GEF Land Degradation Linkage Study Leonard Berry, Ph.D. Jennifer Olson, Ph.D. Working Paper 6 March 2001 i Published 2000 Global Environment Facility This paper may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit uses, with- out special permission, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The Global Environment Facil- ity secretariat would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this paper as a source. Copies may be sent to GEF secretariat, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. No use of this paper may be made for resale or other commercial purpose without prior written consent of the Global Environment Facility secretariat. The designations of geographic entities in this document, and the presentation of materials, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the de- limitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the GEF or its associated agencies. ISBN 1-884122-81-7 ISSN 1020-0894 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... vi Background............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................... 3 Land Degradation Components of Operational Programs ..................................................................... 5 Analysis of Land Degradation Projects .................................................................................................. 9 Analysis of Detailed Project Sample ..................................................................................................... 19 Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 27 Annex A. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 31 Annex B. UNDP Land Degradation Review ...................................................................................... 33 Annex C. Interventions Proposed by the STAP Expert Group ........................................................... 35 Annex D. Assessment of Selected Land Degradation Projects .......................................................... 39 Annex E. Material Consulted ............................................................................................................ 57 Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 Figures ................................................................................................................................................... 68 List of Tables and Figures Table 1 Operational Program Distribution of All Land Degradation Projects ..................................... 59 Table 2 Operational Program Distribution of Projects with a Strong Land Degradation Component...................................................................................................................... 60 Table 3 Geographical Distribution of All Full-Size Land Degradation Projects .................................. 61 Table 4 Geographical Distribution of Full-Size Projects with a Strong Land Degradation Component............................................................................................................. 62 Table 5 Trend in Allocation to Full-Size Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Component ....... 63 Table 6 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects by Phase and Focal Area .............................................. 64 iii Table 7 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects with Strong Land Degradation Component ................. 64 Table 8 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects by Implementing Agency and Phase ............................ 65 Table 9 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects with Strong Land Degradation Component by Implementing Agency and Phase ................................................................................................... 66 Table 10 Location of Full-Size Projects in Biodiversity Focal Area ................................................... 67 Table 11A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects ........................................................................... 68 Table 11B Analysis of Sample Climate Change and International Waters Projects............................. 69 Table 12A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects: Forest/Tree Environmental .............................. 70 Table 12B Analysis of Sample Climate Change and International Waters Projects............................. 71 Table 13A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects: Project Approach ............................................. 72 Table 13B Analysis of Sample Climate Change and International Waters Projects............................. 73 Figure 1 Trend in Number of Full and Medium-Size Land Degradation Projects ............................ 74 Figure 2 Trend in GEF Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects ......................................... 74 Figure 3 Trend in Number of Projects: GEF Entire Portfolio ........................................................... 75 Figure 4 Trend in Financial Allocation: GEF Entire Portfolio .......................................................... 75 Figure 5 Trend in Number of Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area .............................. 76 Figure 6 Trend in GEF Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area .................. 76 Figure 7 Trend in Number of Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Effect .............................. 77 Figure 8 Trend in GEF Allocation to Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Effect................... 77 iv Acknowledgements We would like to thank the many people in the agencies who provided ideas, materials and encouragement for the review team especially: Anna Tengberg, Maryam Niamir-Fuller, Herbert Acquay, Walter Lusigi, Lars Vidaeus, Hassan Mohamed Hassan, Geunter Riethmacher, Christophe Crepin, Colin Rees, Paola Rossi, Jarle Harstad, Ramesh Ramankutty, William Faries, Kristin Elliot, Rohit Khanna, Daya Bragante, Miguel Perez Torralba, and Hideyuki Mori. Finally, thanks to Betty Heaney for help with formatting and word processing. v Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to identify the results and initial impact of the land degradation component of those linkage projects which link biodiversity, international waters and climate change with land degradation. The lessons learned from this review lead to a set of recommendations on how land degradation issues should be addressed in focal area reviews and in subsequent GEF activities. In response to this assignment, a total of 103 land degradation linkage projects were reviewed in a desk analysis. Thirty-five were selected for a more detailed assessment and eight of these chosen for specific review. An attempt was made to identify the degree to which land degradation was being addressed in the projects and 39 of the 103 projects were identified as having a strong land degradation component. Of these, 27 (69 percent) were in the biodiversity focal area, six were in climate change, and six were in international waters. Fourteen of these projects derived from the pilot phase and 25 had been initiated since 1995. However, a statistical trends analysis suggests that allocation to all land degradation linkage projects has decreased since 1997, although a significant number of projects are currently in the agency pipelines. In general, the detailed study of project documents shows that the land degradation component of projects is not as strong as suggested in previous GEF reports, though this desk analysis may not reveal actual field-level actions and priorities. It is clear, however, that the number of land degradation projects and financial allocation to land degradation has not increased in recent years, with the exception of medium-size projects. An initial analysis of this trend suggests some basic causes which have limited land degradation linkage activi- ties. First, project concepts are usually based on focal area activities rather than linkage activities such as land degradation. Second, 69 percent of projects with land degradation linkages are in the biodiversity focal area, and of these 77 percent are located in or near protected conservation areas. Protected areas are not usually regions of highest land degradation concern and project activities in these areas, though obviously important to biodiversity, do not directly impact land management problems or land degradation issues. International waters projects have included land degradation mitigation in some cases, but the specifics have tended to focus on institutional and water pollution aspects rather than land degradation mitigation and catchment management activities. Climate change projects have not in recent years focused much on land degradation because current climate change operational programs are not addressing land management issues, though there seem to be opportunities to ex- pand this linkage with a new operational program. A third reason for the lack of strong land degradation compo- nents has been the difficulty in estimating incremental costs of mitigation activities when the activities are usually providing local as well as global benefits.An attempt to reduce this problem has led to a new operational program with "cost sharing" opportunities. In general, the large majority of current projects identified as land degradation linkage projects have been designed to address the focal areas as a first priority and only in some cases has land degradation mitigation been a priority. vi The analysis of project portfolios was an imperfect mode of project evaluation and did not allow for an assess- ment of project impacts on mitigating land degradation, though this may be addressed in part through the focal areas assessments following this study. The more detailed review of project documents did provide some clear findings: · GEF projects with a strong land degradation component are fewer than previously thought. · While projects containing a strong land degradation component have been allocated about US$278 million by the GEF, the portion that comprises the land degradation component is estimated at US$50 million of the GEF portfolio. · The most effective linkage projects appear to be those where land degradation is built in as an initial compo­ nent of the problem and the solution. · In biodiversity linkage projects, rangeland environments have created the best land degradation/biodiversity synergy. · In international waters projects, land issues, while included, have been generally given less prominence in project implementation. · Projects with a people/land management focus tend to address land degradation issues more directly. In general, the current structure has created significant barriers to building land degradation as a critical compo- nent of the GEF agenda. The situation can be improved within the current structure, but the agencies will need to make a coordinated approach to achieve a stronger portfolio. Recommendations call for possible action within two time frames. First, taking into account Council recommen- dations and guidelines over the past four years and the results of the two STAP workshops, together with the constraints outlined above, it is suggested that GEF explore ways in which land degradation issues of global significance can be dealt with more directly and successfully. This could be addressed in the context of the Second Study of GEF's Overall Performance, which is scheduled to be conducted in 2001. Second, in the meantime, ways can be found to generate an improved focus on land degradation within the current guidelines and constraints. These include continued close coordination between the agencies in the development of a set of guidelines for an ongoing action and an implementation plan and process. Project design issues can be addressed and the facilitation of land degradation approaches can be improved through the use of OP 12--the operational program for intergrated ecosystem management--the Land and Water Initiative, and the forthcoming operational program on agrobiodiversity. vii Background The GEF serves as the financial mechanism for the · Document lessons learned; and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change · Provide recommendations on how land degrada- (UNFCCC). In this function, the GEF receives guid- tion issues should be addressed in the focal area ance from each convention's conference to the parties studies mentioned above. and is accountable to them. The GEF also supports the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat The context for the study is set in the Instrument for Desertification (CCD). the Establishment of the Restructured Global Envi- ronment Facility, the GEF Operational Strategy, and The GEF provides support to activities concerning GEF Operational Programs, which provide the basic land degradation, as they relate to the four GEF focal strategic approach for GEF support to activities con- areas. Given the importance of land degradation to cerning land degradation. Specific activities con- the global environment, and the cross-cutting nature ducted under the study are: of its treatment in the GEF portfolio, the Monitoring and Evaluation team initiated this linkage study on · The identification of projects which contain com- land degradation to feed into ongoing focal area pro- ponents that directly or indirectly address land deg- gram studies. radation issues The overall objective of the study is to identify · A coverage analysis of projects that address whether and how land degradation linkages are being land degradation issues--a classification of the effectively pursued in the land degradation projects projects by type and scope of intervention, focal identified by the implementing agencies in their 1999 area, implementing agency and geographical re- report to Council1 and to assess how these interven- gion (As a guide, the study used the table in tions have contributed to achieving the objectives of GEF/C.3/8, Scope and Operational Strategy for the operational programs in the three focal areas. Land Degradation.)2 Specific objectives are to: · Definition of a sample comprising various catego- · Identify land degradation activities supported by ries of projects that have directly or indirectly ad- the GEF in its portfolio; dressed land degradation and an analysis of: · Identify results and initial impacts of land degra- - Quality of design dation interventions; - Implementation results - Effectiveness of GEF in addressing land degradation issues 1Relevent projects were identified inGEF/C.14/4, An Action Plan for enhancing GEF Support in Land Degradation, November 1999. 2 This document was later published by the GEF Secretariat under the title A Framework of GEF Activities Concerning Land Degradation, 1996. 1 · General findings and conclusions account, the purpose and focus of this report was primarily to examine the land degradation compo- · Recommendations on how land degradation issues nents and linkages. The Report of the STAP Expert should be addressed in the focal area studies of Group Workshop on Land Degradation, Bologna, climate change, biodiversity, and international Italy, 14-16 June 1999 (GEF/C.14/Inf.15, November waters. 16, 1999) and the report on the follow-up to the 1996 STAP Dakar workshop provided a framework for The projects examined were all projects which link identifying the relevant biophysical/socioeconomic land degradation with one of the GEF focal areas. linkages inherent in a land degradation program (see Though the whole project context was taken into Annex C). 2 Project Analysis Methodology To identify and analyze land degradation activities GEF Support, GEF/C.14/4, November 17, 1999 (re- in the GEF portfolio, groups of projects were ex- ferred hereafter as "the Linkage report"). This list amined at varying degrees of detail. A broad statis- was approved by the implementing agencies and by tical overview of the linkage activities and strength Council as projects containing components that ad- of their land degradation components was con- dress land degradation. In addition, the GEF secre- ducted on a group of 103 projects, a qualitative tariat provided to the consultants three lists of 43 analysis was conducted on a sample of 35 of those additional projects that it considered land degradation projects, and finally eight projects were examined in projects. The 43 additional projects from the GEF some detail. From this approach, it was hoped that secretariat's Excel files were generally more recent both a broad overview of GEF projects, as well as an (1999 and 2000, including projects in the pipeline) interpretation of the specific linkage activities, would than those in the Linkage report annex. They also be provided. contained 22 medium-size projects, which were un- der represented in the Linkage report. Thus the The basic dataset from which projects were chosen to dataset includes 103 projects in total from those two analyze GEF's land degradation linkage activities de- sources.3 Two sets of analyses on the database were 4 rives from the list of 60 projects in the Annex B of completed (further details of methodology are in An- Clarifying Linkages Between Land Degradation and nex A). the GEF Focal Areas: An Action Plan for Enhancing 3UNDP and UNEP also provided extensive lists of land degradation projects intheir portfolio to the consultants. These lists included many projects in the pipeline, providing a view of the direction the agencies are taking in regard to land degradation.The projects were not added to the basic database becausse of their preliminary status. The findings of a UNDP analysis of the land degradation projects are discussed in Annex B. 4Land degradation is defined by the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) as "reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, of biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns such as: soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties or soil; and long-term loss of natural vegetation." 3 4 Land Degradation Components of Operational Programs GEF has developed operational programs for a num- form of deforestation and desertification. The GEF ber of topical areas in which land degradation is an will fund pilot activities that prevent deforestation important component. The following concepts from and promote sustainable use and sustainable manage- these operational programs relate most directly to ment of forests and forested areas at risk in order to land degradation (excerpts from GEF Operational conserve their biodiversity. Pilot rehabilitation and Programs, July 1997, and OP 12). restoration activities will be supported on tropical and temperate forest ecosystems in areas at risk (e.g., with Operational Program 1 (Arid and Semi-Arid threatened and/or endangered species and ecosys- Ecosystems) tems). (p 3-9, ibid) Among examples of possible GEF activities are: Operational Program 4 (Mountain Ecosystems) · Soil and water conservation and restoration of de- Among examples of possible GEF activities are: graded areas to conserve biodiversity · Removal of the specific causes of, or threats to, · Natural resources management activities which biodiversity loss in the mountain, e.g., tourism emphasize integrated resource use with conserva- impacts and deforestation (p 4-9 ibid) tionanddevelopment,suchasuseofwaterresources and its distribution in order to spread out grazing · Because of their fragility, mountain ecosystems pressure and prevent vegetation deterioration have suffered severe land degradation. Projects fo- cusing on the conservation of ecosystems and in- · Energy conservation projects that emphasize con- tegrated land use will also naturally alleviate the servation of trees and alternative energy sources problems of land degradation, but there will be to conserve the natural vegetation. (p 1-8, GEF areas which have been degraded to the extent that Operational Programs) they will need rehabilitation and management for sustainability. Components addressing these spe- Operational Program 2 (Coastal, Marine, and cific issues will be developed within both types of Freshwater Ecosystems) GEF activity: conservation and sustainable use. (p 4-10, ibid) Coastal, marine, and freshwater ecosystems suffer the impact, directly or indirectly, of land degradation. Operational Program 5 (Removing Barriers to The GEF will support activities that demonstrate how Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency) to control land degradation effects on these ecosys- tems. (p 2-9, ibid) This operational program contains no specific land degradation wording. Operational Program 3 (Forest Ecosystems) Operational Program 6 (Promoting the Adoption Global and nationally significant forested lands have of Renewable Energy) and are suffering substantial land degradation in the 5 This operational program contains no specific land of land degradation. Especially in dryland regions, degradation wording. land degradation can be linked with changes in cli- mate and river flow regimes and with the overuse of Operational Program 7 (Reducing Costs of Energy water resources by sectoral activities such as agricul- Technologies) ture. This can also result in degraded subsurface wa- ter supplies, some of which have transboundary This operational program contains no specific land implications. Support for preparation of water re- degradation wording. sources management strategies by