V ~~22337 November 1999 Public Disclosure Authorized

* 99 .. 9 ,e t- 4 9e e\ .

"Al~ ,,r:we- 3 .. , 5 + \d > /' '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Public Disclosure Authorized

v m ~~~~~~~~t Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

._ _ _ __. _ _ _ _. U - ,

+W'~~~~ =I_ K ke e 9 fI

Dr4londs, Povert4, ond Development

Proceedingsof theJune 15 and 16, 1999 WorldBank Round Table

November1999 Printedin the UnitedStates of America FirstPrinting November 1999

TheInternational Bank for Reconstructionand Development/The World Bank 1818H-Street, NW WashingtonDC, 20433,U.S.A.

This paperand the judgementsmade herein do not necessarilyreflect the viewsof the World Bank,its Boardof Directors,or the governmentsthey represent.

Managing Editors: EnosE. Esikuri, Hassan M. Hassan,and GunterW. Riethmacher

The meeting wasorganized by: HassanM. Hassan,Enos E. Esikuriand GunterW. Riethmacherwith the help of PatriciaShanks, Walter Lusigi, FranklinCardy, Julian Dumanski andChristian Pieri

Authors: Participantsat the RoundTable in TheWorld Bank,June 15-16, 1999

Editor: EnosE. Esikuri

Cover: Jim Cantrell

The World BankDrylands Management website: www.worldbank. orgldrylands Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II FOREWORD ...... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... VII INTRODUCTION ...... I PART 1: GLOBAL DIMENSIONS OF LAND DEGRADATION ...... 3

SECTION A: POLITICAL AND HISTORIC PERSPECTIVES...... 3 DRYLANDS,POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: WHY THEWORLD BANK IS INVOLVED...... 3 THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (CDF) AND COUNTRY ASSISTANCE STRATEGIES (CASS): INTEGRATEDAPPROACH TO LAND ANDWATER ISSUES...... 6 GLOBAL DESERTIFCATION PHENOMENA: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ...... 12 CONTEXT, CONSTRAINTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, INNOVATIONS, CHALLENGES AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE CONVENTIONTO COMBATDESERTIFICATION ...... 16 LINKAGES BETWEEN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...... I91 SECTION B: WHAT IS NEW ABOUT THE CCD?...... 25

THE FUNCTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION (UNCCD) SECRETARIAT...... 25 UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL MECHANISM: A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE CCD ... 28 THE AUSTRALIANEXPERIENCE IN COMBATINGDESERTIFICATION ...... 31 CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION: How Do NGOS FIT IN THE PICTURE? ...... 38 THE CCD: ONE VIEW ON How NGOS FIT IN THE PICTURE ...... 40 DISCUSSANT REMARKS ...... 44 SECTION C: PARTNERSHIPS IN DEVELOPMENT ...... 47

SOME LESSONS AND CHALLENGES OF THE NAP PROCESS ...... 47 FOOD SECURITY AND RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN DRYLANDS: IFAD'S EXPERIENCE ...... 53 THE DESERTIFICATION AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) ...... 56 FOOD SECURITY, SoiL FERTILITY AND DRYLAND DEVELOPMENT IN FAO AcTIvITIEs ...... 62 THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACiLITY (GEF): A PARTNER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF DRYLANDS ...... 64 PART 2. EXPERIENCES: TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 69

SECTION D: SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS: EXPERIENCES FROM THE FIELD...... 69

DRYLAND DEGRADATION AND POVERTY ...... 69 PRICES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PARTNERSHIPS: CHALLENGES FOR DRYLANDS DEVELOPMENT ...... 78 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND MIGRATION...... 81 FINDING NEW WAYS OF FUNDING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 89 BILATERAL EXPERIENCES ...... 92

SECTION E: SCIENTIFIC, SECTORAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ...... 99

SCIENCE, AND STRATEGIES TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION ...... 99 SOIL MANAGEMENT FOR CARBON SEQUESTRATION ...... 108 EXPERIENCE FROM THE DAYS OF THE UN PLAN OF ACTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION AND THE DESCON GROUP...... 125 FARMING SYSTEM CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SUSTAINABLE INTENSIVE LAND MANAGEMENT, AND TRADE IN CERT EMISSIONSIFI ED REDUCTIONS ...... 135 POVERTY, LOCAL PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION ...... 142 iv

PART 3: PLENARY DISCUSSIONS AND STRATEGY OUTLINE ...... 147

SECTION F: SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS ...... 147

SECTION G: OUTLINE OF A STRATEGY FOR COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF DRYLANDS ...... 171 DRYLANDS, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: OUTLINE OF A STRATEGY FOR THE WORLD BANK ...... 172 LIST OF PARTICPANTS...... 187 v

Foreword This high level round table and brainstorm meeting on dryland degradation and poverty brought together internationally recognized political, technical, and socioeconomic experts from various agencies working directly/indirectly in combating land degradation to brainstorm and provide advice to the Bank on ways and means of translating the CCD into development assistance agenda. At the recent Conference of Parties (COP II) meeting of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(CCD) in Dakar, Senegal (December, 1998), the World Bank reiterated its commitment to mainstream environmental issues in general, and land degradation in particular, into Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) and to maintain an active program of lending for development in dryland areas, with special emphasis on measures to assist local communities manage their resources and limit degradation. The Bank highlighted its plans to increase emphasis on sustainable agricultural systems development and dryland management, focusing on the development of analytical tools, policy and operational instruments to facilitate the integration of global objectives in environmental planning, management and assessment. Central in those plans is lifting the rural poor out of the trap of poverty and hunger. Following COP II both developed and developing countries agreed to build on the growing momentum that resulted in the "Dakar Declaration" in order to relieve the plight of the nearly 1 billion people affected by desertification worldwide. The World Bank recognizes that combating land degradation is closely linked to its main goal of alleviating poverty and supporting food security; and that addressing both desertification and poverty can only be undertaken through fostering broad economic and social change directed at the underlying causes. The CCD represents both a challenge and a window of opportunity. The challenge is to internalize the objectives set out in the CCD and make them permeate the development assistance policies of both developing and developed countries, including multilateral financial organizations. An important element of the internalization is to recognize and encourage active participation and ownership of the civil society and NGOs and to create active and transparent forums of partnerships. The opportunity provided by the CCD is the legally binding environmental and developmental agreement which is signed by both developed and developing countries and ratified by their respective parliaments forming a strong basis for partnership. The objectives of this meeting were to review the socioeconomic and environmental costs of land degradation in the Bank's member countries, and identify the challenges and opportunities provided by the CCD and to suggest practical integrated strategies to address them in order to bring about effective and timely support to the CCD implementation. The strategies would help the Bank revisit its policies, programs and activities in drylands in the light of these challenges and opportunities. vi

The meeting focused on three main themes: 1. Policy issues and political dimensions, 2. The economic and social dimensions, and 3. Scientific and strategic aspects of land degradation. In line with the goal of working in partnership with other players, the Bank approached this important meeting from a point of view of seeking to build on what the Bank and others have done in the past in the area of dryland management/ combating desertification with no preconceptions as to how it is we should move in the future. vii

Acknowledgements

The World Bank team which organized the brainstorming session included, Hassan Hassan, Guenter Riethmacher, Enos E. Esikuri, Walter Lusigi, Franklin Cardy, Julian Dumanski, and Christian Pieri.

Support for the meeting was provided by the Environment Department.

1

Introduction

This document is the first product of an ongoing process within the World Bank to reorient and better define Bank strategy with respect to dryland development, particularly in response to the ratification of the Global Convention to Combat Desertification, but also in response to the plight of over one billion poor people who live in the drylands. The call is for a renewed strategy thus comes both from all levels within the World Bank and from external agencies and groups. As the introductory address from Bank President Mr. James Wolfensohn shows, this initiative has leadership and support from the top and commitment throughout the organization. To initiate an open process of strategy development, the Bank held a 2-day brainstorming meeting on June 15-16, 1999. Over 100 people representing other global agencies, NGO's, affected countries and civil society took part in a free and challenging interchange. The papers reproduced here were presented at the meeting and the strategy statement is also a product of the meeting, reflecting opinions and input from participants. If it is endorsed by the Bank, it will form the basis for ongoing program reforms and design. The papers here provide a sense of the range of opinion and expertise present, but this document can only hint at the vitality and energy of the discussions which was a central feature of those two days.

3

PART 1: Global Dimensions of Land Degradation Section A: Political and Historic Perspectives

Drylands,Poverty and Development:Why the World Bank is Involved.

James D. Wolfensohn

President, The World Bank Group

Let me start by expressing a very warm welcome to all of you to this meeting, which we in the Bank regard as overdue and very important. We have, as you know, as an institution taken considerable interest in desertification. In the last 10 years, we have invested several billion dollars into various projects which include aspects of desertification, a couple of billion pretty well directly into the subject. And in all candor, after that experience, we feel the need ourselves to rethink our strategy and to try and get the benefit of discussions with you and experience from all of you to see how the Bank can better use its resources and be more focused on the issue of desertification. So I want you to know that we are coming at it from a point of view of seeking to build on what we have done in the past with no preconceptions as to how it is we should move in the future. There are a few things that we do know. The first is that, at least around here, climate change has been very sexy. It has got a lot of the attention, and desertification has had less of it. And yet for us, more than a billion people who are in poverty are affected by the problems of desertification. It is not surprising that poverty and desertification go together, and from our point of view, this linkage is very clear, but addressing the question in a comprehensive and focused way has been much less clear. Like many people in the business, we have tended to be project-driven, we come to a piece of land, seeing how we can deal with it in terms of water, in terms of soil management, in terms of area management, all independently. And we are coming to the point amongst ourselves that we believe that we need to have a more comprehensive approach in the way we approach the whole issue. I hope you will be discussing--in fact, I see that you will be discussing ways in which we can look at our strategies in a longer term and more integrated way in terms of government policy, social policy, trade policy, and help direct the focus by government on areas that are more marginal but, if you leave them, create a much bigger problem for the nation than if you focus just on the good areas. We are anxious to try and come up with a program where dry areas become an important element in overall strategy, not just what is left in terms of economic management and addressing the poverty question. It is not just that we focus on the good areas and try and maximize them, it is also that 40 4 percent of the countries, both rich and poor, in which we are operating are subject to desertification. We need to. address those areas aggressively as well. I come from Australia where there are a few deserts around the place. But what we are groping for here in terms of our approach at the Bank to development is to try and think of the issues of development in a Comprehensive Framework. And here I think taking such a vast topic as desertification, which contains within it such a concentration of the poor, which is our central focus, and saying let's just not leave it to be the last thing that falls out, but let's take it as an essential element and a front-line element in development policy so that we can build on the achievements and knowledge of managing desert structures and try and integrate that in a holistic way into the economic development programs of a country. This, with your assistance and collaboration, is what we would like to come out with. We are prepared to put money up ourselves, and I know our colleagues in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are equally concerned. I met with the heads of implementing agencies of the GEF just about three months ago, and we focused on this subject. We agreed to focus on this and see what we can do together. So the first thing is that we as an institution are prepared to put resources behind it, as is GEF. The second thing is that we are looking to try and see how we can be a better partner in all this, with United Nations Development Program (UNDP), with International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), with the bilaterals, with players in the Convention to try and see as a result of two days here how it is that we can best fit into some dynamic and effective role. We are happy to follow. We are happy to lead. What we want to do is to come out with a positioning of the Bank that would be useful to our general purpose, which is to come out of here with an action program which we can then monitor and develop. The third thing I can help with is that I can give more prominence to the issue of desertification than it has had in international circles. Personally, I have a sort of pulpit that I can speak from, and institutionally we do. And I have to say to you that in the four years I have been at the Bank, although I have been conscious of the issue of desertification and have occasionally referred to it, it has not been a central aspect of the many things I have to pitch for. And, frankly, I am now convinced that this is something that should be advanced from the back burner to the front burner. And to the extent that this is helpful in terms of what I can do to bring a focus to this subject, I think maybe it can be helpful to the general progress if I start putting it on the front burner with some other issues, and I think the time is right. It is not too late. Maybe this should have been done earlier. But at least I am anxious to get on to it now and see how we can push it forward. Eight out of ten of the world's poorest countries are located in dryland areas and about a billion people are affected by desertification worldwide. The linkage between desertification and poverty is clear, but the use of the statistics by me in speeches is going 5 to be helpful in re-emphasizing and re-focusing the issue. The fact that we can do something about it is helpful. The fact that the technology is such that in both crop types and in use of non-tillable farming and the retention of moisture as well as better uses and management of water, there are many things that we can do to improve the yields in these areas. And so drawing the line and moving forward is something that I think offers hope and its something that is financeable. But what is clear is it cannot be done within the framework of a single political cycle, one electoral period to another, this is something where we need to think of the longer-term advantages, a more integrated approach, an approach in which we work with all of you. If you wish, what we would like to come out of this with is some mechanism where we can regularly review our cumulative progress so we can give it some weight to back up the Convention and try and bring this issue to the fore in the same way that many of the other global conventions are more prominently featured. We are also very concerned in terms of Africa. This is a significant African issue. But it is not exclusively an African issue. Desertification applies in many other places. For example, in China there are significant issues in relation to desertification on which we and you have been working very effectively over recent years in terms of management of these fragile areas. So, for us, it is an issue which is surely a priority. It is a global issue. It is a poverty issue. We look forward very much to the result of this conference, and my purpose in coming this morning is to relay to you that this is an issue that, as far as the Bank is concerned, we are anxious to put on the front banner. We know we cannot do it alone, we do not want to do it alone, we want to be a good partner with multilaterals and bilaterals and individual agents and scholars, and, if it's your wish, we are happy to play any role in the momentum going forward. We would like to come out of this meeting, so far as the Bank is concerned, with a clear perception of what it is that you want of us and that you expect of us, and then have a follow-up to keep this issue going. Having got this group together we would like to go forward, on a more consistent and more regular and more monitorable basis. And if we do that, then I can tell you we will put our machine to work to see if we can make sure that this issue is brought to prominence with world leadership so that we can address a question which substantively is important but which has not had, in our judgment, the attention that it should have. So that is my purpose in coming. I wish you a very good two-day meeting. I only wish that I could be here to learn, but regrettably, there are a few other problems in other parts of the world that I have got to go deal with. And I will look forward very much to catching up with you sometime in the next couple of days and finding out what is going on. 6

The ComprehensiveDevelopment Framework (CDF) and Country Assistance Strategies(CASs): Integrated Approach to Land and Water Issues

Ian Johnson

Vice President Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development The World Bank

Let me begin by welcoming you all to the World Bank and thanking you for taking time out of your busy schedules to share with us your thoughts in this important area. Many people may say: Do we really need a convention to address land degradation issues? Is land degradation and desertification really a global problem? I say: the fact is that this Convention has drawn the attention of the world to one of the most important problems the world is, and will be, facing. The Convention has brought us under an international commnitmentto collectively work in partnership with all stakeholders at all levels to address a problem that is essential for more than one billion people.

I would also like to say outright that the World Bank attaches great importance to addressing land degradation and combating desertification. We feel that this problem is of particular concern to all development agencies and I hope that your deliberations in the coming two days will translate into valuable inputs to the Bank's strategy for drylands, poverty and development.

I would like to cover a few issues and in so doing I would like to highlight the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) and the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF). The central theme of the CAS, and most particularly of the CDF is on the one hand putting our client counties in the driver seat, and on the hand taking the development assistance in a programmatic way and not just dealing with a collection of sporadic projects. The CDF, in my view, is a philosophy of linkages across sectors and synergies among themes. It ensures that the linkages between sectors and the synergies among themes are really realized in the development process. It also means looking at sectors and themes in longer term perspectives, and that is something that I am personally very committed to. I think that in the World Bank and in development assistance in general, we have often become very myopic in our views, and the CDF is an opportunity to think much longer term. Issues that we deal with in drylands management and in land degradation are indeed inter-temporal and long term. 7

First, let me elaborate on why I feel that it is important for the World Bank to be addressing land degradation and combating desertification as a development priority?

* It is important because the primary goal of combating land degradation, as stipulated in the Convention, is to alleviate the suffering of more than one billion people who live in poverty as a consequence of land degradation. Combating desertification means addressing the conditions that result in degradation in the first place and mitigating the conditions leading to rural poverty.

* The Convention approaches combating desertification in a holistic manner: tackling all the underlying causes. This includes technical and scientific operations, as well as social and economic dimensions. Combating desertification can only be undertaken in the context of broad economic and social frameworks.

* Addressing land degradation and combating desertification is as much about socioeconomic development and rural well-being as about agricultural production and environmental management. Yes, it is about environment and sustainable development.

This brings me to my second point which is, I am convinced that the goals of the Convention are consistent with the mission of the World Bank.

- The mission of the Bank is to fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results. We believe in helping people to help themselves and their environment, by providing financial resources, sharing knowledge, building capacities and forging partnerships.

D We strongly believe that we can only succeed in alleviating poverty if we take into account local, regional and global environmental concerns.

* We consider that environmentally and socially sustainable development is central to the Bank mission and to our work in many fields, particularly in agriculture and natural resource management. We have moved beyond "do no harm policy" in environment to more proactive upstream internal policies and procedures to ensure that environmental and social concerns are reflected in all our lending and non- lending activities. The linkage between poverty and natural resource degradation is clear.

We are currently revisiting our forest policy. Next year we will begin working on our water resources and water issues and revisit our water resource policy. As a result of this meeting, I hope to propel the issue of land degradation, considering that the issue of land degradation is the glue that holds these other issues together. It is the link between 8 natural habitat, soil conservation, and water that we have to be worried about. These issues, as were mentioned earlier, have got to be approached in a comprehensive and holistic manner. This includes thinking about the technical, scientific as well as the socioeconomic issues underlying land and soil degradation. The comprehensive approach includes highlighting the linkages between soil, water and forests; addressing the land management policies, pricing policies, as well as the social cultural dimensions which are clearly central.

As you know, the cost of natural resource mismanagement is not trivial. A limited research done by the Bank in three countries, concluded that the countries were losing between 10 and 14 percent of their agricultural GDP annually due to land degradation. Moreover, the costs of poor land and natural resource management are not only going to be heavy in the next 20, 30 years, but they are heavy today and tomorrow. Those costs are not only long term, but they are just around the corner in many cases. We have seen, for example, in China last year (1998) the huge cost of poor natural resource mismanagement in the forest sector, which reached $36 billion.

I have been struck by the work that was done in Indonesia following the financial crisis. We were very quickly able to figure out that somewhere around 17 million additional people, had been pushed below the poverty line as a direct result of the financial crisis over an 18-month period. One of the messages that should have been brought to the fore is that during that same period, Indonesia lost vast amounts of forests through forest fires, lost vast amounts of soil through erosion and through the forest fires themselves and destruction of natural habitats. One major issue related to the Indonesian crisis should have been to try to understand what impact this had on poor people. I believe bringing people out of poverty triggered by the financial crisis may be done rather quickly compared to bringing people out of poverty caused by destruction of natural resources and the loss of their natural capital. I feel that both the issues of land degradation and poverty have to be thought of very much in a strategic focus and in an inter-temporal sense over time.

An important World Bank document that addresses poverty and natural resource degradation is "Rural Development Strategy: from Vision to Action." This Strategy captures the objectives upon which much of the rural development work in this institution are based. The Strategy lists four challenges, all of which are central to the issues we are discussing today. These are:

1. The need to address hunger and food security for the 800 million people who are estimated to be malnourished, to varying degrees.

2. The rural sector is a major engine of economic growth in developing countries. 9

3. The need to increase food production, but to do so in a way that is less ecologically damaging: options of extensification are becoming seriously limited in most countries. Intensification options carry with them their own environmental risks. Consequently to increase food production by 100% in the next 30 or 40 years is going to be a major challenge. And to do that in a way that does not damage many of the very fragile ecosystems within which agricultural systems are placed will be an enormous challenge particularly in Africa.

4. The need to work towards halting natural resource degradation: in forestry, water and land. We are working with the GEF on biological diversity and also on land degradation.

The Rural Strategy action program will definitely feed into any action program you may develop to support the implementation of the CCD. The Rural Strategy calls for: 1. Increased commitment and capacity building at the national and local levels since the CCD offers great opportunity since the Convention is very much driven as a development convention at the local level as well as the national and global levels.

2. Encouraging international commitment to the problems of the rural sector, and, again, this is where the Convention has done a remarkable job.

3. Reviewing and improving the performance of the Bank's portfolio on natural resources management, and here it may be useful to include means to improve the effectiveness of the portfolio in relation to land degradation issues.

4. Embracing a much broader array of issues in the CAS. Considering the economic and financial issues on the one hand, but also dealing very much with the social and structural. The Strategy action plan recommends a serious analysis of rural issues and means to address them appropriately in every CAS.

5. Pulling together all stakeholders: forming alliances--the Bank, the UN agencies, the Conventions, governments, civil society, NGOs--to really make a lasting difference in addressing land degradation.

Third, I would like to mention that the World Bank is currently involved in several initiatives aimed in part or totality at combating land degradation. Such initiatives include:

* Working closely with our development partners especially UNDP and UNEP as implementing agencies of the GEF, in mobilizing and channeling financial resources to drylands projects and programs that fall within the GEF's four focal areas. At the 10

same time we are also working on mainstreaming global environmental issues into our regular programs.

* Collaborating with FAO, IFAD and other partners in many initiatives, notable among these are the Soil Fertility Initiative for Sub-Saharan Africa, river basin management, food security, natural resource management, agriculture extension and the Land Quality Indicators.

* Working collaboratively with IFAD and UNDP in the Global Mechanism; we are committed to supporting the GM's efforts to mobilize new and additional resources for addressing land degradation and combating desertification.

* Having a sizeable investment portfolio on drylands activities: for 1990 - 1998 it includes some 158 projects for a total of US $18 billion. Of this total, 54 projects are directed at land degradation, with lending of US $1.8 billion. The regional breakdown shows that some 40 percent of the projects are in Sub-Saharan Africa, 18 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean, 13 percent in Middle East and North Africa, 13 percent South Asia, 9 percent in East Asia, and 7 percent in Europe and Central Asia.

My fourth point is do we really need a strategy? The answer is yes. Although the investments of the Bank and other donors in drylands are considerable, some of them have resulted in mixed successes. I regret to note that the economies in dryland areas and the well-being of the populations living there have not improved considerably. As a matter of fact, the situation in some drylands areas has further deteriorated. To reverse this situation, we need to:

D Move beyond the project by project and sector approach to a longer term comprehensive development framework which focuses on an integrated, holistic approach to achieve development outcomes that are defined by our clients. We need to work in a bottom up approach and put our member countries in the driver's seat.

* Increase our emphasis on sustainable agricultural systems and dryland management, through the creation of strong knowledge networks supported by active thematic teams focusing on the development of operational tools such as land quality indicators, soil fertility, watershed management.

* Strengthen the capacities of the Bank and of our partners and clients in developing accurate indicators for monitoring and evaluating progress towards reaching objectives and integrating global objectives into local and national environmental planning and management. 11

* Emphasize partnerships - with governments, international agencies, but also with bilaterals, NGO's, and, at the local level, with public and private agencies and other organizations of civil society.

* Become more proactive, tackle the challenges and pursue opportunities provided by the conventions such as the United nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the United nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biodiversity to develop programs on the ground that provide tangible outcomes and benefits both short term and long term. We need to capture opportunities and build on the synergies among the different environmental conventions and share responsibilities based on comparative advantages. We need to be prepared to take risks in our endeavor to improve the well being of the rural poor.

* Maintain an active program of lending for development in dryland areas, with special emphasis on measures to assist local communities in building their capacities to manage their resources and limit degradation.

My final point is to emphasize that the issue of partnerships in addressing desertification/ land degradation is extremely important. Strategic partnerships need to be forged with governments, international agencies to develop arrangements such as the Global Mechanism. Partnerships need to be developed with bilaterals, NGO's, the public and private agencies and other organizations of civil society. Concerted efforts need to be directed at building these partnerships to assure coordinated actions and efficiency in resource allocation since past efforts to combat desertification/ land degradation have somewhat been fragmented at the political and international levels. We have a golden opportunity through the Convention to pull together at the international, the regional and the local level in particular in Africa,.

I would like to end with what Mr. Wolfensohn said in his opening remarks: I hope this meeting will discuss technical as well as a strategic issues and that you will come up with valuable advice to the Bank on the way forward and a way of working together. 12

Global Desertification Phenomena: An Historical Perspective

Mostafa K. Tolba

Center for Environment Cairo, Egypt

The 1968-73 African drought claimed millions of human and animal lives, particularly in the Sahel, and engulfed the Sahelian countries in a state of misery for several years. Following that, the African States called on the UNGA to convene a UN Conference on Desertification. I was asked to act as Secretary General to that Conference which was convened in Nairobi in 1977. A two-year preparatory process preceded the Conference. That Secretariat was backed by an advisory Group of eminent scientists from every part of the world and in every discipline related to desertification. The Conference was dubbed at its time as the best scientifically prepared UN Conference. It was attended by close to 100 governments from North and South, East and West. They adopted a Plan Action to Combat Desertification (PACD). The PACD remained the framework for national and international action during the 15-year period, 1977-92. An interim stocktaking assessment was carried out in 1984, a second assessment was carried out in 1991. Both showed that desertification, worldwide, continued to spread and that efforts undertaken since 1977 were too modest to be effective. On the financing mechanisms, the Conference adopted a consultative Committee on desertification control (Des.Con.) and a Special Account. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) adopted Agenda 21 including six program areas for the management and control of desertification. These program areas reinforce and sharpen the 1977 PACD and add a novel dimension: linking desertification and poverty. Cost estimates of these programs were $8730 million/year. Of course these are only rough estimates but they represent orders of magnitude that indicate the special need for an international mechanism capable of mobilizing and managing these resources. In response to a request from UNCED, the UN General Assembly in 1992 decided to establish an Intergovernmental Committee to Elaborate an International Convention to Combat Desertification in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. The Negotiating Commnittee was to finalize drafting the Convention by June 1994. It did. But, the negotiations and their outcome illustrated the prevailing mood on the international scene at the time: the world was split, between the South, which is overwhelmed by problems of underdevelopment, and the North, which is occupied with the problems of economic recession, unemployment and donor fatigue. 13

Before proceeding, let me briefly address three questions: 1. What is desertification? 2. Is desertification a global issue? 3. Can desertification be stopped? What is desertification? Article 1(a) of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification states: desertification means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variation and human activities. Article l(f) defines "land degradation" as the reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity of rain-fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range pasture, forest and woodland resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns. Land degradation is perhaps a clearer term than desertification, but desertification is a broader concept than earlier terms like "desert creep" and "encroachment of the Sahara". These latter terns suggest that deserts extend their areas beyond their natural (climatic) limits into bordering territories. This perception is valid only as regards mobile sand bodies that move from their origin in the desert and overwhelm farm-landsand settlements in the desert, in oases or in productive lands near the desert. This is a small part (c. 10%) of the problem. Desertification is essentially initiated in productive lands that eventually become less productive or non-productive (desert-like) and thus add to the desert territories. Is desertification a global issue? Scientists refer to two types of global issues: systemic and cumulative. The former interferes with one of the general processes of the Planet Earth. It may be caused by actions in a few places of the biosphere but it affects the entire biosphere. Examples of systemic global issues include: climate change and global warming and depletion of the stratospheric ozone. Cumulative global issues are geographically widespread, present in a large number of countries. Examples of cumulative global issues are: loss of biodiversity, population explosion, land degradation (covering both desertification and deforestation), epidemic diseases, etc. Dryland territories in some 100 countries are prone to desertification. These include developed countries (USA, Australia, Spain, etc.) and developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In addition to the direct impacts of desertification, it also relates to some of the systemic processes e.g. that of climate change in several ways. Can desertification be stopped? The answer is yes, provided that management of land is based on a packet of measures that ensures sustainable development. The case of the Great Plains region of USA illustrates this. These arid and semi-arid territories were menaced by drought during the thirties. This was not less damaging than the African Sahel drought of the late sixties. The Great Plains became an extensive dust bowl, villages were overwhelmed by sand, deserted farms and ranches were common sights. During the fifties drought recurred but passed almost unnoticed. Land-use practices that prevailed prior to the 1930s caused the land system to be so fragile and thus seriously damaged by drought. The measures set during 1934-1950 enabled the land system to withstand drought with little damage. 14

The measures taken during the latter period included government control through legal instruments, government financial assistance (through federal funds), government guidance (through land-use policies), national development schemes (covering railways, highways, water reservoirs, etc.), advances in science and technology and its applications, and finally public participation. Together these actions provided for the sustainable use of land resources, expanded the resilience of the ecosystem and provided it with the capacity to withstand the inevitable spells of drought. So, if this can be done why then are we still so far from stopping desertification? I think what is still missing is the political will of all countries that can dispel the notion of donor-recipient aid and instill the notion of co-operative endeavor to address a global menace. Can this happen? I think so - Let me say why. Decision-makers generally misunderstand the true cost-benefit relationship of desertification control programs, and this had hindered implementation of actions to combat desertification. Combating desertification means different things in industrialized countries, which can cope with the problem by themselves, and in developing countries, which need substantial external assistance. In countries like Australia or the USA, development does not depend on drylands. So desertification can be approached from an economic and technical point of view based on how to stop land degradation and optimize the economic return from drylands. By contrast, the development process in most developing countries, and particularly in the Sudano-Sahelian Belt of Africa, relies on the natural resource base. To assist the process of development in the drylands of developing countries we need to explain in an understandable way to everybody, rich and poor, North and South. There is a close connection between development and economic growth. Our understanding of this relationship has broadened in recent years. Development is no longer seen exclusively as a matter of the rate of national income growth or the rate of capital formation. The new emphasis is on a wider range of aspects, including income distribution, employment, health, housing, education and several others. The issue of land tenure, for instance, goes to the root of the problem. Arable land farmers must own their land outright -- on an individual or collective basis - before they will devote energy and resources to conserving it. To combat poor land management, there must be realistic incentives for sustainable land use. In the developed countries, tax incentives and penalties can bring economic interests into line with environmental ones. In the developing world, these methods are less easily applied. Here, governments could be assisted to reward environmentally sound land use practices - such as terracing and building check dams - with price subsidies for agricultural implements and supplies. Authorities could be financially supported to provide seed, fertilizer, agricultural implements, water pumps free or at discount prices as a reward for applying conservation measures. However these are issues that need to be carefully discussed in view of the controls set by the last round of trade negotiations and by the World Trade Organization (WTO). 15

Other incentives could include financing institutions and bilateral donors giving priority to financing development projects in areas which follow accepted guidelines on good land use and improve extension services and credit schemes. This again needs to be very carefully discussed by all partners concerned. The social and economic benefits of desertification control are not easily quantified in neo-classical economics. A flawed accounting system encourages resource users and planners to liquidate their resources as quickly as possible. A country that accumulates capital through overgrazing or rapid deforestation erodes the foundation of its prosperity and yet this country is said to be getting wealthy. The country that takes only the 'interest' while leaving its environmental 'capital' intact is branded a bad performer. Resource based accounting requires a broader view of economic systems with an understanding of the role of resources in development. In spite of different shortfalls, estimates at the time of the UN Conference on Desertification and the following assessment consistently showed that benefits accruing from combating desertification in terns of regained productivity are at least 10 times the cost. The problem is that this is long term: one will not get real interest on the investment before 15 or 20 years. This is the main hurdle we need to overcome - to make the financing and donor communities look beyond the short term. Without this long-term perspective we can forget about addressing poverty and the unacceptable quality of life that poor people in developing countries in the arid lands are leading. How to do this? This is what the economists in a round table like this can show. They can, at least, point to the urgent need to shift effort towards the long term. The World Bank can - no doubt - pioneer this sort of thinking and action. It is heartening to read in the issues paper circulated to us that the World Bank recognized that combating land degradation is closely linked to its main goal of alleviating poverty and supporting food security. Let me conclude by saying that for both socio-economic and environmental reasons, the need to combat desertification is urgent. Desertification is the main cause of the world's loss of productive land. It causes economic instability and political unrest in affected areas. It stops countries from achieving sustainable development. It puts pressures on the economy and stability of societies further away. And it contributes to the loss of global biodiversity, the loss of the biomass and bioproductivity of our planet, and to global climate change. The cost of addressing desertification is an investment in the future prosperity and security of our planet. 16

Context, Constraints,Achievements, Innovations, Challenges and Expectationsof the Conventionto CombatDesertification

Pierre Marc Johnson

Canada

I will try to run you through elements of the context, the constraints, the achievements, the innovations, and the challenges and expectations of the CCD. The reason why I put some stress on constraints and context is that essentially I believe the context and constraints will justify and explain many of the things which are going to happen.

Context First of all, the context of this convention was indeed described within the Rio context. The Brundtland report gave way to a series of activities which was largely dominated by eventually the holding of the Rio Summit and I would say largely dominated by Western preoccupations. Three realities emerged from that: a) an effort to integrate the rhetoric, the ideology, the administrative discourse of sustainable development; b) a dominance of civil society concerned and implications in these processes; and c) that development assistance money was going down. Post-Berlin Wall, in Bergen, in the preparatory process of Rio, it was already palpable that African countries were looking at money flowing from developing countries eventually to Central Europe, and they saw it. African countries and Ministers saw it as soon as Bergen. The other element of that context is that environmental conventions which had been negotiated up to now, had been largely dominated, process wise, by conventions which addressed pollution issues more than development issues. So, finally, the UN and the international community committed to actually heed on to some of the concerns coming largely from Africa.

Constraints There was a sharp tendency already to reduce the deficits in developed countries and reduce ODA. Even a country like Canada has reduced a part of ODA from its GNP. The only remaining champions of the level of ODA was Sweden at that time. But more than numbers, it is the concept of market response which has taken hold very strongly in developed countries which would modify our approaches even to the issue of desertification eventually and make that negotiation quite complex. The geography of financial flows was, of course, to change. A wariness about bureaucracies in Western states, bureaucracies in the international community, 17

discussions about restructuring in the UN system, and, finally, uncertainties as to accountability of secretariats on these conventions also marred the process. The African focus was not to be ignored, although realities in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia were there to be taken into account during the negotiation. Mexico, incidentally, was the first country to ratify this convention, which is quite interesting. Finally, there was skepticism as this convention negotiation started, mostly because it was defined as what it is--a convention to combat poverty and to combat desertification which is the basis of a long-time and persistent and, I would say, sustainable poverty in many countries of the world. And, finally, a question arose as to the role of Ministers in that process. Ministers of Environment who would deal with natural resources, agricultural, energy policies, essentially what was also linked with decentralization processes, and the Ministers of Environment were in the position where they would actually be deciding on issues which were probably in the realm of other colleagues of theirs.

Achievements The achievements of the convention revolve around the definition, objectives, and principles that I draw very fast in some of them. For example, reduction in loss of economic productivity through human processes. These are very important words in the definitions. In terms of objective, combating desertification through international cooperation and the word "partnership" which appears immediately, and improving the livelihood at the community level of people. And in principles, one finds public participation, partnerships, and poverty eradication as the central principles of this convention. Africa got its Article 7 and its own predominant annex in this convention. On finances, there is concepts which relate to self-reliance in the national action programs and the necessity in Article 20 for countries, even developing countries, to put in as much as possible their efforts to mobilize adequate resources from a domestic point of view as well as in the international community. The concept of the intervention of private actors permeates many of the dispositions of this convention as well as reference to multi-lateral financial institutions (MFIs) and the Global Mechanism, this sort of strange hybrid creature, which is not a secretariat and not a funding mechanism, but has to do with inventories, good identification of what is going on, good information about what is available, and mobilizing, hopefully, new and additional resources from wherever they can be taken, maybe from the World Bank, eventually. And, finally, of course, cooperation, which is the usual vocabulary once we pass the most difficult stages of any negotiation. It is the apple pie side of this convention. But it made sense quite a bit when one starts from the fact that restricted funds would be available for this convention. So we have to compensate with strong cooperation. 18

Civil society and public participation are also central to this convention, not only as principles but as mechanisms which are referred to in 12 articles. As far as partnerships are concerned, even if it is ill-defined in this convention, it relates essentially to synergies between private and public, national and sub-regional level, inter-convention funding and approaches, and, of course, the expected role of MFIs. So, to finish, Mr. Chairman, the "CCD has to CCF". The Convention to Combat Desertification has to combat convention fatigue. It has to find a life of its own and mostly rely on its original aspects, which make this interesting link between private, public, NGO, and community activities in the context of a solid framework for poverty alleviation in developing countries. To achieve that, the countries most affected must adopt, while I share concern about implementing what exists, but they must adopt somehow these national action programs. And if they do not, it will be an unfortunate alibi for certain agencies and countries not to intervene financially. Priority attention, focus, and possibly setting up institutions like national desertification funds should be in the air. All of that must be permeated with a high degree of public participation so that the rationalization and possibly new money flows which can come into this convention can find a terrain in which the convention's originality really gives life to the priorities that people are ready to give in various institutions, including the World Bank which has convened this meeting. Finally, this is about BCPs, which is best cooperation possible and best coordination possible. Overlaps of NEAPs and NAPs have to be attended to. Regional and subregional programs have to be somehow best linked--find the best links possible. Inter-convention financing must not be an alibi for paralysis. OECD focus point people in developing countries should be, I would say, active. That would be useful. And the CCD's Global Mechanism and the Secretariat should work as best as possible together. 19

Linkages Between the Global Environmental Issues

Robert Watson

Director Environment Department The World Bank

I would like to briefly discuss some of the scientific and policy inter-linkages among a number of global environmental issues, and as Jim Wolfensohn said, I will certainly talk about climate change. Indeed I will primarily focus my remarks on the links between the land degradation-desertification and short-term climate variability and long- term changes in climate.

There are six global environmental issues that are critical to the issue of sustainable development and poverty alleviation. These are: land degradation and desertification, loss of biodiversity, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, water resource degradation and forest degradation. The first four are associated with global UN conventions and the latter two with a set of principles enunciated at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

Let me briefly summarize the goals of the four global environmental conventions: * Desertification: mitigating desertification, sustainable development, and integrated natural resource management. - Biodiversity: conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity. * Climate change: mitigating climate change, recognizing the issues of sustainable development and poverty alleviation; * Stratospheric ozone depletion: protection of the ozone layer.

One problem is that the scientific and policy communities have tended to treat these environmental issues in isolation. This is a fundamental mistake because they are highly coupled. Until these issues are addressed in a more integrated manner it will be difficult to formulate and implement an optimal set of policies, practices and technologies, and develop the most effective financing mechanisms.

Scientific Linkages Climate and Biodiversity: Changes in the Earth's climate can significantly affect the structure, functioning and geographic boundaries of terrestrial and marine ecological 20 systems, leading to changes in genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. Coral reefs and forests are projected to be particularly sensitive to changes in climate. Changes in the structure and functioning of ecological systems will in turn affect the Earth's climate by modifying the Earth's albedo and the biogeochemical cycling of a number of key greenhouse gases including water, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

Climate and Stratospheric Ozone: The Earth's climate and stratospheric ozone layer can both be modified by the same gases, i.e., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons, and while these gases tend to warm the Earth's surface and troposphere, they tend to cool the lower stratosphere and increase the amount of ozone destroyed by halocarbons. In turn, halocarbon-induced stratospheric ozone depletion leads to a cooling of the lower stratosphere, which in turn leads to a cooling at the Earth's surface.

Climate Change and Water Resources: Climate change, otherwise known as global warming, tends to focus most peoples attention on the warming aspects of climate change. However, the most important aspect of climate change for society and most managed and unmanaged ecological systems is a change in the hydrological cycle. All models show an intensification of the hydrological cycle, which means as the climate warms, there will be an increase in precipitation in most, but not all regions of the world. A warmer world simply means an increase in evaporation and evapo-transpiration and a subsequent increase in precipitation -- not exactly rocket science. Climate models suggest significant changes in both the seasonal and spatial distribution of precipitation, with more precipitation in winter, an increase in heavy precipitation events, and a decrease in light precipitation events leading to projected increases in floods and droughts.

Climate Change and Land Degradation: Projected changes in the Earth's climate are expected to exacerbate the impact of poor land management practices in arid and semi-arid areas leading to further aridity. In turn, increasing aridity (less vegetation) will change the Earth's albedo, which will alter the exchange of energy between the land and the atmosphere, and hence, at least at the regional level, affect climate.

Climate Change, Climate Variability, Water Resources and Agriculture Let me briefly discuss the evidence for a changing climate and the effect of short- term climate variability and long-term changes in climate on water resources and agriculture in arid and semi-arid lands.

