SIP Executive Summary

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST FOR Work Program Inclusion Under the GEF Trust Fund

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 2757 FINANCING PLAN ($) IA/ ExA’S PROJECT ID: P092375 PDF Project COUNTRY: Regional (Sub-Saharan Africa) A PROJECT TITLE: Strategic Investment Program GEF B 700,000 137,298,000 for Sustainable Land Management in Sub- C Saharan Africa (SIP) GEF Total 700,000 137,298,000 GEF IA/ExA: AfDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, Co-financing (provide details in Section b: co- UNEP, World Bank (lead) financing) GEF IA/ExA 850,000 986,215,000 OTHER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): Governments 50,000 to be confirmed DURATION: 2007 - 2010 0 to be confirmed GEF FOCAL AREA: SLM Others 900,000 986,215,000 GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: SLM-1, SLM-2 Co-financing Total plus government IA/ExA FEE: and bilaterals Total 1,600,000 1,123,513,000 AfDB 909,050 Financing for associated activities if any: FAO 636,300 IFAD 1,909,050 FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP* UNDP 2,522,450 GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($) UNEP 738,950 AfDB 0 9,000,000 World Bank 5,986,200 FAO 0 6,364,000 IFAD 0 19,000,000 UNDP 0 28,028,000 UNEP 0 8,406,000 World Bank 700,000 66,500,000 * Projects that are jointly implemented by more than one IA or ExA

Approved on behalf of the World Bank. This Proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion.

Steve Gorman Christophe Crepin WB/GEF Coordinator Project Contact Person Date: April 26, 2007 Tel. and email: 202-473-9727 [email protected] 2

1. PROGRAM SUMMARY

1. Since the UNCCD signing, Sub-Saharan Africa’s call for action to support efforts to combat land degradation has been inadequately fulfilled. A significant potential for progress therefore exists by systematically upscaling sustainable land management (SLM) approaches.

2. However, a common set of key barriers, faced by nearly all sub-Saharan countries, limits SLM upscaling in a variety of landscapes, and in some cases contributes directly to land degradation. The GEF has an important role to play to catalyze SLM upscaling by targeting the policy and institutional enabling environment, leveraging co-financing, and by developing regional and country level coalitions to align African leadership, sectors, and donors at a more substantial level than has been done in the past. A programmatic framework for collective action under a regional partnership – one that is anchored in and led by African institutions and initiatives – will reinforce country level engagement and investment. This approach will strengthen commitments by international, regional, and country institutions and generate greater impact with higher cost-efficiency than is now the case.

3. The Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa ( SIP) is the response from the GEF to support SSA countries in pursuing the multi-sector, long-term programmatic approaches needed to upscale SLM. The SIP will directly contribute to the implementation of the GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy. In addition, discrete operations under the SIP will pay specific attention to “climate proof” SLM investments. GEF Council is asked to approve the SIP’s programmatic framework and an accompanying portfolio of planned activities to be initiated in 2007-2010, amounting to an overall envelope of $150 million under GEF-4.

4. The SIP is a program informed by GEF and other experiences, among them TerrAfrica Its development has been guided by a series of joint consultations and in-depth analysis of past experience, in particular from the GEF’s implementation of land degradation activities including support to the NEPAD Action Plan for the Environment Initiative, the GEF-China SLM partnership, GEF partnership programs for Central Asia, Namibia, and Burkina Faso, and the LDC-SIDS program. TerrAfrica was launched by NEPAD and a large group of partners simultaneously at the UNCCD COP7 in Nairobi and at the Partnership Forum of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program to provide an operational framework for partners to better join and align efforts to upscale SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa. See www.terrafrica.org.

5. Eight key features form the backbone of the SIP’s innovative approach: (1) up-front commitment to an envelope of funds by the GEF Council to signal the availability of a predictable envelope of grant financing for Sub-Saharan beneficiaries, (2) agency commitment to joint programming at country level, backstopped at the regional level and guided by a shared vision, (3) commitments by Sub-Saharan countries to use programmatic approaches to improve enabling environments and scale up SLM, while engaging at their specific readiness levels, (4) responding to critical investment needs by a solid, agreed-upon multi-partner investment framework that will promote higher political visibility, solid advocacy, rigor, accountability and interest; (5) integration within broader country policy and institutional dialogues and large-scale financing that involves strategic, complementary delivery mechanisms; (6) streamlined project processing through delegated authority for project approval to the GEF CEO; (7) common set of approaches for M&E, reporting, and result-oriented knowledge management, and (8) a design

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 3 framework that takes advantage of on-the-ground learning to replicate and transfer investment experiences throughout the region, building on what already exists, and spilling across Sub- Saharan Africa some of the benefits and lessons from the SIP. These features amplify GEF impact, and will be further leveraged by the support of a strong partnership, including NEPAD advocacy, benchmarking and peer review objectives and processes. A thematic portfolio of planned operations is presented in annex D, along with agency baseline co-financing and summaries of country engagements. The priorities in this portfolio have emerged from multipartner country and regional dialogues, under the coordination of the SIP Steering Committee. An elaborated portfolio with descriptions of discrete operations is annexed to the full Program Brief (Annex 7).

6. The SIP will further allow IAs and ExAs to harmonize actions to strengthen joint work programming at all levels for increased impacts and cost-effectiveness. This is key to allow agencies, in partnership with the African Union, NEPAD, and Regional Economic Communities, to promote enhanced collective commitments to: (i) more strongly feature land degradation and SLM upscaling in poverty reduction strategies, national budget, sectoral strategies, and donor assistance strategies; (ii) more strongly promote policy, institutional, and domestic financing enhancements that address barriers and bottlenecks to upscaling; (iii) use a common tool (the Country SLM Investment Framework) to help align sectors and donors around a prioritized sequence of diagnostics and investments that reaches well beyond the GEF; (iv) engage additional donors and partners in joint programming and in meeting diverse financing needs through complementary delivery mechanisms.

1.1 PROGRAM RATIONALE

7. A common goal is advocated and shared at regional level with strong support from countries. NEPAD’s Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program and Action Plan for the Environment, the implementation action plans of the African Regional Economic Communities, the UNCCD, and a growing number of national and sectoral strategies all aim to address land degradation and scale up the area of African cropland, rangeland, and woodland under sustainable management.

8. Ecosystem services provided by land resources are critical for global and local environment in sub-Saharan Africa, yet low productivity and unsustainable land management is common. Roughly two-thirds of the region’s estimated 700 million people are rural. They depend directly on livestock, fishing, forestry, or largely rainfed agriculture, while urban residents also rely on rural production. Crop and livestock yields in sub-Saharan Africa are the lowest in the world, while deforestation proceeds at the highest rate in the world. Compounding the challenge, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the region as one of the most vulnerable areas to the adverse impacts of climate change in the world. In no other region are the services provided by terrestrial ecosystems so fundamental to sustainability, while the renewable resource base is being eroded so rapidly, and where countries are under-equipped to respond in the face of both increased climate variability and the estimated 0.5% - 9% drag that land degradation places on agricultural gross domestic product in sub- Saharan Africa.

9. In most situations throughout sub-Saharan Africa the exacerbation of land degradation by climate change presents both a need and an opportunity to “climate proof” SLM investments. However, this need is an immense challenge for SSA because of limited adaptive capacity and

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 4 high African dependence on fragile land resources. It will therefore be imperative to coordinate the integration of climate risk management into interventions at all levels under the SIP.

10. The UNCCD notes the obligations of the Parties to the Convention to implement approaches that respond to Africa’s particular conditions. A special effort is needed to catalyze efforts to scale up SLM. Such an effort will harness the large and growing momentum in the region to act, and follow up on the commitments made by the international community to respond to Africa’s repeated calls for action to sustain its natural resource base, the source of its current and future wealth, and to secure important global environment services.

11. Business as usual has delivered mixed results and a shift is required to make progress. Joint diagnostic reviews and a comprehensive process of consultations have identified a number of key interconnected barriers and bottlenecks in the enabling environment that have led to the past shortcomings of investments in Africa that address land degradation. Among the many challenges, national and subnational institutions face weaknesses in coordinating across sectors, themes, donors and stakeholders; incentive structures such as land tenure or local access to credit are weak or inappropriate; knowledge needs to be unlocked and channeled to the right level of decision making, and African leadership and governance on SLM needs reinforcement at all levels. Many of these barriers, elaborated in the Program Brief, cannot be efficiently addressed by isolated single projects, many of which have been relatively short-term and overly reliant on technology. Nor can it be effectively supported by sectors and individual donors acting alone.

12. In response, a regional programmatic approach, underpinned by partnerships, will have a number of strategic advantages over business-as-usual in Sub-Saharan Africa. First, a regional approach provides a vehicle for focusing individual country investments and supra- national bodies on shared objectives whether regional, subregional, or transboundary. Second, it builds a coherent body of knowledge and provides the vehicle to transfer it across borders and to decision makers, allowing for cross-country comparison, and leveraging Africa’s increasing peer review processes and advocacy. Third, it provides a strong mechanism for much better cooperating with a wider array of potential donors and other types of partners and to help align their efforts around a common and African driven goal and vision across sectors. This signals a very well structured and special effort conducive to alignment, compared to piecemeal approaches such as first-come first-served. Fourth, it further strengthens African leadership and advocacy on the land agenda and provides an operational linkage across the subregions that will support on-going efforts at African integration. Fifth, there are cost savings best realized through a regional approach: transaction costs are reduced for countries and donor agencies alike as expectations and goals are more transparent, and economies of scale are harnessed as replication ramps up, knowledge/experience is disseminated, and bureaucratic burdens are reduced. Sixth, a programmatic partnership approach reinforces the commitments made by donors and countries (including stakeholders at farmer and civil society levels) around a common, comprehensive agenda.

13. It is therefore proposed to amplify the impact and cost-effectiveness of mobilising the GEF via the inter-agency Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP). The SIP will contribute to dismantling the barriers to SLM upscaling in the region by facilitating donor alignment and country engagement over the medium to long-term. This will help cost-effectively sustain implementation of activities and promote systemic change in Sub- Saharan Africa. It will enable the GEF to play a stronger catalytic role in harmonizing policies, aligning institutions, and building a shared regional knowledge base linked to decision making.

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 5

In addition to direct social, economic, and environmental benefits gained from addressing land degradation in Sub-Saharan countries’ priority areas, additional global benefits will also accrue in other GEF focal areas: biodiversity, international waters, and climate change, with a specific attention to adaptation. This program will benefit from the support of the TerrAfrica platform and follow the principles adopted by its members and reflected in its business plan.

14. The SIP is designed to support achievement of African development and environment goals and will build on existing successes and processes, reinforced by gap analyses. It is founded on a shared assessment that:

i) SLM is key to development and ecosystem stability in the region, and delivers significant global environment benefits, ii) Sub-Saharan stakeholders are ready to move at all levels -- local, country, subregional, and regional -- to address enabling environments and go beyond calls for action, iii) GEF financing needs to be applied much more strategically and catalytically to drive the long-term engagement needed to align stakeholders and donors around the development of country-specific programmatic approaches that are linked to specific co-financing sources.

15. The GEF SIP will add value in the region by enhancing the regional dynamic and programmatic approaches where already in play, including the action plans of the Desertification Convention, NEPAD’s flagship agriculture and environment programs (the latter directly supported by GEF), and existing national programs such as the GEF-financed Country Partnership Programs in Namibia and Burkina Faso.

16. The SIP will add value to GEF corporate strategy (Table 1), to help drive the shift needed to address the key barriers in the enabling environment that affect large-scale SLM uptake. The SIP aims to alleviate the barriers in the enabling environment by using incremental GEF financing to strengthen long-term sector alignment and stakeholder participation on SLM, harmonize policy and institutional dialogues, strengthen cross-fertilization and maximize impact per dollar invested, capitalize on the comparative advantages of the agencies and their leveraging impact through a diversified set of delivery mechanisms, and promote donor engagement over a longer timeframe while reinforcing African commitment, accountability, leadership and alliance, critical to longer term and larger scale successes.

Table 1: Added value Business as usual The added value of SIP  Scattered use of GEF resources based on a first-  Stronger strategic cooperation, enhanced come, first-serve basis prioritization and greater cost savings among partners by moving toward long-term joint programming centered on operational country led investment frameworks.  Accelerated and strengthened development of national result-oriented SLM coalitions at lower marginal cost.  Lack of predictability of resources over longer time  Enhance the GEF’s ability to foster system-wide frames, which limits the ability to engage into solid change in Africa on the enabling environment for and mainstreamed policy and institutional upscaling SLM, coupled with partners’ dialogues and related governance issues on SLM. mainstreamed policy and institutional assistance dialogues.  Lower level of financial leveraging, efficiency, and  Better catalyze an expansion of total international cost-effectiveness inherent in piece-meal project and domestic financing for investment in SLM at approaches (at a time when domestic and higher cost efficiency. international financing have evolved towards programmatic financing including budget support).  Weak monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking  Better comparison, evaluation and monitoring of among GEF and non-GEF operations facing similar efforts across countries with similar conditions by challenges in the region. aligning M&E key indicators and systems (ie, policy enhancements such as land tenure, level of good governance, trends in public expenditure, etc.).  Lack of implementation support for sub-Saharan  Much greater support and political visibility given Africa’s increasing leadership on sustainable rural to Africa’s existing regional and national priorities, development. strategies and programs.  Weak support for African-driven mutual learning  Increase opportunities for GEF investments in the and peer review across borders, sectors and themes. region to generate, exchange, and absorb knowledge important in the African context.  Increased and more solid advocacy at all levels.  Greater flexibility to address transboundary resources, within national policy frameworks, for example by embedding existing GEF financed Strategic Action Programs into policy dialogues along with the SLM agenda.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

17. SIP goals, objectives, results, impacts, and indicators are presented in the results framework (Annex B) and summarized below. For the GEF, the SIP has been designed to provide an operational framework for partners to collectively deliver on the objectives of the GEF-4 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy.

18. The vision, or overall long-term goal, of the SIP is to improve natural resource-based livelihoods by preventing and reversing land degradation. Mobilizing GEF resources to accomplish this goal directly contributes to the GEF focal area strategy on land degradation, sub- Saharan stakeholders’ achieving the Millennium Development Goals on hunger and environment, as well as to UNCCD priorities in national and subregional planning documents, and NEPAD’s agriculture and environment program goals.

19. The global environmental objective is to prevent and reduce the impact of land degradation on ecosystem services in country-defined priority SSA ecosystems. The SIP secures global environmental benefits from SLM investments in three ways: i) by helping secure ecosystem function, and therefore the services upon which life depends at global down to local levels, ii) by delivering benefits to other GEF focal areas through SLM investment, and iii) by selectively addressing the incremental cost of transboundary interventions to improve management of shared land and water resources. Additional ecosystem resilience is secured by taking measures to ensure that climate adaptation is considered in SLM investments. See box 1.

Box 1. How does the program fit the GEF’s global objectives? There is a collective assessment that the environmental implications of land degradation in the region are particularly severe and accelerating, and affect a number of public goods. Many of these public goods are global in the GEF context such as impact of climate variability, freshwater quality and availability, and biodiversity. Advancing on these themes requires holistically targeting the root cases of degradation that are together impacting the integrity and interconnectedness of ecosystems within the landscape, including cropland, woodland, rangeland systems -- and providing responses to impacts.

In settings throughout sub-Saharan Africa, land degradation exacerbated by climate change threatens to destabilize ecosystem function. This in turn impedes the sub-Saharan vision – emphasized in NEPAD’s agriculture and environment programs – of building a more solid foundation for natural resource management that secures countries’ natural wealth, global environmental assets, livelihoods, food security, and economic growth. MDGs 1 and 7 emphasise the need to protect the land resource, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirms it.

Growing populations and a changing climate will present new stresses in already stressed sub-Saharan ecosystems. The sub-Saharan population is set to double by 2030. The African Union reported in 2005 that African agricultural production has to sustainably increase by at least 4-6% per annum to meet increasing food demand of Africa’s growing populations. At the same time, the global climate will continue to see warming and shifts in regional weather patterns for at least the next 50 years, leading to, for example, changes in biome distribution and suitability zones for certain crops; some evidence of this change already exists.

20. The development objective is to support sub-Saharan efforts to design and manage programs of activities that advance SLM mainstreaming, improve governance for SLM, and strengthen coalition development. This will help catalyze additional international and domestic investment and reinforce regional integration. Discrete investments will normally aim to: i) address weaknesses in the enabling environment that are key for SLM (such as land tenure, multisector coordination and planning at all levels, decentralized decision-making, and public expenditure management), and ii) upscale best-bet SLM practices on the ground, building on successes, common diagnostics, and clear country priorities. An additional but smaller overall level of investment is expected to target key knowledge and capacity gaps.

1.3 KEY RESULTS, IMPACTS, AND INDICATORS (from the results framework)

21. To be able to achieve impacts from upscaling SLM requires a coherent theory of change on how that change will occur, in what sequence and with what effects. The SIP, which shares TerrAfrica’s strategic approach and is aligned with the emerging GEF-4 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy, is based on the following theory of change:

 Partners support African leadership and actions to improve alliances and enabling environments for SLM (governance, institutions, policy, etc), which then:  contributes to improved incentives and therefore more knowledge and financing are unlocked, which then:  contributes to greater technology uptake and better land use planning, which then:  contributes to drive SLM up-scaling beyond current isolated experiences, which then:  delivers impacts on sustainably securing ecosystem services (more food, more fiber, increased water flow, increased income and income sources, more carbon storage, arrested decline in biodiversity, less impact from climate risk/variability), helps manage trade-offs between land uses, such as from controlling agricultural extensification into woodlands, and reduces/prevents land degradation. Anticipated impacts from specific SIP activities are summarized in the portfolio presentation in the Program Brief (annex 7).

22. Progress toward the overall long-term goal and objectives is measured at the program level by key results-based indicators that track aggregate change in SIP investment areas:

i) ecosystem stability (proxies: changes in vegetation cover/rainfall and soil quality including carbon); ii) impact on human welfare, land-use productivity, and vulnerability (proxy: household surveys); and iii) overall increase in hectarage of croplands, rangelands, and woodlands under progressively more sustainable management.