riparian countries for a transboundary dryland basin is a common char- Operational Program 8 (Water-body Based) acteristic of these projects to provide a basis for har- monization of sectoral water use among basin Among examples of possible GEF activities are: countries in an environmentally sustainable manner. This often requires commitments to reduce water · Cost-sharing of best management practice instal- withdrawals in dryland basins so that the sufficient lation for nonpoint source control of land-based quality and quantity of water are provided to sustain pollution in degraded priority watersheds the waters environment and its ecological diversity. (p 9-5, ibid) · Building a human resources capability to strengthen institutions. Hot spots of transboundary Operational Program 10 (Contaminant-Based) degradation may be targeted for funding if infor- mation is sufficient to characterize the trans- This operational program contains no specific land boundary nature of the problem and the country degradation wording. (or countries) commits to undertaking the needed measures. Single-country versions of Strategic Operational Program 12 (Integrated Ecosystem Action Programs (SAPs) may be appropriate to Management, new) leverage other funding for baseline and additional actions. (p 8-8, ibid) Cross-sectoral projects that address ecosystem man- agement in a way that optimizes ecosystem ser- Operational Program 9 (Integrated Land and vices--ecological, social, and economic--make up Water Multiple Focal Area) this operational program. These services encompass biodiversity, carbon sequestration, land and water A special linkage exists between land degradation in conservation, food production, sustainable liveli- dryland areas and management of both surface and hoods, and the production of marketable goods and groundwater resources in transboundary drainage ba- services. The operational program is not aimed at sins. Rehabilitation of damaged catchments, adoption addressing natural resource management issues re- of sustainable land use systems, and integration of lated to a single GEF focal area, but at bringing water resources management and land management synergy between three of the GEF focal areas (i.e., practices are priorities for both transboundary basins biological diversity, climate change, and interna- and ecologically important multiple country dryland tional waters) and land degradation to optimize mul- settings. Opportunities will be sought for deriving tiple benefits. It complements GEF's existing global environmental benefits in other focal areas operational programs by providing opportunities to such as climate change and biodiversity, with sound address issues related to the conservation and sustain- water resources management measures and reveg- able use of biodiversity, land degradation, manage- etation initiatives being important elements of in- ment of water bodies, and/or stabilization of ternational waters projects that address this atmospheric greenhouse gases through a program- cross-cutting issue. matic approach and within the context of sustainable development. It also provides opportunities for shar- Improved watershed and catchment management, ing the costs of land degradation mitigation activities sustainable land-use and conservation systems, as (p 1 Operational Program #12, and GEF website) well as sound sectoral development and economic policies are essential to addressing transboundary The Council recently reviewed Draft Elements of an water-related environmental concerns in the context Operational Program for Reducing and Eliminating 6 Releases of Persistent Organic Pollutants into the dation projects according to operational program. In Environment (GEF/C.16.6) and recommended that considering all the projects in the land degradation the GEF Secretariat continue to develop the draft. database, 19 percent are in Arid and Semi-Arid Eco- The potential of activities under this operational pro- systems (OP 1). Both Forests (OP 3) and Renewable gram to address land degradation would be in the Energy (OP 6) have about 15 percent each, and OP 2 remediation of contaminated sites. (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater) and OP 4 (Moun- tains) have 12 percent each. When only strong land Another draft operational program with strong poten- degradation component projects are considered, a tial for land degradation linkages is being developed higher proportion are in the biodiversity operational for agro-biodiversity. This program could strengthen programs. OP 1 and OP 3 have 23 percent each, and management practices in cropping and herding areas OPs 2 and 4 have 10 percent each. to promote diverse crop, forage, and domestic animal species through development of sustainable and eco- The focus on land degradation/desertification in Af- nomic land use systems. rica led to 11 of the 15 projects of OP 1 being located in Africa, whereas projects in the other biodiversity Summary operational programs are more evenly distributed throughout the globe. Tables 1 and 2 indicate the distribution of all projects in the sample and of the subset of strong land degra- 7 8 Analysis of Land Degradation Projects Statistical Analysis of All Land Degradation General Comments Projects (Tables 3­7 and Figures 1­6) The land degradation linkage activities of the climate As described in Annex A, a statistical analysis of the change projects are primarily related to providing 80 full-size projects was conducted. Tables 3­7 and alternative energy and improved efficiency (most of Figures 1­6 summarize this analysis. the projects are energy technology-oriented). Those with a strong land degradation component have link- Distribution age activities of tree plantations, sustainable forest harvesting, improved grazing practices, and reduc- Of the 58 full-size projects in Annex B of the Linkage tion of bush or forest fires. report projects and files and the 22 additional full-size projects in Land Degradation project files of the Sec- The international waters projects with a strong land retariat, 60 percent are in the biodiversity focal area, degradation component are directed to improve wa- 28 percent are in the climate change area, and 12 tershed management through prevention of deforesta- percent are in international waters (see Tables 5, 6, tion, land use zoning, and/or soil conservation and 7). Due to land management activities being techniques as well as improving relevant organiza- more frequent in the biodiversity and international tional and administrative structures. waters projects, a high percentage--56 percent--of the biodiversity projects and 60 percent of the inter- The large majority of biodiversity projects in the land national waters projects were labeled as having degradation portfolio--79 percent--are located in "strong" land degradation components. Twenty- and around protected areas, often in locations of high seven percent of the climate change projects were global biodiversity significance and with intact eco- considered to have strong land degradation compo- systems (Table 10). Most are, therefore, by design not nents. located in areas with severe land degradation. Com- mon objectives of these projects are the improvement Around 46 percent of the land degradation projects of management in the protected areas, and reduction are in Africa, with 21 percent in Asia, 19 percent in of threats to the biodiversity in and surrounding those Latin America, and a few in the Middle East, East and areas. The buffer zones are thus a frequent focus of Central Europe, and global (Tables 3 and 4). A high project activity, especially activities to prevent the proportion of the projects in Africa were considered local population's agricultural or hunting encroach- to have a strong land degradation component, so ment into the protected areas and activities to enhance when only strong land degradation projects are con- natural area regeneration near the protected areas. sidered, Africa has just over half of the projects. Many of those are in the biodiversity focal area. Of all The most common land degradation linkage activities the strong land degradation projects, around one-third are biodiversity projects in Africa. 9 of these projects are (in order of frequency) rehabili- Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Effect tating habitat in the protected areas, improving pro- tected area management, and reducing pressure in the The bar charts (Figures 1, 2, and 5-8) include all the buffer zones. Examples of efforts to reduce pressure projects in the database except those projects that had are land use planning or zonation (e.g., to permit little apparent land degradation effect. The pattern of harvesting of certain wild resources in selected proportion of "strong" land degradation projects to all zones), alternative income generation projects, and projects has remained relatively steady, at around half employment generation in the protected area. of the projects. The land degradation linkage activities of The trend in the total number of projects, however, biodiversity projects thus commonly respond to the has been very irregular. There were around ten "biological complexity" aspect of the land degrada- projects per year during the pilot stage, which tion definition in the CCD. Using this definition, 56 dropped to very few during the transition. During the percent of the biodiversity projects are considered to current phase, the number rose to a peak of eleven in have a strong land degradation component because of 1997, but since has declined precipitously. The de- their activities to rehabilitate habitat or to reduce land cline is especially apparent in projects with a strong pressure in the surrounding agricultural or pastoral land degradation component. systems. The remaining projects are oriented toward prevention more than mitigation, and protected area The financial allocation to land degradation projects management is their usual linkage activity. These reflects the trend in the number of projects, except projects were placed into the "potential land degrada- that the pilot phase projects were apparently smaller tion effects through prevention" category. than those in the current phase. A few very large projects with indirect land degradation effects in Biodiversity projects not located in protected areas 1999 raised that year's total. include agrobiodiversity projects and those address- ing in situ natural biodiversity outside protected ar- The reason for the decline in land degradation eas. Of the agrobiodiversity projects, those with projects following the pilot phase is unclear, espe- strong land degradation components promote soil and cially because of land degradation being included in water conservation, and improvement of soil and land the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restruc- management to enhance both domesticated and wild tured GEF in 1995, and the Council's approval of crop species diversity. Activities of projects address- the operational strategy for land degradation in ing natural biodiversity outside protected areas in- 1997. The decline could be linked to the weakening clude improving agro-pastoral system land use (such of support for carbon sequestration projects, and/or as transhumance patterns), and controlling bush or the uncertainty of GEF eligibility for land manage- forest fires. ment activities with a strong degradation component and a less obvious global biodiversity or other focal Trends area component. A trends analysis was conducted using a database This downward trend in land degradation linkage constructed of all of the full-size projects in Annex B projects can be compared to trends in the wider GEF of the Linkage report (N=58) and the full-size portfolio (Figures 3 and 4). The number of and alloca- projects in GEF secretariat files of land degradation tion to all GEF projects has fairly steadily increased projects given to the consultants (an additional 22, in since 1991 with a dip before the current phase started. total N=80). The rise in allocation has been especially marked since 1998 (it is expected that the number and alloca- The results of the analysis are presented in a table tion for 2000 will increase when totals are available (Table 3) and bar charts (Figures 1 to 8). In addition for that year). The number of medium-size projects has to analyses of the entire database, some analyses were increased dramatically since their initiation in 1998 restricted to those 35 projects that were deemed to and, in 2000, they outnumbered the full-size projects. have a strong land degradation component. Please see Annex A for explanation of how the projects were The decline in the number of and allocation to land categorized according to strength of their land degra- degradation linkage projects thus cannot be explained dation components. by trends in the wider GEF portfolio. 10 Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area Analysis as an Approach for Investigating (Tables 5, 6,7 - Figures 5,6) Biodiversity Loss and Land Degradation project in East Africa, and the Conservation of Globally Signifi- The trend in strong land degradation projects mirrors cant Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes those of all land degradation projects: relatively nu- Through Conservation Farming in South Africa merous during the pilot phase, a drop during the project. transition followed by a renewal and peak in 1997, and then a drop in numbers and allocation to land Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects by degradation. Biodiversity projects dominate the Implementing Agency strong land degradation project portfolio. Trends in all land degradation projects thus reflect changes in Because some projects are now implemented by more the number of land degradation biodiversity projects. than one agency, this complicates meaningful analy- The dominance of biodiversity has increased since sis of annual allocation to strong land degradation 1996, when the number of climate change projects projects by implementing agency. Comparing the pi- with a strong land degradation component (for ex- lot phase to the current phase, however, an important ample, for carbon sequestration or sustainable change has been an increase in the participation by fuelwood harvesting) declined. The number and allo- UNEP, though still small compared to the World cation to international waters projects with strong Bank and UNDP, and the development of projects degradation components has been small, but has not with multiple implementing agencies (four of the 25 changed. The financial allocation trends to interna- projects during the current phase). (See Tables 8 and tional waters projects appears erratic because the few 9.) IW projects in the portfolio are very large. UNDP has implemented more strong land degrada- Full and Medium-Size Strong Land tion projects than the World Bank, with the UNDP Degradation Projects proportion growing larger following the pilot phase. During the current phase, UNDP has implemented When medium-size projects (MSPs) are added to the twice as many strong land degradation projects as the trend analysis (2 projects from Annex B of the Link- Bank (particularly biodiversity projects). The finan- age report and 22 from the secretariat files), the sharp cial allocation per project has been larger in World decline in the number of strong land degradation Bank projects, however, so the difference between projects is modified. It appears that it has been easier the two agencies in financial allocation is less pro- for MSPs with a strong land degradation component nounced. to be accepted into the GEF system than for full-size projects. Indeed, the number of medium-size land Pipeline of Land Degradation Projects degradation projects surpassed the number of full- size land degradation projects in 1999. The decline in UNEP, UNDP, and the World Bank sent the consult- the annual financial allocation to strong degradation ants Excel files of projects in the pipeline that they projects, however, is not offset when MSPs are in- considered land degradation projects. The UNEP cluded in the analysis. MSPs did not substitute for the pipeline (in PDF or concept stage) included 19 full- level of activity of full-size projects. size projects, two MSPs, and 3 new enabling activity projects. It includes frequent usage of OP 12, as well The reason for the high number of MSPs may be due as four projects addressing POPs (persistent organic to less stringent GEF eligibility requirements or due pollutants) as OP 10 projects. Many of the remaining to the relative ease of participation by NGOs, univer- projects are in OP 1 and address issues such as soil sities, and other organizations with an interest in land erosion, below-ground biodiversity, grazing, and in- management and sustainable use issues. Some of the tegrated sustainable use. MSPs have promise to provide significant informa- tional and programmatic contributions to GEF's land The World Bank's list of "pending" projects con- degradation program. These include the Arid and sisted of 19 full and 14 medium-size projects. Ap- Semi-Arid Ecosystem Conservation in the Caucasus proximately half are conservation-focused, and the project, the Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems other half mention integrated natural resources man- project in Latin America, the Land Use Change agement or another reference to community activity 11 in their titles. One full-size project appears to be below, organized by land use practices, forest/tree- located in a farming area and several are in range- related activities, project approaches, and environ- lands, and one medium-size project is addressing car- mental quality issues (see Tables 11 to 13, p ). bon sequestration and one agro-biodiversity. Land Use Practices UNDP's pipeline (PDF or concept stage) was large. It included approximately 20 projects at the concept Improvement of Cropping Practices to Prevent or note stage, 79 full-size projects with PDFs, and 18 Mitigate Land Degradation medium-size projects with PDFs. Most are in the biodiversity focal area, but some are climate change Few projects have a strong element of improving the projects with tree plantations and several are in inter- cropping system to reduce land degradation. Close to national waters. half of the biodiversity projects have no or weak approaches to improving the cropping system. This The number of projects in the pipeline is encourag- weakness is surprising since agriculture is frequently ing, though all the projects might not have equally described as the major threat to biodiversity conser- strong land degradation components. The use of the vation, especially agricultural expansion. This illus- new operational programs, the frequency of mention trates a major difference between projects whose in the titles of "integrated" activities or "sustainable fundamental objective is biodiversity conservation, use," and the direct addressing of land degradation is and those with an important land degradation objec- especially encouraging. The uncertainty of success of tive. Only selected projects (Alternatives to Slash and the project proposals, and the extended length of time Burn; People, Land Management, and Environmen- required before project implementation, however, tal Change [PLEC]; Integrated Watershed Manage- tempers our ability to predict a resurgence of land ment Program for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay degradation mitigation activity in GEF projects. River Basin [the Pantanal] are using the mitigation of land degradation within the cropping system to Findings from the Sample of Projects: Meeting reduce the pressure of agricultural expansion, and Guidelines (Tables 11, 12, 13) thus the threat to biodiversity. A higher percentage of the few international waters projects in the sample are Thirty-five projects were chosen as a sample from the planning to address this topic, especially erosion in Linkage report's Annex B for more detailed analysis. the cropping areas. Project briefs and any other materials available in the secretariat were examined for the projects' strength in Improvement of Herding Practices to Prevent or addressing linkage activity variables defined in land Mitigate Land Degradation degradation guidelines. The land degradation criteria examined emanate from linkage activities mentioned Surprisingly, more projects are strongly addressing in the table "Activities in the Interface Between Land land degradation aspects of herding systems than of Degradation and GEF Focal Areas" of the Linkage cropping systems. Most of these projects are in the report, the priority linkage activities listed in the Fol- OP 1 biodiversity focal area, with one climate change low Up to the Recommendations of the Dakar Work- pilot phase project for carbon sequestration in the shop (1997), and from Articles of the CCD. The rangelands of Sudan. One reason for this relative criteria mirror interventions proposed in the STAP Ex- strength could be that GEF is more willing to support pert Workshop on Land Degradation in Bologna in land degradation mitigation in rangelands than in 1999 (GEF/C.14/Inf.15) (see excerpts in Annex C). cropping areas because the wild plant and animal species in rangelands are more visibly affected by The sample was not completely random (approxi- land degradation. Protected areas are also less of a mately half were chosen randomly and half chosen to solution to biodiversity conservation in rangelands. complement the types of projects and their linkage Examples of projects with a strong land degradation activities). In addition, three recent projects not of the mitigation herding component include Management Linkage report were included. The sample does not of Indigenous Vegetation, Reducing Biodiversity Loss thus allow for valid statistical analysis, but was in- at Cross-Border Sites in East Africa, Ecosystem Con- tended to provide examples of a variety of project servation in the Caucasus of Georgia, and activities. A summary of the findings is presented Tranhumance for Biodiversity in Morocco. 