There is no doubt that the Earth is now warmer than at anytime during the last six hundred years, with the last decade being the warmest this century. Precipitation patterns have also changed across the world with most areas becoming wetter, but with the arid and semi-arid regions in the Middle East, the northern and southern regions of Africa, and 21 the western coast of Latin America becoming much dryer. For example, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, which suffer from large year to year oscillations in rainfall, have seen significant decreases in precipitation during the last 100 years, with the last 20 years being significantly below the 100 year average. Even the wettest years are now below the 100 year average. These decreases in precipitation in these arid and semi-arid regions are consistent with the theory of human-induced climate change. Unfortunately, climate projections suggest that these regions will become even hotter and drier and hence even more water stressed in the coming decades due to human-induced climate change.

The challenge is to reduce the vulnerability of those regions which suffer from large year to year oscillations in precipitation and those where long-term decreases in rainfall are projected.

A key question is whether these year to year oscillations in precipitation are understood. The answer is largely yes. The precipitation anomalies are associated with the El Nino phenomenon, which occurs when the sea surface temperatures in the Pacific ocean are several degrees warmer than normal. During an El Nino event, significant parts of the world are exposed to drought, including southeast Africa, northeast Brazil, parts of Indonesia and Australia, while other parts of the world suffer from floods, including Peru. A very high correlation is observed between the El Nino index and rainfall in Zimbabwe. It is also important to note that there is an even stronger correlation between the El Nino index and maize yield in Zimbabwe. This stronger correlation probably arises because of other factors that affect maize yield in addition to precipitation, such as temperature.

The good news is that recent advances in seasonal weather forecasting in the tropics and sub-tropics can be used to improve water and land-use management practices. The emerging capability, albeit not perfect, can be used to predict several months in advance which areas of the world are likely to be drier or wetter than normal. For example, forecasts were made three and six months in advance for Africa in 1997, and while the projections were not perfect they correctly projected that a number of areas in the southern and south-eastern parts of Africa would receive lower than normal precipitation, and that the eastern part of Africa would become much wetter. Indeed, there was a 300 percent increase over normal in rainfall in parts of eastern Africa. While not perfect, these probabilistic predictions can be used for improved resource planning.

This information can be used to manage water resources, agriculture and forestry. For example, agricultural productivity can be optimized through crop selection and carefully deciding when to plant. Seasonal forecasts for water resource use and agricultural planning have been used very successfully in Peru and Brazil. When year to year climate variability is not taken into account in the management of water resources and agriculture, there can be major adverse, and avoidable, economic, social, and 22 environmental impacts. The social implications speak for themselves - famine and loss of income. Without wise land-use planning, undue land degradation can also occur.

In addition, there strong links between temperature and precipitation conditions and the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Hence, forecasts of climate conditions can be used to improve health outcomes.

The observational record suggests there has been an increase in the frequency and magnitude of the El-Nino phenomena during the last 20 years, hence a key question is whether this could be associated with long-term human-induced changes in the climate system and what will happen in the future.

Changes in policies, practices and technologies that reduce the vulnerability of countries today towards short-term climate variability will, in part, assist countries to become less vulnerable to long-term human-induced changes in climate.

Mitigating Climate Change Let me conclude with a short discussion with regard to the options of mitigating long-term human-induced climate change. There are many options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy systems, both on the supply and demand side. But it should be noted that there is also a significant potential to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions through land-use, land-use change and forestry activities. Carbon can be sequestered in above ground-biomass, litter and woody debris, below-ground biomass, soil carbon and forest products. Key activities could include enhanced afforestation and re-forestation activities, decreased deforestation, and improved forest management activities. In addition, there are numerous changes in agricultural and rangelands practices that can enhance soil carbon and hence soil fertility.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which I chair, is currently preparing a Special Report on land-use, land-use change and forestry. This report addresses a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to implement the Kyoto Protocol: definitions, the accounting system, a monitoring and reporting system, and inventory guidelines. In addition, the Report provides an assessment of the experience to date of land use, land use change and forestry projects (largely AIJ projects), the future potential to reduce the net emissions of greenhouse gases through Articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12 (Clean Development Mechanism), and a framework for evaluating the sustainable development implications of such activities.

A key decision for the Parties to the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol is whether to allow land-use, land-use change and forestry activities under the Clean Development Mechanism. This decision is expected at COP-6, which is currently 23 scheduled for late 2000. If these activities become eligible under the Clean Development it could potentially mean a "carbon" market of several billions of dollars a year, with associated sustainable development benefits. While controversial, this financial mechanism could provide an important link between the Climate Convention, the Desertification Convention, and the Biodiversity Convention.

Lastly, let me mention that the Global Environment Facility is an important funding mechanism for land degradation projects that have implications for biodiversity, climate change or international waters.

25

Section B: What is New about the CCD?

The Function of the United Nations Conventionto Combat Desertification(UNCCD) Secretariat

Hama Arba Diallo

Executive Secretary United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Secretariat Bonn, Germany

It is not coincidental that the work of the World Bank and that of the UNCCD have clearly converging interests. The Convention clearly calls upon various partners to join hands in taking the initiatives that would help to make a difference in the lives of poor people living in areas affected by drought and desertification. The Bank has invested enormous resources in fighting rural poverty and land degradation. More than any other legally binding instrument in the field of sustainable development, the UNCCD combines development and environment protection, the economy and the ecology while giving to all actors a participatory role to play in implementing its provisions. The Convention is already in the implementation phase, and the task is now of transforming into tangible actions the principles and provisions within the CCD text. International agencies and donor country Parties are still searching for the best articulation of their response under a coherent operational framework. The UNCCD offers new hope in the struggle against poverty by rationalizing aid flows and in this regard the Bank has a key role to play in defining its contribution to an enabling environment at country and regional levels for the achievement of the goals set out for the affected developing countries. It is our hope that the Bank will become an essential partner in the identification and development of sustainable systems of production and means of livelihood in the affected dryland areas in order to address poverty alleviation according to the approaches adopted by the 151 Parties to the Convention. The functions of the UNCCD Secretariat are essential in coordinating these activities. The directions of the CCD Secretariat activities are fully based on the Convention relevant provisions and decisions taken so far by the Conference of the Parties. The CCD Secretariat has played an important role in facilitating the whole negotiation process between 1993 and 1994 and provided since then a modest but focused support to the momentum of new initiatives launched by the Parties. Since the adoption of the Convention, the Secretariat has been involved in various activities aimed at promoting the Convention and facilitating the formulation and 26 implementation phases of the CCD provisions. The Secretariat aims at providing a reference for the process, increasing awareness and encouraging synergies. The actions undertaken, upon request by relevant partners, aim at strengthening capacities for preparing national, sub-regional and regional Action Programs to combat land degradationl desertification. In the coming years, the Secretariat will continue to foster and promote the effective implementation of the Convention in the light of the guidance of the Conference of Parties (COP) so as to ensure that Action Programs can secure the support of international cooperation, agencies and other interested partners. In that spirit, the Secretariat will also continue, at the request of the Governments, NGO's and other relevant actors, to make every necessary effort towards a full and efficient implementation of the Convention. However, the UNCCD processes could only succeed if all partners are fully involved and supportive of the efforts of affected countries. We have been therefore intensifying our collaboration with all UN specialized agencies and international organizations, including the World Bank. The World Bank has considerable potential for bringing added dynamism to the CCD implementation. But its financial significant resources may also be easily channeled to support modest actions which are sometimes needed at various key levels: support to focal points, pilot participatory ventures, etc.. We are confident that the outcome of this roundtable will lead us to a greater and closer cooperation with the World Bank and all interested partners. We believe that the commitment of the Bank now needs to be translated into concrete support to the sustainable management of arid lands, particularly poverty alleviation in the framework of the implementation of the CCD; that the loan resources of the World Bank and the regional vice presidents and the country directors cannot be directed towards the CCD without facilitating for feasibility programs. I call for the Bank's President's leadership in setting up a special grant funding initiative to establish enabling framework for all Banks investments contributing to the CCD implementation. This facility should be located within the existing Dryland Program of the World Bank to facilitate and coordinate the response of the Bank to the Convention. I propose that the Bank consider allocating $5 million a year to the program with a view to promoting sustainable development synergies and investment preparedness in the CCD. The Dryland Program will then be in a position to encourage a response to the CCD in the Bank's Comprehensive Development Framework, and establish good cooperation in pilot countries between the country assistance strategies and the CCD national action programming. The CCD Secretariat will continue to make every effort to support CCD activities in all affected regions, particularly in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean countries. Such a policy framework will lay down a basis for undertaking field projects in a successful manner in which the World Bank is expected to play an important role in mobilizing resources to facilitate country-driven activities to combat land degradation/ 27 desertification. The decisions and recommendation made during this roundtable should pave the way to further collaboration between all of us in the CCD processes. 28

Understanding the Global Mechanism: A Partnership Agreement to Implement the CCD

Per Ryden

General Manager Global Mechanism, IFAD Rome, Italy

The Global Mechanism has been referred to as some sort of innovation that is not very well defined. I have referred to it as the mother of all compromises in the way that it is defined in the various documentation. I will explain how I see the Global Mechanism working. The Global Mechanism (GM) is the financial mechanism of the Desertification Convention. It is not, however, a central fund like the GEF. Instead, the principal task of the GM is--and this is spelled out in Article 21 of the Convention--"is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of existing financial mechanisms"--in plural--"and to promote actions leading to the mobilization and channeling of substantial financial resources to affected developing country parties." The GM can be described as broker, matchmaker, or the interface between resource needs and resources available, with the primary task of mobilizing resources for a well-defined subject area, namely, desertification and land degradation. The reason why the Global Mechanism is not a central fund, but rather a brokering institution, is that the problem of land degradation and desertification is--and this is very clearly stated in the convention--very closely linked to the development process itself, and in particular, to all aspects of rural development, to agriculture development and to poverty alleviation. We must insure that existing financial mechanisms are used more efficiently and effectively before we can expect substantial additional funds to be allocated to implement the CCD. However, the Convention is a legal document, and if the developing country parties to the Convention meet their obligations--i.e., prepare national action programs according to the participatory and bottom-up approach described in Convention--then it is the obligation of the developed country parties to the Convention to meet their obligation, which is to provide the necessary financial resources to turn these plans into reality. The task of the Global Mechanism is to be the interface in the process of building linkages between countries' action programs and the donor resources. The Global Mechanism is very new and the experience to date is therefore limited. But even so, there are two or three issues that I would like to underline, and where I think the World Bank and other organizations could play a very important role. 29

The task of pursuing the implementation of the Convention in developing countries is vested in focal point institutions. Very often the focal point is located in the Ministry of Environment. There is a risk, therefore, that the Convention is seen primarily as an environmental issue and not understood as a framework for action for a much broader development effort, which has really been underlined this morning. In order to address desertification and land degradation properly, it is necessary to involve ministers of agriculture, livestock development, and rural development in the effort. The task for the Global Mechanism is to help bring about this broader understanding and involvement of government in the process of implementing the Convention. This said, the World Bank and other such institutions have responsibility to bring about this broader understanding. It is in the interest of the Bank to highlight the links between many of its programs and projects and the Convention. It must, after all, be in the Bank's interest to be able to refer to an international convention as the basis for many of its initiatives. In our discussions with Bank staff (especially the Rural Development Group) we found there was a common interest in the Soil Facility Initiative (SFI) that the Bank has been pursuing in cooperation with FAO and many others for some time. The soil fertility problem is closely linked to the desertification problem. It may be more so in Sahelian West Africa than in many other parts of the world. However, at the country level the issue is under the responsibility of the ministries of agriculture or rural development, rather than the ministries of environment. This is the case for example in Mali and Burkina Faso. These two countries are also on the priority list for Soil Fertility Initiative and that we have made an effort there to build a link between the SFI and the plans there are to implement the Convention. There has been positive response so far both from the Bank and the governments, as well as from the donor community. Hopefully we will be able to advance the agenda on both the SFI and the Convention in a substantively coordinated manner. The Global Mechanism, as well as the World Bank, should explore such possibilities and draw on them in the interest of implementing the Convention in pursuit of sustainable development. Developing country governments should be encouraged to broaden the view and actively include all relevant ministries in the process of planning for and subsequent implementation of the Convention. Ministries of planning and finance must be involved if the resources of existing financial mechanisms are to be made available for CCD implementation. The Global Mechanism should promote actions leading to mobilization and channeling of substantial financial resources for CCD implementation. In order to do so, the GM must engage itself in a number of strategic initiatives, with a potential of leading to increased resource flow. One such initiative is related to the issue of carbon sequestration and climate change, via land improvement activities. This is a debated 30 and contested issue, and it will take time, possibly a very long time, before any form of international agreement is reached on how this can be worked out. If eventually there is an opportunity for carbon trading, and hence potential resources for investment in carbon sequestration and land improvement, the Global Mechanism and the Convention must be there at the very outset to benefit from this opportunity. The Global Mechanism should contribute in preparing the ground for such a scenario, and it can do so by working with the World Bank, FAO, the GEF Secretariat and other partners in addressing the land improvement potential of carbon sequestration. Questions regarding the potential for land improvement activities to sequester carbon that need to be addressed include: what is it, how can it be verified, and how can it be sustained? After all, the climate change lobby is not going to consider carbon trading as a viable alternative for mitigating global warming unless there is a common understanding of its benefits and agreement on how it can be verified. We are already discussing these issues with ESAF, FAO, and the Bank, and there is a positive response from all of these parties in working together on this issue. In order for the GM to play a useful role, to help bring about the broader involvement of stakeholders in the process of convention implementation, both at country level and through strategic initiatives, the mechanism must be able to support these processes financially. The GM must be able to provide seed funds that in practical terms are able to move the process forward. It is a question of building partnerships, and this means bringing people together in meetings and in undertaking preparatory work required for all to see the benefits of the various initiatives. FAD, as a founding member on the Facilitation Committee of the GM, has led the way in this respect by allocating $2.5 million dollars to a special account, named Special Resources for CCD Implementation. This account will provide seed funding to support preparation and implementation of the Convention. I would like to invite the World Bank, also a founding member of the Facilitation Committee, to make its own contribution to this fund, and that should be coordinated with the proposal that has just been made by the CCD Secretariat. 31

The Australian Experience in Combating Desertification

Bruce Lloyd,

Chairman Australia Land Care Council Canberra, Australia

Background Almost 75 per cent of Australia or 5.5 million square kilometers are arid, semi arid or dry sub humid generally referred to as 'Rangeland' or in symbolic terms, 'The Outback'. In area but not in production it comprises a significant part of the sheep and beef cattle grazing industries. There is also some irrigation and marginal cropping. Properties are large and towns are small and few, unless they are related to the mining industry or increasingly to tourism. Mining is the most important industry in the rangelands, but employs a relatively small workforce. Most of the rangelands ownership title is government leasehold, held by European/Australian pastoralists, with only a small area of freehold and an increasingly significant percentage of inalienable Aboriginal freehold and Aboriginal leasehold. Although numerically there are more European/Australians, the Rangelands are home to about 20 per cent of the indigenous population. Generally the Aboriginal lands are not used for commercial agriculture, and over 20 per cent of the rangelands are unoccupied deserts. The area has significant bio-diversity but is under pressure due to over grazing, land clearing, land and water degradation, feral animals and weeds. This is also generally true for the more arable farming areas Australia is a federation and land management is constitutionally the prerogative of the Six State Governments, but the National or Commonwealth Government retains the ultimate power in the Northern Territory. The National Government however through its financial power and if necessary its international convention responsibility, can exert great influence in co-ordination and leadership, resulting in the recent release of the "National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management". Natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and environment protection are increasingly partnerships between all levels of Government., farmer and environment organizations, landowners and communities. This community delivery model is called 'Landcare', and is positively recognized by 82 per cent of the total Australian population of nineteen million people. Population pressure on land has never been an issue in Australia with the rural population continuing to decline in both the rangelands and the arable areas. There is also reduced economic viability in all sections of the grazing industries. 32

Delivery The State Governments historically provided the legislative framework and technical advice for Australia's farming and grazing industries through soil conservation, agriculture and forestry officers' etc. By the 1980's they were reducing these services and there was a growing awareness of the urgent need for a national approach to the sustainable land use and environment problems. Fortunately the peak farmer and environment organizations, the National Farmers Federation (NFF) and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) presented a united or bi-partisan proposal to the National Government in 1989 to develop an Australia-wide program. In the Australian experience it has been vitally important that there is cooperation and not public confrontation between these two groups. The basis of the program would be the voluntary community groups that were appearing in different regions as ordinary citizens became aware of the problem and the challenge and were determined to do something about it in their district. The National and State Parliaments were also bi-partisan in their acceptance of the proposal, and although there are differences at times between the National and State Governments over financial arrangements, the overall bi-partisanship continues. The 'Decade of Landcare' was initiated, and in 1992 the National Landcare Program was established and financial partnerships arranged between the National and State Governments and Landcare groups, with each sharing about one third of the cost. Most of the labor is provided by group members and is voluntary. Generally, there are over twice as many project applications as available annual grant money, and selection is by Regional and State Assessment Panels, whose membership is dominated by Landcare members. There are no grants for production agriculture, and some groups never apply. Project grants or facilitator employment contracts are usually for a maximum of three years as they are meant to be a catalyst for initiatives and not for long term assistance. Three bodies were established at the national level, to assist community Landcare groups, give them a voice on national policy, and to promote the concept with Australians generally and obtain business sector support. These bodies are, the National Landcare Facilitator, the Australian Landcare Council, and Landcare Australia Limited, and they continue to play an important role. There are also state and some regional support structures, and local, state and national magazines.

Landcare Groups: The Key The key is the 4,500 and still growing Landcare, Bushcare, Coastcare etc community groups. They are the delivery mechanism. Almost 40 per cent of Australia's farmers belong to a group and are the backbone of the system as they have freehold ownership of the arable areas. However, there are increasing numbers of regional urban and city groups. Most of the actual Landcare projects are on public land or in "public 33 good" works on private land. But the real success is in the changed attitude by farmers to their own land. Surveys of farmers have confirmed that those who belong to a group will incorporate more conservation practices on their own farms than will those who do not belong. They are also more likely to attend a Property Management Planning short course, another element of the Landcare program. These courses provide a mix of financial and conservation planning advice. Generally husband and wife both participate as they do in Landcare generally. There are now about six hundred people-oriented facilitators employed by community groups on short-term contracts. Their critical role is now better appreciated, particularly in the more isolated areas, and better communication and training arrangements for them are being considered.

Recent Developments Landcare is evolving and the following are some of the developments and lessons.

1. Natural Heritage Trust In 1996 the current National Government introduced The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), a six year commitment to significantly increase the budget and to include almost all the environment programs such as Bio diversity, Wetlands, World Heritage and Remnant Vegetation, in a "One Stop Shop" application process. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the biggest regional natural resource management program in Australia, has also been included. This has simplified the application process by groups but the length of the form has been criticized. More importantly it has encouraged more integrated projects combining both sustainable agriculture and bio-diversity etc. It has made the evaluation process easier and better. This integrated project development has also been assisted by the National Government Departments of Agriculture and the Environment jointly administering the program. The same has happened at the State level where in some States the two Departments have been merged. Government bureaucracies who traditionally have been antagonistic are now cooperating. The NHT budget has leveled out at about US $200 million a year. This has to be multiplied by a factor of three to cover the State and group contributions. For a comprehensive total, other Government programs, corporate commitments, farmer and conservation groups expenditure, and Government revenue forgone through tax deductions, etc. have to be included. The Indigenous Lands Corporation, which is controlled by Aborigines assists commercially operated Aboriginal properties, and they relate more to the mainstream Landcare movement. For example they have a member on the LandCare Council. For the traditionally managed majority of Aboriginal lands, a special team of Aboriginal 34 facilitators who can relate to their own people, have been recently appointed. Both sectors also use the NHT. Schools in regional Australia are very involved both in their curriculum and in projects. Waterwatch, the monitoring of water quality, is largely done by school classes. Schools are eligible for NHT support. The formal Partnership Agreements between the two levels of Government have been broadened to incorporate the combined sustainable agriculture and environment elements. The Regional and State Assessment Panels after representations by the ACF now include greater environmental expertise. The National Farmers Federation has a major organizational and promotion role in the Property Management Planning segment of Landcare, and this is gaining in popularity with farmers. The National Government recognizing that the arable land is privately owned, has improved tax breaks or deductibility for on-farn conservation practices and introduced new measures to encourage donations to environment organizations. The Decade of Landcare is being reviewed as it draws to a close, and a committee containing Landcare group members is discussing potential changes to the program when the NHT commitment ends in July 2002. Possibly the principal criticism of the program is the lack of financial certainty beyond that time, although both sides of Parliament support its continuation. Another element of the NHT is the National Land and Water Audit, the first comprehensive study of the status of the nation's soil and water. It will be the benchmark for the degree of Australia's success in ecologically sustainable development and a basis for future programs.

2. Regional/Catchment Scale Projects For some years larger, more integrated, projects have been encouraged, to achieve more strategic results with the relatively modest amount of project money available. Encroaching dryland salinity in Eastern Australia and the challenge and opportunity presented by Australia's commitment at Kyoto to greenhouse gases abatement are two of the urgent issues confronting natural resource management. This will mean a higher priority for catchment scale schemes in the future. The reaction of local Landcare groups to this new order, when many of them are the only remaining effective community focus in a declining population district, is a concern. However there are now Landcare Networks encompassing the local groups in a catchment to facilitate the change. Several States have formally based their natural resource planning on the catchment, and given the locally controlled Catchment Authority the power to impose levies through Local Government. The greater strength of these regional bodies also allows the employment of locally based facilitators to assist with application procedures and organize more integrated and larger projects. 35

LandcareCommunity Group Examples The Goulburn Broken Catchment in Northern Victoria encompasses over a hundred Landcare groups in the intensive irrigation downstream zone and a declining grazing industry upstream. Both have salt problems but the irrigation section recognized the high water table problem years ago and is winning the battle with improved irrigation management. Conversely the upland dryland salinity, the result of tree clearing many years ago, is only now emerging. The Catchment Authority working with the Landcare groups has implemented a number of strategies to address issues and problems related to floods, native vegetation, bio-diversity, land and water salinity, water quality, land use change, feral pests and weeds. The Swan-Avon Catchment covers an area the size of New York State in an extensive dry farming zone in Western Australia, and has about a hundred groups in six sub-catchments. Alcoa a large company which mines bauxite in the region is a partner in the project. In the past five years, members have planted a million and a quarter trees and fodder shrubs, erected a thousand kilometers of protective fencing, treated seven hundred specific degraded sites, and re-vegetated five hundred kilometers of creek bank. They have also promoted no till seeding, developed contour and alley farming and established wildlife corridors. Alcoa is an example of the success of Landcare Australia Ltd. in involving the corporate sector in identifying with the Landcare ethic financially and in their own business practices. Fourteen farm families form the Genaren Hill Landcare Gro in central west New South Wales who in 1992 decided to improve the sustainability of their farms while enhancing what was left of the native vegetation and wildlife. Working together, the group has been able to employ professionals to undertake soil mapping and advise on appropriate farm practices for the region. They have also established a four hundred hectare nature conservation area on land donated by one of the members, built an eight kilometer vermin-proof fence around it and reintroduced two marsupials extinct in the district for seventy years.

Rangelands Managing Australia's Rangelands " National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management" a report of the joint specialist agriculture and environment committees of the National and State Governments has just been released. The recommendations show the lessons learnt in dealing with this vast and difficult area since the first national attempt in 1992. Some of those lessons are the result of a number of large regional projects in the rangelands since 1994. Several of them were initially under the Rural Partnership Program which had elements of Landcare, The Rural Adjustment Scheme, and included improved leasehold arrangements, better coordination of Government services, capping of artesian water bores, and conservation practice 36 conditioning. In other words, we have found Rangelands more complex in relation to people issues and priorities.

There are three goals in the Principles and Guidelines: a) Conservation and management of the natural environment, b) Sustainable economic activity, and c) Recognition and support for social, aesthetic, cultural and heritage values, diversity and development. Successful implementation has to allow for the size of properties measured in thousands of square kilometers, the attendant isolation of families, security of tenure, the scale of the feral animal and weed invasions, and the resentment of local people to the perceived or real lecturing of urban experts. One lesson seems to be that if the local committees' priorities are not the same as the scientists' then do not reject the local views otherwise the overall program may be rejected. The valuable role locally owned and based facilitators can play in this situation is recognized in the Principles and Guidelines as follows: "A critical element in the focus on regional strategies is the need for facilitators, funded by government but employed by local and regional communities. Facilitators would help communities develop regional planning processes through assisting the development of leadership and other skills within the community and assisting the process for developing strategic goals and actions and making the necessary linkages to government policies and programs. This will be particularly important in the rangelands where low population densities and small communities, as well as disadvantages associated with distance and isolation, make access to resources and information difficult". The Government has recently announced allocation of more money under an NHT cost-sharing formula for eliminating the remaining open flowing water bores in the Great Artesian Basin, the scarcest resource in the rangelands. There are also new programs using the latest technology to assist local communities establish Rural Transaction and Telecommunication Centers. These are clear indications that the Government is listening and acting. An example of the scale of the problems is the ripping or ploughing of an area of four hundred square kilometers containing hundreds of thousands of rabbit warrens south of Alice Springs by the Centralian Landcare group to capitalize on the reduced rabbit population following the release of the Calici virus.

International LANDCARE 2000 Conference A National Landcare conference is held every three years, and with growing international interest in the model, the one to be held in Melbourne from March 2nd to 5th 2000 will for the first time have a significant international component. The World Bank will be a major contributor with Ian Johnson, Vice President, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Network, a plenary speaker, and Geoff Spencer, Senior Water Resources Specialist at the Bank will speak on Catchment Planning. There will also be speakers from a range of developed and developing countries relating their experience 37 with sustainable resource management at the community level. Teams from a number of developing countries will attend the conference as part of a training program in Landcare. Every two years National Landcare Awards are conducted, usually culminating in the national presentations by the Prime Minister in Parliament House Canberra. This time the winners of the various categories will be announced by the Prime Minister at a dinner on the first night of the conference. The variety of Landcare experience revealed by the awards highlights the breadth of the ethic in Australia. The event is televised, and is part of the national awareness publicity of Landcare.

Conclusion The following are essential elements of the Australian Experience with Landcare; Essential Elements 1. A sustained bi partisan approach to the problems and their solutions by society generally, but particularly by farmer and environment organizations, and the major political parties and various levels of Government. 2. Agreed partnership arrangements and levels of support. 3. Ownership of the projects and practices by those involved, local comrnmunities, farmer's etc. 4. Confidence at all levels that Landcare will continue to be broadly supported. 5. Positive publicity and recognition, such as "Olympic Landcare" for the 2000 Olympics to maintain the awareness and support of the general public. 6. Relevant scientific research and technical back up to guide but not dominate the program. 7. Corporate sector involvement as committed players and financial supporters. 8. Combine agriculture and environment objectives and projects as much a possible so that one is not at the expense of the other. 9. A "Bottoms Up" approach, from community to region and small to large scale projects. 10. Encourage and if necessary, require Government Departments of Agriculture and Environment to work together and jointly administer programs. 11. Use locally accepted and based people for any facilitator/coordinator work. 12. Involve the local schools in projects and include natural resource management in the curriculum. 13. The intelligent use of the tax system to encourage on farm works on privately owned land and to maximize private donations. 14. Involve the schools, because the understanding and participation of the next generation is critically important. 38

Conventionto CombatDesertification: How Do NGOs Fit in the Picture?

Robert Buchanan

Coordinator US NGOs Coalition for the CCD, Washington, DC. USA

Non-governmental organizations - local, national and international - have a crucial role to play in improving the sustainable production of the Earth's drylands. By establishing a legal partnership with civil society and by emphasizing a bottom-up approach to policy and decision-making, the 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification acknowledges this essential fact. This is what distinguishes the CCD from previous action plans on desertification and from other international environmental agreements. The US Coalition for the Convention to Combat Desertification consists of about 20 US NGOs working closely together as well as with businesses and universities to raise awareness in the US about the global desertification problem and the importance of the CCD. The US NGOs Coalition is linked to an international network of over 100 NGOs working on dryland degradation issues in more than 70 countries. Known as RIOD for its French acronym (Reseau International d'ONG sur la Desertification), the network was established in November 1994 by the NGOs that were involved in the negotiations which led to the Convention to Combat Desertification. As partners with governments and the private sector, local NGOs in developing countries bring a number of important advantages to the fight against desertification, whether they be national NGOs, village committees, women's associations, youth groups or organizations of farmers or herders. In general, they afford access to grassroots communities and serve as conduits for the bottom-up policy formation process, tapping into the well-springs of local traditional knowledge which are usually ignored in top- down planning. Through their local roots and contacts, NGOs can mobilize community buy-in for action plans, ensuring that the community is at the center of the change process, thereby maximizing the likelihood of a successful outcome. The key for the future is to ensure that NGOs are formally involved in an ongoing basis in all of the CCD's processes, including the all-important resource-mobilization operations of the Global Mechanism. At the same time, it should be pointed out that, despite their critical role in the CCD process, many RIOD members lack resources. They need the Bank's assistance for capacity-building and small-scale community projects. One further way that the Bank can be helpful is to put pressure on governments of 39 desertification-affected countries to support the NAP consultation process with NGOs and Community Based Organizations.

NGOs are the essential building blocks of the Convention to Combat Desertification. Community-based organizations in particular are on the front lines of the struggle against land degradation and are crucial for the convention's successful implementation. But national and international NGOs also have an important role to play in educating citizens and their governments about desertification and mobilizing their active participation in solving the problem. How can the Bank help? First, by making available additional resources for appropriate NGO activities through the Bank's Drylands Program, the NGO Unit, the GEF or other mechanism. And second, by fully integrating national action programs on desertification into the Bank's country assistance strategies and making it clear that the government's performance in terms of working cooperatively with their civil societies to develop their NAPs will be an important criterion for Bank lending to that country. 40

The CCD: One View on How NGOs Fit in the Picture

Michael Brown

President Innovative Resources Management, Inc. Washington, DC. USA

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) from either an advocacy or implementation perspective by and large agree on two points: * NGOs have a key role to play in bridging between community level actors, governments, and donors in CCD implementation. * Current implementation mechanisms are poorly understood by NGOs, and neither facilitate NGO pro-activity in CDD program development, nor promote collaboration or innovation at CCD operational levels, despite the theoretical promise and rhetoric to the contrary. There is no uniform NGO position on how CCD implementation should proceed to capitalize on what appears to be an excellent theoretical opportunity for NGOs under the Convention. While NGOs have participated well in the INCD and COP deliberations as observers, and have been highly involved in the development of several African national action programs (NAPs), operational realities experienced to date have been more constraining than enabling for systematic involvement of NGOs in the CCD. Globally, differences in opinion between northern and southern NGOs as to the relevance of the CCD, and as to the role of NGOs in CCD implementation , appear after scratching below the surface. For example, many southern NGOs argue that CCD implementation should consist primarily of fund transfers between donor agencies to southern NGOs and community level partners for implementation. In this perspective, southern NGOs as service providers to partner (or client) communities could be the primary responsible agents for facilitation and implementation issues under the CCD. Most northern NGOs have meanwhile been reticent to commit much time and resources to the CCD so long as funding mechanisms remain vague. Some northern NGOs who have been involved in the CCD since its inception argue that NGO technical and institutional capacity building issues should be prioritized in early CCD implementation stages, as current capacity deficits may preclude a major implementation role for southern NGOs in particular' at present. Doing so, northern NGO partners argue, will enable southern NGOs to participate more fully with government and other CCD actors in national action program (NAP) and/or other

1 Somenorthern NGOs are quite candid about capacity buildingchallenges for all NGOs workingon the CCD,northerners included, given the scope and scale of desertificationchallenges. 41 planning and implementation mechanisms, and thereby capitalize on the potential that the bottom-up oriented CCD offers all partners during implementation. A variety of opinion in the southern NGO community exists meanwhile as to the pertinence of this northern NGO presumptiveness that southern partner capacities require strengthening prior to assumption of major implementation roles. In the remainder of this short paper I will provide ideas of what I personally feel are the key issues and constraints facing NGOs and partners to the CCD working with them regarding implementation issues under the CCD. I will refer to one case in NGO collaboration that I am most familiar with -- the International Network of Action Research Coalitions in Combating Desertification (INARD) -- which I along with other NGO, community, and government partners have been mobilizing over the past three years in eight developing countries. This activity has received support in the early planning stages from FAD. Most recently strong interest has been demonstrated by the UNDP/GEF Arab States program under the PDF Block B program. I believe the "case study" offers a potential model for multi-stakeholder collaboration in the CCD that will be relevant to both field level operators including NGOs and community level partners, along with financial institutions that may support such initiatives. From 1989-96 under a USAID funded NGO capacity building initiative in natural resources management (NRM) I managed in sub-Saharan Africa (PVO-NGO/NRMS Project), we were able to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of NGOs and community level organizations in a number of African countries. While technical and institutional capacities varied among NGOs across countries, as well as within individual countries, one fact consistently struck us in our work. That was that NGOs were being increasingly implored by donors and governments in the context of decentralization programming to assume a more active role in rural development activities in partnership with communities. While on the surface laudable, we noted in our work that mechanisms for establishing functional institutional partnerships between NGOs and other necessary collaborators were lacking, as so few precedents for collaboration existed beyond very micro-levels. Minus these mechanisms, we concluded that ad hoc NGO capacity building may provide limited benefits.2 It seemed to us that if the CCD was to be effective at promoting bottom-up demand driven processes, a high degree of capacity building and methodology development in launching dynamic institutional arrangements would therefore be required given the lack of precedents. The INARD3 was initiated specifically to develop and test out strategies, methods and tools to combat desertification at different levels of scale through innovative

2 See Brown, Michael, 1996, Non-Governmental Organizations and Natural Resources Management: Synthesis Assessment of Capacity Building Issues in Africa. PVO-NGO/NRMS Project. Washington, DC 3Information on the INARD can be obtained from me at [email protected]. Donor perspectives on the INARD can be obtained from Mr. Bahman Mansuri or Vera Weill-Halle at IFAD, and Hani Daraghma or Inger Andersen at UNDP/GEF Arab States Bureau. 42 partnerships. The action research framework is premised on the assumption that strategies and methods are weakest regarding institutional collaboration aspects of CCD implementation, in parallel with weaknesses in collaboration in development and conservation cooperation programs generally. This area moreover appeared to a core group of northern INARD partners4 as an area that would require systematic investigation during the early phases of CCD implementation. The INARD hypothesis is that through systematic and iterative testing of strategies and methods to promote collaborative multi-stakeholder planning (versus relying solely on grassroots initiatives) that the CCD will learn what role communities, NGOs and other CCD stakeholders can realistically play over the coming years. This is in contrast to assuming, for example, that collaboration between NGO partners and communities will occur on a widespread basis simply because objective needs and opportunities under the CCD present themselves. Assuming that collaboration will occur as if by default, we have felt, will only lead to unrealistic expectations and frustration as to what communities and NGOs can actually deliver over the long-term. This type of frustration will damage the CCD, which incontestably is the most promising cooperation mechanism to come upon the international development scene in the past 30 years. In conceptually promoting partnership between NGOs and other operators, and at the same time mandating that planning be bottom up driven, the CCD has charted for itself a necessary, but by no means straightforward task. This is because existing planning and implementation structures and mechanisms are more often than not top-down creations, and do not currently accommodate collaborative planning and implementation that we feel is required for the CCD to be successfully implemented. NGOs must be systematically integrated into the CCD through partnerships with other stakeholders (versus being treated as some form of "institutional set aside" category). This will be an inevitable requirement if CCD impacts are to be felt at scales beyond the community level. Frameworks and mechanisms to promote effective NGO integration into planning and implementation coalitions must, ironically, be developed collaboratively, through I would argue iterative action research hypothesis testing approaches to determine how best this can be accomplished. Current CCD discussions state rhetorically that CCD implementation will occur through the NAP framework in each country. How much the NAPs can be bottom up driven appears questionable given that planning structures are Cold War remnants geared for top down versus bottom up planning processes.

4 In 1997 an informnalINARD NGO meeting was held in Paris between PVO-NGO/NRMS(IRM), GRET, Intercooperation,VSF, UniversidadInternacional de Andaluciaand SYFIA representatives.Substantial concern and interest on the part of these northern NGO representatives over how the CCD would succeed in promoting and implementing its bottom up agenda was evidenced, with the result being that efforts to determine how this objective could be achieved was identified as a key INARD objective. 43

For NGO potential to be realized, more attention through action research programs will be required to determine the operational role that NGOs can play in partnership with other stakeholder categories through the NAP process. Without this, it is unlikely we will move beyond highly circumscribed NGO interventions at the community level that only scratch the surface of CCD expectations for outreach and impact. In the meantime, the list of real drylands community needs the CCD is mandated to address is getting no shorter, with NGOs eager to assume appropriate roles at scales that are relevant to communities and the CCD. 44

Discussant Remarks

Linda Brown

Senior Natural Resources Adviser Overseas Development Administration (ODA) United Kingdom

Mr. Chairman I would like to thank the World Bank for inviting me to participate in what is turning out to be a very interesting, fascinating meeting, which hopefully will be a turning point in the implementation of the Desertification Convention. The title of this particular section of our discussions is "What's New About the CCD?" Previous speakers have brought out the main elements of what is innovative about the Desertification Convention. To me, the main aspects are that this is not just an environment convention; it is a convention about development and the importance of the inter-linkages with poverty. Throughout the Convention, emphasis is placed on the participation of civil society, all aspects of civil society, and the importance of the participation of women. Although the Convention text discusses many technical aspects of land degradation, it gives equal weight to socioeconomic issues, and this has been reflected in a number of comments about the need to take a holistic approach to the implementation of the Convention. Another innovative aspect of the Convention is its Global Mechanism. I do not think there is another animal like the Global Mechanism in any international agreement. As Per Ryden correctly pointed out, it did arise as a compromise, but it does also provide an opportunity. There is no other institution within an international agreement that is committed to mobilizing financial resources, that is, committed to mobilizing financial resources from all sorts of sources. The Convention itself refers to multiple sources. And it seems to me that perhaps this meeting itself is one of the manifestations of the fact that there is a Global Mechanism, and that the Global Mechanism is beginning to get to work. On another innovative aspect, what is new about the CCD, is its emphasis on partnerships, and this meeting is another manifestation of the partnership approach, which I hope will strengthen this partnership approach. So these are a few of the things that are innovative about the Convention, but there is one or two things that are not so innovative, and may be a hangover from previous approaches. And at the risk of sticking my neck out on this, my feeling is that one of the aspects of the Convention which needs a second look is the concept of the national action plan. Now, nobody would deny that implementation at the local level is the most important, mobilizing all local actors to implement the convention is a key. But the 45 problem with national action plans is that there are so many of them around. The Bio- diversity Convention has a national action plan. I am sure the climate change one does. All of the global summit meetings that have taken place since Rio have also called for national action plans. Countries have got national action plans coming out of their ears. It is an enormous burden on not just developing countries, but quite a significant burden on developed countries as well. My fear is that what is actually happening is that in countries which are generally trying to get to grips with implementing these commitments are finding that they are somewhat overwhelmed and there is a lack of coordination between the different national action plans. Things are going on in parallel when they should be integrated. We all recognize the need for this holistic approach, but we are not going to encourage it if we insist that every international initiative must have its own national action plan. In some way these different actions, directed sometimes to different purposes, but often to very similar purposes, must be brought together, and I feel that they must be brought together at the national level under the leadership of the national authorities. My colleague from Australia mentioned the problems of getting together the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry on Environment. This goes across all the ministries. It is quite difficult to develop effective institutional links between government ministries. But there is an optimistic element in this integration of action by different ministries and agencies that I see. And that is in the trend of decentralization. This has taken place, including in a number of countries in Africa. Integrated action is much easier at the local level because the people from the different ministries, the local agricultural offices, the education offices, the health offices, actually speak to each other and meet each other regularly. There are not so many of these interactions at headquarters level. I think this is one of the great potentials for decentralization, in that it makes integrated actions easier to implement. I would like the meeting to look deeply at institutional issues. Mobilizing financial resources is important, but implementing the Convention can only be effectively brought about by effective institutions on the ground.

47

Section C: Partnerships in Development

Some Lessons and Challenges of the NAP Process

Philip Dobie Director

and

Tijan Jallow Deputy Director

Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNS Q)5 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) New York, USA

Introductory remarks

It is very opportune that the World Bank has organized this round table on desertification. The adoption of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought (the CCD) has helped to focus the proper attention on the drylands of the world. Since the adoption of the CCD, much effort has been placed on the preparation of National Action Programs to Combat Desertification and Drought (NAP). We reported in some detail to the second Conference of the Parties of the CCD on our experience of NAP preparation, and we do not intend today to repeat that analysis. Instead we wish to concentrate on the question "What happens next?" The challenge is now to move from the preparatory stage into implementation, and we will discuss the challenges that this presents.