23. Other key indicators are designed to track the development and strength of SLM coalitions, knowledge dissemination and use, M&E alignment, changes in the enabling environment (via a simple expert-based composite index), and portfolio management. Two key indicators are particularly important:

i) Positive trend in score on Composite Index for the SLM Enabling Environment by 2010; ii) 90% of the GEF resources invested in the portfolio meet the leveraging ratio target by 2010.

24. The expected intermediate results of the SIP therefore focus on including significant improvements in the enabling environment needed to drive SLM scale up on the ground, based on up front commitments expressed by countries and partners. There are four specific intermediate results:

1. SLM applications on the ground are scaled up in country-defined priority agro-ecological zones (40% of envelope). 2. Effective and inclusive dialogue and advocacy on SLM strategic priorities, enabling conditions, and delivery mechanisms established and ongoing (35% of envelope). 3. Commercial and advisory services for SLM are strengthened and readily available to land users (15% of envelope). 4. Targeted knowledge generated and disseminated and monitoring established and strengthened at all levels (10% of envelope).

1.4 PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES

25. Depending on country priorities, SIP operations will selectively target four types of activities designed to directly contribute to the above results and barrier removal. These are summarized in table 2 below, and include relative weights of SIP financing for each type of activity. These four components also form the basic structure of the Country SLM Investment Framework. This is a key tool for designing operations and for aligning donors, sectors, and stakeholders around a common operational vision that is supported by stronger analyses. Through extensive stakeholder consultation and guidance, they will be refined and sequenced by countries based on country circumstance, stakeholder priorities, and national and sectoral strategy and planning processes. The Country SLM Investment Framework will be based on available information, and includes an analysis of key barriers and gaps, existing investment and

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 9 delivery mechanisms, and identifies the country’s priority ecosystems and key land degradation drivers. The Country SLM Investment Framework will be strengthened and updated as more detailed analytical work is carried out (see Box 2 on page 11).

Table 2. Menu of Activities for SIP Operations (from the Country SLM Investment Framework)

1. Supporting on-the-ground activities for scaling 2. Creating a conducive enabling environment for SLM up SLM  40% of SIP envelope  35% of SIP envelope  Corresponds to SIP intermediate result 1  Corresponds to SIP intermediate result 2  Targeted barriers/bottlenecks: institutional,  Targeted barriers/bottlenecks: institutional, sectoral, knowledge, financial, implementation knowledge, policy, financial, implementation 1.1 Identification of best entry points for scaling up 2.1 Integrating SLM into national and sectoral SLM to achieve ecosystem integrity. development planning at multiple levels (PRSPs, 1.2 Capacity building for SLM implementers sector development plans, etc). (farmers, forest users, rural community members, 2.2 Integrating SLM objectives and requirements into etc.) to support integrated approaches to natural institutional and legal reform processes. resources management. 2.3 Capacity building for SLM at all levels, to support 1.3 SLM investment pilots/demonstration sites with awareness, coalition building and advocacy. embedded scale-up strategy (and approaches for 2.4 Strengthening cross-sectoral spatial planning systems climate proofing interventions), as well as cross- at multiple levels to prioritize investments between border collaboration for management of shared agro-ecosystems and types of intervention. ecosystems and river basins. 2.5 Reviewing country investment programmes and public 1.4 Strengthening farmer/producer organizations for expenditure frameworks to: (i) identify constraints and adoption and up-scaling of SLM practices. entry points for SLM, and (ii) improve prioritization, 1.5 Providing incentives for SLM adoption (including cost effectiveness and predictability of financial flows support to design of environmental services to SLM, including from increasing large scale budget payments, targeted matching grants or credit support. programmes). 2.6 Analysing and improving incentive frameworks for 1.6 Strengthening alternative non natural-resources SLM (ie, land tenure, decentralized decision making, based livelihoods. etc.). 2.7 Building or strengthening early warning systems, contingency and response capacity. 2.8 Strengthening traditional and innovative conflict resolution mechanisms to avoid, mitigate and resolve conflicts over natural resources. 3. Strengthening commercial and advisory services 4. Developing effective SLM knowledge management, for SLM M&E and information dissemination systems  15% of SIP envelope  10% of SIP envelope  Corresponds to SIP intermediate result 3  Corresponds to SIP intermediate result 4  Targeted barriers/bottlenecks: institutional,  Targeted barriers/bottlenecks: knowledge, institutional, knowledge, financial sectoral 3.1 Identify non-policy constraints/bottlenecks to 4.1 Supporting targeted and applied SLM technical, SLM adoption. economic, social, long-term ecological monitoring, 3.2 Capacity building for SLM service providers. linked to regional and sub-regional collaboration 3.3 Strengthening input suppliers to provide SLM through NEPAD and RECs to ensure upscaling and technologies (seeds, tools, seedlings, etc.). mutual knowledge (see section on M&E below), 3.4 Marketing support for outputs from SLM, 4.2 Support knowledge sharing and innovation networks including certification systems to strengthen fair based upon participatory/community-driven and trade and eco-labelling schemes. iterative approaches. 3.5 Strengthening providers of financial services to 4.3. Strengthen capacity of SLM stakeholders for offer financial products to support SLM adoption. innovation. 4.4 Developing M&E MIS for SLM Investment Framework implementation and evaluation (selected elements aggregated up to regional level). 4.5 Developing effective national dissemination strategies for lessons and best practices (to be part of regional

TerrAfrica efforts).

26. There are three types of operations that may be co-financed by the GEF SIP. All three aim to encourage countries to proceed along a continuum of progressively more programmatic approaches over time to support SLM upscaling in country defined priority landscapes. These three modalities are meant to be complementary across operations as well as within and across countries. These are: (i) country programs, (ii) targeted investments, and (iii) a small number of innovative regional or multi-country operations designed to complement countries’ agendas to upscale SLM; some of these multi-country operations target specific transboundary ecosystems. Whether country programs or targeted investments, the intended result is similar: supporting country engagement with partners in programmatic approaches that alleviate key barriers in the enabling environment that affect measurable scale up of SLM in the three major land use classes (croplands, rangelands, woodlands). In most cases, GEF resources will target upscaling activities on the ground at significant level only when the enabling environment is relatively conducive to sustain upscaling efforts. In this way, every operation under the SIP umbrella will be consistent with the emerging GEF land degradation focal area strategy.

(i) Country Programs. Countries that can already count upon a strong track record of SLM investments leading to results in the field and institutions that have the ability to implement larger scale and broader interventions, and/or where a strong multi-agency, multisector partnership is able to take place, will receive support to develop a full-scale SLM country program. In most cases, a Country SLM Investment Framework will be the main tool for alignment, and will include donors outside the GEF Family. Country programs, such as that being pursued by Ethiopia, focus on institutional development, policy reforms, coalition building, knowledge management, M&E, capacity building, and other elements that are needed to enable the country to lead a national program to upscale SLM in all three major land uses. A number of additional considerations would guide the decision to engage in a country program, including: SLM in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper; willingness of donors to engage; a willingness by the government to prepare an SLM Investment Framework (or equivalent) that includes multiple sectors, stakeholders, and partners; and significant financial resources pledged by the government toward the country program.

Another example is the emerging country program that is evolving in Eritrea under IFAD leadership, and which will be reinforced by GEF-SIP support. The Eritrean Government has pledged its commitment to leading and facilitating a partnership platform on SLM in cooperation with the Global Mechanism, IFAD, Norway and other development partners. IFAD and the Global Mechanism are currently engaged in a dialogue to assist the government in establishing the platform which will support implementation of UNCCD/NAP and TerrAfrica and SIP objectives through coalition building, improving enabling conditions for SLM, and further mainstreaming land degradation issues into poverty reduction processes and strategies.

(ii) Targeted Investments support a country to pursue a progressively more programmatic approach to SLM over time, starting with specific geographic, sectoral, temporal, or thematic entry points prioritised by the country. Because not all countries are prepared to pursue a multi-sector program covering all three major land use classes, this type of SIP investment aims to support countries in building a solid foundation for a later full-scale SLM program as described above. For this reason, a targeted investment financed by SIP could support preparation of a Country SLM Investment Framework that involves multiple sectors, donors,

and stakeholders, and should include measures to improve elements of the enabling environment.

One example is Madagascar’s degrading upland watersheds in the center of the country; this area is being targeted by blended IDA/GEF support under SIP, and coordinated with UNDP support to combat sand dune formation in southern Madagascar. Another example is Mauritania, where blended IFAD/GEF support under SIP will provide targeted investments to advance SLM upscaling, including enabling activities at local level. This includes the preparation of land use plans with the oasis communities, direct investments into targeted measures for the rehabilitation or protection of entire oasis ecosystems and developing innovative environmentally friendly income sources, particularly for the most vulnerable segments of the oasis populations. The blended intervention will also work to promote ecotourism and other strategies in selected sites as a potential interface for innovative partnerships with the private sector.

(iii) Multi-country/regional investments are varied but reinforce the effectiveness and efficiency of country level programming by pooling and sharing knowledge and regional M&E to support upscaling; strengthening regional, subregional, and transboundary advocacy, policy dialogues, and operational alliances. A UNDP supported operation, for example, will strengthen African civil society engagement in SLM in the context of the TerrAfrica platform. This will reinforce civil society’s key role in promoting SLM. Another example is the UNEP/FAO supported Kagera River Basin operation, which aims to drive a shift from sectoral processes to the more integrated approach to SLM needed to counter the threats affecting the basin’s agroecosystems and shared water resources. A third example is the UNEP implemented operation to support institutional development at NEPAD. This operation directly supports the SLM Operational Framework of the African Union, NEPAD, and the Regional Economic Communities to enable these institutions to lead on TerrAfrica and SIP coordination, improve policy advocacy and formal mutual learning, and advance and enable coordination of the agenda in the region via their agriculture and (GEF-supported) environment programs.

27. A portfolio of all operations intended to be developed between 2007 and 2010 is provided in Annex D and further elaborated in Annex 7 of the full Program Brief. The portfolio includes a well balanced representation of the three categories of operations described above. It illustrates how the GEF Family, working closely with countries, can better engage in forward operational and strategic planning (as do other major donors) on the thematic use of GEF resources to amplify its catalytic role and impact by being more strategic and programmatic at portfolio level compared to business as usual. The focus of the SIP portfolio of operations is to allow the GEF to play a much stronger catalytic role that enhances country level impact while leveraging a real regional dynamic that will boost both African and agencies’ leadership, accountability and benchmarking.

28. Each SIP operation will be further prepared on the basis of country dialogues, GEF and agency comparative advantage, and country-led joint work programming supported within the broader support and context of TerrAfrica. Each operation (see Program Brief Annex 7 for descriptions of discrete operations) will be integrated into the overall SLM programmatic vision of the country, relying on the collective support and efforts of the other agencies working and cooperating together via a common platform. For example, Niger has requested UNDP to lead the SIP engagement in partnership with IFAD and the WB, to establish a more

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 12 programmatic and coordinated approach to GEF mobilization than has been the case until now. Furthermore, countries receiving financing under the SIP umbrella have indicated support to the TerrAfrica platform and will also be part of the TerrAfrica work program (if they have not already done so). In addition, country co-financing will of course be ready for each operation. Lastly, each operation under the SIP will adopt a pragmatic approach for identifying, addressing, and reporting on climate risk in its activities.

Box 2. The Country SLM Investment Framework (CSIF): a key tool for shifting from project based to programmatic approaches to upscaling.

The investment framework approach empowers countries to align sectors and donors around a country-driven operational roadmap for investment. The investment framework is designed to leverage sectors and partners and to sustain long-term engagement on SLM upscaling based on clear country priorities. The investment priorities will be based on diagnostics that address key gaps in the country. It builds on what already exists such as the UNCCD NAP, and is directly linked to financing mechanisms and operational upscaling targets. SLM investment frameworks are currently being pursued under TerrAfrica in key countries. GEF support via SIP will strengthen this process, which supports countries to move along a continuum from project-based to program-based investment, putting in place along the way progressively stronger elements needed to upscale SLM and enhancing the country’s readiness to align donors around its own priorities. In this way, countries can engage in an investment framework at their own level of readiness. Over time, the country can develop a comprehensive investment framework composed of sequenced, complementary targeted investments (with or without GEF grants) or a full-scale country program. In this way, the investment framework accommodates the region’s ecological, economic, cultural, and social diversity. To allow for rapid priority and agreed-upon action on the ground, the 2007-10 GEF engagement under the SIP may in some cases support a transition period, with draft country SLM investment frameworks progressing in parallel with the priority SIP investments.

1.5 KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS (from the results framework)

29. One key assumption is that improvements in enabling environments will be critical to unlock the incentives needed for land users to adopt more sustainable practices on a large scale. One example is countries where legal reforms allowing families to own their land and trees have spurred significant farmer investment in the land resource, and a subsequent increase in vegetation and tree cover, without the considerable donor financing of technologies. The need to address and compare enabling environments is therefore critical to achieving SLM scale up.

30. Key risks to the program have been rated low to medium, and relate to (i) challenges faced by SSA stakeholders and key partners when engaging into programmatic approaches, (ii) competing priorities that may alter long term political and financial support given to SLM upscaling, (iii) transition time and incentives needed to progress with alignment and harmonization, and (iv) hesitancy to consider new knowledge and technical approaches. The SIP design mitigates these risks by, among other measures, committing partners and countries up- front to operational alliances at regional and country level across sectors. These alliances are to be backed by key analytical, dissemination, and monitoring tools designed to provide guidance and feedback to those working on SLM up-scaling. Lastly, these risks are attenuated by locating the SIP within existing African implementation structures, to reinforce African leadership and advocacy on the agenda and maximize mainstreaming opportunities.

2. REGIONAL AND COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

31. At the regional level, this program is designed to support the highly prioritised operational SLM objectives of NEPAD’s agriculture and environment programs, the UNCCD action plans, the African Union Specialised Programmes, and countries that intend to achieve these regional objectives. Strong interest and ownership of the SIP and TerrAfrica was demonstrated by regional actors and countries during a series of regional consultations convened by NEPAD and partners over the past two years and in subsequent and current country dialogues. During SIP preparation, the general design was validated by a wide range of country and regional stakeholders. NEPAD continues to mobilize donors, regional institutions, and its member countries to partner on SLM via the TerrAfrica platform, and with support from the SIP where good catalytic opportunities exist, as identified in the country dialogues.

32. Although numerous countries participated in regional consultations during the past two years, country drivenness is demonstrated predominately in the specific country-led operations financed under the SIP regional umbrella. This support may also include countries’ engagement in the preparation of Country SLM Investment Frameworks, which is another indicator of country commitments to shift to programmatic approaches and stronger enabling environments. Sub- Saharan governments have indicated their support to the SIP in various fora, and in 2007, with formal letters of support prior to the submission of the SIP to GEF Council. TerrAfrica and the SIP are strongly on sub-Saharan countries’ agendas and a number of them have already firmly committed to pursuing programmatic approaches to SLM. Countries such as Niger, Ethiopia, Uganda and Ghana, for example, have indicated early on their intentions to pursue the preparation process. The final SIP technical preparation workshop held by NEPAD in July 2006 in South Africa saw a broad range of countries explicitly confirm their support for the SIP approach – also noted by Environment Ministers at the May 2006 AMCEN Conference, and by Ministers of Agriculture in February 2006. The Ministerial Conference on the SIP convened by AMCEN, hosted by the Government of Burkina Faso, and held in Ouagadougou on April 24-25, 2007, confirmed the high level of support and ownership by all African countries, partner agencies and other key stakeholders: UNCCD, bilateral donors, African Union, regional organizations and NGOs (see Ministerial and Partner Declarations in Annex E).

3. PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

3.1 FIT TO GEF FOCAL AREA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

33. The SIP directly aligns with the GEF-4 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy. Please see para 14 above for a discussion on how the SIP adds value to both of the GEF-4 Strategic Objectives that it directly addresses:

Strategic Objective 1: To create an enabling environment that will place SLM in the mainstream of development policy and practice at regional, national and local levels. Strategic Objective 2: To generate mutual benefits for the global environment and local livelihoods through the upscaling of SLM investments.

34. To better alleviate the barriers to SLM upscaling, a broader integrated approach may be taken under the SIP, also going beyond the land degradation focal area into other GEF focal areas outside the SIP umbrella. For example, the need to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 14 change has highlighted the challenge of climate proofing land management, with the corresponding benefits from ensuring ecosystem resilience as protection against, for example, shifting cultivation patterns. Discrete operations may complementary to GEF support to address objectives that fall solely under international waters, climate change/adaptation and biodiversity outside the land degradation envelope. One example is the Eastern Nile operation which aims to address land degradation threats to watersheds in the river basin.

3.2 SUSTAINABILITY

35. Sustainability of the program depends on the extent to which it serves and is embedded into existing African initiatives and priorities. Sub-Saharan Africa has organized itself regionally. The region uses the African Union, NEPAD, the Regional Economic Communities, and specialized institutions to boost leadership, enhance mutual learning, reinforce African integration, and build partnership and advocacy in support of country level actions. The SIP, with the support of the TerrAfrica platform, provides the operational framework for the GEF to predictably support these efforts over the longer-term. Long-term engagement is critical for SLM interventions to succeed. This approach builds stronger foundations for these institutions to stand on their own in advocating and supporting SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa.

36. At the regional/program level, institutional sustainability will be ensured by locating the SIP within existing SSA frameworks (ie, AU/NEPAD), mainstreaming SLM activities into regular activities of the RECs, and supporting improved cooperation across institutional and geographic boundaries. Financial sustainability will be achieved by mainstreaming SLM into African-led regional development and sectoral policies, strategies and initiatives such as CAADP and the Implementation Action Plans of the Regional Economic Communities. Lastly, all dimensions of sustainability will be strengthened by embedding the program’s objectives and associated financing into national, regional and partners’ development strategies.

37. Each SIP operation (predominately at country level) will provide a sustainability plan that lays out specific actions to ensure the continuation of post-project benefits. A key element is progress with the enabling environment and the development of country SLM investment frameworks, which help secure sustainability of SIP outcomes by: i) engaging donors and securing buy-in of a broad range of stakeholders to cooperatively support a country in developing and implementing a long-term operational roadmap; ii) anchoring interventions in national priorities and explicitly linking these interventions to specific financial delivery mechanisms; iii) ensuring early involvement of key stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of SLM operations; iv) facilitating investment prioritization with highest economic and environmental returns, and/or quick wins early on to sustain momentum; and v) fostering an improved environment for investment, leading to increased public expenditure in SLM and improved financial leveraging of GEF’s catalytic resources. The country level will be backstopped by the regional level, including the TerrAfrica platform, which aims to improve the scope and spread of analytics, alliances, and advocacy needed to drive upscaling.