12 Addressing herding practices, including transhu- Fire Control mance, includes the identification and promotion of alternative patterns of grazing, and thus necessitates Similar to carbon sequestration, and reducing dust addressing land tenure and social issues and policy and albedo, fire control is a potentially strong linkage barriers. Development of such an approach for im- activity between land degradation and climate change proved land management outside of protected areas is due to its enormous impact on carbon sequestration complex and requires a commitment of time and re- and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical areas--a sources for effective targeted biophysical and socio- true global environmental impact. Fire control also economic research, and for the successful has important benefits for biodiversity, in both range- implementation of the proposed practices. This is an lands and humid areas. Indeed, several OP 1 area that may grow in importance with the possibility biodiversity projects mention the importance of pre- of carbon sequestration projects in OP 12. venting the use of fire to improve biodiversity conser- vation and reduce land degradation, and two projects Soil and Water Conservation have a strong fire control components. This activity, a vital land degradation mitigation prac- Alternatives to Slash and Burn II (ASB) is the only tice, is rare in GEF's land degradation project portfo- climate change project addressing the use of fire, and lio. Several OP 1 biodiversity projects mention the it is devoted to finding alternative land management positive impact vegetative restoration will have on options for farmers and herders in the humid tropics reducing soil erosion, but PLEC is the only now dependent on fire. It also has a strong research biodiversity project with an active soil and water component examining the impact of fire on the result- conservation component. The PLEC brief described ant landscape from a biodiversity, carbon sequestra- it as part of a wider sustainable land management tion and productivity standpoint. Other than ASB, activity to ensure agrobiodiversity conservation. De- climate change projects are extremely weak in this spite its obvious importance, other agrobiodiversity area, particularly in light of importance placed on the projects do not have a strong soil and water conserva- impact of fire on greenhouse gas emissions by the tion component, perhaps because of concerns with climate change community. GEF eligibility requirements. Soil and water conser- vation practices are a key element of successful agri- Watershed Catchment Management cultural intensification, a goal that buffer zone projects might choose to reduce the pressure for agri- This is an important and strong land degradation link- cultural extensification. age activity with international waters, and with poten- tial to affect biodiversity. All the International Waters Despite the obvious importance of controlling ero- projects in the sample had catchment management sion to international waters projects, a strong soil components described in their brief. The actual ac- conservation component is described in only one tivities to be implemented, however, were not well project's brief (the Pantanal project; this may be a described so their land degradation linkage can only field activity in other projects, but it was not men- be surmised as being strong. Several biodiversity tioned in their briefs). Similarly, only the pilot phase projects, however, were also planning watershed climate change project in Sudan had a strong soil management as part of a wider improved land man- conservation program, designed to reduce dust in the agement program, including wetlands' plant and ani- atmosphere affecting climate change. mal species habitat conservation. The weakness of soil and water conservation activi- Habitat Restoration ties in GEF projects may be tied to GEF eligibility requirements; GEF does not support activities with Biodiversity projects with strong land degradation primarily local or national benefits. This is an ex- linkages to habitat restoration were planning to re- ample of how this requirement restricts land degrada- store wide areas of degraded land. Most of these tion mitigation activities, even when they have an projects are located in rangelands. An exception is important role in addressing the focal areas. the Mauritius Restoration of Highly Degraded Na- tive Forests located in a protected area that has no nearby human population. Two climate change 13 projects, ASB and the Community-Based Rangeland Forestry/Tree-Related Components Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration project in Sudan, also have strong habitat restoration/land deg- Fuelwood Collection, Sustainable radation components. Forest Harvesting Reduce Land Use Intensity/Remove Land Despite the role ascribed to unsustainable fuelwood from Production collection for desertification and for degradation of habitat, few "land degradation" projects have a strong These are common objectives in both protected area fuelwood collection or sustainable forest harvesting biodiversity projects and those outside protected ar- components. Those that do include projects in eas. The assumption is that by reducing human use of biodiversity (two) and in climate change (three). The the land, it will allow regeneration or reversion to a lack of strong projects in this area may be due to the more natural state, promoting biodiversity. The link- current emphasis on protected areas in biodiversity, age with land degradation can be strong, as for ex- and on alternative energy techniques in climate ample in rangelands when high concentrations of change. This would seem to be an activity providing domestic animals result in over-grazing and a reduc- useful, multi-focal area benefits in climate change, tion in animal density would mitigate degradation. biodiversity, and land degradation. The same principal is being applied to cropped land Fuelwood Use Conservation near protected areas (where land degradation is not necessarily a threat). Common plans in these projects Reducing the demand for fuelwood, and thus reduc- are to restrict or remove from cropping selected areas ing fuelwood harvesting from natural areas, would or prevent future agricultural expansion. seem to be an important activity to reduce land degra- dation (especially in semi-arid areas), promote Reduction of land use intensity and removing land biodiversity, and contribute to energy efficiency. from production will usually reduce the economic Three energy-related projects do have a fuelwood productivity of the land for the local community, thus conservation component, two from the pilot phase moving in the opposite direction of mitigating degra- and one more recent (the Senegal Sustainable and dation according to the CCD definition of degrada- Participatory Energy Management project). All three tion. It also works against poverty alleviation. projects are located in the Sahel and are promoting Without sufficiently increasing productivity in other fuel efficient stoves. The potential of some of the areas for the same community members, the success other energy projects to reduce fuelwood cutting by, of this approach for biodiversity may be short-lived. for example, introducing solar energy, is less clear Profitable agricultural intensification approaches and because of the question of whether the solar energy improved land use systems would appear to be a would replace fuelwood for cooking and heating. necessary complement. Agroforestry Land Use Planning Few projects are strongly promoting tree planting by Land use planning is a very common activity of communities for biodiversity conservation, water- biodiversity projects, with the goal often being to shed management, or carbon sequestration. The rea- develop a zonation system--to identify the location son for this could be the lack of projects working in of multiple-use areas and restricted areas. Some human-dominated landscapes. However, as for sus- projects use geographic information systems (GIS) to tainable forest harvesting, agroforestry would seem aid in this effort. Similarly, international waters to be an important potential activity in GEF multi- projects conduct land use planning as part of water- focal area projects. shed management. This activity has important land degradation links, in that land use planning is key to Deforestation/De-vegetation improved land management and mitigation of degra- dation. Many GEF projects are addressing deforestation, es- pecially for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity 14 projects addressing deforestation tend to be located in nities in the planning and enforcement of land zoning and around protected areas, and important activities rules. Many such participatory activities in protected to reduce deforestation include land use zonation, area biodiversity projects are designed to restrict protected area management, and reduction of pres- communities' access to land and other resources, sure in buffer zones. Those projects with plans for while generating alternative livelihood opportunities. proactive components to change current land use pat- The climate change and international waters projects terns and reduce deforestation rates were rated as tend to have fewer activities related to community having a "strong" deforestation component, while involvement or participation. those with plans for preventive action were rated as having a "medium" or "weak" deforestation compo- Capacity Building nent (but strong preventive component). Many biodiversity projects have a strong preventive ele- In general, capacity building specifically for land ment for around protected areas, but are not attempt- degradation tends to be at a low level and to focus on ing to address the causes and current rates of technical training. Only a small percent of the deforestation or de-vegetation. projects were judged to be "strong" in this category. In biodiversity projects, for example, capacity build- Four climate change projects in the sample were ing commonly includes training forest guards or planning to address deforestation or de-vegetation, project personnel in administration or how to conduct three in semi-arid areas and one in humid areas. species inventories. In only a few pilot phase projects Considering the importance placed on widespread is higher level training being provided (such as gradu- deforestation and de-vegetation by the climate ate degrees). No project had land degradation specifi- change community due to carbon sequestration and cally defined as a topic of capacity building. greenhouse gas emissions, there is a scarcity of Discussion with the agencies suggests that, in prac- projects in GEF's climate change portfolio address- tice, capacity building may be a stronger component ing widespread deforestation in humid areas and de- than it appears in the project briefs. vegetation in drylands. Information Collection and Exchange Tree Plantations The projects were stronger in information collection Plantations were being planned in all focal areas for and exchange than in capacity building: 34 percent different purposes--to provide fuelwood and thus were rated as being "strong." The biodiversity reduce threats to biodiversity in forests (Ghana), for projects frequently planned activities to conduct spe- watershed management (Lake Victoria), to produce cies inventories, and some are using GIS for land use biomass for a power generator (Brazil), and for car- planning and other activities. Surprisingly few are bon sequestration and fuelwood production (Sudan). using remotely sensed imagery to examine ecosystem The number of projects planning plantations, how- distribution or fragmentation, or changes in habitat or ever, is small, perhaps due to the requirement to find a land cover. The data collection in some international sufficiently sized parcel of land that could be devoted waters projects is often focused on water variables to a global environmental good. The importance of themselves, with only a few interested in collecting their impact on either preventing or mitigating land data on changing land cover or other land degradation degradation depends on the degradation status of the related problems. Only two project briefs mentioned land on which they would be placed. collecting soil or other specific land degradation data (PLEC and ASB). Similarly, collection of socioeco- Project Approaches nomic data is weak (see below). Participatory Targeted Research on Biophysical Aspects of Land Degradation The biodiversity focal area projects were especially strong in using participatory methods; 40 percent Biophysical research in biodiversity projects is often were judged to be strong in this category, usually limited to conducting species inventories as baseline where projects featured active buffer zone activities. data. There are few projects conducting research into These activities typically included involving commu- ecosystem dynamics or interaction between species 15 and environmental or socioeconomic variables, and ties, or the policy objectives of their activities. In few examining change (using monitoring systems, biodiversity projects, policy tends to be limited to comparing sites, older data, etc.). Missing is research expanding or strengthening protected areas without to establish the interaction between land degradation addressing proximate or root causes of biodiversity and the focal areas, resulting in weak understanding loss. Similarly, the international waters project briefs of the impact of degradation on the focal areas, and of do not mention the policy implications of sediment or how to develop effective land degradation linkage pollution-causing land uses. Since the roots of land projects. degradation problems are often associated with eco- nomic or policy issues, this lacuna is especially im- Targeted Research on Socioeconomic Aspects of portant for degradation mitigation. Land Degradation Integrating Indigenous Knowledge into Socioeconomic research is, with only a few excep- Technical Approaches tions, based on the participatory rapid appraisals of selected communities. In approximately five projects, The CCD, the Dakar workshop, and the Bologna household level information is being collected (for workshop summaries emphasized the importance of example, to examine the impact of wealth differences integrating indigenous knowledge into the develop- on resource management); and in fewer projects are ment of techniques and project approaches. Approxi- socioeconomic variables at levels higher than a com- mately one-quarter of the biodiversity and munity being analyzed. One project brief mentioned international waters projects had strong elements of that markets and other relevant economic information this written into their briefs, all operating in Africa would be collected, and one mentioned examining the and with strong community and land management impact of past policies. This situation limits under- components. Other project briefs, especially those standing and ability to address the underlying causes outside of Africa, rarely mentioned this approach. of biodiversity loss or land degradation processes occurring, restricting the formation of effective reme- Generation of Alternative Livelihood Income dial actions or policy recommendations. This activity is often developed for the population in Addressing Underlying Causes of Land Degradation buffer zones who will be affected by loss of access to land and resources with the implementation of a pro- The CCD listed examples of root, or underlying, tected area management project, and/or who will be causes of desertification that need to be addressed asked to participate in management of the area. In including human migration and rapid human popula- some projects, such as the Bwindi Impenetrable Na- tion growth. To these can be added those described in tional Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park many project briefs: land tenure changes, changes in project in Uganda, the project planned to provide land policy, and economic transformation. Despite funds in the form of grants to communities, but in these causes and their impact on the focal area and most cases projects plan to create small, environmen- land degradation being described in the briefs, tally friendly, income generating projects such as projects are not fully addressing the root causes. Ap- handicrafts or beekeeping, or provide employment to proximately 17 percent of the projects were rated as community members as, for example, park guides. "medium," meaning that they may not have been The sustainability of these activities beyond the addressing the root causes directly, but were address- length of the GEF project is often questionable. Their ing some aspect of the socioeconomic processes oc- role in land degradation mitigation can be indirect, by curring (such as the land tenure situation affecting supplying a reason to desist from land degradation, transhumance patterns, or policy influencing land use and can be direct, such as the Uganda project that was change). This variable is the least well addressed by planning to fund soil conservation activities. the projects. Environmental Quality Issues Enabling Land Degradation Mitigation Policy Reducing Dust in the Atmosphere; Albedo In general, the project briefs do not clearly describe the potential for policy implications of their activi- The CCD and the Dakar workshop described the 16 linkage between land degradation and climate change consensus has not yet been formed, but both the CCD due to degraded land producing dust and increasing and the Dakar workshop called for strong activities to albedo. Nevertheless, GEF has not recently supported bolster carbon storage in soils by reducing land deg- projects that address this well-established land degra- radation. Of the projects in the sample, only three dation/climate change linkage. Of the projects in the mentioned the potential positive impact their activi- sample, only the pilot phase Sudan project had a strong ties will have in this regard (all three proposing to planned component to reduce dust. The Alternatives to contribute to sequestration by mitigating land degra- Slash and Burn (ASB) project was the only current dation), and only the ASB project had a research GEF phase project to mention controlling dust, and it activity to examine carbon in the soil. This weakness was the only land management project in the sample in GEF projects may be tied to the lack of an that had a greenhouse gas emissions component (tar- oprerational program devoted to carbon sequestration geted research and land management activities). and the uncertain nature of carbon sequestration ac- tivities meeting GEF eligibility requirements. Promoting Carbon Sequestration in Soils The relative importance of soils for carbon sequestra- tion is an important topic of research, and scientific 17 18 Analysis of Detailed Project Sample A more detailed assessment of eight strong land degradation projects was made to examine some of the design and linkage issues in a range of different projects. The projects examined were: Title Agency Status FA Linkage Goals Alternatives to Slash and Burn UNDP Complete Climatic Change Develop land management & (ASB) Biodiversity technologies to prevent deforestation People, Land Management and UNEP Phase II Biodiversity Environmentally sustainable Environmental Change (PLEC) models of agrodiversity Biodiversity Conservation and UNDP Phase II Biodiversity Protection of biodiversity Sustainable Livelihood Options in sustainable use of the Grasslands grasslands Indicator Model for Dryland UNEP MSP Biodiversity Develop indicators of land Ecosystems in Latin America degradation and biodiversity status Pollution Control and Other UNDP Near Biodiversity/Intern- To assess biodiversity and Missions to Protect Biodiversity in Complete ational Waters develop measures to improve Lake Tanganyika lake systems Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem UNDP MSP Biodiversity Improve land use and control Conservation in the Caucasus loss of biodiversity in grazing lands Natural Resources Management WB In Biodiversity Improve forest management in Ghana Implement- in a tropical forest ation Integrated Watershed UNEP In International Develop structures to Management Program for the Implement- Waters/Biodiversity improve management of Pantanal and Upper Paraguay ation critical international waters in Rivers high biodiversity area 19 These eight projects5 provide a sample of well- The indicator model for dryland ecosystems is still directed activities that link land degradation with in an early stage, but the project