Institutionalization of the NAP process

Sustaining efforts to address the issue of dryland development at country level will be largely dependent on how well the NAP process is institutionalized in development planning. This implies that concerns for desertification are reflected in the broad national development frameworks plans backed by adequate policy incentives and resources, and "mainstreamed" into the various sectoral policies and plans developed by line ministries.

5 UNSO is the Office to Combat Desertificationand Drought of the United Nations Development Programme.UNSO is a unit of UNDP's SustainableEnergy and EnvironmentDivision, withinthe Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy 48

This process is however hampered by a number of factors, including institutional fragmentation, and the roles and manner in which the focal points have worked so far. The focal points should ideally put emphasis on working with line ministries and other institutions in integrating the objectives and principles of the CCD into their policies and programs. By working in this manner, the added value of the NAP process becomes evident, the opportunities for synergies are better exploited, and the chances for having a broader impact in improving livelihoods of dryland populations enhanced. Admittedly, this can be a difficult and challenging exercise, given the way development is organized in many of the affected countries, and the ways that donors program their resources. The norm so far has been that the focal points have concentrated almost exclusively on the development of the National Actions Programs. In many cases, the end result has been that the NAP process - despite the efforts in ensuring adequate consultations - has emerged as a stand alone frameworks with its own distinct set of programs and projects, institutional arrangements and resources. This obviously raises the issue of the long term sustainability of the NAP, and the impact of current efforts for promoting dryland development using the CCD as a framework.

Governance and participation The CCD is unique among the post-Rio conventions in its strong emphasis on participatory approaches to the identification of priorities, program development and implementation. This resulted from a number of features that have characterized development assistance in recent years, including the following.

• The paradigm shift in approaches to natural resources management over the last two decades, resulting in a move away from centrist, blueprint, large scale project interventions, to an emphasis on small scale, flexible projects that build upon local knowledge and indigenous technologies. In addition, there has been a recognition that unless land users have access to and control over resources, it is difficult to make significant progress in sustainable management of the resources.

* The process of political democratization that is unfolding in many of the affected countries, leading to a need for plurality of the political institutions and strengthening civil society.

* The process of administrative decentralization under way, as central government and state structures redefine their roles and become smaller under the pressure of shrinking public resources.

The NAP process, building on these currents, has allowed a significant opening of public space to debate issues affecting dryland development, and in many cases fostered a 49 genuine sense of ownership by local communities. This has created a precedence in how future development processes might be handled. We need to build upon this strength of the NAP process by ensuring that program development and implementation, resource allocation, monitoring and evaluation are decentralized, and that priorities identified by local communities through this process are acted upon. This would require an institutionalization of the participatory development approach in the government machinery, supported by a conducive legal and policy environment, so that this working modality does not become a one time enterprise, but a regular way of doing the business of development. In this context, particular attention needs to be given to the issue of women, in terms of involvement in the decisions making processes at all levels, and in the identification of priorities, program design, implementation and monitoring.

Program development A number of countries have successfully gone through the initial phase of awareness raising and consultations with stakeholders leading to broad agreement on NAP priorities and follow up measures. Although a commendable job has been done, one can identify three weaknesses that need to be addressed.

* Often, the actions identified do not seem to be based on a thorough and exhaustive analysis of the problems being addressed. In most cases therefore, there is a long list of issues reflecting the effort to accommodate all parties, with little or no priority setting.

* Ongoing programs and projects are not sufficiently reviewed with the perspective of identifying the gaps on which the NAP should focus. The opportunity to build upon ongoing efforts, and working in a cross-sectoral manner, is therefore lost.

* There is inadequate innovation in the development of activities that should be supported, with the end result tha. one cannot truly distinguish the current generation of programs from the old approaches.

This does not mean that there are not ample opportunities to continue developing the NAP processes to become really innovative, and to secure a successful implementation of the CCD at the country level. The challenge is for the partners in development to see how we best can support innovative program development in these countries. There is a tremendous will at the country level to make this approach work. What is needed now, in our view, is the assistance to do this. UNSO intends to put a major emphasis on this aspect to support countries. 50

Support to community efforts to combat desertification The consultations of NAP has raised expectations at the local level. A number of countries have made a strong effort to support local level initiatives to combat desertification, responding to the needs of the communities even before the NAPs are fully developed and implemented. However, for many countries, facilitating a bottom-up planning approach and channeling resources to the local level for implementation of small scale projects has been difficult. The main constraints include:

* lack of practical experience in working at the grassroots level, which slows down the process of putting in place practical modalities for working with communities;

* an absence, in some countries, of local community structures or organizations to effectively manage local level projects;

* the sensitivity exhibited by central authorities in some countries, in regard to the transfer of resources and authority to the local level.

Our experience so far demonstrates that in countries where a real effort has been made to support truly participatory pilot community projects linked to the NAP process, there has been a tremendous release of enthusiasm and capabilities at the community level. This has resulted in some impressive project successes being achieved with modest resources. The communities have been able to identify their own priorities, putting in place modalities for managing project implementation, including handling the financial resources allocated. These successes have encouraged other communities to also initiate activities, often with assistance of local CBO and NGO networks.

These experiences need to adequately documented, and the experience more widely shared to benefit other countries that are lagging behind in promoting and supporting local level initiatives.

Conclusion: Challenges to mainstreaming desertification in the work of development organizations The creation of an international convention to combat desertification and drought is a recognition of the critical importance of the drylands in the development of the poorer nations. As donors, we need to disengage ourselves from any concept that desertification is a remorseless environmental process that is taking over good land. The figures on desertification have been widely published. According to UNDP/WRI estimates, about 40% of the land surface of the earth falls into one of the CCD aridity zones, while about 37% of the world's population lives in those regions. This implies that rather than being hopelessly unproductive places, the arid lands are actually very productive. Indeed, 51 reflection on the huge grassland areas, the immense irrigated areas and the long-existing farming practices that are found in the arid lands, clearly demonstrates their potential. If the arid lands include areas of great potential, we need to examine how much of our resources are going into them. If we examine our portfolios we may find that we give an unbalanced amount of support to development in areas that conventionally appear to be productive. We need to examine whether government, private and donor investment is sufficient in the drylands. Do we operate with an assumption that arid land has little value? If so, is this rational? If the drylands are potentially productive, then they should have a commensurate value. As population pressure increases, and as land moves out of production due to degradation, then the increasingly scarce remaining land should increase in value. If this is not happening, then we need to understand what are the structural reasons. Some of the poorest people in the world now live in the drylands, and we believe that the proportion of woman-headed households is high in those regions. Our development policies must, therefore, become much more focused on the poor. UNDP, especially through its Human Development Report has demonstrated the urgent need for "pro-poor" development, and how to implement it. We need to focus on true capacity building for development. In this respect, we must recognize that donors have placed great burdens on recipient countries in the past through their demand for plans and strategies. Most of these remain as stand-alone strategies, linked to specific sectors, poorly integrated into national development plans, and essentially unimplemented. We need to shift our focus from plan and program development (which is where donors place an excessive amount of effort) to capacity building for implementation (which is often poorly supported). We should stop using plans and strategies as instruments of conditionality (explicit or implicit) and help countries to develop their own programs which we should then support. The NAPs are an excellent move in this direction. We cannot have plans, strategies and programs that compete for supremacy in any country. We should all work to ensure the harmonization of programs to the benefit of the countries concerned. This implies that we should be flexible and help countries to integrate their NAPs, their NEAPs, their economic development plans and their sustainable development strategies (to name but a few). We need common vision on this. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD has very specific targets for the donor countries to help developing countries to develop strategies for sustainable development. In the dry countries of the world, we see the vital need for donors to pull together to ensure that sustainable dryland management becomes the underlying feature of their strategies for sustainable development, and to avoid the preparation of two competing strategies. Above all, we need to move away from our old project-based approaches to support, towards an approach that gives support to long-term programs of development. 52

This implies taking a strategic, rather than a mechanical, approach to development. In this respect, we see the NAPs' early successes as strategic political successes that will set the strategic framework for future development. The proliferation of multi-party democracy in parts of francophone West Africa has actually distanced people from representational government. The fragmentation of parties and the difficulty of creating decision-making groups has lessened people's confidence in politics. But, the space that NAP has opened for representatives of civil society to contribute to planning that affects them directly has led to a mobilization of effort that is now beginning to affect government decisions. UNDP's Capacity 21 program has observed similar example of the participatory process aiding democratization. We believe that the power of such strategic interventions merits much more study, more recognition, and that we should explicitly direct our energies as donors towards their support. 53

Food Security and Rural Poverty Alleviation in Drylands: IFAD's Experience

Takeo Shibata

Assistant President Economic Policy and Resource Strategy Department International Fund for Agricultural Development (LFAD) Rome, Italy

As an international financial agency, the International Fund for Agricultural Development has a unique mandate. It focuses its resources exclusively on the world's rural poor - to improve their food security, productivity, livelihood and well being. In the words of the Agreement Establishing IFAD, "to help the poorest populations in the developing countries in the rural areas to increase their productivity and incomes, and to improve their nutritional level and the quality of their lives". The land degradation translates into a reduced capacity to produce crops, trees and fodder. As cultivable land recedes and productivity falls, poverty grows. The strong convergence exists between the WFAD'smission and the objectives of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. The ultimate objective is the rural poverty alleviation. Since it was established in 1977, IFAD has been a pioneering institution that quickly saw that there was no single, catchall remedy for reducing or eliminating poverty. The poor are not a homogenous group, but an aggregation of groups with different economic bases and different needs. Therefore, the IFAD's target beneficiaries were no longer the poor but rural poor farmers and herders in the arid and semi-arid lands of Africa threatened by desertification, or poor fishermen and so on. It recognized, too, that sustainable development was improbable, if not impossible, without the participation of beneficiaries. This is why, to have the greatest impact, IFAD tries to reach out directly to the poor and most vulnerable in rural societies, most often women and young people. This is why, also, its lending has evolved from the large-scale infrastructure projects of its early days to farmer and community-managed development, where it believes it can do most in the battle against poverty. IFAD's basic approach to rural poverty alleviation is to work close to the rural poor in their socio-economic context. This is exactly what the UNCCD advocates and is the approach embodied in the UNCCD, which places local inhabitants at the heart of the efforts to halt land degradation and desertification. 54

IFAD's experience in drylands Over the past 20 years, IFAD has committed over USD 3 billion to support dryland development throughout the developing world. Each year IFAD provides up to $200 million to support projects in dryland with a total investment cost of about $400 million. These projects draw on our extensive experience of rural poverty projects in resource- poor areas especially from the projects undertaken in the Special Programme for Sub- Saharan Africa to Combat Drought and Desertification (SPA), which was launched 1986 in response to the severe droughts afflicting the Continent. Projects undertaken under these Special Programs have focused on increasing the capacity of the local people to manage the resources on which they depend. Throughout the Programme, IFAD has worked to establish enabling frameworks at the local level that will allow the people most affected by desertification to take a lead role in identifying and implementing ways to solve it.

Some of the lessons learned from SPA Flexibility and adaptability of development support instruments determine whether or not development objectives and targets can be achieved effectively. In the design of activities, emphasis should be placed on developing decentralized services and funds to support grass-roots organizations and investment initiatives, rather than on defining, a priority, what investments are to be made and which organizations need to be established. Sustainable success is generally the result of perseverance, gradual adaptation and a patient and ongoing learning process. Long-term commitment is needed for achieving sustainable results and successful phasing out. Long-term commitment is particularly important for institutional development programs. Programs must be firmly anchored to the local economy. To this end, direct relations must be facilitated among farmers' organizations and local NGOs, enterprises and services, giving the former control over implementing most of the investments financed by the loan. Small farmers' organizations and the communities should have greater freedom to choose their service providers, suppliers and construction enterprises. In helping increase income and food security in the resource-poor rural areas, WFAD is acutely aware of its responsibility to rehabilitate and preserve rural natural resources through projects that are environmentally sustainable. For the rural poor, soil and water conservation brings an intrinsic conflict: the short-term need for immediate food production and use of fragile resources, against the long-term requirements of conserving natural resources to maintain production levels. To reconcile this dilemma, it has learned that indigenous farming systems often embody a wealth of conservation knowledge suited to the means, needs and cultural practices of local farming communities. In Lesotho, the Soil and Water Conservation and Agro-forestry Program suffered from the same difficulty of reconciling short-term needs with long-term interest. Traditional farming systems were identified to help reconcile the dilemma. The system depends on intensive 55 relay and inter-cropping and is based on the crops that the local people have cultivated for more than 100 years. Over the years, IFAD has explored, field tested, and, through implementation and on-the-ground results, tried to demonstrate the most effective approaches and best practices for addressing the needs of the poor. It has developed a set of socio- organizational instruments to support the project; accurate targeting of the poor; wide and effective beneficiary participation; support for grass-roots institutions; strengthened institutional capacity to serve the poor and empowerment of poor rural women. Through its 21 years of experience, IFAD has acquired considerable institutional knowledge and expertise in rural poverty eradication at the grassroots. This knowledge and expertise, though specific to locations and the needs of various categories of clients, has possibilities of wider replication and up-scaling in other pockets of rural poverty through appropriate adaptation in their local contexts. A long tradition of using participative approaches for project design and implementation has helped IFAD to learn the ways and means to identify and build on local innovations. Such innovations emerging from within the rural communities - rather than introduced or imposed from the outside - are the basis for simple, effective and durable solutions to the local problems. The UNCCD addresses desertification and poverty as inter-linked problems. Because rural poverty is both a cause and an effect of environmental degradation, it is imperative for IFAD to address this links between these problems. IFAD's efforts to work close to the rural poor in their local socio-economic context gives it a unique position in ensuring that the Convention lives up to its promise. Finally, on behalf of WFAD,I would like to emphasize again reiterate the appeal that the General Manager of the Global Mechanism (GM) made about the special account that we have created in our house, a special fund of $2.5 million for enabling activities for the GM to function. We hope that both the multinational and bilateral donors will see some opportunities, something in there to contribute to that special account. 56

The Desertification Agenda of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Ahmed Djoghlaf

Executive Coordinator UNEP/GEF Coordination Office Nairobi, Kenya

Twenty-seven years after the Stockholm Conference, twenty-two years after the adoption of the Nairobi Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, seven years after the adoption of Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 and four years after the signature in Paris of the International Convention to Combat Desertification, the convening of this High Level Round Table on Desertification is both a welcome and a timely initiative. It provides a unique opportunity to take stock of the progress achieved so far, and to chart the course for a new direction to address one of the most important eco-environmental challenge by the poorest amongst the poor of our planet. The World Bank should be congratulated for this important initiative which sends a strong and vibrant message in support of the Desertification Agenda, as well as demonstrating the emergence of the new World Bank for Sustainable Development that is in the making, under the leadership of Mr. Wolfensohn.

The Nairobi Plan of Action: The Foundation of the International Desertification Agenda There have always been deserts on the earth. But, the deserts and semi-arid zones have shifted significantly during the long history of our planet. Within the past 10,000 years, there is evidence that climatic changes have affected much of the surface of the globe and over the last 4,000 years such changes have been particularly evident in Africa. At the dawn of a new millennium the desertification process has reached unprecedented scales. It now affects one sixth of the world's population and more than one billion persons amongst the poorer and the most vulnerable of our planet are affected by this phenomenon. It affects also 70% of all drylands and one quarter of the total land area of the World. In Africa, desertification threatens the lives of millions of persons and seriously affects more than 39% of the continent's total area. Not a single continent of our planet is immune from the adverse effects of desertification and land degradation. However, it is in Africa where the two thirds of the least developed countries of the planet are located that this phenomenon has reached dramatic proportions. It must be noted in this regard 57 that as early as August 1971 the All African Seminar on the Human Environment made specific recommendations for steps to be taken to combat the spread of deserts in Africa. Based on recognition of the extent and severity of this problem, the United Nations General Assembly decided, in December 1974, to initiate concerted international action to combat desertification and to convene an international conference to develop the institutional framework for such international collaboration. Under the auspices of UNEP, the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification was adopted in 1977. The Plan of Action contained 27 recommendations aimed at integrating and harmonizing national, regional and global international actions against desertification. The goal was to implement the Action Plan by the year 2000 and a seven-year plan 1978-1984 was adopted to implement immediate actions. Less than six months before the beginning of the year 2000, let us pause for a moment and reflect on the implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan. The 27 recommendations of the 1977 Action Plan are still relevant, but most of them have yet to be implemented. One of the main principles underpinning the Action Plan was the need to integrate efforts to combat desertification within a broader program for promoting social and economic progress. Measuring the rate of success of the implementation of the Action Plan is, therefore, also a measure of the extent to which this basic principle has been adopted. Over most of the period from 1977, economic growth and social progress have passed by many of the countries affected by desertification. In addition, the end of the cold war rather than releasing resources from defense budgets led to the so-called aid fatigue and a sharp decline in Official Development Assistance which has now reached unprecedented low levels. The lack of both a financial mechanism and adequate financial resources can be considered as the main impediments to the successful implementation of the Action Plan. The Action Plan has, however, fulfilled part of its historical mission by raising awareness of the problem and in putting the issue of desertification on the agenda of multilateral environmental negotiations.

The Lessons Learned During the Implementation of the Nairobi Plan of Action The international community has greatly benefited from the lessons learned during the implementation of the Action Plan that were built upon when Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 was drafted and adopted in Rio in June 1992, and more importantly when the International Convention to Combat Desertification was signed in Paris on 17 June 1995. Four lessons stand out:

* Experience within the framework of the Action Plan has clearly indicated that single country measures to combat desertification cannot succeed alone, and that partnership and collaboration at national, regional and international level are the sine qua non for success in this environmental war. If humanity is to succeed in protecting the global environment, it must be recognized that voluntary measures are not adequate and that the process is both long-term and complex. 58

* Experience has also increasingly demonstrated the importance of global environmental threats, such as desertification to achieving sustainable development. The interdependence of nations, people and the environment and resources of the planet cannot be ignored. Not a single nation in the world regardless of its geographical size, its military might or its GDP is immune from the multidimensional impacts of global environmental problems. Accordingly, it is now recognized that an international legally-binding instrument is a pre-requisite for successful concerted action to protect the global environment including combating desertification. In recognition of this principle, the participants in the Rio Conference signed two global conventions and initiated negotiation of an internationally binding legal instrument to combat desertification.

* One of the most important achievements of the Rio Conference was the explicit recognition, by the international community, of the need for new and additional financial resources as well as the identification of financial mechanisms for the implementation of legal agreements to protect the global environment. In this regard, the establishment of the Global Mechanism and its Facilitation Committee was a major development. Under the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured GEF the acceptance of the eligibility of land degradation activities, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to the four focal areas of the Global Environment Facility, was also a major development the importance of which cannot be over-emphasized. m The recognition of the inter-dependence of issues related to the global environment and the need to link actions in the sphere of environment with those involving the social and economic dimensions of human development. Collaboration and cooperation among and between the global environmental conventions has been increasingly recognized as a vital mechanism for achieving their individual objectives and promoting synergy and value added. Climate change, biodiversity, desertification, problems of freshwater quantity and quality are all inter-linked issues which can no longer be viewed and addressed through sectoral economic and development planning.

Through the four meetings of the COPs of the climate and biodiversity conventions; the two COPs of the desertification convention; and the numerous meetings of their subsidiary bodies, significant progress has been achieved in building the foundations for action to achieve the objectives of the Rio Conventions. Such progress needs to be strengthened and expanded by promoting cross-fertilization and synergy amongst them. This brings me to the last section: what needs to be done? what are the next steps? And how UNEP, the world environment authority, intends to assist the international 59 community in meeting the challenges that exist in the implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification?

Looking to the Future

UNEP which contributed to the very inception of the Convention on Desertification is fully committed to providing continued assistance to the Conference of the Parties and its Secretariat in meeting the challenges of translating the objectives of the Convention into a reality. UNEP's mandate in the GEF is, inter alia, to promote regional cooperation to address global environmental issues of relevance to the Facility. Regional cooperation is the key to success in achieving the objectives of the Convention on Desertification, and in translating the ecosystem approach of the Convention on biological diversity into a reality. UNEP in its capacity as the secretariat to the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the GEF assisted that body, in convening in Dakar, in September 1996, a workshop on the GEF cross-cutting area of land degradation. The workshop adopted policy recommendations and strategic guidelines that were instrumental in assisting the GEF Council to finalize, in May 1997, a GEF policy framework for land degradation. Pursuant to this policy, UNEP is assisting 22 African countries in promoting nine GEF transboundary land degradation projects worth over US$ 75 million. The GEF Council adopted in March 1998 a full-scale regional project on land degradation submitted by UNEP. The project is of 5 years duration worth 12 million dollars and will address the rehabilitation of the transboundary degraded land between Mauritania and Senegal in five critical ecosystems encompassing 60,000 km2 of territory. An inaugural ceremony chaired by the President of Senegal was held in Dakar on 9 December last year with the participation of the heads of delegations attending the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Desertification. In October of 1998, the GEF Council adopted another UNEP project of US$ 10 million on the management of indigenous vegetation for the rehabilitation of degraded range lands in the arid zones of Africa, particularly, Botswana, Kenya and Mali. At their last meeting held on 11 March 1999, the GEF Heads of Agencies agreed to launch a major initiative on Land and Water in Africa and discussions are underway between the GEF partners and the African countries represented at high level on the follow-up of this important and timely initiative. The last GEF Council meeting held in May 1999 adopted an Action Plan on Complementarity between UNEP's GEF interventions and its work program for the year 2000-2001. The UNEP's Senior Management Group held in Nairobi in June 1999 adopted the operational modalities for the implementation of the Action Plan. Let me share with you the activities in the area of desertification that UNEP is contemplating to promote in the context of the implementation of the Action Plan on Complementarity: 60

1. Assessment: based on UNEP's World Atlas on desertification UNEP will continue assessing and monitoring the state of fragile dryland ecosystems, including the development of indicators of desertification 2. Provision of scientific and technical inputs to decision making: UNEP will continue to provide the best scientific and technical knowledge in support to the convention and its subsidiary body. In this regard a survey of desertification centers will be submitted to the next COP at its request. 3. Promoting synergy: between the desertification convention and other global environmental conventions including climate change and biodiversity based on the report prepared jointly with the World Bank on Protecting Our Planet securing Our Future: linkages among global environmental issues and human needs. In addition, STAP is convening in Bologna, starting tomorrow a workshop on land degradation in the context of the GEF. In building synergy, special attention will be paid by UNEP to the linkages between the implementation of Article 10 of the convention regarding national action plans and the implementation of Article 6b of the convention on biological diversity on the integration of the threefold objectives of the convention into sectoral plans or cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies. 4. Promoting cross-sectoral approaches to addressing environmental problems; the joint initiative on land and water adopted by the Heads of the GEF Implementing Agencies and the Chief Executive Officer, provides an opportunity for designing new and better approaches to issues of land degradation as they relate to water availability and use, an opportunity that UNEP has already capitalized upon through creation of an internal Technical Support Group, that will provide inputs both to the GEF and the UN system wide initiative for Africa. 5. Promoting best practices: the experience gained in the preparation of national action plans needs to be shared with other countries with a view of disseminating best practices. 6. Promoting regional collaboration: through the preparation of regional and sub- regional action plans in accordance with Article 11 as well as regional consultations and building regional capacities. 61

Conclusion The adoption of international environmental legal instruments to address global environmental challenges has been one of the most important characteristic of the long environmental journey of the international community starting in Stockholm in 1972 and leading to RIO+5. The challenges we now face involve translating these legal commitments by Parties into reality, taking into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. To this end a strategic alliance for sustainable development between governments, international organizations, civil society, the scientific community and the private sector is required. Let us work together to ensure that this meeting will establish the foundation, under the leadership of the new "World Bank for Sustainable Development," a strategic alliance to combat desertification. UNEP of the new millennium is strongly committed to being a full partner and to joining such an endeavor in support of the well-being of present and future generations. 62

Food Security, Soil Fertility and Dryland Development in FAO Activities

Parviz Koohafkan

Land and Water Development Division and FAO Interdepartmental Working Group on Desertification Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Rome, Italy

FAO's strategic framework for 2000-2015, which will be approved by FAO conference this year, put to five major areas of strategic focus. Strategic Area D, which is supporting integrated management and sustainable use of natural resources covers all the agenda 21 and the Conventions. Why do we talk about integrated natural resource management? Because if you take an agricultural zone and land use system from one hand and the farmers from the other hand, farmers usually try to combine water management and moisture management to crop management, soil management, and to a number of, say, interactions between systems in land and soil, the relation between soil organic matter, which influences directly soil fertility. All these affect on soil productivity, which has direct impacts on food security. Food security, combating desertification, and soil fertility restoration are closely interlinked and FAO is supporting various programs under this umbrella. And for that I will do a very quick analysis of issues and programs on food security, soil fertility, and desertification. FAO has a special program for food security, soil fertility initiative and Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). From a technological and practice side for food security program, specific activities involve water control, intensification, and diversification. For Soil Fertility Initiative, activities include land husbandry, mixed cropping and crop rotation, integrated planned rotation system, and also chemical fertilizer which supports restoring soil fertility. Under the CCD, most of the emphasis has been on soil and water conservation, agro-forestry, agro-forested range-land, livestock management. Of course, all the area of water development and intensification is also a part of it. At policy level, in a special program FAO is looking particularly on input and output markets, micro-credit, land tenure. In the SFI, FAO is assisting in international facilitation for this vital activity which was launched during the World Food Summit. Other issues which addressed 63 under the SFI related to cost-benefit analysis of soil fertility restoration and the transportation and marketing for fertilizers. There is strong emphasis in coordinating activities especially in the area of National Action Programs for implementing the CCD. At policy and planning levels, FAO is working on inter-institutional arrangements, National Action Programs, information system and regional networks. But when we look at and compare all these we will see that the commonalties between many of these national plans strategies, participatory and integrated approach, combine short-and-long-term benefits, and partnership building. These programs are mainly in Africa. Now, the Complementarity between these programs is important since they are highly integrated and cannot be treated separately. Also these programs have a strong national ownership with international partnership. There is strong emphasis on resources but there is a need to include more socio-economic aspects. These programs rely generally on the same human resources at local and national levels which is very important thing in terms of implementation. I would like to propose to this meeting joint operational programs in countries aiming at Complementarity and integrating of all of these Conventions. We could at least talk about food security program, soil fertility program and CCD Convention at all the levels. We have local area development and then we have national planning but also international partnership building. The emphasis should be on the integration and harmonization of these three instruments (CCD, CBD, and FCCC). 64

The Global Environment Facility (GEF): A Partner for Sustainable Development of Drylands

Mohamed T. El-Ashry

Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Global Environment Facility (GEF) Washington, DC USA

Let me first add my own personal welcome and thanks from the GEF side to the many distinguished guests, friends, and colleagues that are here today. A special thanks also to Jim Wolfensohn, Ian Johnson and the Bank for convening this timely and important roundtable on drylands, poverty, and development. This is a subject that is close to the heart of everyone in this room. How nations use their land and water resources is critical to the survival of their people, both now and in the future. They are issues that truly bridge the environment and development agendas. Drylands are home to more than a billion people aspiring to a better standard of living. From an environmental standpoint, they are fragile ecosystems that house species which are incredibly resilient and well adapted to extreme environmental conditions. Yet these same areas have often been neglected when priorities are established. It is not too soon to change these trends. It is in that spirit that I welcome this initiatives by the Bank. The opportunity we have before us is to join forces against land and water degradation as never before. A little more than 20 years ago, the UN Conference on Desertification in Nairobi developed a global plan of action. Hopes ran high, and some good steps resulted. Soon, however, it was recognized that this was not enough. A new effort emerged during the Rio Summit process, leading to the negotiations of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). The CCD has hit the ground running. But it cannot hope to reach the finish line without our collective help. Our concerns are mutual and the stakes are high. As many speakers stressed this morning, land degradation has triggered large-scale population movements, disrupted economic development prospects, aggravated regional conflicts and instability, and threatened the lives and livelihoods of many of the people living under its shadow. Its victims often are among the poorest of the poor. Its impacts, in terms of loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, biodiversity and international waters, are significant and global. Inappropriate agricultural and water management, overgrazing, deforestation, population pressure are among the major root causes of land degradation. They are also central to the mission of the Global Environment Facility. Our mission is to act as a catalyst -- supporting local and regional sustainable development that simultaneously 65 advances global environmental goals. That is where we operate - as partner with governments, with bilateral and multilateral organizations, and with NGOs and the private sector, pooling our resources with theirs to add a global dimension to initiatives for sustainable development. Other speakers have already attested to the fact that the GEF and its three Implementing Agencies - UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank - stand ready to assist individual countries and the world community as a whole in the search for, and implementation of, solutions to the widespread problems of land degradation and deterioration of water resources. The GEF and its partners have many endeavors already on the books. More than US$350 million in GEF funds, and additional co-financing of more than a billion dollars, are currently addressing land degradation issues. We also support efforts for providing non-polluting sources of energy to rural people who have no access to electrical power of any kind. Solar energy, abundant in arid and semi-arid regions, enables poor farmers to pump water to their fields and to their homes, to light their village schools and hospitals, and to replace fuel wood in their cooking fires. It can make a huge difference in the quality of rural lives and the ability of millions of people to manage other natural resources in a sustainable manner. Combining the issues of climate change, biodiversity conservation, land degradation, and international waters under the GEF allows us to integrate our efforts, strengthen the synergies between these issues, and promote best practices through a variety of actors in the international system. With GEF's recent replenishment of US$2.75 billion over four years, we plan to expand our portfolio in land degradation by building on current activities as well as on experience and lessons by others. Since land and other resource degradation issues are cross cutting in nature, we believe that the key to tackling them successfully lies in holistic approaches that are linked to national sustainable development plans on the one hand, and capitalizing on the synergy between the three Rio conventions on the other. Even though these conventions were negotiated and are being implemented separately, the problems they address and their underlying causes are closely interrelated. We should now strive towards integrated approaches that place the implementation of these conventions at the heart of sustainable development. In this regard, we in the GEF have just launched a new major operational program for integrated ecosystem management that simultaneously addresses the linked issues of climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, and watershed management. That was also a key outcome of the GEF Heads of Agencies meeting held March 11 th and mentioned repeatedly this morning. Let me elaborate. A new strategic partnership for interagency collaboration on land and water degradation with emphasis on Africa is being forged. It recognizes that land and water resources are key to drylands' economic development. It also recognizes that the 66 problems of degradation of these resources cut across country borders, areas of technical expertise, and agency responsibilities. Achieving success in reversing resource degradation and alleviating poverty, while generating global benefits, however, requires coordinated actions towards sustainable development. Gus Speth of UNDP, Klaus Topfer of UNEP, the Bank's Jim Wolfensohn, and myself are all determined to deliver on this critical agenda. With the volume of Bank lending (Mr. Wolfensohn mentioned this morning the figure of $2 billion a year for Africa), with UNDP's own resources, UNEP's technical expertise, and GEF grant resources, I believe we can make a big difference. To address the issue of whether this initiative is to develop yet another action plan or program, let me hasten to say that we are talking about collaboration and coordinated implementation of actions on the ground, by multiple actors, in support of the objectives of the CCD. Neither Jim Wolfensohn, Gus Speth, Klaus Topfer, nor myself is interested in developing another action plan. In fact, it is precisely because of the many action plans that are collecting dust, and the current generation of action plans mandated by the Conventions, which I believe divert valuable human and financial resources from badly needed actions on the ground, that prompted the discussion of this operational initiative with the Heads of Agencies. Let me also emphasize that this is not an effort that is confined to the GEF and its three Implementing Agencies. Coordinated action must involve the major players on the international scene, especially IFAD and FAO, and hopefully the bilaterals as well. Each organization has had its own activities in Africa in the areas of land and water degradation for the last 20 years or so. But when we add all of these efforts together we come up far short of what is needed to reverse the trends. With the CCD now in place, what is needed most is a coordinated longer term view, beyond the project by project approach, that is deeply anchored in sustainable development. Where do governments fit in all of this? Without the political will and leadership of governments to identify their national priorities and seriously address the policy and institutional issues surrounding land degradation; like land use planning, land tenure, water pricing, and public participation; no initiative no matter how well conceived will succeed. At the GEF Heads of Agencies meeting, the World Bank agreed to take the lead in convening a high-level interagency meeting to begin discussion on a "coordinated action program for Africa." I am pleased to say that the meeting will take place tomorrow following the conclusion of this Round Table. It is my sincere hope that the meeting will succeed in identifying a preliminary list of opportunities where increased collaboration would lead to major synergy and increased cost-effective actions in support of the CCD. As well, it should identify obstacles to enhanced collaboration and scaling up of programs and recommend ways for overcoming such obstacles. Next month, the heads of nations participating in the Organization of African Unity summit will be taking up these new land and water initiatives among other 67 considerations. We look forward to their input and leadership to make these programs a reality. Finally, as we look ahead towards the new century and Rio +10, and in the spirit of this Round Table, I believe the international community needs to look at ways to re- energize the pursuit of sustainable development and protection of our global commons. This will require a shift in fundamental values and strong political will and leadership. In addition, capacity building in nations and at the local and grass roots levels must be supported by governments and international organizations alike, as it is here that we find the forums for innovation and the mechanisms for change in the real world.

Thank you.

69

PART 2. Experiences: Technical Challenges and Opportunities SectionD: Socio-EconomicDimensions: Experiences from the Field

Dryland Degradation and Poverty

Sara J. Scherr

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland USA

Introduction Recent research on tropical and subtropical drylands highlights two key aspects of the inter-relation between poverty and environmental degradation relevant for dryland development strategy. First, identified local factors condition the impacts of broader pressure/shift factors and policies on poverty-degradation interactions and outcomes, and explain observed variations. Second, policies and programs that integrate (rather than independently pursue) land quality, rural welfare and economic growth objectives can more effectively address the pressing poverty and environment concerns in the drylands of developing countries. This paper summarizes these findings, first examining observed patterns of poverty and dryland degradation, then discussing key factors which explain variations in poverty-environment interactions and the efficacy of different policies in influencing outcomes of environment-poverty interactions, and finally suggesting some specific interventions which integrate poverty and degradation objectives.

Povertyand drylanddegradation Land use intensification in the drylands, due to population growth, market expansion, and policy initiatives, has led to widespread problems of land degradation. Given poor rural people's dependence on natural resource assets for their livelihood, this degradation has sometimes led to further impoverishment, and poverty itself constrains the capacity of local people to control or cope with degradation. The aggregate picture is quite troubling.

Poverty in drylands In the late 1980's, 69 percent of the rural population in the 42 least developed countries were living in poverty. The largest number of rural poor were in Asia (633 mln), then SSA (204 mln), LAC (76 mln) and WANA (27 mln) (Jazairy, Alamgir and Panuccio 1992). Nelson, et al (1997) analyzed the distribution of the poor among favored and marginal lands in developing countries and concluded that about 325 million poor

6 "Favored lands" were defined as rainfed and irrigated cropland in areas which are 70 people resided on favored lands and 630 million on marginal agricultural, forested and arid lands. A high proportion of the latter are estimated to be in the drylands. Malnutrition is also high in the drylands. Nearly half of under-5 children in developing countries in 1990 were malnourished in the warm, semi-arid tropics and sub- tropics. A third were malnourished in the warm sub-humid and humid tropics; a quarter in the cool tropics and sub-tropics, less than a fifth in the warm/cool humid sub-tropics and the cool subtropics with winter rainfall. Of all malnourished children in the tropics and subtropics, an estimated 44 percent are living in warm, semi-arid regions (27% in the tropics,17% in the sub-tropics). Another 26% are in the humid zones of the tropics and subtropics; and 15% each in the cool and sub-humid zones (Sharma et al 1996).

Land degradation in drylands Recent global estimates of soil degradation found that 58% of all degraded soils were in the drylands, and at least 20% of the 1.1 billion hectares of dryland soils have been degraded (Oldeman, et al 1994). Considering all land types of degradation, more than 70% of drylands in Africa, Asia and South America were degraded-30% of irrigated drylands, 47% of rainfed drylands, and 73% of rangelands. Over a third of irrigated land in Asia and more than half of rainfed land in Africa and Asia had experienced at least 10% loss in productive potential. Another 8% of irrigated and 10% of rainfed land in Asia had experienced at least a 25% loss in potential productivity, and over half the rangelands had more than 50% loss in potential productivity (Dregne and Chou 1992). Degradation has had significant effects on agricultural supply, economic growth, food security for poor farmers, long-term value of nationally important land assets, and environmental values such as water quality and biodiversity (Scherr 1999a). Many of the global "hot spots" for land degradation are in the drylands, threatened by salinization, nutrient depletion, conversion of rangelands to grain production, physical damage from mechanization, degraded vegetation, and water scarcity and conflicts (Scherr and Yadav 1995).

Local factors condition dryland-poverty interactions This grim aggregate picture of poverty and degradation, however, masks a more complex reality on the ground. Recent micro-scale, empirical field research suggests a striking heterogeneity in the experience of the rural poor in relation to environmental management, the success of their adaptations to environmental change, and the efficacy of different policies in influencing outcomes (Scherr 1999b). fertile, well-drained, with even topography and with adequate rainfall, which are in comparatively intensive use, with low risk of degradation. Marginal agricultural lands were defined as those currently used for agriculture, grazing or agroforestry, with variable topography, poor fertility, inaccessibility, fragility, heterogeneity, and at risk of degradation; forest, woodland and arid lands were included. 71

While there are indeed numerous examples where local conditions have deteriorated, this is by no means universal. Widespread use of effective indigenous soil and water conservation practices has been documented in over 20 different parts of Africa (WFAD1992). Population growth and agricultural intensification have been associated with both reduced poverty and improved resource conditions in many drylands. Examples include regions in northern Nigeria (Turner, Hyden and Kates 1993); Kenya (Tiffen, Mortimore and Gichuki 1995); India (Agarwal and Narain 1999); sub-Saharan Africa (Veit, Mascarenhas, Ampadu-Agye 1995); and some hillside and mountains in Asia and Latin America (Templeton and Scherr 1999). How can we explain this variable response? It is helpful to consider this question in the broader dynamic of rural change over time-particularly farmers' and local communities' capacity for positive adaptation to change--and the resulting effects on rural livelihoods. Pressures from population growth, markets, new technology or other external factors are translated locally through changes in local markets, prices and institutions in individual communities. The local impacts of these shifts are conditioned by community characteristics, such as their human and natural resource endowments, infrastructure, asset distribution, market linkages and local knowledge base and culture. Resulting community-level changes may induce responses in agriculture and natural resource management strategies at both household and collective levels, such as changes in land use, land investment, use intensity, input mix, conservation practices and investments, and collective action. Changes in natural resource management then affect environmental conditions, agricultural production and human welfare (poverty), and these in turn have feedback effects on local conditions, institutions and NRM decisions. Public policies can influence poverty-agriculture- environment dynamics at any of these points. Empirical research suggests that the impact of aggregate pressure/shift factors and policies on poverty-environment interactions and outcomes is conditioned by eight key factors that constrain or encourage positive adaptation at local scale (Scherr 1999b):

* Characteristics of the natural resource base and the farming systems of the poor. These determine the physical challenges facing farmers and shape their opportunities for response. Obvious distinctions are between irrigated agriculture, intensive rainfed farming with strong market integration, intensive farming with poor weak market integration, and extensive agriculture and ranching in low-population density areas; and whether natural resources were already degraded before major changes occurred.

* Farmers' awareness and assessment of the importance of environmental degradation. Typically farmers have a very good sense of the threat of degradation to their livelihoods. Lack of awareness may be a problem for non-observable effects, in the case of recent settlers from other ecozones, or with cultivation of new crops. 72

Otherwise, a failure to act may indicate that the degradation is not considered to be a serious livelihood threat, or that action is somehow constrained (see below).

* Availability of sustainable production technologies suitable for the poor. Farmers adopt resource-conserving practices that also increase productivity or output stability. Technologies for the poor must permit incremental adoption; protect food security; pose a low risk of crop failure; rapid return on investment; minimal use of purchased inputs; amenability to local adaptation; good performance under adverse climatic conditions; and effective use of micro-niches to diversity production. Many such technologies are now being developed, both through research and indigenous innovation, but are still not widespread in drylands under intensification pressure.

* Farmers' capacity to mobilize investment. Poorly functioning rural factor markets and the risks of formal credit for the poor limit farmers' capacity for resource- improving investment. Farmers may develop alternative strategies using divisible, multi-output technologies which can be self-financed; mobilizing labor through family or community groups; raising cash from off-farm work; or use of micro-credit.

* Economic incentives for conservation management or investment. Agricultural input prices, output prices, wages and interest rates facing farm households and communities influence their income and investment strategies, by altering returns from sustainable land and water management relative to returns from other livelihood options. Use of sustainable management systems may thus vary over time in patterns unrelated to the effectiveness of conservation projects.