3.3 REPLICABILITY

38. The SIP will promote and enable the replication of good practice within and across countries, using programmatic approaches at various levels keyed to specific regional and country needs. Replication centres on three key elements at regional level: a harmonized regional M&E system, knowledge management and tools, and nesting SIP within existing regional networks, decision

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 15 making processes and the TerrAfrica platform. At country level, the Country SLM Investment Framework will be an important tool in the SIP replication strategy: through the country’s investment prioritization process and stakeholder engagement, best-bet investments with good replication potential are identified, and then linked directly to specific delivery mechanisms.

3.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

39. A comprehensive process of consultations on thematic and design issues with a wide variety of African and international stakeholders, GEF IAs and ExAs active in land management, and in collaboration with TerrAfrica, have together prepared the SIP Program Brief and will continue to be involved in implementation of the program. Stakeholders, including civil society, will participate in implementation at two levels: regional program level and at the level of individual operations. This will occur largely through existing regional implementation structures for SLM that the SIP supports, as well as country frameworks and platforms, and the discrete operations themselves.

3.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

40. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system will track progress towards identified results, and provide guidance to stakeholders and decision makers in tracking progress.

41. The SIP’s results-based M&E system will provide timely, useful information to key decision- makers involved in individual SIP operations, the overall regional SIP program, or in the broader SLM agenda. The M&E system will be used as a management tool and as a means of generating knowledge for (i) investment and program improvement, (ii) reporting on the effectiveness of the deployed interventions (ie, theories of change) at the local and national levels, (iii) assessing the strategic alignment evident in local and national initiatives, (iv) mutual learning and reinforcement of the SIP knowledge management system, (v) accountability purposes, and progress reporting to GEF Council and to the agencies, (vi) enhancing stakeholder participation and consolidating African leadership on SLM.

42. For the above reasons, monitoring and evaluation is an important feature of the SIP at two distinct levels: program (regional level) and individual operations (mostly at country level).

43. M&E at program level. Based on data from the M&E units of each SIP financed operation, the SIP Program M&E Desk will synthesize, aggregate (when possible), and report annually on portfolio progress, using a set of standardized indicators and flexible M&E tools. A SIP M&E Desk, coordinated by NEPAD but outsourced to a regional scientific organization, will carry out the program-level M&E activities. It will monitor and report on program-level indicators on an annual basis. It will provide necessary technical assistance and advice to each SIP operation, as each SIP operation will have an M&E component for activity-level monitoring, evaluation, and reporting that will feed into the program-level M&E system, thus contributing to the overall vertical alignment of the entire M&E system. The regional baseline is described in the Incremental Cost Analysis in Annex A.

44. Early in program implementation, the SIP M&E Desk will refine the M&E tools for use across SIP investment activities via means of a set of select pilots and “learning by doing.” This period of alignment will incorporate on-going or planned efforts by TerrAfrica partners to develop M&E systems and common indicators on land degradation and SLM, such as the GEF

Focal Area indicators work that is beginning development (UNDP). The alignment of the M&E systems will be of two types: vertical and horizontal. The vertical alignment will create a “line of sight” so that selective M&E data will be cumulative from the lower to the highest levels of the system. The horizontal alignment will mean harmonizing M&E systems across the key partners (GEF, SIP, TerrAfrica, etc.) so that comparable data can be collected, analyzed, and reported within a common M&E framework. In all instances, there will be a systematic effort to avoid “data dumps” of extraneous data into the systems.

45. Regional M&E activities will be financed through the NEPAD Institutional Support operation implemented by UNEP under the SIP umbrella. A key function will be to provide M&E capacity building services to SIP operations’ teams where needed. In addition, special evaluations and studies for program activities will be conducted. Lastly, the operation will review and synthesize data and reports generated by discrete operations.

46. M&E at SIP operations level. During the design stage of each SIP operation, baseline values will be determined and realistic targets will be established for each operation’s results and outcomes against these baseline data. This will be done in line with country needs, capacities, and the need to aggregate operation results at the regional portfolio level. Practical operations- level M&E systems will therefore be designed and implemented for each operation using the SIP M&E manual and menu of standardized indicators and other indicators specific to the given operation. Each of these operations level M&E systems will be aligned/compatible with both the specific M&E requirements of the agency and the national M&E systems involved in the operation. Attention will be given to facilitating participatory M&E strategies.

4. FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

47. The SIP’s innovative inter-agency financial umbrella is programmatic, allowing stakeholders to plan and sequence investment dialogues and related co-financing in a more efficient and strategic manner to address environmental challenges with greater impact than a single project approach could effectively do. The investment umbrella modality for GEF resources has been demonstrated as an effective means for catalyzing the investment response necessary to accelerate and scale up action by a wide group of stakeholders. The SIP amplifies this approach and harnesses additional efficiencies by expanding the programmatic approach across all GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies active in Sub-Saharan Africa.

4.1 Financing plan

48. Financing for activities implemented under the SIP framework will come from countries’ domestic and international sources as well as from the GEF SIP envelope. The GEF SIP envelope is interagency and each IA and ExA, working closely with stakeholders at country levels, will align its approach to the SIP framework. At country level, agencies will better cooperate to align financing in order to build and strengthen realistic programmatic approaches, and to mobilise additional international and domestic support. The GEF Council is asked to financially commit at this point to the 2007-2010 period coinciding with GEF4. This commitment would allow engagement in a long-term programmatic effort for the region.

49. The SIP will aim to leverage GEF funds against other project financing sources at an overall program ratio of 1 (GEF) to 4 (other sources). Co-financing may be secured from a combination

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 17 of national and international sources. The minimum leveraging ratio for individual operations would be established as 1 (GEF) to 2 (other) and would only be allowed in exceptional cases. Such low-leverage projects would be offset by other investments, where the proportion of GEF incremental cost financing would be expected to be significantly lower.

50. The GEF project cycle under the SIP: from development to endorsement of operations. Development: All SIP operations are initiated via regular country dialogues with agencies and their preparation will follow a country-led process. Moving forward, these operations will involve the development of a Country SLM Investment Framework. Tangibly this means SIP operations will in many cases contribute to establishing a country-led programmatic approach to investment in SLM. In some cases, such as in Ethiopia, operations are already aligned with such emerging programmatic approaches. The SIP Steering Committee, co-chaired by the World Bank (as lead agency for the SIP) and NEPAD, will provide upstream guidance during this process. Endorsement: Individual PIFs with PPGs will be submitted to the GEF Secretariat on a rolling basis and will include a draft results framework compliant with SIP M&E arrangements. The GEF Secretariat will review each proposal within 10 working days and will consult with the lead agency. The final project documents will be submitted on a rolling basis for Secretariat review, followed by a week review by Council, and finally GEF CEO endorsement and web posting. The cycle for SIP operations will follow the GEF project cycle as approved by the Council in June 2007.

51. Reporting Requirements. All agencies, coordinated by the World Bank and NEPAD under the SIP Steering Committee, will collectively report on the status of the SIP in the context of the annual PIR. The CEO will also transmit a report to Council on achievement of progress every two years. As the 2007 - 2010 commitment period comes to a close, a final report on the program with lessons learned and recommendations will be submitted to Council.

4.2 Cost-effectiveness

52. The SIP reduces the unit cost of achieving SLM objectives and lowers medium term transaction costs by avoiding duplication and helping harmonize donor assistance cycles. For example, only one set of country analyses is needed for all development partners, co-financiers, and sectors. Costs of M&E or research can be spread over operations, agencies, or countries. Other sources of cost efficiency are found in enhanced harmonization of policies and in the role assigned to replication and mutual learning. Further savings lie at country level in the better allocation of responsibilities and investment that arises from engaging in country SLM investment frameworks. Long-term programming makes it possible to prioritise and sequence activities and build upon progress already made, rather than the need to seize the first available funding opportunity. The tools provided under SIP, plus the added benefits of the broader TerrAfrica platform, can together facilitate a more rapid preparation of well-targeted operations by countries, thereby generating additional interest among co-financiers.

4.3 Co-financing

53. Estimated sources of cash and in-kind co-financing to be mobilized during program implementation are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: SIP Co-financing Sources To be provided by each SIP operation and aggregated at program level

All amounts in US Dollars Co-financier Classification Type Amount Status Various sources of N/A Cash and in- Based on 1:4 Varies by country financing depending on kind leveraging ratio for country the portfolio (1:2 for certain cases)

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

5.1 CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES

54. All agencies have committed to operationally align under the SIP by providing co-financing support as elaborated in the SIP portfolio, pursuing joint work programming in line with TerrAfrica approach, and by identifying additional opportunities and resources to move the SLM agenda on the ground.

55. The Country Partnership Program (CPP) countries will link with the SIP framework, building on their established approaches, mechanisms and experiences (see SIP validation workshop proceedings). These countries noted that the SIP pragmatically and efficiently adds value to progress achieved and existing collaboration, synergy and continuity. It can be instrumental to encourage financing partners to channel more support to SLM and to prepare and scale up a second phase of GEF support. Because of its larger scope, the SIP will reinforce the country level via benchmarking, mutual learning and knowledge tools, peer review, and gap analyses. Through linkages with TerrAfrica, the SIP will also help replicate elements of the CPP concept through specific country programs under SIP, thus helping to scale up policy, institutional, and financing enhancements beyond the GEF family. Additional opportunities linkages will be tapped via, for example, the GEF’s Small Grants Programs and existing operations initiated under GEF-3 such as the LDC-SIDS program.

5.2 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IMPLEMENTING AND EXECUTING AGENCIES

56. SIP design is focused on improving operational and strategic coordination and collaboration among GEF partners – in alliance with the UNCCD, NEPAD and other actors. It does this by providing an operational framework for agencies to collectively develop a strategic portfolio of investment that mobilizes GEF financing more cost-effectively than before, based on agency comparative advantage and joint programming supported by the TerrAfrica platform. This approach is centered on the key principles in the April 25, 2007, Ouagadougou Partner Declaration of the participating SIP agencies.

57. SIP preparation has been guided by regional consultations under African leadership, by specific country dialogues, and by an inter-agency Steering Committee composed of NEPAD and GEF secretariats, AfDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, UNEP and the WB. The SIP preparation phase has focused on the design of an operational regional umbrella framework with an indicative portfolio of mutually reinforcing investments including agency co-financing and country engagements (see annex D, or an elaborated version in annex 7 of the Program Brief). These activities have aimed to consolidate, reinforce, and promote among agencies and stakeholders a shared SLM vision through the partnership process.

5.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT

58. The SIP is implemented via a portfolio of discrete operations. During implementation, agency partnership will be scaled up at both regional and country levels based on comparative advantage. At regional level this will be guided by the SIP Steering Committee. At country level, agency partnership will be facilitated mainly through a country-led joint programming process, guided in many cases by the preparation of SLM investment frameworks and reinforced by each operation’s particular implementation structures. Figure 1 below illustrates implementation and organization arrangements.

59. Overall regional coordination responsibilities for the SIP are shared between (i) NEPAD and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), (ii) the GEF implementing and executing agencies and (iii) a SIP Steering Committee that acts as a strategic advisory group. SIP regional dimensions will be embedded within the NEPAD agriculture and environment implementation modalities and country level operations and frameworks. This arrangement is meant to strengthen the roles and leadership of existing African rural development structures while remaining lean and non-duplicative. Funding for Steering Committee functions, in particular NEPAD and REC roles, will be provided via the NEPAD/RECs Institutional Support operation implemented by UNEP under the SIP umbrella, and co-financed by various sources.

60. The responsibilities of the SIP Steering Committee will center on guiding SIP implementation, by confirming strategic directions and monitoring progress made. The SIP Steering Committee will ensure consistency with the principles of the TerrAfrica partnership and ensure that full support is provided by the platform during implementation. Steering Committee responsibilities include the following:

i. Confirm operational alignment: ensure that SIP supported operations are in agreement with the SIP results framework, are in line with or contributing to a Country SLM Investment Framework (or equivalent programmatic approach), the emerging GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy, and in support of agreed upon regional goals and targets; provide upstream advice and guidance on proposed operations; ii. Ensure joint engagement: pursue and confirm that joint programming is carried out among GEF partners in a timely and cooperative manner, resolving strategic issues and programming overlaps if and when they exist; iii. Forge synergies based on comparative advantages, promote consensus, and disseminate knowledge, lessons, and good practice among stakeholders and additional partners, in particular via the TerrAfrica platform; and iv. Review progress made and program performance, and take corrective action on operations if needed.

61. Membership of the SIP Steering Committee will include NEPAD (co-chair), GEF and TerrAfrica secretariats, AfDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank (co-chair). The

Steering Committee will meet physically at least once per year, piggybacking on existing fora as much as possible.

62. TerrAfrica provides a platform for partners to support African leadership on SLM and better target and align policy, institutional and investment dialogue at multiple levels, in order to achieve concrete upscaling in the region over the long-term. The TerrAfrica partnership has actively supported SIP preparation and will ramp up support during implementation of the SIP portfolio. All SIP Steering Committee members are active members of the TerrAfrica Executive Committee.1 The SIP will contribute to the TerrAfrica effort to harmonize actions by strengthening joint work programming at all levels for increased impacts and cost effectiveness. The SIP will also support TerrAfrica partners in their efforts to facilitate donor alignment and strengthen country engagement, including via alignment with partners beyond the GEF family. See www.terrafrica.org.

63. Roles of AU, NEPAD, and the Regional Economic Communities: Specific roles in SIP implementation include the following, some of which may be outsourced to leading institutions based in Africa and/or reinforced by the RECs:

AU, NEPAD, RECs:  Policy dialogue and political advocacy on SLM themes and coalition building  Leveraging co-financing NEPAD, RECs:  Reporting: M&E coordination at regional scientific institution, annual and progress reports  Supporting joint work programming and participating in joint missions as needed  Peer review and mutual learning: upstream guidance to countries, dissemination NEPAD only:  Co-chairing the SIP Steering Committee, reporting to the TerrAfrica Executive Committee, and providing coordination support for the Steering Committee such as convening political and technical conferences, workshops, and other venues to strengthen advocacy and mutual learning

643. Roles of Implementing and Executing Agencies: Each individual agency will be responsible for the following in coordination with all SIP agencies and other partners:

 Using the GEF SIP approach, the TerrAfrica platform, and existing country level mechanisms to advance SLM upscaling via joint work programming and knowledge transfer,  Coordinating and managing project development, approval, implementation, reporting and evaluation processes, in accordance with the rules of procedure of GEF and the agency involved,  Facilitating assistance to recipients for preparation of proposals,  Advocating for SLM upscaling, and  Providing co-financing support.

65. Lead agency role at regional level: The World Bank, as SIP lead agency, co-chair of the SIP Steering Committee, and current host of the TerrAfrica Secretariat, will work closely with the GEF and NEPAD secretariats to reinforce the roles of the Steering Committee, and specifically to ensure strong operational cooperation and joint work programming among GEF implementing and executing agencies. It will consult with GEF Secretariat and partners to ensure and confirm that PIFs, PPGs, and project briefs have emerged from or contribute to country level programmatic approaches with good stakeholder and donor involvement. The Bank will also support portfolio reporting by aggregating agency PIRs.

1 TerrAfrica Executive Committee includes: NEPAD, the Secretariat of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, the European Commission and Norway, Sub-Saharan countries and continental non-governmental networks (CONGAD and PELUM) and all GEF IAs and EAs.

66. Lead agencies at country level: A single agency will take the lead for the GEF in applying the SIP approach in specific countries that aim to pursue programmatic approaches to SLM upscaling. These SIP lead agencies have been identified within the SIP Steering Committee and in consultation with countries. Each SIP lead agency will work with the country to initiate the development of an SLM investment framework, based on a gap analysis and building on existing processes as much as possible. An expected first step in many cases will be to convene partners to support a country-led joint programming process.

67. Agency comparative advantage is a key element of SIP design: AfDB will prepare, finance, and manage investment projects with SLM components that will be linked and coordinated within the SIP framework, and promote the inclusion of land degradation and SLM in AfDB Country Strategy Papers. FAO may provide selective policy, technical and thematic support services related to various SIP activities, and in particular, will work closely with UNEP on integrated responses to land degradation as well as in knowledge management via the TerrAfrica platform. FAO has been very active in SIP preparation and prepared key PDF outputs with substantial design elements (ie, investment framework, analytical annexes). FAO will continue providing services during the design and implementation. IFAD will develop well- leveraged, replicable investments directed at delivering significant gains for rural poor people, as well as global environmental benefits, by articulating a stronger role for local partnerships and community empowerment based on community-driven approaches, local knowledge management, and advocacy for rural poor people. UNDP will play a primary role in ensuring the development and management of capacity building programs and technical assistance projects, and will promote non-governmental and community participation to improve governance for SLM and assist countries in designing and implementing activities. UNEP will primarily sponsor scientific and technical analysis in priority areas that are major bottlenecks to SLM up-scaling. UNEP will also selectively support multi-country operations that promote regional collaboration, integration, and cross fertilization of good practice. The World Bank, in addition to serving as lead SIP agency, will play the primary role in the development and management of larger-scale investment supported by its emphasis on policy dialogue and analytical underpinnings to help mainstream SLM into sectoral investment, policy and institutional strategies. The Bank will continue to work closely with partners to support donor alignment and the emergence of national SLM coalitions. The Bank has been hosting the TerrAfrica Secretariat, providing DGF financing to the partnership for several years, and founded the TerrAfrica Leveraging Fund, a multi-donor trust fund for providing short-term grants to move the land agenda at key bottlenecks.

