25 200.00 75 600.00

Purchase of input packs for trained farmers for

1260 farmers

5kg maize/ cassava/ sweet potato seed @ US$10 10.00 420 4 200.00 12 600.00

50kg fertilizer @US$62 62.00 420 26 040.00 78 120.00

Legume seed @US$12 12.00 420 5 040.00 15 120.00

Faidherbia for crop rotation @US$2 2.00 420 840.00 2 520.00

Herbicides @ US$8 8.00 420 3 360.00 10 080.00


117

Chaka hole @US$7 7.00 420 2 940.00 8 820.00

0.00

Support for farm trials for ZARI

DSAs for 4 researchers @ US$60/ day for a

minimum of 20days per site a year for 3 years 4 800.00 8 38 400.00 115 200.00

Fuel Costs (4 trips to each of the 8 sites/ year

using 250 litres(US$1.2/ litre)/ site for 3 years) 1 200.00 8 9 600.00 28 800.00

Farmer training on seed production for 3 years

DSAs for 2 staff from Seed Certification

Institute to train farmers on seed production

(they require DSAs @US$60 for 5 days for each

of the 8 sites) 600.00 8 4 800.00 14 400.00

Fuel costs for trainers @ 250 litres per site for all

the three years 300.00 8 2 400.00 7 200.00

Subtotal 175 620.00 496 140.00

2.3a BEE KEEPING

Formation of bee keeping groups and training of

farmers in bee keeping for 3 years

Fuel costs per site 300.00 3 900.00 2 700.00

Other allowances for trainers per site 300.00 3 900.00 2 700.00

Training materials per site 300.00 3 900.00 2 700.00

Participants meals per site 300.00 3 900.00 2 700.00




0.00


sites




(US$1.2/ litre) for six sites 240.00 3 720.00 720.00

Other costs for beekeeping

Purchase of improved beehives from local

carpenters (4 beehives will be given to each of

the 260 farmers. Each hive costs US$20) 80.00 54 4 320.00 12 960.00

Technical assistance for setting beehives. This

includes fuel, labour and DSAs. The estimated

cost per site each year is US$1650). 1 650.00 3 4 950.00 14 850.00

Subtotal 29 070.00 75 690.00

2.3b. FISH FARMING

Formation of fish farming groups and training of

farmers on fish farming for 3 years


118

Fuel costs per site (250 litres @ US$1.2/ litre) 300.00 1 300.00 900.00

Training materials per site 300.00 1 300.00 900.00

Participants meals per site 300.00 1 300.00 900.00

Trainers DSAs per site (DSAs @ US$60 for 4

trainers for 7 days) 1 680.00 1 1 680.00 5 040.00



0.00

Purchase of manual excavation tools 0.00 0.00

Wheel barrows 60.00 50 3 000.00 9 000.00

Mattocks 12.00 50 600.00 1 800.00

Shovels 12.00 50 600.00 1 800.00

Hand hoes 10.00 50 500.00 1 500.00

Pick axes 10.00 50 500.00 1 500.00

0.00


sites





Construction of ponds

Nine (2000m2) production ponds (3 each year) at

a cost of US$4000 each 4 000.00 3 12 000.00 36 000.00

Three (166m2) growing ponds (3 each year) at a

cost of US$332 each 332.00 3 996.00 2 988.00

One breeding pond annually @ US$400/ pond

for 3 years 400.00 1 400.00 1 200.00

Subtotal 4 732.00 26 096.00 74 448.00

2.3c RICE FARMING IN FLOOD-PRONE

AREAS

Formation of rice farming groups and training

of farmers on rice farming for 3 years

Fuel costs per site (250 litres @ US$1.2/ litre) 300.00 2 600.00 1 800.00







Supply of rice input packs 0.00 0.00

Rice Seed 10.00 100 1 000.00 3 000.00

4x50kg D-Compound 200.00 100 20 000.00 60 000.00

4x50kg Ammonium Nitrate 248.00 100 24 800.00 74 400.00

45 800.00 137 400.00

Purchase of rice hulling equipment for the two

sites (2 for each site @ US$5000 each) 5 000.00 4 20 000.00 20 000.00


119


sites 0.00 0.00





Subtotal 332 120.00

2.3d INTEGRATED FISH AND RICE

FARMING

Formation of rice farming groups and training

of farmers on rice farming for 3 years








0.00

Supply of rice input packs

Rice Seed 10.00 20 200.00 600.00

4x50kg D-Compound 200.00 20 4 000.00 12 000.00

4x50kg Ammonium Nitrate 248.00 20 4 960.00 14 880.00

Purchase of fingerlings estimated at US$0.1

each. Each farmer gets 250 fingerlings 25.00 20 500.00 1 500.00

0.00

Assessment of suitability of techniques at the six

sites





Subtotal 17 160.00 47 640.00

2.3e ADDITIONAL NTFPs PROMOTED

Formation of NTFP groups and training of

communities on NTFPs for 3 years








Assessment of suitability of techniques 1 920.00 1 1 920.00 1 920.00

Consultancy for identification of viable NTFPs 5 000.00 1 5 000.00 5 000.00

Subtotal 23 660.00

2.4a DAM CONSTRUCTION

Formation of dam management committees and


120

training of communities on group dynamics for 3

years

Fuel costs per site (250 litres @ US$1.2/ litre) 300.00 4 1 200.00 3 600.00





0.00

Trainings for communities on water

management and irrigation management 0.00 0.00






0.00

Trainings irrigated crop production, livestock,

fish farming and marketing 0.00 0.00






0.00

Support to management committees 0.00 0.00

Lump sum amount for trainings and any other

activities to strengthen committees 3 000.00 4 12 000.00 36 000.00

0.00 0.00

Assessment of suitability of interventions 0.00 0.00





0.00

Contractual services for dam construction 0.00 0.00

Dam Construction (different types of dams

depending on site conditions) 150 000.00 4 600 000.00 600 000.00

Construction of irrigation canals were suitable/

supply of pressure pumps and accessories 30 000.00 4 120 000.00 120 000.00

Subtotal 770 640.00 856 560.00

2.4b CONSTRUCTION OF EARTH DAMS



years







121

0.00








0.00 0.00








0.00 0.00




0.00 0.00

Feasibility assessment each of the sites 0.00 0.00





Contractual services for earth dam construction



Construction of irrigation canals were suitable/

supply of pressure pumps and accessories 30 000.00 1 30 000.00 30 000.00

Subtotal 192 660.00 214 140.00

2.4c CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER

DAMS



years






0.00 0.00






122




0.00 0.00








0.00 0.00




0.00 0.00






0.00 0.00

Contractual services for storm water dam

construction 0.00 0.00



Supply of pressure pumps and accessories 2 000.00 6 12 000.00 12 000.00

Subtotal 54 660.00 76 140.00

2.4d: CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVOIRS



years






0.00 0.00








0.00 0.00





123





0.00 0.00



activities to strengthen the committees 3 000.00 1 3 000.00 9 000.00

0.00 0.00






Contractual services for reservoir construction

Construction of reservoir 50 000.00 2 100 000.00 100 000.00


Subtotal 116 660.00 138 140.00

2.4e: CONSTRUCTION OF WEIRS



years







management and irrigation management






Trainings irrigated crop production, livestock

and marketing






Support to management committees




124

Feasibility assessment each of the sites





Contractual services for construction of weirs




Subtotal 61 320.00 104 280.00

2.4f: IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

REHABILITATION



years







management and irrigation management






Trainings irrigated crop production, livestock

and marketing






Support to management committees



0.00 0.00







125

Contractual services for irrigation systems

rehabilitation

Irrigation system rehabilitation 10 000.00 2 20 000.00 20 000.00


Subtotal 36 660.00 58 140.00

SITE SPECIFIC COSTS

Trainings and monitoring by extension officers

for 3 years

Lunch allowances (3days/month x12 months @

US$10/ person for 2 extension officers) for 3

years 720.00 8 5 760.00 17 280.00

Fuel allowances (3 days/month x12 months

@US$24 for 20litres) for 3 years 864.00 8 6 912.00 20 736.00

Subtotal 1 584.00 8 12 672.00 38 016.00

Development of market linkages for all pilot

sites / feasibility studies

Consultants fees (market linkages assessment

and development) 60 000.00 0.00 0.00

Consultants fees (Feasibility and profitability

study for all pilot sites) 100 000.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal 160 000.00 1 160 000.00 480 000.00