* Security of tenure and rights of access to resources by the poor. The bundle of property rights held by poor people represent key assets that provide income opportunities, assure access to essential household subsistence needs (water, food, fuel, medicines) and/or insure against livelihood risk. Tenure security is associated with cropland conservation practices and improvements. Poorer groups rely more heavily on customary or informal rights, which may be more vulnerable with change.

* Institutional capacity within communities to support adaptive response by the poor. Local institutions undertake collective regulation or investment in natural resources, provide community infrastructure, and provide support services for agricultural production and resource management. Adaptive responses by the poor may depend on the degree such institutions are present and accessible to the poor.

* Political inclusion of the rural poor in decisions affecting resource policies. The short- and long-term interests of the rural poor in natural resource access and management are more commonly taken into account when they are not only 73

'beneficiaries' of local or regional policies, but have 'seats at the table' where policies are designed and the 'rules of the game' are established.

By understanding systematic intra-regional variations in these characteristics, we can both better predict the impacts of pressure factors and aggregate policies on the poor and the environment in different types of communities, and also design distinct interventions for particular constellations of local conditions. A broader and historical view of the development process can help in setting priorities for programs and policies to address dryland poverty and environmental degradation.

Strategies to integrate poverty, environment, and development objectives The centrality of economic development processes for poverty and environmental outcomes is clear. But while this "critical triangle" of development objectives is now widely accepted, their achievement is still typically pursued through separate environmental, agricultural and social safety net initiatives. Yet the greatest impact is likely to come through their integration. Research has shown that agricultural growth--especially growth and stabilization of food staples production--is the most promising strategy both to benefit poor rural people and promote economic development through backward and forward linkages (Malik 1999; Delgado, Hopkins and Kelly 1998). Common property is an especially important source of income for the rural poor in arid and semi-arid regions (Jodha 1991; Hopkins, Scherr and Gruhn 1995). The highest environmental priority of local people in most poor dryland areas is the quality of soil, water and vegetation resources on which their livelihood depends. Meanwhile, technical research has established that improved land quality and husbandry are essential for sustainable intensification in drylands. Thus, integration of the three elements offers a cost-effective strategy for sustainable dryland development, especially when interventions are designed to reflect the broader development dynamic and key conditioning factors of the focus communities. Examples of such integrated approaches include:

1) Develop and expand markets to support activities of the rural poor. Development of more competitive and accessible rural markets can be critical not only for economic growth, but also for increasing the benefits of market integration for the rural poor. Policies to build infrastructure and market institutions and regulations in drylands can be designed explicitly to facilitate access by the poor. Research has shown that areas with drier and more difficult physical environments but better market access may outperform more favored areas in terms of economy, natural resource conditions and human welfare. The relative poverty of drylands is often the result of historical under-investment, rather than lower economic potential (Scherr and Hazell 1995). 74

2) Co-invest in the productive natural resource assets of the poor. Dryland development requires investment in improving resource conditions on farms so they can support higher productivity, lower-risk agricultural activity. Examples include small-scale irrigation, rainwater-harvesting at plot and landscape scales, soil - improvements to increase water-holding capacity, establishment of drought-resistant perennial vegetation that not only produces cash crops or livestock feed, but also serves for wind protection, erosion control, and waterway protection. Efforts are most effective when designed through participatory landscape planning with local people, to build on local priorities and innovations for water and land improvement and provide community-wide environmental benefits as well as household economic benefits (e.g., Agarwal and Narainl999). Mechanisms for co-investment to improve land quality should be a high priority for organizations such as the World Bank.

3) Employ the poor in projects to improve the agricultural resource base. Many landscape-scale environmental improvements are public goods whose benefits accrue only partially to poor local people or involve public or shared landscape niches. Many such activities are labor-intensive and offer an opportunity for public and private-sector organizations to provide paid employment to the poor. Projects may be on communal or public lands, with the explicit aim of providing access to water, fuel, fodder or food for the poor in line with an agreed community landscape plan.

4) Facilitate access of the poor to natural resources essential for farm livelihoods. Access by the landless and rural poor to basic subsistence resources-farmed and gathered food, fodder, water, fuel, building materials, medicines, raw materials for tools and house wares-should be essential features of any "social safety net" for the poor. Low cash incomes means that such access must be achieved through new social and institutional mechanisms to resources owned or controlled by or shared with others. Key elements include: reform of rental, leasing and gleaning agreements to facilitate both access by the poor and resource conservation; reform of water rights to ensure access by the poor as well as environmental uses of water; insurance systems for poor farmers for periods of drought or major crop failure so that they can provide for subsistence needs without over-exploiting natural resources; and arrangements for access to critical environmental resources for temporary migrants (e.g., from drought, war or disasters) to limit unsustainable exploitation.

5) Develop and promote agricultural technologies that provide environmental benefits. Agricultural technologies and resource management systems must raise overall productivity in drylands, both increasing livelihood security and protecting or improving the natural resource base. Innovations are needed in soil water and nutrient management, livestock feeding strategies, genetic adaptations to the dryland environment, and more efficient management of natural vegetation for diverse 75

purposes. Technologies need to be tailored for use on specific soil types, climates, land use intensities, thus requiring a heavy investment in on-farm adaptive research. New institutional strategies are needed to reduce the cost of this research, by linking with extension efforts and farmer organizations to reach the poor effectively.

6) Compensate the poor for conserving or managing resources of value to others. In some drylands, though poor farmers and agricultural workers have few economic incentives for NRM, outside groups may have an abiding economic or environmental stake in maintaining or improving those resources. Mechanisms can be negotiated for farmers to be compensated for the costs incurred in changing their management or use of resources, in contrast to punitive restrictions or re-location. This approach can achieve both poverty and environmental goals by changing local valuation of resources, local capacity to make necessary investments, and economic incentives, while confirming long-term tenure or access rights for the local people involved. Examples are transfer mechanisms for poor farmers to manage dryland forests or rangelands for carbon sequestration; or to manage watersheds to protect water flows for downstream urban users, irrigating farmers or valued bio-diversity habitat.

7) Strengthen local organizations to plan and manage environmental resources. Many of the suggestions above require on-going leadership or at least involvement of local organizations representing a broad spectrum of local people, including the poor. Laws regulating local organizations, local governments, etc., will often need to be changed. External agents can help to build local management capacity, which jointly focuses on and integrates (or explicitly examines tradeoffs) environmental, poverty and development goals.

International institutions such as the World Bank (with its priority development focus), IFAD (poverty focus), and the Global Environment Facility (environment focus) have already begun to move towards more strategic integration of dryland poverty- growth-environment objectives, and greater consideration of variable local conditions in policy design and implementation . By extending their efforts, these institutions can play a significant role in implementing the international Convention to Combat Desertification. 76

Selected references

Agarwal, A. and S. Narain. 1999. Community and household water management: The key to environmental regeneration and poverty alleviation. United Nations Development Programme and the European Comnmnissionexpert workshop on Poverty and the Environment, Brussels, Belgium, January 20-21. Delgado, C., J.Hopkins, V. Kelly. 1998. Agricultural growth linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI Research Report 107, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Dregne, H.E. and N.T. Chou. 1992. Global desertification dimensions and costs. In H.E. Dregne, ed. Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Hopkins, J.C., S.J. Scherr, P. Gruhn. 1995. Food security and the commons: Evidence from Niger. Report to the United States Agency for International Development, Niamey, Niger. Basic Ordering Agreement DAN-4111-B-00-9112-00, Delivery Order No. 3. May. Jazairy, I., M. Alamgir, T. Panuccio. 1992. The state of world rural poverty: An inquiry into its causes and consequences. International Fund for Agricultural Development. New York University Press, New York. Jodha, N.S. 1991. Rural common property resources: A growing crisis. Gatekeeper Series No. S24, Intemational Institute for Environment and Development, London. Malik, S.J. 1998. Rural poverty and land degradation: What does the available literature suggest for priority setting for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research? A report prepared for the Technical Advisory Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Vienna, Virginia, Draft. February. Nelson, M., R. Dudal, H.Gregersen, N.Jodha, D.Nyamai, J.-P. Groenewold, F.Torres, A. Kassam. 1997. Report of the study on CGIAR research priorities for marginal lands. TAC Working Document. Technical Advisory Committee Secretariat, FAO. March. Oldeman, L.R. 1994. The global extent of soil degradation. In D.J.Greenland and T. Szaboles, eds. Soil resilience and sustainable land use. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, U.K. Scherr, S.J. 1999a. Soil degradation: A threat to developing-country food security in 2020? Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 27, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. February. Scherr, S.J. 1999b. Poverty-environment interactions in agriculture: Key factors and policy implications. United Nations Development Programme and the European Commission expert workshop on Poverty and the Environment, Brussels, Belgium, January 20-21. Revised March. 77

Scherr, S.J. and P.A.Hazell. 1994. Sustainable agricultural development strategies in fragile lands. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 1. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Scherr, S.J. and S. Yadav. 1996. Land degradation in the developing world: Implications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 14, Intemational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. May. Sharma, M., M. Garcia, A. Quershi, L. Brown. 1996. Overcoming malnutrition: Is there an ecoregional dimension? Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 10. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., February. 78

Prices, Institutions,and Partnerships:Challenges for Drylands Development

Camilla Toulnin

Drylands Programme International Institute for Environment and Development (IRED) United Kingdom

The debate on desertification and dryland degradation is characterised by two contrasting views. The first considers regions such as the West African Sahel as hopelessly prone to drought, with very limited productive potential, subject to desert advance, and serious degradation. Local farmers and herders are portrayed as both ignorant and so oppressed by poverty that they destroy the very basis of their future existence. They are powerless creatures, buffeted by adverse circumstance, with no capacity to develop longer term strategies. Population growth is identified as a major force driving such degradation, out-migration is seen as a consequence of rural poverty and lack of local opportunities Urban growth is decried as unsustainable and likely to lead to further rural crisis. At its most extreme, it is argued that people should be moved from such difficult and risk prone dryland environments to higher potential areas elsewhere. The second perspective turns most of these views upside down. It argues that there is no universal advance of the desert, rather the margin ebbs and flows with changes in rainfall. Despite limited productive potential, there are considerable gains to be made by more careful management of soils, water, nutrients, and biomass. Farmers have a lot of local knowledge and skills which can provide a good basis for improved agricultural technologies. Dryland households actively pursue a range of different strategies to balance their various needs given the opportunities available to them. The adaptation by Sahelian people to the droughts of the 1970s and 80s is a tribute to a flexible and creative approach to problem solving. Rising population pressure on land provides a valuable prompt in favour of agricultural intensification, since as land becomes scarcer it also becomes more valuable and, hence, worthy of increased care and investment. Urban growth increases demand for food and provides the stimulus for increased food production within the locality. Migration provides a valuable source of income for meeting household needs, while helping spread new ideas and providing an important rite of passage from youth to adulthood. This paper supports the second perspective and argues that there is no inevitable historic conflict between economic growth and resource conservation. Evidence from recent research will be used to support an optimistic perspective for rural livelihoods in 79 dryland areas. It accepts, nevertheless, that there are important broader conditions that can hinder the evolution of this second scenario. These are examined below and concern access to markets, institutional development, broadening participation, and building better partnerships. Dryland livelihoods are complex, dynamic, and multi-faceted. Prices and markets play a major role in fashioning the strategies pursued by different people in the face of changing economic opportunities. The response of Sahelian farmers and herders to better market conditions generated by devaluation of the CFA franc bear witness to this creativity, as shown by increased livestock exports, and rising cereal harvests. The effects of easy access to markets can also be seen from the intensive gardening activities found within peri-urban areas. Thus, prices and markets matter. Institutions provide the framework within which people organize themselves and negotiate access to different resources. Informal, customary structures continue to provide the fabric clothing many people's lives. New institutional structures establish more apparently 'democratic and transparent' systems for conducting business, but also generate the possibility of tensions between introduced and customary structures, systems of authority, and views regarding what constitutes legitimacy. This is particularly the case for institutions governing access to land, where conflicting mandates and responsibilities have brought problems. Current processes of decentralization and land reform need to find ways of minimizing tensions between customary and statutory structures. Institutional competition also hinders effective action at national and global levels. Thus, for example, responsibility for the CCD is frequently allocated to the Ministry of Environment, while soils management rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, and land reform is taken up by the Ministry of Justice. The CCD provides a chance to achieve a more co-ordinated approach to drylands development, but there is little evidence of this happening. Similarly, at global levels, institutional jealousies and mandates have dogged the CCD process. Participation, stake-holder platforms, local empowerment - the catch-phrases of the 1990s. Huge strides have been taken in the development of participatory tools, but major challenges remain. These include first, encouraging a critical reflection on current approaches to participation which tend to use participatory methods in an isolated and ad hoc fashion, and second, identifying ways to embed such approaches more systematically in how institutions function and inter-relate. A clear example can be seen from the agricultural research sector. Many researchers have gone through weeks of training in participatory methods for working together better with farmers. However, the structure and incentives facing researchers remain the same, with promotion depending on peer- reviewed papers rather than establishing effective partnerships with farmers. International agencies, NGOs, and researchers like myself tend to talk a lot about the importance of ownership, but rarely spend the time needed to achieve greater consensus on local priorities. The proposed Comprehensive Development Framework 80 could provide a means for government and civil society jointly to define a realistic set of priorities, given the limitations of what government can actually achieve, both politically and administratively, and then identify how the international community can help. Such a framework needs to address ways of achieving greater coherence between the various development initiatives currently underway, while recognizing the role such strategies play in negotiating mandates and budgets for different interests. A partnership approach to implementing the Comprehensive Development Framework implies a commitment to mutuality. This could involve parallel work both North and South. For example, debates on rural development options in marginal parts of Europe provide a remarkably similar set of issues regarding ways to revitalize the rural sector, the need to re-think subsidies, and how to balance environmental goals with socio- economic needs. Commitment to partnership requires a willingness to open up debate to critical reflection and learning by all parties, whether it be regarding policies to address the Sahelian drylands or, say, the Scottish highlands. 81

Environmental Degradation and Migration

Michelle Leighton

Co-Founder Natural Heritage Institute California, USA

This paper presents the findings of a four-year investigation led by the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) into the environmental and developmental causes of cross-border migration from Mexico to the U.S. The purpose of NHI's effort is to broaden understanding about the interrelationship between the social, economic, demographic, and natural resource management-related determinants of transnational migration. Mexico-U.S. migration is a problem shared by both countries. Solutions will require joint action. This report is produced in the spirit of catalyzing binational cooperation and the development of lasting solutions. Experts and officials estimate that each year between 700,000 and 900,000 people are forced to leave Mexico's rural dryland areas in search of livelihood elsewhere. It is generally accepted among government officials and academics that migration is a product of the expectation of higher wages, improved social services, and a comparatively high standard of living in the U.S. What is often ignored and less understood, however, is that these economic determinants are a component of a larger system of inter-connected social, demographic, and environmental phenomena that together form the motivating basis for cross-border migration. Indeed, while much has been written about the relationship between migration and employment, for example, surprisingly little analysis has emerged from the academic and government communities to address other social and environmental factors that are now emerging as important determinants of Mexican migration. Among the least studied of these other factors are those stemming from the physical environmental degradation of agricultural lands in Mexico, particularly in the country's arid and semi-arid regions where water is most scarce. Degradation occurs from over- harvesting, overgrazing of livestock, improper irrigation and lack of access to technology. Severe soil erosion and the removal of land from crop production inevitably cause serious income declines among Mexican households for whom agriculture is the primary income- generating activity. As agriculture becomes less and less viable as a source of income and wealth for these households, cross-border migration correspondingly becomes more economically attractive. Meanwhile, the agricultural communities in Mexico impacted by land degradation are developing more sophisticated social networks in U.S. destination areas, thereby 82 reducing the costs and risks associated with migration. For farm households in Mexico's dryland areas, a majority of which are threatened by desertification, migration is often an obvious economic choice. This is not unlike the American experience during the 1930's, when thousands of migrants streamed from the "Dust Bowl" of the mid-west into western states when drought and unsustainable farming combined to induce massive poverty. Believing that Mexican migration is linked to environmental stress, a problem that is measurable and that may be eased through targeted intervention, NHI undertook this investigation. NHI findings reveal several key conclusions. There is a strong correlation between environmental stress, poverty, and population pressure, which can lead to migration. Environmental degradation, poverty, population and associated migratory flows cannot be addressed through short-term fixes initiated unilaterally by the U.S., such as additional border security and employment related sanctions. Rather, official and private, or non- governmental programs within Mexico to address these problems is warranted. The Mexican government will need to direct greater attention and resources to these issues. The U.S. can play a catalyzing role for these reforms through bi-national cooperation with Mexico's private and public sectors. The U.S. has technology and expertise that can serve in building and facilitating these programs. To date, these opportunities have been little explored beyond the physical border area. An immediate step is to ratify the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought already ratified by Mexico and more than 100 other countries. This can serve as a framework for cooperation between Mexico and the U.S. in addressing these issues as it recognizes the direct link between desertification and migration. Below is a summary of the key findings and recommendations warranting official consideration.

Results From Analysis of Demographic, Economic and Environmental Data In 1994, Professor Alain de Janvry of the Department of Resource Economics at the University of California at Berkeley, in conjunction with the Mexican Secretary for Agrarian Reform (SRA), undertook a comprehensive demographic survey of ejido households in Mexico. Ejidos are cooperative farming communities with common land ownership, which together account for more than 70% of the Mexico's farmers and 52 % of all its arable land. The survey was designed to obtain data on the nature and incidence of migration from ejido households and the socio-economic characteristics of the migrants. Data from the over 14,000 survey responses were analyzed, first independently, and then cross-tabulated against existing data, in association with NHI, on land degradation, deforestation, and population growth in Mexico to determine whether and to what extent significant correlation existed. This analysis was then compiled and organized in a special report. The survey results are illumninative. 12.4% of the ejido households surveyed had members who had migrated to the U.S. at least once during the last four years, and 26.8% had members who had migrated to the U.S. at least once in their lifetimes. The survey 83

also reflects that fully 75% of the migrants originated from the same ten states in the central, northern, and North Pacific regions of the country. The areas of destination in the U.S. are similarly concentrated, with 56% of all migrants surveyed ending their journeys in California, and 23% in Texas. Although the typical migrant is a male head of household over 35 years old, and more likely to be mestizo than of uniformly indigenous origin, this profile appears to be in the process of transforming. The survey reflects that migration among those younger than 35 and of indigenous origin is on the rise, particularly in those states with already high rates of migration.

Traditional Economic and Demographic Determinants of Migration From a microeconomic analytic standpoint, two theories of migration currently predominate. According to the "classical" rnigration economics, the decision to migrate stems primarily from perceived wage differentials and income gaps between the U.S. and Mexico. A more recent theory, termed the "new" migration economics, argues that migration stems more from the motivation of households to gain remittances from the employment of one or more family members in the U.S. as a means of coping with agricultural insurance and credit market failures at home. It can be said that the "classic" economics theory views migration as a substitute for agriculture, while the "new" migration economics view it more as a complement. In other words, the traditional economics of migration suggests a reason for permanent migration while the new theories suggest why there may be temporary or seasonal migration. Whatever the motivation, the decision to migrate is clearly a function of higher- wage employment opportunities in the area of destination, whether in Mexico's urban areas or the U.S. In the case of the U.S., it is widely believed that Mexico-U.S. historic migration patterns arose in large part from the U.S. "Bracero" Program, instituted in 1942, which promoted legal immigration to the U.S. as a means of serving the labor needs of American agribusiness, but ended up stimulating illegal immigration by creating the expectation of upward mobility dependant upon movement north. The Bracero Program also contributed to the establishment of strong networks of support among migrants in the U.S., which to this day facilitate employment of migrants and otherwise work to reduce the perceived costs and risks associated with migration.

Population Pressure and Migration It is clear from the NHI study that population growth is associated with migration: our data reveals that population pressures at the municipal level in Mexico are associated with poverty, and poverty is a major determinant of migration. Currently, more than 31 million people - more than one-third of Mexico's population of 92 million - live in small rural communities of fewer than 5,000. Mirroring a situation familiar to many agricultural communities in the U.S., particularly in California, rapid increases in the densities of Mexico's urban areas are exacerbating environmental degradation in adjacent agricultural lands. This is the beginning of a malevolent cycle: as cities grow with the 84 population, more and more agricultural lands will be taken out of production, spurring more migration from rural areas to the cities. Although government population policies of the last twenty years have helped lower the national average birthrate to 3.2 children per woman in 1992, with an expected further decrease to 2.5 per woman in 2000, the poorest regions of Mexico continue to experience a population surge. The impacts of these population trends on land degradation and migration are difficult to predict. Many experts believe that rapid population growth in the rural dryland areas could place increased stress on land and water resources, cause greater subdivision of land, reduce farm income, and result in greater social fragmentation and migration. Others believe that population growth, in the context of Mexico's rapid integration into the global economy, will lead to the adoption of new technologies and new forms of social organization that will mitigate such adverse impacts. In Mexico's ejido areas, Professor Alain de Janvry found that population pressure on agricultural land increases the likelihood of migration, suggesting that policies to reduce population pressures could play a significant role in reducing incentives to migrate.

Land Tenure Reform and NAFTA Many experts predict that changes in the institutional structure of agricultural land tenure in Mexico will lead to an increase in the consolidation of smaller family farms into larger corporate-owned farm enterprises. A likely impact could be the displacement and unemployment of small landowners and farm workers, resulting in increased rural-to- urban or cross-border migration. A 1992 Constitutional amendment, however, now allows ejido land owners to receive title to, and to sell or rent their lands independent of government bureaucracy. The hope is that this will promote greater access to credit, open the ejido sector to outside investment, and generally improve agricultural efficiency. Whether it will have the effect of a widespread sell-off of land to larger farm interests remains to be seen. Economic changes resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or "NAFTA," could also affect cross-border migration patterns in Mexico indirectly through their potential impacts on investments and employment in agriculture. Some economists predict a mnigrationsurge that will endure until NAFTA-related reforrns deliver higher employment. Although it is uncertain to what degree and how quickly agricultural investment based on a Mexican comparative advantage (warmer winters, for example) will increase because of NAFTA, economists agree it will almost certainly continue to decrease in the short-term.

The Role of Agricultural Land Degradation in Migration The roles of wage and income differentials, population pressures, and economic reforms in contributing to Mexican migration have been studied far more deeply than the role of environmental degradation. NHI research shows, however, that the degradation of agricultural lands in Mexico can contribute directly to cross-border migration via its 85 impacts on household incomes in the agricultural sector. Data demonstrates that high levels of environmental stress and high population pressures at the municipal level are associated with poverty. As poverty is a major determinant of migration, environmental degradation may be seen to influence migration through its impacts on poverty in the agricultural sector. -Indeed, three-quarters of all lands affected by soil erosion and other forms of desertification in Mexico are agricultural. The most critically affected states are Oaxaca, Tamaulipas, Yucatan, Veracruz, and Chiapas. The environmental factors responsible for this degradation are myriad. Erosion-causing deforestation is a primary contributor, and indeed today Mexico has only about 130,000 square kilometers of forests remaining. Data indicate deforestation rates of 24% to 34% per year in ejido communities. Climate change at both the global and local levels is also a major factor, and there is evidence suggestingthat land degradation and climate change are reciprocal contributory factors. Yet poor land and water management practices remain the most significant - and preventable - contributors. Increasingdegradation and scarcityof Mexico's agricultural water supplies is combining to aggravate the already serious problems stemming from overgrazing, overharvesting, and other unsustainable practices. The resulting land degradation dramaticallyimpacts agriculturalproductivity. Migrationcan become the only means to avoid economic ruin, as declines in land quality in dryland areas lead to cessation of cultivation and abandonment of lands. In other words, higher environmental degradation increases the level of poverty, which in turn increases the expected income gains from migration. Underthe "new"migration economic theory, migration may also be a temporary or seasonal avenue to generate income to compensate for market failures, i.e., remittances from migration are used to invest in capital or land at home as a means of increasingagricultural productivity and income. This intuitive link between land degradation and migration is borne out by NHI research. Two environmental stress indicators, municipal-level deforestation rates from 1980-1990 and municipal population pressure (measured as the product of average farm size and average rain-fed corn yield in the municipality) were analyzed with theresults of the 1994 ejido survey. Although no nationwide soil erosion data were available, these two indicators serve as adequate proxies, since 75% of Mexico's remaining forests are locatedin ejido areas,and cornyield ig an excellentindicator of agriculturalland productivity. NHI analysis of the 1994 ejido survey data with other economic and environmental variables substantiates the correlation between environmental stress, poverty, and migration. The results of the analysis show a systematic inverserelation between environmental stress variables and income levels. At the municipal level, high levels of environmental stress are highly associated with poverty, which in turn, is highly correlative with migration the ejido survey also makes clear. Since much of the land degradation in Mexico is the result of human factors, particularly unsustainable land 86 management practices, it follows that programs to improve these practices will likely have a positive impact on stabilizing agricultural incomes, reducing the acceleration of poverty rates, and, by extension, reducing the incidence of cross-border migration.

Conclusions and Recommendations Although the U.S. will no doubt continue to attract large numbers of migrants from Mexico for a variety of economic reasons, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the degradation of agricultural lands as a result of preventable, human-induced factors is a major determinant of the migration phenomenon. Accordingly, public and official efforts should be designedand implemented with an aimtoward preventing further unnecessary land degradation through improving the institutional, economic, and technological landscape in which Mexico's poorer farm households engage in agriculture. This study offers the following recommendations as a preliminary framework from which U.S, and Mexican policy-makers may begin to craft more sophisticated strategies and cooperative programs.

1. Promote Improved Land and Water Management Practices Returning Mexican agriculture to sustainable levels by improving local land and water management practices should be a priority. Agricultural education programs should be developed to promotethe use of qualityfertilizers, high-yield seed, crop variegation and rotation, and other efficiency-improving techniques. Emphasis should also be placed on reducing water-intensive dryland crop-cultivation, and on promoting the adoption of water-conserving irrigation systems. Water conservation will only increase in its degree of necessity in Mexico in the future, particularly in the desertified dryland areas.

2. PromoteReform of ForestMannaement and Land TenureInstitutions Most of the Mexican forests, many of which are threatened by over-harvesting, are located on ejido land, as discussed in this report, where much of the property is communaland cooperationamong communities in forestlandmanagement has been problematic. This has led to the overuse of land, including over-harvesting and soil erosion. One solution may be to direct policy efforts at resolving property rights on these lands and enhancing the ability of these communities to cooperate and effectively manage commonproperty resourceg. Part of thiggolution must itielude continued regulation of forest management and improved enforcement of laws/policies.

3. Promote the Integration of Economic Development Programs with Population and Demographic Initiatives More research into the correlation between population trends and migration is warranted to quantify the former's contribution to the latter. In the interim, decentralized industrialization in the wake of NAFTA is key to stemming the growing influx of rural- 87 to-urban migration in Mexico. The Mexican and U.S. governments should cooperate to foster economic development programs to reduce over-concentration of industry in urban areas by promoting the diffusion of industrial activity across the country's geography.

4. Promote Local Community Development Initiatives Because municipalities with high levels of environmental stress also have high rates of migration, community development programs should be instigated to provide alternative employment sources for households currently cultivating degraded areas. New investments and entrepreneurship promoted by NAFTA and other reforms should be re- directed to the extent possible to rural areas where farm employment is expected to suffer as a result of land degradation. Successful local economic development initiatives in some smaller U.S. communities could serve as models.

5. Promote and Target U.S. Investment in Migrant-Emitting Areas U.S. policy should promote improved rural development and agricultural productivity in the high poverty, migrant-emitting states with extensive soil erosion problems, particularly Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, and Chiapas. To the extent feasible, U.S. aid and investment should be promoted and channeled toward these localities. The exploration of a binational program encouraging use of remittances for development in these areas is warranted.

6. Assist in Strengthening of Local Credit and Insurance Markets To the extent that migration is employed by agricultural communities as a means of coping with the lack of access to credit and insurance markets, these markets should be developed and strengthened, particularly in the dryland areas. To the extent that unsustainable land and water management practices are the result of communities' inability to invest in new capital, the development of credit markets could have a two-fold effect on reducing migration.

7. Integrate U.S. Environment, Population, and Migration Research and Policy Development Currently, U.S. foreign policy addresses environment, population, and migration problems separately. There is little thematic integration at the bureaucratic level. We strongly recommend establishing an inter-agency task force comprised of the Department of Interior Bureau for Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Geological Survey, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and State Department Bureaus on environment, population, and/or migration. Similarly, within the State Department's Global Affairs Bureau coordination and integration of these issues can be improved. The sharing of data and the cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches to problem-solving will likely result in more efficacious program and policy development. 88

8. Support Integrative Research Initiatives There is an immediate need for integrated research on the environmental causes and consequences of migration in Mexico. Most of the research on migration to date has been sector-specific, e.g., research on agricultural productivity has not addressed related environmental degradation and social or economic transformations. This in turn has led to policies that are similarly not integrated, and policy implementation methodologies that are necessarily ineffective. A shift in research priorities toward more integrated approaches will likely contribute to a marked improvement in future policy-formation, particularly if it is within the context of the inter-agency cooperation suggested above. 89

Finding New Ways of Funding the Global Environment

Graciela Chichilnisky

Business School Columbia University New York, USA

My presentation will focus on the problem of managing watersheds, the very diversity that they encompass, and looking into financing issues, both from the private and public sectors. Essentially, watersheds encompass, together with forests, some of the largest parts of the land-based biodiversity on the planet. And for the purposes of this meeting, they represent the future, if anything will happen that can forestall the problems of desertification, which is truly one of the most difficult and one of the most important problems that face the planet at present. I will refer to the Catskills watershed in the New York area. This is an important area for supplying drinking water to millions of people. Most of the biodiversity, especially the microorganisms, in this area is essential for maintaining a clean source of water. In the case of the Catskills, they were being decimated by agricultural pollutants connected to the use of the land in Upstate New York for agricultural purposes. Experts in the State of New York estimated that the replacement of the services of this biodiversity would cost the state approximately $6 billion U.S. dollars annually. Hence it was important that something be done to stop the land degradation that was having enormous environmental and economic consequences. Thus, private resources were captured to purchase the watershed land and protect these microorganisms, this biodiversity, to continue providing these essential environmental services. The particular financial mechanism used here were so-called "environmental bonds," but they were bonds. They are essentially loans obtained at a certain rate from the public. The proposal we (Columbia Business School) made was to securitize this in the form of sharing the benefits, the profits, profit sharing of the actual gains from using the free work of the biodiversity, rather than the production of artificial filtration plants. The gains were approximately $5 billion, because the purchase of the land and the protection of the land required approximately $1 billion, instead of six. Securitization of this nature attracts private funding for the conservation of natural services provided by biodiversity in the watershed. If this model and logic is extended to the global picture, the business portfolio easily approximates $900 billion in the next few years. This number that was computed taking into account the fact that all the 90 major cities in the world will face in the next five to 15 years a similar problem as that faced in the New York region today and in the near future. So we are looking at the possibility of raising private financing in a way that will involve the regional development banks and the World Bank, and probably offering credit enhancement facilities, much as was done in the case of the Brady bonds, to induce private financing to approach an area that, because it is little understood, may require credit enhancement facilities to foster private investment. But this is different from borrowing. Simply put, this is shareholding. And this is also risk capital, with the returns connected to the gains. The World Bank may have to put complementary financing in some cases. The African Development Bank, the Inter- American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc., could perform that role as well. But essentially, the funding will come from the private sector, with a share of profits on this securitization, and on the whole, create a new form of financing for development. The other issue needs attention is that this type of activities that we are reflecting on today, which serve simultaneously the goals of biodiversity, conservation, and watershed protection, require a type of concentration and rationalization that cannot be obtained, because of the fixed costs, on a piecemeal basis; and the type of institutional economic issues that also cannot be addressed, on a piecemeal basis. It is just too difficult. It will be difficult to break through if we do not rationalize our efforts in a consistent way. It is in this way and for this reason that I proposed to the World Bank in the annual meeting of 1996-97, the creation of an institutional effort that I refer to as an international bank for environmental settlements, that will be a win-win solution to the North and South issues, developing and industrial countries. An international bank for environmental settlements: That is my proposal for a few years. It could be part of the GEF, or the World Bank, or perhaps involve a combined effort by the several regional development banks. I have proposed to the Bank the modalities of how such a mechanism would function. The financial mechanisms discussed here would definitely be under the scope of such an institution, as will be the issues of climate change and the trading of pollution rights, or decrease in emissions internationally. So there is a combination of private and public efforts that have to come together. What is discussed here involves both public and private sources of innovative ways of financing environmental management. Further ways of financing the global environment should involve innovative ways such as the capital markets of the world raising private financing, and through combined and international action supported by the conventions, bringing in the types of institutions that GEF has spearheaded. To conclude, it is important to understand and emphasize that the market mechanisms we are talking about are different. They are markets for privately produced 91 public goods. And the question of efficiency and equity in these markets is very different from that in conventional markets. And finally, in order to reach the type of development strategies that will create employment and the economic growth that is so crucial to preventing , among other things, land degradation, migration and dislocation, our strategies have to utilize technology from the knowledge revolution in ways that maximize benefits from investing in environmental management. 92

Bilateral Experiences

Tor A. Benjaminsen

NORAGRIC Agricultural University of Norway Aas, Norway

Introduction NORAGRIC has long been supported by NORAD and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From its inception in 1986, NORAGRIC has been active in drylands issues carrying out research and consultancies, especially in Africa. This paper draws on these experiences and concentrates on some lessons learned. Since the Sahel drought of 1983-84, the Norwegian government has allocated considerable resources to drylands development. Two development programs focusing on the drylands have been important in promoting drylands activities:

The SSE-Program In 1985, the Norwegian Parliament, as a response to the drought in 1983-84, approved support to the SSE-region (Sahel, Sudan, Ethiopia) of 1 billion NOK (close to USD 150 million) through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Program was to channel this support through multi-lateral organizations, NGOs and research institutions. While all countries in the region were eligible for support, those receiving most attention were Mali, Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia. The aims of the SSE-Program were to improve local food production and food security and to strengthen the ecological base through improved natural resource management. By 1991-92, in response to a need for increased co- ordination and technical expertise, NORAGRIC was contracted to become a professional advisor for the program and co-ordinator of the NGO component. Through the SSE Program, which continued until the end of 1996, many Norwegian NGOs and university institutions have, along with their southern partners, acquired considerable experience working on dryland issues.

The Drylands Co-ordination Group The Drylands Co-ordination Group (DCG) was established in 1997 by the Norwegian NGOs responsible for running development projects previously funded under the SSE Program. NORAGRIC functions as the group's secretariat and technical advisor. The DCG activities are funded by NORAD. The DCG's overall objective is to improve the livelihood security of vulnerable households in drought-prone and marginal areas, especially in Africa. The group believes 93 that Norway, through the SSE experience, has developed special competence within development assistance in drought-prone countries and that this competence should be fostered and advanced. NORAGRIC provides the DCG with, 1) quality assurance and technical assistance to individual projects (planning, evaluations and reviews, special assignments), 2) seminars and workshops, 3) research and study reports, and 4) a secretariat.

Lessons Learned

Environment Development assistance to the Sahel has changed considerably during the 14 years of Norwegian involvement in the SSE-region. In the 1980's, assistance was focused on environmental degradation and desertification. The aim was to rehabilitate degraded lands and to prevent further degradation through physical rehabilitation projects such as sand dune stabilization, the establishment of non-use protection zones, and green belts or tree planting in general. These projects were designed by outsiders assuming that environmental degradation is the major problem facing people in drylands. The idea was that by investing in environmental rehabilitation, one would improve production and lift people out of poverty. However, as experience has shown, the main problem with this approach was that local people were generally not interested in this type of project, it was not a local priority, and they only "participated" as long as they received direct benefits (in terms of Food for Work or other incentives). These were also extremely costly projects. These experiences have made many donors reorient their environmental activities toward institutional development and natural resource management. Recently, a seminar in Mali of Norwegian NGO's in the DCG together with their Malian partner organizations summed up their work so far in combating desertification. They made a list of weak and strong points of their work. The main strong points were: * The work had managed to influence the attitude of the Malian government's technical services; * it had informed people and raised awareness about the new legal proposals; and, * it had introduced some new management techniques. The main weak points mentioned were: * Insufficient involvement of people in program formulation; * lack of consideration of local knowledge in natural resource management; and * the undermining effect of Food for Work by transforming people into passive recipients carrying out work defined by others. This creates lasting problems of dependency and activity ownership which still exist several years after the discontinuation of Food for Work.

The recommendations coming out of the seminar were: 94

* All environmental interventions should consider local priorities and knowledge as the starting point. * It is necessary to work with the traditional institutions in natural resource management. * Environmental interventions should be adapted to environmental realities (resource fluctuations and instability). One should not try to produce a landscape which cannot be sustained.

Pastoralism During the last 10 years, research in range science and pastoral development has demonstrated the resilience of Sahelian rangelands and the reversibility of the alleged degradation of pastoral resources. Due to strong seasonal dynamics, the risk of overgrazing is limited to a short period in time. In fact, the two basic properties of Sahelian pastoral ecosystems, instability and resilience, support the continued practice of transhumance in the southern Sahel and of nomadism in the northern Sahel. Both these methods of utilizing resources are based on mobility and maximal dispersion during the growing season. The new non-equilibrium theory undermines earlier approaches to African range ecology, and represents an alternative theory of the functioning of pastoral ecosystems. This approach stresses the need for flexibility and mobility in Sahelian opportunistic grazing strategies, principally due to the strong rainfall fluctuations found in these arid environments. There is now a greater appreciation of the efficiency of traditional pastoral systems based on mobility and the exploitation of extensive resources. Two main implications for land use and tenure arrangements have emerged from this rethinking. The first is that range management should be decentralized, rather than under centralized control focusing on sedentarization and de-stocking. The second point relates to the high variability and low reliability of rainfall in African drylands, which implies that tenure arrangements should be flexible enough to allow herders to continue with migrations. This flexibility would also allow for overlapping use and mutual access according to customary arrangements found in many pastoral areas. Under these broad conclusions, some more specific recommendations can be mentioned:

* Support the continued pastoral use of wetlands in drylands. This is essential to prevent conflicts and to sustain pastoralism as an economic activity with an important contribution to the national economy. * Build local competence and legal institutions for conflict prevention and management. * Develop and provide low-cost veterinary services for pastoralists. * Promote an enabling policy for increased investments in infrastructure and social services, civic education, health and water development. * Assist the livestock economy through support to market development and studies of bottlenecks in livestock marketing and sales. 95

Dryland Agriculture A crucial aspect of agricultural development is to strengthen local markets for inputs and outputs and to maintain and improve rural infrastructure, which is important for markets. All too often donor projects and governments have taken over the role of the local merchants or co-operatives by supplying inputs to agricultural production. This contributes to eroding the market for local merchants, with the result that when the projects phase out, there is no one who can continue to supply necessary inputs. Efforts should instead be directed towards strengthening local markets' capacity to supply agricultural inputs. Active assistance could be in the form of providing loans to merchants or co-operatives or training merchants or co-operatives in the supply of agricultural inputs. The choice of agricultural technology will depend on the amount of available labor, market integration and agro-ecological characteristics. Use of irrigation pumps and fertilizers require market integration, making such practices most appropriate in areas with fairly easy market access and reliable input supply. In more remote areas, where prices of purchased inputs are higher due to high transportation costs, the role of local inputs will increase. Also, in the marginal and driest areas, where pastoral production dominates, the logistic and organizational costs of combining different types of production are too large for the production units. In many areas, there is simply not enough manpower to intensify production. Dryland areas are often considered to have a low potential for agriculture, but research clearly shows that in drylands which have above 500 mm annual rainfall, doubling and tripling of crop yields is within reach. Under these conditions, plant nutrient supply -not water availability - is often the most limiting factor. Soil fertility management must therefore play an important role boosting agricultural production in drylands. However, general application of fertilizer is generally not profitable and the risk is too high. Recent research at ICRISAT in Niger represents what could be a break-through in soil fertility management in the Sahel. The method is based on the placement of 4 kg P/ha in the planting hole. Average yield increase was 70% for 6 sites in 1997. This method reduces the cost of fertilizer application and thereby the risk of fertilizer use. NORAGRIC undertook a study on Integrated Plant Nutrition Management in two Norwegian funded NGO projects in Mali which showed that the method of point application will give a return of 1 CFA per CFA invested in fertilizer whereas traditional broadcasting gave a value cost ratio of 1. Norwegian NGOs in Mali are now starting to work with farmers to test this technology, but it deserves attention on a larger scale. Most dryland farmers continue to use traditional seeds and remain dependent on the local seed supply. This has been observed the field in various locations in Ethiopia and Mali, and to some extent in the dryland zones of Zimbabwe. Our observations are supported by work in other dryland areas ranging from Rajasthan in India to the western 96

Sahel of Africa. Ideas of building on the local genetic resource base, systematically using farmers' capability, were pioneered by Ethiopian researchers. In NORAGRIC's contact with farmers, certain recurrent features have been noticed. Local farmers have a research capability. They are usually interested in new crops or new seeds, but they experiment before they decide whether to adopt or reject them. Often they can give detailed accounts of the suitability of a new variety related to various soils, seasons, stress factors, etc. They also test them for food processing, taste, susceptibility to storage problems and pests, for fodder productivity and fodder quality. These experiences clearly indicate the limitations of centralized research for such needs. Variety selection must be decentralized and needs to build on locally existing adapted germplasm. The only practical way of doing this is to involve farmers and to take advantage of their research capability. This means participatory plant breeding. Often NGOs play a crucial role in linking scientists and communities. National research systems are essential, but their capacity is often grossly underutilized because of lack of operational funds. Support to those systems may therefore be an efficient way of using research funds. The national systems are usually linked up to relevant international research centers. In the case of tropical dryland farming, the relevant centers include primarily ICRISAT and, to some degree, also IITA and ICARDA. ICRISAT's Genetic Resources Center has an extremely valuable collection of dryland crops collected in Africa. Because this collection is so well researched and documented it is particularly valuable for immediate applied research. Taking advantage of the great potentials of linking international and national research to communities through participatory methods may require a reorientation within the government research system. Farmers are usually very receptive and eager to collaborate with researchers. Studies of local knowledge and practices regarding seed selection, including gender roles, is essential. In most cultures women play a crucial role in selection and management of seeds.

Institutions, NRM and Tenure: The Gestion de Terroir (GT) Approach In the 90's, focus has, as mentioned, shifted from physical rehabilitation of degraded lands to natural resource management and institutional development. This can also be seen as part of a trend toward decentralization and the disengagement of the state. In West Africa, the Gestion de Terroir-approach has been central in this new trend. It may be a useful conceptual tool for decentralization in farming communities, but there are also problems with the approach. It is often considered as too slow, too costly, and too complex - thus limiting the number of communities that can be reached. A main issue of the critique is the degree to which the GT approach is geared towards key local priorities. Local priorities in the Sahel are often social services and infrastructure improvements, more than some of the natural resource conservation activities pursued through the GT approach. Local people and community groups have their own perception of environmental problems. If natural resource management is 97 not a high priority locally, less emphasis should be placed on developing land use plans and control of territories through tenure contracts, and more on other aspects of development. The GT approach is often based on assumptions that there is wide-scale environmental degradation going on mainly as a direct result of population growth and human activity. However, as discussed, fear of overgrazing might have been overestimated. Likewise, deforestation caused by extension of cultivated land takes place, but whether this represents an environmental problem is a normative question depending on the perceptions of individual actors. In addition, one of the main concerns of GT projects has been deforestation through local use of fuelwood. However, research carried out by NORAGRIC in Mali in high pressure areas indicates that this concern is exaggerated. The approach is also unsuited to pastoralist areas, where geographical limits of "community land" will reduce mobility and flexibility in resource use. In addition, the GT approach has proven complex and rigid. Its implementation has depended too much on external assistance, especially the process of working out land use plans. Participatory appraisals by project staff are carried out in mechanistic ways and only in the early phases of the project. There is too much focus on technical aspects of analysis of village resources and development of land use plans. The preparation of the land use plans becomes too much of an end in itself. This means that the GT approach easily ends up being a planning tool for state services, rather than village plans meant to serve the community and its priorities. It seems that much simpler plans are needed, if they are to be useful and revised regularly. The GT approach builds on the assumptions that a land tenure contract, in the form of a signed land use plan, provides higher tenure security at local level and thus increased willingness to invest in improved natural resources management. The higher security is assumed to arise from the state granting local people higher prominence in resource management decisions. This assumption may be correct when it comes to the enclosure of communal resources (especially forests) where the state endorses local ownership of resources in settled and relatively stable farming communities. However, in most cases there is overlapping use and bundles of rights to different resources. Some may have access to farm, some to graze, and others again to collect fruits or fuelwood. In such cases, the introduction of exclusive collective prcperty is not a good idea, and it may even increase conflicts. Privatization of land does not always seem to be such a good idea either, since individualization has proven to emerge as a result of increased population pressure and intensification. To the extent that privatization is beneficial and desirable, the process should be demand-driven and gradual - that is, allowed to unfold according to local needs and institutional adjustments - rather than imposed from above in a sudden and all- encompassing manner.

99

Section E. Scientific, Sectoral and Environmental Aspects

Science,and Strategies to CombatDesertification

Uriel N. Safriel

Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research Sede Boqer Campus Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Israel

Drylands, development and desertification Desertification occurs in drylands, as a result of non-sustainable development. For evaluating the role of science in combating desertification it is necessary to define drylands, development, sustainability and desertification, in scientific terms. "Drylands" comprise a range of terrestrial ecosystems. An ecosystem is a production enterprise: its biota (plants, animals, micro-organisms) appropriates from the environment raw materials such as minerals and water, and energy such as solar energy, for the production process. From an ecological standpoint "development' is an induced increase of ecosystem production. From the human standpoint ecosystems also provide "services", such as the sequestration of carbon. "Sustainable development" is one that increases ecosystem production without impairing the generation of ecosystem services. In terrestrial ecosystems water originates as precipitation, stored in the soil and move from there to the biota. Only a small portion becomes incorporated in the product. Most water flows through the biota and transpires to the atmosphere. In addition, solar energy removes water from the soil by evaporation. In dryland terrestrial ecosystems both transpiration and evaporation are so high relative to precipitation, to become the controlling factor of production. Production ceases when in the production machine, the plant, water is lost to the atmosphere, during the production process, at rates that are faster than the rates of replacement. Dryland development can either (a) increase water inputs, e.g. by storage or transportation; (b) reduce evaporation, e.g. by run-off management; or (c) reduce transpiration, by crop selection. These options generate sustainable dryland development provided that the cost of each of these measures or their combination, including the cost in associated reduced provision of ecosystem services, is surpassed by the benefit of the increased production. Whether development is profitable and sustainable depends on the type of dryland, within the range of dryland ecosystems. Since water is the resource limiting production in the drylands, drylands are classified by their Aridity Index - the mean annual (1951-1980) ratio of actual water input (precipitation) to potential losses by evapotranspiration. Most extreme drylands are the hyperarid ones, where precipitation is <5% of potential evapotranspiration. Seven percent 100 of global land is hyperarid, mainly in the Saharo-Arabian region. Next categories are the arid and the semiarid drylands, mainly in Australia, Asia and North America. The dry- subhumid drylands have an aridity index of 0.51-0.65 and occur mainly in sub-tropic regions. Altogether 47% of global land is dryland. There are some countries that more than one dryland type, or even all of them, occur within their boundaries. The number of dryland types occurring within each country does not necessarily depend on the size of that country. Israel, for example, is only 24,000 km, but since it is positioned at a global climatic transition zone, most of its area is taken by the four dryland types, arranged sequentially from the hyper-arid at the south to the dry-subhumid in the north. Jordan in the Middle East and Tunisia in North Africa too are relatively small countries that have all four dryland types. The following discussion is based on the experiences of Israel in developing its drylands and points at implications for other countries.

Options for sustainable development of drylands

Hyperarid drylands With their extremely low precipitation and high potential evapotranspiration production of hyperarid drylands can increase only with reliably increased water inputs: locally available groundwater, storage of flood water, or transportation from elsewhere. Thus, agricultural development totally depends on irrigation. Since all developed water resources are more saline than those of direct precipitation, and given the high evaporation rates, there is a high salinization risk, which eventually reduces production irreversibly. Water resource development requires high technology and capital investments, which can be provided only by an appropriate socio-economic and political structure. These are rarely available in many developing countries with hyperarid drylands. Even when available, and the cost of water resource development and prevention of salinization is lower than that of the increased production, the cost of food production in the hyperarid dryland remains higher than in other drylands and non- dryland ecosystems. It is cheaper to increase food production of already high- productivity ecosystems, than of ecosystems with inherently low productivity. Therefore, rather than develop hyperarid drylands for food production, alternative uses should be considered, that can generate more income if carried out in hyperarid drylands than in other ecosystems. This income will enable the inhabitants of the hyperarid drylands to import food from ecosystems where it is more profitable to produce. Three uses are proposed. First, solar energy is more abundant, and there is more space to intercept and concentrate it in hyperarid drylands than elsewhere. Investments in solar energy research and technology can make the inhabitants of hyperarid drylands exporters of solar energy. Solar energy can also be used to reduce to high cost of energy expended in desalination plants, and thus make use of brackish water often available in deserts. Second, many crops thrive on the desert's abundance of solar energy and warm temperatures and produce more in hyperarid drylands than in other ecosystems, provided 101 water losses are reduced and/or replenished. High salinity water often abundant in hyperarid drylands but useless for most crops, are ideal for aquaculture (fish, and algae as source of valuable chemical compounds and fish feed) when combined with sun and warmth. Third, hyperarid drylands are of a unique scenic value, which together with their vast open expanses, makes them attractive to leisure activities of affluent populations that reside in the non-drylands. Conventional or eco-tourism may generate more income to the inhabitants of the drylands than any other type of development. The tourism industry, however, requires much water for consumption and much energy for internal climate control. Advancing technologies for recycling of domestic water and for "passive" cooling of buildings under hyper-arid conditions will contribute to development of hyperarid tourism as a source of alternative livelihood for hyperarid people. The three development options of the hyperarid drylands depend on the services of the hyperarid ecosystem rather than on its productivity properties. The role of science is in regional planning based on knowledge of ecosystem properties and behavior under the three types of development. The planning process should result in an optimal land allocation for each of the three development types, that guarantee the sustainability of each. This development requires research, high-technology, extension and training for the people of the hyperarid drylands. These, as well as water resource development, require capital investments, which in turn depend on an appropriate socio-economic- political structure. Until these are available, it is recommended to refrain from development of hyperarid drylands. This is because, though the Convention to Combat Desertification does not attend the hyperarid drylands, attempts to develop hyperarid drylands in a non-sustainable manner may further desertify these lands. 102

Arid drylands Cash crops, solar energy and tourism are appropriatedevelopment options for the arid drylands too. But the higher productivity of arid ecosystems relative to hyperarid ones provides additionaloptions, that utilize not just the servicesbut also the productivity of these ecosystems,which occupy 12.1%of global land. Arid drylands are traditionally used as rangelands,by nomad pastoralists. In most regions they are not overpopulated and hence not overgrazed. Rather than increasingtheir productivity,measures should be taken to avoid overexploitationresulting from the suppressionof nomadism. This too is a socio-politicalrather than a technologicalissue. A development option of arid drylands is the tapping of often little unutilized resource,biodiversity: wild plants with a potential economicvalue, not as forage or food species, but as sources for potentiallyuseful natural compounds. Plant speciesrichness is higher in the arid than in the hyperariddrylands. Yet, it is far lower than in many other non-drylandecosystems. However,arid plants have evolved adaptationsto cope with a diversity of extreme conditions - radiation, heat, drought, salinity, floods, and their spatiotemporal fluctuations and unpredictability. Due to these, arid dryland plants produce seedsthat should last long in the soil. Due to their relative scarcity,arid dryland plants are attractive to herbivores. To withstand the physical conditions,to make seeds durable,and to resist predation, arid drylandplants have evolved interestingcompounds, which are there to be discovered,characterized and commercialized. Research is needed to weigh the benefit of developingarid rangelands against the cost in the reduction of their peculiarbiodiversity, and its potentialeconomic significance.

Seemiariddrylands As comparedto other drylands,semiarid ones occupy the largest area - 17.7% of global land. Pastoralism and subsistence agriculture are the traditional uses of these drylands. With mounting population pressures these uses take the form of overexploitation,bringing about land degradation. It is expressed in an apparently irreversible lowering of ecosystemproductivity down to levels of the arid drylands - desertification. Developmentof semiariddrylands should not only (a) restore desertified areas and (b) arrest further desertification,but also (c) increase productivityto cater for the growing population, yet prevent the desertification associated with attempts to increase the productivity of semiarid drylands. Having more precipitation and less potential evapotranspirationthan arid drylands, the cost of measures to increase water inputs and reduce losses is not that high as in the arid drylands. In Israel, for exarnple, landscape managementpractice for achieving effective runoff harvesting,coupled with afforestation("savannization"), is currently researched and developed as a measure to arrest desertificationand promoterange quality,biodiversity and recreationactivities. The research and developmentof "savannization"and other modes of semiarid dryland uses may be slower than populationgrowth. Furthermore,food productionof the semiarid drylands may still be more expensive and risky to the environmentthan in the 103

less arid ecosystems. Therefore, the three high-tech development options for the hyperarid drylands (cash-crop agriculture and aquaculture, solar energy production, recreation and tourism industry) are viable options for the semiarid drylands as well, provided the appropriate socio-political infrastructures exist. However, the significance of semiarid biodiversity may surpass its significance in other ecosystems. Semiarid drylands, especially in the Middle and Near East, are rich in progenitors, wild relatives, and primitive races of modem cultivated crops. The significance of these "biogenetic resources" is widely appreciated. However, the fact that these natural assets for guaranteeing future global food security are inhabitants of the drylands, particularly the semiarid ones, most prone to desertification, is often overlooked. Research is still needed to explore methods of dynamic conservation (i.e., conservation in nature, which enables these plants to evolve responses to global and local environmental changes) and utilization of these dryland resources. This is a demanding charge, because unlike the conservation of species, the theory and practice of conserving a naturally evolving genetic diversity hardly exist. An additional significance of semiarid drylands' biodiversity has emerged only recently, when the threat of climate change due to the "greenhouse effect" has become a global concern. Semiarid regions often serve as transitions between arid and non-arid biogeographical provinces. Species whose centers of distribution is in regions which are more xeric or more mesic than the semiarid one, are represented in the semiarid region by their peripheral populations. It is conceivable that a semiarid peripheral population comprises more genotypes than a core population of the same species. This is because a semiarid region "sandwiched" between a more arid and a less arid region, fluctuates in climatic conditions more than other areas. It is the "desert edge" that pulsates spatiotemporally across the semiarid region, as is the case in Israel, for example. Therefore, an annual plant of an arid species that resides in the periphery of its species, in the semiarid dryland, and its genotype is adapted to arid conditions but not to mesic ones, produces more seeds in dry years, whereas the genotype adapted to more mesic conditions, produces more seeds in the wetter years. Neither genotypes become extinct due to the fluctuating conditions. In the core, though, only genotypes adapted to arid conditions survive. Peripheral populations may therefore be more likely to withstand global warming whereas core populations may go extinct. The extinction of core species will impair the functioning of their ecosystems, and the generation of their services. Semiarid ecosystems should be therefore preserved to serve as repositories of the resistant peripheral populations, that will be used for restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems elsewhere, affected detrimentally by global change. Because semiarid regions are most prone to desertification, their development impairs the capacity of mitigating future climate change. It is therefore necessary to use modem surveying technologies to explore optimal land allocation of the semiarid dryland for sustainable development that allows sufficient space set aside for the conservation of peripheral populations of plant species. 104

Dry-subhumid drylands These comprise 10% of global land and are the least xeric of all drylands. Their traditional use is the transformation of scrubland to cropland in the valleys and plateaus, and pastoralism on slopes covered by scrub or parkland plant formations. Current development is engaged in transforming mountainous rangelands to croplands. Tourism and solar energy development may be less and food production more profitable in the dry- subhumid drylands than in other drylands. But much of dry-subhumid agriculture requires irrigation hence investment in water resource development and infrastructure is coupled with risks of soil and groundwater salinization. Dry-subhumid regions are also rich in biodiversity, including wild relatives of modem crops, hence land should be also allocated for their conservation and sustainable use. The dry-subhumid drylands can also be used for climate change mitigation. Development reduces the capacity of the biosphere to sequester carbon, and promote global warming by a mounting reduction of tree cover not only in the tropics but also in the dry-subhumid drylands. Temperate non- drylands are ecologically more profitable for afforestation than any dryland type but this is also true with respect to food production. Food production has priority over afforestation, hence on a global prospective it is optimal to use non-drylands for food production and drylands for afforestation. Of all dryland types, it is mostly in the dry- subhumid that afforestation is ecologically feasible and hence also economically viable. Afforestation in the dry-subhumid, hitherto used mostly for the production of firewood, conservation of soil and promotion of biodiversity, landscape quality and recreation activities, is to assume an additional, new role - functioning as a carbon "sink" and "reservoir" for mitigating the detrimental effects of global warming. Countries that have large dry-subhumid regions can use them for afforestation as a carbon sink and reservoir, and in this way comply with international treaties and protocols calling for control of greenhouse gases emissions. Under this umbrella, the polluting sectors of the non-dryland regions may provide incentives to dryland populations for using their land for such afforestation. Research is still needed to address the afforestation potential of dry-subhumid drylands as a global warming mitigation strategy. Strategically, biotechnology and genetic engineering should be mobilized to develop water-efficient and salinity-tolerant tree varieties, in view of even using semi-arid drylands for afforestation as a measure to mitigate global warming. It should be noted though, that due to global warming itself, the incidence of forest fires is likely to increase. Afforestation with fire awareness, that incorporates pastoralism and accommodates the conservation of biogenetic resources and other types of development, is one of the most exciting challenges for scientific Research & Development in the drylands. 105

Conclusions The above discussion of options for sustainable development of drylands, namely a development that has no associated desertification risk, leads to the following strategic recommendations:

(a) Do not attempt to "fight" the drylands in order to make them function as non-drylands; This strategy will desertify the drylands and perpetuate the poverty of dryland inhabitants.

(b) Identify those dryland attributes that can be harnessed to provide dryland inhabitants with an economic competitive advantage, compared to inhabitants of non-dryland regions. For example, the dryland curses of intense solar radiation, the high temperatures, the low-quality water, and the desolation and wilderness can be turned into the blessings of solar energy production, winter cash-crops, precious aquacultural products and tourism-industry assets, respectively; all these can be produced in drylands at a lower economic and environmental cost than in the non-drylands.

(c) Though highly sophisticated and expensive research is often required for developing technologies and practices for dryland sustainable development, the resulting technology need not necessarily be expensive or requiring sophisticated expertise to operate. Therefore it is appropriate and required to develop, transfer to, and implement in developing desertification-affected countries the most advanced technologies, provided the socio-political infrastructures and atmosphere are available and conducive, respectively, for the absorption of the technologies.

(d) Where the socio-political environment is not conducive, indigenous knowledge and local practices should be researched and further elaborated and developed, such that they can be improved or adapted for exchanges between regional cooperating parties; the exchange of local experience and expertise between neighbors may be more effective than adoption of imported technologies.

(e) Exploit the global concern of the detrimental effects of climate change and of loss of biodiversity by implementing and demonstrating such practices for combating desertification and technologies for dryland sustainable development that also mitigate climate change and conserve biodiversity, and hence benefit local population as well as regional and global interests;

(f) Match specific options for development with the dryland type for which these options are most likely to result in sustainability. An example for such matching, based on the above discussion, is portrayed below. 106

Hyper- Arid Semi- Dry- arid arid subhumid Solar energy use ___ Tourism ____ Cash crops _ _ Rangemanagement - Biodiversityuse industrial _ _ croprelatives peripheralpops. Food production _ fforestation _

An example - Collaboration to Combat Desertification in the Middle East All recommended strategies above are put to test in a project to combat desertification in the Middle East. This is The Initiative for Collaboration to Control Desertification in the Drylands of the Middle East, a joint Jordanian-Palestinian- Egyptian-Tunisian-Israeli project conceived by the Working Group on Environment of the Multilateral Middle East Peace Talks and facilitated by the World Bank, and its 3- year first phase is due to terminate at the end of 1999. Each of the five countries involved has several dryland types, and three of the countries share dryland watersheds. In all five countries varying degrees of desertification are evident, and further risks are anticipated due to the rapidly increasing population of the region. The problem of water scarcity, typical to all drylands, has been tackled by Israel through technologies for water-use efficiency (drip-irrigation, groundwater management, crop development, desert greenhouses). But strategically, these will not suffice and the future of sustainable dryland development in the Middle East is through desalination in the long term, and immediate wastewater treatment and recycling the wastewater from rural and urban centers. Within the framework of this "Desertification Initiative" all five countries developed R&D projects in treating wastewater for use in dryland agriculture and agroforestry and for irrigating recreational facilities. Since Tunisia is the leading country among the five in this theme, it provides all other partners with a "Regional Support" in the form of workshops, seminars, and other means of promoting contacts and dissemination of knowledge and experiences. Israel has acquired a rich experience in afforestation of its dry-subhumid region and more recently also of semi-arid areas. Furthermore, it invested in improving on ancient run-off harvesting practices for planting groves in the arid region. Thus, Israel is providing regional support to individual afforestation projects in the other four countries. Free ranging livestock is a widespread traditional livelihood in Jordan, though it is 107 common also, with varying degrees, in the other four partners. Jordan is providing the regional support in this theme, so critical as a major cause for desertification. The need for identifying the agricultural and wild biodiversity and biogenetic resources for strategic improvement of traditional crops and for creating new interesting sources of income, was identified by Egypt, that leads this theme in the Initiative. Finally, the Palestinian Authority, the youngest political entity in the region, has lacked R&D, socio-economic and political infrastructures necessary to effectively collaborate with its neighbors in combating West Bank and Gaza desertification. The Palestinian professional teams participated in all regional activities of the Initiative in all four themes. This promoted their capacity building to the point that they developed, in collaboration with other partners to the Initiative, their own national projects in all four themes. To conclude, the Desertification Initiative has attempted to demonstrate the strength of regional cooperation and the validity of the strategies proposed above, through exchange of information, experience and know-how, aimed at developing in a sustainable manner their national drylands. This in spite of, and dew to differences between the partners in the types and extent of drylands, the severity of desertification, experiences and level of expertise, and the nature of their social, economic and political infrastructures. Such collaboration had been impossible throughout the course of this terminating century, and the Middle East peace process opened a new window. It is for the Desertification Initiative to demonstrate whether or not this is a window of opportunity for effectively combating Middle Eastern desertification. 108

Soil Managementfor CarbonSequestration

Rattan Lal

School of Natural Resources The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio USA

INTRODUCTION The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing at the rate of 3.3 Pg C/yr (Table 1, Schmil et al., 1995). Two principal sources of this increase in atmospheric carbon pool are fossil fuel combustion and deforestation/land use change. The latter is a principal factor in the tropics and sub-tropics where resource-poor farmers practice subsistence agriculture based on slash-and-bum method and low or no off-farm input. Consequently, crops are grown on plant nutrients released from the decomposition of vegetation and soil organic matter. While nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, S) are absorbed by crops, C is emitted into atmosphere as CO2 and CH4 along with emission of some nitrogen as N2 0 and NOx. The annual rate of C emission due to deforestation, land use change and agricultural activities is estimated at 1.7 Pg C/yr, or 22% of the total emission (Table 1). Similar to tropical ecosystems, a substantial release of C (and N) from vegetation and soil also occurred in North America and Europe, during the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, due to land use conversion, plowing, accelerated soil erosion and other degradative processes (Donigan et al., 1998; Paul et al., 1997). On a global basis, the historic loss of C is estimated from 55-100 Pg from soils and 100 to 150 Pg from vegetation. Crude estimates as these are, they provide a reference point about the potential of C resequestration in soil, vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems. World soils constitute the third largest global carbon pool (Fig. 1). The soil C pool, comprising soil organic carbon (SOC) estimated at 1550 Pg and soil inorganic carbon (SIC) at 950 Pg, is about 4.5 times the biotic pool and 3.3 times the atmospheric pool. Therefore, resequestration of C in soil is an important strategy to curtail the rate of C enhancement in the atmosphere.

PROCESSES AFFECTING SOIL C BALANCE The SOC pool is primarily located in the top 1-m depth, but SIC pool is in the sub-soil horizons. Relatively, SOC is more labile than SIC and is prone to changes through anthropogenic and natural perturbations. Several processes that enhance the SOC pool include the following: 109

Humification: It implies conversion of readily decomposable biomass (remains of plants and animals) into relatively stable humus fraction. The rate of conversion of biomass C into soil organic C is low, and generally in the range of 5 to 10%. Aggregation: It involves formation of secondary particles from clay and silt size fractions into stable micro- and macro-aggregates. Clay particles are bond together through complexes of organic molecules with polyvalent cations (Ca2 +, Fe3 +, A13 +). The aggregates thus formed encapsulate C within secondary particles and render it inaccessible to microbial decay. Deposition: Sediment transported by wind and water are redistributed over the landscape and deposited in depressional sites and against barriers that retards the velocity of wind and water. Depositional sites have more SOC content and the C buried in the deep horizons is buffered against climatic elements (Stallard, 1999). Deep Placement: Another process of C placement in the sub-soil is through root system development and proliferation into the sub-soil horizon, and deep incorporation through bioturbation (e.g. activity of soil macrofauna including earthworms and termites). Plants with a deep and prolific root system accentuate SOC content of the sub-soil horizon (Fisher et al., 1994). Soil Fertility Enhancement: Favorable status of plant nutrients, both macro (N, P, K) and micro (Zn, S, Cu) in soil is crucial to high biomass productivity and to enhancement of SOC pool. Availability of adequate level of essential nutrients is critical to the process of humification (Himes, 1998). In contrast, several processes that deplete SOC pool include the following: Mineralization: The rate of mineralization (decomposition of complex organic molecules into simple inorganic compounds and C0 2 ) depends on soil temperature and moisture regimes. The process of mineralization is temperature dependent, and the rate is approximately doubled with every 10 °C increase in temperature. Therefore, the rate of SOC mineralization is more in warm than cool climates. Slaking and Dispersion: Breakdown of aggregates, by erosivity of wind and water or due to change in zeta potential of the colloidal fraction, leads to release of C previously encapsulated within aggregates. The C thus released is accessible for microbial decay and oxidation. Erosion and Redistribution: Soil erosion is a 3-stage process: detachment, transport and redistribution, and deposition. Detachment, disruption or breakdown of aggregates, and subsequent redistribution lead to exposure of C to climatic elements. It is assumed that as much as 20% of the C contained in water and wind transported material may be released into the atmosphere, and 10% sequestered in depositional sites and aquatic ecosystems (Lal, 1995). Exposure to Climatic Elements: Anthropogenic perturbations leading to exposure of SOC to climatic elements exacerbate mineralization rate and release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Important among these perturbations are conversion of natural to managed 110 ecosystems, reduction in vegetation cover through biomass removal or burning, and soil tillage. Soil Fertility Depletion: Mining soil fertility, through resource-based rather than input- based farming systems, leads to rapid depletion of soil fertility with attendant decline in SOC content. Soil depletion of N and P also leads to reduction in SOC content. Soil processes affecting SIC dynamics are not well understood. Erosion can expose the petrocalcic or calciferous horizon and may lead to release of CO2 due to the exposure of carbonate rich layer to acidifying elements e.g. acid rain, root exudates, application of acidifying fertilizers etc. In contrast, formation of secondary carbonates can lead to sequestration of C. The rate of formation of secondary carbonates may be less than 100 g/m2 /yr and generally in the range of 5 to 20 g/m2 /yr. The soil C pool is the result of the balance between the processes that enhance C and those that deplete C pool (Lal et al., 1995a; b; 1998a; b). Judicious land use and adoption of improved management practices enhance C pool (Lal, 1997; Lal et al., 1998), and those that accentuate degradation and decline in soil quality deplete soil C pool. The objective of soil management is to enhance soil C pool.

SOIL DEGRADATION AND C EMISSION Soil degradation, decline in soil quality related to biomass productivity and environment moderating capacity, leads to rapid decline in SOC pool. There are numerous soil degradative processes that affect biomass production and SOC pool. Irnportant among these are accelerated erosion, decline in soil structure, nutrient depletion, acidification etc. Soil degradation is a severe global problem, affecting about 2 billion ha of land worldwide (Oldeman, 1994). Soil erosion by water leads to annual transport of about 19 billion tons of sediments into the oceans (Walling, 1993; Walling and Webb, 1996). Erosion-induced transport of sediments can have a strong impact on soil C pool and fluxes. Lal (1999a) estimated the historic loss of C due to soil erosion. The historic C loss is estimated at 21.2 Pg by water erosion, 3.7 Pg by wind erosion and 24.9 Pg due to both water and wind erosion (Table 3). The rate of annual C emission due to water erosion may be as much as 1.14 Pg/yr (Lal, 1995). Therefore, controlling current soil erosion can lead to decrease in C emission with a potential of 1.14 Pg C/yr, and restoration of previously eroded lands can lead to C sequestration with a potential of 25 Pg C over 25 to 50-year period. Similarly, restoration of soil degraded by other processes can also lead to C sequestration. Important among these are restoration of salt affected soils (e.g., salinization, alkalization) (Gupta and Abrol, 1990; Szabolcs, 1998), acid soils with low pH and high concentrations of Al and Fe, soils deficient in P and other essential plant nutrients. Techniques for restoration of degraded soils and potential of C sequestration are outlined in Table 4. The rate of SOC sequestration through land restoration may be ill low at 50 to 100 kg/ha/yr during the initial stages. Subsequently, with establishment of vegetation cover and increase in biomass productivity, the rate of SOC sequestration may be higher and in the range of 100 to 500 kg/ha/yr. The high rate of SOC sequestration is common in cool and humid than in warm and dry climate. Restoration of drastically disturbed soils, due to mining and construction activities, has also potential of SOC sequestration. Experiments conducted in Ohio have shown that restoration of coal mineland led to SOC sequestration of 25 to 30 Mg C/ha over 30 to 50-year period (Akala and Lal, 1998). Similar to restoration of soils degraded by other processes, the potential of SOC sequestration through restoration of drastically disturbed lands depends on soil, climate, vegetation and ecoregional characteristics.

POVERTY, SUBSISTENCE FARMING AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT Soil degradation and desertification are biophysical processes driven by socio- economic and political factors. Desertification, soil degradation in arid lands, is exacerbated by inappropriate land use, soil mismanagement, and agricultural practices based on mining inherent soil fertility. Soil degradation leads to decline in plant productivity, reduction in biomass/crop residue returned to the soil, increase in mineralization/decomposition of organic matter, and decrease in the SOC pool. Soil physical degradation involves reduction in aggregation, increase in slaking and dispersion, and exacerbation in the emission of C associated with soil particles (unaggregated) as CO2. There is a strong correlation between poverty and soil degradation, increase in poverty exacerbates soil degradation and desertification. Resource-poor farmers are unable to invest in land. Off-farm input (e.g., fertilizers, irrigation, seeds of improved varieties, cover crops etc.) is prohibitively expensive for resource-poor farmers. Such inputs are either not available or not affordable. Consequently, soil and water resources are neglected, become prone to degradation, and lose SOC pool. Adoption of strategies that alleviate poverty and human suffering can also reverse soil degradative trends. Conversion from resource-based to science-based agriculture leads to improvement in agronomic productivity, increase in farm income, investment in soil and water resources, and enhancement of soil quality.

AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION FOR SOC SEQUESTRATION Agricultural intensification is vital to achieving sustainable production and food security (Lal, 1987; Greenland et al., 1997). Adoption of best management practices on prime agricultural land to enhance productivity per unit area and time is a good strategy to convert marginal lands to restorative (e.g. fallowing) land uses for SOC sequestration and improvement in environment. Agricultural intensification can lead to increase in SOC pool (Flach et al., 1997). Package of improved agricultural practices differ among soil types and agroecoregions. In general, however, improved agricultural practices include 112 conservation tillage based on mulch farming and residue return, frequent use of cover crops in the rotation cycle and elimination of plowed fallow, integrated nutrient management based on liberal use of compost and biosolids along with judicious use of chemical fertilizers, integrated pest management especially weed control, adoption of improved varieties and appropriate cropping systems, soil and water conservation, and water management including water harvesting and better methods of irrigation (Lal, 1987). The surplus land, usually marginal for agricultural land use, can be converted to forest growth or plantations for biomass/biofuel production. Afforestation and improved pasture establishment are important strategies of SOC sequestration. Application of biosolids and use of cover crops can also accentuate the rate of formation of secondary carbonates. The data in Table 6 lists the potential rates of C sequestration through adoption of recommended agricultural practices. The rate of SOC sequestration are low, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (Schelinger, 1990). However, given large areas involved, the magnitude of sequestration can be substantial especially if such rates are maintained for 25 to 50 years or more. The strategy of SOC sequestration through soil restoration and agricultural intensification is a win-win-win strategy. It enhances soil quality and agricultural productivity, improves quality of surface and ground waters, and helps in mitigating the greenhouse effect through C sequestration in soil and vegetation. Therefore, SOC sequestration is a good strategy regardless of the threat of global warming. Soil C sequestration is to be the goal of agricultural land management in any circumstance.

SOIL C SEQUESTRATION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT MITIGATION Realization of the potential of C sequestration in soil can reduce the rate of annual emission Of CO2 into the atmosphere. Such reduction can have a significant impact on the global C budget over a short period of 25 to 50 years. Examples of the estimate of the potential of SOC sequestration are shown in Table 7. The potential of C sequestration and biofuel production (as offset for fossil fuel) is 0.12-0.27 Pg/yr for U.S. cropland. The world cropland can be judiciously managed to enhance productivity, achieve food security, and sequester C in the range of 0.75-1.0 Pg/yr. Desertification control in drylands has a potential to sequester 0.9-1.9 Pg C/yr, and restoration of degraded soils can lead to mitigation of the greenhouse effect by sequestering about 3 Pg C/yr (Table 7). Improved management of world croplands and restoration of degraded soils can effectively alter the global carbon budget (Table 8). Soil restoration and improved cropland management would increase the uptake by vegetation and soil from 2.5 to 5.9 Pg and effectively mitigate the greenhouse effect. Achievement of this global potential, however, will require commitment by the world community to adopt improved agricultural practices and invest in soil restoration and desertification control at global scale, but especially so in developing countries of the tropics and sub-tropics. It is a 113 difficult but a doable task that will require coordinated program formulation and implementation at global scale.

THE MAGNITUDEAND DURATIONOF SOIL C SINK The soil C sink is finite, both in magnitude and the duration during which it can be filled. The sink capacity is determined by ecosystem characteristics, land use, soil properties, and the historic loss of SOC pool due to past land misuse and soil/vegetation management. It is possible to resequester 60 to75% of the historic loss. Only in rare circumstances can the SOC pool of restored soil exceed that of the natural ecosystems. Soils of tropical savanna ecosystems are naturally deficit in P and are constrained by toxic levels of Al and Mn. In these ecosystems, application of P and replacement of Al and Mn by Ca and Mg can drastically increase biomass productivity and enhance SOC pool of the managed ecosystems (Fisher et al., 1994). This finite SOC sink capacity can be filled over a short period of 25 to 50 years. This period, however, is crucial because it provides us an opportunity to develop economic alternatives to fossil fuel. In the long run, for centuries and millenia to come, there is no choice but to develop alternative non-carbon fuel sources. In addition to SOC, manipulation of SIC also provides us an opportunity to sequester C within the pedosphere. However, the potential of SIC compared with SOC sequestration is small, and confined primarily to drylands. The principal process of SIC sequestration is translocation of carbonates into the ground water. The rate of SIC sequestration may be 5 to 100 g/m2 /yr.

CONCLUSIONS The data on global C budget and its critical appraisal support the following conclusions: 1. Increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other radiatively-active gases is primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and land use change, and agricultural activities. 2. The historic loss of C is estimated at 50 to 100 Pg from soil and 100 to 150 Pg from vegetation. 3. Adoption of judicious land use, improved soil and crop management practices and of soil restorative measures can lead to resequestration of 60 to 75% of the historic C loss. 4. The rate of SOC sequestration may be 50 to 500 kg C/ha/yr, depending on soil, vegetation, ecoregional factors, land use and management. The rate of C sequestration is high for cool and humid regions than for warm and dry areas. 5. The potential of SOC sequestration is 0.75 to 1.0 Pg C/yr for improved management of world cropland, 0.9-1.9 Pg C/yr for desertification control, and 3 Pg C/yr for restoration of degraded soils. 114

6. The SOC sequestration in world soils and biota has a potential to mitigate the greenhouse effect for 25 to 50 year period. This is a finite sink that can be filled over a period of one to two generations. 7. The potential of SIC sequestration is low and confined primarily to drylands. The potential ranges from 5 to 50 gIm2 /yr. 8. The strategy of SOC sequestration buys us time to develop and implement non- carbon alternatives to fossil fuel. 9. The SOC sequestration is a truly win-win strategy. It improves soil quality and productivity, enhances water quality and mitigates the greenhouse effect. 10. The adoption of improved agricultural practices for judicious management of soil and water resources will require a coordinated effort at global scale.

REFERENCES Akala, V. and R. Lal. 1998. Mineland reclamation and soil carbon sequestration in Ohio. 90th Annual Meeting of ASA, 18-22 October, 1998, Baltimore, MD, USA. Cole, V., C. Cerri, K. Minami, A. Mosier, N. Rosenberg and D. Sauerbeck. 1995. Agricultural Options for Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. IPCC, Working Group 2, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 748-771. Donigian, A.S., A.S. Patwardhan, R.V. Chinnaswamy and T.O. Barnwell. 1998. Modeling soil carbon and agricultural practices in the central U.S.: An update of preliminary study results. In: R. Lal, J. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds) "Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle," CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 499-518. Fisher, M.J., L.M. Rao, R.J. Thomas, M.A. Ayarza, C.E. Lascano, J.L. Sanz and R.R. Vera. 1994. Carbon storage deep in the soil by introduced pastures in the South American savannas. Nature 371, 236-238. Flach, K.W., T.L. Bamwell, Jr. and P. Crosson. 1997. Impacts of agriculture on atmospheric carbon dioxide. In: Paul, E.A., K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott and C.V. Cole (eds) "Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems." CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 3-13. Greenland, D.J., P.J. Gregory and P.H. Nye. 1997. Land resources and constraints to crop production. In: Riley, R. and J.C. Waterlow (eds) "Feeding a World Population of More Than 8 Billion People: A Challenge to Science." Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Gupta, R.K. and I.P. Abrol. 1990. Salt-affected soils: their reclamation and management for crop production. In: Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart (eds) "Soil Degradation." Adv. Soil Sci. 11, 223-287. Himes, F.L. 1998. Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus and the sequestering of C. In: R. Lal, J. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds) "Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle," CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 315-320. Lal, R. 1987. Managing soils of sub-Saharan Africa. Science 236, 1069-1076. 115

Lal, R. 1995. Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart (eds) "Soils and Global Change." CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 131-142. Lal, R. 1997. Residue management, conservation tillage and soil restoration for mitigating greenhouse effect by C0 2 -enrichment. Soil Tillage Res. 43, 81-107. Lal, R. 1998. Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 17, 319-464. Lal, R. 1999a. Soil erosion control for C sequestration and greenhouse effect mitigation. In: "Sustaining the Global Farm," ISCO-99 white paper, 23-28 May 1999, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN. Lal, R. 1999b. Global C pools and fluxes and the impact of agricultural intensification and judicious land use. FAO/IFAD Brainstorming Workshop "Prevention of Land Degradation, the Enhancement of C Sequestration and the Conservation of Biodiversity." IFAD, 15 April 1999, Rome, Italy. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart (eds) 1995. "Soils Processes and Carbon Cycle." CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 457pp. Lal, R., H.M. Hassan and J. Dumanski. 1998. Desertification control to sequester C and mitigate the greenhouse effect. DOE/PNNL Workshop, St. Michael, 3-5 Dec. 1998. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds) 1998a. "Soils and Global Change." CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 440pp. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and C.V. Cole (eds) 1998b. The Potential of US Cropland to Sequester C and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, 108pp. Lal, R. and J.P. Bruce. 1999. The Potential of World Cropland Soils to Sequester C and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect." Env. Sci. & Policy 2: 177-185. Oldeman, L.R. 1994. The global extent of soil degradation. In: D.J. Greenland and I. Szabolcs (eds) "Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use." CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 99-118. Paul, E.A., K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott and C.V. Cole (eds) 1997. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 414pp. Paustian, K., H.P. Collins and E.A. Paul. 1997. Management controls on soil carbon. In: E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott and C.V. Cole (eds) "Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems." CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 15-49. Schimel, D. et al. 1995. Radiative forcing of climate change. In: C. Houghton et al. (eds) "Climate Change 1995." The Science of Climate Change. IPCC, Oxford Univ. Press. 35-71. Schlesinger, W.H. 1990. Evidence from chronosequence studies for a low carbon storage potential of soils. Nature 348, 232-234. Stallard, R.F. 1998. Terrestrial sedimentation and the C cycle: coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12: 231-237. 116

Szabolcs. 1. 1998. Salt buildup as a factor of soil degradation. In: R. Lal, W.H. Blum, C. Valentine and B.A. Stewart (eds) "Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation." CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 253-263. Walling, D.E. 1993. Erosion and sediment yield research: current status and research needs. In: K. Banasik and A. Zbikowski (eds) "Runoff and Sediment Yield Modeling." Proc. Warsaw Symp. IAHS, Wallingford, UK, 23-42. Walling, D.E. and B.W. Webb. 1996. Erosion and sediment yield: a global overview. IAHS Publ. Wallingford, UK 236, 3-19. 117

Table 1. Global C budget for 1990s (Schimel et al., 1995).

