PROJECT PROPOSAL: Invasive Species Control in the Kufasa Kebele

1. GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of Applying Woreda/Community Group(s): Mieso WoredaPAC.
Project Focal Person (Lead) Name:- ,Tel:- ,Title:-PAC Chairperson.
Nam of the project: Invasive Species Control in the Kufasa Kebele.
Name, proposed location:-Kebele Kufasa, Woreda Mieso, Zone Siti, Region Somalia.
Project Duration:-4months Tentative starting Date: Jan.1, 2019, ending date: April 30, 2019.
Estimated Total Project Budget: 681, 375.00 ETB
Budget Requested from SGF: 68,138.00 ETB.
Estimated Community Cost Share: 613,237.00 ETB.

2. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION

Meiso is one of the seven districts of Sitti zone [formerly called Shinile Zone] with estimated
total population of 92,086 [47,187 male, 44,899 female, 1,212 urban and 90,874 rural] [CSA
woreda level population projection 2017]. Kufasa kebele is found in the Meiso woreda.
Socio-economic data is not specifically available for the target kebele but the data for Meiso
district is assumed representative for the area. According to the 2017 CSA data, the area has a
zone population of 591,901 [308,215 male and 283,686 female, and 86,493 urban and505, 410
are pastoralists].
The highest temperature is 37 degree centigrade and the lowest is 14.5 degree centigrade.
The area is disaster prone and typically characterized by food insecurity and very low social and
economic development levels. Low development levels are largely attributed to droughts, and
trends indicate that the impact of extreme weather events is increasing.
The main rainy seasons of the district are dira and karan. Dira normally starts about late
March and ends mid-May. Karan starts in July and continues up to early September. In the
agro-pastoral areas of Shinile Zone, like the rest of the Zone, the dira’ (gu) rains are followed by
the Hagaa season, which is a dry spell that can cause crop failure if the dira’ rains were not
sufficient.
Rural livelihoods in the project area are to a large extent dependent on products from rangelands
and forests. Camels and goats browse the thick thorny bushes, sheep and cattle prefer the lush
pastures of grasslands. Communities also cut grass and store it as fodder for the dry season.
Trees provide wood for energy, livestock feed, medicines and to some extent timber, food and
shelter. Particularly traditional tree species, such as Acacia bussie and Combretumk collinum are
popular amongst the rural population.
About 60% of the rural population is engaged in livestock rearing (ERCS 2014). On average,
pastoralist households hold a herd of between 12 and 25 cattle (Wetlands International 2015).
When there is a surplus pastoralists sale milk and ghee. Agro-pastoralists, comprising about 25%
of the rural population (ERCS 2014), pursue a mixed livelihood system wherein they are
engaged in livestock herding and rain fed crop farming (maize and sorghum).. The main reasons
why the population in this LZ has shifted towards agro-pastoralism in the last decade or two
include: Reduction in herd sizes due to the recurrent droughts; to stop what is perceived as an
encroachment by farming Oromo Communities into Somali farming areas in Shinile. Farmers
living a settled existence produce rain fed crops for consumption and trade (15% of the rural
population, ERCS 2014) and urban residents making a living from formal and informal
employment (SCUK/DPPB 2004).
Among the district, agro-pastoral groups, wealth is determined mainly by livestock holdings,
especially cattle. This is followed by land holdings. The persons with higher numbers of
livestock have the potential to cultivate more land. Based on these criteria three major wealth
groups have been defined poor (25-35%), middle (45-55%) and better off (15-25%).
The rangelands are caught in a spiral of desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD),
deforestation and land fragmentation. DLDD has been identified as a key threat to the
communities, and sustainable economic development as they lead to reduced human well-being
due to increased poverty and vulnerability of the affected populations. The intervention kebele is
characterized by high mean temperatures, low, erratic and unpredictable rainfall, and patchy
vegetation. The scope for sedentary arable farming is limited. Long-term meteorological data
does not exist for the kebele, but community perceptions suggest that rainy seasons have
shortened during the last decade—with rains starting later and ending earlier—and that rain
frequency, distribution and predictability is decreasing. Overall there is a perception of
increasingly erratic climate variability, further exacerbated by a myriad of other under-lying
factors (limited community access to infrastructure, resources and information; limited
community access to educational opportunities; and increased population pressure and conflict),
creating vulnerability.
The indigenous water and pasture management systems are the entry points to communities and
usually ensure that the traditional rights of access are adhered to. Indigenous rangeland
management knowledge (as used by herders) is the product of environmental management over
time and has shown its usefulness in the face of modern interventions, climate change and other
environmental changes. Indigenous institutions form the principal mechanism for allocating
rights to use land and water resources. The manner in which these institutions exercise their roles
has major implications for the use and management of land and water resources.
They know that range burning encourages new and fresh grass growth, controls pests and keeps
the bush healthy by destroying unwanted species. Dry pasture is often burnt at the end of the dry
season. However, forest burning has been banned by government since the 1970s because of the
danger of bush fires. As a result of the ban, rangelands have been invaded by invasive plant
species, which prevent grass from growing
Invasive species are one of the major threats to sustainable livelihoods in the project area, and
are currently spreading at an alarming rate into best grazing areas and encroaching the grazing
lands is causing severe negative impacts on the production and productivity of rangelands..
Invasion is being accelerated by land degradation (deforestation, overgrazing and erosion) as
many of the species thrive on barren disturbed soils (ERCS 2014). The most problematic
invasive species in the project area are lantana camara, which is poisoning to livestock, harbors
pest and diseases, augments run-off rates, and out-competes native vegetation and other desirable
species, prosopis juliflora, which harbors pests and diseases affecting livestock health, prickles
due to spines and thorns, slows down the growth of other species by means of allelopathy, results
in the loss of pasture and rangelands, and blocks the functioning of infrastructure and access to
natural resources (has many thickets), and opuntia stricta (prickly cactus), which produces spines
and thorns blocking ac-cess to resources, calotropis procera (Chinese road plant), which
monopolizes resources to the detriment of native species, is irritating, in contact with eyes causes
temporary blindness, and is poisoning to humans and livestock, and parthenium hystorephorus,
which is poisoning, induces hypersensitivity, trans-mits pest and diseases, and slows-down the
growth of other species by means of allelopathy
This bush encroachment is the most important factor hampering sustainable livestock production,
food security and improved livelihoods. Accordingly, the problem is becoming a threat to feed
and food security in the area. In many parts of the kebele, infestation is so dominant that almost
all other plants are suppressed and do not grow anymore.
3. OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE PROJECT
3.1. Objective of the project
The project has the objective to free rangelands of 200 households from invasive/alien bushes
through different techniques
3.2. Major Planned Activities and Implementation Schedule
6. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
From the outset, the PAC facilitated the kebele community to identify and prioritize resource
rehabilitation and enhancement activities and facilitating the development of detailed community
action plans for the implementation of prioritized activities.