Community sensitization

DSAs PS staff from National Office (US$60 for

4 days per site for 5 people) 1 200.00 8 9 600.00 9 600.00

Fuel estimated at 250 litres per site 300.00 8 2 400.00 2 400.00

DSAs Provincial Staff (US$60 for 4 days per site

for 5 people) 1 200.00 8 9 600.00 9 600.00

Fuel estimated at 150 litres per site 180.00 8 1 440.00 1 440.00

DSAs District Staff (US$60 for 2 days per site

for 5 people) 600.00 8 4 800.00 4 800.00

Fuel estimated at 50 litres per site 60.00 8 480.00 480.00

Subtotal 28 320.00 28 320.00

Table 3: Cost and coverage of interventions under Outcome 2.

Southern Province Eastern Province Western Province Lusaka Province

Total Kasaya Lusitu Chikowa Mundalanga Sioma Kataba Zalapango Kabeleka

No. of Households 1000 1000 293 1241 208 340 115 333

Activities

2.1 Soil conservation techniques

Sites prioritizing activity x x x x x x 6

No. of farmers trained 120 180 240 120 120 120 900

Hectare under soil conservation 30.00 60.00 60.00 30.00 22.50 202.50

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 312.60 312.60 312.60 312.60 312.60 312.60 312.60

Total cost per site (US$) 37 512.00 56 268.00 75 024.00 37 512.00 37 512.00 37 512.00 281 340


Sites prioritizing activity x x x x x x x x 8

No. of farmers trained 120 120 240 240 120 120 120 180 1 260

Drought resistant species disseminated 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28

Alternative crop species disseminated 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32

Hectares under drought resistant crops 30 30 60 60 30 30 45 315

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76 393.76

Total cost per site (US$) 47 251.43 47 251.43 94 502.86 94 502.86 47 251.43 47 251.43 47 251.43 70 877.14 496 140

2.3 Alternative livelihoods

2.3a Bee keeping

Sites prioritizing activity x x x 3

No. of farmers trained 100 30 30 160

Bee keeping groups formed 10 3 3 16

Modern beehives supplied 400 120 120 640

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 473.06 473.06 473.06 473.06

Total cost per site (US$) 47 306.00 14 191.80 14 191.80 75 690

2.3b Fish farming

Sites prioritizing activity x 1

No. of breeding ponds constructed 1 1

No. of growing ponds constructed 9 9

No. of production ponds constructed 9 9

Total area under fish farming (m2) 18000 18000


127

No. of households benefiting 340.00 340

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 218.96 218.96

Total cost per site (US$) 74 448.00 74 448

2.3c Rice farming in flood prone areas

Sites prioritizing activity x x 2

No. of farmers targeted 100 200 300

No. hectares under rice farming 100 200 300

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 649.07 649.07 649.07

Total cost per site (US$) 64 906.67

129

813.33 194 720

2.3d Integrated fish and rice farming


No. of farmers trained 60 60

No. of integrated fish and rice basins 60 60

No. hectares under fish and rice farming 30 30



2.3e Additional NTFPs Introduced


No. of new NTFPs introduced 3 3

No of farmers trained in NTFPs 100 100

No. of NTFP groups formed 5 5



2.4 Expansion of area under irrigation

2.4a Construction of dams

Sites prioritizing activity x x x x 4

No. of concrete dams to be constructed 1 1 1 1 4

No. of beneficiaries 568 568 568 568 2 272

No. of hectares under irrigation 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 227.2

No. of dam management committees 1 1 1 1 4

Cost of intervention per household (US$) 377.01 377.01 377.01 377.01 377.01


128

Total cost per site (US$)

214

140.00

214

140.00 214 140.00

214

140.00 856 560

2.4b Construction of earth dams


No. of earth dams proposed 1 1

No. of beneficiaries 811 811

No. of hectares under irrigation 81.1 81.1

No. of dam management committees formed 1 1



214

139.99 214 140

2.4c Storm water dams constructed


No. of storm water dams proposed 6 6

No. of hectares under irrigation 28 28


No. of dam management committees 6 6



2.4d Reservoirs constructed


No. of reservoirs proposed 2 2



No. of dam management committees 2 2



138

139.99 138 140

2.4e Weirs constructed


No. of weirs proposed 3 3





129


104

280.00 104 280

2.4f Irrigation systems rehabilitated


No. of irrigation systems rehabilitated 2 2


No. of hectares under irrigation 22 22


Total cost per site (US$) 58 140 58 140

Total cost of interventions/site 512 777 281 043 379 103 231 359 363 810 289 025 298 903 285 017 2 641 038

Total no. of beneficiaries/site 1571 983 1261 570 908 780 808 748 7629

ANNEX H - List of stakeholders consulted during the PPG phase of the project

The following consultations and activities were held during the PPG phase.

Pre-inception workshop 4th

-5th

February 2009

Specific objectives: 1. To share the project background and information on the adaptation to the effects of drought,

floods and climate change in agro-ecological regions I and II.

2. To formulate an Action Plan to facilitate the development of the full project proposal document

for GRF consideration.

3. To draw up a programme for the inception workshop on the aadaptation to the effects of drought

and climate change in Agro-Ecological Regions I & II.

Inception workshop 2nd

March 2009

The overall objective of the Inception Workshop was to bring together stakeholders to be familiarised to

the drought/floods and climate change project and fine-tune the project proposal road-map.

Specific objectives: 1. To appraise and share experiences with stakeholders on the importance of water in agricultural

development in Zambia’s three Agro-Ecological Region’s;

2. To inform and stakeholders on the GEF’s role in climate change adaptation, and GEF Project

Cycle;

3. To appraise and get feedback from the stakeholders on the project concept document of the

Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in Agro-Ecological Regions I & II

project in order to shape the proposal document;

4. To agree on and finalise the drafting of the project document proposal work-plan and roadmap.

Vision setting and site selection workshop 3rd

April 2009

The workshop aimed at implementing sub-activity 1.7 in the work plan which is “selection of pilot

catchments and project pilot sites”. It also aimed at coming up with a vision that would provide

guidelines, objectivity and focus during the project preparation phase to guide in the project site selection

at both National, Provincial and District levels.

Specific objectives:

1. To refine & spell-out the project vision and objectives;

2. To develop criteria for the selection of pilot catchments and pilot sites;

3. Select pilot Provinces at National level and determine the provisional number of pilot sites per

province and/or districts.

Site selection field visits 28-11th

May, 2009


1. Consultation with the Agricultural and Natural Resources subcommittees of the PDCC and

selection of the pilot districts

2. Consultation with the Agricultural and Natural Resources subcommittees of the DDCC and

selection of the pilot sites

3. Consultations with the communities and identification of the desired pilot interventions

Site selection workshop 14th

to 15th

May 2009

This was held at Kafue Gorge between 14th and 15

th May 2009. The technical working group, field

facilitators and the international consultant were present.