Component Flux (Pg C/yr)

A. Sources Fossil fuels and cement manufacture 6.0 Tropical deforestation and land use change 1.7 Wildfires 0.6

B. Sinks Atmospheric buildup 3.3 Oceanic uptake 2.0 Forest regrowth missing 0.5 Land uptake C 2.1 118

Table 2. Processes affecting the dynamics of soil organic carbon.

SOC enhancement SOC depletion

Humification Mineralization, decomposition Aggregation Slaking and dispersion Deposition Erosion and transportation Deep placement/incorporation Exposure to climatic elements Soil fertility enhancement (N, P, S) Soil fertility depletion 119

Table 3. Historic C loss due to global soil erosion (Lal, 1999a).

Severity Water erosion Wind erosion Total

------Pg C---

Light 1.7 0.7 2.4 Moderate 10.5 2.5 13.0 Strong and extreme 9.0 0.5 9.5 Total 21.2 3.7 24.9 120

Table 4. SOC sequestration through restoration of degraded soils.

Soc sequestration Degradation process Restoration technique potential (Mg/ha/yr)

Soil erosion Revegetation and nutrient application 0.1-1.0

Salinization/alkalization Leaching, application of gypsum and 0.05-0.1 organic amendments

Acidification Liming*, organic amendments 0.1-0.2

Soil pollution Bioremediation, organic amendments, 0.1-0.2 revegetation

Physical degradation Organic residue, cover crops, soil 0.05-0.1 conditioners

Soil fertility depletion Integrated nutrient management 0.05-0.2 *Limningmay also lead to release of CO2 due to neutralization of soil acidity. 121

Table 5. Subsistence agricultural practices leading to emissions of greenhouse gases from soil to the atmosphere.

Practice Soil degradative processes Greenhouse gases emitted

Deforestation Soil erosion, decline in CO2 , CH4 , N2 0 aggregation, compaction

Biomass burning Soil erosion, leaching CO2 , CH4 , N 2 0

Plowing and soil disturbance Soil erosion, compaction, CO2 by mounding, ridging etc. decline in aggregation

Draining wetlands Oxidation, acidification C0 2, N2 0

Uncontrolled grazing Soil erosion, compaction CO2 , N 2 0

No fertilizer application Soil fertility depletion CO2 122

Table 6. Technological options for C sequestration in soil (Mg/ha/yr). Temperate climate Tropical and sub-tropical Technological options Humid Semi-arid Humid Semi-arid Conservation tillage 0.5-1.0 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.2

Mulch farming (4-6 Mg/ha/yr) 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.3 0.05-0.1

Compost (20 Mg/ha/yr) 0 .5-1.0 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.2

Elimination of bare fallow 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.05-0.1

Integrated nutrient management 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.2

Restoration of eroded soils 0.5-1.0 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 Restoration of salt-affected soils --- 0.05-0.10 --- 0.05-0.1

Agricultural intensification 0.05-0.10 0.05-0.10 0.2-0.4 0.10-0.20 (improved varieties and cropping systems) 0.1-0.3

Integrated best management and 0.05-0.10 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.3 weed control 0.1-0.3

Water conservation and 0.05-0.10 0-0.2 0.01-0.1 0.1-0.3 management 0.1-0.3 Afforestation 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.05-0.1

Secondary carbonates ------0-0.2

Improved pasture management 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.2 0.05-0.10 123

Table 7. Potential of C sequestration in soil.

Potential C sequestration Region (Pg C/yr) Reference

U.S. cropland 0.12-0.27 Lal et al. (1998) World cropland 0.75-1.00 Lal and Bruce (1999) Desertification control 0.9-1.9 Lal et al. (1998)

Restoration of world's 3.0 Lal (1997) degraded soils 124

Table 8. Anthropogenic effects on global carbon budget through better cropland management and soil restoration.

Activity Flux (Pg C/yr)

Source Fossil fuel combustion 6.0 Land use, deforestation, and wildfires 2.3

Sink Oceanic uptake 2.4 Uptake by vegetation 2.5 Improved cropland management, 3.4 soil restoration 125

Experience from the Days of the UN Plan of Action to Combat Desertification and the DESCON Group

Gaafar Karrar

Khartoum,Sudan

Introduction

Clasheson Definitions The work in the UNCODSecretariat was a long uninterruptedchain of hard work with a group of distinguished scientist, all busy preparing for the United nations Conference on Desertification. There were differences of opinion on definitions but the unforgettablefight was on the definitionof desertification.When it got really hot during the regional conference in San Diego, Chile in February 1977 on whether the condition was desertification or desertization, I thought, that would settle on of the most time consuming feuds. But the long fight continues for nearly a quarter of a century with a harvest of over one hundred definitions. The definition agreed on in Rio in 1992 states that "desertificationmeans land degradationin arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities." This definition emphasizes 'land degradation' as the key words in the definition and gives a role to climatic variationsin causing desertification/landdegradation and therefore it is no more man-made only. Several scientists have criticized the 1977 Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD) for defining desertificationas "the diminutionor destruction of the biological potential of the land, and can lead ultimately to desert like conditions." In this connection,it is interestingto note that 'land degradation', which has this central position in Rio definition had been used in the Round-up of UNCOD (page 1 paragraph 4) last sentence which states, "And it is amply clear that preventing degradation of land and reclaiming desertified land are not only highly profitable propositions,but essential for economicand social developmentas well."

The UN Conferenceon Desertification The World Conference on Desertification was held in 1977 in fulfillment of General Assembly (GA) Resolution 3337 (XXIX) Internationalco-operation to combat desertificationof f17 December 1974. This resolution stipulated the following: (1) decisionto initiateconcerted internationalaction to combat desertification(2) decisionto convene in 1977 a UN conference on desertification (3) establishment of a small 126 conference secretariat (4) convening an ad hoc inter agency task force to assist the secretariat of the conference in: (a) the preparation of a world map of areas affected and areas likely to be affected by the processes of desertification. (b) the assessment of all available data and information on desertification (c) the preparation of an effective, comprehensive and coordinated action program against desertification including the building-up of the indigenous and autonomous science and technology capacity in the areas concerned. The resolution had many other directives including an invitation to all member states to make available to the Conference Secretariat relevant information on combating desertification. The GA resolution 3337 (XXXIX) formed the basis of the mandate which supported UNEP's active performances namely: the Conference Secretariat was established in 1975; the Inter Agency Working Group was established; UNCOD was convened from 29 August to 9 September 1977 and a Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD) was approved by a plenary session of representatives of 94 states and several Organizations. The PACD was then endorsed by the GA in December 1977 and thus became the UN Plan of Action to Combat Desertification.

The United Nations Plan of Action to Combat Desertification The PACD recognized that responsibility for combating desertification lay with the governments of affected countries through their national institutions, and urged the United Nations System to promote international action to support national efforts. The plan also entrusted UNEP with its Governing Council (GA) and the Executive Director of UNEP as well as the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination (ACC) with the responsibility of following up and co-ordinating the implementation of its PACD. To carry out their functions, the Executive Director and the ACC should be serviced by a small desertification unit whose functions have been described in paragraph 103 of the PACD. The General Assembly Resolution No. 32/172. United Nations Conference on Desertification, of 17 December 1977, which dealt with the above institutional matters also dealt with financial arrangements. These covered the Consultative Group for Desertification Control (DESCON) and the Special Account among other decisions. Looking back after all these years the PACD proved itself as a document mainly proposing a strategy for desertification control based on the best and most carefully collected data and analysis by the top experts in all the relevant fields. Knowing that it was pioneering work in a fairly complex area, the PACD had a wonderful foresightedness and wisdom, which demonstrated itself in its call for a stock taking exercise after 7 years of its implementation. This was done in 1984 and the General Assessment of Progress (GAP) stated that the basic concepts and principles of the PACD remained valid. 127

The PACD, however, remained the sole guiding framework on action on desertification control until 1992. Its 28 recommendations provided detailed actions to be carried out at the national, regional and international levels. Three areas in the PACD need to be highlighted: a. Recommendation 21 called on countries affected or prone to desertification to establish a national machinery to combat desertification and drought which would undertake preparation of a national plan of action, arrange for its financing and implementation, and monitoring its progress. b. More important, the PACD, in recommendation 22 underlined the importance of integrating the national plan of action into the comprehensive national plans for development. c. In paragraph 8, the plan stated that "the goal is to implement the plan of action by year 2000," and called for a general assessment of progress after seven years.

The first GAP was done in 1984. But the slow progress in implementation of the plan moved UNEP GC to ask for a second assessment, which was done in 1990. The two assessments agreed in that: a. the basic principles and objectives of PACD remained valid; b. the goal of halting desertification by the year 2000 was unrealistic, and c. keys to success are: incorporation of national plans of action within national plans of development, coordination between governments, donors and international agencies, and more efficient use of available resources.

The Structure and Function of the Consultative Group According to the General Assembly resolution, the members of DESCON will meet as and when required, comprising representatives from organs, organizations and other bodies of the United Nations system, such other organizations as might be required, donor countries, multilateral financial agencies as well as developing countries having a substantial interest in combating desertification. The function of DESCON is to assist in mobilizing resources for the activities undertaken within the framework of implementing the PACD. The third meeting of DESCON discussed a progress report on Descon II project proposals and reached important conclusions on follow-up mechanism and procedures. These are included in paragraph 13 of the report - Descon 3/18 page 3. Furthermore the meeting reiterated its role, as stipulated in General Assembly Resolution 32/172; and reaffirmed its functions as stipulated in the policy statement adopted at the First Session in 1978. The meeting also 'considered that in order to function with a clear knowledge of what is happening to the implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, it would benefit from 128 receiving reports presented to UNEP Governing Council, including those of the ACC on the implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification.' 129

On projects for submission to DESCON, The Group agreed that: a. projects should fall within the priority areas identified by the Group and endorsed and elaborated by the ACC in its report to UNEP Governing Council ninth session (UNEP GC.9/4Add. 1); b. project proposals should be circulated to the United Nations specialized agencies and bodies, particularly the co-sponsors, at an early stage of their technical aspects and overall presentation; c. projects should meet, as far as possible, the criteria established by the Group of Senior Consultants as they appear in paragraph 19 of DECON-3/2; d. periodic evaluations of projects during implementation should be conducted with a view to ascertain progress and introduce necessary improvements. Evaluation teams should include, among others, representatives of donor(s) and the recipient country.

The work of DESCON in eight sessions can be sumnmarizedas follows. I. In a total of 8 sessions, Descon was attended by 266 participants, 172 representing Governments and 94 representing Organizations. II. Descon received and discussed 91 project proposals. II. Descon 6th and 7h sessions clearly reflected lack of interest among donor countries in supporting project proposals through Descon mechanism. Donors expressed their preference again for using existing and established bilateral negotiation mechanisms. Referring to the comment in the table on Descon IV, paragraph 35 of the meeting report states: "The E.D." observed, with great disappointment there was no response from the Group to 13 project proposals. He wondered what were the real reasons behind this negative attitude and requested members to advise him. During the discussion which followed the E.D. indicated that the amount of financing raised through the Consultative Group since its establishment was about $25 million compared to $1.8 billion needed annually for the implementation of the plan. From the discussions which followed and the sequence of events over the next 3 or 4 years, Descon 4 seems to have been the beginning of the end for the Consultative Group. In Descon 7 and Descon 8 no project proposals were submitted. Descon 8 was held in September 1991 as directed by the UNEP G.C. to review the documentation prepared by UNEP for UNCED. A resolution of UNEP Governing Council number 16/22 of 31/5/1991 "Recommends that pending action by the General Assembly on the recommendations of UNCED, the mandate of the Consultative Group for Desertification control should be changed to concentrate on information exchange and coordination, reviewing the status of the PACD and exchanging information on scientific research in this field, national programs and the implementation of PACD, and advising on further action against desertification." This resolution is produced in full because the Group apparently has not held a session after Descon 8. With that, Descon, which was perhaps 130 the only global mechanism available for assisting in mobilization of additional financial resources in support of programs to combat desertification, went out of action.

The Special Account In its resolution No. 32/172 of 19 December 1977, the General Assembly in paragraph 11 endorsed, in principle, the creation of a Special Account within the United Nations for implementing the Plan of Action. The Special Account was established in March 1979. Governments were invited to contribute voluntarily to the Account, but until January 1984 contributions by five countries of a total of $48,524 represented the only credits. Five years later (at 31 December 1988) a total of only US$166,886 had been paid in to the special account. The General Assembly, by its resolution 44/172 of 19 December 1989, decided to close the Account and requested the E.D. of UNEP to take necessary steps to do so. The Desertification UnitWBranch/ PAC The Desertification unit has been described in paragraph 103 of the PACD as the group of staff required to offer the services by the Executive Director of UNEP and the Environment Coordination Board. When first established it was called 'unit', within the following six years its name was changed to Branch and then program activity center and recently it has been grouped together with other units or sections and called Land Unit. The functions of the Desertification Unit since its establishment remained controlled by the tremendous amount of work and the state of understaffing which has been a significant point in the GAP which summarized the situation in paragraph 20 of its executive summary in the following words:

"The machinery within the United Nations system for following up and coordinating the implementation of the PACD at international level, namely the UNEP GC, the ACC, the IAWGD and the Desertification Branch of UNEP has generally operated effectively. However, Desertification Branch, as the key unit within the UN system, has been prevented by understaffing from carrying out all the multifarious functions allotted to it, notably in developing a repository of information on desertification and acting as a center of authority on desertification matters, and in its review and monitoring functions." The above account covers, perhaps, the most effective entities connected with the successes and failures in the story of combating desertification during the first 15 years after UNCOD. But is this experience relevant to the CCD called for in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development? The important points of relevance are that the basic concepts related to the issues and the principal factors in fighting desertification / land degradation in the PACD or the CCD are the same. By these (common) issues and principal factors is meant - the processes causing desertification / land degradation, economic basis and poverty as central factors in the disaster etc. 131

In the Introduction of the Convention, it is stated that "the agreement differs from previous efforts to combat desertification by committing Governments to a 'bottom-up approach" that involves the local populace, national authorities and the international community." In fact the PACD in its recommendations or explanatory notes did not ignore these important elements when it mentions involvement of local populations, role of NGOs, relevance of indigenous knowledge and technology. If failure in some of the efforts and projects based on the PACD was due to this, then the lessons learned from such failures would provide the relevance of old experience.

Sudan's Experience in combating desertification Government sensible and keen observations of ecological changes which threatened the environment have been recorded since the late 1930s. The visit of Professor E.P. Stebbing, from the University of Edinburgh, to the Sudan in 1947, at the end of which he wrote his valuable book - "The Creeping Desert in the Sudan and Elsewhere in Africa" is one proof of that claim. Sudan's efforts in combating desertification during the last 25 years start with writing of a comprehensive program: 'Desert Encroachment, Combat and Rehabilitation Program' (DECARP) in 1974 which was followed by a Draft Plan of Action to Combat Desertification in 1986. This Plan was prepared after Sudan was chosen as one of 3 African countries by UNEP in its new strategy of concentrating its limited resources on a few selected countries. The Plan was sent by the Sudan Prime Minister to the Executive Director of UNEP. While this Plan was being discussed the Earth Summit in Rio adopted its resolutions dealing with desertification and CCD was open to signature by Governments. Sudan signed and started working according to the new Convention following the new "bottom-up approach." A document entitled "Sudan Five Year Program for the International Convention to Combat Drought and/or Desertification," was prepared in 1993. The document included a national Plan and some project proposals. The last effort by the National Desertification and Drought Control and Monitoring Unit (NDDW) included convening a national forum in 1998 as a preparatory step for the execution of the national Program to Combat Desertification. Against a rather unpleasant background with a fast growing population approaching 30 million of whom over 90% are under the poverty line, the largest country in Africa is now one of the most severely affected by desertification. Sudan is a developing country in the tropical drylands, disadvantaged climatically by recurrent droughts and classified economically as one of the low-income countries and commonly beset by political unrest. These are all the conditions enumerated by GAP in describing countries most seriously affected by desertification. Against such a sad picture the NDDU is now preparing for tours in the various states of the country to hold meeting discussions following a successful workshop and group meetings involving hundreds of participants which were held in 1998. 132

Perhaps it should be added for record purposes that the status of desertification in the Sudan as stated in the 1991 Cairo Environment and Development Conference was: as percentage of land affected by desertification: Slight 34.1%; Moderate 33.6%; Severe 7.7% and Very Severe 24.4%.

Observations and Remarks Following are some reflections on a period of my life in the Desertification Unit of UNEP:

General The first remark concerns literature of which the document on the General Assessment of Progress in the Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification is the richest in knowledge, analysis and record of experience during the first 6 years after UNCOD. (Governing Council - UNEP/GC. 12/9; 16 February 1984).

Experience regarding the PACD and its implementation as described in the GAP "is highly influenced by the particular difficulties of the Unit/Branch of Desertification, which was newly set up in a complex UN system in the first years of its existence. The unit was faced with many and sometimes conflicting demands such as preparation and support of a number of meetings, follow-up and coordination worked on the Plan of Action and in particular the task of development of project proposals." - This state of affairs led to an unfortunate practice, namely the continuous lack of contact between the unit staff and operations in the field. Experience and excellence in the field of desertification cannot be gained only by reading literature and doing secretarial work for tens of meetings year after year.

- For future, the PACD and the literature of UNCOD remain as rich sources for basic knowledge and history of desertification. Active workers in this field should not confine their reference and reading to the CCD and Agenda 21 alone.

* While reading through the Report of the Executive Director (UNEP/GCSSLIII3) Status of Desertification and Implementation of the UN Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (1992) which was submitted to UNCED, I remembered how in UNEP all of us were encouraging governments to prepare their national plans of action in order to save the future of their people and country. When they did and documents were presented to DESCON sessions, there was poor or no expression of support to finance the projects. The concerned governments were disappointed. But this is understandable and in UNEP it became known that donors wanted to negotiate bilaterally and pay directly and receive the acknowledgement and other benefits. It is obvious there shall not be an easy alternative to the bilateral system. Financing of projects remains the prime responsibility of national governments. 133

* To be attractive projects must have certain features, and they must come from a government that deserves assistance in the eyes of donors.

The Consultative Group for Desertification Control (DESCON)

* DESCON has been set up by a General Assembly resolution in 1978 with the priority function of mobilizing resources for the implementation of the PACD. By end of 1986 it was obvious, as the Executive Director of UNEP reported to the Governing

Council at its 15th session, that DESCON's capacity to serve financial resources for projects presented to it had been inadequate to the needs of the Plan of Action (UNEP/GC 15/9 Add4). The same judgement applies to the work of Descon 6, 7 and 8. There continued to be 'no interest' in pledging funding through the DESCON mechanism and this was expressed by donors. This lesson remains valid for the future.

' A very important lesson emerges from the report of the ad hoc working group appointed by DESCON 6, to review ways and means of strengthening DESCON mechanism - (DESCON 6/15 of 15 February 1988). Paragraph 14 of this report states: "The consensus that emerged was that desertification is a development problem, the control of which requires a development package and not a simple technology "fix". This was the view after the group had heard and discussed the presentation by representatives of the Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP). Commenting on the presentation, a number of members of the group noted the positive aspects of the implementation of the TFAP. But members stated that desertification control was far more complex than forestry, touching on almost all sectors of the development of land resources. "It does not lend itself to easy co- ordination at the country level, since there is no one focal point comparable to national Departments of Forestry and since the measurements of specific results is much more difficult than measurements of areas afforested." I believe this is great and explains a lot of the causes for quarrel among people. One has to read paragraph 14 again with emphasis on "desertification is a development problem."

* For many years, travelling on UNEP missions urging government authorities to prepare their national PACD and following their implementations, I have always wondered whether some developing countries confronting many constraints have reached a state of "inability to develop." Looking back into some countries and observing the additional degradation which has taken place, one wonders if it was not the "inability to develop" that could have caused the widespread failure in most of the attempts to combat desertification. 134

The solution may partly be in: I. Reaching the real affected, but also active people in the field, advising them directly and financing their small enterprises or farms directly. II. Consider using the Grameen Bank model, which is a successful method of reaching the poor (Ref. Grameen Bank - A Bank for the Poverty Alleviation, by M. D. Immamus Sultan; a paper presented for the Near East and NA Regional Agricultural Credit Association Conference - Amman, mid 1998). Hi. No alternative to tackling the problem in its totality and treating it through a development package. IV. Development package in its wide and true sense includes the political, economic and social conditions in a recipient country. In the absence of democracy and freedom, dealing with civil society organizations in urban or rural areas, voluntary associations and other NGOs is not possible; and such bodies may not be allowed to forrn themselves or hold their meetings. V. The reason for this explanation is not to encourage intervention in the internal affairs, which may lead to the creation of difficulties with national governments. But it is stated to explain certain difficult situations when they happen, so that the real causes of failure are understood, and people should try to find out ways and means of getting around the obstacles when correction is impossible. This is also where success could be achieved in execution of projects supported and executed by persons endowed with wisdom and intuition. 135

FarmingSystem CarbonSequestration, Sustainable Intensive Land Management,and Trade in CertifiedEmissions Reductions

A proposalfor a collaborative demonstration project with the Agricultural Research Council, Republic of South Africa

Ken Newcombe

Environment Department The World Bank Washington, DC USA

Loss of arable land through poor land management practices and global climate change are mutually reinforcing forces which undermine sustainable development and contribute to rural poverty across the developing countries, and especially in the semi- humid tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Since 1945, 23% of the 8.7 billion hectares of agricultural land, permanent pastures and forests and woodlands have been degraded world-wide and most require major investments to rehabilitate. Soil degradation has affected two-thirds of all of Africa's agricultural lands. The lands that remain will have to produce twice as much food in the next thirty years to keep up with demand. In Africa, this may result in forest and woodland conversion on an immense scale. On the other hand, conversion of forest lands and loss of soil carbon contribute about 20% and 5% respectively, or about 2 billion tons of carbon, of total annual anthropogenic carbon emissions. Conversely, as much as 20% of the global atmospheric carbon stock could be sequestered in forests, agro-forestry and sustainably managed agro- ecosystems over the next 50 years, contributing importantly to climate change mitigation. Particularly important is that the land management technologies for such interventions are already known, and thus work can be activated immediately. However, techniques for certification of sequestered carbon, and the incentives/disincentives for adoption by local farmers need to be researched.

International Framework The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol is potentially the most powerful instrument for financing implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) and for lifting the rural populations of the poorer developing countries out of poverty on a long-term sustainable basis. The CCD and Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) are international frameworks to address these problems. While the CCD does not have a financing mechanism of its own, such as the GEF, or the Multilateral Fund for the Vienna 136

Convention's Montreal Protocol the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol could provide the necessary incentive framework to catalyze the flow of investment resources required to serve CCD objectives of mitigating land degradation. Agreement of the Parties to the FCCC that "land use" carbon sequestration could meet a part of the emissions reductions obligations of the Annex I countries is the key element in the establishment of this incentive framework. Such an agreement is unlikely without adequate demonstration of how the considerable policy, administrative, and measurement challenges can be satisfactorily addressed. While these challenges are substantial, without the inclusion of land-use carbon 7 as an eligible form of carbon-offsets against industrialized country emission reductions obligations, by industrialized countries and companies under the Clean Development Mechanism will be directed to the relatively few developing countries with substantial industry, energy and transport infrastructures. Simply put, the poorer developing countries will miss out, just as the flow of private capital to the developing countries in the last decade, which has largely bypassed them. The Parties to the FCCC have asked the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to report to them by June 2000 on the technical and policy issues of including carbon sinks as eligible means of emissions reductions. However, as opposed to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation which are already eligible as means of meeting Quantified Carbon Emission Limitation and Reduction (QUELROs) commitments, and only require agreement on definitions, land-use carbon sequestration outside of forests is yet to be agreed on as an eligible means of meeting emissions reduction targets. What is required are scientifically reliable investigations and demonstrations on farmer's fields in the developing countries of the practicality and positive sustainable development impacts of land-use carbon sequestration investment. In May 1998, at the request of Central American States, World Bank President Mr. James D. Wolfensohn, established the Forest Carbon and Land Use Management Action Plan (FCAP) as a collaborative undertaking between interested governments and NGOs and the Bank to review and demonstrate the potential development impact of carbon sequestration activities. In May 1999, the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of South Africa joined in this initiative by proposing to explore, on a commercial scale, the extent to which improved land management through sustainable agriculture could simultaneously serve rural development and poverty alleviation objectives and mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration.

7 or soil and above ground biomass carbon in agroecosystems, including carbon sequestered in organic matter in the first meter of soil -especially the active growing zone of the first 20cms - and in grasses, crops, trees and shrubs above ground. 137

The view of representatives of the ARC was that such a demonstration project could be the basis of regional cooperation, engaging interested SSA countries in the concept review and communication of findings and their policy implications. The form of such regional outreach has yet to be defined. However, on the research side, the CSIRO in Australia has offered the services of their lead soil scientist to share Australian technical expertise in similar climatic and edaphic conditions.

The Technical Dimension In principle, increased soil carbon and above ground biomass carbon sequestration is a natural outcome of sustainable intensification of agriculture. Savannah woodlands and dry forests of SSA can have as much as 100 tons of carbon in above ground tree, shrub and grass and residue biomass, and 50 tons of organic carbon in the soil to one meter depth. Under poorly managed agriculture following burning and clearing, above ground carbon can be reduced to as little as 5-10 tons per hectare over a 10-20 year period and soil carbon can decline by 30 to 50% in this time frame due to over-cropping, over- grazing and wind and water erosion. On the other hand, returning to a set of improved land management practices under intensive sustainable agricultural regimes can restore a significant percentage of this below and above ground carbon in the semi-humid tropics typical of the SSA region. Erosion protection forestry and for food and fodder as well as for timber and fuelwood, and the use of living fences, can restore woody biomass in the landscape without loss of agricultural potential. No-till practices, legume crop rotation, improved fertilization (e.g., Phosphate) and mulching can augment carbon in roots and soil organic matter, and facilitate nutrient retention and cycling, and soil moisture retention. Increments of as much as 0.5-1 ton of soil carbon per hectare per year can be achieved over a 20 to 50 year period under intensive sustainable agriculture regimes and increments in above ground carbon may average 30-40 tons per hectare across the production landscape in the same period. Carbon stocks and accumulation rates under sound land management vary greatly with temperature, rainfall and soil type across the tropical and sub-tropical zones. However, as a working estimate, perhaps as much as 40 tons per hectare increment over the baseline of degraded or abandoned agro-ecosystems in the 20-30 year time frame is achievable with the right complement of policies, incentives technical packages, training and institutional strengthening. Moreover, the carbon increment is somewhat front-end loaded with a greater rate of increase in total farming system carbon over the first decade. Importantly, this time response function for investment in carbon sequestration is comparable to energy sector investments in carbon emissions as it provides potential investors with an opportunity to obtain a flow of certified emission reductions within three years of the investment decision. 138

Economic and Financial Dimension Most Governments will pass the burden of emissions reductions obligations under the Kyoto Protocol on to the carbon-intensive industries and sectors in their economies. Hence, investments in emissions reductions under the CDM will be made mostly by private companies domiciled in the industrialized countries. From the experience of the design phase of the Prototype Carbon Fund it is clear that carbon offsets in the range of $20-30/ton/carbon are attractive to corporate investors in Europe and Japan. This is because their short run marginal costs of abatement are at least double or triple these levels. If high quality emission reduction credits can be generated from sustainable intensive agriculture that greatly augments farming system carbon sequestration, revenues over twenty years could be in the range of $800-1200/hectare. Commitments to finance up-front the "investment" required to obtain these high quality certified emissions reductions could provide a critical component of the total financing required to upgrade agriculture to increase sustainable higher level outputs and incomes and to rehabilitate degraded agro-ecosystems. The remainder of the investor's funds would be paid to farmers yearly on the basis of independent verification of the application of practices agreed as consistent with farming system carbon sequestration outcomes. This pattern of investment funds flows is identical to that for energy sector emissions reductions investments and would provide risk-mitigation financing to farmers during the critical early years of adoption of new agricultural practices before sustained normative benefits of increased crop yields and incomes are consolidated.

The Research Proposal The South African Agricultural Research Council has only just begun to consider the basic design parameters of such a commercial scale farming systems carbon sequestration demonstration project. Once ARC scientists and managers have reviewed and endorsed the broad project concept, it is envisaged that a technical workshop would be held in the Republic of South Africa with technical specialists from the Bank and selected research centers to develop the project scope and establish a work program leading to detailed project design and financing.

The overall objective of such a project would be to:

Examine in a commercial-scale setting whether there is sufficient convergence between the implementation of sustainable intensive agriculture practices and sustained increments of farming system carbon stocks, above and below ground, that investment in carbon-offsets from farming systems improvements might constitute an important source of investment capital for mitigating land degradation, increasing farm productivity and alleviating rural poverty. 139

The specific operational objectives of the project would include, inter alia:

* engage the local farming community and farmer associations to select and implement field projects to demonstrate locally effective technical packages to increase the intensity and sustainability of crop production in the targeted small-holder dominated farming systems; * engage farmers as collaborators to monitor their land management practices, including labor, cash flow, risks of adoption, etc., and to increase farmer incomes sufficiently under the improved farming and land-care practices to ensure that the benefits of sustaining these practices reinforced their application for the longer term; * develop cost-effective monitoring procedures and credible carbon accounting methods and verification and certification protocols, including deriving algorithms that predict with acceptable certainty the relationship between the designed sets of intensive sustainable agriculture practices and land-care measures and carbon sequestration outcomes; * define cost effective farm-specific, farming system and agro-ecosystem landscape methods of establishing baselines for carbon stocks and flows and for verifying and certifying net increments in carbon sequestration at all levels in the process of providing investors in carbon-offsets under the CDM with certified emissions reductions registerable against Annex I country obligations.

Specific technical project design parameters which purported to represent viable sustained intensification of agriculture and improved land management would necessarily be specific to the targeted agricultural communities and farming systems.

Project financing and Carbon Market Simulation A combination of concessional financing sources would be explored including from bilateral donors, foundations, and the GEF. Multinational agribusiness companies and energy sector companies would be approached to act as investors in sustainable agriculture which increased Total System Carbon in return for the certified emissions reductions ("carbon offsets") produced against an independently assessed baseline (perhaps determined with the use of a control group of farmers in the no-intervention case). While these offsets would very likely not be registerable against Annex I obligations, they could certainly have value as bona-fide offsets against a company's voluntary emissions reductions targets established for marketing purposes8 . These

8 A growing number of carbon-intensive businesses are seeking to differentiate themselves as carbon neutral, or climate-friendly. For example, BP-Amoco and Elf have adopted aggressive targets to reduce GHGs they emit from their operations to below their 1990 levels. 140 companies would be entitled only to emissions reductions earned by the project in return for their investment and not to any other form of return on investment besides the knowledge asset the project will create. 141

Procedures for Baseline Validation, Verification, and Certification

The project would benefit from the experience being gained from the research and demonstration activities of the Bank's Activities Implemented Jointly/ Joint Implementation (AIJ/JI) projects and the Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) in validating baselines, and verifying and certifying emissions reductions in accordance with anticipated ,or defined, FCCC requirements.

Additionality: The issue of baseline determination, or what constitutes "additionality" is a key policy issue to be addressed in the research. Not only is it important for transaction cost and economic reasons to establish baselines beyond the level of individual small- holder farms, but many sustainable land management practices appear on paper to be economic, even if not widely adopted. The project should provide an opportunity to explore the determination and validation of what might constitute "baselines" acceptable to the Parties to the FCCC, for particular farming systems across agro-ecosystems which recognize the background rate of diffusion of sustainable agriculture and their related carbon stock benefits. This approach appears preferable to crediting emissions reductions only to the extent that they occur from practices that are additional to what is otherwise economically viable at the individual farm unit level. 142

Poverty, Local Participationand SustainableDevelopment: the Special Role of the Conventionto CombatDesertification

Bo Kjellen

Ambassador Ministry of Environment Stockholm, Sweden

"The people have the right to make their own mistakes" (William Jennings Bryan)

Among the legally binding instruments linked to the Rio process, the Convention to Combat Desertification is the only one that in very concrete terms states that Governments have a clear responsibility to create an enabling environment for local participation. There are several reasons for this:

* the problem of desertification is of global significance but its concrete effects are felt at the national and local levels;

* the combat of desertification requires a collective effort at the village level, but also in broader regional contexts;

* many of the countries affected by drought and/or desertification are least developed, and the question of poverty alleviation becomes central - but combat of poverty requires participation by the people concerned - in particular the women.

The elaboration of National Action Programs and the establishment of National Desertification Funds is going on, and it is certainly too early to draw definite conclusions from the very limited material available today. But it becomes very obvious that the Convention to Combat Desertification has opened promising avenues of thinking and struck a responsive note at a time when it becomes very clear that sustainable development can only be achieved if people are given the tools to improve their situation by themselves through a genuine participative effort.

At this stage it is interesting to look at the Swedish experience of breaking out of deep poverty a century ago. What were the elements of that transformation?

* The education level was raised, in particular through improved primary education; * There existed a tradition of cooperation at the village level; 143

* New cooperative structures were created, particularly among farmers; * New forms of NGO's appeared, such as non-alcoholic leagues or free churches; * Links between the various organizations and national political life became quite intense; * At the national level, there was a tradition of stable and honest administration; * Transport infrastructure was improved; * The economy became diversified, not least through new inventions and new technologies.

You could argue that the conditions were very different from those in the drylands today. This is of course true, but the elements of development remain valid, as we consider the need to establish stable partnerships between many different players, building on the structures established through the Convention to Combat Desertification. The challenge is to establish an atmosphere of confidence, at the local level, and in relation to governments and international organizations.

It is logical that our debate here would turn on the role of external capital. In the framework of the Convention, the main instruments are the Global Mechanism and the National Desertification Funds. Both are untested mechanisms, and they are unconventional. The structures were agreed as a result of negotiation and as they represent a compromise, they have of course their weaknesses. But they are nevertheless innovative solutions, which could create new opportunities for supporting local participation and local partnerships.

These two mechanisms will be presented more in detail later. There is one common feature however, which seems to warrant particular attention in this context: flexibility. The Global Mechanism should ideally be able to move rather quickly, giving advice and promoting concrete financial opportunities, in close contact with international financial institution. And the National Desertification Funds should cooperate closely with the Global Mechanism and serve as an intermediary to the actors at the local level, e.g., to promote different schemes for micro-lending. In developing these new methods of cooperation, I wish to underline a few factors which may serve as points of departure for a more thorough discussion.

1. The preparation of National Action Programs has been carried out in close contact with different actors at local and regional levels and with active participation of NGO's. In this context the establishment of partnerships is of crucial importance. Formal agreements will of course be as useful mechanism in many cases, but I feel that informal contacts can also play an important role, in particular as a means of engaging people at the village level in an active way. The possibilities of organized cooperation between bilateral/multilateral donors and NGO's also need to be further 144

explored. A general rule must be to find the simplest and most streamlined forms of cooperation in every single instance. I recall that as I discussed the idea of a Convention long before negotiations started, I made the point that the Convention must be a method of simplifying cooperation, not just another layer of bureaucracy to be added to those already existing. It is not a very original reflection, but it still holds true.

2. The need for flexibility is also underlined by the different situations in different parts of the world, when it comes to the role of NGO's. In Africa and Latin America, we find that a vigorous NGO culture is developing, whereas in regions such as Central Asia, e.g. the Aral Sea region, the very notion of NGO's which are independent from the state still takes its first step. The strengthening of civil society must remain a cornerstone in all efforts to implement the Convention.

3. In this context, the electronic communication and information revolution can make a major contribution. Contacts between regions and countries are much easier to develop and maintain than ever before, which means that partnerships can also be established over long distances and that exchange of knowledge and working methods can be organized in an efficient way.

4. At the same time we must never forget that basic education remains a central element in development policy, and that an educated population, not least the women, is a precondition for a reasonable development of civil society and for fruitful partnerships. In this context the question of curricula - and their relevance for skills needed in the villages -must be discussed further. The same goes for the potentially central role of distance education. These different aspects are particularly important in the light of evidence that the poorest strata of population do not feel much concerned by signals that more attention should be given to the local level. This is true also in the particularly sensitive suburban areas of big agglomerations where the city meets the countryside.

5. Technology development and transfer has a crucial role. It is now rightly given central attention in international discussions, but when it is to be applied to dryland conditions there are many concerns that have to be met. One essential element is the management of technology and the need to ensure efficient ownership of the technology by local populations: the merger of traditional knowledge and new technology must always remain a major ambition. Similarly, social sciences have to be used to maximum extent to ensure that socio-economic realities, such as land ownership, are taken into account. 145

In all, the Convention to Combat Desertification offers a unique opportunity to use a legally binding instrument with obligations for all countries to create an enabling environment for local participation and an active sense of local responsibility and influence in the development process. A well structured strategy for the world Bank leading to a still more intensive cooperation with other important players could make a lot of difference for the people living in the drylands.

147

Part 3: Plenary Discussions and Strategy Outline

Section F. Summary Discussions

MR. McCALLA: I would like to start by asking Leonard Berry, who has been part of the Strategy drafting team, to present the new draft. Then, I am going to turn to Pierre Marc Johnson and Mostafa Tolba for brief comments before turning to the panelists.