Accordingly, PACT/SIPED will provide hand tools and technical support, whereas the
community will contribute labor and locally available materials during activity implementation.
Government partners are also expected to provide technical support and monitor the progress and
impact of activities.
The project will craft community bylaws for sustainable water and grazing management and
enforced through collaboration of indigenous and state institutions.
As legally/locally recognized entity, the project holder has a written constitution (bylaw), sound
internal management systems, policies and procedures along with organizational structure that
clarifies roles and responsibilities, methods of planning and organizing activities, guiding project
management, procurement, property management, record keeping, partnerships, financial
accountability, and transparency including disclosure of sources of funding and utilization of
funds.
The project holder is also well aware that the specific nature of the in-kind grant required from
SIPED II/USAID give due emphasis on P&I, neutrality, transparency, etc. Hence, while
implementing the project all community members who might benefit from the project (elders,
women, youths, PWDs) will be provided an opportunity to participate in the life cycle of the
project.
Activities like clearing bush infestation, selective bush thinning of lands that are being
encroached with invasive bushes to enhance the pasture productivity and improve pasture
availability for weak animals, calves and milking cows that cannot travel long distances during
dry season.
 Major Planned Activities and Implementation Schedule
List of Major Activities Unit Quantity Implementation Schedule Responsible person Remark
O N D J F MA M J J A S
Establish rangeland management committee ppts 40 Target beneficiaries

Identify rangeland units for rehabilitation and No. of 5 Rangeland Each rangeland is
enhancement rangeland committees and assumed to consist 100
units Woreda land household
administration and beneficiaries
environment
protection
Conduct rangeland management committee No. of 40 Rangeland
consultation meetings beneficiarie committees
s
Community or social mobilization No. of 500
beneficiarie Rangeland
s committees

Procurement of hand tools for rangeland 1250 400 Sickle, 50 ropes,

management No. of units PACT/SIPED 100, Machete, 100
Axe, 100 Spade, 100
Hoe/ 100 Shovel, 100
File, 100 Fork, 100
Pick Axe

Implement invasive/alien tree species thinning hectares 400 Community,

or clearing PACT/SIPED and
woreda experts
4. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
This project has an expected output that 200 households effectively removed invasive bushes
from their parcel ranges using a mix of indigenous and traditional methods

5. BUDGET
The total estimated cost of the project is 681, 375 ETB. Of the total budget 90% will be covered from
the small grants fund. The remaining 10% will be covered by community contribution and from other
sources in the form of labor, in kind and cash. The table below show the detail cost items, the
disbursement schedule and source of funds.
Financial information and Cost Share

STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS FOR PEACE AND

DEVELOPMENT (SIPED II)
Component II of SIPED II Small Grants Fund of Activity Budget Template
Proposed Activity Name: Invasive Species Control in the Kufasa Kebele.

Proposed Location Kebele: Kufasa, Woreda: Mieso, Zone: Siti Zone, Region: Somali National Regional state
Proposed Starting Date(s): Jan.1, 2019
Detail Budget Breakdown
S. Unit Disbursement Schedule (Month) Budget
Description Unit Quantity Total
No. Cost O N D J F M A M J J A S Notes/Assumptions/Source
Establish
rangeland The whole cost by the
1 ppts 1000 40 40,000
management community
committee
Consultation
meeting on
invasive species
control with
government,
ppts 50 1000 50,000.00
rangeland
management
committees, and
PAC members,
one day event
Identification and
verification of
No. of
rangeland units
consultant 20 4,000.00 80,000.00
under
days
encroachment, by
range specialist
 Capacity building
training on
invasive species
management
including
thinning/clearing,
No. of
conversion to 100 2,000 200,000
participants
fuel-wood,
medicines,
fertilizers, etc. in
two sessions full
of showcases and
demonstrations
2 Shovels/spade Units 200 100 20,000.00
3 Axe Units 200 100 20,000.00
4 Sickle Units 50 400 20,000.00
5 Ropes Units 50 50 2,500.00
6 Machetes Units 200 100 20,000.00
Hoe Units 200 100 20,000.00
Files Units 150 100 15,000.00
Pick-axe Units 200 100 20,000.00
Fork Units 150 100 15,000.00
One Community
no. of
mobilization at 5 10,000.00 50,000.00
months
the local level
Monitoring and No. of
5000 4 20,000.00
evaluation months
Sub-total 592,500.00
VAT 88875
Grand total 681375
6. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
From the outset, the project holder well noted that the role of the woreda’s PAC will be to
facilitate the PNRM process to bringing together community structures, relevant local
government offices and private sector to reflect, plan and implement the rangeland management
which end up with the development of Joint Community Action Plan and provide the necessary
technical support to formulate project proposal to access the SGF.
As legally/locally recognized entity, the project holder has a written constitution (bylaw), sound
internal management systems, policies and procedures along with organizational structure that
clarifies roles and responsibilities, methods of planning and organizing activities, guiding project
management, procurement, property management, record keeping, partnerships, financial
accountability, and transparency including disclosure of sources of funding and utilization of
funds.
The project holder is also well aware that the specific nature of the in-kind grant required from
SIPED II/USAID give due emphasis on P&I, neutrality, transparency, etc. Hence, while
implementing the project all community members who might benefit from the project (elders,
women, youths, PWDs) will be provided an opportunity to participate in the life cycle of the
project.
7. MONITORING, EVALUATION, RESULTS AND LEARNING
The project holder has previous experience in monitoring and evaluation of similar projects and
tracking of progress/results.
The progress of the project is monitored and evaluated by community’s representatives,
woreda’s experts, and pact through participatory methods on monthly bases.
As part of effective joint project management exercise, corporate governance and leadership, the
project holder will work in collaboration with relevant stakeholders to ensure community
participation and inclusive implementation, monitoring and evaluation. To facilitate the process
information generated by the project will be shared publicly in timely, accessible and
understandable formats, including the use of open source formats and the availability of bulk
data that can be reused by the public.
The project is monitored on monthly bases and evaluated at the end of the project by multi-
disciplinary experts. Based on the results of the project result learning activities will be held.
Hence, using its experience the project holder will prepare a monthly work plan and submit for
the PAC approval and then to the concerned CSO, the Woreda/Kebele Environment Protection
office and Pact Ethiopia; as per the plan:
• Organize regular monthly meeting to all concerned to review the status of project
implementation.
• Conduct joint monitoring visit and wherever necessary prepare and share monitoring reports
to concerned bodies
• Produce regular monthly report and submit to all to update status (progress made,
achievement against plan, challenges and measures taken)
• As part of the monitoring plan the project holder develop a mile stone, clearly state how,
who, when and frequency of monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the project.
8. SUSTAINABILITY
The sustainability of this project relies upon the existing community structures and traditional
institutions. Therefore, capacity building of these structures at different levels, and expanding the
available and potential partnerships like government, CBOs, and NGOs is essential. A co-
financing opportunity is also to be searched out. Further, the project will start a community
social development fund immediate to the launching of this project.
9. APPLICATION CERTIFICATION
I the undersigned hereby would like to certify that:
1. The information contained in the project application is complete and accurate.
2. The applicant agrees to comply with all Federal and Regional policies and requirements
imposed on the project funded in full or part by the SGF.
3. The applicant acknowledges that the assistance made available through the SSG funding will
not be used to substantially reduce prior levels of local, (NON-SSG funding) financial
support for community development activities.
4. The applicant fully understands that any facility built or equipment purchased with SG funds
shall be maintained and/or operated for the approved use throughout its economic life.
5. On behalf of the applying community structure, we the undersigned authorize and submit this
application for SG funding. (DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED Minute Action and/or
written PAC Approval signed by the Chairman of the PAC).
AuthorizedRepresentative:__________________ Endorsed by:___________________
Title: ________________________ Title: PAC Chairman
Signature: ____________ Signature: _______________
DATE: _______________ DATE: _______________