REQUEST FOR PROJECT PREPARATION GRANT (PPG)

PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT

THE GEF TRUST FUND

Submission date: 18 January 2008

Re-submission date: 8 April 2008
GEFSEC PROJECT ID1: 3276
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PIMS NO. 3821
COUNTRY: Peru
PROJECT TITLE: Promoting Sustainable Land Management in Las Bambas
GEF AGENCY (IES): UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): XStrata Trust Fund, Provincial Governments
GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Full-sized ProjectLand Degradation
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SO1-SP1

A. PROJECT PREPARATION TIMEFRAME

Start date (expected) April 2008
Completion date (expected) April 2009

B. PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES ($)

PPG activities:
1. Confirmation of processes of land degradation and their causes
Studies will be carried out, based largely on the compilation of existing knowledge and supplemented where
necessary by fieldwork by PPG expert consultants, to confirm and describe in detail the land degradation
processes in the project area, in terms of their magnitude and their nature, including the different ecosystem
components affected (e.g. soil, water, vegetation and fauna) and the way in which they are affected (e.g.
erosion, leaching, compaction, salinity build up, reduction in vegetation cover or structure, reduction in
water table levels). The causes of each process will be analyzed, starting off with the human activities
directly responsible (these will be characterized in terms of farming and livelihood support systems) and
their underlying causes (the motivations for the human activities described or the obstacles to their
modification). Changes in the external circumstances affecting land degradation processes and SLM
solutions will be analyzed, including demographic changes, competition as a result of regional economic
integration, and climate change. The implications of each process will be described, in terms of the
sustainability of local people’s livelihoods, food security, sustainable ecosystem function and productivity,
and effects on other GEF focal areas (biodiversity and climate change). These analyses will be made through
a combination of field visits, consultation with experts and participatory appraisals; the conclusions will be
validated through a multi-stakeholder threats and logical framework analysis workshop.
2. Characterization of productive systems and identification of candidate SLM-friendly production
systems with potential for project support
Studies will be carried out of the functioning of productive systems throughout the project area. These
studies will focus principally on those productive systems which contribute to land degradation (as
identified under Activity 1). The studies will cover aspects including the role of these productive systems in
local people’s livelihood support strategies; their economic viability; the social, cultural and practical
explanations for the practices applied; the interrelations between different productive systems and
livelihood, community and landscape levels; the options available for modification of the systems without
jeopardizing their livelihood support role and economic viability, and the barriers (such as technical and
financial support and markets) to possible modifications. This information will permit the identification of
options for mainstreaming sustainable land management into existing productive systems.

1
Project ID number will be assigned initially by GEFSEC. If PIF has been submitted earlier, use the same ID number as PIF.

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 1

 In addition to the productive systems identified under Activity 1 as potential causes of land degradation, a
review will be carried out of productive systems capable of contributing to sustainable land management. In
an initial workshop to be attended by local institutions, projects and other stakeholders, candidate systems
will be presented and discussed, resulting in the generation of a shortlist of promising systems. Based partly
on the results of the workshop, partly on literature review and partly on local consultations and expert
studies to be carried out during the PPG phase, each of these short-listed systems will be evaluated in detail
in terms of: their economic, environmental and practical feasibility in comparison to alternatives (taking into
account market availability and stability, prices, costs, technical and organizational capacities of producers
and processors and access to finance); their social, cultural and livelihood implications (compatibility with
other livelihood support strategies, equity implications and compatibility with cultural norms); their
implications for SLM (impacts on soil, water and vegetation resources and natural cycles); the options for,
and likely effectiveness of, regulation in order to ensure their sustainability; and sources of funding and
other options for ensuring their financial sustainability.
3. Characterization of land and resource tenure and community organization
The formal and informal rights that stakeholders have over land and other natural resources within project
area will be characterized. This will facilitate Activity 3, as the existence and nature of use and management
rights is likely to be a determining factor over whether individual producers and communities have the
motivation and ability to address land degradation processes. For the same reason, the levels and natures of
community organization will be characterized throughout the project area. Particular attention will be paid to
the existence and effectiveness of structures for community-level planning and regulation of resource use,
and the informal dynamics between stakeholders which may determine resource use.
4. Characterization of institutional roles, relations and capacities
The level of emphasis to be put by the full project on supporting community-level or local/regional planning
and regulation, and the environmental evaluation and prioritization of development initiatives, will depend
to a large extent on the effectiveness of local and regional institutions in these roles. Of particular
importance in this respect will be district, province and department level governments, the Governing Body
of the Trust Fund and its associated technical committee. Analyses will be carried out of the capacities of
these institutions in these roles, and of the capacities and permanence of staff members within the
institutions. These analyses will also consider the institutions’ political priorities and the nature of relations
between different institutions. These assessments will also be used to inform decisions to be taken during the
PPG phase regarding their potential roles in project execution, and the definition of strategies for their
strengthening.
5. Definition of implementation and participation mechanisms
The PPG will finance analyses and negotiations leading to the definition of mechanisms in support of
project implementation and participation, which take into account the institutional and social complexity of
the region, through the following specific activities: i) characterization of the institutions in the region in
terms of their capacities, their relations with different stakeholder groups and their representative validity;
ii) analyses of existing relations between institutions in the region, highlighting any areas of conflict; iii)
definition of needs for implementation and participation mechanisms (e.g. project implementation unit,
steering committee(s)); iv) negotiation of implementation and participation mechanisms with institutions
and local stakeholders through bi-lateral meetings and multi-lateral workshop(s), resulting in the production
of a stakeholder participation plan (this last activity will be co-financed by UNDP).
6. Production of sustainable development plan for Cotobambas and Grau departments
The UNDP country office is funding the participatory preparation of a sustainable development plan for the
two Departments covered by the project. This constitutes a major contribution to project development as it
synthesizes the priorities of the local populations in relation to how the Trust Fund should be invested, and
will complement the other PPG activities aimed at defining project strategies for mainstreaming SLM.
7. Project scoping and definition
PPG and UNDP co-financing funds will finance the definition of the details of practical and administrative
aspects of project design, allowing the formulation of a Project Document, including: i) analyses of threats,