131

1. Narrowing down the sites from the 16 which were selected from the field trips to eight sites based

on the site selection criteria

2. Review the progress and chart the way forward

First draft review workshop

This was held from the 14th to 17

th July 2007. Participants included:

1. The technical working committee members

2. Representatives from government departments

3. Representatives from the provinces, districts & sites.


1. Barrier analysis

2 Development of detailed business plan

3 Co-financing

4. Stakeholder involvement plan

5. Many others

Internal appraisal committee 22nd

July 2009

This was held in the UNDP conference room on 22nd

July 2009. The aim was to review the draft

document and provide input.

External appraisal committee meeting on 7th

August 2009

This was held in the UNDP conference room. The aim was to review the draft document and provide

input.

Name Institution

People consulted during the Pre-Inception Workshop from 2-6th

February 2009

Joseph Kanyanga Chief Meteorologist- Zambia Meteorological Department

Jacob Nkomoki Deputy Director –Zambia Meteorological Department

Lenganji Sikaona Principal Research Officer- Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit

Adam Hussein Director

Kayoya Masuhwa Principal Agricultural Officer (MACO)

Anthony Mporokoso Principal Hydrologist (Department of Water Affairs)

Nicholas Mwale A/ Senior Statistician (Department of Policy & Planning) MACO

Rasford Kalamatila A/ Principal Agricultural Specialist (Remote Sensing) MACO

Martin N. Sishekanu Chief Agricultural Specialist (Land Husbandry) MACO

Esnart Makwakwa Analyst/ Programmer- Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit

Young N. Vibetti Chief Agricultural Research Officer (Livestock) MACO

People consulted during the vision setting workshop on 3rd

April 2009

Henry Sichembe Deputy Director (DOA) MACO

Kayoya Masuhwa Principal Agricultural Officer (MACO)

Anthony Mporokoso Principal Hydrologist (Department of Water Affairs)




Harris Phiri (PhD) Chief Research Officer (Department of Fisheries) MACO


Richard Bwalya PM

Mathias Kanyemba Chief Crops Officer- MACO


132

Mwase Phiri Chief Vegetables and Crops Officer- MACO

Reynolds K. Shula Climate Change Facilitation Unit

Samuli Leminen Environmental Officer (UNDP)

Oversease Mwangase Chief Meteorologist- Zambia Meteorological Department

People consulted during the PPG Inception Workshop 2nd

March 2009



Kafula Chisanga Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (MACO)

Mwila Mulundu Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (MACO)

Chileshe Bwalya MACO- Mambwe District

Richard K. Mwamba MACO- Southern Province

Peters Kamusaki MACO- Western Province

Valentine Michelo MACO- Western Province

Moses C. Kapuka MACO- Nyimba District

Joyce S. Musiwa Zambia Rain Water Harvest Association

Oversease Mwangase Chief Meteorologist- Zambia Meteorological Department

Harris Phiri (PhD) Chief Research Officer (Department of Fisheries) MACO


Moses Lungu MACO Lusaka Province

Shadreck Mungalaba Provincial Agricultural Co-ordinator Lusaka -MACO


Kambani Banda National Agricultural Information Services -MACO

Shamwinda Tembo National Agricultural Information Services -MACO

Matildah Kaliba Participatory and Ecological Land Use Management- Zambia

Charles Mvula Policy and Planning Department-MACO

Daniel Chamba Technical Services Branch- MACO

Mainga S Provincial Agricultural Co-ordinator (Western Province -MACO

Shitima E. M Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources

Samuel Mukelebai MACO Southern Province

Mathias Kanyemba Chief Crops Officer- MACO

Maurice Muchinda Director- Zambia Meteorological Department

Richard Bwalya PM

Annalisa Lodato UNDP

Anthony Mills International Consultant

George Sikuleka Chief Irrigation Engineer- MACO

David Mulenga MACO

People consulted during the site selection missions 28th

April-10th

May 2009

Western Province Provincial Development Coordinating Committee (Mongu)

Albert Mate PM- Concern Worldwide

Simataa Nakamboa PM- Keepers Zambia Foundation

Mulenga Lawrence Agricultural Officer MACO

James Masinja District Fisheries Officer

Carol M. Mubita Programme Officer- Barotseland.com- Lyambayi Adaptation

Beatrice Lukama Principal Forestry Extension Officer- Forestry Department

Agness C. Shawa Area Warden- Zambia Wildlife Authority

Peter S. Kamusaki SAMS- MACO

Senanga District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


133

Coordinating Committee

Muyowambuya Likando Project Officer- Keepers Zambia Foundation

Charles Mjumphi Programme Manager Concern Wildwide

Matilda Libi District Coordinator- People’s Participation Services

Roy Moonde Technical Officer- Department of Agriculture

Fausto Chimya Extension Assistant- Forestry Department

Clive Simwanza Veterinary Officer- Department of Vet. & Livestock

Rodrick Washeni Fisheries Technical Officer- Department of Fisheries

Mubita Musiwa PM- Adventist Relief Services- SFSP

Howard Hakubobya District Marketing Officer- MACO

Nyambe Soopu National Agricultural Information Services (Senanga)

Likando Mubiana District Agricultural Officer- MACO

Sesheke District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


Mwangana Mwandamena District Agriculture Coordinator-MACO

Faustina Simasiku Assistant Planner- Sesheke District Council

David Mutemwa Chairperson- Sesheke Pastors Fellowship Advocacy Committee

L.I. Nalumino District Forestry Officer- Forestry Department

Anthony Wakumelo Officer-in Charge- Zambia Meteorological Department

Litia Litia Officer-in Charge- Department of Fisheries

Jairos Makuni District Planner- Sesheke District Council

Nyambe Mwambwa Officer in Charge- Zambia Wildlife Authority

Webster Chikampa District Veterinary Officer

Pius Maambo Agricultural Officer-MACO

Reuben Kabiti Senior Agricultural Officer

John Chipandwe District Agricultural Information Officer

M. Lubinda Vice Chairperson- Timber Producers Association of Zambia

Kafue District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


Dr. Christine Inambao District Veterinary Officer- MACO

Loziwe Ndhlovu Fisheries Research Officer- MACO

Katongo Bwalya Community Development Officer- Ministry of Community

Development and Social Services

Moddy Malowa Community Development Officer-Kafue District Council

Frank Simushi Senior Agricultural Officer- MACO

Muwowo Mutende District Forestry Officer- Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural

Resources

Gomes Hikanyeu District Agricultural Coordinating Officer- Kafue District Council

Mr. Musonda District Planning Officer- Kafue District Council

Wilson Chilembo Extension Methodology- MACO


Dr. Kayoya Masuhwa Chief Agricultural Officer- MACO

Matilda Kaliba Programmes Officer- PELUM

Gregory Chilufya Facilitator- Independent Consultant

Chongwe District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


John Lungu Acting Senior Agricultural Officer

Dennis Mbita Mistimanzi Junior Technical Officer- MACO


134

Mwenya Mulenga Technical Officer-MACO

Francis Kubi Technical Officer-MACO

Sinda Mabvuso Technical Officer- MACO


Bernard Chulu Provincial Agricultural Officer- MACO

Dr. Kayoya Masuhwa Chief Agricultural Officer- MACO

Matilda Kaliba Programmes Officer- PELUM

Dr. Msiska C.Y District Medical Officer

Choongo P.C Manager, District Planning and Development- Chongwe District Council

Laura Gondwe Human Resource Manager- Chongwe District Council

Buis Pallu Malaria Focal Person- Chongwe District Council

Luangwa District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


Happyday Nzila District Agricultural Coordinator- Luangwa District

White Nyirenda District Community Development Officer

Kelvin Hamusonde Officer-in Charge- Wildlife Conservation Society

Alex Choompo District Forestry Officer- Department of Forestry

Justice Nchimunya District Education Officer- Ministry of Education

Musekiwe Ntembe District Information Officer- Zambia Agricultural Information Services