also addresses the one or more of the focal areas. The following land degradation/biodiversity loss linkage up front design characteristics link these projects: and has good potential for addressing problem iden- tification, root causes, and response through multiple · Land degradation is a component of the initial scale models. problem statement. Grassland Issues · The linkage between land degradation and the re- spective focal areas is well defined. Two of the selected projects deal with grassland is- sues in very different locations (Mongolia and · Project objectives include dealing with land deg- Caucasus). In both projects, the links between radation either directly by land use changes or in- biodiversity and land degradation are well established directly through development of appropriate ad- and a major effort is made to include the participation ministrative or institutional structures. of the local community. In each project, there is a direct causal link between land degradation and the Global or Regional drop in biodiversity, and the project objectives in- clude land use management plans that will improve Three of the projects--ASB, PLEC, and Indicator both biodiversity and land quality. The Mongolia Model--attempt a regional or global approach to project is more typical of biodiversity linkage identifying land degradation problems and mitigation projects in that it deals with land use management approaches. They also are the projects which most around a conservation area. The Caucasus project is directly address root causes. The two global projects, innovative in that it deals with soil degradation and ASB and PLEC, appear to be well directed in terms of biodiversity loss as a package. In the attempted solu- land degradation issues, but almost inevitably the tions, the mix of approaches includes incentives to difficulties of dealing with a number of sites in differ- return to traditional grazing patterns and a economic ent continents has created challenges in promoting a incentive to conserve faunal biodiversity by estab- common approach. PLEC has a relatively small ad- lishing zones of conservation and use that range from ministrative set-up and devolved project manage- a licensed hunting zone to a total preserve zone. ment, allowing each site to develop an individualized approach. This helps enable an integrated field ap- Humid Forest Ecosystems proach when management is good, but in other cases can create difficulties in global comparisons. The The Natural Resources Management project in focus on land degradation in the project is therefore Ghana is an example of a project attached to a major uneven, and a mid-term evaluation suggests that a World Bank loan package so that the incremental cost soil conservation component in Ghana was a misdi- issues are a relatively well-defined component com- rection of resources. pared with some other land degradation projects. ASB is directly focused on a land degradation topic: The core loan project is designed to provide a change developing sustainable land management options to in the use of the humid tropical forest resources of forest burning. Despite criticism of a slow start, it has southwest Ghana from low return management to a looked productively at land management/carbon se- less exploitive but higher value-added system. The questration linkages, and developed land use options biodiversity/land degradation GEF component adds a that reduce land degradation. As our notes suggest, series of institution/capacity building and land con- this work requires high-quality targeted research to servation components to the set of activities. Some- be effective. Also, policy and economic structures what in the same model as the Caucasus project, the dealing with land use are as, or more, important than goal is to provide income incentives to local people technological issues. and governments while reducing land degradation and biodiversity loss. This linkage is a good model for other projects and seems particularly appropriate 5Project descriptions are found in Annex D. to World Bank projects. 20 International Waters source. A follow-up project is being prepared, and the management structures are now in place to begin to The remaining projects in the sample are linkage move forward on the land degradation component. projects with international waters, though biodiversity is also a strong component. Although The Integrated Watershed Management Program for one is UNDP and the other UNEP, the goals and the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay project has a simi- objectives are similar. lar set of goals--to preserve the biodiversity of a unique ecosystem. In this case too, inappropriate land The UNDP project on Lake Tanganyika (Pollution use in the catchment areas is causing a major increase Control and Other Missions to Protect Biodiversity in in sediment flow and downstream sedimentation and Lake Tanganyika) was started in GEF's pilot phase hydrologic change. So land degradation is a direct and grew into a full size project in 1995. The initial component of the project. At this stage of the activity, goal was to assess the unique and remarkable attention is being directed to institutional structures biodiversity of this important lake and to assess and and management components, but some 20 percent of ameliorate threats to this biodiversity. Among the the budget is directed to land degradation activities. threats are localized pollution on the lake shores and major increased sediment on the western shore due to It seems axiomatic that most international waters inappropriate land use in catchment areas. Although projects dealing with lakes and rivers need to be this project resulted in a detailed analysis of the sedi- treated as land/water projects and that in the process ment issues at the lake level, security and other prob- these two components should be linked all the way lems have not allowed this threat to be dealt with at its from project concept to project completion. 21 22 Findings Role of Land Degradation in the GEF Portfolio There is a significant number of projects in the pipe- line; history though shows that translation from pipe- Over the past few years, GEF has addressed the issue line to project is far from sure. of land degradation linkage with a number of Council recommendations and guidelines and two important Constraints STAP workshops in Dakar (1996) and Bologna (1999). In response, the current GEF portfolio con- Given that land degradation is addressed through tains a substantial number of land degradation link- linkages to the four focal areas, there appear to be age projects, as identified by the agencies and the constraints in the degree to which land degradation GEF secretariat. These projects form the core of this problems can be directly addressed. An initial analy- study; however, the formal commitment by GEF to sis suggests some basic constraints which have lim- this linkage activity was somewhat later than to the ited land degradation linkage activities. First, project focal areas so the impact of this linkage might have concepts are usually based on focal area activities been slow to develop. rather than linkage activities such as land degrada- tion. Second, 69 percent of projects with land degra- In our analysis, there seems to be a significant gap dation linkages are in the biodiversity focal area, and, between the apparent strength and the reality of land of these, 77 percent are located in or near protected degradation activities in the projects analyzed. Of the conservation areas. Protected areas are not usually projects analyzed, whether in the Linkage report or regions of highest land degradation concern; project the wider database, only about 50 percent are judged activities in these areas, though obviously important to have a strong land degradation component. to biodiversity, do not directly impact land manage- ment problems or land degradation issues. Interna- According to our analysis, there has been a decrease tional waters projects have included land degradation in full-size land degradation projects in recent years mitigation in some cases, but the specifics have with no increase in funds allocated to land degrada- tended to focus on the institutional and water pollu- tion projects in those years. However, there has been tion aspects of the problem rather than land degrada- a significant increase in medium-size projects with a tion mitigation and catchment management activities. land degradation component. Climate change projects have not in recent years fo- cused much on land degradation because the climate The land degradation component of all the projects change operational programs do not address land analyzed in the database is estimated at around $50 management issues, though there seem to be opportu- million over the life of GEF. The total budget of nities to expand this linkage with a new operational projects with a strong land degradation component is program (OP 12). $278 million.6 6 This is an estimate from the proportion of direct and indirect land degradation activities in the project design. 23 Another reason for the lack of strong land degrada- The impact of climate change projects in land degra- tion components has been the difficulty in estimating dation is mostly indirect. Other climate change/land incremental costs of mitigation activities when the degradation linkages such as dust, albedo, and carbon activities are usually providing local as well as global sequestration have not been well addressed. How- benefits. This difficulty of land degradation mitiga- ever, there are good possibilities of direct impact in tion activities meetings the proof of incrementality the future through carbon sequestration activities, was illustrated in Pagiola (1999). Again, an attempt to particularly through OP 12. reduce this problem has led to a new operational program (OP 12) with "cost sharing" opportunities. As the analysis of relatively strong projects shows, The issue of how to calculate the incremental costs of the key element in linking land degradation with the land degradation mitigation activities should be ex- operational programs is in the early stage of the de- amined. In general, the large majority of current sign process where land degradation is seen as a fully projects identified as land degradation linkage integral part of the project. OP 12, the Land and projects have been designed to address the focal areas Water Initiative, and the forthcoming operational as a first priority and only in some cases has land programs for agrobiodiversity and persistent organic degradation mitigation been a priority, so rarely are pollutants provide vehicles for this approach. OP 12 the root causes of land degradation addressed. offers the opportunity to integrate land degradation issues more centrally with the activities of the focal Linkages areas. The role of OP 12 in promoting land degrada- tion mitigation activities appears promising, particu- Linkages tend to be strongest in projects where land larly because of the possibility of projects taking a degradation is identified as a central part of the prob- strong focus on sustainable use and other land man- lem early in the design phase. When this occurs, there agement strategies in human modified areas. The is a synergy between activities that address land deg- Land and Water Initiative allows the clear integration radation and activities addressing the focal areas of of several components and should directly incorpo- biodiversity, international waters and climate change. rate land degradation issues. The success of develop- When land degradation is not perceived initially as a ing strong land degradation linkage activities within threat to the focal areas, the land degradation compo- the new operational programs will only be achieved if nent tends to be poorly addressed. specific land degradation linkage guidelines are de- veloped which allow and encourage such integration. Most land degradation projects in the pilot phase are linked through biodiversity projects with a few large Project Design international waters projects and a few climate change projects with linkages to land degradation. Projects that address specific biodiversity or interna- tional water problems tend to prioritize biophysical Almost all biodiversity projects have some indirect issues, whereas projects that start with land degrada- link with land degradation issues, but many do not tion as the central problem tend to prioritize improv- have strong land degradation components. The ing land management and developing sustainable use projects tend to have a strong conservation focus with options in modified resource systems. Because of the land degradation activities addressing those con- this, most current projects tend to be focused on con- servation issues. Geographic locations of greatest servation rather than on people or land management. land degradation concern may not be areas of the From a land degradation perspective, key issues such greatest biodiversity concern and vice versa. as land tenure, policy, and gender are thus often poorly integrated into project activities. International water projects focusing on lakes, rivers, and coastal problems all tend to have a land degrada- Projects which are people-focused tend to be strong tion component, sometimes a strong component, but projects from several perspectives. For example, the in implementation have tended to focus on the water few projects on grazing systems were well integrated issues rather than the broader land degradation compo- between people and environmental concerns with di- nents of the catchment. However, this doesn't mean rect attention to restoration of previously sustainable there are no project with strong land degradation systems. activities. 24 Integrated approaches such as land and water man- lenge given the current guidelines. While there are agement, a total ecosystem focus, and agrobiodiv- clear links between land degradation issues and the ersity may be a better framework for introducing land global environment in many cases, these are some- degradation priorities. times hard to quantify. OP 12, with its emphasis on cost sharing, and the Land and Water Initiative may Agencies help in addressing this issue. Of the implementing agencies, UNDP has the largest Although GEF projects are expected to be based the land degradation linkage project portfolio. It is com- state-of-the-art knowledge, it is not clear how the pleting an in-house review of the land degradation findings of the Consultative Group on International components of its projects, including pipeline projects. Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system, STAP, and UNEP also has a well-developed list of projects in- the rest of the scientific community are fitted into cluding many in the pipeline. World Bank land degra- project design. This is particularly so in that the land dation projects tend to be fewer, but larger. Most are degradation component of the STAP roster of consult- addressing climate change and biodiversity in humid ants is not as strong and comprehensive as other com- areas, though there is a trend towards a more dryland ponents. focus. There often appear to be significant time lapses be- The GEF secretariat itself has some divergence of tween various stages of project approval and action opinion on the land degradation component of its ac- on the ground. This is not an issue confined to land tivity. On one hand, there is a commitment to respond degradation projects and needs to be addressed in a to the stated need for a land degradation initiative in broader context. GEF; on the other hand, there is concern given the past structure and operational programs about how this Implementing agencies are continuing to learn how to linkage can be legitimized. best design and implement land degradation compo- nents. Assessment and feedback from one project to Design and Approval Process another would strengthen project design and execution. Defining and justifying the incremental cost compo- nent of land degradation activities has been a chal- 25 26 Recommendations We have specific recommendations in two time · Agrees on eligible land degradation frames. To improve the focus on land degradation mitigation activities issues in the GEF portfolio, we recommend first fo- · Evaluates results and progress. cusing on longer term goals, which may take time to develop, and then taking immediate or short-term To enable land degradation linkages to be more effec- actions. tive, an agreed-upon definition of land degradation in the GEF context (e.g., inclusive of humid and sub- Longer Term Recommendations humid areas and referring to declining land produc- tivity in human-managed landscapes) should be Given the ongoing concern of GEF's Council, GEF adopted by the working group. and the agencies need to move forward with an agenda to combat land degradation. In light of the real con- In order to track the progress of land degradation straints noted in this report, it is recommended that linkage activities, it would be useful for the imple- GEF explore ways in which land degradation issues menting agencies to create a coordinated report ma- of global significance can be dealt with more directly trix which records the movement of land degradation and successfully. This could be addressed in the con- linkage projects from inception through PDFs to ap- text of the Second Study of GEF's Overall Perfor- proval and, most important, to implementation. This mance, which is being conducted this year. could provide the basis for implementing agency self- assessment and also for reporting to GEF council. Immediate or Short-Term Recommendations Agencies should be encouraged to develop a project Interagency Approaches base where land degradation linkages to focal areas are identified as a strong component from the begin- The Land Degradation Working Group of the Inter- ning of project design. This review shows that maxi- Agency Task Force on Land and Water should be the mum benefits to both land degradation and focal area focus for a conceptual strategic plan for land degrada- priorities are achieved under these circumstances. tion within the GEF context. While recognizing that most specific activities are or should be country- A follow-up analysis should be undertaken in 2001 to driven, a strategy would be helpful that: identify whether the recent downward trend in land degradation projects, both numerically and as a pro- · Formulates goals portion of the GEF portfolio, continues. · Agrees on agency roles · Develops a cooperative framework While most activities are and should be project- · Develops GEF priorities for addressing based, there is a need for some broader based pro- land degradation grammatic approaches that might be considered in relation to land degradation. An information system on best management practices for land degradation 27 activities would be one example of a program ap- Monitoring and Evaluation proach. The purpose of such an approach would be to serve and strengthen project activities and to develop Monitoring and evaluation for land degradation capacity at all levels. projects should more systematically include environ- mental field indicators, e.g., change in vegetative Project Design cover, soil erosion, and other land degradation indica- tors, as well as the currently used direct indicators of Land management for sustainable use is the core ap- project activity to get a sense of the impact of projects proach to the land degradation problem. Land and on the environment. A set of common indicators people issues need to be the core of a good land should be agreed upon. degradation project proposal. This differs from many approaches to biodiversity and CC projects. Special Monitoring and evaluation should include environ- attention needs to be given to the design of land mental and social indicators, and be linked to local, degradation components. regional, and broader feedback into project design. A GEF land degradation "lessons learned" database The links between scientific (including local knowl- (website) should be developed. edge) communities and land degradation projects need to be improved. For this and other reasons, the Relationship of Study to Focal Area Reviews PDF-A funding should be increased to at least $50,000 and more support given to integrative tar- This report has reviewed the land degradation com- geted research. Consideration should be given to a ponent of the GEF portfolio of biodiversity, climate selectively higher PDF-A for medium-size projects to change, and international waters projects. In many of ensure good project design. these projects, land degradation was a significant component. In others, it was addressed only indi- Regional approaches to land degradation issues could rectly. We suggest that the detailed review of the focal be considered within the OP 12 framework. It is areas: conceivable that a package of projects, GEF and oth- ers, could deal with regional issues from an environ- · Take this analysis into account and confirm our as- mental and sustainable resource use context. sessment of the strength of these linkages, where appropriate Climate change projects with linkages to land degra- dation, such as a carbon sequestration, should be en- · Examine the importance of the land degradation couraged. component to the focal area projects, especially where we have identified these as strong linkages International waters projects should focus on land as well as water components of the system in the spirit of · Identify ways in which land degradation linkages the new Land and Water Initiative. can more effectively strengthen biodiversity, cli- mate change, and international waters projects. If the new OP 12 on ecosystems and the forthcoming operational programs on agrobiodiversity and POPs In the selection of projects for field analysis, at least are to provide new opportunities for land degradation one should be chosen with a strong land degradation activities, clear guidelines concerning land degrada- component. tion activities are important. Biodiversity. In our opinion, the most effective link- There is a need to review how global aspects of land ages have been in areas not focused around protected degradation are to be supported in relation to incre- areas, for example, in pastoral areas where land deg- mental costs. A less theoretical and more pragmatic, radation was seen as compromising biodiversity. The but defined, approach is needed. The principle of focal area study might seek to confirm this finding. "cost sharing" instead of incremental costs is being introduced in OP 12. The principle needs to be clearly Climate change. There have been relatively few link- explained in guidelines. How it is implemented to age projects between climate change and land degrada- support land degradation mitigation activities should tion. There is opportunity for well-designed linkage be monitored. 28 projects in this area, especially related to carbon se- Often the land component of international waters questration and through the new operational programs. projects involved research into the effects of land degradation but few activities were designed to ad- International waters. Land degradation has been an dress the problem. We suggest the focal area study effective component of a small number of interna- review the impact of this apparent lack of integration tional waters projects but tends to be second priority on the effectiveness of the project as a whole. in project activities. A more integrated design process involving land and water issues would help both land degradation and international waters project design. 29 30 Annex A. Methodology The first analysis was based on the 103 projects and tion, afforestation) or proactive components to ame- was used for the statistical analysis (the bar charts of liorate current land management (e.g., improved crop- trends in Figures 1-8, and statistics in Tables 1-4). To ping or grazing practices, fire use). determine the strength of each project's land degrada- tion component, information in the project description Potential land degradation effects. These projects' in- in Operational Report on GEF Programs, December terventions will potentially prevent land degradation. 31, 1999, supplemented by descriptions in the Link- These are projects with few proactive interventions but age report and the Secretariat's Excel files, was exam- whose activities will restrict future deforestation or ined. When insufficient information was available, other types of degradation through activities such as such as for those projects in the pipeline, no determi- reducing land use intensity or improving land man- nation was attempted of the strength of the projects' agement in protected areas. Many of these projects are land degradation components. (Please note that some biodiversity projects in and around protected areas, with of the tables and bar charts present data only of those plans to implement land zonation to reduce land use projects determined as having strong degradation intensity. components.) Indirect effects on land degradation. These projects The determination of the strength of the land degrada- are without a land management component but will tion components in the projects was based on the have indirect effects on the land, for example through definition of land degradation adopted by the CCD reducing fuelwood collection from natural areas. Many and used by GEF. This definition is broad--encom- of these projects are climate change projects promot- passing economic and biological productivity and ing alternative energy sources to replace collected wood landscape complexity. Following this definition, all or technologies to improve fuel efficiency. biodiversity projects and many of the other projects could be, ex post, considered to be addressing land Little apparent land degradation effect. Such projects degradation. As some projects were located in humid have no apparent effect on land degradation. areas, the definition was extended for the purpose of this report. The second set of analyses was based on a sample of projects. This analysis was to gain a more detailed In an effort to be more focused and identify the understanding of the nature and importance of the strength of the land degradation components in land degradation linkage interventions of the projects, projects, a set of categories was developed and and the degree to which GEF is meeting the objectives projects placed within these categories: of the GEF land degradation framework. Tables 11, 12, and 13 present the results of this analysis, and the Strong land degradation component. These are findings are discussed in Section IV. The sample was projects, often in agro-pastoral landscapes, with a pro- chosen as follows: 19 projects were chosen at random active land rehabilitation components (e.g., re-vegeta- from the Linkage report annex; an additional 11 from 31 the Linkage report were added to provide implement- The land degradation interventions of the projects ing agency, topic and regional coverage; and three were rated as being strong (XXX), medium (XX), from outside the Linkage report were chosen to give a weak (X), not existent (0), or not applicable (n/a). For sample of more recent activity. The sample thus con- each project, the project brief or document (proposal) sists of 35 projects in total. and available supplemental information at the GEF secretariat office were examined. The supplemental The variables used to represent key land degradation information included Program Implementation Re- linkage activity interventions (see Tables 11 and 12) views, and project reviews and evaluations. In gen- were identified from the following sources: eral, therefore, the rating is based on what projects planned to accomplish, not what they actually did. · Convention to Combat Desertification Finally, a detailed review was completed of eight · Scope and Operational Strategy for Land Deg- projects to determine how well project design is meet- radation (GEF/C.3/8, February 1995) ing land degradation guidelines and to determine the nature of the land degradation/focal area linkage. · Follow up to the Recommendations of the Dakar These projects were chosen from the sample of 35 to Workshop (GEF/C.9/6, March 1997) provide examples of various land degradation/focal area linkages, and to provide focal area, implementing · Report of the STAP Expert Group Workshop on agency, and geographical area distribution. The same Land Degradation, Bologna, Italy, 14-16 June variables representing key land degradation linkage 1999 (GEF/C.14/Inf.15, November 16, 1999). activity interventions were used to frame the analysis. All available material was examined for these The intervention variables are not unique to land deg- projects, including project documents, reviews, evalu- radation projects, but the analysis focused on their ations and projects reports, supplied by the GEF sec- relation to addressing land degradation, for example, retariat and the relevant implementing agency. targeted research on biophysical aspects of land deg- radation. 32 Annex B. UNDP Land Degradation Review UNDP did an extensive review of their current and · Overharvesting of fauna or flora when it leads to pipeline projects in the summer of 2000 to determine ecosystem instability which could be considered ex post as land degradation projects. UNEP supplied a draft of their report of this · Overgrazing around settlements or in extensive review to the consultants.7 rangelands The criterion for a project to be considered as having a · Habitat conversion (crops, planted pastures, urban) land degradation linkage, and to be thus included in the land degradation database, is that the project brief · Drought and desiccation must mention any one of 12 threats or 18 linkage activities. These are as follows: · Medicinal species loss when it leads to ecosystem instability Threats · Soil erosion by wind or water; sand dune move- Activities ment; sedimentation and coastal areas · Soil stabilization; soil and water conservation. · Soil denudation; surface crusting; compaction; de- clining fertility; loss of soil organic matter · Spontaneous or assisted vegetation rehabilitation · Salinization; chemical or organic pollution of soils · Pollution clean-up and control; waste treatment related to agriculture, urban or industry; pollution related to GHG emissions · Sustainable use and management of natural re- sources · Aquifer loss/lowering or pollution · Fire control · Herbaceous or woody vegetation loss; deforesta- tion fuelwood over-harvesting · Aquifer regeneration; sustainable use · Invasive species when they lead to ecosystem in- · Alternative agriculture (appropriate technology; or- stability ganic agriculture; agroforestry; revival of transhu- mance...); soil organic matter management. · Uncontrolled bush/forest fires 7UNDP-GEF'S Land Degradation Database: an Initial Analysis, August 2000 33 · Forest plantation for fuel; energy saving/substitut- were drought and desiccation (15 percent), and soil ing devices degradation (13 percent). Land degradation linkage activities mentioned most frequently in the briefs · Common property management were socioeconomic such as alternative income gen- eration and land use planning (activities not confined · Alternative income generation/livelihood systems to mitigating land degradation). Soil stabilization and conservation were rarely mentioned (7 percent of the · Land use planning projects), and vegetative rehabilitation and alternative agriculture were also infrequent. · Human impact assessment Most of the projects in the database are biodiversity · Land degradation indicators; inventory and moni- projects, particularly in the forest ecosystem opera- toring tional program. The climate change projects in the database were primarily those with woodfuel conser- · Vegetation plantation for carbon sequestration vation programs or tree plantation activities. · Policy reform/formulation Lessons from UNDP's exhaustive exercise include 1) the criteria to identify land degradation projects are · Capacity building for land degradation currently broad and include activities to reduce loss of biological complexity, and 2) few projects are ad- · Protection of agrobiod when threatened by inva- dressing declining land productivity. The broadness sive species of the criteria used makes it difficult to determine the level of GEF support for activities that address soil Using this criterion, 209 projects were included in the degradation or other, non-biodiversity related prob- UNDP database (not reported was the number of lems. Perhaps reflecting this uncertainty, in the GEF UNDP's projects that were excluded from the data- Project Performance Report 1999, UNDP called for base). The most common reason for inclusion was the clearer, more consistent guidelines on what consti- mention in the project brief of deforestation as a threat tutes land degradation, and what specific degradation (64 percent). Threats mentioned in only a few briefs activities are eligible for GEF funding. 34 Annex C. Interventions Proposed by the STAP Expert Group on Land Degradation Excerpts from Report of the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradaton Interlinkages (Bologna, Italy, June 14-16, 1999), GEF/C.14/Inf.15, November 1999 Section 3: Interventions: Opportunities for assist the GEF, the workshop identified a number of Achieving Global Benefits questions which could be used as criteria. 3.1. Identifying opportunities 3.1.2.2. Carbon sequestration Carbon sequestration featured prominently in the dis- 3.1.1. People Centered Approach cussion on land degradation/climate interlinkages. Interventions should not only focus on redressing the Though the issues raised have universal relevance, effects, such as soil erosion, vegetation destruction, particular emphasis was placed on dryland ecosys- and water pollution, but also the root causes - the tems, summarised as follows: drivers of land degradation. These reside in local (i) Proper baseline setting land-use systems and in the interactions with the (ii) Grow and harvest approach wider socio-economic system. Interventions require a (iii) Verification methodologies "people-centered" rather than a "land-centered" ap- proach. This implies a participatory approach that 3.1.3. Intervention Strategies engages communities in the definition of issues and in the design, implementation and evaluation of 3.1.3.1. Vegetation/forest management/ remediation policies, while taking into consideration re-vegetation that communities are not homogenous. Vegetation/forest management strategies provide a range of agro-forestry intervention options that have 3.1.2. Multi-Benefit Approach the potential for securing multiple benefits. In the Interventions should be evaluated in the broader con- Peruvian Amazon, primary forest ecosystems have text of the multi-benefit potential. A strong case was sequestered 250 tonnes of carbon per hectare. In con- made for an approach which seeks to integrate ben- trast, crops and pastures sequester 60 tonnes, whereas efits accruing from climate change, biodiversity and 10-year-old agroforests have sequestered 160 tonnes international waters, thus offering greater opportuni- of carbon per hectare, or two-thirds the amount of ties for GEF interventions, particularly in drylands. primary forest. Replenishing soil fertility in sub-hu- mid and semi-arid degraded lands also plays a vital 3.1.2.1. Criteria for assessing global significance role in reducing carbon emissions. Measures to reha- of biological diversity in drylands bilitate degraded lands are compatible with those In assessing the opportunities for achieving global aimed at promoting the sequestration of carbon in benefits, the issue of what constitutes "globally sig- plants and soils. nificant biodiversity" in drylands was raised. It was concluded that the criteria that is often used for assess- 3.1.4. Sustainable Rangeland/Grassland/ ing biodiversity significance in forest ecosystem are Dryland Management not necessarily applicable to dryland ecosystems. To Sustainable Rangeland/Grassland/Dryland Manage- 35 ment can have multiple benefits for the environment including improvement of efficiency of wood burning and local inhabitants. Rangelands occupy 51% of the stoves, biomass production as a substitute for fossil terrestrial land surface, contain 36% of the world's fuels; the use of renewable energy technologies such total carbon in above and below-ground biomass and as solar and wind power. Particular emphasis was include a large number of important species and however placed on biomass, because of its importance ecotypes. The drylands harbour 240 billion tonnes of as an energy source in many developing countries. organic carbon in their soil and vegetation, thereby constituting a large potential source of emissions into 3.1.8. Establishment of Transboundary the atmosphere. Alternatively, they have considerable Mechanisms for the Management of Shared potential for sequestering carbon. They are also im- Resources portant for biodiversity in terms of their genetic sig- In situations where the resources and/or ecosystems - nificance, ecological services, unique biota, and high be it a river basin, underground aquifer or a forest levels of endemism and rarity. Significant interna- ecosystem - are shared by more than one country, a tional waters benefits can also be derived since they strong case was made for the establishment of usually occupy headwater areas. transboundary mechanisms to facilitate joint manage- ment. 3.1.5. Integrated Catchment/Watershed Management Section 4: The Need for Targeted Research The fact that many of the international waters are by 4.1. There is obviously a great need for a better definition shared by several countries and that man- understanding of many scientific, technical and socio- agement needs to be carried out at both the micro and economic issues to do with land degradation macro levels indicate that interventions need to con- interlinkages, particularly in dryland ecosystems. sider issues of spatial and temporal scales. The use of catchment approach as the analytical framework 4.1.1. Cross-Sectoral within which to address shared water basin could · Targeted/Applied Policy Research: Policy to result in significant multi-benefits. remediate land degradation should provide under- standing of the drivers of degradation. Identifica- 3.1.6. Sustainable Agricultural Practices/ tion of entry points of intervention strategies re- Management quires critical analysis that differentiates symptoms Agriculture contributes significantly to anthropogenic from root causes. Research is required to provide emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous ox- methods and information that establishes a basis ide. Agriculture accounts for about 20% of the annual for long term assessment of implications of inter- increase in radiate forcing. Land-use changes related vening. This will entail a long-term commitment to agriculture including biomass burning and soil deg- to policy research to identify interventions and al- radation are major contributors. Biomass burning and low evaluation of their impact on socio-economic loss of soil associated with the conversion of natural and environmental conditions. ecosystems to agricultural use in the tropics is be- · People-Centered Approach: The need for targeted lieved to be the largest non-fossil fuel of CO input to research that focuses on "best bet" solutions was 2 the atmosphere. Sustainable agricultural practices/ highlighted. That is research that relies on the in- management has the potential of mitigating CO emis- digenous knowledge of local stakeholders and en- 2 sions through the reduction of emissions from present ables the researcher to draw on the development sources (i.e., storages in managed forests) and the values of the existing results. The participation of creation and strengthening of carbon sinks. It also local stakeholders in the planning, execution and provides non-food goods and services relating to the evaluation of such activities is essential. global environment including, but not limited to, pol- · Nutrient Depletion: The need for a better under- lution control, water resources, erosion control, standing of the role of vegetation as the provider biodiversity enhancement, ecosystem integrity and of organic material for soil improvement and the improved population stabilisation (preventing migra- canopy interception of rainfall was highlighted. tion). 