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 2

 barriers and a ‘problem tree’ indicating cause-effect relationships, based on consultant reports and inputs
from key stakeholders; ii) a review of relevant past lessons and successful experiences; iii) definition of the
precise geographical focus of the project, including the selection of pilot communities and/or watersheds; iv)
a logical framework, based on a multi-stakeholder inputs and the recommendations of consultancy studies,
including indicators and quantified targets, together with baseline values supplied by thematic consultants;
v) a participation strategy, summarizing the recommendations of the study on participation mechanisms; vi)
a detailed quantitative analysis of the programmatic baseline; vii) negotiation of co-financing, resulting in
co-financing commitment letters and a detailed incremental cost analysis; viii) a project budget and work
plan in standard UNDP and GEF format; vii) a monitoring and evaluation strategy; ix) a learning and
replication strategy; x) risk analysis and corresponding risk mitigation measures; xi) costing of alternative
courses of action and xii) text and supportive technical analyses detailing the justification and strategies of
the project. Items budgeted under this activity will include consultation fora (given the geographical
isolation and logistical complexity of the project area and the geographical dispersion of stakeholders, these
will be relatively expensive) and the fees and travel costs of an international project design consultant who
will provide technical and methodological guidance to the team of national consultants and carry out the
actual formulation of the project document in English, incorporating the inputs provided by the national
thematic consultants.

Project preparation activities GEF Grant Co-financing Total

Confirmation of processes of land degradation and 17,900 0 17,900
their causes
Characterization of productive systems in the 17,900 0 17,900
project area and identification of candidate SLM-
friendly production systems with potential for
project support
Characterization of land and resource tenure and 18,600 0 18,600
community organization
Characterization of institutional roles, relations 12,400 0 12,400
and capacities
Definition of implementation and participation 7,417 1,900 9,317
mechanisms
Production of sustainable development plan for 0 127,788 127,788
Cotobambas and Grau departments
Project scoping and definition 52,358 17,000 69,358
Total project preparation financing 126,575 146,688 273,263

C. PPG BUDGET REQUESTING FINANCE BY GEF

Total Estimated
Person Weeks GEF ($) Co-
Cost Items (PW) financing Total ($)
For GEF ($)
component
Local consultants 48 GEF 43,200 127,788 170,988
142 CF
International consultants 11 27,500 0 27,500
Travel 23,250 0 23,250
Activity coordination 21 CF 18,900 18,900
Miscellaneous
1) Consultation fora 25,225 0 25,225
2) Reports 7,400 0 7,400
Total PPG Budget 126,575 146,688 273,263

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 3

D. GEF AGENCY (IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF
criteria for project identification and preparation.

Lyes Ferroukhi
Regional Technical Advisor
LAC UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination Unit
Project Contact Person
John Hough
UNDP-GEF Deputy Executive Coordinator
Date: 8 April 2008 Tel. and Email: (507) 302-4576
lyes.ferroukhi@undp.org

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 4

 Annex A

Consultants Financed by the Project Preparation Grant (PPG)

$/ Estimated
Position Person PWs Tasks to be performed
Titles Week
Local
Land 900 10 i) Quantitative and qualitative characterization of the land degradation
degradation processes in the project area and their implications for the
specialist sustainability of local people’s livelihoods, food security, sustainable
ecosystem function and productivity, and effects on other GEF focal
areas (biodiversity and climate change), in consultation where
necessary with other thematic consultants.
ii) Identification and characterization of the proximate and underlying
causes of the land degradation processes identified.
iii) Identification and characterization of the external factors affecting
land degradation processes and SLM solutions (such as demographic
changes, competition as a result of regional economic integration, and
climate change).
iv) Definition of priority actions required to counter land degradation
processes.
v) Formulation of appropriate indicators of land degradation processes
and definition of baseline values and (in conjunction with other team
members) quantitative targets achievable through project actions.
vi) Validation of conclusions with local and institutional stakeholders.
Natural 900 10 i) Characterization of productive systems in the project area (with
resource particular focus on those which are the main contributors to land
management degradation), in terms of their roles in local people’s livelihood
specialist support strategies; their economic viability; the social, cultural and
practical explanations for the practices applied; the interrelations
between different productive systems and livelihood, community and
landscape levels; the options available for modification of the systems
without jeopardizing their livelihood support role and economic
viability, and the barriers (such as technical and financial support and
markets) to possible modifications.
ii) On the basis of the above analysis, and in consultation with local and
institutional stakeholders, definition of a shortlist of options for
mainstreaming sustainable land management into existing productive
systems and of new candidate production systems capable of
contributing to SLM.
iii) Detailed evaluation of each of the short-listed systems in terms of:
their economic, environmental and practical feasibility in comparison
to alternatives (taking into account market availability and stability,
prices, costs, technical and organizational capacities of producers and
processors and access to finance); their social, cultural and livelihood
implications (compatibility with other livelihood support strategies,
equity implications and compatibility with cultural norms); their
implications for SLM (impacts on soil, water and vegetation resources
and natural cycles); and the options for, and likely effectiveness of,
regulation in order to ensure their sustainability.
iv) Formulation of indicators of the degree of application of SLM-
friendly production systems, and definition of baseline and end-of-
project target values.

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 5

 Social 900 10 i) Characterization of the formal and informal rights that stakeholders
analyst have over land and other natural resources within the project area.
ii) Characterization of the levels and natures of community organization,
paying particular attention to the existence and effectiveness of
structures for community-level planning and regulation of resource
use, and the informal dynamics between stakeholders which may
determine resource use.
iii) Proposal of project strategies aimed at promoting favourable tenure
and governance conditions for the application of SLM and for
maximizing the social and cultural sustainability of project activities.
iv) Proposal of project strategies aimed at promoting stakeholder
participation in project implementation, in the form of a stakeholder
participation plan.
v) Analysis of the distributional implications of project activities in
support of SLM mainstreaming into productive sectors, in terms of
access to benefits and power by members of different genders, socio-
economic strata and ethnic groups.
vi) Analysis of the social and cultural sustainability of project activities,
taking into account social and cultural norms, organizational
structures and trends in the social, economic and demographic
contexts.
vii) Formulation of indicators of project impacts on social and cultural
conditions (including tenure and governance) of relevance to SLM,
and the definition of baseline and end-of-project target values.
Institutional 900 8 i) Analyses of local governance and organization, at community,
analyst municipal and regional level, focusing particularly on existing
mechanisms for planning, monitoring and regulation and their
effectiveness.
ii) Participatory workshops to identify needs and opportunities for
strengthening planning, monitoring and regulation at each level.
iii) Development of recommendations of project strategies for capacity
development in these areas.
iv) Characterization of the institutions in the region in terms of their
capacities, their relations with different stakeholder groups and their
representative validity.
v) Analyses of existing relations between institutions in the region,
highlighting any areas of conflict of mistrust.
vi) Definition of indicators of project impacts on institutional capacities,
together with corresponding baseline values and targets.
International
Project 2,500 8 i) Overall orientation to PPG team in relation to GEF logic and
Design information requirements.
Specialist ii) Detailed formulation of logical framework and incremental cost
matrices.
iii) Drafting of text of project document in English, with supporting
annexes, on the basis of inputs from PPG team.

PPG Template, August 30, 2007 6


Reviewer’s comments
1. Are the proposed activities
for project preparation
appropriate?
While most of the activities are
appropriate, there is a question
and need for more detail on the
activity "Project scoping and
definition". This activity costs
more than 50% of the GEF PPG
and has the least detail that would
justify this high amount. Please
clarify.
2. Is itemized budget justified?
Same as above.
PPG Template, August 30, 2007
Annex B
Response to Comments
Response Reference
The budget for this activity has now PPG Request, Section B,
been reduced by more than 30%, and Activity 7.
now constitutes only around 40% of the
GEF PPG. This activity will be 23% co-
financed (the fees of the project
coordinator will be 100% co-financed by
UNDP). Additional text has been added
to the description of this activity
explaining the main items on which the
budget will be spent. A significant
proportion will be for consultation fora,
which will be relatively expensive given
the geographical isolation and logistical
complexity of the project area and the
physical dispersion of the stakeholders.
In addition, the costs of the international
project design consultant will be covered
under this activity; this consultant is
essential in order to ensure the technical
soundness of project design and
conformity with GEF guidelines.
As above. As above.
7