Figure 1: SIP organizational arrangements

Country engagement in SIP 1. NEPAD and RECs advocate for SLM among countries, promoting country-level partnerships supported by investment frameworks 2. Countries and agencies strengthen their dialogues on SLM 3. Countries submit funding proposals as they normally do: to agencies, but based on SIP criteria, an SLM investment framework if available yet, and on a rolling basis 4. Agencies submit PIFs and Project Documents on a rolling basis 5. Joint programming with support from TerrAfrica strengthens or begins, depending on country situation

Organizational Arrangements SIP portfolio

The SIP Steering Committee: Operation 1 Guides the direction of the SIP Ensures coherence across SIP portfolio and with existing operations Provides upstream guidance Operation 2 Promotes replication and synergies Meets at least biannually largely via existing fora Operation 3 Is a special advisory group within the TerrAfrica Executive Committee

Operation 4

SIP coordination at NEPAD/RECs: Operation 5 Reports on operations’ conformance with SIP programming framework Documents and reports on M&E at program level Etcetera . . . Regional advocacy and peer review Knowledge management

Regional M&E Desk M&E conducted within each operation, then aggregated by regional M&E desk.

ANNEX A INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

This section discusses the incremental costs for the SIP, defined as the difference between the GEF alternative scenario and the baseline. These are presented sequentially below and summarized in a matrix that follows.

The Baseline

The baseline against which the incremental costs are estimated consists of the current approaches to counter land degradation in SSA. As discussed in the barrier analysis of the Program Brief, and as synthesized in the Incremental Cost Matrix below, these approaches are characterized by a weak enabling environment for SLM (e.g. SLM weakly integrated into development policies and strategies, weak policy, institutional, regulatory and incentive frameworks, etc.); a limited degree of cooperation and coordination between stakeholders; insufficient capacity and experience in SLM; inadequate funding; and site-specific and often uncoordinated interventions which focus on symptoms rather than on root causes, and supported by weak analytical underpinnings. These barriers and bottlenecks were examined in detail during program preparation; the detailed regional analysis is elaborated in detail in the Program Brief annex 4.

As a result, current approaches to land degradation in SSA have, so far, not been able to substantively address the problem. A detailed regional analysis on land degradation dynamics in the region was carried out during SIP preparation, and this is presented in annex 8 of the Program Brief. The baseline scenario would therefore see continued degradation of productive and non-productive land-use systems, with resulting loss of ecosystem function. Ecosystem instability in turn would lead to an accompanying loss in global biodiversity benefits and freshwater resources across much of SSA, along with increases in carbon releases from vegetation loss and the reduced ability of rural land users to adapt production systems to climate variability. The baseline scenario assumes that the current approaches to address land degradation in SSA will continue to be adopted.

The baseline scenario acknowledges that progress in some areas may be achieved. However, it assumes that such progress will be slow, uneven, and achieved at a high cost, due to lack of coordination, duplication of efforts and suboptimal use of resources. The baseline scenario also takes into consideration the fact that examples of good practices exist in SSA. However, it recognizes that, under the current business model, these good practices are unlikely to reach the scale necessary to comprehensively address the problem, unless the barriers and bottlenecks as described are not alleviated.

Under this baseline scenario, the emerging momentum for SSA countries to holistically tackle the problem of land degradation would be critically reduced, and the gap between the efforts to address land degradation and the scale of the problem will continue to exist.

The GEF Alternative

The SIP is meant to upscale SLM in order to counter threats from land degradation to livelihoods and environmental benefits in Sub-Saharan Africa. To be able to upscale SLM requires a coherent theory of change on how that change will occur, in what sequence and with what

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 24 effects. The SIP, which follows TerrAfrica strategic approach, is based on the following theory of change:

 Partners support African leadership and actions to improve alliances and enabling environments for SLM (governance, institutions, policy, etc), which then:  contributes to improved incentives and therefore more knowledge and financing are unlocked, which then:  contributes to greater technology uptake and better land use planning, which then:  contributes to drive SLM up-scaling beyond current isolated experiences, which then:  contributes to sustainably secure ecosystem services (more food, more fiber, increased water flow, increased income and income sources, more carbon storage, greater biodiversity, less impact from climate risk/variability), and helps manage trade-offs between land uses (such as control agricultural extensification into woodlands).

Efforts to mainstream and scale up SLM throughout SSA will improve with GEF support of the SIP under a well articulated partnership -- one based on operationally aligning donors and country stakeholders around a common programmatic framework for SLM that focuses on and reinforces the country level,. This, in turn, would raise the prospects for SSA landscapes, ecosystems and farms to be economically and ecologically sustainable in the long term, in the context of an integrated approach that focuses strongly on improving the enabling environment. Investment areas are expected to see a number of impacts relating to current land degradation trends, land productivity and rural incomes, freshwater access and food security, and biodiversity resources. Scalable models and actions beyond SIP operation sites would be available and more keenly perceived among decision-makers within and between countries, and African leadership of the agenda would be consolidated, helping sustain this scenario.

More specifically, GEF programmatic involvement via SIP would allow: (i) coordinated and harmonized programming (this would allow internal and external stakeholders to plan with greater scope and impact, and apply more coherent project sequencing and lower transaction costs), (ii) improved speed and responsiveness, (iii) a longer and more predictable engagement than with conventional project based approaches, (iv) more flexible country programming, with sequenced and complementary investments, and more strategic use of resources, supported by regional partnership, knowledge and advocacy. SIP investments will enable countries to establish SLM more quickly and with greater scope than would otherwise be possible, and to sustain SLM efforts through partnership-based programmatic approaches backed by the TerrAfrica platform. The added value of a regional approach would allow not only the targeting of transboundary externalities, but would also address similar types of barriers and challenges that the region’s countries are facing, which in aggregate amounts to a global scale issue. A regional approach will improve cost-effectiveness, cross-fertilization, economies of scale and transboundary cooperation.

The expected results of the SIP include significant improvements in the enabling environment that are needed to drive SLM scale up, allowing SSA countries to better secure regional and global environmental assets and natural resource-based livelihoods by preventing and reducing the impact of land degradation on ecosystem services in priority areas. The SIP would advance toward this vision by supporting sub-Saharan efforts to design and manage programs of activities with the objective of advancing SLM mainstreaming, improving governance for SLM, and catalyzing investments that: i) address weaknesses in the enabling environment that are key for SLM scale up such as land tenure, multi-sectoral planning at all levels, and public expenditure trends, ii) apply practices on the ground that secure ecosystem services of croplands, rangelands,

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 25 and woodlands, and iii) cost effectively scale up the area of land under sustainable management in country-defined priority areas.

Operations under the regional SIP umbrella will respond to existing sub-Saharan priorities at the national and regional levels. Some of these priorities are expressed in Poverty Reduction Strategies, sector strategies, and the UNCCD National Action Programmes. Individual country- level operations will be selective, and developed in the context of the Country SLM Investment Framework (CSIF). The investment framework approach is a key tool for alignment, built upon a country’s UNCCD National Action Programmes, detailed analytical work, a gap analysis, and a country led investment prioritisation process clearly linked to diverse delivery mechanisms of various partners. In early stages of the SIP, GEF financed operations may help kick-start the preparation of the investment frameworks; alternately, operations will respond to country defined priorities in existing similar operational investment frameworks if they exist. This will establish a programmatic basis at the country level for investment development, with enhanced sectoral and donor alignment around a country-defined operational roadmap. This approach to operation development adds value by improving the quality, targeting, and consistency of land management operations; lowering transaction costs; leveraging GEF grant financing more catalytically, efficiently and strategically; allowing more comparable and accurate reporting among operations (not only GEF financed operations), and by engaging with a critical mass of national stakeholders on a long-term SLM agenda.

In addition to the Country SLM Investment Framework, the SIP will provide additional analytical and M&E tools to sub-Saharan countries for scaling up and mainstreaming SLM investment. This will build on and reinforce implementation of existing SLM related activities and strategies already present in the country, including UNCCD Action Plans, PRSP and sectoral strategy processes, NEPAD’s implementation vehicles for its environment and agriculture programs (ie, roundtables and country compacts now underway in some countries), and implementation action plans of the Regional Economic Communities. This alignment will also ensure greater importance is placed on the NEPAD principles of African leadership on SLM, mainstreaming, sharing best practice and peer review processes at all levels.

GEF allocations will target strategic incremental costs associated with catalytic mainstreaming (see Incremental Cost Matrix for more details). Global benefits resulting from GEF alternative are summarized in the Incremental Cost Matrix below. They will, however, be detailed and costed in each SIP operation, according to GEF criteria.

Incremental Costs

This Incremental Cost Analysis is an estimate across the SIP portfolio based on a qualitative assessment of the global benefits associated with the implementation of the program. Quantification of the incremental cost of a multi-country program (without the full details of the individual operations that will be further prepared and supported through the SIP) is possible only at a conceptual level. However, each operation that will be supported by the SIP is required to have a detailed and quantified incremental cost analysis, as per GEF criteria.

The incremental cost analysis focuses on the incremental costs for the four years of the program to which the Council is asked to commit under GEF4 (2007-2010). The analysis is organized along the four SIP Intermediate Results, and the baseline, the alternative scenario, and the expected local and global benefits under the two scenarios are described for each

Intermediate Result. A sample of the typology of activities that are associated with the incremental costs is also provided. Finally, an estimate of the incremental cost associated with each component is provided.

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 27 Incremental Cost Matrix SIP Intermediate Result/ CSIF Category Local Benefits Global Environmental Benefits Incremental Cost Component

1. SLM applications Baseline: . Individual projects may generate . Possible, sporadic, non-systematic Costs associated with: on the ground are some local benefits in terms of global environmental benefits may . Ad-hoc, site-specific and scaled-up in improvement in rural livelihoods, be generated by well-designed isolated projects country-defined but overall they are unable to individual projects. However, the . Identification of best priority . Catalytic effects of comprehensively and scale of the projects are often entry points for scaling agroecological investments in land in SSA systematically address the insufficient for them to have a up to achieve ecosystem zones/ Supporting sub-optimal problem of land degradation. significant and lasting impact over integrity on the ground Overall, land degradation is likely time. Moreover, the costs of . Dissemination and activities for to continue, leading to loss of individual interventions are replication of SLM best scaling up SLM provisioning of ecosystem generally high due to the absence of practices services, decreased productivity, economies of scale which can be land use conflicts and migration. gained from a more strategic/ . Capacity building for programmatic regional approach. SLM implementers to

With GEF alternative: . Livelihoods and economic . Land degradation reduced, halted . More predictable funding wellbeing of local communities and reverted, critical ecosystem’ support integrated available. improved. Local environmental integrity, regulating functions and approaches to NRM benefits due to increased scale of services (including carbon . Greater emphasis on SLM activities2 (e.g. slowing of sequestration) preserved and . Incremental funds for scaling-up successes and the rate of local deforestation, improved, globally significant SLM pilot/demonstration replication enhanced preserving habitats and natural habitats and biodiversity with embedded scale-up strategy . Synergies among biodiversity in fragile ecosystems, conserved, transboundary water investments harnessed reduction of sediment flows, etc.) resources protected and maintained . Strengthening due to increased area under SLM3, . Improved soil fertility and farmer/producer . Capacity for SLM more programmatic approach at restoration of agricultural land/ organizations for implementers and regional level., greater ability to Land productivity maintained or adoption and scale-up of farmer/producer catalyze an expansion of aggregate improved. SLM practices organizations built and investments in SLM, and greater strengthened . Adaptation deficit reduced. emphasis on scaling-up successes. . Providing incentives for SLM adoption . Incentive for SLM . Frequency and incidence of dust adoption provided storms decreased. . Strengthening alternative livelihoods . Alternative non-NR based livelihoods strengthened $55,000,000 (40% of SIP allocation, after agency fees)

2. Effective and Baseline: . Even in the presence of a weak . The present enabling environment Costs associated with: inclusive dialogue enabling environment for SLM . Little or no mainstreaming weakly supports integrated and advocacy on some national and local benefits . Analysis of policy gaps, of SLM in development approaches that promote ecosystem SLM strategic may be generated, but these are opportunities and and sectoral policies, stability. Global benefits are not priorities, enabling scattered and not as sustainable as constraints; strategies, action plans and excluded per se under the baseline conditions and they could be. development / expenditure frameworks in scenario, but these are sporadic and delivery formulation / revision SSA countries. non-systematic. mechanisms and harmonization of key established and . SLM policy and legislative policies and legislative ongoing/ Creating a framework is unclear and frameworks across conducive enabling contradicting. sectors (e.g. watershed environment for management, grazing, . Single sector approach SLM (at national, land use planning, prevails. Lack of sub-national and forestry, etc.); integration coordination and

2 Bringing local initiatives to scale will ensure that the benefits of SLM are rolled out across the country. 3 Facilitating upscaling of local initiatives to national/regional level ensures critical coverage required to enhance and maintain the integrity of globally significant ecosystems.

of SLM principles into local levels) collaboration between development and sector various sectors and various policies, strategies, stakeholders. action plans and . High transaction costs due legislative and incentive to lack of coordination and frameworks; harmonization among . Institutional investments. strengthening, . Inappropriate incentive reorganization, reform structure for SLM, . Catalyzing partnerships/ including existing land Support to coalition tenure systems, building/ coordination, inappropriate economic harmonization and policies (including pricing alignment of efforts policies) . Assistance to support With GEF alternative: . National, regional and local land . Land degradation reduced, halted participatory processes use conflicts reduced due to better and/or reversed, critical ecosystem’ that promote SLM . Policy, legal, institutional land use planning integrity, regulating functions and planning and decision- and incentive frameworks services (including carbon making improved and a basis for . Rates of migrations within and sequestration) preserved and effective and sustainable between regions reduced due to a . Capacity building for improved, globally significant adoption of SLM better incentive system SLM to support natural habitats and biodiversity provided: SLM integrated awareness, coalition . Increased national and local conserved, transboundary water into national and sectoral building and advocacy understanding of ecological, resources protected and maintained development frameworks. economic and social thanks to the wider adoption of . Strengthening cross- Integrated (cross-sectoral) consequences of alternative use of SLM due to a better policy, sectoral spatial planning approach to SLM adopted. natural resources legislative, institutional and systems to prioritize Strategic versus individual incentive framework, more investments project-by-project . Greater cost-effectiveness due to coordinated and harmonized approach adopted. improved strategic coherence . Building/Strengthening approach, improved land use early warning systems . planning SLM better integrated into and response capacity for institutional and legal . Cross-border land use conflicts drought and other reform processes reduced due to more coordinated climatic events by . Adaptation better approach to land use. incorporating SLM understood as a key to practices sustainability of rural . Strengthening NRM production systems and conflict resolution better embedded in rural systems development efforts . Capacity for SLM

strengthened at all levels . SLM coalitions established or strengthened. Donor alignment and harmonization improved. As a consequence, more coherent project sequencing allowed. Bureaucratic burdens and transaction costs reduced. . Cross-sectoral planning systems at the national an decentralized level strengthened . Predictability of financial flows increased . Incentive frameworks for SLM rectified . Early warning systems and response capacity built and strengthened . Conflict resolution systems to deal with conflicts over NR strengthened

$48,125,000 (35% of SIP allocation, after agency fees)

3. Commercial and Baseline: . Initial costs of adopting SLM . Global environmental benefits are Costs associated with: advisory services remain high. Incentives to invest limited to sporadic and non- . Continuation of standard for SLM are in SLM are weak. systematic best practices. agricultural extension strengthened and . Set-up of funding systems readily available to mechanisms to land users/ . Lack of credit facilities to encourage SLM Strengthening support SLM investments . Identify non policy commercial and constraints/bottlenecks to advisory services With GEF alternative: . SLM practices are widely adopted . Land degradation reduced, halted SLM adoption at local and sub-national level. and reverted, critical ecosystem’

for SLM . Non-policy Environmental benefits exist but integrity, regulating functions and bottlenecks/constraints to do not reach the global scale. services (including carbon SLM adoption identified sequestration) preserved and improved, globally significant . Capacity for SLM service natural habitats and biodiversity providers built conserved, transboundary water . Marketing support for resources protected and maintained SLM strengthened due to increased area under SLM. Easier access to financial resources . Financial services to would in fact facilitate the adoption support SLM adoption of SLM practices. Facilitating the strengthened scaling up of local initiatives to national/regional level ensures critical coverage required to enhance and maintain the integrity of globally significant ecosystems.

4. Targeted Baseline: . Limited knowledge of ecosystems . Some sporadic global environmental Costs associated with: knowledge dynamics and land degradation benefits as a result of best practices. . Knowledge generated from . Strengthening of generated and processes due to limited investments is not information management disseminated and monitoring of ecosystem and land sufficiently disseminated systems to support monitoring degradation processes decision-making established and . Exchange of experiences strengthened at all on strategies and delivery . Target research to assist levels/ Developing mechanisms remain countries to - for instance effective SLM limited - assess the economic knowledge costs of LD and benefits . A wealth of LD and SLM management, M&E of SLM related technical and information knowledge is available, but . Definition or redefinition dissemination there are knowledge gaps of M&E indicators. systems as far as economic and . Methodologies to financial aspects are scientifically measure the concerned incremental impact of . SLM knowledge remains SLM fragmented and . Mechanisms to collect insufficiently linked to meaningful data. policy formulation and

implementation processes . Lack of adequate, long- term, regional monitoring systems for LD. Multi- disciplinary capacity is lacking. Results are often difficult to compare across institutional and political boundaries.

With GEF alternative: . Improved know-how and . Land degradation reduced, halted Targeted knowledge generated management skills to manage and reverted, critical ecosystem’ and disseminated, and resources integrity, regulating functions and monitoring established and services (including carbon . Improved acceptance of land . Knowledge generation strengthened at all levels as a sequestration) preserved and degradation information for and demonstration of result of: improved, globally significant decision-making. Investment best alternatives natural habitats and biodiversity . Targeted and applied SLM projects more accurately defined conserved, transboundary water research directly linked to due to access to more accurate resources protected and maintained scale-up strategy supported land degradation information. as a result of a better understanding . Knowledge sharing and of the underlying causes, processes innovation networks and dynamics associated with land supported degradation, more accurate information on land degradation . Capacity of SLM processes, and increased use of stakeholders for innovation improved methodologies for strengthened monitoring. . M&E for SLM developed . Dissemination strategies for lessons learnt and best practices developed

ANNEX B RESULTS FRAMEWORK

SIP Results Framework (a) (2007 – 2010) Hierarchy of Key performance indicators Critical Assumptions Use of Results Info objectives Total % change in social and Land degradation is Informs sectoral Long-term Program economic indicators for given sufficient policy strategies, PRSP goal Goal households disaggregated by importance in national, setting and donor Support sub-Saharan country, land-use type, and central, regional, and assistance in countries in improving investment area, against the local decision-making. participating countries, natural resource-based baseline. (c) regional institutional livelihoods by Key climate change policy and global reducing land Total % change in soil quality threats are considered responses to ecosystem degradation, in line (including carbon) in investment in SLM investments. stress, as well as with MDGs 1 and 7. areas, against the baseline. (d) NEPAD/CAADP, UNCCD, and Total % change in Net Primary TerrAfrica objectives. Productivity (vegetation cover enhanced with rainfall use Informs adaptation efficiency), against the baseline. planning and project execution under LDC Total % of area under SLM, NAPAs and other annually disaggregated by adaptation programs. country, land-use type, and target area, against the baseline.