E.M. Chisanga District Marketing and Cooperatives Officer- MACO

Silvia Sombe MACO

Mutinta C. Zulu MACO

Mupeta MAvis Agricultural Officer- MACO


Kayoya Masuhwa Chief Agricultural Officer- MACO

Matilda Kaliba Programme Officer- PELUM

Eastern Province Provincial Development Coordinating Committee (Chipata)

Bwalya Chendauka Provincial Forestry Officer- Forestry Department

Dr. Roy M. Chiti Programme Coordinator-Lutheran World Federation

Thomas Mwanza Senior Education Standards Officer

Vincent Nguluwe Provincial Water Affairs Officer

Mporokoso Anthony Principal Hydrologist- Department of Water Affairs

Mwale Lusizi Area Warden- Zambia Wildlife Authority

Titus Ngandu Acting Senior Planner/ Disaster Management focal Person

Patson Phiri Provincial Planner- Ministry of Local Government and Housing

Mambwe District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


Chileshe Bwalya Crop Husbandry Officer- MACO

Mathias Zulu Agricultural Information Officer- MACO

Morrison Hamoonge Technical Services Officer- Department of Agriculture

Patrick Kapampa Fisheries Officer- Department of Fisheries

Sinyala Nyirongo Regional Planner- Zambia Wildlife Authority

Sungizwayo Banda Extension Officer- Wildlife Conservation Society

Christine Shawa Marketing Officer- Cargill Cotton Limited

Martha Sekelani Marketing Officer- MACO

Daniel Chamba Irrigation Engineer- Provincial Agricultural Office- MACO

Rasford Kalamatila Principal Technical Officer- MACO


135

Chama District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


James Ngalamilo MACO

Vincent Banda MACO

Fred Chikuta MACO

Sherry Phiri CARGIL Cotton Zambia Limited

Anthony Mporokoso Principal Hydrologist- Department of Water Affairs


Sichembe Isaac Department of Veterinary and Livestock Development- MACO

Thomas Banda Ministry of Community Development and Social Services

Kabonso Japhet Forest Department

Kabange Masenga MACO

Noel Phiri Social Worker

Newton Nyirenda Chama District Council

L. Mutukwa Office of the President

Samson Habulembe Department of Fisheries

Moyo Maboto Dunavant

Evaristo Nanyoka MACO

Nyimba District Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the District Development


Moses C. Kapuka District Agricultural Coordinator- MACO

Widson Nyirenda District Planner- Nyimba District Council

Joseph Zulu Water Officer- Department of Water Affairs

Abner Kumbuyo Forestry Officer- Forestry Department


Anthony Mporokoso Principal Hydrologist- Department of Water Affairs

John Dimuna Fisheries Officer- Department of Fisheries

Dr. Happy Kanyini Department of Veterinary and Livestock Development

Ziwa. S.Z Principal Technical Officer/ Department of Agriculture


136

ANNEX I – A brief description of policies that address environmental issues.

Decentralisation Policy (Cabinet Office)

Decentralization may facilitate better environmental management at the local level, if it gives greater

power to those whose livelihoods are dependent upon the sustainable management of renewable natural

resources.

Land Policy (Ministry of Lands)

By proposing the change in land tenure system through titling land, the policy encourages environmental

protection by reducing degradation resulting from the “tragedy of the commons”. Land ownership with

titles promotes responsibility.

Health Policy (Ministry of Health)

The policy acknowledges that the prevalence of malaria, TB, other epidemics, sanitation and safe water

and reproductive and child health are all closely linked to environmental policy and management. It also

acknowledges the potential complementarities between better environmental management and improved

public health and the importance of wider linkages between health and the environment.

National Population Policy (Ministry of Finance and National Planning)

The National Population Policy was adopted in 1989. The Policy recognizes the need to integrate

population issues into development planning. The policy also acknowledges that reduced population

growth would in turn reduce pressure on the country’s renewable natural resources.

Education Policy (Ministry of Education)

The National Policy on Education also articulates the need for environmental health. It regards the role of

the school as an environmental health affirming and promoting institution for all pupils and the

communities.

Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) Policy (Ministry of Communications and

Transport)

One specific objective relates to support for the conservation of the environment and natural resources.

Gender Policy (Cabinet Office, Gender and Development Division)

The vision of the Government is to achieve full participation of both women and men in the development

process to ensure sustainable development and the attainment of equality and equity between the sexes.

The policy acknowledges the gender imbalance in the environment and natural resources sector, which

has impacted negatively on women. It aims to facilitate the involvement of women in decision making at

all levels in institutions dealing with the environment and natural resources.

National Housing Policy (Ministry of Local Government and Housing)

Specific objectives include “assisting the poor to acquire decent shelter through alleviation of their

affordability problems” and “fostering homes that are functional, healthy, aesthetically pleasant and

environmentally friendly”. The objectives are consistent with improving environmental conditions in

housing, especially for the poor, and the use of environmentally friendly technologies.

Transport Policy (Ministry of Communications and Transport)

The policy acknowledges that poorly designed transport and communication can damage the environment.

Agriculture Policy (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives)

One of the strategies involves the conversion of customary land into large blocks of leasehold land, to

create large farms that will grow crops for export. Many of these farms will have out-grower schemes


137

attached. Implementation of the agricultural policy will strengthen land tenure, realizing land values,

protecting investments, and improving farmland management thereby reducing land degradation.

Fisheries Policy (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives)

The proposed policy encourages sustainable fisheries management, and stakeholder participation

(especially the participation of local communities) in the capture fishery and aquaculture.

Tourism Policy (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)

This policy advocates for the support of environmentally sustainable tourism. This includes sustainable

waste disposal, eco-tourism, green packaging and recycling, water and energy conservation, integrated

environmental management, and social and environmental audits.

Mining Policy (Ministry of Mines and Minerals Development)

One specifically environmental policy objective is to reduce the danger of ecological damage arising from

mining operations as well as damage to the health of workers and inhabitants of the neighborhood through

air, water and land pollution.

Forestry Policy (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)

Seven of the 13specific policy objectives are directly relevant to Environment, namely:

1. To ensure the integrity, productivity and development potential of the forest reserves

(especially through the involvement of stakeholders);

2. To ensure adequate protection of forests by empowering local communities and promoting

the development and use of forest and non-timber forest products.

3. To ensure sustainable management of forest ecosystems and biodiversity application through

scientific and indigenous technical knowledge (through, inter alia, promoting the value of

forests for catchment protection, biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services).

4. To ensure sustainable management of forest resources for wood fuel production.

5. To recognize and support the development of non-wood forest products.

6. To regulate exploitation and ensure efficient use of forest resources and products.

7. To ensure gender equity in all aspects of forestry management, production and utilization of

forest products, extension training and education.

Energy Policy (Ministry of Energy and Water Development)

The policy aims “to promote optimum supply and utilization of energy, especially indigenous forms, to

facilitate the socio-economic development of the country and maintenance of a safe and healthy

environment”. However, the policy is seen as the main driver of woodland destruction nationally, for fuel

wood and charcoal production.