MR. BERRY: Ian Johnson yesterday made the points for Why a new strategy is needed. Although the Bank's investments are very large, and other agencies' investments are very large, the results are mixed. The economies in dryland areas have not shown dramatic improvement, at least in many parts of the world. There is a need seen within the Bank and seen within other agencies almost on a parallel basis to move from a project-by-project basis with which everybody is very comfortable and familiar to a more comprehensive development framework. UNDP is already moving in this direction, and the World Bank is considering very actively moving in this direction. There is a need to be more proactive, to look at new methods of approaching these issues, and to emphasize partnerships with governments, of course, with local peoples especially, and with other agencies particularly. We present some very simple guiding principles, modified by some comments made this morning, and we probably need to change them again in terms of our panelists, but they need to be very simple. The environmentally sustainable, economic and social development of drylands must be pursued as the ultimate goal in order to meet the needs of their present and future populations. It is a people-oriented, environment-related activity. The peoples of drylands must be allowed the opportunity for their sustainable development--they have as many rights as we have, and they cannot be condemned to poverty indefinitely. Drylands must be developed as part of many countries' national heritage. It is not an option. Dryland resources are a critical part of what many countries have as their resource base. They don not have an option to leave them alone or allow them to deteriorate. Sustainable development drylands must be based on a thorough appraisal and evaluation of cultural, political, ecological, and socioeconomic factors and seek to balance resources against local human population needs, both the short and the long term. We heard yesterday about some socioeconomic opportunities and also some scientific problems with the development of drylands, and we need to take those into account. What should be the critical elements of the Bank's strategy? The key thing for the Bank is, first, providing leadership. There were lots of good reasons that we heard 148 yesterday why the Bank should assume the leadership role. The President of the Bank said the Bank could be a leader, be a participant, or not be involved at all, depending on what people thought. People in this room universally thought that the Bank had the role and responsibility to provide the leadership. The key issue being reinforced, in many of the comments we have received on the draft so far, is the importance of national, international and subnational policy reforms, international trade policies, government pricing policies, government policies in the development of infrastructure, government policies in relation to allocation of resources, and so on. They include issues of gender, issues of land tenure, issues of legal access to resources, and issues of land use traditions and policies, both locally and nationally. The strategy statement suggests that one of the things the Bank ought to do as part of its strategy is to develop pilot integrated approaches working with other agencies, but really developing a cross-sectoral approach to selected areas and really developing a learning process in feedback from what it does to what actually happens. As a subpart of this, the Bank should be the leader in the knowledge world. We did not emphasize enough in our draft statement the need for synthesizing knowledge about drylands, but also applying the knowledge that we have. There is a huge gap between the information that is coming out of the International Research Organizations and what has been applied in the field in drylands. An important factor for the Bank as part of its strategy is to really move to a more proactive role in linking the international agencies, the national research agencies, and the output of those with dryland strategies. The name of the game is partnership. The Bank should work very carefully and very closely not only with the countries, which is a sine qua non, but also with other agencies

MR. JOHNSON: The Bank and the Convention - the Bank lends money for programs and projects. It is based on governmental initiatives of sovereign states from which the Bank once in a while expects to be reimbursed, at least. Secondly, the Bank has strong links with ministries of finance in each country. It has in practice at the experts' level strong links with structural adjustment efforts with the 1MF in each country, and it has, of course, a stake in the GEF and the post-Kyoto process. The Bank is also a source of tremendous knowledge and is also one of the most powerful networks in the world in that field, which is probably why, at the interagency heads meeting in March, it was assigned in the context of this Convention to lead certain of these activities. Secondly, the Convention is a ratified text by many countries--more than 100. This text confers obligations on developed and developing countries, and amongst these obligations, whether one likes it or not, the national action programs are part of the obligations of the countries under this ratified text. The Convention also provides for important links between the various conventions--the post-Rio conventions. 149

The Bank is also present--and massively, at levels of billions of dollars--in different areas of the world, not only Africa, of course, but in rainfed or irrigated croplands activities, in soil fertility activities, in woodlands, pasture, range, and rural activities. So the Bank looks into the Convention, and it sees in that convention that it has a strong flavor of participation at the local level of groups, individuals, communities, that the NGOs are recognized as actors, and that there is subregional activity amongst other regions in the Sahel Region. The actors of that Convention, which are clearly identified in the text, besides the national governments and the subregional and regional organizations in the world, are NGOs, the private sector foundations. At thegl6bal level, there are specific provisions with links to other conventions and the creation of the Global Mechanism which is housed in IFAD and whose mandate is to promote the activities of the Convention and promote the channeling of funds through the activities. The activities will be in practice the elaboration of national action plans in many countries--that is started--and their deployment, which is really what is going to be interesting for the Bank eventually. The awareness, the science, and the cooperation aspects of the Convention are also areas of interest for the Bank. The needs for implementation of the CCD are at the institutional level, the secretariat's needs, the global mechanism's needs, and the National Desertification Fund's needs, which is also an institution created. Secondly, the enabling activities--which is the period in which we are in many countries across the world and in subregions--the national action programs, the participatory processes, the awareness-building; the regional and subregional activities; the links with the other conventions; the multisource financing, private cofinancing; foundation presence; the partnerships at various level; and finally, the NGO presence. Now, what can the Bank do about this? The Bank lends; the Bank does concessional and grant activities; the Bank has knowledge, the Bank has links, and I am sure it can do lots of other things. I would see, considering what has been said and considering the value added on certain things, that the Bank might be very interested in the multi-source financing aspects, in the partnership-building, in the NGO presence and growth, which will need the efforts to support. Obviously, the Bank will play a 10 out of 10 role in facilitating the links with other conventions because of its role in GEF and the post-Kyoto round. Finally, I would say that if the Bank is to lead as it wants to, it has to spread the gospel, and it can do that because the Bank has a pretty powerful presence in many countries, and if it refers in a systematic fashion in its relationship with the governments and the ministries of finance in many countries, then it can be a powerful actor in spreading the importance of the implementation of the activities of this Convention. 150

MR. BERHANE: With regard to the comments, my comments are included in the strategy, so I would just rather talk about how we can work together on the implementation of the strategy. Maybe a brief description of IGAD for those who do not know IGAD. IGAD is the subregional guarantee agency for the countries in East Africa. It started as an intergovernmental authority to combat desertification in the world. Knowing that drought and desertification can be combated effectively through development, the countries changedthe organizationinto the "IntergovernmentalAuthority otn Development." go our objective is to achieve sustainable development in the subregion. While this was a mandate, parallel, we were given also to develop a subregional action program for CCD. So we developed priority areas for achieving sustainable development as well as to implement the subregional action program. The issue of the Convention being a development instrument or a development Convention has been manifested in the activities of IGAD. Now, having said that, the strategy paper rightly foresees that the Bank involves itself in policy reform at the national and international levels, but the Bank should also not start from scratch. At the subregional level, we have activities already with regard to policy harmonization, policy reform. We are harmonizing policies in trade and investment, infrastructure, transport, customs, so I think the Bank should build on these initiatives and should support such initiatives and not start new initiatives in the member countries. My second comment is on supporting selected demonstrations. I think the Convention foresee that action should be developed and implemented at all levels, and we have developed subregional action programs, the national action programs aredeveloped, and regional action programs have to be developed. The selected demonstrations that are going to be supported by the Bank should also include at least the action programs at all levels, to be fair for the Convention as well as tobe fair for the country parties, because we have to implement it in its totality. My other comment is on the development of donor and NGO partnerships with local and national stakeholders. I think we have to also include the partnerships, not only local and national, but also subregional and regional levels. So we have developed partnershipmechanisms with our partners in development at the subregional level. We have also developed mechanisms with NGOs. So these initiatives have got to be supported and strengthened.

MR. McCALLA: I appreciate that very much, and your comments are very well to the point. I particularly hope my Bank colleagues will take them into account as they raise issues later on. Next, I call on Mr. Singh from India, please.

MR. SINGH: I have only a few comments, and these are primarily based on the experience we have had in India and the way we are tackling this problem. 151

In the first place, the document doesn't give the impression of the magnitude of the problem that we have. It is not just a kind of natural disaster which has visited us once or twice which we are discussing; we are discussing what is a global emergency. We in India are facing it very much. In so many areas, people are just leaving their habitats, moving to cities. I won't describe that; I will mention just one fact, that during the last two years alone, more than 100 farmers have committed suicide because their fertile lands have not produced anything during the last two years. They have no other way, no place to go. So it is a very grave emergency, and what is happening in my country I am sure is happening in many other countries. So that some reflection of the magnitude of the problem must be given to the reader when he comes across this paper. In India, we are doing what I would call a complete "body scan" of our land. We have a remote sensing system under which, during the last year alone, we have developed a kind of "atlas" covering more than 13 million hectares of our land. The third point, again based on what we have done, is that we have followed what is called a project approach. Each dryland section is considered a project in itself. We consider about 500 hectares as a project, covering one village or similar villages of that kind, and for each one, we have developed a scheme. Right now, there are more than 6,000 such projects in operation in India. There are two main types--the drought-prone areas and the desert development areas--I won't go into the details. So that some kind of methodological approach could also be given, and that will help a great deal. Fourth, popular participation is the most important aspect of this. For every project, we have a watershed association consisting of all adult members of the community. Then, there is a nominated watershed committee of 12 to 15 people, and to help this, we have a multidisciplinary advisory committee. Next, we take the family farmer as the basic unit of this whole operation, and the family farmer provides the bedrock for the food security system, so somehow or other, the role of the family farmer could also be delineated. Finally, we feel that there should be greater participation by aid-giving agencies like the Bank in how whatever aid is being given is being utilized.

MR. JIN: Based on our experiences or lessons from China, I feel that there are two points that need to be reinforced here. One is that for the development of agriculture in a country like China, with limited land resources and a large population, the development must be multi-functional--one is for economic development, to produce enough agricultural products for the country's population; and secondly, for environmental quality improvement. For this purpose, the Government of China set up a policy for agricultural development, the "3 High Policy"--high yield, high quality, and high efficiency--which would require good policy, enough input, and scientific management with the limited 152 land resources. Among the agricultural import materials, fertilizer is the most expensive one and also the most effective one if used correctly. It is estimated that in China, fertilizer contributes to about one-third of total grain production in China. For that reason, fertilizer consumption in China increased very rapidly. For 1996, China used 38 million tons of nutrients, which accounted for 29 percent of total world production of chemical fertilizers. But fertilizer is not evenly distributed and used. In developed regions, the farmers tended to overuse fertilizer, especially nitrogen fertilizer, because they can see the crop turn green after several days' application. In the poor regions, the farmers tended to open new land without enough input, which led to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. In some regions in China, especially developed regions with high nitrogen input, especially around big cities, with vegetable production, we already see the pollution of underground water by nitrates. In the western part of China, mainly the dryland region, where farmers tended not to have enough input to have good crops or good coverage, in that situation, the soil erosion is very severe. One example was in Sechwan Province, where there was a trial conducted by the Sechwan Academy, and with no fertilizer input in this situation, with corn and wheat double-cropping, the annual soil loss reached 78 tons per hectare each year; but with good fertilization, this loss was reduced by more than half. At the same time, the farmers get the benefits of a good crop. The second point I would like to make is that in a country like China, with larger population in rural areas and with generally low educational levels, technology transfer is very important. We have to try every possibility and use all means to promote technology transfer of farmers' education. In China, we use mainly the field plots and field demonstrations to show the farmers. The farmers are realistic--if they do not see it, they will not believe it. And sometimes, we hold farmers' meetings and field inspections, and the publications of these meetings are very useful. The radio and television are very important for the Chinese farmers' education as well. We are also now starting to use information technology to build the national and regional soil and fertilizer information system. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences has already started this work, which consists of information about soil fertility, fertilizer use, cropping systems, and other information in 2,370 counties of China, but this is still in development. We have also started to use web sites and internet technology for soil testing and fertilizer recommendations and for the soil and fertilizer information system.

MR. TOLBA: I wish to express concern that we are not talking about translating the Convention on Desertification Control into a development assistance agenda; we are orienting the development assistance agendas, not only of the Bank, to be of service for the implementation of the Convention itself. My second worry, clearly, was that one could imply that there is a tendency to develop new action programs. 153

I did raise, Mr. Chairman, the point number three, which is through the experience over the last--I don't know what--20, 30 years, donors are not prepared to help the developing countries unless--I put it in a rude way--the developing countries themselves put their money where their mouths are. I come from a developing country. So I am stating that the developing countries should realize that they have to put in their own money and their own budgets. The developed countries want to see in the plans and in the budgets finances for the activities for which we are asking for outside support. Another point, Mr. Chairman, has been repeatedly mentioned here, and that is the partnerships, and particularly with the non- governmental organizations. I fully appreciate that, and I understand that it is extremely important to have the NGOs, but with very few exceptions, in the developing countries, we do not have the NGOs which have clout. On the contrary--we consider them a threat to the regimes. A point which has been repeatedly mentioned is that we need success stories. We need the governments to show that desertification can be stopped. I am recommending that we should support the idea of the $5 million recommendation to the Bank. Finally, Mr. Chairman-- the issue of incentives. We are all complaining that the owners of the problem, the people who really suffer from the problem of desertification, do not feel ownership of that problem, either because they don't have land tenure, or there are no incentives for them to go into that dryland and do something about it. There must be incentives.

MS. SCHERR: The concern that I wanted to express about the draft that I saw, the zero draft, had to do with language. In some ways--I guess you have to take this together with what Dr. Singh was suggesting--I am concerned that the mental model that is reflected in the document is the sort of relentless downward spiral, the drylands are doing terrible despite the billions of dollars being spent in India and China and by the World Bank; nothing has really worked, and therefore, we need something special happening. I think the evidence simply doesn't support that approach, and I don't think it is politically wise, because that mental model is then going to continue to shape everything that is done. I think we have a lot of evidence of successful project development, and we also have a large percent of the drylands that are not degraded, and I don't think we understand really well why they have not degraded. I would like to see some lessons learned. Some of that is in projects; a lot of it is simply in areas where it turns out that they didn't degrade. Having spent a great deal of the last two years reviewing both literature on the population effects on land degradation and on the economic impacts of soil degradation, I think that although our database now is far better than it was maybe 10 or 15 years ago, it is dismal for purposes of any kind of meaningful planning. 154

I think that is an area where the World Bank could play a real leadership role in funding integrated analysis projects over time where data was simultaneously collected on the natural resource base, poverty, and economic activity.

MR. TOURE: The Minister was concerned about generalizing NGOs, putting under the label of NGOs many different things, particularly local associations, community-based associations. And he made the distinction between local governments, which legitimize the action of the state at the local level, the local communities themselves, various associations at the local level, associations of producers, cultural associations and so on and so forth. He feared that putting everything under the label of NGOs actually sort of boxed in the debate, painted the thing into a corner, and that is was necessary to make this distinction.

MR. DIALLO: I would like just once more to come back to the idea that this is an attempt on the part of the international community to mobilize itself in support of initiatives by the countries. We don't want this to be portrayed as a new World Bank project, because in fact, the strategy should be a way by which we can build partnerships among interested organizations in support of initiatives taken by the countries concerned. And indeed, the NAP process is providing such a framework, and we are still insisting that the NAP should be seen first and foremost as an evidence that the affected country has put forward explicit credible evidence of its commitment to undertake whatever is necessary at the local level, at the national level, to show its own commitment to the measures which are considered to be fundamental for the success or the implementation of the CCD.

MS. TOULMIN: I am responding to the zero draft which we were given yesterday evening, which as far as I can see was drafted on the 9th of June. I found the zero draft really quite extraordinary in terms of the language and underlying assumptions in the document. It is as though the large number of research and other activities on what makes for successful drylands development that have been carried out over the last 10 or 15 years have been totally ignored. I think that in order to move forward, we really need to reach consensus on what the nature of the problem being addressed is in different contexts, and perhaps one of the weaknesses of the document for me is the fact that it is working at a level of generality which really destroys any useful capacity to decide what is useful to do. We also need to identify where land use is sustainable. I don't accept that the drylands as a whole are undergoing profound degradation everywhere. My own knowledge of work in the Sahel and in other parts of dryland Africa makes me contest that vision. I think we don't need to learn lessons from where sustainable agricultural management is taking place--learn lessons of why it is happening and what seem to be 155 critically important conditions which prompt successful intensification in those places, as opposed to unsuccessful management elsewhere. I think we have got to look at what farmers are actually doing to address problems of land management, and identify how to build on and improve those measures. And fundamental to making this all possible, making dryland livelihoods more sustainable in the longer term, is understanding the broader market dimensions. Without diverse effective markets, land users have neither the incentive nor the means to invest in more sustainable land management.

MR. PENDER: Obviously, as we heard yesterday, climate change is affecting land degradation, and we saw that there are large areas of drylands that in the future may be much more affected by drought. On the other side of it, I think the potential for carbon sequestration in dryland as well as other areas should be quite real and quite important in addressing the land degradation problem, because it seems to me that one of the major aspects of the land degradation problem is the using up of soil organic matter, as we heard yesterday. I don't see how one can really address land degradation without increasing the biomass productivity in dryland and other areas. It is all well and good to talk about using integrated nutrient management and organic measures and so on, but if farmers are burning up the dung and the crop residues, if all of this organic matter is disappearing, there is very little that can be done. I think that the World Bank could be helpful on the policy reforms in addressing some of these issues related to, for example, energy supplies. As I said, I don't see how the problem can really be addressed without addressing household needs for energy and the dwindling supplies of fuel wood. I think this relates to land tenure, for example, not only tenure security--we heard a lot about tenure security yesterday, which of course is an important issue--but also management of common lands--are there common lands, or are they purely open access lands, and what can be done about that. I think other kinds of land tenure issues related to management of grazing areas, rangelands, and so on are also quite important, but there are some important conflicts between what we heard about yesterday, the kind of migratory management of lands by pastoralists versus the developing sedentary agriculture as that is developing and as population pressure is driving development in dryland areas. So there are some real conflicts, and conflict resolution has to be an important issue to be addressed. Coming to the third area of integrated approaches, I think one area where there is a lack of integration is between soil and water conservation efforts and efforts to promote productivity. A final point on partnerships. I have heard a lot about NGOs--this will be my last point--I have heard a lot about NGOs and not enough about local governments. I would like to urge the Bank and others to keep the development of local governments in mind, 156 the need for capacity strengthening, especially in the context of the decentralization that is taking place.

MR. NELSON: What is needed are plans that have strategies, that have cross-sectoral strategies that focus on broad issues and--horror of horrors--even suggest that the drylands do not need investments, and the higher-potential areas do. We need plans that are broad enough to capture all of that. Finally, within the Bank, in terms of the strategy, I think we, the Bank, donors, everybody, have to get at the Bank Country Director. The Country Director is now charged with sole responsibility for playing with the funds in consultation with the borrower, and plans for dryland areas have to compete with AIDS or whatever else it is. There has got to be something that is convincing enough to carry a Country Director. Now, internally in the Bank, we are already having difficulties getting rural dealt with adequately. Drylands is the next step, but getting rural dealt with adequately is a challenge. The other side of that coin is the ministers of finance at the country level, and they have to be convinced by similar broad-based, justified sectoral strategies to put their money where their mouth is. Finally, one question, I guess, is if we are interested in drylands, do we want to focus on the CGIAR; do we want to suggest that ICRISAT, ICARDA, et cetera, should be given relatively more funding. I only raise that as a question.

MR. SAFRIEL: I want to comment on the zero order draft that is built on the premise that drylands are marginal. Drylands are marginal in terms of biological productivity and therefore maybe also agricultural activity. But drylands are not marginal in respect of several other attributes that they have, like solar energy, like unique crops--some of them have industrial potential--like economically important biodiversity, and like their ability to sequester carbon. All of these are potentials that are not materialized, and therefore, I suggest that the document as well as the World Bank will look upon these options as strategic options, at least, if not also practical, and if they are materialized, they will not only relieve much of the pressure on soil and water resources of the drylands, but they will also promote and assist in alleviating poverty and even in making people of the drylands at least as affluent as many other people of the globe.

MR. KJELLEN: First of all, I like very much this notion that something new is happening. The Convention is something new. We who negotiated the Convention felt that this is an adventure, something which offers new hope and new possibilities for people in the drylands. And I think that we need to stick to that; the World Bank should stick to that in supporting the Convention. 157

Mr. Chairman, I had five specific comments and three general. First, among the underlying causes, I miss weaknesses in primary education, particularly for girls. This was for Sweden one of the main instruments to break out of poverty. Second, on the question of the relation to the Climate Convention, I think that the energy issues have got to be mentioned in all their aspects. Renewable energy, maybe solar energy coupled with use of hydrogen can revolutionize the economies of the drylands. We don't know that, but I am convinced it will happen. Third, when we speak about what the Bank can do, I think that an important role is exploiting the contacts of the Bank with donor aid agencies and with ministries of planning and ministries of finance in the affected countries to provide the background for getting on to bilateral and multilateral programs. Fourth, technology transfer and management of technology I think should be given more emphasis, and not least, the link to traditional technology, while at the same time using all the possibilities of the new communications and information technology. If that can transform the possibility of the United States to have non-inflationary growth, it can certainly also help to transform the situations in the drylands. Fifth, we should make the effort to support strong NGOs. For us, this was an essential issue, but it was, as Minister Toure pointed out, indeed based very much on farmers' cooperatives. That kind of NGO has been essential and should be supported.

MR. LAL: Mr. Chairman, I think that linking soil degradation, desertification, with global climate change have very important synergies that we need to achieve. And one thing which I think we need to make sure of is that we understand what carbon sequestration is. There was some confusion about what we mean by that. Carbon is above-ground and below-ground. The above-ground part is obviously the organic, which is live roots, and the below-ground is the live roots and the dead roots. And the live roots and dead roots are what we call POM, particulate organic matter, or MOM, some people call it, macro organic matter. Then, below ground, we have inorganic carbon and organic carbon. And the organic carbon, I want to mention here, is of three types--labile, which has a life of less than one year; intermediate, which has a life of about 10 to 100 years; and passive carbon, which has a life of 100 to 1,000 years. When we talk about carbon sequestration, we are talking about this carbon here. When you are talking about live roots and others, the half-life of those is very small and doesn't count. When we talk about the value of carbon sequestration in soil, we are talking about the value of the carbon which does not go back into the atmosphere immediately, and that is a very important part that we shouldn't confuse. The question has been at what rate by desertification control can you sequester carbon. I have been criticized for using too high rates, but this is what we have used. For the humid-temperate climate, the rate is about 200 to 500 kilogram per hectare per year. 158

That is the maximum you can sequester. In the dry climate in which we are talking about desertification here, the soil in organic carbon has a rate of less than 50 kilograms per hectare per year. In Texas, they have monitored about 100, but that is very rare. The soil organic carbon rate in very dry climates of the desertified areas we are talking about, if we can get rates of 200 kilograms per hectare per year, we have done excellently.

MS. BROWN: I have just got two points that I would like to make. One is I think probably more of a presentational one. I am a little bit concerned about the use of the word "leadership," the Bank's "leadership," in the paper and in the presentation this morning. I really welcome--I think it is most important--that we are having this meeting and that the Bank should take a very active interest in desertification. And if what is meant by the term "leadership" is setting an example, being out in front in support of the Convention, that is excellent, and I entirely support that, too. I also support that the Bank take a leadership role in mobilizing donor support for the Convention. But we must remember that the Convention is an international agreement, and the parties are sovereign states, and it is the parties themselves, those states, and particularly the affected countries amongst them, that take the leadership. I think the emphasis should be more on partnership. This is perhaps something where leadership is thought of in a different way within the Bank, and it could be misunderstood outside of it. The second point that I wanted to make was to say that I would like to see something in the paper about the importance of action at the local level and the importance of decentralization and local institutions in implementation.

MR. Pierre Lag: I think we need to distinguish between what could be a strategic focus for the Bank versus program actions on the ground, and I think many people have echoed the issue of looking at the broad economic current that is happening in the drylands and how these processes of reinforcing livelihoods could be supported. There, I see a real strategic focus and opportunity, and a niche for the Bank to occupy in helping that process of transformation occur and also in relieving some of the currents that impact negatively on the drylands--issues related to debt, which we all know are key issues affecting dryland development--what would the Bank do in terns of a strategic focus on debt.

MR. KOOHAFKAN: I want to be very short and specific. I think that we need to be site-specific, starting with nondegraded or less degraded areas in order to lower the pressure on more fragile areas and also looking at the Complementarity within the drylands, between more endowed areas and less endowed areas. I think we need to also rely on precision farming already existing in most of these areas that farmers are doing--local knowledge, local farming systems. They are very 159 interesting. Some of them have been abandoned for different reasons. But we need to look at them and see how we can improve them. As we discussed before, conventional agriculture is not economic in drylands, but neither are conventional economic calculations. We also need to change our economic calculation system and look more to the natural resource economics, look at the different externalities, and so on and so on, in order to really include a good assessment of the economic situation in drylands.

MR. BINSWANGER: We're talking about the CCD and the Africa Region. I think we want to start out by saying let's make sure we understand the Bank. These points were actually made before by speakers both from the Bank and from outside. We don't make investments, we make loans, and essentially it is the country comrnitment which is essential. There are some other things. We have some limited set of instruments; we have very limited grant resources, about $500 million a year, and they are worldwide, and they are fully committed. And to get $5 million out of that will be a big fight. We cannot make multi-country grants. We have no food aid. There are others who have such influence. The GEF is one--that is why we work with the GEF--but also the European Union and Japan. They are not around the table, and I think we will need to work very hard to bring them into this fold. Now, how are priorities set? They are essentially in country teams, not just by the director, in dialogue with the countries, and there are many priorities, as has been mentioned, and they are all competing. So really, the multi-stakeholder plans and commitment in the countries to those is essential. And actions which are taken at the country level are central to anything we do. Now, what is the entry point to the Bank and to its country teams? It is poverty reduction. That is the core mandate. It is also in the comprehensive development funding. It is part of our structural adjustment lending, and it looks like it is going to become even more important in the debt relief initiative which is to be strengthened just about now. There is a poverty/soil degradation link, and as we heard before, that varies enormously--in some places, it is important; in some others, not. So we can exploit it, but we should not overdramatize because we could lose credibility. I think the point is that we need not just to look at the soil, we need to look at the people who live on the land. It is enough that they are poor for the poverty trigger to help us with the action. I learned something yesterday and today about climate change. It is in Western and Southern Africa that we are going to have the biggest negative impact. That is also where we have the least capacity to adjust because of the poverty. But there is also low potential for carbon sequestration, so they are least likely to benefit from the clean development 160 mechanism. So the resources for the CCD implementation have to come primarily from the farmers themselves and from reallocation of aid to and within these countries, and that is again a question of struggling. Now, there is a shared vision between the CCD and the Bank. I want to talk about Bank-supported programs which are related to the CCD objectives. We do a lot of work now and increasingly will do so on decentralization and the reconstruction of the state at the local level. We have rural infrastructure programs which will be embedded in this decentralization matrix. We have a Village Participation Initiative which uses participatory methods for natural resource and other priority-setting in the countries. It is already working in eight countries. We have several Natural Resource Management Projects which some of you know. We are supporting agricultural research and extension programs in about 20 countries, and in all of these, there is work ongoing which is related to soils, soil degradation. We are also part of many multi-stakeholder programs, and this is not exhaustive. We have a pilot pastoral program which we are supporting. We are working with FAO and food security. There is a Rural Energy Program. There is the Water Resource Management Program, and there is the Soil Fertility Initiative, which is a multi- stakeholder involving FAO, CGIAR, IFTC and several others. The Soil Fertility Initiative has an interesting history because it was, curiously enough, never related to the CCD. It came about in response to NGO pressures and is now operating in about 16 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, where facilitation is done for multi-stakeholder action plans. These action plans deal, after long discussions, with the full range of techniques, policies, and institutions which are associated with soil fertility. So if there is a fertilizer policy issue, it is part of it; if it is a technical issue on soil erosion, it is also part of it. Several of these are in advanced stages of preparation. They have some strength. They have fully agreed-upon processes and procedures. There is a lot of buy-in from technical centers such as FAO and the CGIAR institutions. But there are some problems, and they are not linked to the CCD. They are very poorly funded at national levels, and we have been struggling like crazy to keep it going, because our own funding is so limited. We don't have a "sugar daddy" which we need. Private sector and NGO participation is not quite yet what it should be, and in the actual plans, we are still not down to sufficient specificity of recommendations, and we have now just about started the translation into fundable programs. Now, what are the prospects? I think the key issue here is that, first, we need to take advantage of the CCD and the networks it has, the coordination mechanisms and some obligations we can point to where some of the parties should come up with some "dough" or some money for making things happen. But I think there is also the question that these issues need to be mainstreamed into our programs, and I think this is the issue of not starting something new but mainstreaming a set of objectives into programs which can come under completely 161 different names. And I think we propose here that names should not matter, but what should matter is that they are owned by the countries and are addressing the problems. So in the decentralization program, I think there is the technical capacity question. We will be working on revenue-sharing and investment funds with other donors, and here, what about the poor dryland areas in those schemes, and are these groups going to be able to draw down resources for natural resource management. The Soil Fertility Initiative has clearly got to be linked into the CCD. The countries should take credit for what they have already done. That it was with the ministers of agriculture and the environment is neither here nor there--let them work together. I propose here that we should try to get single plans, merge the two efforts--in some cases, what is happening under the Soil Fertility Actin Plan may be stronger than what has happened under the desertification, and vice versa--and merge the existing work into working groups--it makes no sense whatsoever to have two processes in parallel--and then use the coordination mechanisms of the CCD and take advantage of the funding opportunities which the CCD framework should be providing. Then, I think we should use existing and prospective Bank operations in support of National Action Plans. That means draw down some moneys, or use the institutions or whatever. We should link the regional energy programs, the pilot pastoral programs, the soil fertility action plans and others with the CCD, and use existing World Bank donor consultative group mechanisms to secure financing for these plans, and then prepare and implement related GEF activities. Here, we don't want to go into project titles and have a little GEF everywhere; I think we need to be very careful about what are the most strategic ones--working on the link to the Carbon Fund, for example, innovations, catalytic roles.

MR. SRIVASTAVA: A few general comments. I found that the meeting clearly emphasized a close linkage between drylands, poverty and development. To us, that is very, very important. It also highlights the urgency of emphasizing sustainable development of drylands. I think the rationale was very clear. It indicates the underlying causes and provides the guiding principles for sustainable development, and there, a few comments were provided which could be incorporated, and I think the main framework is there. It also provides key elements to be included in a World Bank strategy in this area and while in principle I agree with it, I believe this is just a statement, and it is the beginning, and if we want to implement it, we have to work out how and who will do this and how we can internalize it and how we can mainstream this aspect of the Convention in our Bank's lending and non-lending operations. However, listening yesterday, I am not sure I got convincing data or information that I can take and go to the Country Directors, those who hold the purse, and tell them that putting money here will be of higher priority than a number of other priorities which the Bank already has. My suggestion here is that there is a need for documenting, as was 162 said yesterday, the success stories, best practices. If we do not have those, we in the Bank will have difficulty convincing people to put the money there. The second thing which was said, but I would like to reemphasize, is that the commitment of the national programs in the last 15 years--have they convinced the Bank that they are really willing to put their own resources into this area, and are they really willing to borrow money for development of these dry areas and combat desertification? Primarily they are looking for grant money, and I think this needs to be seen, and more work probably has to be done by all parties if we are all convinced that we should convince everyone to put money here. Now, the Bank is involved in a number of projects that can be classified to promote the goals of this Convention. There is a need to make an inventory of it, look at those that we have done and those that we have not done right, and how we can improve upon them. I will give you some examples. A number of projects in the area of natural resource management, biodiversity projects, and non-source agricultural pollution control projects in the Bank very well fit into what you are asking for. The question is how do we look at it. There are also a number of regional programs which are already operational--Mr. Binswanger did mention that, and let me add a few more. We already have in the Middle East a Natural Resource Degradation Control Initiative which is functional. It was funded for the last three to five years by a number of donors to the tune of $9 million. We are doing an external review, and we are expecting another $12 million for the next three years, and this involves Israel, Egypt, the West Bank, Jordan, and Tunisia. they have come up with a number of clear, doable activities in the field, and I can also say that based on this data and information, a number of countries are asking the Bank to convert them into full-fledged, bankable projects for natural resource management. I think that is a good example.

MR. PIERI: I took kind of a pragmatic approach, looking at what it will take for the Bank to really implement the CCD. And I think that a lot of emphasis is put on participatory and the bottom-up approach. Of course, we have to keep in mind and in sight that our ultimate and more important partners are the producers. So partnerships are really to empower producers and their organizations. How? By improving access to knowledge, to appropriate knowledge, by developing a decentralized and producer- controlled institution, ensuring sustainability of land and water management areas such as committees of watersheds or local organizations. The emphasis here would be strengthened collaboration with producer organizations, NGOs, and local authorities. The second point that more emphasis to support baseline information, to graph impact measurement, not only input but output indicators, into the monitoring and evaluation system of a project, to develop practical land and water quality indicators, and 163 to support decentralized land and water information systems at the national and regional levels. What does it mean? Strengthened collaboration with research and education organizations, GEF, and this long list of organizations. My third point is I think definitely within the Bank, we have to target senior management and Country Directors. We have to break boundaries between rural, environmental and social families. And I think we have to provide strategic inputs at the Country Assistance Strategy development stage. That means that collaboration has to be strengthened between national bureaus, resident missions, agencies and actors.

MR. MAGALHAES: I will touch on a few points, and I am basically thinking about what will be the homework that we in the Bank will do from now on. And I am probably in a special position in the Bank--from Brasilia, and I provide the link between the Bank and the country authorities and subnational authorities also, so I have a part in this dialogue. I see on the part of the Bank two different roles. One is the role of the Bank in regard to the donors and the other lenders, especially working with the CCD Secretariat and the other is the work of the Bank with the government clients. I see three areas where we should focus our work here. One is at the level of priority-setting, we have to work in terms of linking desertification to development. In Brazil, we have done several good works, including developing methodologies for introducing the idea of sustainability into long-term lending. The second is going beyond the ministry of environment-- so I think the Bank may have a very important role here in bringing the issue to discuss with the economic authorities through the exercise of the Country Assistance Strategy, where we discuss our priorities with the priorities of the government. So the CAS is a Bank document, but we do discuss it with the government, and we go beyond the CAS, and we do Sector Strategies, where we come to more details on agriculture, on poverty, on water policy, for instance, where we could be more specific in terms of introducing the issue of desertification. One point that comes out of this discussion is how could the National Action Plans be introduced into this discussion. So far, the NAPs have not been introduced in the national development planning system, so it is really a work of the ministry of the environment. So a possible outcome of this discussion would be really to bring the NAP onto the stage. The second point is in terms of knowledge production and sharing, and I think that here, the Bank may have a very important role in terms of several non-lending services that we do in terms of producing studies to feed policymaking. We have a program of studies, and we should probably give some priority to studies in regard to problems of land degradation and desertification. We can provide technical assistance; we can 164 organize study tours. Sometimes it is very difficult to convince policy people to take over a new idea unless we bring them to see the reality. We can also help in terms of planning and implementation methodologies, and as I said before, we have developed long-term methodology for introducing these kinds of long-term issues into development planning. Here, I would say that from our point of view, how to do things is much more important than what to do. If we really define a very good process in terms of participation, in terms of criteria, we will come up with what to do in a way that will be legitimate, that will be politically sustainable, et cetera. The third point-- is at the level of programs and projects. Of course, we are not starting from scratch. We are doing several things that can serve as good examples of strategies that can be done. In Brazil, we have progressed a lot in terms of water policy, natural resources management, and also in terms of pure environmental actions. We should coordinate these and see how it could be integrated into the strategy. I will say that there is a problem in Brazil. We basically deal with environment in the Amazon, and we forget that there are people living there. And we deal with poverty issues in the semi-arid, and we forget that they have an environment, and they are putting pressure on the environment. So we have the experience at home, and we need to combine it. We need to insert desertification and drought mitigation issues into other projects. We have several projects where, if we consider desertification and drought mitigation, for instance, in the poverty alleviation projects in the Northeast, I think we can go a long way in terms of improving the efficiency and the efficacy of these sectoral projects and these poverty alleviation projects. And we can only think of a few small, specific actions directed to the problem of combating desertification.

MS. LEIGHTON: I guess I am wondering, as some of you may be, where this all leads us. I have to say I am not as cynical as some of my colleagues who were discussing the issues this morning, and maybe part of it is because I grew up hearing stories from my family, who were forced to migrate from the great Dust Bowl in the 1930s and farm out West in an even drier and arid climate, in the Central Valley. So they had quite a lot of hope that things could change, and in fact, some stayed behind and are farming today in Oklahoma and Arkansas. So I share a bit more hope, I guess, that the document that we are looking at for a strategy development can be molded and improved from the comments we have heard in the last couple of days and that that will occur. Having said that, I have just three brief points to make and, I guess, concerns about the dialogue I have heard over the last couple of days. I have heard from many that there are plenty of National Action Programs everywhere--all you have to do is pull them off the shelves and implement them; that what is really needed is to implement projects on the ground and to do it now. 165

Then, I have heard the view, particularly this morning, from some Bank representatives that there are actually few National Action Programs or NEAPs, for that matter, that they would care to fund. So where does that take us? If the Bank is critical of the National Action Programs that countries are developing to address desertification but then refuses to put in the time and energy and resources necessary to help these countries actually develop plans that could be effective and projects that could be worthwhile, those of us on the outside might take the view that the Bank is somewhat disingenuous in its commnitmentto implement the CCD and make it effective. I hope that is not the case. The second point is that assuming we are moving forward and looking at how the Bank can contribute to implementation of the CCD, I welcome Pierre Marc Johnson's categorization as a way of making a bit more transparent how the Bank can contribute to a process that has already begun and is ongoing in the Convention terms. I guess the last point is simply that assuming that we agree that the Bank is really a bank, first and foremost, and lends money and seeks a return of some kind, if not the greatest return, perhaps it could play a role of working with the Global Mechanism, for example, in mobilizing resources for the purposes outlined and the needs that were identified for Convention implementation--or, for instance, in developing these National Action Programs which some view as necessary to modify and make more project- specific before bilateral assistance can be provided.

MR. LAL: I would like to clarify that carbon sequestration in areas which are more depleted, the potential is more, and even with carbon dioxide fertilization, because of the increase in the atmosphere, there have been several phased experiments conducted, and several ecoregions have demonstrated that that in itself leads to carbon sequestration, both inorganic and organic. In terms of the synergistic effects, I think I would like to support the Soil Fertility Initiative. I think that is certainly a very direct link, and I believe Mr. Srivastava mentioned something in Central Asia, and FAO is having a similar program on conservation tilling, so that is a very good link that could be established. I want to just briefly mention the soil quality benefits of carbon sequestration. You are talking about improving water quality, biodiversity, soil quality and productivity, the benefits to the farmer and the benefits to society, and I think those are all ancillary benefits which will make it very worthwhile and which we should not ignore.

MS. SCHERR: I just wonder if anybody at the Bank could speak to the question of private sector involvement. It occurs to me that the Bank might have a very strong voice that would be heard, those who are doing private investments throughout the world in dryland areas, in terms of modifying those investments in ways that contribute to longer- term sustainability in the drylands, and on the other hand, if in fact those groups are state- 166 of-the-art around drylands management, ways of capturing that knowledge in a way that might make it useful for smallholders.

MR. McCALLA: Does anyone from the Bank want to answer Sara's question quickly, or does somebody want to think about it?

MR. BINSWANGER: In terms of private sector investment, in the Africa Region, for example, we are putting a lot of emphasis on improving the general private sector investment climate in the countries. I think there is still a long way to go for improvements, and it remains a top priority for us to focus on that. In terms of making private investment more sustainable, the only way this would come in where the Bank would be involved is where we participate in the investment either through IFC or through the Bank, as is the case, for example, in the Chad- Cameroon pipeline, in which case a very large effort is made to ensure that, through environmental assessment, this is indeed the case. And in fact, in the case of the Chad- Cameroon pipeline, the program has gone so far as to virtually sequester the benefits into special accounts in Chad to be reinvested in development.

MR. KJELLEN: First, on the question of private sector investment, of course, that would be one of the benefits of having the clean development mechanism finally getting operative, but I think this will take its time. On the other hand, it seems to me that this is also linked to what has been mentioned by several here about the need for a sort of macroeconomic approach to this also. Camilla Toulmin mentioned the trade aspects. I think this is linked to the need, as Mr. Srivastava pointed out and several others, to go beyond the ministries of environment. I think that what the Bank can really do is to explore the good reputation that the Bank and also the Fund certainly have with ministries of finance. Ministries of finance and planning are normally very closed shops; they have some kind of superiority complex--that's my own impression. They know how to deal with the economy as a whole. That is why it is so important to get them in and to get them interested in these issues that we are discussing here, and I think the Bank can really make a difference in this respect. I think there is some lack in the paper we are discussing of reference to the integrated water and land issues. It strikes me there is just a passing reference here to water resources. On the GEF side, for instance, the real rationale for being able to move on the drylands is the link to the shared water resources. I also think that these are two sides of the same coin, and in developing these programs, one should mention more these very obvious links that exist between water and land resources and water and land management. 167

MR. BROWN: I think there are two camps, and one camp does have-it that countries are ready to implement NAPs, and institutions like the World Bank and multilaterals and bilaterals should support that process. On the other hand, there is a clear sentiment among many in several sub-camps that we are still in some sort of research phase, action research phase. I would like to make a modest proposal. My modest proposal would be that the Bank consider taking an approach like the original Global Environment Facility principle that there would be portfolios created that would test out different types of initiatives that offer promise based on learning and best practices, and that based on the different pilot initiatives that are labeled pilot initiatives, an operational program would take place. So my proposal would be that the Bank could look at, say, the next five years as a learning phase where, in the first phase of the learning in years 1 through 2.5, the Bank would establish a portfolio of activities that would test out different types of actions that appear promising under different categories, and that based on that experience, there would then be an operational phase to fully implement in concurrence with the CCD objectives.

MR. McCALLA: Thank you. Hans, please.

MR. BINSWANGER: The last thing I want to see is another pilot. We have a pilot pastoral program that has been going on for three or four years. Surely, within that pilot pastoral program, we can learn. We have had 10 years of pilot program level natural resource management programs. Virtually every donor has sponsored a pilot program here and there. I want at every level that when the groups get together, they take decisions and move on things, and then they document what they have done, and maybe they identify things on which they either don't have the money or the knowledge, and then the action plans spell out either how to get the money or get the knowledge or both.

MR. AUNE: Let me first say that I am leaving this workshop quite inspired. What has been particularly interesting for me is to learn more about how the Desertification Convention and the Climate Convention are linked. If this materializes, I think it can certainly open up new possibilities for fresh money for combating land degradation. I certainly think, as Mr. Binswanger said, that there is time now to move from planning to action, and I think this could be of interest to starting some pilot projects in some select countries to test some of the integrated approaches that have been proposed here.

MR. RIETHMACHER: I have just two short comments on some earlier comments of some participants. On private sector involvement, yes, we invited some Washington- based private sector associations, but they did not come. We have to be very realistic about this. The interest of private sector investment in dryland areas is very marginal. 168

There are just a few sectors where there is some realistic hope, and one of these seems to me to be energy, solar energy specifically. In most of the other areas, private capital flows tend to go to areas where there is an immediate hope for return, and marginal areas like drylands do not always offer this. This is one point.