Hierarchy of objectives Indicators Critical Assumptions Use of Results Info Hierarchy of objectives % changeKey performance in SLMIndicators applications indicators InvestmentsCritical Assumptions are InformsUse of SLM Results investment Info Intermediate Result 1 Positiveadopted trendby land in scoreusers onin SIPComposite Complementaryincreasingly supported national by Enddecisions of phase in conjunction I review; investment# of extensionists areas, againsttrained baseline anExtensionists appropriate and incentive natural withSatisfaction results ofand IR2. Development(2007-2010 commitment Objective Index for the SLM Enabling and regional levels begin determine if modifications Intermediate Result 3 (agriculture, forestry and livestock) resource related effectiveness survey period) Environmentdata. (f) among investment tomix cooperate and policy on regime.SLM. required to SIP approach. (2007-2010 and fully functional. businesses have appetite results guides the content (2007-2010 commitment countries. (e) Regional and national commitment and awareness of SLM and delivery mechanisms SLMperiod) applications on the AwarenessDecentralization grows among SSAinstitutions countries use results period) # of farm trials conducted. benefits that can accrue. for support services. ground are scaled up in 90% of the GEF resources invested SSAstructures stakeholders are sufficiently of increasinglyfrom IR1 to advanceuse SIP country-definedCommercial and priority in the portfolio meet the leveraging droughtempowered and pursueclimate SLM. resultstoward andCAADP lessons to # of persons receiving SLM services There is a demand-driven agro-ecologicalStakeholdersadvisory services in countrieszones. for ratio. change as challenges to informproductivity PRSPs target, and etc. (from extensionists, commercial or process for advisory design,SLM are implement strengthened and successfulRural development SLM sectoral strategies. NGO providers) in targeted services based on a manageand readily suitable available SLM to Number of countries elaborating or strategies.progress on themes communities, compared to baseline. rigorous gap and demand policies,land users. strategies and implementing a CSIF. outside the scope of the African and international analysis. on-the-ground InstitutionalSIP (HIV, gender, capacity of partners use SIP results investments that are Total % productivity in SIP SSAinfrastructure, line ministries education) is and lessons for designing Market efficiency does aligned against national investment areas, reported by adequate,does not deteriorate or can be in and managing effective not deteriorate and ideally priorities and SIP cropland, rangeland and forests, sufficientlyinvestment areasstrengthened, and future SLM investments, improves. priorities. (b) against baseline data. toideally engage improves. in and for strengthening # of new or existing national programmaticNational governments SLM SLMInforms investment investment There is a good analysis Intermediate Result 2 80%coalitions of operations and one sub-regionalachieve or approachesincreasingly at have the countrypolitical frameworks.decisions in conjunction The SIP of the local incentive (2007-2010 commitment satisfactorytrans-boundary implementation coalition levelwill to that strengthen are aligned cross- resultswith results will beof availableIR1. framework, and enabling period) performanceestablished/strengthened. reviews. (g) againstsectoral national coordination priorities. through the development conditions are also being (inter-ministerial ofDonors a knowledge and domestic strengthened. Effective and inclusive Total % in hectares under SLM Advocacydialogue, decentralization, and managementstakeholders usesystem SIP and a # of knowledge products identified, International, regional and NEPAD uses information dialogue and advocacy annuallyRegional, disaggregated sub-regional, bynational country, and mainstreamingetc.) stimulate realresults time information M&E system to at Intermediate Result 4 developed, and disseminated, local information sharing to advocate for increased on SLM strategic land-usesub-national type, organizations and target area, against sufficient demand at theincreasingly national andalign regional around disaggregated by country, sub- and monitoring increase support to CAADP Pillar priorities,(2007-2010 enabling commitment baselinedemonstrate data. increased capacity for nationalCivil society and regionalparticipates levels.common dialogues and region, and regional applications. so that SIP impact and 1 and Environment Action conditions,period) and delivery SLM advocacy and demonstrate the levelin dialogue. for SLM SLM investment results can be compared Plan. mechanisms established capacity and political will to align investments against frameworks. SIP program-level M&E system against CAADP and andTargeted ongoing. knowledge their respective programs under alignedLocal stakeholders priorities. generated and agreedestablished upon and strategic pilot data priorities. collection (h) involvedUNCCD intargets. dialogue and SLMAfrican champions SLM practices, at and analysis procedures operational policies and results are disseminated; monitoring SIPin prioritizing helps achieve local goals of SIPcountry monitoring level use of by end of PY1. (i) NEPAD peer review used in international and and evaluation systems CAADPinterventions Pillar in I, alignment NEPAD biophysicalexpenditure indicatorstracking data Global Environment process is developing and regional fora to inform established and Total % change in soil quality Environmentwith national Actionpriorities. Plan, informsto help mobilize activities in Objective (2007- All SIP operations have established is effective. approaches to secure strengthened at all levels. (including carbon) in investment UNCCD NAPs/SRAPs, supportadditional of domestic CAADP Pillar 2010 commitment M&E systems within second year of ecosystem services and areas, against baseline data. (d)(j) asKnowledge well as action products plans are of I,resources NEPAD toward Environment SLM period) operation; these systems are Progress toward CAADP alleviate poverty. UNCBDmade available and UNFCCC. in a Action Plan, UNCCD reporting with verifiable and reliable Pillar 1 goals are Total % change in Net Primary format usable by NAPs/SRAPs, as well as Prevent and reduce data on programmatic indicators. (i) perceived by users of SIP National governments use Productivity (vegetation cover Becauseappropriate rainfall user variationgroups. action plans of UNCBD impact of land program level M&E. local information in enhanced with rainfall use can reasonably explain and UNFCCC. degradation on All M&E reports from SIP financed policy decisions. productivity), against baseline data. biophysical change within ecosystem functions and investment operations meet regional Actors have capacity to (j) short timeframes such as services in SIP program standards. (i) identify knowledge gaps, Donors use SIP results 3-4 years, the SIP will investment areas. (j) and deliver products that information to continue to track these All M&E reports are reporting on target appropriate increasingly adopt SIP indicators beyond PY4, progress against strategic objectives thematic areas. M&E approaches and when causality between at national, sub-regional, and share knowledge on what the intervention and regional levels. (i) Stakeholders are works and why. biophysical change may motivated to be involved be better demonstrated. M&E system reports yearly on in project-level M&E evidence of alignment in policies and reporting, and NEPAD programs at national and regional and RECs are perceived levels. (i) as sources of capacity raising on M&E.

(a) The SIP Results Framework supports the objectives of the TerrAfrica Business Planning Framework. (b) Key stakeholders include: Ministries of Agriculture, Finance and Environment; local government entities, civil society organizations, farming communities and producer organizations. (c) SIP will use a modified version of the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) to assess household variables directly related to land degradation (economic factors, access to water, land, etc). The CWIQ will be appropriately targeted to SIP investment areas, compared against carefully selected controls, and georeferenced. (d) Soil quality includes among other variables, carbon measurements. Values are based on ICRAF infrared soil spectroscopy method, which is now a fraction of cost of older methods. The carbon data will be geo-referenced along with other key biophysical and socio-economic variables that are tracked in the SIP M&E system. (e) The Composite Index tracks trends of key features of the enabling environment including policy, finance, and governance variables. (f) SLM applications will be identified by the specific operation and in the SIP Results Monitoring Manual. In addition, an indicative list of such applications are outlined in the CSIF. (g) Coalition and Knowledge Management Assessment survey tool includes basic effectiveness criteria for successful partnership building and management, plus an added module to measure dissemination and use of knowledge. (h) Based on modified version of Advocacy Index, which will include SLM communications strategies. (i) Based on modified version of M&E Score Card. (j) Because rainfall variation can reasonably explain biophysical change within short timeframes such as 3-4 years, the SIP will continue to track these indicators beyond 2010, when causality between the intervention and biophysical change may be better demonstrated. During the 2007-2010 commitment period, biophysical impact, however, cannot be determined with accuracy.

ANNEX C RESPONSE TO PROGRAM REVIEWS

Annex C.1 STAP Review of the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) STAP Reviewer: David Steeds, Independent Consultant

SIP is a vast “program” that would ultimately finance very many “projects” that will likely include activities in all of the areas eligible for support under the Operational Program on Sustainable Land Management (OP#15). Although the standard terms of reference for technical review of a GEF investment project are not readily applicable to this case, where none of the individual projects to be financed by the program has yet been designed, the same format will nonetheless be used for this review.

A. Scientific and Technical Soundness

The SIP is a financing mechanism, for which reasonable eligibility criteria have been set up. The scientific and technical soundness of the individual projects to be funded will be determined in due course, as those projects are designed and appraised.

1. Country Sustainable Land Management Investment Frameworks (CSIFs) (reference section B 4.1.1 and Annex 5)

In advocating use of the CSIF instrument, we should be mindful of the poor quality of the national action plans (NAP) that were produced in the context of the desertification convention. Very likely, many of the same people will be involved in CSIFs. Annex 6 provides very detailed guidelines on how to prepare a CSIF, perhaps inspired by an assessment of why the NAPs were so poor. If so, the main report should say so -- to counteract report-writing fatigue -- and insist that a CSIF is to be based largely on existing material, and should not exceed 20 pages. Since the pilots in Burkina, Ethiopia and Namibia did not use CSIF, we do not yet have any examples of good CSIFs that were produced at reasonable cost within the proposed 6-9 month time frame. The CSIF should therefore be presented as an instrument that is based on past experience but that is still to be tested, which will be treated as an evolving tool and amended as experience warrants.

The CSIF is to include “a basic economic assessment of the interventions offering the greatest returns” (reference section B 4.1.2) A common problem, with the possible exception of South Africa, will be the dearth of information on results of past interventions. This problem was encountered in doing the success stories paper with Chris Reij (footnote 40) when we were very disappointed at how difficult it was to get good results data. We subsequently came across UNEP’s report on Success Stories in Desertification but there too good data were rare despite considerable effort. Not too much should be expected from an “economic assessment of ….. greatest returns”. In order to keep expectations realistic, the report should specify what is being sought.

2. Inorganic Fertilizers (reference section B 4.1.2 Table D, annexes 5 and 7))

The diagnosis rightly draws attention to stagnant crop productivity. Possible interventions are indicated at annexes 5 and 7 where the general impression is that low external input agriculture is the preferred technical option. But there will not be any dramatic improvement in crop yields without a lot of fertilizer, and this will have to be mainly in chemical form since the availability of organics is limited. As stated in IFAD’s Rural Poverty Report 2001 (page 7):

Land/water technology should aim at outcomes attractive to farmers by links with varieties fertilized for sustainably higher and more profitable yields -- not, in most cases, with ‘low-external-input’ farming ………Often, especially in West Africa, chemical fertilizers, better germplasm and humus enrichment by natural manures, though presented as rivals, are complements in sustainable small farming.

The report should not shy away from this reality and, at the very least, should refer in table D to “judicious use of all forms of fertilizer” at 1.3, and “promoting competitive fertilizer distribution systems” as a new point under 2.6.

3. Farmer Field Schools (reference section A 1.2.1)

Farmer field schools (FFS) are noted as a success, also at several points in the annexes. Such schools were developed in the 1990s, initially in Indonesia, to promote uptake of sustainable production methods and in particular integrated pest management aimed at minimizing pesticide use. The fiscal sustainability of such schools was first challenged by the work of Quizon, Feder and Murgai (JIAEE, Spring 2001) and, just as for the earlier Training and Visit approach to extension, a substantial and somewhat partisan literature has developed. This has recently been summarized by Kristin Davis of IFPRI (JIAEE, Spring 2006) who concludes:

Even though [FFS] is being aggressively promoted by donors, governments, and non-governmental organizations as the next best thing in extension ………what is needed is not a “one size fits all” approach, but rather local solutions for local problems.

The report should take heed of Davis’ reservations on the utility of FFS.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation (reference section C 2 and annex 3)

A lot of thought has already been put into monitoring and evaluation, but it would be worth bearing in mind two old adages: keep it simple, and, the best is the enemy of the good. For instance, while the score card seems to be a low-cost tool that will be of direct use to project staff, the advocacy index needs further work and can be improved through learning-by-doing.. In addition, the index for the enabling environment should be tested thoroughly in order to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs. In general, the annex provides very detailed guidelines that give the impression of being overly prescriptive. This impression could be avoided by indicating what is mandatory and then stressing, both in the annex and in the main text, which guidelines are intended as menus from which users are invited to be selective.

5. Administrative Complexity (reference section C 1)

As an innovative mechanism for funding sustainable land management with very many interested parties, the SIP appears to be administratively complex. This is, in fact, not so. The only new entity is the Steering Committee which is not an executive body, but is to provide upstream advice to countries to develop operations that meet the SIP requirements. The impression of complexity could perhaps be avoided by presenting the administrative arrangements in a diagram, highlighting what is new.

The report cites the Black Sea-Danube regional program, for example, as a model of regional collaboration. It would be useful if the report could include, preferably in the form of quotes from key stakeholders, reasons why those member countries found collaboration worthwhile. As it stands, the

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 38 justification for a partnership approach (section A 2) is rather belaboured and would benefit from a narrower focus on the critical points. Table A contains the main points and would suffice with a brief introduction.

6. Incremental Cost Analysis (reference annex 2)

An orthodox incremental cost analysis cannot be undertaken until the content of the specific projects is known. What is included in annex 2 is a conceptual approach to the problem, presented as a typology for assessing incremental costs related to the four SIP intermediate results. This has the benefit of providing to people who will be drafting specific investment proposals illustrations of how to think about eligible incremental costs. This is as far as anybody can go at present.

B. Identification of the Global Environmental Benefits

The report points to delivery of benefits to other GEF focal areas and contains a helpful table, somewhat hidden in attachment 3 to annex 5, listing sustainable land management categories and practices, and specifying synergies with the GEF focal areas. The report also points to transboundary benefits that will arise from improved management of shared land and water resources. The report refers to ecosystem function benefits, although not very persuasively. Perhaps this reflects the ongoing discussion of what constitutes quantifiable global environmental benefits, that may become clearer after GEF consideration of the recent Niemeijer and Moran report.

The annex (7) on examples of potential SIP operations will be very important in providing guidance on what, concretely, can be financed under the incremental cost provision. This annex is still being refined, going beyond the examples provided in the 12/03 note on OP#15 and drawing on the case law that has been established in the last few years. Meantime, ample illustrations of activities that could be financed by SIP are provided in attachment 3 to annex 5, although all references to credit should be removed (there are two such references in 1.5 and maybe elsewhere). Quite apart from the problems of providing credit equitably and efficiently, matching grants should be the preferred way of providing incentives for adoption of sustainable land management practices. If such practices were creditworthy, they would not qualify for SIP funding.

C. Fit within the context of the Goals of the GEF

The report provides a detailed description of how the project fits within the goals of the GEF, as well as its operational strategies, program priorities, GEF Council guidance, and the provisions of the relevant conventions.

D. Regional Context

The program intends to cover much of Sub-Saharan Africa, and to be implemented in the context of NEPAD’s established frameworks for a Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the Action Plan for the Environment Initiative (EAP). The program will provide support to the sustainable land management dimensions of CAADP and EAP, covering cropland, woodlands, and rangelands, and by bringing GEF resources to bear will help catalyze investments to scale up activities all across Sub-Saharan Africa. The program emphasizes monitoring and evaluation and learning, with dissemination, which are proven areas of strength of NEPAD.

E. Replicability

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 39 The program is based, in part, on existing, successful regional programs and, in a sense, represents a scaling up of those programs. The scope for further regional replication of this program is therefore very limited, perhaps to the Andean countries as a group, or the Caribbean.

Concerning the replicability of the actual investments to be financed by this program, the report rightly draws attention to dissemination. In practice, all too often dissemination gets shortchanged. Each individual project to be financed should have a dissemination budget line item that is non-fungible. Successes will not otherwise get to be known beyond the local level, which has been a common characteristic of previous projects. Where dissemination was funded, for instance, for farmer-to-farmer exchanges by bus between central Niger and central Burkina Faso concerning recuperation of severely degraded land by stone bunding and planting pits, the results have been spectacular -- although limited in area, since the funding was very modest. SIP can make a big difference here, by insisting on adequate dissemination funding: the amounts needed will be quite small in relation to total project costs and potential benefits.

More generally, the report views replication as a critical element in the strategy for scaling up sustainable land management. Replication will be furthered by a harmonized M&E system that will facilitate the identification of lessons and good practices. Stakeholder participation will also be important in that the program fosters replicability by financing what has worked on the ground, as determined by country stakeholders themselves. And reliance on regional networks and processes as orchestrated by NEPAD will also enable dissemination and further replication. Thus replicability is a core feature of the whole program.

F. Sustainability

One of the premises underlying the program is that, while specific success stories can be identified in Africa, the overall record on sustainable land management is disappointing and that a new approach -- now embedded in this program -- is needed. If this program succeeds, it is highly likely that a follow-up program will be approved. In this broad sense, sustainability of the whole program will be assured, as success begets success.

Sustainability of the individual projects to be financed by this program will depend on the features designed into those investments. In general, however, it can be surmised that the incremental GEFable cost of sustainable land management operations will be small. It follows that, provided the non- GEFable components can be made sustainable, which is likely to happen if they are financially profitable, then the sustainability of the small GEFable components will be manageable.

Sustainability of the intermediate results of SIP or of the components of CSIFs will be assured by building sustainability principles into CSIF formulation. These principles include early involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, whereby ownership can be inculcated. This will facilitate prioritizing investments in a transparent fashion, improving the environment for investment through informed participation in the political process, leading to increased and hopefully more efficient public expenditure on sustainable land management. In these ways, an intermediate result such as “activities on the ground are scaled-up in country-defined priority agroecological zones” is likely to be sustainable because there will be many stakeholders with vested interests in it.