4.1.2 International Waters 3.1.7. Energy Related Strategies · Understanding of Land/Water degradation pro- A number of energy supply options were considered cesses: A lack of understanding of the complexi- 36 ties of degradation processes exist, especially ductive uses--including the production for biom- where the degradation of land or water are linked. ass for CO sequestration, for energy and other uses 2 The interaction between degradation events such --in conjunction with perpetual-rotation manage- as water logging, salinisation and acidification is ment strategies for biomass. still not clear. One gap recognised was the lack of · Environmentally sound and sustainable biomass robust models on land degradation. production strategies: Multi-disciplinary targeted · Quantify the Extent/Intensity of Land/Water Deg- research to develop environmentally sound and radation: "Guesstimates" are often used to arrive sustainable biomass production strategies as well at the quantum of negative change that could be as the most effective strategies for restoring de- attributed to land degradation processes. There is graded lands to productive use. a need to obtain "real" estimates of land degrada- tion, not only on the spatial scale but also some 4.1.4 Biodiversity indication on the temporal scale. Modern tech- · Feedback Linkages from biodiversity to land deg- niques such as remote sensing and Geographical radation: The conclusion from the analysis of link- Information Systems (GIS) should be employed ages between biodiversity and land degradation is in such an exercise. that the feed-forwards linkages are more estab- · Relationship Between Intensive/Extensive Water lished than the feedback (biodiversity to land deg- and Land-use: Issues relating to the intensifica- radation) linkage. tion - extensification continuum are complex and · Intensification and Extensification: How can in- not fully understood. Conceptually, there must be tensification (in high potential areas) and a point in the I - E continuum where there is bal- extensification (in drylands) be realised. ance leading to optimal land use for any particular · Ecosystem resilience: Ecosystem resilience and habitat/eco-region/biome. the resilience of diverse management systems was · Thresholds/Critical Loads: There are also data identified as an important area in need of targeted gaps in the area of thresholds or critical loads of research since a significant amount of biodiversity land degradation. There is a time scale response occurs in managed land. and also a spatial scale response. · Genetic Improvement in drylands: With respect to indigenous fruit trees and other useful plants, 4.1.3 Climate Change activities are required to promote genetic improve- · Flux measurements: Research is required on flux ment of these crops, to ensure proper propagation measurements including carbon fluxes in arid, of planting materials and to develop improved cap- semi-arid and tropical environments in both for- ping systems that utilise these indigenous food ested and non-forested sectors; the effects of spe- crops. cies, landscapes and weather on fluxes and the ef- · Mitigation of social driving forces: How are so- fects of various interventions on GHG emissions. cial driving forces linked to land degradation, · Development and validation of carbon manage- biodiversity, climate change and water resources ment models: The need for the development and and how can these forces be deflected/mitigated. validation of carbon management models for bio- · Economic Incentives for Biodiversity Conserva- mass production and use, with particular empha- tion: What is the value of different aspects of sis on applications to degraded lands on a region- biodiversity and how can value be added to by-region basis was emphasized. biodiversity to create economic incentives for con- · Inventories of degraded lands: Inventories of de- servation. graded lands suitable for restoration to more pro- 37 38 Annex D. UNDP Assesment of Land Degradation Projects Project Name: Alternatives to Slash and Burn II (ASB) Focal Area/OP: CC Implementing Agency: UNDP Project Location: Global Status: recently completed Land Degradation Issue Comments Component Participatory with communities Weak Capacity building re land degradation Strong Information collection and exchange, land Strong Important attempt to collect relevant monitoring system cross-country and regional data (GIS, etc.) for local land use planning and for global community (e.g., carbon storage data) Targeted research on biophysical aspects Strong Variety of topics such as impact of of land degradation burning on soil properties and biodiversity, testing grass species for rehabilitating degraded land, biodiversity of various land uses Targeted research on the socioeconomic Strong Attempt to provide cross-site system, causes & solutions of land understanding of slash & burn at degradation community level (for identifying alternatives), weaker at higher levels Integrate indigenous knowledge in Medium technical approaches Address underlying causes of degradation Weak Tends to confine analyses at local (e.g. poverty, migration, nat' l econ) levels (surveys etc), but important successful policy research and interventions in Asia Addressing farming practices leading to Strong degradation Addressing herding practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to Medium degradation Addressing deforestation leading to Strong degradation Developing alternative livelihood systems N/A (what?) What type of ecosystem Forest Is land degradation mentioned (what type Deforestation Objective of project is reducing loss of of deg) carbon sequestration and biodiversity loss, but degradation important element Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, Cropping/mixed crop...) 39 Enhancement of soils as carbon sink None Proactive re-vegetation/reforestation Strong Varies by site; successful rehabilitation of land in Indonesia, few alternatives promoted successfully elsewhere Prevention of future de-vegetation/ Strong deforestation Tree plantations N/A Sustainable forest harvesting/ Medium management Habitat restoration (how) Strong Control of bush or forest fires Strong Prevent through alternative land management Watershed catchment management N/A Non-point source control of land-based N/A pollution Soil conservation techniques Weak Agroforestry Strong Fuelwood conservation (how) Weak Reducing land use intensity (explain) N/A Actually attempting to increase intensity in occupied sites to reduce expansion of agriculture into forest Taking land out of production N/A Land use planning (to do what) Strong Enabling policy (to do what) Medium Varies by site, large component of phase 2 Mention reducing dust in atmosphere None This project is unusual in the GEF land degradation To accomplish this feat, an important amount of tar- portfolio because its focus is on changing current land geted research identifying land use alternatives that management practices in humid forest areas using are economically viable and environmentally benefi- means other than land zonation. It ambitiously at- cial is required. This project also included a large tempts to develop alternative, technical solutions to research component of the determinants and environ- the age-old problem of rapid deterioration of soil mental impact of slash and burn agriculture. productivity in cleared forested areas. The first lesson concerning land degradation is that The assumption is that promotion of such alternatives the development of viable alternative land use sys- will lead to an increase in productivity and land use tems requires a not-insubstantial investment of time intensity in currently occupied areas, and reduce and finances in high quality targeted research. Despite extensification into forested areas. a slow start, and interruption in funding, the project was nevertheless able to pull together and conduct It directly addresses two GEF focal areas-climate significant work. This type of complex, land related change and biodiversity-by preventing degradation project requires both focus and time. and rehabilitating degraded areas. The linkage is thus strong. 40 A second lesson is that large, and rapid, impacts on search associated with burning, and on testing and land degradation may be obtained by addressing evaluating the environmental and social trade-offs of policy and economic structures affecting land use. alternative land use systems. The research on carbon Although the Phase 1 proposal emphasized technical stocks and changes related to different land use sys- solutions to slash and burn agriculture, the most im- tems is especially informative for the global climate pressive results of that phase came from policy analy- change community and for future carbon sequestra- sis and policy recommendations in Indonesia. tion project design. The results of the project's work are now, after the end of GEF support, becoming Phase 2 focused on consolidating and publishing the available and starting to have an impact. climate change, biodiversity and soil parameters re- 41 Project Name: People, Land Management and Environmental Change (PLEC) Focal Area/OP: BD/STRM Implementing Agency: UNDP Project Location: Global Status: implementing phase 2 Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Strong Capacity building re land degradation Medium Not related to land degradation? Information collection and exchange, land Strong much plot and landscape level data monitoring system collection (of crop species, land use) Targeted research on biophysical aspects of land Strong Developing method of determining degradation degree of land degradation Targeted research on the socioeconomic system, Medium Thus far tends to be focused on causes & solutions of land degradation community level (using participating rapid assessment-PRA) Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical Strong approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. Weak Examining impacts of poverty, migration, nat' l econ) commercialization and population growth on agrodiversity, less so policy, tenure and economic structures affecting crop choice. More effort on info collection than on addressing the threats to agrodiversity. Addressing farming practices leading to Strong degradation Addressing herding practices leading to Medium degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to None degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation Weak Developing alternative livelihood systems (what?) N/A What type of ecosystem Mixed Is land degradation mentioned (what type of deg) Loss of species Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Primarily cropping, some herding Enhancement of soils as carbon sink None Proactive re-vegetation/reforestation None 42 Prevention of future de-vegetation/ deforestation Medium Tree plantations N/A Sustainable forest harvesting/ management N/A Habitat restoration (how) N/A Control of bush or forest fires N/A Watershed catchment management N/A Non-point source control of land-based pollution N/A Soil conservation techniques Strong Agroforestry None Fuelwood conservation (how) None Reducing land use intensity (explain) N/A Taking land out of production N/A Land use planning (to do what) None Enabling policy (to do what) Weak Mention reducing dust in atmosphere None The PLEC project, like ASB, is a complex project been varied. The mid-term reviewer felt that, in one crossing three continents and addressing land man- site in Ghana, emphasis was being placed on soil agement issues. It also has a significant targeted re- conservation to the detriment of agrodiversity efforts. search component with contributions by international In Brazil, on the other hand, he highlighted an ex- level scientists. ample of a successful linkage in the development of a method to rehabilitate degraded pasture land with in- This project conceptually links agrodiversity (diver- digenous plant species. sity of agricultural species and management practices) and soil conservation, arguing that practices that un- An important contribution of the project to future GEF dermine crop species diversity also undermine man- and other projects will be the development of field agement diversity and soil and water conservation. Its methods for agrodiversity and for land degradation goal is to develop environmentally sustainable models assessment in small-scale rainfed farming systems. A of agrodiversity management. just completed a working paper, "Land Degrada- tion--Guidelines for Field Assessment" will be pub- It is, thus, the only project in the GEF portfolio of lished by EarthScan with funds from UNEP, DFID, those examined that has soil conservation and im- GEF, and others. A second important contribution proved soil management in cropped areas as a stated will be the testing and development of approaches for objective. productive, sustainable agriculture that promote agro- biodiversity. Nevertheless, reaction to the joining of agro- biodiversity conservation and soil management has 43 Project Name: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Grasslands Focal Area/OP: BD/1 Implementing Agency: UNDP Project Location: Mongolia Status: phase 2 ongoing Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Medium For buffer zone management Capacity building re LD Medium Information collection and exchange, land Medium GIS, monitoring system monitoring system Ttargeted research on biophysical aspects of Strong Species inventories land degradation Targeted research on the socioeconomic Medium PRA, Markets system, causes & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical Weak approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. Weak poverty, migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing herding practices leading to Weak degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to Medium Tree planting degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation Medium Developing alternative livelihood systems Strong? Communities apply for grants from (what?) trust fund to do biodiversity activities What type of ecosystem Steppe Is land degradation mentioned (what type of Uncertain of severity Overgrazing, deforestation, fires deg) around settlements Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) PA Enhancement of soils as carbon sink None Pro active re-vegetation/ reforestation Strong Afforestation around settlements Prevention of future de-vegetation/ deforestation Medium Tree plantations Strong Sustainable forest harvesting/ management Medium Habitat restoration (how) None Control of bush or forest fires Strong 44 Watershed catchment management N/A Non-point source control of land-based pollution N/A Soil conservation techniques Medium May be one of activities at community level (grants given from trust fund) Agroforestry N/A Fuelwood conservation (how) None Reducing land use intensity (explain) None Taking land out of production Strong PA development, buffer zone management Land use planning (to do what) Strong Enabling policy (to do what) Medium biodiversity intro provincial & local gov' t plans Mention reducing dust in atmosphere None The environmental and causal link between The project proposal discusses the impact of current biodiversity loss and land degradation is clear in this major upheavals in the local tenure and economic project-overgrazing, cutting of trees for woodfuel and systems due to major changes in the governmental high fire incidence are leading to a decline in natural structure-changes that are feared to have large conse- vegetative cover and change in plant species, and this quences on the grasslands as the herding system is is expected to lead to a long-term decline in land further disrupted. The proposed activities of the productivity and wildlife diversity. The project is project, however, fall well short of attempting to ad- planning to address the problem directly, by planting dress these changes or their land degradation and trees, reducing fire incidences, and greatly expanding biodiversity impacts. It appears that the herding sys- the area under protected status. tem--to develop and promote a sustainable transhu- mance system or a settled land management This project is typical of biodiversity projects located system--will not be a focus of the project. The diffi- in and around protected areas. It is committed to cult development of a new, sustainable land use sys- working with local communities in the buffer zone in tem would require targeted research, both order to gain community support for restricting their biophysical/agronomic and socioeconomic, and a sus- use of the protected area and reduce the incidence of tained implementation effort. fire. Due to a new trust fund, the project hopes to have funds to disperse as grants to communities to conduct Without addressing the underlying causes of degrada- biodiversity enhancing activities such as afforestation tion in changes to the herding system, the long-term and soil conservation. Environmental education is and geographical area of the impact of project efforts also an important element of the project. Re-vegeta- is unclear. tion in the buffer zones is expected to be an output of the project (the project is too recent to have measur- able effects on land degradation). 45 Project Name: Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems in Latin America Focal Area/OP: 1 Implementing Agency: UNEP Project Location: Mexico, Brazil, Chile Status: new MSP in implementation Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Strong Capacity building re LD Strong Information collection and exchange, land monitoring Strong system Targetted research on biophysical aspects of land Strong degradation Targetted research on the socioeconomic system, causes Strong & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical approaches Medium Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. poverty, Weak migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to degradation N/A Addressing herding practices leading to degradation N/A Addressing fuelwood collection leading to degradation N/A How Addressing deforestation leading to degradation N/A How Developing alternative livelihood systems (what?) N/A What What type of ecosystem Drylands Is land degradation mentioned (what type of deg) Strong What type Erosion ­ vegetation loss Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Farming Herding Enhancement of soils as carbon sink N/A Pro active revegetation/ reforestation N/A Prevention of future devegetation/ deforestation Medium How Need better information Tree plantations N/A Sustainable forest harvesting/ management N/A Habitat restoration (how) N/A How Control of bush or forest fires N/A Watershed catchment management How Non-point source control of land-based pollution 46 Non-point source control of land-based pollution Soil conservation techniques Medium Agroforestry None Fuelwood conservation (how) N/A Reducing land use intensity (explain) Medium Taking land out of production Weak Land use planning (to do what) N/A Enabling policy (to do what) N/A Mention reducing dust in atmosphere N/A The project is a joint effort by NGO groups in three · Identification of threats to those plans and design countries to develop a set of indicators of dryland necessary interventions degradation and loss of biodiversity in drylands. It aims to develop a tool that would be an effective · Development of a basic protocol for long-term assessment instrument in the three countries and to monitoring of indicators. test the tool in three pilot areas. In this way, it is anticipated that the potential use will apply much This project is judged to be a good example of a land more widely, both as an assessment and monitoring degradation linkage project for a number of reasons. device. The model will attempt to integrate biophysi- First, it is conceived as a land degradation project with cal, economic, and social indicators into an assess- a strong link to biodiversity, not the other way around. ment of dryland states through the use of GIS Second, it provides a strong local knowledge base to databases. This would lead to problem identification the problem, though the integration of indigenous and policy recommendations. knowledge could have been given greater promi- nence. Third, it leads from information to action and Given a functioning model, each country would be policy in a well-defined way. able to develop an ongoing monitoring system using the same basic data sets, leading to: However, if successful, it is clear that this will only be the beginning of the process. More work will be · Development of sustainable land use and resource needed to disseminate the model and even more to management plans apply its principles. This seems like a great starting point for the hemisphere. 47 Project Name: Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika Focal Area/OP: 1 W Implementing Agency: Project Location: East Africa Status: Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Weak Capacity building re LD None Information collection and exchange, land Strong monitoring system Targetted research on biophysical aspects of Strong land degradation Targetted research on the socioeconomic Weak system, causes & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical None approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. None poverty, migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to None degradation Addressing herding practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to None How degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation Weak How Developing alternative livelihood systems None What (what?) What type of ecosystem Lake Is land degradation mentioned (what type of Medium What type deg) Soil loss degradation Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Enhancement of soils as carbon sink N/A Proactive revegetation/ reforestation N/A Prevention of future devegetation/ deforestation None How Tree plantations None Sustainable forest harvesting/ management N/A Habitat restoration (how) None How Control of bush or forest fires None 48 Control of bush or forest fires None Watershed catchment management Medium How Non-point source control of land-based pollution Weak Soil conservation techniques None Agroforestry None Fuelwood conservation (how) N/A Reducing land use intensity (explain) None Taking land out of production None Land use planning (to do what) Weak Enabling policy (to do what) Strong Mention reducing dust in atmosphere N/A This activity started as a pilot project and was devel- This project is now in its final stages and there are oped into a five-year full project of $10 million. Lake already plans for a follow-up project. The final report Tanganyika has one of the world's most distinctive is complimentary in that the project achieved some of and biodiverse ecosystems with many endemic fish its goals in the face of extremely difficult conditions species. The lake is under threat from coastal pollu- in the region including, but not limited to, continuing tion and heavy sedimentation issuing from deforesta- ethnic violence in the northern watershed catchments tion and inappropriate land use, particularly in the of the lake basin. northern catchments. Some outputs of the project were highly commended, The project aims to improve understanding of the for example, the updated knowledge of the lake's ecosystem and the degree of stress and to take actions biodiversity, detailed information of the lake compo- to improve and maintain the current biodiversity. nent of the sedimentation, a clearly articulated pro- This first phase concentrates on the establishment of gram of action, and a well-defined regional regional institutional frameworks for cooperative management structure. Because of the security situa- management. Measures include the establishment of tion, the land degradation component outside the im- parallel legislation in the four countries, the identifi- mediate lake confines was not able to be a major cation of pollution sources, and conservation mea- component, though this is an obvious priority for any sures within the park. The main goal is to set up an follow-up work, especially if local conditions im- ongoing regional co-generating mechanism that can prove. Though not all of the detailed studies were continue work after the end of the project. The land available, it is evident that this project was well- degradation component concerns the contribution of designed and achieved a good deal more than might soil erosion and deforestation to the heavy sedimenta- have been thought possible. tion of the north end of the lake. 49 Project Name: Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem Conservation in the Caucasaus Focal Area/OP: 1 Implementing Agency: UNDP Project Location: Georgia Status: MSP Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Strong Capacity building re LD Medium Information collection and exchange, land Strong monitoring system Targetted research on biophysical aspects of Medium land degradation Targetted research on the socioeconomic Medium system, causes & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical Weak approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. Weak poverty, migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing herding practices leading to Strong degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to N/A How degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation N/A How Developing alternative livelihood systems Strong What (what?) Grazing & Hunting What type of ecosystem Arid, Semi-Arid Is land degradation mentioned (what type of What type deg) Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Herding Enhancement of soils as carbon sink None Proactive revegetation/ reforestation Medium Prevention of future devegetation/ deforestation Strong How Tree plantations N/A Sustainable forest harvesting/ management N/A Habitat restoration (how) Strong How - Change land use patterns Control of bush or forest fires N/A 50 Control of bush or forest fires N/A Watershed catchment management N/A How Non-point source control of land-based pollution N/A Soil conservation techniques Weak Agroforestry N/A Fuelwood conservation (how) N/A Reducing land use intensity (explain) Strong Taking land out of production None Land use planning (to do what) Medium Enabling policy (to do what) Medium Mention reducing dust in atmosphere N/A This medium-size UNDP project is a counterpoint to · Baseline data development the World Bank Biodiversity Conservation project on forestlands in the Georgian Caucasus. · A management plan with alternative economic activities The visible problem is defined as widespread soil erosion due to overgrazing in the region. There is also · Improved international and local community a sharp drop in the numbers of threatened and endan- cooperation gered species due to intensive hunting and habitat loss. There is important biodiversity loss of indig- · Transboundary agreements. enous flora and fauna in a degrading ecosystem. Through a series of practical steps, the goal was to There is little permanent habitation in the region, but develop agreed land use strategies to allow the recov- livestock are driven here for the winter season (from ery and protection of key ecosystem species and to mid-September to early April) from the south, center, increase awareness of their importance. A coordina- and northwest of Georgia and also from Azerbaijan tion unit will be established and pilot demonstration and Armenia. Rapid surveys show 72 encampments, projects carried out. Among these is the experimental each with about 2,000 sheep, a density of 12 sheep/ha establishment of hunting farms, within differentiated compared with the permitted 4 per ha. Land use and zones, for hunting, protection, and specially protected grazing strategies, which preceded the revolution in natural breeding zones. Russia, were generally efficient in resource use. The Soviet system destroyed them, however, and new sus- Although the world has changed greatly, the goal is to tainable patterns have not developed. reestablish the principles of the former sustainable land use patterns in a modern format. The goal of the project is to protect and restore ecosys- tem functioning through: 51 Project Name: Natural Resources Management Focal Area/OP: 3 Forest Ecosystems Implementing Agency: World Bank Project Location: Ghana Status: Under Implementation Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Medium Capacity building re LD Weak Information collection and exchange, land Medium monitoring system Targetted research on biophysical aspects of Medium land degradation Targetted research on the socioeconomic Medium system, causes & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical Weak approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. Weak poverty, migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to Medium degradation Addressing herding practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to Medium How degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation Strong How Developing alternative livelihood systems Strong What (what?) Economic forest use What type of ecosystem Humid Forest Is land degradation mentioned (what type of Medium What type deg) Forest depletion/erosion Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Forest Enhancement of soils as carbon sink N/A Proactive revegetation/ reforestation Strong Prevention of future devegetation/ deforestation Strong How New administrative structure Tree plantations Strong Sustainable forest harvesting/ management Strong Habitat restoration (how) Strong How Control of bush or forest fires Weak 52 Control of bush or forest fires Weak Watershed catchment management N/A How Non-point source control of land-based pollution N/A Soil conservation techniques Strong Agroforestry None Fuelwood conservation (how) None Reducing land use intensity (explain) Strong Taking land out of production Strong Land use planning (to do what) Strong Enabling policy (to do what) Medium Mention reducing dust in atmosphere N/A The project addresses the conservation of tropical for- last disjunct forest within the savannah corridor that is est ecosystems by strengthening the Ghanaian net- the only place where elements of the eastern and work of conservation areas and reinforcing the western forest blocks intermingle, forming a globally development of sustainable use and management sys- unique composite biota. tems for biodiversity resources. By financing the incremental cost of addressing global and regional Environmentally sustainable woodland management biodiversity conservation priorities within the frame- in the savannah zone will enhance rural incomes as work of the National Biodiversity Strategy and the well as generating ancillary environmental benefits to National Forest Protection Strategy, GEF funding will rural communities in the form of improved soil, water, complement IDA and bilateral donor-financed pro- and wildlife habitat management. Community par- grams for development of forest production systems ticipation in wildlife resource management and devel- that are environmentally and socially sustainable, and opment of compatible uses such as ecotourism will for management of protected areas. increase locally retained revenues from wildlife re- sources. Improved conservation of biodiversity will The project targets the approximately 8 percent of ensure a sustainable supply of non-timber forest prod- moist tropical forests in Ghana that, based on a com- ucts such as medicinal plants, which contribute differ- prehensive national forest inventory, rank highest, entially to the health and well-being of the poorest globally, in term of their importance for biodiversity. population segments. This systematic evaluation of threat and rarity, cover- ing more than 1,000 tree species, carried out under the In Ghana, pilot participatory management programs ODA-financed Forest Inventory and Management within the high forest zone have also been initiated by project is unparalleled in the West Africa region in the Collaborative Forest Management Unit within the terms of its scope and comprehensiveness. Protection Forestry Department, and, in the savannah regions, of these forests would secure representation of a sig- local NGOs have been working successfully to pro- nificant fraction of the biodiversity of the upper mote community-managed operations particularly in Guinea-Congolean forest formation within a well- potable water supply. These provide a basis for ex- connected network of forest reserves. Additional pri- panding the formal involvement of local organiza- orities to be addressed by the project include the tions in wildlife and forest reserve management. The biologically unique southern dry forests of the presence of an active and growing community of con- Dahomey Gap that separates the two major high forest servation NGOs and the project's intention to engage formations of western and central Africa, and the this community in monitoring and evaluation of pro- montane outlier forest of the Kyabobo highlands, the gram performance as well as in key aspects of pro- 53 gram implementation will improve transparency, ac- in biodiversity as Special Biological Protection Areas, countability and, ultimately, performance of the pub- taking them out of production, upgrading the conser- lic agencies responsible for executing the program. vation of their biological resources and compensating the affected communities for the forest product in- Under the GEF alternative, Ghana will enhance the come they will lose through alternative livelihood conservation of its globally significant forest schemes, such as ecotourism, sustainable use of non- biodiversity by supplementing the baseline activities timber forest products, and restoration of degraded with the following additional measures: (a) further woodlands; and (ii) designing and adopting more en- strengthening conservation planning and management vironmentally friendly logging practices and addi- of the national park system; and (b) in the forest tional conservation measures within the production reserves, (i) classifying areas that are particularly rich forests. 54 Project Name: Implementation of Integrated Watershed, Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin Focal Area/OP: OP 1 W Implementing Agency: UNEP Project Location: Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay Status: FP IMPLEMENTING Strong/ Med/ Weak/ Issue Comments None/ N/A Participatory with communities Strong Capacity building re LD Medium Information collection and exchange, land Medium monitoring system Targetted research on biophysical aspects of Weak land degradation Targetted research on the socioeconomic Medium system, causes & solutions of LD Integrate indigenous knowledge in technical Weak approaches Address underlying causes of degradation (e.g. Medium poverty, migration, nat' l econ) Addressing farming practices leading to Medium degradation Addressing herding practices leading to N/A degradation Addressing fuelwood collection leading to Weak How degradation Addressing deforestation leading to degradation Medium How Developing alternative livelihood systems N/A What (what?) What type of ecosystem Humid Is land degradation mentioned (what type of Strong What type deg) Soil loss ­ chemical pollution Land use of the area (PA, buffer, herd, crop...) Enhancement of soils as carbon sink Proactive revegetation/ reforestation Strong Prevention of future devegetation/ deforestation How Tree plantations N/A Sustainable forest harvesting/ management Medium Habitat restoration (how) Strong How Control of bush or forest fires 55 Watershed catchment management Strong How Non-point source control of land-based pollution Strong Soil conservation techniques Strong Agroforestry N/A Fuelwood conservation (how) N/A Reducing land use intensity (explain) Medium Taking land out of production Medium Land use planning (to do what) Medium Enabling policy (to do what) Medium Mention reducing dust in atmosphere N/A This international waters project is a good example of tivities. This will include a public awareness, infor- the integration of land degradation issues into the mation, and education component, which will encom- international waters context. The project lays the pass both urban and rural communities. Specifically, groundwork for a detailed watershed management soil conservation practices to reduce soil erosion loss, program for the Pantanal and the Upper Paraguay reclaiming degraded mining lands and reestablishing River Basin. It also attempts to provide protection for riparian vegetation along streams and river margins to the rich biodiversity of that region and to address the reduce bank erosion, and the adoption of good urban root causes of land and water degradation. The waste disposal practices are all included. Some $1.8 project aims to create the framework for an action million of the project total of $16.2 million will be plan by institutional strengthening, capacity building, spent on this component. A good part of the rest of the and the integration of degradation and environmental project, especially that dealing with Pantanal conser- concerns into sustainable economic development. vation and organizational strengthening, will also benefit the land degradation activities. The land degradation component of the project con- cerns soil loss from agricultural areas, contamination This project should lay the foundation for an impor- of land and water by organic pollutants and heavy tant program in the area and allow a beginning to metals from agricultural and mining operations, and environmental restoration in this area. While a strong also wetland issues. The specific land degradation project with a sound and extensive knowledge data- component seeks to implement community-based base, it will only provide the beginning of the process land management, for both mining and agriculture, needed to provide a sustainable and environmentally and to develop land rehabilitation efforts in both ac- sound economy for this priority area. 56 Annex E. Materials Consulted · An Action Plan for Enhancing GEF Support in · Good Practices in Drylands Management (R. Land Degradation (GEF/C.14/4) November 1999 Oygard, T. Vedeld, J. Aune, World Bank) October 1999 · Clarifying Linkages Between Land Degradation and the GEF Focal Areas: An Action Plan for En- · Implementing the Action Plan on Land Degrada- hancing GEF Support (GEF/C.14/4) November tion (GEF/C.15/Inf.9) April 2000 1999 · Instrument for the Establishment of the Restruc- · Designing Projects within the GEF FocalAreas to tured Global Environment Facility (GEF) Address Land Degradation: with Special Reference to Incremental Cost Estimation. Draft. (K. Kumari, · Integrated Land and Water Management Action GEF) August 1997 Program for Africa. Draft (GEF) May 2000 · Draft Elements of an Operational Program for Re- · Land Degradation in Tanzania: Perception from ducing and Eliminating Releases of Persistent Or- the Village (World Bank) 1998 ganic Pollutants into the Environment (GEF/ C.16.6) November 2000 · New Opportunities for Development: The Deser- tification Convention (The World Bank) 1999 · Dryland Management in Sub-SaharanAfrica: The Search for Sustainable Development Options (The · Operational Report on GEF Programs (GEF) De- World Bank) cember 1999 · Drylands, Poverty and Development: Proceedings · Operational Program #12, Integrated Ecosystems of the June 15 and 16, 1999 World Bank Management (GEF) April 2000 Roundtable (World Bank) November 1999 · Operational Programs (GEF) June 1997 · Follow Up to the Recommendations of the Dakar Workshop (GEF/C.9/6) March 1997 · Project Implementation Review (PIR) 1999 · A Framework of GEF Activities Concerning Land · Project Implementation Review (PIR) 2000 Degradation (GEF) October 1996 · Project Performance Report 1998 (GEF) · GEF Land Degradation Linkage Study (Initiating Memorandum) · Project Performance Report 1999 (GEF) · The Global Environmental Benefits of Land Deg- · Protecting the Environment from Land Degrada- radation Control onAgricultural Land (S. Pagiola, tion: UNEP'sAction in the Framework of the Glo- The World Bank) 1999 bal Environment Facility (UNEP) 57 · Report of the Scientific and Technical Advisory · Study of GEF's Overall Performance (G. Porter, Panel (STAP) to the Global Environmental Facil- R. Clemoncon, W. Ofosu-Amaah, M. Philips; ity (GEF) Expert Group Workshop on Land Deg- GEF) 1998 radation. Dakar, Senegal, 18-20 September 1996 (UNEP) · The UNDP/GEF 1996 Project Implementation Re- view Reporting Format · Report of the STAP Expert Group Workshops on Land Degradation. Bologna, Italy, 14-16 June · UNDP-GEF's Land Degradation Database: an Ini- 1999 (GEF/C.14/Inf.15) November 1999 tial Analysis (UNDP) August 2000 · Request for PDF Block B Funds. Development of · United Nations Convention on Biological Diver- an IFAD Pipeline of GEF-Eligible Projects on sity Land Degradation Control · United Nations Convention to Combat Desertifi- cation · Safeguarding the Earth, Global Environment Fa- · United Nations Framework Convention on Climate cility 1999 Annual Report (GEF) Change · Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Numerous PDFs, project briefs, project documents, Land Degradation (GEF/C.3/8) October 1997 PIR reports, mid-term and terminal reviews, and project reports were also consulted. · A Socio-economic Perspective on Land Degrada- tion and Linkages to GEF Focal Areas: Climate Change, Biodiversity, and International Waters (D. Campbell, Michigan State University) 7 UNDP-GEF's Land Degradation Database: an Ini- tial Analysis, August 2000 58 Table 1 Operational Program Distribution of All Land Degradation Projects GEF Allocation ($ m) % of GEF Allocation % of Focal Area Operational Program Projects Projects ($ m) Allocation Biodiversity 1: Arid & Semi-Arid 15 18.8% 88.40 14.2% 2: Costal, Marine 10 12.5% 48.36 7.7% 3: Forest 13 16.3% 103.57 16.6% 4: Mountain 9 11.3% 61.60 9.9% STRM 1 1.3% 6.28 1.0% Total 48 60.0% 308.21 49.4% Climate Change 5: Energy Efficiency 1 1.3% 1.70 .3% 6: Renewable Energy 12 15.0% 82.61 13.2% 7: Technologies 4 5.0% 94.75 15.2% STRM 5 6.3% 21.70 3.5% Total 22 27.5% 200.76 32.2% Int'l Waters 8: Waterbody-Based 6 7.5% 77.99 12.5% 9: Land & Water 4 5.0% 37.16 6.0% Total 10 12.5% 115.15 18.5% Total 1: Arid & Semi-Arid 15 18.8% 88.40 14.2% 2: Costal, Marine 10 12.5% 48.36 7.7% 3: Forest 13 16.3% 103.57 16.6% 4: Mountain 9 11.3% 61.60 9.9% 5: Energy Efficiency 1 1.3% 1.70 .3% 6: Renewable Energy 12 15.0% 82.61 13.2% 7: Technologies 4 5.0% 94.75 15.2% 8: Waterbody-Based 6 7.5% 77.99 12.5% 9: Land & Water 4 5.0% 37.16 6.0% STRM 6 7.5% 27.98 4.5% Total 80 100.00% 624.12 100.0% 59 Table 2 Operational Program Distribution of Projects with a Strong Land Degradation Component GEF Allocation ($ m) % of GEF Allocation % of Focal Area Operational Program Projects Projects ($ m) Allocation Biodiversity 1: Arid & Semi-Arid 9 23.1% 55.26 19.1% 2: Costal, Marine 4 10.3% 19.10 6.6% 3: Forest 9 23.1% 61.03 21.1% 4: Mountain 4 10.3% 35.90 12.4% STRM 1 2.6% 6.28 2.2% Total 27 69.2% 177.57 61.5% Climate Change 6: Renewable Energy 2 5.1% 6.90 2.4% STRM 4 10.3% 11.70 4.0% Total 6 15.4% 18.60 6.4% Int'l Waters 8: Waterbody-Based 3 7.7% 63.59 22.0% 9: Land & Water 3 7.7% 29.16 10.1% Total 6 15.4% 92.75 32.1% Total 1: Arid & Semi-Arid 9 23.1% 55.26 19.1% 2: Costal, Marine 4 10.3% 19.10 6.6% 3: Forest 9 23.1% 61.03 21.1% 4: Mountain 4 10.3% 35.90 12.4% 6: Renewable Energy 2 5.1% 6.90 2.4% 8: Waterbody-Based 3 7.7% 63.59 22.0% 9: Land & Water 3 7.7% 29.16 10.1% STRM 5 12.8% 17.98 6.2% Total 39 100.0% 288.92 100.0% 60 Table 3 Geographical Distribution of All Full-Size Land Degradation Projects GEF Allocation ($ m) % of GEF Allocation % of Region Focal Area Projects Projects ($ m) Allocation Africa Biodiversity 24 30.0% 145.76 23.4% Climate Change 8 10.0% 62.47 10.0% Int'l Waters 5 6.3% 74.84 12.0% Total 37 46.3% 283.07 45.4% Asia Biodiversity 8 10.0% 63.56 10.2% Climate Change 7 8.8% 74.54 11.9% Int'l Waters 2 2.5% 26.59 4.3% Total 17 21.3% 164.69 26.4% Middle East Biodiversity 6 7.5% 33.03 5.3% Climate Change 1 1.3% 2.90 .5% Total 7 8.8% 35.93 5.8% Latin America Biodiversity 9 11.3% 59.58 9.5% Climate Change 4 5.0% 53.45 8.6% Int'l Waters 2 2.5% 9.82 1.6% Total 15 18.8% 122.85 19.7% Central, Eastern Europe & Climate Change 1 1.3% 4.40 .7% Former Soviet Union Int'l Waters 1 1.3% 3.90 .6% Total 2 2.5% 8.30 1.3% Global Biodiversity 1 1.3% 6.28 1.0% Climate Change 1 1.3% 3.00 .5% Total 2 2.5% 9.28 1.5% Total Biodiversity 48 60.0% 308.21 49.4% Climate Change 22 27.5% 200.76 32.2% Int'l Waters 10 12.5% 115.15 18.5% Total 80 100.00% 624.12 100.0% 61 Table 4 Geographical Distribution of Full-Size Projects with a Strong Land Degradation Component GEF Allocation ($ m) % of GEF Allocation % of Region Focal Area Projects Projects ($ m) Allocation Africa Biodiversity 14 35.9% 86.62 30.0% Climate Change 4 10.3% 11.20 3.9% Int'l Waters 3 7.7% 64.34 22.3% Total 21 53.8% 162.16 56.1% Asia Biodiversity 4 10.3% 40.16 13.9% Int'l Waters 1 2.6% 18.59 6.4% Total 5 12.8% 58.75 20.3% Middle East Biodiversity 4 10.3% 26.03 9.0% Total 4 10.3% 26.03 9.0% Latin America Biodiversity 4 10.3% 18.48 6.4% Int'l Waters 2 5.1% 9.82 3.4% Total 6 15.4% 28.30 9.8% Central, Eastern Europe & Climate Change 1 2.6% 4.40 1.5% Former Soviet Union Total 1 2.6% 4.40 1.5% Global Biodiversity 1 2.6% 6.28 2.2% Climate Change 1 2.6% 3.00 1.0% Total 2 5.1% 9.28 3.2% Total Biodiversity 27 69.2% 177.57 61.5% Climate Change 6 15.4% 18.60 6.4% Int'l Waters 6 15.4% 92.75 32.1% Total 39 100.0% 288.92 100.0% 62 Table 5 Trend inAllocation to Full-Size Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Component GEF Allocation ($ m) GEF Allocation Year WP Entry Degree Project is LD Projects ($ m) 1991 Strong LD component 6 45.20 Potential LD effects through prevention 3 13.80 Indirect effects on LD 1 7.50 Little apparent LD effect 2 13.30 Total 12 79.80 1992 Strong LD component 7 27.10 Potential LD effects through prevention 1 2.46 Indirect effects on LD 3 17.60 Little apparent LD effect 2 4.70 Total 13 51.86 1993 Strong LD component 1 .20 Potential LD effects through prevention 1 8.00 Indirect effects on LD 1 2.50 Total 3 10.70 1995 Strong LD component 3 7.90 Potential LD effects through prevention 1 4.00 Indirect effects on LD 1 4.00 Total 5 15.90 1996 Strong LD component 5 65.32 Potential LD effects through prevention 4 28.60 Indirect effects on LD 1 6.00 Little apparent LD effect 3 45.37 Total 13 145.29 1997 Strong LD component 6 58.00 Potential LD effects through prevention 3 27.44 Total 9 85.44 1998 Strong LD component 5 32.36 Potential LD effects through prevention 1 6.20 Indirect effects on LD 1 36.00 Little apparent LD effect 2 6.83 Total 9 81.39 1999 Strong LD component 4 37.96 Potential LD effects through prevention 3 16.86 Indirect effects on LD 3 59.21 Little apparent LD effect 1 6.83 Total 11 120.86 2000 Strong LD component 2 14.88 Potential LD effects through prevention 2 16.40 Indirect effects on LD 1 1.60 Total 5 32.88 Total Strong LD component 39 288.92 Potential LD effects through prevention 19 123.76 Indirect effects on LD 12 134.41 Little apparent LD effect 10 77.03 Total 80 624.12 63 Table 6 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects by Phase and Focal Area GEF Allocation ($ m) GEF Phase Project GEF Allocation Focal Area Projects Was Initiated ($ m) Pilot Biodiversity 15 74.36 Climate Change 9 39.50 Int'l Waters 4 28.50 Total 28 142.36 1995-2000 Biodiversity 33 233.85 Climate Change 13 161.26 Int'l Waters 6 86.65 Total 52 481.76 Total Biodiversity 48 308.21 Climate Change 22 200.76 Int'l Waters 10 115.15 Total 80 624.12 Table 7 GEF Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area GEF Allocation ($ m) GEF Phase Project GEF Allocation Focal Area Projects Was Initiated ($ m) Pilot Biodiversity 10 56.00 Climate Change 3 6.50 Int'l Waters 1 10.00 Total 14 72.50 1995-2000 Biodiversity 17 121.57 Climate Change 3 12.10 Int'l Waters 5 82.75 Total 25 216.42 Total Biodiversity 27 177.57 Climate Change 6 18.60 Int'l Waters 6 92.75 Total 39 288.92 64 Table 8 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects by Implementing Agency and Phase GEF Allocation ($ m) GEF Phase Implementing % of Total GEF Allocation % of Total Project Was Projects Agency Projects ($ m) Allocation Initiated Pilot World Bank 8 10.0% 46.70 7.5% UNDP 20 25.0% 95.66 15.3% Total 28 35.0% 142.36 22.8% 1995-2000 World Bank 15 18.8% 209.21 33.5% UNDP 26 32.5% 131.15 21.0% UNEP 4 5.0% 34.69 5.6% UNEP/UNDP 4 5.0% 31.07 5.0% WB/UNDP 1 1.3% 21.30 3.4% WB/UNEP 1 1.3% 35.00 5.6% WB/UNDP/UNEP 1 1.3% 19.34 3.1% Total 52 65.0% 481.76 77.2% Total World Bank 23 28.8% 255.91 41.0% UNDP 46 57.5% 226.81 36.3% UNEP 4 5.0% 34.69 5.6% UNEP/UNDP 4 5.0% 31.07 5.0% WB/UNDP 1 1.3% 21.30 3.4% WB/UNEP 1 1.3% 35.00 5.6% WB/UNDP/UNEP 1 1.3% 19.34 3.1% Total 80 100.0% 624.12 100.0% 65 Table 9 GEF Allocation to Full-Size Projects with Strong Land Degradation by Implementing Agency and Phase GEF Allocation ($ m) GEF Phase Implementing % of Total GEF Allocation % of Total Project Was Projects Agency Projects ($ m) Allocation Initiated Pilot World Bank 5 12.8% 34.30 11.9% UNDP 9 23.1% 38.20 13.2% Total 14 35.9% 72.50 25.1% 1995-2000 World Bank 6 15.4% 47.45 16.4% UNDP 11 28.2% 62.89 21.8% UNEP 4 10.3% 34.69 12.0% UNEP/UNDP 2 5.1% 17.05 5.9% WB/UNEP 1 2.6% 35.00 12.1% WB/UNDP/UNEP 1 2.6% 19.34 6.7% Total 25 64.1% 216.42 74.9% Total World Bank 11 28.2% 81.75 28.3% UNDP 20 51.3% 101.09 35.0% UNEP 4 10.3% 34.69 12.0% UNEP/UNDP 2 5.1% 17.05 5.9% WB/UNEP 1 2.6% 35.00 12.1% WB/UNDP/UNEP 1 2.6% 19.34 6.7% Total 39 100% 288.92 100.0% 66 Table 10 Location of Full-Size Projects in Biodiversity Focal Area GEF Allocation ($ m) Located in % of Total % of Total Region Projects Sum Protected Area Projects Allocation PA Africa 14 32.6% 92.50 33.6% Asia 7 16.3% 52.96 19.2% Middle East 5 11.6% 24.85 9.0% Latin America 7 16.3% 37.20 13.5% Total 33 76.7% 207.51 75.4% Not in PA Africa 7 16.3% 42.76 15.5% Asia 1 2.3% 10.60 3.8% Middle East 1 2.3% 8.18 3.0% Global 1 2.3% 6.28 2.3% Total 10 23.3% 67.82 24.6% Total Africa 21 48.8% 135.26 49.1% Asia 8 18.6% 63.56 23.1% Middle East 6 14.0% 33.03 12.0% Latin America 7 16.3% 37.20 13.5% Global 1 2.3% 6.28 2.3% Total 43 100.0% 275.33 100.0% 67 Table 11A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects use Land planning LD X X for X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X land m ction X Take fro produ nX/a X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX XX n0/ XX n0/ nX/ XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX R and nten educe use sity X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX na/ XX na/ na/ XX XX XX XX XX XX XX l i H estoratn abitat X X X X na/ X na/ nX/ nX/ X X0 XX XX XX XX XX XX Xa r nt atchm ngt nX/a n0/ nX/a X na/ nX/ nX/ nX/a X m XX nX/ nX/a n0/ nX/a na/ nX/ nX/a na/ XX Xa XX C Fire control X X X X X X 0 Xa na/ na/a na/a na/ nX/a na/ na/a Xa nX/ nX/a nX/a XX Xa Soil conserv nX/ X X X XX Xa n0/a nX/ 0 Xa XX na/ Xa LD rding ctices X X n0/a n0/ X n0/ X na/ n0/a e a XX XX XX Xa XX XX X0 H Pr Xa X0 XX XX ing ces LD X X Farm Practi X nX/ XX 0X XX Xa XX X Xa XX XX XX nX/ nX/a XX na/a nX/a nX/a XX XX threat veg ofhabitat of cover veg of o cove of o los veg veg none cover spp veg ve veg none of LD entioned cove loss species cover Loss cover Loss habitat loss species loss species loss species entioned alien invasion Loss cover Loss cover entioned Loss species m laoss lXoss vegetative lXoss dXeforestation laoss m lXoss m eforestation DX in in C and urrent use hrerdin l protecte area ing ing ing farm herding hserdin farm herding protecte area protecte area protecte area ffarm hrerdin protecte area ffarm protecte area farm herding protecte area protecte area hgerdin protecte area protecte area protecte area lloc ) A m EF ($ 9g.0 7d.0 1&2.9 8g.0 8&.1 6d.2 2d.5 6d.0 2g.4 .g7 8d.9 6g.2 1d.9 .&7 .d2 5d.1 4g.3 3d.0 4d.0 2d.5 G Year P W entry 1599 1099 1099 1099 1899 1099 1099 1099 1699 1599 1099 1899 1099 1599 1099 1699 1799 1099 1099 1099 enting P D N P N P P P P P P P P P EP/U Bank P D D D Bank D D D D Ban EP D EP Bank D D D Bank D plem gency N N N N N N N N N N N N N U7 U7 U5 U1 U2 U9 U7 U6 U9 U8 U9 U1 U7 A orld EP/U orld orld orld orld N N U8 W2 W8 W7 W3 W1 Im U6 th o de unity at in en and ense egrade th an in Park am m Loss EastAfrica egraded an Approach Approac enetic ent,an onserv ryland Forests ptions O D C ationa orilla in D D C N & G Banados ProjectN TS om M JEC ofthe and N in M ofthe eserve R O PilotC C C gahinga PR entofIndigenous ehabilitation onservation aucasus anagem R C Sustainable Ecosyste ative forthe esource iversity Agrobiodiv onservation ofPlantG the hange ildlands C anagem W odelforD ighly forBiodiversit ryland onservation onservation ent ecentralized Protection D Bangassou ofBiodiversity er-Based i-Arid Farm Sem esources entalC ana ofH Livelihood s ance D penetrable M SITY anagem estAfrica aturalR Biodiversity N educing ross-BorderSites Participatory ehabilitation onservation ofD se ationalParks anagem ighly H Biodiversity se:The onservation egion R ic and onsolidation egion & R hoco ynam onservation Threatened and Biosphere C onservation aturalR IndicatorM estoration arien indiIm onsolidation ountry IVER M Vegetation W Based R C BiologicalD through R C U N M A to U C C D to Arid C Nk People,Land Environm FinalC Azraq An Ecosystem R and Biodiversity Sustainable TPranshum Biodiversity D Bw Park C Este D IO ali d'Iv g aurit/ bia ex a B te Ce Af:Bots/ Ken/M Af:Burkina/ ô entralAfr. ep olom eorgia hana lobal hile/M auritius ongolia orocco ganda ruguay C Af:Keny/ Tanz/U Af:M Senegal As:Jord/ Leb/Syria Bdenin C R Ce Ehthiopia Gm Gt Gd Jfordan LA:Braz/ C Md Md My Peanam Ul Ul 68 Table 11B Analysis of Sample, Climate Change and International Waters Projects use Land planning LD X X X for n/ n/ n/ X n/ n/ n/ X X n/ X X X X X X X X X land m ction X Take fro produ na/ na/ na/ X na/ na/ na/ X X X XX na/ XX XX R and nten educe use sity na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ X X X XXX X XX na/ XX l i H estoratn abitat na/ na/ na/ X na/ na/ na/ na/ X X X XX XX XX r nt atchm ngt X na/ na/ na/ nX/ na/ na/ na/ n0/a nX/a na/ nX/a X X X m X0 X XX X0 C Fire control X na/ na/ na/ X na/ na/ na/ 0 na/ nX/a nX/ nX/a Xa oil serv X X X S con na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ 0 nX/ na/ Xa XX XX LD rding ctices na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ X X nX/ nX/ nX/ e a XX H r XX P ing ces LD Farm racti na/a na/a na/a X na/ na/a na/a 00 na/ na/a nX/ X Xa Xa XX Xa P threat LD entioned none entioned none entioned none entioned none entioned none entioned non entioned none entioned pXollution m m m m dXeforestatio daeforestation m m m daeforestation m saoilerosion sXoilerosio sXoilerosio sXoilerosio in in in in in C and urrent use urban l industrial urban industrial urban industrial fnarm urban industrial urban industrial urban industrial fearm protecte area urban industrial ing farm herding fnarm fnarm fnarm urban industrial lloc ) A m F $ E ( 4/0.0 3/.7 2/.4 3g.0 7/.5 4/.0 2/.9 2g.5 4d.9 4/.4 1&.5 1g0.0 3g5.0 6g.6 3/.9 G ear P Y W entry 1099 1599 1799 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 1099 enting ank P P P P an P an ank P P P P E P P B D D D D B D B B D D D N E D plem gency N N N N N N N N /U N N U8 U6 U5 U1 U6 U9 U2 U1 U8 U6 A orld orld orld orld B W6 W5 W2 W6 W6 Im al ercia ur m B m ngtP araguay iver rog R P am TS E m Increase TS ro angelan equest C S JE O R ther ental M rojectN C JE om eneration Trash and ase and entofS ission aste B lash articipator P ent to R arbon P O S Tanganyika pperP U anube eductn R D R O S ystem ethane forC nvironm R erC erG agasse B nergy to evelopm S unicipalW nerg and ass ased TE E atershed P ow E II D arriers B the e ofM E B A ontrol& P /Lake W E P P ofM anagem iom W C ent G N A V P A ass onstration ow ass ane able izing esources om se M unity L ictoria ollution U oving ofB m antanaland N H C iom em iom ugarC enew lectricity lternatives griculture ptim ydelR olarH eduction ousehold ustainable nergy em se om ehabilitation ollution easures anagem eveloping asin B D B S R E A A O H Sk R and Hk S E R U C R TIO P M Lake M Integrated forP D B TE A ountry N A R LIM TE g ulg/ z/ old C IN ur/ en/ :B Ce razil razil hana lobal ali lovenia udan f:B ongo/TZ f:K razil E roa/C ung/M Bl B: Gd Gn Ilndia Isndonesia Jsordan enegal My Sy Sd Sd A C /Zam A Tz/U Bg C C H 69 Table 12A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects: Forestry/Tree and Environmental as oils sink X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S C X X ontroldust soils 0 0 from XX C Tree plantation nX/ nX/ nX/ n0/ n0/ n0/ n0/ n0/ n0/ X n0/ X n0/ n0/ n0/a n0/ X0 n0/ n0/ X0 P veg,defor revent X X X X X X X X X X X X X0 Xa na/ Xa na/ Xa na/ na/ XX Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa XX Xa Xa de eforestation X X nX/a X X X X X X X X XX na/a XX na/a nX/a nX/a na/a na/ nX/a XX nX/a XX XX XX XX D gro estry 0 X 0 0 0 nX/a X 0 0 0 X X 0 na/ 0 0 0 0 A for XX XX XX XX Fuel w onserv ood 0 0 X XX n0/ na/ 0 0 0 c ustforest harvest X X X X 0 X 0 X0 X0 XX n0/a X0 n0/ na/ n0/a nX/ n0/ na/ X0 n0/ X0 S ood tion X Fuelw collec X XX X 0a X 0X XX na/a na/a Xa na/a nX/ na/a X0 XX ehabilitatn ast esource E in ites G A P forR aturalR in orderS articipatory grobiodiv rotection frican ativ egio ofA hang orill th P ryland en R onserv entalC etlands N ption s O W gahinga iospher B am to the E ark rojectN egetation N ofD iodiversity hoco C Threatened egio M R ased ross-B through anagem C to zraq & ste se M B onservation nvironm cosystem and U C ofA E Livelihood B and en arien delE V atC in D P anados om & N B C S rid TS C JE entofIndigenous unity Loss pproach pproach A ent,and onserv ryland egraded ustain in S m A C ationalP D ilotC P iodiversity onservation ustainable ased cosystem anagem E iodiversit M & iversity iodiversity and onservation C er-B forB B arks ofB i-A M ofthe Farm onserv onservation em S esources anagem odelforD ighly ofH C ance C penetrable ark O D W R P anagem frica ecentralized ic onsolidation ildlands estA se U and IndicatorM indiIm ITY educing frica iologicalD ehab onservation ationalP ighly onservation ynam lant rid aucasus aturalR eople,Land ana n estoration iodiversity iodiversity w ationalP onsolidation eserve M0 WX R A B R C0 N0 H and CX D P A C NX P0 FinalC D AX R Forests BX T0ranshum Ba B N C R S R ountry E IV D a IO ots/ ali urkina/ d'Iv eny/ g aur/ frican yria bia raz/ ex Ce B f:B en/M f:B te :B ô f:K f:M enin entralA ep olom thiopia eorgia hana lobal hile/M auritius ongolia orocco anam ganda ruguay A K A C A Tanz/U enegal s:Jord/ A S A Leb/S Bt C R Cn E Ge Gt Ge J&ordan LA C Me Ms My Pn Ua Ue 70 Table 12B Analysis of Sample Climate Change and International Waters Projects as oils sink n/ 0 0 n/ n/ 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 S C X ontroldust soils na/ X X0 n0/ na/a na/ 0 from XX C Tree plantation X X n0/ n0/ nX/ na/ 0 na/ n0/ n0/ X n0/a X n0/ n0/a Xa XX X0 P veg,defor revent na/ na/ X na/a na/ X X 0 0 X0 na/ XX Xa Xa Xa XX de eforestation X n0/ na/ na/a X X X n0/ na/ X X 0 X XX na/ XX XX XX XX XX D gro estry X na/a na/ 0 X nX/ na/a na/ na/a X 0 X 0 A for XX XX XX o- Fuelw od conserv 0 na/ X 0 X X X 0 0 Xa na/ n0/ X0 XX XX ustforest harvest na/ 0 X nX/a 0 na/ X X nX/ X 0 X0 na/ XX XX XX XX S ood tion X Fuelw collec n0/ na/a X X 00 XX XX na/a XX na/ na/a XX XX an agasse I B esource unicipa en eduction as arbo fo R am onstratio iom ane ydelR M anagem se M ofB forC rotectLake ent ollution U P rogram P A allH & se U ehab to entP asin rojectN em ugarC griculture nergy E R anagem ercialD iverB m R P TS E O M m R C om eneration:S lectricit C E urn m TS B ased easures and entofS issions B articipatory Increased JE entalM anagem to angeland R P therM araguay JE P S S R nvironm anube D O erC erG nergy lash to ystem ethane S nerg and ased E atershed pperP R ow ow evelopm E D arriers B the e ofM nergy E B TE ontrolO W U P P P A e C m E G ass ass able izing om forE oving unity W ictoria m L V N A A iom iom enew lternatives ptim olarH eduction aste ousehold ustainable em om equestration N ollution L0ake antanal& eveloping rogram H Ba B Trash RX AX OX S0 R W HX SX Ra C S C TIO P Tanganyika Integrated P D P ountry TE A N A R LIM TE ur/ enya/ ganda ulg/ z/ old Ce C razil razil hana lobal ali enegal lovenia udan IN f:B on/Tz/Zm f:K razil :B E roa/C ung/M Bn Bd Gy GI Isndia Isndonesia Jlordan My St Ss Sn A C A Tz/U Br C C H 71 Table 13A Analysis of Sample Biodiversity Projects/Project Approach A ihoods lt X X X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X livel X X X X n/ n/ n/a X X X X X X X X X X X X IK Integrated X X 0 X X X 0 X X 0 XX XX nX/ Xa XX nX/ XX XX Xa X0 XX nabling policy X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X 0 X X X X XX XX X0 X0 XX XX XX E LD XX XX Xa Xa oot R LD auses X X X 0 X X X X 0 X X X XX XX XX XX C es on R c Targarted LD ocioe X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX S Targeted LD esearch iophys X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X0 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X0 XX B R & g Info collec exchn X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX apacity ild LD re X X 0 X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX C u B articipator X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX nX/a XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX P ast esource E in ites forthe aturalR orderS articipatory grobiodiv rotection frican ativ A hang th N A P an orill G P ryland en egio in D Livelihoo egio C iospher R B N ofD anagem iodiversity R onserv entalC & s hoco to C nvironm zraq Threatened gahinga M ste am ross-B through se M B to the onservation arien E ofA cosystem C E and ustainable D ark rojectN egetation ased U B and en S delE V unity atC Loss pproach in pproach A ent,and onserv C ryland egraded and the in ationalP Py om N B C S rid TS C JE entofIndigenous m onservation ustainable A ilotC iodiversity ased cosystem anagem D anados E iodiversit M and and onservation er-B C i-A anagem M odelforD ighly forB P B arks ecentralized ofB Farm onservation onservation ofthe ic em S esources ofH C ance C penetrable ark O frica D se onsolidation R P anagem ehabilitation iodiversity iversity estA U ynam and IndicatorM D ildlands ptions indiIm ITY educing frica iologicalD ehab onservation ationalP ighly onservation lant rid aucasus aturalR eople,Land n estoration iodiversity iodiversity w ationalP onsolidation eserve M R WX R A B R CX NX H and CX A P A C NX PX FinalC W AX R Forests B O TXranshum BX B N C R S R ountry E IV D IO ots/ ali urkina/ d'Iv eny/ g aur/ frican yria bia raz/ ex a Ce B f:B en/M f:B te :B ô f:K f:M enegal s:Jordan/ enin entralA ep olom thiopia eorgia hana lobal hile/M auritius ongolia orocco anam ganda ruguay A K A C A Tanz/U A S A Leb/S Bt C R Cn E Ge Gt Ge Jaordan LA C Me Md My Pn Ua Ue 72 Table 13B Analysis of Sample Climate Change and International Waters Projects A ihoods lt X X X X 0 X livel n/ n/ n/ n/ n/ X n/ X n/ X X IK Integrated na/ na/ na/ X nX/ na/ na/ X na/ X X na/ XX XX nabling policy X X na/ na/ na/a X X X na/ na/ na/ X X X X X0 na/ XX X0 XX Xa E LD oot R X X LD auses na/ na/ na/ na/ na/ 0 XX na/ 0 X XX C es on R c Targarted LD ocioe na/ na/ nX/ X X na/ na/ na/ X XX na/ XX XX S XX Targeted LD esearch iophys na/ na/ na/ X na/ na/ na/ X na/ X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX B R & g Info collec exchn X X X na/ na/ na/ X X X na/ na/ na/ X X X X X XX na/ XX XX XX XX XX XX apacity ild LD re X na/a na/ na/a X na/a na/a na/ na/ XX XX C u B articipator X X na/a na/a X X X X0 X XX na/ XX XX XX XX XX P an en agasse I B esource unicipa en eduction ofM as arbo forth R am onstratio evelopm iom ane forD ydelR use anagem M forC rotectLake P ent to rogram ollution and ofB P se U A asin rojectN em ugarC griculture allH nergy ehab E R anagem entP ercialD m TS C E B JE E O entalM anagem M araguay iverB R Py TS m angeland easures R therM C om eneration:S lectricity urn issions ased and entofS m B articipatory Increased to R P O JE erC erG O nergy lash S ystem ethane P ased S R nvironm pperP anube D E U B the R ow ow evelopm nerg E to S atershed e ofM and E arriers B TE ontrol& P P P om A W e C m E G ass ass able izing oving unity W ictoria m L V N aste A A iom iom Trash enew lternatives D ptim olarH eduction ousehold ustainable em om equestration N ollution LXake antanaland eveloping rogram B0 B RX AX OX SX R W HX SX Ra C S H C TIO P Tanganyika Integrated P D P ountry TE A N A R LIM TE ur/ enya/ g ulg/ z/ old Ce C razil razil hana lobal ali udan IN f:B on/Tz/Zm f:K razil :B E roa/C ung/M Bn Bd Gt GI Isndia Isndonesia Jlordan enegal lovenia My St Ss Sn A C A Tanz/U Be C C H 73 Figure 1 Trend in Number of Full and Medium Size Land Degradation Projects 10 MSP Full size 8 component LD 6 strong with 4 projects of Number 2 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry Figure 2 Trend in GEF Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects 80 MSP 70 Full size 60 m) ($ 50 40 Allocation GEF 30 of Sum 20 10 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry 74 Figure 3 Trend in Number of Projects: GEF Entire Portfolio 100 MSP Full size 80 oliotf por 60 GEF in projects 40 of Number 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry Figure 4 Trend in GEF Allocation: GEF Entire Portfolio 500 MSP Full size oliotf 400 por GEF entire 300 to ($m) 200 allocation GEF Sum 100 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry 75 Figure 5 Trend in Number of Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area 8 Focal Area Int'l Waters 7 Climate Change Biodiversity 6 5 projects e 4 siz full of 3 Number 2 1 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry Figure 6 Trend in GEF Allocation to Strong Land Degradation Projects by Focal Area 80 Focal Area Int'l Waters 70 Climate Change Biodiversity 60 50 ($m) 40 allocation GEF 30 of Sum 20 10 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry 76 Figure 7 Trend in Number of Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Effect Strength of LD 12 Indirect effect Potential LD effect through prevention 10 Strong LD component 8 projects e 6 full-siz of 4 Number 2 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry Figure 8 Trend in GEF Allocation to Projects by Strength of Land Degradation Effect Degree project is LD 120 Indirect effect Potential LD effect through prevention 100 Strong LD component 80 ($m) 60 allocation GEF 40 Sum 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year WP entry 77