MR. DIALLO: Well, Mr. Chairman, if one of the main outcomes of this brainstorming will be to have more people blowing up and saying, "We are sick and tired; we have to start acting"-- Maybe this is an excellent development. I think that if we can find a modus operandi whereby some of the experiences learned, lessons learned, or what we have as elements of information can serve as an irnmediate basis for action. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a good time, this is a good opportunity, and one can never be grateful enough to Mr. Wolfensohn for bringing all the brains. We are now supposed to start a process whereby countries with their partners will identify programs of action to be implemented. Then, also, these are not NAPs of the ministries of environment. They are not. But Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe the proof now of that cake will be in the eating. Let us see how we can get together and see where we can start, on the basis of what we have as information. But again, these are initiatives, proposals, that belong to the countries. These are not Bank projects; these are Mali projects or Eritrean projects. And I think that if we could build a partnership on this basis, we could go a long way, Mr. Chairman.

MR. THIAW: This is just in reaction to the gentleman over there who spoke about the private sector. I think we have to recognize that arid lands are very much of interest to the private sector. I think the oil export program was mentioned earlier on. There is a lot of mining going on in the arid lands. I think maybe we should open up the discussion and see how we can change some ways of exploiting some resources that exist in the arid lands. Arid lands are rich; they are not poor. Some people mentioned natural resources, and the mining aspect is also very important. What we need to do is maybe have another session with the private sector and see how we can work together with them in a way that their activities which are very important to the countries can be done in a way which is pertinent to the Convention and does not destroy the environment.

MS. SECK: I am just going to talk about the point of view of the grassroots organizations. Earlier, someone was talking about the relationship between the different Conventions, like Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Desertification. But I can say that for the NGOs, when I want to write a proposal, I am more seeing the problem of soil fertility or of soil erosion, of land management, or poverty alleviation, but they will just 169 tell me forget desertification because there is no money for desertification. Just write your proposal focused on more oriented funds available program. But to be fair, I just want to say that my interest is to work on desertification, because I am working in a land where people are poor, where the soil is eroded, where the soil organic matter is very low, where the productivity is low. So my interest is to write my proposal on desertification. So what we want to suggest to the World Bank is the same that we did in Dakar, Senegal, during the meeting of the Conference of Parties to say that they need to develop the Global Mechanisms to have funding, to be able to help the Secretariat of the CCD help the countries implement their National Action Plans.

MR. KOOHAFKAN: I just wanted to have a short intervention related to private sector involvement. I think one of the categories of private sector which could certainly be important within the context of desertification or soil fertility is the Fertilizer Conference. When I talk with some of the fertilizer institutes, they say there is no market in Africa, so we are not moving; we are waiting until the market is created, and then we are competitive enough, and we will get in. But the argument should be that the market has to be created, and the Soil Fertility Initiative is one of the foundations for attracting those private sectors to come in. It is a very, very important sector. The fertilizer prices in different countries are so different, and some of them are very, very expensive--they are unaffordable by farmers--so we need to really find a way to bring the fertilizer companies into this picture.

MR. LAL: Mr. Chairman, the question of land degradation by known agricultural factors has been discussed, and I think it is important to bring it up. Mining is one. Brickmaking. In India, .5 to 1 percent of land area is under brickmaking. China is in the same situation. The potential for restoring these lands and their production and their impact on water is tremendous.

MR. BROWN: Just a clarification on pilots and so forth. First point--the CCD is in itself a grand experiment. We are all trying to figure out how to work together. The second point--reflection is needed on how to do that. The "how" question-- Mr. Antonio raised the point how do we do this. We are all trying to figure out how to work together. In that sense, the CCD is a great pilot experiment. And that is the end. If we can learn from doing, so much the better.

MR. McCALLA: Thank you. Okay. Now, to my fellow Canadian, Pierre Marc Johnson, you are the last person to speak, so make it important. 170

MR. JOHNSON: I think that what is important is the follow-up to this meeting, Mr. Chairman. I think this was in many ways a remarkable, interesting, and very productive meeting. The Bank is not ODA, and the Bank, in spite of all the money it has, has limited means of intervention. That said, I think it must get its act tightly together on its lending and non-lending approaches. Second, it must transmit to its own structure in the field clear messages as far as that is concerned, so not too much friction time is spent by the other actors in the system. Third, it must disseminate these orientations clearly to all the other actors. Finally, I think it must support, most probably through non-lending, including possibly grants and obviously, human resources in exercise like this one, it must support the three institutions of the Convention which are the Secretariat, the global mechanism, and a national desertification fund where they will eventually come alive. Secondly, it must support solidly, through a protocol and through designated persons, the links with the GEF on a very, very focused approach so that there, too, is no friction time lost. And finally--and that is my personal bug about this--I think you have to support the NGO and civil society in this Convention. It is a fundamental creation. And I will put it very bluntly. I think Africa in this negotiation is extremely courageous in accepting a compromise to give a tremendous place to civil society in an instrument which was largely African without any money or guarantees of increased ODA in exchange. I think they should be rewarded for that. Thank you.

MR. McCALLA: Thank you very much, Pierre Marc. Well take all of those on board. That's the standard Bank answer, but I mean it with more sincerity than it sounded. 171

Section G: Outline of A Strategy for ComprehensiveSustainable Development of Drylands

This draft strategyis just that: A DRAFT.It has not yet been approvedby the Bank. It is the outcome of the round table meeting and earlier drafts have been circulatedto all participantsat the June meeting for their added input. What is presentedhere is the latest revised version. It is a work in progress and readers are encouraged to suggest improvementsso that the 'inal' product is as comprehensiveas it can be. Commentsand suggestionsshould be forwardeddirectly to Hassan Hassan at [email protected] or fax: 202-522-0367. 172

DRYLANDS, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: OUTLINE OF A STRATEGY FOR THE WORLD BANK

DRAFT: August 1999

1. Issue Background

Eighty per cent of the world's poorest countries are mainly dryland areas. Drylands present a very specific kind of development challenge.

The challenge is considerable in that 40% of the earth's land surface falls under the dryland categories of arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid, and over 25% of the world's peoples live there. People are usually not surprised to hear that 40% of Africa's population is based in drylands, but many do not know that 39% of Asia's people (1.3 billion), and 30% of South Americans also live in similar environments. Worldwide, 1.1 billion rural people are at risk from desertification or dryland degradation. A growing number are forced to migrate internally and/or across borders.

Drylands include rich communities of the USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere as well as the poor of Niger, Mali, Pakistan and India, Brazil and Chile. Drylands are characterized by problems of land degradation, climatic variation and fluctuating levels of range and crop production. The dust bowls of the USA during the '30s and the droughts of the Sahel in the '70s are but one part of the development problem. But the huge cumulative resource base of drylands and the resilience of people living in these areas present opportunities as well as challenges. The growing world population needs to use these resources productively and sustainably, and to harness the knowledge and resourcefulness of local people through local actions and institutions to promote the sustainable development of these regions.

The above concerns are at the heart of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). The CCD is a negotiated blue print for environmental management in the world's drylands whose main objective is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification. These objectives are to be met through effective action at all levels, and supported by country party obligations (see Box 1), international cooperation and partnership arrangements. The intent is to work towards an integrated approach consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas. The World Bank's strategy in tackling these issues will be critical in supporting the efforts of state parties to the Convention since they are also World Bank clients. 173

2. The Challenge

The increasing food requirements, which are expected to double by 2050, have to be met from the existing land base through intensification of production systems. Under this scenario, sustainable use of land becomes critically important, especially as about 2 million hectares of rainfed and irrigated agricultural lands are lost every year due to severe land degradation, urban expansion, infrastructure development and other uses9. Population growth, pervasive rural poverty, increased food requirements, and changing consumption patterns, are major causes of increased land demand and land use conversions. The challenge is particularly severe for developing countries mostly located in the inter-tropical zone, where the population growth is the highest and the availability of high-quality and fertile lands is limited.

3. Underlying Causes of Land Degradation

There are many reasons for failure to increase rural production, reduce poverty and prevent land degradation at the same time. Among them are the following:

* Unsustainable use of the land and water resources, due to combined climatic and soil conditions and high human pressure on the natural resources, resulting in exploitative agricultural and grazing practices that lead to deforestation, overgrazing, salinization, soil erosion and depletion of water resources, and lack of alternatives; * Insufficient government attention to land degradation, unsustainable agricultural development and peasant farming; * Insufficient adaptation of recommendations to the large agro-ecological variability over time and space and deficiencies with respect to proven technology, extension, input distribution, credit etc.; * Deficient infrastructure which slows adjustments and prevents specialization; * Lack of economic incentives and marketing difficulties for producers; * Inefficiencies arising from institutional weaknesses, over-emphasis of public sector, centralized decision making and neglect of the central role of producer organizations, local communities, and the importance of family farms; * Inadequate land tenure and land management policies; * Agricultural and other economic incentives and disincentives that facilitate poor land management rather than address it; * Loss of confidence in political and governance systems;

9 Besides, about 80% of the global land area is currently "managed" (agriculture,range and pasture, forestry,conservation), and by 2050 all land willbe managed. 174

* The breakdown of traditional leadership and consequent difficulties in security of tenure, open access to range and woodlands, and inability to protect and manage public lands; and * Inappropriate development strategies including: * Prescriptive rather than flexible and interactive approaches with insufficient understanding of the problems, priorities, resources situations and strategies of individual producers; * Insufficient understanding of village dynamics (i.e., interactions among farmers and landless cultivators and herders, men and women, wealthy and destitute); * Disintegrated institutional structure dealing with population, agriculture (crop, livestock and forestry), environment, and conservation, the combined effect of which is to pursue complex problems with single factor treatments and projects; and * Uncoordinated approaches where government strategy frequently is insufficiently articulated, donors pursuing their own objectives and approaches, and little institutional memory or learning from experience.

It is important to note that the welfare of urban populations in dryland areas are closely linked with the cyclic economic well being of the rural people. Experience shows that poverty increases as agricultural productivity decreases, and eventually populations migrate to urban areas. These migrants then face new forms of poverty living on the outskirts of cities in urban shanty towns.

4. Addressing National and International Policy Reforms

Many of the problems of drylands are locally based; local land degradation, local policies, and many other issues are linked to national and international policies. At the national level governments create trading barriers, pricing barriers, and infrastructure barriers which discriminate against dryland peoples and dryland environments. Populations in dryland areas are not usually represented at the political level as well as they should be. The links between national policies and the implications of those policies for dryland sustainable development is a critical issue for Bank involvement. The need for reforms is clearly a regional or a national level issue and needs to be tackled on a country by country basis.

At the international level there is another set of trading and policy issues which impact dryland peoples directly or indirectly. These include international trading structures, restrictions against exports of dryland products, sometimes justified, sometimes not. Any examination of the whole issue of development in drylands needs to look at the role of these international policies and procedures in halting and or reducing 175 the development of drylands. The international trading organizations and the international trading policies, as they impact a large amount of countries, need to be reviewed.

Policy reforms need to re-emphasize that drylands are marginal only in certain aspects and could be rich in others. Drylands do hold valuable exploitable minerals such as diamonds, gold, iron ore, uranium, oil. However, exploration and mining do contribute to desertification and in many cases the people living on these territories do not get adequate returns from such activities. Governments do not always share the riches of the ground with those who claim traditional land rights to these sites. The Bank, in its applied policies in the client countries, needs to push for wider local participation in this area. For instance, reforms need to require that mining laws provide for, (i) an equitable sharing of mineral (and other) resources with the population living on site, and (ii) an obligation of the exploiting firm to recompense the nature, and the people, of all damage inflicted, notwithstanding whether they find or do not find "pay dirt". Both clauses would effectively provide locals with off-land altemative livelihoods and help the environment regenerate.

Box 1 Conventionto CombatDesertification (Part I Articles) Article 2 Objective

1. The objectiveof this Conventionis to combatdesertification and mitigatethe effectsof drought in countriesexperiencing serious drought and/or desertification,particularly in Africa,through effective actionat all levels, supportedby internationalcooperation and partnershiparrangements, in the framework of an integratedapproach which is consistentwith Agenda21, with a view to contributingto the achievementof sustainabledevelopment in affectedareas. 2. Achieving this objectivewill involvelong-term integrated strategies thatfocus simultaneously,in affectedareas, on improvedproductivity of land, and the rehabilitation,conservation and sustainable managementof land and water resources,leading to improvedliving conditions, in particularat the communitylevel.

Article 5 Obligationsof affected countryParties

In addition to their obligationspursuant to article4, affected countryParties undertaketo: (a) give due priorityto combatingdesertification and mitigatingthe effectsof drought,and allocate adequateresources in accordancewith their circumstancesand capabilities; 176

(b) establishstrategies and priorities,within the framework of sustainabledevelopment plans and/or policies, to combatdesertification and mitigatethe effectsof drought; (c) addressthe underlyingcauses of desertificationand pay specialattention to the socio- economic factors contributingto desertificationprocesses; (d) promoteawareness and facilitate the participationof local populations,particularly women and youth, with the supportof non-governmentalorganizations, in effortsto combatdesertification and mitigatethe effectsof drought;and (e) provide an enablingenvironment by strengthening,as appropriate,relevant existing legislation and, where they do not exist, enactingnew laws and establishinglong-term policies and actionprograms.

Artick 6 Obligationsof developedcountry Parties

In addition to their general obligationspursuant to article4, developedcountry Parties undertaketo: (a) activelysupport, as agreed,individually or jointly, the effortsof affecteddeveloping country Parties, particularlythose in Africa,and the least developedcountries, to combatdesertification and mitigatethe effectsof drought; (b) providesubstantial financial resourcesand otherforms of supportto assistaffected developingcountry Parties,particularly those in Africa,effectively to developand implementtheir own long-termplans and strategiesto combatdesertification and mitigatethe effectsof drought; (c)promote the mobilizationof new and additionalfinding pursuantto article20, paragraph2 (b); (d) encouragethe mobilizationoffunding from the private sectorand other non-governmentalsources; and (e) promoteandfacilitate accessby affected countryParties, particularly affected developing country Parties,to appropriatetechnology, knowledge and know-how.

5. Drylands Degradation and Poverty There is a strong correlation between the degree of poverty and the geographic dominance of drylands degradation'0 . Data from within countries, where available, show that dryland areas tend to be the poorest, especially outside urban areas. People in dryland areas typically receive a low percentage of national wealth and have low per capita income. They tend to be poorly served by educational and health services, marketing infrastructure, and to be removed from the attention of national and international organizations. Under these restrictive policy and economic conditions, the poor usually resort to activities that lead to land degradation since these often are their only means to sustain their livelihood. The result is loss of natural vegetation, land and soil degradation and a continuing downward poverty spiral. On the other hand,

10Scherr, S.J. 1999. Soil Degradation.A Threat to Developing-CountryFood Securityby 2020? Food, Agriculture,and the EnvironmentDiscussion Paper No. 27. InternationalFood Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI).Washington, DC. 177 experience indicates that with good policies, incentives and well functioning markets, farmers, pastoralists and nomads do invest in their land, and gradually reverse the poverty-desertification spiral.

Recent projections show that land degradation may pose a serious threat to food security3, rural livelihoods and the environment unless serious actions are taken. Over 1.5 million hectares of irrigated land, over 2 million hectares of rainfed agricultural land, and about 35 million hectares of dryland areas lose a large part of their productivity every year due to land degradation. It is important to note that degradation in drylands tends to be greatest in the dry sub-humid zones - the most densely populated areas of the drylands.

Moreover, on the global scale, the following is noted: * World population is growing steadily with new demands for food and water; * Demographically, Africa is the fastest growing area with 5 million additional people a year occupying drylands. At the same time, much of the African Sahel has experienced a steady decline in rainfall over the last 30 years; D Urban areas absorb a large part of this increase creating additional food marketing needs, but rural populations are growing too; these urban areas have little infrastructure or jobs to accommodate growing rural to urban migration. Malnutrition and disease from inadequate food and contaminated drinking water is highest among the new urban migrants; D Increasing intensity of land use is only happening in selected areas and expansion into new lands is the common mode of dealing with growth; however, expansion into marginal dryland areas poses serious problems of sustainability and productivity; * Correlation between drylands degradation and humanitarian crises or conflicts claim costs which are substantially higher than those of preventive actions; * The world will not support further expansion into the rainforest areas and into biodiverse rich temperate forests due to the threat to biodiversity and the impact on climate patterns.

It is these problems of sustainability and productivity that need to be addressed by a pragmatic and forward-looking strategy.

6. Synergies with other Global Environmental Conventions

Global warming, the risk of increase in radiative forcing due to enhancement in tropospheric concentration of some radiatively-active gases (e.g., C02, CH4, N20), is accentuated by soil degradation in general and desertification in particular. Desertification affects tropospheric concentrations of radiatively active gases both directly and indirectly. Important among direct effects are reduction in biomass production, decline in grass 178 cover, increase in oxidation and mineralization of soil organic matter content, and removal of topsoil by accelerated erosion by wind and water. Indirect effects of desertification on global warming are due to decrease in biomass production caused by decline in soil quality, and none or minimal return of crop residue to the soil. It is difficult to estimate the exact contribution of desertification to historic C loss and emission of C02 to the atmosphere. It is estimated that accelerated soil erosion in dryland contributes additional 0.2 to 0.3 Pg C/yr. Thus, desertification and attendant decline in soil quality may contribute substantially to the risks of global warming.

Also, the dramatic decline in soil microorganisms (which may help fix carbon) populations and variety and the effect of their reduced activity on plant nutrients recycling lead to diminished soil fertility and increased degradation. Hence, restoration of degraded soils and ecosystems is an important strategy. The objective is to identify soils and ecoregions (bright spots) with potential of economic and easy restoration, and enhancing soil quality and productivity (see Box 2). This strategy explores and builds on synergies between the three major conventions (CCD, CBD, FCCC).

7. Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development of Drylands

Drylands are areas of high ecological sensitivity, and human populations are often economically and politically isolated. Drylands are marginalized from mainstream national as well as global economic and political trends, and their sustainable development is threatened due to inappropriate resource use practices and unplanned development. Nevertheless, the ecological integrity and sustainable development of drylands can be assured through the observance or adherence to the following basic principles:

1. Environmentally sustainable economic and social development and alleviation of poverty in drylands must be pursued as the ultimate goal in order to meet the needs of the present and future populations.

2. The problems of drylands are people problems. As with communities in other ecosystems, the people of drylands must have the opportunity to develop to their full potential in accord with basic human rights.

3. Drylands must be developed to contribute to national and global economies.

4. Sustainable development of drylands must be based on thorough appraisal and evaluation of cultural, political, ecological and socio-economic factors, and seek to balance natural resources against local human population needs in both the short and long termn. 179

8. The Convention to Combat Desertification

As a negotiated blue print for environmental management in the drylands, the CCD is a grassroots Convention that strongly emphasizes multi-stakeholder commitment, participation, interdisciplinary coordination, and partnerships at all levels. The CCD's innovative and participatory design focuses on two key concerns - human survival and the conservation of natural resources. Thus, food security and poverty alleviation, without further degradation of dryland areas, are among the Convention's major objectives. The CCD strongly emphasizes the role of local expertise and traditional knowledge in managing dryland resources. This shift from a top-down technological approach to a holistic resource management approach, building largely on local/traditional knowledge and lessons learned from previous and on-going activities, is the CCD's most remarkable conceptual improvement over the 1977 Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD).

The Convention creates rights and obligations for State Parties. Although the World Bank has no legal obligation under the Convention, as a member of the international community it is expected to support the provisions of the CCD through its various lending and non-lending instruments and programs, in addition to its role as one of the implementing agencies for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (Articles 12 and 30) and as a member of the Facilitation Committee (FC) of the Global Mechanism (GM) of the CCD.

9. The High Level Round Table Meeting on Drylands, Poverty and Development

The June 15-16, 1999 high-level round table held at the World Bank in Washington, DC addressed the root causes of the persistent degradation and poverty in many drylands, the opportunities for sustainable development and the outline of a World Bank strategy in a global approach to address the problem and seize the opportunities; soil and vegetation loss need to be curtailed, policies need to be changed, incentives need to be developed and local populations need to be mobilized and empowered.

The round table also recognized that although the situation is serious, there is evidence of local progress in certain dryland areas (see Box 2). These local areas of successful rehabilitation indicate that through growing awareness among farmer and herder organizations of the importance of improved land and water management practices, increased local action, development of new market opportunities, and innovative policies on the part of government, considerable improvement in human livelihood can be achieved in a relatively short time. These success stories give guidance for the structure of this new strategy, and the World Bank approach should draw upon the positive lessons learned. The Strategy recognizes that the significant improvements in 180 drylands in selected countries/regions/sectors/sub-populations and the lessons learned from these successes have not been widely disseminated and practiced. This in itself constitutes a barrier to sustainable dryland development and the Strategy will vigorously draw from these lessons in framing activities aimed at improving dryland resource management.

Box 2 Success Stories in Combating Desertification Examples of success stories in combating desertification range from soil rehabilitation in north-western China to overcoming waterlogging and salinity in Western Australia and various activities in the Sahel of Africa. Selected cases include: * Afforestation and Salinity Control with Tamarix in North-western Chinal; * Integrated Approach to Dryland Farning in South-western Australia]; * Environmental Protection and restoration in Louga region in the North Sahelian zone of Senegal'; * Land Resource Management in Machakos District, Kenya: 1930-1990. 2

10. The World Bank's Role in Addressing Dryland Management and Poverty Issues

10.1 The World Bank Mission

The principal mission of the World Bank is the alleviation of poverty, and helping people help themselves by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity, forging private and public partnerships to improve their well being and enhance the quality of their environment. The Bank's poverty reduction objective has been strongly reaffirmed in its mission statement, but this is also a key objective of many of the Bank's official development partners. The specificity of the Bank's mission provides a unique platform upon which pragmatic and forward-looking strategies aimed at sustainable dryland management can be crafted. Most important is the creation of an enabling environment which (at least) does not prevent dryland communities from sustaining their livelihoods, and hopefully, supports them in doing so. The World Bank can play a leading role in the fight against poverty and land degradation in drylands, but it cannot do it alone. The Bank has a comparative advantage in persuading and/or helping governments create such enabling environments.

A strategy for the World Bank needs to focus on the following key areas: * Supporting bottom-up integrated approaches to address dryland degradation issues;

" United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1997. World Atlas of Desertification. 2nd Edition. 12 English, J., M. Tiffen, & M. Mortimore. 1994. Land resource management in Machakos District, Kenya: 1930-1990. Environment Paper; No. 5. The World Bank. 181

* Providing substantial support to enable environment and development agencies in affected countries to better targetlintegrate their national plans addressing desertification (NEAPs and NAPs) in CASs and CDF; * Facilitating partnerships with the affected countries, with other donors and the other relevant conventions; * Addressing national and international policy reforms; * Developing donors and NGOs partnerships with local and national stakeholders; and * Measuring the impacts of dryland development strategies and programs, and developing decentralized information systems on land and water management.

To face the challenges of combating land degradation and fostering sustainable land resources management, a major shift is required in the World Bank to i) re-position the portfolio of the departments dealing with environment, social and rural issues, into a more integrated approach to combating land degradation; ii) ensure that rural, social and environmental issues of land management are fully reflected in all relevant operational and strategic work of the Bank, and iii) support the Convention to Combat Desertification in general and as members of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism specifically.

10.2 The Role of the World Bank

The challenge of the CCD is immense and success is not assured. Recent trends suggest slow progress-inadequate in many cases to reach national and international development targets. There is a case for arguing that current ways of doing business would have little impact on poverty reduction. The fundamental purpose of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF), as an instrument to increase the countries' and Bank's effectiveness in reducing poverty, is through taking a long-term view, and shifting from inputs-based to results-based work. There must be a firn grounding in poverty outcomes, recognizing the holistic nature of the development process, and embedding our work in partnerships with others. The Bank's role must be exercised in facilitating partnerships with national governments in affected countries, sister UN agencies, NGOs, private sector and other relevant conventions. These can be achieved by:

1. Focusing country assistance strategies on poverty with a systematic focus on outcomes. 2. Improving the knowledge base on the dynamics of poverty and dryland degradation and the causal impacts. 182

3. Seriously reviewing relevant CAS documents for poverty and drylands focus and sharing good practice, and encouraging productive linkages between the CAS and the national action programs (NAPs) to combat desertification; 4. Developing local capacities and partnership arrangements to work with countries to enhance commitment and strengthen national and local capacity to tackle poverty (including post-conflict) and dryland degradation through catalytic activities. 5. Focus the Bank's Sustainable Land Resources Management (SLRM) operational activities on Processes, Outcomes and Impacts rather than on Outputs; 6. Encourage Task Managers/ Task Team Leaders and client country professionals to develop bottom-up approaches and holistic long-term solutions to land management issues, looking not only at yield improvements, and economic viability, but also at the continued productive "health" of the soil and water resource base'3 , and at the extent of social and institutional development, and desirable policy changes; and 7. Select appropriate focus countries and areas for piloting SLRM activities.

11. Institutional Context for the Strategy It is important to recognize that this Strategy, D is not meant to be a stand-alone effort, but an essential component of the Bank's integrated approach to sustainable development; the Strategy intends to create synergy when designed to build on other efforts and complement other interventions such as the Soil Fertility Initiative, Water Resources Management Initiative, etc., which are being coordinated from within the Bank; i should be coordinated with the concerned countries' Comprehensive Development Frameworks (CDFs), the Bank's Country Assistance Strategies (CASs), and with the Bank's Rural Development Strategy, Agenda for Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.; * underscores that the Bank is but one international agency, among others, seeking to assist the countries affected by desertification and drought, in reducing poverty and in achieving sustainable development.

12. The Role of the World Bank in Implementing the CCD

The World Bank, UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, FAO and many other agencies are already doing an immense amount of work in relation to drylands. Why then, is there a needfor a new strategy and a new approach? With some notable exceptions (Box 2), it is clear that many of the current approaches are not working effectively and efficiently, and that dryland people have not improved their economic situation over the last ten to twenty

13 Productive "health" of soil and water resources refers to their continued capacity of supporting plant and animal production systems, and to serve as a source/sink of greenhouse gases, natural filter of waters and pollutants, and an important link in global nutrient and carbon cycling. 183

years. How can we adopt and effectively integrate the new approaches identified in the CCD into the framework of the current and future portfolios of the World Bank and other agencies? How can we structure inter-agencies' partnerships and mobilize the civil society under the CCD NAP process?

An essential element of this strategy statement is that the Bank should develop a more integrated, on-the-ground program to improve the economic well being of rural people through linked development of land, biological and water resources, together with the economic and the required social frameworks. This approach should be fostered through enhanced country level coordination, taking better advantage of existing structures and mechanisms, and mainstreaming the focus on the family farrn. The approach requires national and sub-regional institutional strengthening, enabling activities such as awareness programs, national action plans (as required under the CCD), and development of effective partnerships with farmers' and herders' associations, community groups and NGOs. Emphasis needs to be put on better coordination and delivery of the many existing plans and programs, and creating new ones only when needed. It is time to implement such an approach. It is time to recognize that appropriate land and water management practices are site-specific and consequently need to be adapted and developed by local producers organizations and communities.

The World Bank has developed several instruments that could be instrumental in implementing the CCD, including lending, concessional grants and non-lending tools. The Bank has tremendous convening powers, capacity for leveraging additional resources, considerable abilities for analytical work, and a large store of knowledge and good practices. As indicated in Table 1, these instruments can be directly applied to implement the CCD.

Table 1: Potential World Bank Activity Matrix for the Implementation of the CCD

NEEDSFOR CCD ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION Concessional Lending Grants Knowled e Networkin Others*

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~ ~~ -P .. SECRETARIAT X X

GLOBAL X X MECHANISM# X X NATIONAL X X DESERTIFICATION FUNDS 184

NATIONALACTION X X PLANS X X DECENTRALIZATION X X

AWARENESS X X x x REGIONALAND SUBREGIONAL X ACTIVITIES LINK TO CONVENTIONS X X X

MULTISOURCE FINANCING (PRIVATE, X X X ETC.) PARTNERSHIPS X X X x

NGO PRESENCE AND X X GROWTH *includes non-lending activities, trust fund, etc. # the Global Mechanism is the financial facility of the CCD

The World Bank strategy in relation to the partnership with other agencies, should be to seek and support, through a participatory process, a limited number of existing and new integrated projects to address typical dryland issues in each of the world's major dryland areas. These selected projects need to be well planned, have flexible management and monitoring standards. They need to be created through local authorities in cooperation with national government, as well as international partners. They must be stakeholder driven and supported by national governments. The actions need to reflect the country's commitments to the existing regional and international treaties and protocols, such as climatic change, biodiversity, desertification, and international waters. The essential goal of the program should be to harmonize the environmental management of land, water and biological resource policies and deal with the legal and local political issues related to them. The program will aim to start small and build on existing activities in drylands (which are successful or have potential to succeed) and will aim to use existing World Bank instruments (such as the Learning and Innovation Loans (LILs)). The process should be implemented and strengthened through ongoing programs and initiatives such as the Soil Fertility Initiative (SFI) or through providing timely technical advice in 185 supervision missions or mid-term reviews to the many land management projects that are on-going.

13. Donors and NGOs Partnerships with Local and National Stakeholders Both the selected and the broader programs, which hopefully will follow, need to be developed with as broad a participant base as possible. Many agencies have a tradition of working out of the national capitals and for this new approach, there has to be a focus on where the activity is taking place. This means that greater than normal effort must be made to develop donors and international NGO partnerships with the local and national stakeholders and this effort must go beyond one or two workshops to a real integration of local and national stakeholders into the process of project planning, project development, project adjustment and project maintenance as time goes on. The World Bank is well placed to take a lead in this, but other agencies particularly those NGOs with links in the field, are an important component. National, regional and international research institutes are essential partners and they have a vital role in bringing the findings of the research effort on an international basis into project development on a local and regional basis.

14. Recommended Actions in the Short-Term

In order to measure progress under this Strategy, there is a need to learn from on- going and past activities. In the short term, high priority will be given to (i) a portfolio review to identify opportunities to integrate the social, rural and environmental dimensions of land resources management; (ii) pilot studies to operationalize sustainable land resources management (SLRM) activities; (iii) capacity building programs in collaboration with WBI to disseminate good SLRM practices. In this regard, the Bank is called upon to:

* Convene an Implementation Task Force (ITF) to begin implementation of this strategy;

* Select countries where such activities would be implemented in the short term;

* Develop an information base to identify gaps and opportunities;

* Establish a special grant funding initiative with an initial contribution of US $5m. The purpose of this facility would be to strengthen and enable the Bank's Sustainable Land Resources Management (SLRM)Group to promote the enabling framework for the CCD implementation process, foster sustainable development synergies, build partnerships among collaborating institutions, and develop the portfolio of projects to demonstrate the approach; 186

* Recognize the activities of the Strategy throughout country operations and national development dialogues;

* Identify and implement a system for monitoring and evaluating the impacts of the collective actions of the new approach;

* Work with Operations on developing and disseminating "good practices" and modalities for best incorporation of SLRM principles in the Comprehensive Development Framework, the Country Assistance Strategy, as well as lending and non-lending services;

* Review SLRM programs and projects developed within and outside the Bank to learn from experience and to further identify appropriate socioeconomic and technical interventions, and the institutional and social mechanisms that will ensure longer term adoption of SLRM practices;

• Disseminate lessons learnt and become a window to global knowledge in the area of SLRM, making it available to TMs/TTLs and country partners in a user friendly format;

* Develop partnerships and to establish a worldwide network of experts to bring the knowledge from different sources and provide "good practice" guidance to specific land management issues;

* Develop pilot projects that will validate systematic approaches for implementing SLRM agenda and evaluate their impacts;

* Facilitate the access and utilization of different sources of funds from public and private bilateral and multilateral origin to combat land degradation and promote SLRM in country partners.

15. Next Steps

In order to further advance the World Bank's effective participation in the sustainable development of the world's drylands, it is essential that the Implementation Task Force (ITF) be established as soon as possible. The ITF should meet and follow up on further elaboration of the strategy and consequent implementation of the recommendations. 187

List of Participants

Diallo Alhassane Adama Bruce Lloyd CILSS The Crawford Fund, Chairman, 03 B.P. 7049 Crawford Foundation & Landcare Program Ouagadougou 1 Leonard Street BURKINA FASO Parkville 3052 Victoria AUSTRALIA

Jens Aune Carlos Lopez-Ocana NORAGRIC IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) Agricultural Univ. of Norway, Washington, DC P. 0. Box USA 5001 1432 Aas NORWAY

Walter Lusigi Arati Belle Global Environment Facility World Bankl818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Tor Benjaminsen Ernst Lutz NORAGRIC World Bank Agricultural Univ. of Norway, 1818 H Street, N.W. P. 0. Box 5001 Washington, DC 20433 Aas, NORWAY USA

Leonard Berry Antonio Magalhaes Florida Atlantic University World Bank Center for Environmental Studies Brazil Resident Mission 3970 RCA Blvd., Suite 7400 Brasilia, DF 70712-900 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 BRAZIL USA

Debalkew Berhe Nasr Mamdoub IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Bonn University Development) GERMANY P. 0. Box 2653 DJIBOUTI 188

Hans Binswanger Maria Elena Matheus-Atchley World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Linda Brown Alex McCalla Senior Natural Resources Adviser World Bank Overseas Development Administration 1818 H Street, N.W. 94 Victoria Street Washington, DC 20433 London SWIE 5JL USA UNITED KINGDOM

Michael Brown Andrew McMillan Innovative Resources FAO Management, Inc. Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 2421 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 00100 Rome Wash.ington, D.C. 20037 ITALY USA

Robert Buchanan MaxMiller Esquel Group and NGOs Coalition Earth Satellite Corporation 1003 K Street, N.W., #800 Director, Program Development Washington, DC 20001 6011 Executive Blvd., Suite 400 USA Rockville, MD 20852-3804 USA

Franklin Cardy Franklin Moore World Bank USAID 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Graciela Chichilnisky Ken Newcombe Columbia University World Bank Program of Information Resources 1818 H Street, N.W. 405 LOW mail code 4335 Washington, DC 20433 2960 Broadway USA New York, NY 10027-6902 USA 189

Eric Chinje M. A. Noor World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Miriam K. Cisse Stahis Panagides CILSS ESQUEL Foundation Washington, DC 20433 USA

Cristophe Crepin Steven J. Parcells World Bank Florida Atlantic University 1818 H Street, N.W. Center for Environmental Studies Washington, DC 20433 3970 RCA Blvc. Ste 7400 USA Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, USA

Chona Cruz John Pender Global Environment Facility Consultative Group for International 1818 H Street, N.W. Agricultural Research - Exec. Secretariat Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC USA USA

Uttam Dabholkar Octavio Perez Pardo CGIARIUNEP Conservacion del Suelo Washington, DC ARGENTINA USA

Comelis de Haan Christian Pieri World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Gregoire de Kalbermatten Yves Prevost CCD, Haus Carstanjen World Bank Martin Luther King Str 8 1818 H Street, N.W. D-533175, Bonn Washington, DC 20433 GERMANY USA 190

R. Cynthia Dharmajaya Felicity Proctor World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Arba Diallo Yves-Coffi Prudencio P. 0.Box 260129 World Bank Haus Carstanjen, D-53153 1818 H Street, N.W. Bonn Washington, DC 20433 GERMANY USA

Charles di Leva Gabriele Rechbauer IUCN - The World Conservation Union World Bank Environmental Law Centre 1818 H Street, N.W. Godesberger Allee 108-112 Washington, DC 20433 D-53175 Bonn USA GERMANY

Ahmed Djoghlaf Guenther Riethmacher United Nations Environment Programme World Bank (UNEP) 1818 H Street, N.W. P. 0. Box 30552 Washington, DC 20433 Nairobi USA KENYA

Philip Dobie Suzanne Roddis UNDP World Bank 1 United Nations Plaza 1818 H Street, N.W. New York, NY 10017 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Al Duda Per Ryden Global Environment Facility Global Mechanism, IFAD 1818 H Street, N.W. 107 Via del Serafico Washington, DC 20433 Rome 00142 USA ITALY 191

Julian Dumanski Uriel Safriel World Bank Blaustein Institute for Desert Research 1818 H Street, N.W. Sede Boqer Campus, Washington, DC 20433 Ben-Gurion University USA Beer Sheva, 84990 ISRAEL

Mersie Ejigu Sara Scherr Private Consultant University of Maryland Agriculture & Resource Economics Department, College Park, MD 20742 USA

Koffi Ekouevi Mamadou Mansour Seck World Bank Embassy of Senegal 1818 H Street, N.W. 2112 Wyoming Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20008 USA USA

Agil Elmanan Vore Gana Seck World Bank CONGAD 1818 H Street, N.W. Villa 3089 bis, Sicap Amitie Washington,, DC 20433 1 BP 4109, Dakar USA SENEGAL

Mohamed El-Ashry Narendra P. Sharma Global Environment Facility World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433, USA Washington, DC 20433 USA

John English Takao Shibata World Bank IFAD 1818 H Street, N.W. 107 Via del Serafico 00142 Washington, DC 20433 Rome, ITALY USA 192

Enos Esikuri John Shilling World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Jumana Farah Indu Singh World Bank Independent Consultant 1818 H Street, N.W. A25 Nirman Vihar Washington, DC 20433 Delhi, 110092 INDIA USA

Wolfram Fischer Shiv Singh IGAD World Bank DJIBOUTI 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 USA

Doug Forno Mustafa Soumare World Bank United Nations Development Programme 1818 H Street, N.W. I UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017 Washington, DC 20433 USA USA

Tekeste Ghebray John Spears IGAD World Bank DJIBOUTI 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 USA

Hassan Hassan Jitendra Srivastava World Bank World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433, Washington, D.C. 20433 USA USA

Jane Hopkins Ibrahim Thiaw World Bank IUCN 1818 H Street, N.W. Rue Mauverny 28 Washington, DC 20433 USA CH-1 196 Gland, SWITZERLAND 193

John Hough Tijan Jallow United NationsDevelopment Programme UNDP 1 UN Plaza 1 UN Plaza New York,NY 10017 New York, N.Y. 10017 USA USA

Sidi Jammeh Mostafa Tolba World Bank Center for Environmentand Development 1818 H Street, N.W. 23 Fawzy el Ramah St, Mohandeseen Washington,DC 20433 12411Cairo USA EGYPT

Ji-Yun Jin CamillaToulmin Soil & Fertilizer Institute IIED ChineseAcademy of AgriculturalSciences 4 HanoverStreet 30 BaishiqiaoRoad Edinburgh,EH2 2EN Beijing 100081 UNITEDKINGDOM CHINA

Ian Johnson MoctarToure World Bank World Bank 1818H Street, N.W. 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington,DC 20433 Washington,DC 20433 USA USA

Pierre Marc Johnson Souty Toure IndependentConsultant Minister of Environment 1509Sherbrook Oest Rue Calmette,Dakar H3G IMI, Montreal SENEGAL CANADA Boris Utria Aira Kalela World Bank UnitedNations Conventionto Combat ResidentMission, Zimbabwe Desertification(UNCCD) P. 0. Box 2960 Bonn, GERMANY Harare, ZIMBABWE 194

Jaafar Karrar AlexanderVon der Osten Jaafar Karrar& Partners World Bank P.O. box 1218 ConsultativeGroup for Intemational Khartoum,SUDAN AgriculturalResearch 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington,DC 20433, USA

Bo Kjellen Klaus Von Grebmer Ministryof Environment World Bank S-10323Stockholm 1818 H Street, N.w. SWEDEN Washington,DC USA

Parviz Koohafkan Hans W. Wabnitz FAO World Bank Viale delle Terme de Caracalla 00100 1818 H Street, N.W. ROME Washington,DC 20433 USA

HiroyukiKubota Rishi Mohan Wahi World Bank NationalInstitute of Agriculture 1818 H Street, N.W. 2 Yashwant Place, ChanakyaPuri, Washington,DC 20433 New Delhi 110 021 USA INDIA

Dan Waterman IFDC

Rachel Kyte RobertWatson IUCN World Bank 1400 16' Street, N.W., 1818H Street, N.W. Washington,DC 20036-2217 Washington,DC 20433 USA USA 195

RattanLal Vera Weill-Halle Ohio State University,School of Natural EFAD Resources Rome KottmanHall, Room210 ITALY 2021 CoffeyRoad Columbus,Ohio 43210 USA

ManuelLantin BerhaneWeldeselassie World Bank IGAD ConsultativeGroup for International P. O.Box 2653 AgriculturalResearch Djibouti,DJIBOUTI 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington,DC 20433 USA

MichelleLeighton SheilaWertz Natural HeritageInstitute World Bank 114 SansomeStreet, Suite 1200 1818 H Street,N.W. San Francisco,CA 94104 Washington,DC 20433 USA USA

John Lewis Jim Wolfensohn,President USAID World Bank Washington,DC 1818H Street,N.W. USA Washington,,DC 20433 USA

The World Bank 818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: 202-477-1234 World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org/