G. Secondary Issues

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 40 Linkages to other focal areas and to other programs and action plans at regional or subregional level

This program is intimately linked to the other focal areas and conventions, since effective sustainable land management is necessarily multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional. Linkages to other programs and action plans at regional level have been designed into this program and will be further developed in the context of NEPAD’s CAADP and EAP.

Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects

Possible other beneficial or damaging environmental effects can only be identified at the level of the individual projects that the program will finance. Since the selection criteria are sound, and sustainable land management is an environmentally benign set of activities, damaging environmental effects are highly unlikely.

Degree of involvement of stakeholders and capacity building aspects

SIP has a complex agenda and there are consequently very many stakeholders in this program, including at regional, national, and local levels. Within countries, stakeholder participation is designed into CSIF formulation, which provides the framework for the individual projects to be undertaken including how stakeholders will be expected to participate in design and implementation of such investments. All such individual projects will have provisions for stakeholder participation through an iterative approach, including dialogue, collective analysis, action, and participatory monitoring for feedback and learning. This is to be expressed in a Stakeholder Participation Plan, for which a helpful template is provided in annex 6. At the regional level, most stakeholders will participate via knowledge generation and transfer between projects as well as in participatory M and E that aggregates up to regional level. The NEPAD peer review processes will also be an important pathway for knowledge transfer to and from the regional program level.

Capacity building is one of the subsets of projects that may be financed, and this will be addressed in formulating each country’s CSIF in light of national circumstances.

Innovativeness

The program is innovative for Africa. But by building on successful regional programs undertaken elsewhere, it is not an entirely high-risk innovative enterprise.

Note: On an editorial point, TerrAfrica is mentioned in many places but it is difficult to get a grasp on what it is and how SIP relates to it. A brief description would be welcome.

Annex C.2 Response to STAP Review of the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP)

Comments:

A. Scientific and Technical Soundness 1. Country Sustainable Land Management Investment Frameworks (CSIFs)

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 41 Response: The CSIF is designed as a flexible tool to guide country engagement at the operational level. It is intended to help alignment and harmonization of very diverse actors (national stakeholders, international donors and other partners) toward the same vision and operational roadmap, while linking diagnostic, prioritization of actions, financing mechanisms and M&E. In this regard, it is very complementary to most of the NAPs. The new insert in the main text (Box 2) illustrates how the CSIF is different from the NAP yet builds on the good work present in certain NAPs and other national planning processes. The CSIF guidance does state that it should use current material as well as proceed with a gap analysis, and as the CSIF evolves, strengthened by new knowledge and experience (from within and outside the country). On page length, there is no prescription.

We agree that economic aspects are not easy to ascertain; at the same time, profitability of technologies and best-bet options for scale up should be looked at during the investment prioritization process. We have changed the text in the Program Brief and CSIF annex 5 to read: “a basic assessment (including economic returns where possible, possibility for quick wins, etc.) of the interventions offering the greatest benefits.”

We would like to clarify that the diagnostic work that will underpin the investment prioritization process of a CSIF will depend on country capacities and availability of existing information. Not all CSIFs “require” an economic assessment of proposed or existing interventions. As the CSIF evolves, partners will fill in what are considered key knowledge gaps.

2. Inorganic Fertilizers

Response: We believe that flexible fertilizer use and competitive distribution systems are already accommodated in the Program Brief main text in table D in item 3.3: “Strengthening input suppliers (seeds, tools, seedlings, fertilizers, etc.).” The CSIF tables of activities in Annex 5 are the same as Table D in the main text.

3. Farmer Field Schools

Response: Point taken. UNDP in particular takes good note of the STAP comments, and will make sure that during the preparation of the project, the concerns of the STAP member are addressed by the project preparation team. We concur in principle that GEF projects should be at the front edge of the state of the art, and should ensure full sustainability and replicability of actions. Furthermore, UNDP believes that GEF projects should adapt promising ideas, such as the FFS, to each context, so as to ensure that there are local solutions for local problems.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation

Response: As the M&E tools are fine tuned in the coming months when the full M&E manual is prepared, the variables to measure the proposed indices will be streamlined based on additional consultations. Later, the regional M&E desk will work with the beneficiary countries to assess which elements are best applied across the board, which are mandatory or are best carried out using well designed sampling strategies (such as the CWIQ tool).

5. Administrative complexity and regional dimensions

Response:This comment seems to mainly refer to the regional level, where SIP implementation is actually designed to be lean, non-duplicative, and fully embedded into existing NEPAD implementation structures (ie, CAADP and EAP) that support advocacy and overall reporting

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 42 capacity. At country level, SIP is implemented via a portfolio of operations that each rely on discrete country-defined operational arrangement. The Steering Committee is a subgroup that will be linked to the TerrAfrica Executive Committee, to ensure strong cross-fertilization, transparency and effective feedback loops. We have updated Figure 3 in section C1.

Section A2 addresses the value-added of the SIP approach which is both regional and based on partnership. This approach aims to catalyze the shift in business as usual that is needed to finally make progress on the land agenda. It is felt that this section therefore required elaboration, although we have now streamlined the text.

In response to the point about the Danube as a model of regional collaboration, this is documented in the package sent to GEF Council as part of the second tranche of the Strategic Partnership for the Danube/Black Sea Basin in 2002.

We have inserted the following text into the Executive Summary and the section on SIP Programming Framework in the Program Brief (section A2, para 59):

In response, a regional partnership program approach will have a number of strategic advantages over business-as- usual in Sub-Saharan Africa. First, a regional approach provides a vehicle for focusing individual country investments and supra-national bodies on shared objectives whether regional, subregional, or transboundary. Second, it builds a coherent body of knowledge and provides the vehicle to transfer it across borders and to decision makers, allowing for cross-country comparison, and leveraging Africa’s existing peer review processes and advocacy. Third, it provides a strong mechanism for cooperating with a wider array of potential donors and other types of partners and to help align their efforts around a common goal and vision across sectors. This signals a very well structured and special effort conducive to alignment, compared to piecemeal approaches such as first-come first-served. Fourth, it further strengthens African leadership and advocacy on the land agenda and provides an operational linkage across the subregions that will support ongoing efforts at African integration. Fifth, there are cost savings best realized through a regional approach: transaction costs are reduced for countries and donor agencies alike as expectations and goals are more transparent, and economies of scale are harnessed as replication ramps up, knowledge/experience is disseminated, and bureaucratic burdens are reduced. Sixth, a programmatic partnership approach reinforces the commitments made by donors and countries (including stakeholders at farmer and civil society levels) around a common, comprehensive agenda.

6. Incremental Cost Analysis

Response: Currently the costs are presented in percentage terms, which will be translated into concrete dollar amounts once the envelope is confirmed.

B. Global Environment

Response: Section A1 has now been strengthened with significant additions and changes to the ecosystem services discussion. The global benefits section likewise now includes a reference back to section A1, to avoid duplication.

On Annex 7, SIP operations, specifically the use of credits for SLM

Response: Additional levels of concession in the credit will be an affordable option to work at larger scale than would otherwise be possible.

E. Replicability

Response: The primary objective is not to replicate the SIP to other regions; rather, the SLM activities are meant to replicated in SSA by using SIP to catalyze upscaling, guided by country priorities and

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 43 supported by the TerrAfrica platform to drive/assist via its knowledge base and global partnership, etc.

Re: “insisting on adequate dissemination funding.” Each SIP operation is required to have a replication strategy which includes a dissemination plan. We will add a requirement for a budget line for each SIP operation.

Note: On an editorial point, TerrAfrica is mentioned in many places but it is difficult to get a grasp on what it is and how SIP relates to it. A brief description would be welcome.

Response: Specific new passages have since been added throughout the Program Brief main text and in particular in section A1. Also, it is worth noting that the Implementation Arrangements section (C1) includes detailed discussion on linkage with TerrAfrica governance, noting that NEPAD will serve as the liaison and representative between the TerrAfrica Executive Committee and the SIP Steering Committee (which NEPAD chairs).

Annex C.3 Response to GEF Secretariat Comments

GEFSEC Comments on September 2006 submission

14 Oct 2006: Following informal upstream consultations with GEFSEC on September 19, 2006 it will be important to have an indication of dialogue with initial participating countries and their initial commitments to SIP.

Response: Dialogues have been carried out by agencies and documented in letters received by governments. In addition, two regional workshops, a regional technical review, sectoral and environmental Ministerial conferences, and lastly, a Ministerial Conference convened by AMCEN on the SIP (24-25 April 2007, hosted by Burkina Faso) have all clearly stated support for the SIP. The latter Conference has also produced a detailed Ministerial Declaration outlining African country commitments. All of this is now detailed in the SIP documents submitted to Council.

14 Oct 2006: Please present a clearer process for countries to engage in the SIP from the beginning to the end. A more direct flow chart might help. The current presentation in boxes is confusing.

Response: The presentation has been updated in response to this request; see figure 1 of the Executive Summary.

14 Oct 2006: The stakeholder involvement plan presented is adequate but there is need to document dialogue at country level and how country commitments for SIP engagement have been obtained.

Response: The portfolio presentation in Annex 7 of the full Program Brief includes summaries of country engagements along with project descriptions. In addition, the Ministerial Declaration that arose from the 24-25 Conference on SIP in Burkina Faso, clearly requests GEF Council to support the SIP. Not all countries at the conference are beneficiaries under the SIP yet have demonstrated buy-in to a regional programmatic approach to reinforce African leadership on the agenda, mutual learning, a stronger more efficient GEF, and other added value outlined in table 1 of the Executive Summary.

14 Oct 2006: It is important to indicate clearly the current commitments from all collaborators and stakeholders and initial participating countries.

Response: Please see the updated discussion on Core Commitments and Linkages in paras 53 and 54 of the Executive Summary. In addition, the Ministerial Conference on the SIP, held in Burkina Faso 24-25 April 2007, resulted in two Declarations – one from a majority of African Environment Ministers, and a Partner Declaration. Together, these declarations demonstrate a high level two way commitment to the SIP, to the SLM agenda, and to the TerrAfrica platform. This is detailed at country level by letters of support received from beneficiary countries.

GEFSEC Comments on March 2007 submission

From the Review Sheet dated 30 April 2007

There is need to anchor development of the SIP in GEF experience from implementing activities under OP 15 especially - GEF/PRC Partnership - CPP in Central Asia and Africa - NEPAD Environment Action Plan Implementation - LDC/SIDS project - Council has already approved these other activities and will provide better rationale for SIP and the TerrAfrica platform.

Response: This is now reflected in the Executive Summary in para 4.

The country engagements foreseen in SIP need better justification to allay fears of those countries who are not included at this time. This could be based on GEF activities which have been implemented in many countries in Africa some of which are still ongoing and some are just beginning. LDC/SIDS project has confirmed that countries are at different levels of development and will need to be treated individually.

Response: The portfolio presentation in Annex 7 of the full Program Brief includes summaries of country engagements along with project descriptions. In addition, the Ministerial Declaration that arose from the 24-25 Conference on SIP in Burkina Faso, clearly requests GEF Council to support the SIP (see Annex E). Not all countries at the conference are beneficiaries under the SIP, yet have demonstrated buy-in to a regional programmatic approach to reinforce African leadership on the agenda, mutual learning, a stronger and more efficient GEF, and other added value outlined in table 1 of the Executive Summary.

There is need for clearer presentation on what is being requested of council in this part of the program - the next four years as opposed to the 12 year program period.

Response: This has been addressed throughout the SIP resubmission package. In particular please see para 3 of the Executive Summary:

GEF Council is asked to approve the SIP’s programmatic framework and an accompanying portfolio of planned activities to be initiated in 2007-2010, amounting to an overall envelope of $150 million under GEF-4.

The strategic priorities for GEF 4 are close to finalization and it will be important to harmonize the results framework with these priorities in order to have common indicators of progress and expected impact of the program.

Response: SIP partner agencies are actively participating in developing the emerging GEF land degradation strategy. The current Strategic Objectives are very closely aligned with the SIP results framework. Also, the SIP M&E chapters in both the Executive Summary (paras 43-45) and Program

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 45 Brief now include discussion of the need to align M&E frameworks and indicators under preparation by various partners.

There are various editorial details that will need clarification during the bilateral discussions with the GEF

Response: Activity and editorial details have been addressed in full.

The GEF Secretariat would like to request a full environmental assessment of Fadama III project in accordance with requirements of The Bank.

Response: Environmental safeguarding is part of normal World Bank procedures.

From the bilateral meeting held on April 16, 2007

Document needs to:  modify section 1.3 (“Results and outcomes”) into “results, outcomes, impacts and indicators and state clearly the expected impacts of the program as described in the results framework.  present of expected outcomes of individual projects under the SIP  present ranges for GEF funding for those projects that have not identified a clear scope.

Response:  GEFSEC’s point refers to the Executive Summary, and this recommendation has been incorporated.  In the description of each GEF operation in the SIP portfolio presented in Annex 7, outcomes are listed with specific linkage to SIP intermediate results and estimated percentage of financing that targets these results.  The following has been inserted in the introduction of the long portfolio in Annex 7 and the abridged portfolio presented in Annex D of the Executive Summary: “Each operation would be eligible to access the grant amount shown in the matrix if the full final project document meets GEF and SIP requirements.”

A disbursement plan for the US$150 million should be presented so Council is aware of the magnitude and mechanics of the program (e.g. PIFs for the projects will be sent to GEF Sec on a rolling basis; all projects come for endorsement 22months after the PIF approval)

Response: Para 49 of the Executive Summary covers the issue:

“Individual PIFs with PPGs will be submitted to the GEF Secretariat on a rolling basis and will include a draft results framework compliant with SIP M&E arrangements. The GEF Secretariat will review each proposal within 10 working days and will consult with the lead agency. The final project documents will be submitted on a rolling basis for Secretariat review, followed by a three-week review by Council, and finally GEF CEO endorsement and web posting. The cycle for SIP operations will follow the GEF project cycle as approved by Council in June 2007.”

The SIP model is unique and not comparable with the IW investment fund model. All reference to the IW model should be taken out.

Response: This has been done.

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 46 The document should state that countries need to commit resources to projects through national sector budgets.

Response: Para 47 of the Executive Summary states: “Financing for activities implemented under the SIP framework will come from countries’ domestic and international sources as well as from the GEF SIP envelope.”

Presentation of the projects by type and associated indicators should help clarifying why these projects are part of the SIP.

Response: The document presents the operations in the context of country engagements, not by project type. The SIP aims to catalyze an agenda-driven approach, not a project- driven approach. Indicators are clearly part of the results framework, and specific results are included for each GEF operation in Annex 7 of the Program Brief.

Any notion of a 12-year period for the SIP should be taken out – SIP is primarily a GEF program and Council cannot commit the GEF beyond a replenishment period;

Response: This has been done. The documentation has never requested Council to finance SIP beyond GEF4.

The US$150million for the SIP will be presented as the overall envelop for the SIP, including IA fee. GEF financing for individual projects under the SIP will be re-confirmed at PIF stage based on the presentation of the expected GEB, and the expected baseline (for national benefits).

Response: Agreed, no change.

All projects under the SIP will follow the new GEF project cycle proposed to and approved by the GEF Council (expedited procedure for project proposals under a program); project cycle for the projects will be explained in detail under the Financing Modality section so Council has a transparent picture what will be approved in terms of the mechanics of the SIP.

Response: Comment refers to Executive Summary and has been incorporated (paras 49-50).

Under the Steering Committee section, there will be a section added that states WB and GEF Sec will organize an annual meeting with all SIP parties to monitor progress of the program implementation and if necessary, propose corrective measures for projects which are not performing.

Response: This is in the Program Brief and Executive Summary (paras 59-60 of Executive Summary).

All reference to the Operational Program 15 have to be deleted in the document – OP15 is replaced by the emerging land degradation focal area strategy.

Response: This has been done.

Concerns related to the proposed Fadama III project were raised; since the project needs to demonstrate the fit with the merging strategy, more detailed discussions should take place once the PIF has been submitted.

Response: Yes, as with all SIP operations. See response to review sheet above on Fadama III.

Annex 7 should be reworked to make it more readable and informative; e.g. for projects that have already more information, two examples are provided in the Executive Summary and the program Brief so Council has an idea what to expect, preferably one sample by project type;

Response: The presentation of Program Brief Annex 7 (detailed portfolio) and also Executive Summary Annex D (abridged portfolio) follows intense consultations over the past four months between GEFSEC, the World Bank, and a very responsive Steering Committee (all agencies plus NEPAD). The current presentations of the portfolios follow GEFSEC guidance directly.

As for examples, there are a few points to make:  Summaries of country engagements are given for every country in Executive Summary Annex D  Comprehensive details of engagements and operations are given for every country in Program Brief Annex 7  Examples of country engagements and operations are distributed throughout the Executive Summary text, most notably in para 25: “There are three types of operations that may be co-financed by the GEF SIP….”  Two very detailed examples are in the Program Brief in section B5, para 151: Below are two examples from the portfolio which illustrate the first two types of SIP operations: (i) the programmatic approach being kick-started in Niger by a coordinated triad of SIP investments by IFAD, UNDP, and World Bank and (ii) the Ethiopia Country Program being implemented by the World Bank.

ANNEX D ABRIDGED SIP PORTFOLIO (see Annex 7 of Program Brief for full details)

Mobilizing GEF in line with agreed strategic principles, objectives and expected results

Each operation under the SIP umbrella will be developed on the basis of country dialogues, GEF and agency comparative advantage, SIP objectives and expected results, and country- led joint work programming. Project Information Forms and full project documents to be submitted provide opportunities for Council and GEFSEC to provide feedback and ensure that discrete operations are contributing to the Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy. Each operation will be integrated into the overall SLM programmatic vision of the country, relying on the collective support and efforts of other agencies and partners. Where more than one GEF-SIP supported operation occurs in the same country, a lead agency has been agreed upon to coordinate GEF-SIP activities. For example, UNDP will be leading in Niger, in partnership with IFAD and the WB, to establish a more programmatic and coordinated approach to GEF mobilization than has been the case until now. IFAD will be leading in Eritrea.