Water Policy (Ministry of Energy and Water Development)

The policy is consistent with the sustainable management of water resources and complements a National

Policy on Environment. The institutional and legal framework highlights the importance of EIA prior to

the implementation of any development project, and the application of other legislation, notably the

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act, for effective management of water quality.

Wetlands Policy (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)

The aim of the policy is twofold: firstly to ensure the wise use of wetlands and their resources, and

secondly, to create a comprehensive, stakeholder-based institutional and legal framework for their

management. Some of the specific objectives are:

To promote the integrity and natural productivity of wetland ecosystems and the maintenance of

their functions and values.

To conserve their biodiversity.

To promote international action of national interest for the conservation of wetlands.


138

To provide training and strengthen the capacity of wetland conservation institutions.

Wildlife Policy (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)

The objectives include promoting the appreciation and sustainable use of wildlife resources by facilitating

the active participation of local communities in the management of the wildlife estate, promoting and

developing tourism, and enhancing the recognition of the economic value of wildlife resources. By doing

so, ZAWA contributes to the maintenance of Zambia’s rich biodiversity and to economic development of

the sector.

Biodiversity Policy (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)

Following ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993, the Government prepared the

Biodiversity Policy of 1999. The Government’s mission is “to establish legal, policy and institutional

frameworks and mechanisms that promote the conservation, management and sustainable use of Zambia’s

biological resources and the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources by all sectors of

the population”.


139

ANNEX J – Current fertilizer distribution schemes and irrigation schemes in place in Zambia

Fertilizer distribution schemes

Currently, the GRZ employs two fertilizer distribution schemes to improve productivity and food security,

namely the Food Security Pack (FSP) Programme and the 50/50 Scheme. The FSP Programme has been

implemented by the NGO Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM). Since its inception in 2002, the FSP

Programme has targeted vulnerable130

but viable131

small-scale farming households who are selected by a

community committee132

. The programme promotes crop diversification and CF methods to optimise

agricultural output, and provides training in market entrepreneurship to enhance farmers’ sustainability.

The FSP provides selected candidates with a range of inputs, including fertilizer, lime and seeds (of

cereals, legumes and roots or tubers) appropriate to the target AER. Furthermore, the programme builds

capacity for developing seed/grain banks to improve seed availability and therefore food security.

Candidates pay back 50% of their harvest in kind to the programme, part of which is stored (the amount is

decided by the community and supported by facilitators) whilst the remainder is sold and the proceeds put

towards providing FSPs to additional farmers. In this way, the programme seeks to build community

capacity nation-wide (including instilling a sense of self-worth in productive farmers), encourage

sustainable farming techniques and eradicate the existing “dependency” syndrome133

. Furthermore, the

programme encourages participation in the Food-for-Work programme which is involved in developing

public infrastructure.

Using the 50/50 scheme, implemented in 2002, the GRZ subsidizes fertilizer and hybrid seed (maize only)

so that farmers need only pay 50% of the normal price134

. To participate in the scheme and receive the

subsidy, farmers are encouraged to make a 50% down payment during the first year and during the second

year they are eligible for a 25% subsidy. Candidate selection is undertaken by the District Agriculture

Committees (DAC), which are comprised of members of the private sector, GRZ and NGOs, and is

focused on farmers with market potential. However, government-provided agricultural inputs such as

those in the abovementioned schemes, although less expensive, have a tendency to arrive late and the

necessary amount is rarely delivered135

. Furthermore, obtaining fertilizer on credit is difficult and the

productivity of many farms in Zambia, particularly the small-scale farms, suffers as a result.

Irrigation schemes

In its irrigation policy and strategy the GRZ acknowledges that investment in irrigation is critical in order

to boost agricultural productivity and food security. As such, the National Irrigation Policy and Strategy

was introduced in 2004. In its strategic programmes, informal irrigation methods, including water

harvesting and the utilization of dambos, have been targeted together with rehabilitation of the few

existing irrigation schemes. Furthermore, the GRZ has embarked on an Irrigation Development Project

(IDP) which will run from 2009-2016 and will implement the National Irrigation Policy. The objective of

the IDP is to increase the agricultural incomes of smallholder farmers in selected development sites with a

high irrigation potential. The project, which is expected to cost US$50 million over a seven year period, is

being piloted in various districts of the Southern, Copperbelt, Lusaka and Central Provinces.

130

Vulnerable small-scale farming households include: i) households headed by women, children or terminally ill

persons; ii) households with disabled farmers; iii) orphanages/households supporting orphans; iv) households

farming on less than one hectare; or v) households with unemployed youths (PAM). 131

Viable households are those that include small-scale farmers with marketing potential. 132

The selection committee is comprised of extension workers, local council representatives, farmers, the chief and

NGO representatives. 133

Currently, a large number of rural Zambians are dependent on the government for food relief. 134


Fertilizer and Infrastructure. Social Development Papers. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49. 135


Fertilizer and Infrastructure. Social Development Papers. The World Bank. Social Analysis Paper No. 49.


140

ANNEX K – Kataba Community Fish Farming Initiative, Senanga District, Western Province

The Kataba Fish Farming Initiative was an initiative undertaken by the GRZ to reduce levels of poverty

among the communities within the Kataba area by encouraging them to generate an alternative source of

income through fish farming. The initiative commenced in 2007 as part of government community

extension programme spearheaded by the Department of Fisheries in the then Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries. The initiative had no specific time frame and budget but was run on normal

government expenditure as a Poverty Reduction Programme. The initiative was developed following the

fish farming suitability assessment carried out in the area in early 2006 by the Department of Fisheries

and subsequent recommendation that fish farming be undertaken in the area.

The Department of Fisheries, working together with target communities, constructed a total of seven fish

production ponds in the plains of Kataba area. Upon completion, the fish production ponds were handed

over to communities for management and fish production. The Department of Fisheries only provided

technical backstopping services.

Currently, the Kataba fish farming initiative has come to halt due, presumably, to either management

problems or the adverse effects of natural events. The fish breeding ponds were not constructed but

instead the communities opted to bring in fingerlings from Mongu (40 km away from Kataba). This had

cost implications which the communities failed to manage. In addition, poor technical support led to

improperly designed ponds. For example, the embankments for some of the ponds were poorly

constructed and did not take into account the possibility of flooding. During one of the seasons, the

Kataba plains got flooded submerging the fish production ponds leading to loss of fish stock into the main

river system. In terms of backstopping, the District Office in some cases lacked financial resources to

provide backstopping as it is located 70km from Kataba. The communities are now on their own and only

one fish farmer has continued to produce fish but under very difficult conditions.

A number of lessons were learnt from the Kataba Fish Farming Initiative following its implementation

over the year among them were the following:

The cost of fish production increases with an increase with distance for transportation of

fingerlings;

Technical backstopping could be provided in time if a Fisheries Officer is based in the area or if

financial resource flow are consistent;

If ponds are constructed in low lying area like plains, the design of the embankments should

mitigate flood impacts or the fish production should such that harvesting is done well in advance

of the floods; and

Regular monitoring of fish stocks was critical for successful fish farming.

It is a felt need that the next project will take into account the lessons from the previous initiative.


141

ANNEX L – List of people who attended the Draft Project Review Workshop on the 15th

July 2009

and the PAC meeting on 7 August 2009

Draft Project review Workshop – 15th

July 2009

NAME ORGANISATION DESIGNATION

1 Dr. Anthony Mills International Consultant

2 Bwalya Chendauka Forestry Department Principal Forestry Officer

3 Richard Bwalya MACO/ UNDP Project Manager

4 Bwendo Kabanda OXFAM Livelihood Coordinator

5 Esnart Makwakwa Disaster Management and Mitigation

Unit

Acting Analyst/ Programmer

6 Jacob Nkomoki ZMD Deputy Director

7 Ruth Tembo MACO District Agriculture Coordinator,

Mambwe

8 James Ngalamila MACO District Agriculture Officer,

Luangwa

9 John Lungu MACO Senior Agricultural Officer

10 Ernest Munthali MACO Senior Agricultural Officer

11 Oversease Mwangase ZMD Chief Meteorologist

12 Chulu Paul MACO Principal Agricultural Officer

13 Richard Konkola MACO Land Husbandry Officer

14 Valentine Michelo MACO Senior Land Husbandry Officer

15 Tibaire Emmanuel MTENR Environmental Advisor

16 Joyce Munkombwe MTENR Monitoring and Evaluation

Officer

17 Joyce Musiwa Zambia Rain Water Harvesting

Association

President

18 Assan Ngombe UNDP Programme Analyst

19 Simainga S MACO Provincial Agricultural

Coordinator

20 Matildah Kaliba PELUM Association Programme Officer

21 Muki Phiri MACO (NAIS) Principal Information Officer

22 Stubbs Malambo MACO (NAIS) Chief Agricultural Information

Officer

23 Kabinda O. MACO District Agricultural Coordinator

24 Mukelabai Mwangala MACO District Agricultural Officer

(Senanga)

25 Mwiya Makungu MACO District Agricultural Officer

(Shangonmbo)

26 Shadreck Mungalaba MACO Provincial Agricultural

Coordinator (Lusaka)

27 Joseph Kanyanga ZMD Chief Meteorologist

28 Rasford Kalamatila MACO Principal Agricultural Specialist

29 Moses Mwale MACO (ZARI) Deputy Director


142

Appraisal of a proposal on “Adaptation to effects of drought and climate change in Agro-

ecological Regions I and II”.

7 August 2009

Name Organisation E-mail

Esnart Makwakna DMMU [email protected]

Lenganji Sikaona DMMU [email protected]

Misael Kokwe FAO [email protected]

Rhoda M. Mwiinga GIDD [email protected]

Henry Sichembe MACO/DoA [email protected]

Mary M Chipili MACO/DoA [email protected]

Martin N Sishekanu MACO/DoA [email protected]

Maurice Muchinda Met. Dept. [email protected]

Reynolds Shula MTENR/CCFU [email protected]

Richard Bwalya Project manager [email protected]

Litumelo Mate Danish Embassy [email protected]

Winnie Musonda UNDP [email protected]

Georgina Fekete UNDP [email protected]

Samuli Leminen UNDP [email protected]

Anock Kapira UNDP [email protected]

1. A.Hussein MEWD, DWA [email protected]

Miyoba Mukengani WFP [email protected]

Alfred Daka WFP [email protected]

Allan Mulando WFP [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




















143

ANNEX M – National Agricultural Information Services budget breakdown for the dissemination

of lessons.

I. BROADCASTING SECTION

A. Eastern Province

Television Documentary and Radio (English) Costs

1. Field Allowances

Unit Cost (US$) Units

Total

(US$)

T.V Producer 57 10 570

Camera Man 57 10 570

Radio Producer 57 10 570

Driver 55 10 550

DAIOS X2 Officer 20 8 160

Total 2 420

2. Post Production


Total

(US$)

Editor 10 5 50

Producer 10 5 50

Narrator 10 1 10

Total 110

3.1 Accessories Television


Total

(US$)

Mini DVs 6 10 60

Batteries 4.2 1 4

DVDs 2 1 2

Total 66

3.2 Accessories Radio


Total

(US$)

CDs 8 1 8

Audio Cassettes 9 1 9

Mini discs 16 1 16

Batteries size 9 1 9

Batteries 4.4 1 4

Total 46

4. Fuel costs 0

Fuel to all the sites (2220km) 370 1.2 444

TOTAL EASTERN 3 087

B. Lusaka Province

Television documentary and radio (English ) costs


Total

(US$)

T.V Producer 57 10 570


144

Camera Man 57 10 570

Radio Producer 57 10 570

Driver 55 10 550

DAIOS X2 Officer 20 8 160

Total 2 420

2. Post Production

Editor 10 5 50

Producer 10 5 50

Narrator 10 1 10

Total 110

3.1 Accessories Television


Total

(US$)

Mini DVs 6 10 60

Batteries 4.2 1 4

DVDs 2 1 2

Total 66

3.2 Accessories Radio


Total

(US$)

CDs 8 1 8


Mini discs 16 1 16


Batteries 4.4 1 4

Total 46

0


0

TOTAL LUSAKA 2 772

C. Southern Province

Radio Producers (X4)

Driver (X1)

4 Officers, 2 DAIOs

1. Crew Costs

UNIT COST QTY TOTAL

4 Radio Producers 228 10 2 280

Driver 55 10 550

Meal Allowances 10 8 80

Total 2 910

2. Accessories Radio

UNIT COST QTY TOTAL

CDs 8 2 16


Mini discs 16 10 160


145


Batteries 4.4 8 35

Total 355


0

TOTAL SOUTHERN 3 788

D. Western Province

4 Radio Producers

Driver

2 DAIOs and 2 Extension Officer

1. Crew Costs

ITEM UNIT COST QTY TOTAL

4 Radio Producers 228 10 2 280

Driver 55 10 550

Meal Allowances 10 8 80

Total 2 910

2. Accessories Radio

UNIT COST QTY TOTAL

CDs 8 2 16


Mini discs 16 10 160


Batteries 4.4 8 35

Total 355

Fuel to all the sites (8338km) 1390 1.2 1 668

TOTAL WESTERN 4 933

TOTAL BROADCASTING

BUDGET 14 580

II. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESS SECTIONS

A. Publications

Activity Comment

Cost

(US$)

Climate Change Newsletter Design and Typesetting 200

Printing costs (1000 copies) 2 000

Training materials Booklets Design & type setting 200

Printing costs (US$2/

book) 400

Visual aids Design & type setting 100

Printing costs 600

Brochures/ booklets Design & type setting 60

Printing costs 600

DVD Production Cover design 100

Production costs 300


146

Production of posters Design and Typesetting 60

Printing costs (1000 copies) 800

Production of banners Design and Typesetting 60

Printing costs (1000 copies) 400

Translation Seven main local languages 700

TOTAL BUDGET 6 580

B. Press

Activity Comment

Cost

(US$)

News and Feature Stories Reporter @ US$57 for 5

nights 285

Feature stories (1 per month) 0

News story 0

TOTAL PRESS 285

TOTAL PUBLICATIONS 6 865

GRAND TOTAL NAIS 21 445


147

ANNEX N – Capacity assessment for project implementation

Title CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Responsible Unit Bureau for Development Policy – Capacity Development Group

Contributor(s) BDP/CDG, BOM/CBS Team, Management Practice Team

Date approved January 2008

Contact [email protected] [email protected]

Document

Location

Management Practice Document Repository

Project Management - Defining – Templates and Forms

Applicability

This checklist applies to Institutions considered to serve as Implementing Partner of UNDP-

funded projects. For NGO implementation, please use the CSO Capacity Assessment Tool

(see below).

Is Part of UNDP Programme & Operations Policies and Procedures – Project Management

Related documents

UNDP Programme & Operations Policies and Procedures – Project Management – Defining

a Project

UNDP Programme & Operations Policies and Procedures – Programme & Project

Management - Selecting an Implementing Partner

Capacity Assessment Practice Note

CSO Capacity Assessment Tool

Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (HACT)

Introduction

Potential Implementing Partners must have been identified during the CPAP preparation or during the

process “Justifying a Project”.

Through the process “Defining a Project”, these potential Implementing Partners must be assessed using

the checklist below in order validate the initial identification. The review shall also assist in identifying

capacities of an Implementing Partner with the objective of identifying those areas in need of

strengthening. Where deficiencies are noted, the assessment should include recommendations to address

them. These recommendations should be reflected in the project document through the identification of

required level of assurance and support services. In assessing the Implementing Partner, the following

capacities must be reviewed:

Managerial and technical

Administrative and financial

It must be noted that a more detailed assessment of financial management capacity must take place as part

of the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer. Conducted by the UNCT during programme preparation,

the purpose of this review is to assist in the identification of the most suitable modalities, procedures and

assurance activities by the Agencies for the transfer of cash to the Implementing Partner.

In addition, a UNDP framework and tool to assess the enabling environment/national level capacity can

be found under the Capacity Assessment Practice Note.

Responsibilities

It is the responsibility of the Project Developer to conduct the capacity assessment and to submit it to the

PAC along with the draft project document.

The PAC should review the capacity assessment to validate the selection of the Implementing Partner for

the project.

Project Title Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in agro-ecological zones I

and II

Name of the Institution Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO)

Date of assessment 07/08/2009

INDICATOR AREAS FOR

ASSESSMENT

APPLICABLE

DOCUMENTS/TOOLS

COMMENTS

PART I – REFERENCES AND PRELIMINARY CHECKS



http://content.undp.org/go/prescriptive/Project-Management---Prescriptive-Content-Documents/

http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/project

http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/project/defining


http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/ppm-overview/implementing-partner

http://www.capacity.undp.org/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentID=5510

http://webdev.undp.org/csotoolkit/section_three/en/CSO_Capacity_Assessment_Tool.cfm

http://www.undg.org/content.cfm?id=1328

http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/project/justifying


http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=255

http://www.capacity.undp.org/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentID=5510


148

1.1 History and Compliance with International Resolutions/Standards

1.1.1 History Date of creation and length in

existence Since 1964 ( over

45 years )

Has the institution gone

through a recent re-

organization/re-structuring?

Yes: three times

Annual Reports: Yes-

these are produced

annually

Media Kit Yes- these

are produced and used

by the National

Agriculture

Information Service

Website Yes but not

functional

The ministry been existence

for over 45 years and it is one

of the biggest ministries in

terms of budgetary allocation

and operations from national

to community levels. The

information on ministry can

be obtained from the website

but it is currently not active

1.1.2 United

Nations Security

Council 1267

No

Is the institution listed in any

reference list?

No

United Nations Security

Council 1267

Committee’s list of

terrorists and terrorist

financiers No

1.1.3 Certification Is the institution already

certified through

international standards?

No

ISO, Project

Management standard,

other standards

None

The ministry has staff that

have international

qualifications in agricultural

management and accounting

PART II. ASSESSING NATIONAL INSTITUTION CAPACITY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

2.1 Managerial Capacity

Ability to plan, monitor and coordinate activities

Planning,

Monitoring &

Evaluation

Does the institution produce

clear, internally consistent

proposals and intervention

frameworks, including

detailed workplans? Yes

Does the institution hold

regular programme or project

review meetings? Yes

Are there measurable

outputs/deliverables in the

defined project plans? Yes

Was the institution

previously exposed to UNDP

RBM approach/methodology

or equivalent in other donor

agencies? Yes

Well-designed project

and programme

documents Yes

Action Plans/Work plans

Yes

Log frame or equivalent

Project reports Yes

Evaluation reports Yes

Indicators available in

project plans Yes

Lessons-Learned reports

No

The ministry have experience

in donor funded projects.

However, there is limited

capacity in the area of lessons

learnt reporting

2.1.2 Reporting and

performance track

record

Does the institution monitor

progress against well defined

indicator and targets, and

evaluate its

programme/project

achievements? Yes

Does the institution report to

its stakeholders on a regular

basis? Yes

Reports to donors and

other stakeholders Yes

Reporting system Yes

The ministry has general

capacity in reporting and

performance based

management

2.2 Technical Capacity

2.2.1 Specialization Does the institution have the

technical skills required? Yes

Does the institution have the

knowledge needed? Yes

Does the institution keep

informed about the latest

techniques/

competencies/policies/trends

Publications on

activities, specific issues,

analytical articles,

policies No

Reports from

participation in

international, regional,

national or local

There is adequate capacity in

technical skills related to

agriculture management but

there is need to strengthen

capacities in areas of agro

meteorology

information/knowledge

management, forest and


149

in its area of expertise? Yes


skills and competencies that

complement those of UNDP?

Yes

meetings and

conferences Yes

Tools and methodologies

Partially

Evaluations and

assessments Partially

ecosystem management,

climate modelling, climate

change adaptation techniques,

policy and economic analysis

as well as in development of

appropriate tools and

methodologies for sustainable

livelihoods

2.2.2 Ability to

monitor the

technical aspects of

the project.

Does the institution have

access to relevant

information/resources and

experience? Partially


useful contacts and

networks? Partially

Does the institution know

how to get baseline data,

develop indicators? Partially

Does it apply effective

approaches to reach its

targets (i.e participatory

methods)? Partially

Evaluations and

Assessments Partially

Methodologies/training

materials Partially

Use of toolkits,

indicators and

benchmarks/capacity-

development tools

Partially Databases Partially

The ministry’ capacity in

knowledge development and

management as well as

networking is limited

2.2.3 Human

Resources

Does the institution staff

possess adequate expertise

and experience? Partially

Does the institution use local

capacities

(financial/human/other

resources)? Partially

What is the institution

capacity to coordinate

between its main office and

decentralized

entities/branches (if

relevant)? Yes

Have staff been trained on

project management

methodology? Partially

Profile of staff, including

expertise and

professional experience

Staff turnover (Stable)

Chart of assignments of

roles and functions Yes

Reports on technical

experience from national

or international agencies

for operations and

capacity-building

Partially Individual certification

on project management

such as PRINCE2 No

The Depart of agriculture has

staff with MSc, BSc, Diplomas

and Certificates in agriculture,

environment and natural

resources, land and water

management. However,

capacity in project

management is limited.

Further the ministry is

decentralised from national to

camp level adequately

PART III. ASSESSING NATIONAL INSTITUTION CAPACITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

3.1 Administrative capacity

Ability to provide adequate logistical support and infrastructure

3.1.1 Ability to

manage and

maintain

infrastructure and

equipment

Does the institution possess

logistical infrastructure and

equipment? Partially

Can the institution manage

and maintain equipment? No

Adequate logistical

infrastructure: office

facilities and space, basic

equipment, utilities

Partially Computer capability and

library materials

Partially Proper equipment for

area of specialization

Partially inventory to track

property and cost Yes

The capacity for asset

management is limited

3.1.2 Ability to

procure goods


ability to procure goods,

Standard contracts Yes

Examples of how The Ministry have adequate

capacity in procurement and


150

services and works

on a transparent and

competitive basis.

services and works on a

transparent and competitive

basis? Yes


standard contracts or access

to legal counsel to ensure that

contracts meet performance

standards, protect UNDP and

the institution’s interests and

are enforceable? Yes – but in

part Does the institution have the

authority to enter into

contracts? Yes

procurement is done Yes

Written procedures for

identifying the

appropriate vendor,

obtaining the best price,

and issuing commitments

Yes

have a dedicated unit to carry

out this function which could

undertake the procurement

for project needs.

3.1.3 Ability to

recruit and manage

the best-qualified

personnel on a

transparent and

competitive basis.

Is the institution able to staff

the project and enter into

contract with personnel? Yes

Does the institution use

written job descriptions for

consultants or experts? Yes

Standard contracts Yes

Job descriptions Yes The ministry have job

descriptions for all staff

(technical and administrative

staff) and these are regularly

reviewed and updated to meet

current needs.

3.2 Financial Capacity

Ability to ensure appropriate management of funds

In addition to the following questions, see also the questionnaire provided in the Guidelines on Micro-assessment of

the Framework on Harmonized Approach for Cash Transfer (HACT):

http://www.undg.org/archive_docs/7110-Framework_for_Cash_Transfers_to_Implementing_Partners.doc

(ANNEX 3)

The assessment report is reviewed by the UN agencies to select the most suitable cash transfer modality, and

establish appropriate cash transfer procedures and assurance activities to be used with the Implementing Partner.

3.2.1 Financial

management and

funding resources

Is there a regular budget

cycle? Yes

Does the institution produce

programme and project

budgets? Yes

What is the maximum

amount of money the

institution has managed?

+USD$ 5 million Does the institution ensure

physical security of

advances, cash and records?

Yes Does the institution disburse

funds in a timely and

effective manner? No


procedures on authority,

responsibility, monitoring

and accountability of

handling funds? Yes

Does the institution have a

record of financial stability

and reliability? N/A – It is a

core government institution

that depends on allocations

from treasury

Operating budgets and

financial reports Yes

List of core and non-core

donors and years of

funding Partially

Written procedures

ensuring clear records

for payable, receivables,

stock and inventory Yes

Reporting system that

tracks all commitments

and expenditures against

budgets by line Partially

The capacity in financial

management is generally

adequate as the ministry has

computer based management

system in place. However, on

assumption of the project

implementation HACT

assessment will be undertaken to

provide detail gaps that may

require addressing.

3.2.2. Accounting

System

Does the institution keep

good, accurate and

A bank account or bank

statements Yes The ministry has got an

accounting system but may

http://www.undg.org/archive_docs/7110-Framework_for_Cash_Transfers_to_Implementing_Partners.doc


151

informative accounts?

Partially Does the institution have the

ability to ensure proper

financial recording and

reporting? Partially

Audited financial

statements Yes

Good, accurate and

informative accounting

system Partially

Written procedures for

processing payments to

control the risks through

segregation of duties,

and transaction recording

and reporting Yes but

requires reinforcement

require further support to

ensure accurate reporting on

real data

3.2.3. Knowledge

of UNDP financial

system


staff familiar with Atlas

through External Access? No

External access provided

No

Need project staff to be

trained on UNDP accounting

systems


152

ANNEX O – LPAC Minutes

Appraisal of a proposal on “Adaptation to effects of drought and climate change in Agro-ecological Regions I and II”.

7 August 2009, UNDP Conference room – Record of discussion Welcome words by Georgina Fekete, the Deputy Country Director of UNDP. Encouraged the meeting to concentrate on substantive issues of the project proposal: clarity of objective, definition and appropriateness of results, management arrangements, project justification, realistic budget and risks. Presentation by Mr. Sishekanu, Chief Land Husbandry, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (to be distributed), including Background on Climate Change and Agriculture and Project interventions. Discussion chaired by A. Hussein, Director of Water Affairs Department, Ministry of Energy and Water Development:

1. Clarification on meaning of the issue of staff incentives in Mr. Sishekanu’s

presentation. Mean the necessary provisions for the working environment for

MACO provincial and district staff, including transport and allowances.

2. The roles and membership of the Project Technical Committee and

Secretariat to be defined, including the location of the project management

focal point in the Technical Committee.

3. WFP believes that collaboration would add value to the project, looking for

suitable entry point, suggested link with community resilience. Suggestion

welcomed by MACO.

4. Need to provide for TA needs during implementation. Technical support from

project collaborators, but also need for consultancies has been taken into

account in the budget.

5. Climate Change has different impact on women and men. Gender analysis

should be included in the situational analysis. Also in UNDAF there’s an

outcome to enhance food security in women headed households

6. Project sites should function as climate monitoring stations. Requested if rain

gauges procured by MACO may be used. Additionally need other equipment

and training for staff. Currently only 2 of the proposed districts have weather

stations. MACO and Met. Dept. collaborating on this. Also the role of Water

department in information management to be taken into account.

7. Document should be made clearer and more concise. Currently difficult to

follow and use of terminology is inconsistent. 18 page summary will be

developed, will address the user friendliness issue.

8. The appropriateness of the scope of the project in terms of the number of

small activities and sites is large. This makes the implementation costly and


153

targets hard to reach. UNDP suggests limiting the number of project sites and

consolidating activities. However, MACO explains that the conditions and

activities at sites are different and there is need to learn experiences even

from conditions where implementation will be difficult. Due to specificity of

sites, the lesson for up-scaling can be best applied locally. The proposed

sites are limited to a catchment or agricultural block, do not target whole

districts.

9. Risk aspect and analysis missing from the documented. Risks to include the

anticipated difficulties in implementation (e.g. in the most remote locations)

and cost of risks needs to be accounted for.

10. Selection of sites to be clarified in document. A balanced selection of Agro-

Ecological Regions I and II sites was not the objective, but to view the issue

from a catchment approach, regions being interlinked.

11. Innovative approaches needed for dissemination of lessons. The website to

be established will not reach rural areas.

12. Project Management arrangements should be agreed within MACO: will there

be a Project Management Unit or fully using existing MACO systems?

List of participants

Name Organisation E-mail

Esnart Makwakna

DMMU [email protected]

Lenganji Sikaona DMMU [email protected]

Misael Kokwe FAO [email protected]

Rhoda M. Mwiinga

GIDD [email protected]

Henry Sichembe MACO/DoA [email protected]

Mary M Chipili MACO/DoA [email protected]

Martin N Sishekanu

MACO/DoA [email protected]

Maurice Muchinda

Met. Dept. [email protected]

Reynolds Shula MTENR/CCFU [email protected]

Richard Bwalya Project manager [email protected]

Litumelo Mate Danish Embassy [email protected]

Winnie Musonda UNDP [email protected]

Georgina Fekete UNDP [email protected]

Samuli Leminen UNDP [email protected]

Anock Kapira UNDP [email protected] 2. A.Hussein MEWD, Water

aff. [email protected]

Miyoba WFP [email protected]



















154

Mukengani

Alfred Daka WFP [email protected]

Allan Mulando WFP [email protected]

SIGNATURE PAGE

UNDAF Outcome 3: By 2010, institutions, systems and processes in support of national development

priorities strengthened.

UNDAF Outcome 4: By 2010, the proportion of food secure households increased from 35% to 75%.




155

UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome:

Strengthened capacity of developing countries to mainstream climate change adaptation

Policies into national development plans.

UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: MDG-based national development strategies promote

growth and employment and reduce economic, gender and social inequalities.

Expected CP Outcome: Systems and processes and scenario planning for climate change adaptation

strengthened.

Expected CPAP Output 2: Systems and processes and scenario planning for climate change adaptation

strengthened.

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Responsible Parties:

On behalf of:

Signature Date Name/Title

UNDP

Viola Morgan

Country Director

UNDP Zambia

GRZ

……………………………….

…………………………….....

Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives


156

Government of Zambia - undp.org · Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in...

Documents

Transcript of Government of Zambia - undp.org · Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in...