Alignment will result in greater efficiencies and effectiveness of GEF mobilization at country-level, while on-going sectoral investments will be better equipped to prevent, stop and reverse land degradation, thereby improving natural resource productivity and sustainability. The SIP portfolio of operations will be responsive to evolving situations in participating countries, the region, and on the international stage. It promotes synergies between international, regional, and national processes while applying the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity. Each individual participating country will be able to feed knowledge, policies and plans into the broader regional partnership, to facilitate and enhance dialogue and the sharing of good practices across countries and subregions.

TerrAfrica is a platform for joint action. It emphasizes African-led cooperation supported by improved alignment of donors and sectors at country level around programmatic approaches that target key barriers and bottlenecks in the enabling environment important for SLM upscaling throughout SSA. With support from the TerrAfrica partnership, the SIP is a vehicle that can leverage GEF’s resources in support of a strategic, interagency portfolio of complementary operations designed to support this agenda, in accordance with existing African priorities, initiatives, and implementation processes.

The 2007 – 2010 portfolio

The portfolio of operations intended to be developed between 2007 and 2010 is provided below, summarized in matrix form. The matrix illustrates how the GEF can engage in forward planning in support of multi-donor engagement to strategically and programmatically amplify its catalytic role and impact in specific country and regional settings compared to business as usual. Each operation would be eligible to access up to the GEF grant amount indicated in the matrix below after confirmation that the GEF and SIP requirements have been met at the PIF stage.

There are three types of intervention that may be co-financed by the GEF under the SIP: (i) country programs, (ii) targeted investments, and (iii) a small number of innovative regional

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 49 or multi-country operations designed to reinforce SSA countries’ SLM agendas to scale up SLM. All three aim to encourage countries to proceed along a continuum of progressively more programmatic approaches over time to support SLM upscaling in country defined priority landscapes. These three modalities are meant to be complementary across operations as well as within and across countries.

Whether country programs or targeted investments, the intended result is similar: supporting country engagement with partners in programmatic approaches that alleviate key barriers in the enabling environment that affect measurable scale up of SLM. In most cases, GEF resources will target upscaling activities on the ground only when the enabling environment is relatively conducive to sustain upscaling efforts. Through this, the portfolio’s impact will be to help secure the ecosystem services upon which Africa’s rural land users and the global environment both depend.

(i) Country Programs. Countries that can already count upon a strong track record of successful SLM investments leading to results in the field and institutions that have the capacity to implement larger scale and broader interventions, can prepare a full-scale SLM country program. In most cases, a Country SLM Investment Framework will be the main tool for alignment, ideally including donors outside the GEF. The country program modality focuses on institutional development, policy reforms, coalition building, knowledge management, M&E, capacity building, and other elements that are needed to enable the country to lead a national program to upscale SLM. A number of additional considerations would guide the decision to engage in a country program, including: SLM in the PRSP, willingness of donors to engage, a willingness by the government to engage in a full CSIF (or equivalent) via a multi-stakeholder, multipartner process, and significant financial resources pledged by the government toward the country program.

(ii) Targeted Investments support a country to pursue a progressively more programmatic approach to SLM over time, starting with specific geographic, sectoral, temporal, or thematic entry points prioritised by the country. Because not all countries are prepared to pursue a multi-sector program covering the three major land use classes, this type of SIP investment aims to support countries in building a solid foundation for a later full-scale SLM program as described above. For this reason, assistance for a targeted investment could include support for preparing a comprehensive Country SLM Investment Framework with a range of sectors, donors, and stakeholders.

(iii) Multi-country/regional investments are varied but reinforce the effectiveness and efficiency of country level programming by:

 Strengthening regional and subregional advocacy, policy dialogues, and operational alliances,  Filling key knowledge gaps and disseminating experiences throughout the region that directly support scale up on the ground,  Portfolio level M&E and related backstopping for the portfolio’s discrete operations,  Supporting transboundary coordination of shared natural resources and related coalition development as needed.

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 50 f i n E a G n Context for Agencies’ baseline s GEF-SIP c t E b . i

F n a programmatic approach activities a alternative (

U g g s g S e e r ( a $ n l U i

n n c S m m t e y $ ) )

Country investments (Note: Each operation would be eligible to access up to the GEF grant amount after confirmation that the GEF and SIP requirements have been met at the PIF stage ) Comoros National Programme for Sustainable Human 7.755 Integrated Ecological Planning and ≤ 1.0 Promoting a healthy environment in support of sustainable development has been explicitly Development (PNDHD) (IFAD) Management in Coastal Ecosystems identified by the Government of Comoros as one of seven major development axes. IFAD will (IFAD) promote and support a programmatic and integrated approach to SLM through groundwork that would contribute and lead to a full fledged country programmatic approach. Early discussions with the government on possible linkages with SIP/TerrAfrica have taken place and will be further pursued / clarified with other relevant partners in the country. Efforts towards building a programmatic SLM approach include institutional capacity building and increased environmental awareness, information dissemination and integrated SLM planning. GEF-SIP support will leverage baseline funding towards further SLM mainstreaming. Eritrea Post-Crisis Rural Recovery and Development 23.2 Catchments and Landscape 2.3 - 4.5 The Government of Eritrea has pledged its commitment to leading and facilitating a partnership Programme (PCRRDP) (IFAD) Management (IFAD) platform on SLM in co-operation with GM, IFAD, NORAD and other development partners. IFAD, the lead convening agency, and the GM are currently engaged in a dialogue to assist the UNDP n/a Securing Land tenure to Support ≤ 0.917 government in establishing the platform which will support implementation of UNCCD/NAP Sustainable Catchment Management objectives though coalition building, improving enabling conditions for SLM, and further in the Highlands of Eritrea (UNDP) mainstreaming land degradation issues into poverty reduction processes and strategies. The GEF increment will be used to leverage broader rural IFAD and UNDP programs to support the objectives of the platform by specifically addressing identified policy-related barriers to SLM. Ethiopia Various (WB/IDA) 50 Ethiopia Country Program for SLM 4.5 - 9.0 The Government of Ethiopia has committed towards developing a programmatic framework for (WB) SLM, and has undertaken important steps in this direction. GEF-SIP financing will be used strategically to support the development of a programmatic framework to promote SLM scale-up UNDP 4.5 SLM Country Program Support ≤ 0.917 and the establishment of a multi-stakeholder partnership for SLM, in line with the TerrAfrica Project (UNDP) principles and approach. Under the Ethiopia Country Program for SLM (ECPSLM), GEF-SIP resources will be primarily used for two purposes: (1) they will serve to support the national IFAD 146.4 Lake Tana Watershed Management 2.0 - 4.0 platform for SLM established by GoE; and (2) they will be used strategically by GEF IAs/EAs (IFAD) (the WB, UNDP, and IFAD) to facilitate on-the-ground SLM investments, according to each agency’s comparative advantage and specific experience in the country. The Gambia Participatory Integrated Watershed 15 Sustainable Land Management in 2.3 - 4.5 In the Gambia, land degradation and deforestation in upland watersheds is threatening local Management Project (ADB/IFAD) The Gambia (ADB) and downstream agricultural productivity and ecosystem services. GEF-SIP finance will complement the baseline AfDB, IFAD and Government investment in integrated watershed management by targeting barriers in the enabling environment for SLM, supporting on the ground activities for SLM scale-up, and strengthening commercial and advisory services. The two agencies are collaborating operationally to improve the environmental sustainability of the agriculture sector, which employs 75 percent of the population in the country. Ghana Agricultural Services Subsector Investment 30 SLM Country Program (WB) 3.7 - 7.4 The Government of Ghana has undertaken significant steps towards creating the conditions for Project II (AgSSIP II) (WB/IDA)

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 51 a programmatic approach to SLM, including the creation of an inter-ministerial working group comprising EPA, MOFA, MLFM, and the Forestry Commission to act as focal point for SLM Land Administration Project (LAP) (WB/IDA) 10 operations and to coordinate the preparation of an SLM Investment Program. Development partners are also increasingly pursuing dialogue and coordination: ten development partners Environmental Governance Project (WB/IDA) 10 have already agreed to align their development strategies and resource allocation through a Joint Assistance Strategy. GEF funding for the SLM Country Program will enable the Government and development partners to further align and scale-up their SLM activities through a programmatic approach that leverages a strong policy dialogue on SLM. Kenya Various WB investments n/a Using Farmer Field School 1.6 - 3.235 The Government has recognized the need for a programmatic framework approach to bring Approaches to Overcome Land together the various activities related to SLM and align them with national priorities based on UNDP 6 Degradation in Agro-Pastoral Areas monitoring of outcomes and analysis of effectiveness, in order to better target investments. The of Kenya (UNDP) Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) is currently seeking to enhance its FAO n/a strategic focus on policy and coordination and has requested the WB to assist it to facilitate the Promoting public-private ≤ 0.917 development and implementation of a roadmap towards a country program with an SLM partnerships in sustainable Investment Framework. This process would strengthen the institutions and incentives for SLM, management of natural improve coordination of ongoing and planned activities, and develop and implement a resources for sustainable energy nationwide M&E and knowledge management system. The GEF-SIP will add value through a production and poverty alleviation joint UNDP/FAO operation, which seek to scale up SLM via a farmer field schools approach. in the Arid Lands of Kenya (UNDP)

Lesotho Various Development Partners 45 Capacity Building and Knowledge ≤ 0.917 The Government of Lesotho is expecting to participate actively in the emerging TerrAfrica Management for Sustainable Land partnership in order to scale up SLM. It has started mobilizing key stakeholders to facilitate a Management in Lesotho (UNDP) national dialogue, and is committed to producing a country SLM investment framework, with the technical and financial assistance of development partners, led by UNDP. GEF financing will help to provide the foundation for this process by helping to equip national and local actors with the techniques, capacity and strategies for upscaling SLM. Madagascar Irrigation and Watershed Management 30 Irrigation and Watershed 3.0 - 5.9 In Madagascar GEF-SIP support will be channeled through two GEF agencies cooperating Program (WB/IDA) Management (WB) under TerrAfrica, UNDP and the WB, together promoting a strategically complementary package of investment designed to catalyze SLM scale up, build operational alliances, and UNDP 4.5 Stabilizing Rural Populations ≤ 0.917 improve enabling environments. The WB is focusing on the upland watersheds linked to priority through the Identification of production zones, while UNDP activities are focused on identifying further agroecological zones Systems for Sustainable that can benefit from improved local governance and SLM upscaling. Management and Local Governance of Lands in Southern Madagascar (UNDP) Malawi Agriculture sector program (WB/IDA) 15 Community-based SLM for 2.9 - 5.8 In Malawi, GEF grants channeled via the WB and UNDP under the SIP framework will catalyze (plus Smallholders (WB) an emerging programmatic approach to SLM in the country. This programmatic approach will DPs) be centered on a multi-donor Agriculture sector program being convened by the Government Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods, and Agricultural Mainstreaming SLM and Climate 1.2 - 2.25 and the WB in line with the NEPAD/CAADP process unfolding in the country. GEF support, led Development (WB/IDA) Adaptation in the Shire River Basin by the Bank, will inform policy dialogue via the agriculture sector intervention, and will also (UNDP) secure gains for farming communities to increase productivity, vegetation cover, soil organic matter, better adapt communities’ cropping systems to climate change and avoid extensification into rangelands and woodlands, thereby helping achieve the objectives of the UNCCD NAP.

Mali Rural Sector Program: Support Services and 50 Managing Land to Secure 3.2 - 6.3 Malian ecosystems are continuing to be degraded, negatively impacting environmental services, Producers Organizations (WB/IDA) Ecosystem Services for Farmers poverty alleviation, economic growth, and food security. The UNCCD NAP highlights specific and Pastoralists (WB) impacts from land degradation in priority areas such as reduced crop yields and/or carrying capacity of grazing land. To achieve Mali’s objectives in the NAP and other related national Integrated Management of Cotton 1.2 - 2.303 strategies, momentum must be sustained to align sectors and stakeholders around a country- Production Landscapes (UNDP) led programmatic approach to SLM scale up in the country. Additional GEF support will help catalyze this shift by leveraging WB and UNDP programs, in coordination with other donors and various stakeholders, including TerrAfrica partners such as NEPAD. GEF support under TerrAfrica/SIP will be instrumental in allowing the country to move to a longer-term, larger scale programmatic approach with Government leadership, deep stakeholder involvement, and sectoral/donor alignment. Mauritania Oasis Sustainable Development Programme, 34 Promoting Sustainable Land 2.2 - 4.35 Recent institutional reforms creating a new State Ministry in charge of Environment offer new etc. (IFAD) Management in the Oasis opportunities to better integrate environment into holistic cross-sectoral approaches, and to Ecosystems of Mauritania (IFAD) improve coordination and harmonization of SLM in sector policies in line with the TerrAfrica/SIP Maghama Improved Flood Recession Farming 11.5 approach. The underlying principles for the development of a programmatic approach to SLM Project Phase II were discussed with the Government during a recent IFAD mission. Discussions are at early stage but a possibility would be to support integrated SLM investments through the Poverty Reduction Project in Aftout South 22.93 development of a preliminarily CSIF. The full fledged CSIF will lead to the establishment of a and Karakoro multi-stakeholder partnership for SLM as per the TerrAfrica/SIP principles and approach. The proposed GEF alternative will support this process by helping to establish the enabling environment for mainstreaming SLM. This includes the creation of an appropriate institutional set-up that will monitor the coordination, harmonization and planning of SLM related activities. Mozambique UNDP: various initiatives in support of the 2 Reducing land degradation through ≤ 0.917 The Government of Mozambique has acknowledged the need for a programmatic approach to SLM agenda integrated conservation farming in SLM. The agricultural sector development program is in the process of rationalizing donor northern Mozambique (UNDP) support, improving the effectiveness of public services and regulation, and addressing issues of land tenure and marketing. A dialogue has been initiated to develop and implement a National Framework for SLM Investments, supported by GEF-SIP, which will systemize mainstreaming of SLM into national policies and programmes as well as harmonize and coordinate present and future investments in sustainable land management in the country. Niger Community Action Program (CAP) (WB/IDA) 35 Oasis Micro-Basin Sand Invasion 1.0 - 1.93 1. Key development partners in Niger have agreed to increase coordination and investment in Control in the Gouré and Maïne SLM by supporting the establishment of a national platform for SLM, with UNDP acting as lead Regions, Niger (UNDP) partner to best leverage the added value of the TerrAfrica partnership. The objective is to adopt SLM strategies and programmatic approaches to contribute to improved conditions of poor Rural and Social Sector Policy Reform 30 Community Driven SLM for 2.5 - 5.0 populations and the terrestrial ecosystem services upon which they depend. The GEF-SIP Program phases 1-3 (WB/IDA) Environmental and Food Security contribution will facilitate replication and sustainability of projects and programs in order to (WB) catalyze participatory national-level SLM programming and to create synergies between the Agricultural and Rural Rehabilitation and 34.4 national government, donors, and executing agencies. Development Initiative (ARRDI) (IFAD) Promoting community-based 2.2 - 4.35 Sustainable Land Management in the Maradi Region (IFAD) Nigeria Fadama III, CDD (WB/IDA) 50+ Scaling up SLM Practice, 3.5 – 7.0 There is considerable dialogue and coordination among the development partners in Nigeria for Knowledge, and Coordination in TerrAfrica/SIP to reinforce. Given the complexity of the country, a "phased" approach to Southern Nigeria (WB) pursuing a programmatic approach to SLM is proposed. In the short-term, targeted support under the GEF-SIP will lay the groundwork for a long-term and more programmatic SLM engagement in Nigeria. The initial priority would be to focus on developing a programmatic framework in Cross River State. Lessons learned from this process will inform the institutional structures needed for a full national SLM program.

Senegal Agricultural Services and Producer 20 Securing Ecosystem Services from 2.5 - 5.0 Momentum is building in Senegal to align sectors and donors around a shared programmatic Organizations 2 (PSAOP-2) (WB/IDA) the Land: Scaling up SLM and approach to upscaling SLM in the country. NEPAD, the GM-UNCCD, UNDP and the WB are all Mitigating Climate Risk (WB) seeking ways to align on the SLM agenda. The GEF, via UNDP and WB investments and Agricultural Markets and Agribusiness n/a experience in the country, is well placed to catalyze this shift toward a programmatic approach. Development Project (PDMAS) (WB/IDA) Senegal Micro-Irrigation (UNDP) ≤ 0.917 GEF-SIP support will leverage baseline funding, and building on recent analytical work carried out by Senegal’s Centre du Suivi Ecologique, the WB, and by other development partners. Such Integrated Ecosystem Management in Four n/a Integrated Ecosystem Management 1.9 - 3.64 work is building a body of evidence that scaling up SLM helps enable agro-ecosystems to Representative Landscapes (UNDP) in Four Representative Landscapes contribute sustainable returns to Senegal’s natural wealth. (UNDP)

South Africa Support to Environment and Sustainable 25 Piloting Sustainable Land 1.4 - 2.75 The Government of South Africa country has acknowledged the need to develop a Land Management in South Africa (UNDP) Management in South Africa (UNDP) programmatic approach to SLM and has officially expressed interest in engaging in the TerrAfrica partnership. As such, a dialogue on SLM has been initiated with a wide range of key development partners. GEF-SIP financing will be used strategically to support the development of a programmatic framework for SLM. It will also be used to leverage UNDP operations to help remove policy, capacity and other systemic barriers to SLM adoption and to identify innovation at field level. Sudan Poverty Alleviation- oriented Governance in 4.3 Sustainable Land Management for ≤ 0.917 Land degradation and loss of ecosystem’s provisioning capacities has been identified as a key the Red Sea State Livelihood Security in Eastern underlying factor of conflict in Sudan by the Framework for Sustained Peace, Development and Sudan (UNDP) Poverty Eradication. By aligning the GEF-SIP within the overarching goals of the Framework, which has become the road map to recovery and development, donor coordination is facilitated. UNDP has been entrusted by the government to ensure alignment on SLM related interventions, and will use GEF-SIP financing to integrate SLM practices into local development plans for sustained environmental services and improved livelihood conditions in East Sudan. Swaziland Lower Usuthu Smallholder Irrigation Project 22.93 TBD (IFAD) ≤ 0.8 A UNCCD/NAP provides the key operational tool for implementing measures to combat land (LUSIP) (IFAD) degradation and desertification in Swaziland. The country has also identified a number of enabling conditions that need to be further addressed for the effective implementation of the NAP, including awareness and capacity building, community participation in addressing land degradation issues, and sustainable utilization of land resources. The government has allocated funds towards supporting enabling activities for the implementation of NAP. The GEF increment, currently at its identification phase with IFAD, will further build on this commitment by drawing on the synergies between the UNCCD and the UNCBD in addressing land degradation. Tanzania Various (UNDP) 10 Sustainable Land Management in 1.4 - 2.75 The Government has acknowledged the need for developing a programmatic approach to SLM, Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania and has initiated discussions with key partners (donor and national) on establishing a roadmap (UNDP) for the adoption of such an approach. Relevant development partners investing in SLM such as UNEP, WB, AfDB, FAO, the GM-UNCCD and IFAD aim to coordinate and align their investments within the framework. GEF-SIP financing will be used strategically to support the development of the programmatic framework through investments to enhance national level policy enabling activities, as well as helping to test implementation of SLM practices in a set of integrated catchment micro-basins adapted to climate variability. Uganda Environment and Natural Resources Sector 40 SLM Country Program (WB) 3.6 - 7.2 In Uganda, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, in cooperation with other Wide Approach (ENR SWAp) (WB/IDA) ministries and with support from the World Bank, NEPAD, the GM-UNCCD and the UNDP, has initiated a country process aimed at elaborating a harmonized Country Program for SLM that UNDP baseline 15 Mainstreaming Sustainable Land ≤ 0.917 supports and is well aligned with the NAP and implementation of CAADP. GEF financing, Management for the recovery of the channeled via the WB, UNDP, and UNEP under the TerrAfrica/SIP framework, reinforced by Uganda Cattle Corridor (UNDP) baseline activities and other donor contributions, will directly support the development of this emerging country programmatic approach to SLM. The SLM Country Program will be the key

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 54 driving force for inter-sectoral coordination, integrated approaches and cost effective strategies for policy mainstreaming, institutional strengthening, information sharing and resource mobilization to enhance implementation of SLM programs. Zambia Mid-Zambezi Agricultural Water Management 52.9 Sustainable Land Management in 2.3 - 4.5 A wide range of development partners, including WB, IFAD, JICA, SIDA, DANIDA, UNDP and For Food Security Programme (ADB) Zambia (ADB) FAO are active in land management in Zambia. However, recent efforts to support SLM have not been fully coordinated or programmatic. To remedy this situation, GEF-SIP interventions, led by (AfDB), will help to develop a coherent, programmatic and strategic approach for land management Zambia by demonstrating, institutionalising and up-scaling SLM practices. Multi-country investments Regional: AU/NEPAD/RECs operational framework for SLM scale up in Africa (CAADP AU/NEPAD/RECs operational framework for 0.1 Institutional Support to NEPAD and 2.0 – 3.871 and Environmental Action Plan) SLM scale up in Africa (CAADP and RECs for SLM Scale-up under NEPAD is a member of the GEF-SIP Steering Committee and a convening partner of TerrAfrica. Environmental Action Plan) CAAPD and EAP (GEF-SIP Both TerrAfrica and the GEF-SIP aim to support implementation of the SLM dimensions of Implementation) NEPAD’s CAADP and Environment Action Program (EAP). Capacities at all levels have been (UNEP) identified as an important element and in many cases pre-condition for successful realization of the AU-NEPAD agenda, which provides the overall framework for CAADP and EAP implementation. GEF-SIP will identify and strengthen collective mechanisms to promote SLM scale up at country level, and will greatly benefit from a NEPAD Secretariat and RECs alliance that is capacitated to stimulate, support, complement and strengthen capabilities of existing regional and country implementation structures and mechanisms. Regional: Civil Society Organizations UNDP n/a Strengthening Civil Society’s ≤ 0.917 Through RIOD, civil society is expected to play an important role in facilitating local level Coordinated Engagement in SLM in participation in TerrAfrica and SIP. African civil society groups are members of the TerrAfrica support of the TerrAfrica platform Executive Committee. Land degradation in Africa must be tackled through SLM initiatives that (all countries involved in TerrAfrica and empower local communities to participate meaningfully in determining natural resource policies the SIP) (UNDP) and in program planning and implementation; building on what people know to improve technologies, increase productivity, foster economic development and reduce poverty. GEF-SIP financing will enable and strengthen the constructive engagement of NGOs and CSOs in the UNCCD and the SLM agenda by contributing to the development of an effective mechanism through which CSOs can network, lobby and advocate for their priorities regarding SLM practices and issues. Multi-country: Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Morocco UNEP’s Policies and Action Plans to address 5 Stimulating Community Initiatives in ≤ 1.0 This project directly supports the goal of upscaling SLM in SSA. It focuses targeted research on land degradation, drought and desertification Sustainable Land Management SLM to facilitate the refinement, adoption and dissemination of innovative SLM practices and in Africa (Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, plus technologies at country level and the sharing of experiences at regional level. It emphasizes Morocco outside of GEF-SIP) (UNEP) partnership with small farmers – as communities of practice – in identifying and demonstrating on the ground, environmentally friendly and socio-economically viable land management practices that may be embedded into other TerrAfrica/SIP operations. Multi-country: Eastern Nile basin (Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt (Egypt is outside SIP umbrella) Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program 35 Eastern Nile Transboundary 3.0 - 6.0 GEF-SIP support will catalyze SLM mainstreaming in the larger development and infrastructure (ENSAP) (WB/IDA) Watershed Management in Support agenda of the Nile Basin Initiative and contribute to improved livelihoods through increased of ENSAP Implementation (WB) agricultural production, improved food security, reduction of erosion and sedimentation, and reduction of climate risk and vulnerability of land use systems. GEF-SIP will use this powerful regional mechanism to leverage SLM investments on a large scale throughout key transboundary watersheds. This represents for TerrAfrica partners an excellent opportunity to catalyze SLM approaches in the basin and within the riparian countries. Multi-country: Lake Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda) Lake Victoria Environmental Management II 50 Lake Victoria Environmental ≤ 1.0 The lack of a common lake-wide framework involving a Basin perspective for Lake Victoria has (WB/IDA) Management II (GEF) (WB) hampered individual country efforts in the region. GEF-SIP financing will be used to strengthen the Lake Victoria Commission in support of the implementation of transboundary environmental

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 55 priorities in the watershed. These include improving coordination and knowledge dissemination between countries for joint management, improving monitoring of outcomes of SLM activities, and implementing a comprehensive SLM communication strategy for the basin. Multi-country: Mali, Niger, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Madagascar Various sites supported by the BioCarbon 10 Targeted Capacity Building: SLM ≤ 0.9 Carbon financing of LULUCF in SSA is a promising approach, proven elsewhere in the world, to Fund (Mali, Niger, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Based Emissions Reductions in help alleviate the significant financial barriers to SLM scale up in SSA. An opportunity exists for Madagascar) (WB/IDA) Africa (Mali, Niger, Kenya, Uganda, the BioCarbon Fund and GEF to pioneer a closer operational link among biological Ethiopia and Madagascar) (WB) sequestration activities under the Kyoto Protocol and, more broadly, the UNCCD and UNCBD. This approach will inform the land management policy dialogues and development of SLM investment frameworks throughout Africa, by identifying an important revenue source to initiate and sustain community and national action to upscale SLM. In addition, important monitoring tools arising from this operational alliance can be brought to bear to help measure the spread of SLM uptake. Multi-country: Regional Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network (EADN) (DRC, Regional Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 4 Regional Atmospheric Deposition ≤ 1.0 Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Sudan, Central African Republic, Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Network (EADN) Project (UNEP) (DRC, Malawi, Monitoring Network (EADN) Project Uganda and Ethiopia) Zambia, Mozambique, Sudan, Central African (DRC, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Through targeted research and associated scientific capacity development, GEF-SIP will help Republic, Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Sudan, Central African Republic, identify land uses and areas of land degradation that are the sources of significant mobilization Ethiopia) Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and of macronutrients into the atmosphere, and enable the establishment of a monitoring network. Various co-financing (1:1); significant bilateral Ethiopia) (UNEP) This effort will feed into regional mutual learning, dialogue, and land and water strategies at funding is available and expected country level to facilitate SLM upscaling that takes into account land-based stress of African lakes from transborder sources. Multi-country: Kagera River Basin (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania) Agro-ecosystem management programmes 24.8 Transboundary Agro-ecosystem 3.2 - 6.365 The Governments of the four countries that share the Kagera basin recognise the importance of and support to the implementation of the Management Programme for the transboundary cooperation in building capacities and supporting wide uptake of SLM practices UNCCD Kagera River Basin (TAMP) (Burundi, across the Kagera river basin. Moreover, collaboration among the countries is most timely in Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of UNEP view of the recent joining by Rwanda and Burundi of the East African community. GEF-SIP Tanzania) (UNEP/FAO) ≤1.365 funding will help to enhance capacity and knowledge management for improved decision making at all levels, including support to district and national authorities in developing viable FAO long-term resource management strategies, and advocating for SLM upscaling in country ≤ 5.0 dialogues. Multi-country: Molopo-Nossob River basin (Botswana, Namibia and South Africa) Kalahari-Namib Action Plan and the UNCCD 12 Kalahari-Namib Project: enhancing 1.3 - 2.534 GEF-SIP interventions in the Kalahari-Namib ecosystem will reinforce decision making at all Sub-Regional Action Programme for Southern decision-making through interactive levels through a package of knowledge, technical, and capacity support. The multi-country Africa environmental learning and action in UNEP approach will add value to ongoing country dialogue and to efforts to upscale SLM Molopo-Nossob River basin in ≤ 1.17 programmatically. Botswana, Namibia and South Africa (UNEP/FAO) FAO ≤ 1.364

TOTAL 986.22 ≤ 137.298

ANNEX E MINISTERIAL AND PARTNER DECLARATIONS FROM OUAGADOUGOU APRIL 25, 2007

Annex E.1

Declaration of the Session of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) on the Global Environment Facility’s Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ouagadougou, 24-25 April 2007

We the Ministers of Environment of Africa attending the Session of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment on the Global Environment Facility’s Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa held in Ouagadougou, 24 to 25 April 2007,

Desiring to secure ecosystem services that provide livelihoods, food security, and economic growth for some 700 million people in Africa,

Collectively sharing the view that a strong and sustained engagement by the Global Environment Facility and its partners is needed to upscale sustainable land management at local, national, and regional levels as well as efforts to protect highlands, other ecosystems and natural resources to overcome the multiple threats of land degradation and to advance toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),

Recalling the recognition by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the African Union that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) constitutes an important tool to achieve the Millennium Development Goals,

Further recalling that since 2003 the Global Environment Facility is serving as a financial mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,

Recognizing the repeated calls for action to enlist large-scale donor support to Africa to combat land degradation and its threat to livelihoods, food security and to the local, regional and global environment,

Re-affirming the utmost importance of the Global Environment Facility’s principles that the implementation of the Strategic Investment Program, should be country driven and owned,

Recalling the priority focus of the international community, expressed in, among others, the declarations of the G-8 and the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, on supporting Africa’s development and productivity increases by securing environmental sustainability,

Welcoming the commitment by the Global Environment Facility to focus on long-term engagement with Sub-Saharan Africa by providing significant grant financing to programmatically support African leadership in scaling up sustainable land management (SLM),

Confirming and reiterating the motivation of African countries and regional partners to advance the Sustainable Land Management agenda as illustrated in the 2006 Bamako and Brazzaville

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 57 declarations by Africa’s Agriculture and Environment Ministers that endorsed TerrAfrica and the GEF Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa,

Appreciating the progress made by the African Union to advance the Sustainable Land Management agenda under the Action Plan for the Environment Initiative of the New Partnership for Africa’s development (NEPAD) and the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program,

Taking into account the support given to the sustainable land management agenda by civil society in the September 2006 Montpellier Appeal,

Deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on Africa’s rural production systems and ecosystems,

Further concerned about the fragmented and sectoral nature of donor support to the sustainable land management agenda,

Intending, based on national priorities, to mobilize domestic and international resources and to reinforce donor and sector alignment to support concrete activities designed to upscale sustainable land management at country level in Sub-Saharan Africa,

Understanding that the GEF Strategic Investment Program aims to support Sub-Saharan countries in improving natural resource-based livelihoods by reducing land degradation, and that it intends to contribute to this goal via improved enabling environments that will drive sustainable land management up-scaling on the ground,

Underscoring the need for synergistic implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and National, Subregional and Regional Actions Programs under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,

Commit ourselves to advance the Sustainable Land Management agenda at local, national and regional levels and agree on the following actions:

1. Request that the Global Environment Facility’s Council approves the Global Environment Facility’s Strategic Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land Management in Sub- Saharan Africa.

2. Collectively call on donors and development partners to join Sub-Saharan Africa in scaling up sustainable land management under this partnership.

3. Urge donors and development partners to align and harmonize their activities to build and share knowledge and develop investment to support African countries, Regional Economic Communities, the African Union through its New Partnership for Africa’s Development in line with efforts to scale up Strategic Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this regard reaffirm our commitment, through institutional and capacity building efforts within the TerrAfrica and the Strategic Investment Program (SIP) framework, to support and

strengthen NEPAD and Africa Institutions’ leadership of the Sustainable Land Management agenda.

4. Call for a concerted approach to deal simultaneously with the Adaptation Programs of Action of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and National, Subregional and Regional Actions Programs of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification to be funded from the Global Environment Facility, and in this regard, call for a Decision at the next Conference of the Parties/Meeting of the Parties of UNFCCC on the housing of the Adaptation Fund inside the Global Environment Facility so as to ensure continuity in programs dealing both with land degradation and adaptation issues.

5. Call upon the Global Environment Facility to simplify its procedures in order to facilitate speedy implementation of the Strategic Investment Program and in this regard, take note with appreciation of the new streamlined GEF project cycle to be presented to the Global Environment Facility Council in June 2007. Call upon other development partners are to do likewise.

Show appreciation to the Global Environment Facility through its Chief Executive Officer for initiating the Strategic Investment Program and encourage them to continue giving priority to Africa.

Adopted in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso 25 April 2007

Annex E.2

Joint Partner Declaration of Collaboration in support of the Implementation of the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, April 25, 2007

WHEREAS the African Ministerial Conference on the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) was held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on April 24-25, 2007;

WHEREAS the African Ministerial Declaration (the Ministerial Declaration) in support of the SIP was made in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on April 24, 2007;

WHEREAS the agencies engaged in SIP (the Partners) wish to set forth their principles of engagement through this Declaration (the Partner Declaration) in support of the Ministerial Declaration (the Ministerial Declaration and Partner Declaration together being the Ougadougou Declarations);

WHEREAS the Partners acknowledge and reaffirm their support for the NEPAD Environment Action Plan and the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program, which emphasize sustainable land management as an environment and development priority for countries in Sub- Saharan Africa;

WHEREAS the Partners also acknowledge the national and sub-regional action plans to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, which emphasize priorities to address land degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa;

WHEREAS the Partners also acknowledge the leadership of NEPAD on the TerrAfrica platform for scaling up sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa, as launched in Nairobi in October 2005, including its set of programmatic activities in support of the SIP;

WHEREAS the Partners recognize the GEF framework for action to address land degradation as presented in the emerging GEF Strategy for Land degradation under the Fourth Replenishment of the Global Environment Fund (GEF 4); and

WHEREAS the Partners wish to express their common views on sustainable land management in connection with the SIP in the spirit of the Paris Declaration signed March 2, 2005 on promoting aid harmonization and alignment;

WHERHAS the Partners wish to align and directly support sub-Saharan countries in achieving their set livelihood targets (MDG 1 and 7), the at least 6% annual agricultural productivity growth target as agreed by the AU Heads of State and Governments (2004) and in achieving environmental protection and ecosystem resilience objectives at both national and regional/trans-boundary level.

NOW THEREFORE, in the spirit of partnership, and to respond to calls for action from a wide range of stakeholders in Sub-Saharan Africa to support country efforts to scale up

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) 60 sustainable land management, the partners commit to actively support the implementation of the SIP following. Partners adhere to the following set of core principles and actions in support of the SIP:

1) Partners note that large scale success of implementation of sustainable land management investments, policies, and alignment at the country level depends on ownership and commitment of African countries, reinforced by the actions of partners and a broad based participation by civil society, local actors including farming communities, and private sector partners.

2) Partners will take benefit of experiences and lessons from actions already on-going, in particular in the context of TerrAfrica, to assist Sub-Saharan African countries to implement the common long-term vision of the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, and leverage the support of TerrAfrica, to respond in a comprehensive, harmonised, and consistent manner to country needs – including by mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management into partners’ respective policy and programming frameworks to strengthen linkages between poverty alleviation and environment, as to engage poor populations in investing in environmental goods. In that respect, partners commit to develop projects and programs which allow a better synergy among multilateral environmental agreements, in particular activities addressing land degradation and those addressing climate change.

3) Partners affirm their commitment to work cooperatively in a transparent, trusting, and accountable manner to harmonize and align dialogues, engagement strategies, analytical work, and investments to increase effectiveness and build on their respective comparative advantages.

4) Partners will pursue and enhance joint work programming, building on the commitment made and the work undertaken under the TerrAfrica platform, to achieve stated sustainable land management objectives:

i. joint missions and information sharing to facilitate joint work programming and efficient implementation of the SIP at national, sub-regional, and regional levels, where opportunities allow, ii. effective complementary programming to avoid duplication and overlap at national and regional levels, where opportunities allow, iii. joint stocktaking and analyses of priority actions needed to address land degradation and implement sustainable land management, and iv. joint reporting and monitoring at national, sub-regional, and regional levels as much as applicable.

5) Partners will communicate principles and processes underpinning the strategic investment program, and as outlined in agreed documentation, to country level counterparts, and align existing operations and analytical work into the joint work programming process where opportunities allow.

6) Partners, in coordination with country counterparts, will refine and apply a common set of measurable, monitorable, and comparable performance indicators to gauge joint progress made on sustainable land management up-scaling at country and regional levels. On this basis, they will regularly report, in coordination with countries and NEPAD, on progress made.

7) This Declaration establishes core principles and actions in support of the SIP, and in line with TerrAfrica, is open to all countries and organizations willing to support the SLM agenda in Sub-Saharan Africa and to accept the above principles and actions.

Adopted in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on April 25, 2007 by the African Development Bank, Denmark, FAO, IFAD, NEPAD Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, UNCCD Secretariat, UNCCD Global Mechanism, and the World Bank.

Executive Summary: Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP)