for sustainable land management - world …documents.worldbank.org › curated › en ›...
TRANSCRIPT
THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA
Tel: 202-473-1000Fax: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd
PartnershipsF O R S U S T A I N A B L E L A N D M A N A G E M E N T
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya
A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD
34111
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
This paper was prepared by an inter-agency team drawn from the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the U.N.
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) under the leadership of Enos E. Esikuri. The team included: Enos E. Esikuri, Mathew
Corbett (consultant) and John B. Collier of the World Bank, Washington, DC; Simone Quatrini, Global Mechanism, Rome, Italy; Khalida
Bouzar, International Fund for Agricultural Development Rome; Anna Tengberg, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,
Kenya; Richard J. Thomas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Aleppo, Syria; Gregoire De Kalbermatten,
UNCCD Secretariat, Bonn, Germany; and Robert Everitt and Daniele Ponzi, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
The Facilitation Committee would like to thank the World Bank for facilitating and financing this publication. The authors wish to
thank Jim Cantrell (World Bank) for design and production management.
The Facilitation Committee provides support and advice to the Global Mechanism and allows for collaborative institutional
arrangements between the Global Mechanism and those institutions having relevant technical and financial expertise to the UNCCD.
The members of the Facilitation Committee are: African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global
Environment Facility (GEF), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
Secretariat of the UNCCD, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and
The World Bank (WB). The G-77 and China, OECD Group, and RIOD Network participate in an observer status.
Cover image by Erick C. M. Fernandes; all other images by Enos E. Esikuri.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya.
A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD.
PartnershipsFOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT
© 2005 The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development / THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA
Telephone: 202-473-1000Facsimale: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd
All rights reservedFirst printing September 2005
The World Bank has used its best efforts to ensure that the information contained withinthis report is accurate, however, it cannot guarantee its accuracy. The representations,interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments that they represent.
Rights and PermissionsThe material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or allof this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination ofits work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a requestwith complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive,Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet:www.copyright.com.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should beaddressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW,Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].
3
1. Introduction 4
2. Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 5
3. Sustainable Land Management Partnership Opportunities and Examples 8
4. Attributes of Effective Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 14
Appendix — Examples of Existing Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 16
Notes 19
References 19
CONTENTS
4
1INTRODUCTION
Seventy-five percent of the global poor are
rural and mainly agrarian. Agriculture is
the driver of economic growth in many
developing countries, where it often
represents at least 25 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP). Most countries
whose economies depend on agriculture
are also the most severely affected by land
degradation and other critical global
environmental concerns. Many of these
countries are in Africa. At its July 2005
summit at Gleneagles, the G-8 noted that
in order to promote growth, investment is
needed in sustainable agriculture in many
of the developing countries, especially in
Africa. Much of the shift towards sustain-
able agriculture can be achieved largely
through promotion of Sustainable Land
Management technologies and practices.
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) can
be defined as a knowledge-based procedure
that helps integrate land, water, biodiversity,
and environmental management (including
input and output externalities), to meet rising
food and fiber demands while sustaining
ecosystem services and livelihoods (World
Bank, 2005).
In less than 25 years, income and popula-
tion growth may double global food
demand. Agricultural growth is the
cornerstone of long-term food security.
Since 38 percent of the world’s land is
already devoted to agriculture (crops and
permanent pasture) (FAO, 2002), the
influence of agricultural land management
practices on ecosystem health is substan-
tial. Agricultural growth and the practices
used to achieve it will largely determine
natural resource management (NRM)
regimes in both agricultural and non-
agricultural landscapes.
Historically, conversion of land to agricul-
tural use has usually led to degraded
biodiversity and eventually loss of soil
fertility. But the search for food security
does not have to involve unsustainable
land management practices. Improvements
in agriculture productivity can be achieved
with SLM practices. Given the multi-
dimensionality of land use and land
degradation issues, SLM offers a platform
for integrating various agendas and
stakeholders in a way that provides
multiple benefits in both the short- and
long-term. And because many natural
resources, such as river basins, are shared,
it makes sense to forge partnerships at
different levels — community, watershed,
national, sub-regional, global — that help
address shared resource issues.
The international community is increas-
ingly aware that isolated and uncoordi-
nated activities and actors will not
adequately address environmental and
conservation issues into the future. For
example, as increased awareness of climate
change and desertification has shown, the
earth’s critical environments must be
protected by all, not just a few specialists.
5
2SUSTAINABLE
LAND
MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIPS
Recognizing joint responsibility for natural
resources allows all concerned to make
rational choices on the farm, in the village,
in the river basin, or on the continent.
While recognizing that partnerships can be
challenging and costly, this paper makes
the case that there are indeed justifiable
cases where multi-stakeholder partner-
ships are not only needed but are essential
to ensuring collective stewardship of land
resources. This paper lays out the key
principles for effective SLM partnerships,
and presents a number of promising SLM
partnerships established around the world
at the local, national, regional/international
and global levels, dealing with private and
public land. These examples help provide
an understanding of the entry points,
strengths and weaknesses of SLM
partnerships. Finally, the paper highlights
the attributes of a partnership required to
achieve success.
The objective of the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD) is to combat desertification1
and mitigate the effects of drought in
countries experiencing serious drought
and/or desertification, particularly in
Africa. The UNCCD recognizes the
importance of international cooperation
and partnerships in achieving this objec-
tive. Specifically, Articles 2 and 3 of the
Convention note that for land degradation
mitigation actions to be effective at all
levels, they must be supported by appro-
priate international cooperation and
partnership arrangements.
A partnership provides an opportunistic
mechanism for stakeholders to come
together to achieve a shared goal by using
their comparative advantages. It enables
organizations to achieve results that are
greater than the sum of their individual
efforts. It seeks to optimize the effective-
ness of investments by establishing and
coordinating a common program and
assigning specific objectives to different
partners. Thus a partnership can overcome
the ad hoc nature of unrelated projects in
separate administrative areas. At its best, it
can actually direct activities at the causes
of a land management problem, rather
than merely at the symptoms.
In the context of SLM, partnerships can
create an effective entry point to
mainstreaming land management issues
into country development frameworks by
creating a critical mass that can engage
policy dialogue with a wide range of
interested partners at various levels.
(a) Goals and Structure
SLM partnerships can take a number of
forms and can involve a broad mix of
stakeholders. They usually have a unifying
focus, either the management of a specific
resource or the achievement of theme-
based objectives, or a combination of both.
A resource-based partnership may have
the goal of improving river water quality,
whereas a theme-based goal may be
poverty reduction through the adoption of
a range of SLM practices.
6SLM partnerships usually have objectives
at different levels, from local through to
national, international/regional, and global.
They usually run for an extended period,
which is necessary to improve degraded
soil, water, and vegetation resources, and
to effect sustainable change. They are
usually tied to a geographic area, com-
monly a natural system (e.g. river basin,
forest area), but may be based on an
administrative area (e.g. province, country),
a theme or an activity. Global partnerships
tend to be based on a theme (e.g.,
desertification, biodiversity) or an activity
(e.g. information sharing, policy sharing,
resource mobilization) rather than a
geographic area.
Partners can include any combination of
international agencies, governments
(national, state, and local), departments,
research and learning institutions, busi-
ness/industry, non-governmental organi-
zations (NGOs), communities, and/or
individual resource users. These partners
may be integrated vertically and/or
horizontally. The partnership structure
commonly includes a dedicated manage-
ment/administrative body responsible for
the overall management, program coordi-
nation, and activity facilitation. This body
is usually governed by a committee
comprised of representatives of the key
partners.
Partners usually make financial contribu-
tions to cover the core functions of
management, technical expertise, imple-
mentation, research, labor, and funding.
The costs of running partnerships must be
proportional to the overall program to
ensure the funds are primarily being
directed towards tangible on-the-ground
activities rather than administration and
process meetings.
(b) Strengths and Benefits
Above all else, SLM partnerships provide
the enabling conditions for desired land-
management activities. Providing these
conditions are usually beyond the financial
means, technical capability, and/or
geographic influence of a single entity.
These enabling conditions need to be
underpinned by an effective coordination
mechanism that a partnership arrange-
ment can provide.
A partnership can raise the profile of an
issue, so that it gets on a government’s
agenda. It can make an issue widely
known and supported at international,
political, departmental, community, and
land-user levels. This public recognition is
particularly important for rural issues
where the cause of the problem is often
remote or dispersed, and the issue is not
well understood by the urban population,
7which retains much of the political power.
Everywhere, urban dwellers become
disconnected from their sources of food,
fiber, and wood and the environmental
impacts that can result from their produc-
tion. This disconnection is increasing as the
world’s urban population increases. In
2005, the world’s population residing in
urban areas is projected to reach 50
percent, rising from only 14 percent in
1900 (United Nations Secretariat, 2005).
A partnership motivates its members to
meet their agreed obligations through
regular coordination. Without the partner-
ship, individual efforts can often lose
momentum and direction. Partnerships
provide the long-term continuity necessary
to achieve results. Because they are less
susceptible to changes of government and
subsequent funding priorities, they can
endure well beyond a single political term.
Partnerships can effectively address
economic, social, and environmental
dimensions of land management issues by
exploring mutually beneficial linkages and
actions between stakeholders and con-
cerned sectors. In these cases, SLM is less
focused on “land” and more on develop-
ment.
Partnerships open channels for regular
strategic dialogue and exert leverage at a
country or even regional level. They can
break down traditional rivalries to bring
combined effort and expertise to bear on a
set of issues. Stakeholders become focused
on shared results, rather than on their
differences. International partnerships can
improve relations and help avoid resource-
use conflicts.
A partnership can develop a unified
management framework and action
program, avoiding piecemeal, possibly
duplicative, actions. Alignment of partner-
ship objectives can help in policy align-
ment among participating governments.
Partnerships allow a plan to be imple-
mented across an entire landscape,
regardless of its division into political
units. Partnerships can be more cost
effective than uncoordinated actions
because they can target key components of
a system and monitor across the entire
system (more value per dollar spent),
leverage resources, and make more
efficient use of funds by avoiding duplica-
tion and treating the cause, not the
symptoms. Specialist agencies can
contribute their expertise and financial
resources in a coordinated manner on
significant issues that are either beyond
the scope or means of one agency or more
efficiently solved through the cooperation
of multiple participants.
Partnerships facilitate, coordinate, and
streamline funding, and can generate new
funding sources by creating a “brand” (e.g.,
sponsorship by those wanting to associate
with the initiative). Well-executed
partnerships reduce the lead time for
activities (i.e. from activity identification to
effectiveness), especially for repeat
projects/activities. In addition, partnerships
have the potential to enhance and broaden
the funding base for SLM initiatives by
opening channels with non-traditional
players in the public and private sectors.
Partnerships can strengthen monitoring
and evaluation processes by coordinating
and standardizing data collection, and by
facilitating the sharing of expertise,
program experience and results, research,
and resource data.
8
3SUSTAINABLE
LAND
MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES
AND EXAMPLES
Some of the most prominent SLM
partnerships are transboundary river basin
initiatives, where upper watershed land
use practices have caused stress on vital
downstream water resources. Partnership
initiatives are also highly suited to the
effective management of regional and
global environmental issues such as
transboundary nomadic grazing, drought
management, slash-and-burn agriculture,
bushfires (and their effects on biodiversity
and release of carbon) and dust storms, as
well as other large scale land management
issues that require substantial and
prolonged investment.
Another prime opportunity for SLM
partnerships is in mitigating drought and
flood disasters. Many countries are
vulnerable to frequent droughts, and
devastating floods, that often have severe
socio-economic impacts at local, national
and regional levels. Droughts and floods
can present a significant challenge to both
rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, includ-
ing livestock and inland fisheries. They can
pose a significant barrier to investments in
agriculture, livestock, fisheries, hydro-
power and other key sectors.
In sub-Saharan Africa, consequences of
drought are often transboundary as people
and livestock displaced by drought in one
region move to seek relief in other
jurisdictions. Therefore, partnership
arrangements that coordinate investments
in appropriate drought mitigation mea-
sures are needed to reduce impacts,
improve productivity, and enhance
economic performance (Esikuri 2005).
With global climate change projected to
lead to more frequent and extreme
droughts, mechanisms to help countries
reduce their vulnerability to drought will
be needed on a regional scale.
This section presents five success stories in
which cooperation and combined manage-
Inappropriate Situationsand Weaknesses
Not all SLM situations are amenable to
partnerships. A partnership is inappropri-
ate where the potential gains to partici-
pants are outweighed by the “costs” of
establishing and maintaining the partner-
ship. For this reason, a short-term
partnership is unlikely to be worthwhile,
let alone suitable to overcoming significant
land management issues.
A partnership is not applicable where there
is insufficient shared interest and no
common goal. A partnership cannot and
should not be all encompassing, targeting
a broad diversity of unrelated individual
interests.
To succeed, a partnership should be
composed of voluntary members and fully
self-supporting, with contributions that all
partners consider equitable. A partnership
cannot successfully be held together by a
single highly motivated partner. A
partnership is not and should not be used
as an opportunity to offload individual
obligations to address specific SLM issues.
The structure of a partnership should be
such that it discourages free-ridership by
any individual member.
9ment achieved far greater results than
could be achieved through actions by
individual agencies. The following ex-
amples highlight certain conditions that
make these SLM partnerships effective.
They include cases in which:
Countries in Central Asia coordinated
to steer donor funding to priority areas
for dryland management.
Several states and the U.S. Government
united to deal with pollution in the
country’s largest estuary.
Nine countries bordering or traversed
by the Nile River formed a partnership
for the economic development of the
river basin.
A partnership between China, GEF
Implementing and Executing Agencies,
other donors secured long-term
Box 1Central Asian Initiative for Land Management —A Multi-Country Coordinated Action to Implement the UNCCD
Since its inception in October 2001, the Strategic Partnership Agreement for Implementation of the UNCCD in the CentralAsian Countries (SPA) has evolved into a fully functional, multi-agency partnership. A critical mass of partners has beenbrought together by the Global Mechanism (GM), with current membership including: GM, Asian Development Bank(ADB), Canadian International Development Agency, UNCCD Project of GTZ, SDC, IFAD, ICARDA and UNDP.
The CACILM partnership will be implemented over a ten year period (2005 – 2014) to support the development andimplementation of national programming frameworks (NPF) for more comprehensive and integrated approaches tosustainable land management directed towards the overall goal of combating land degradation and improving rurallivelihoods. CACILM is being implemented by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) under the direction of the CACILMTask Force, which is comprised of the SPA members and UNCCD Focal Points from the five Central Asian Countries. TheCACILM design phase is being co-financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), $700,000, the Global Mechanismof the UNCCD, $50,000, and ADB, $500,000.
The design phase of CACILM is expected to produce four outputs: (i) NPFs for each country, including a prioritizedprogram of projects and technical assistance, and related concept papers; (ii) the CACILM Multi-country PartnershipFramework and supporting GEF documentation prepared in accordance with GEF guidelines on the programmaticapproach; (iii) established mechanisms for consultation and coordination within and amongst countries that enhance theparticipation of stakeholders; provide efficient and effective mechanisms for the implementation, monitoring, and evalua-tion of CACILM; and enhance harmonization of funding agencies; and (iv) increased awareness and commitments bynational and funding agencies stakeholders.
CACILM aims to leverage $700 million over 10 years from the respective countries, GEF, and multilateral and bilateralsources. Current earmarked financing includes $450 million from ADB over 10 years and $20 million from GEF’s thirdreplenishment.
EXAMPLE 1. Multi-CountryCoordinated Action to AddressDesertification and Land Degradationin Central Asia
Land degradation is a serious economic,
social, and environmental problem in the
transition economies of the Central Asian
Countries (CACs) of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
funding and is distributing resources for
dryland management over the life of a
10-year program.
Development of the Landcare Programs
in Australia created a “brand” that raised
local awareness and built ownership
around a number of coordinated local
land management programs.
Uzbekistan. The Central Asian Initiative for
Land Management (CACILM), is a multi-
country and donor partnership to support
the development and implementation of
national programmatic frameworks for
comprehensive and integrated approaches
to sustainable land management in the
region (see Box 1).
Land degradation is common in all
countries and the causes—while multiple,
complex and variable— have some
similarities. The CACILM provides a multi-
country transfer mechanism to facilitate
exchange of SLM knowledge, technology,
experience and expertise.
10
Box 2The Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, encompasses parts of five states (Delaware, Maryland,New York, Virginia, West Virginia) and the entire District of Columbia. The bay ecosystem covers 64,000 square miles,encompassing 150 major rivers and streams and is home to 15.1 million people (Cestti et al, 2003).
For more than 300 years, the bay and its tributaries sustained the region’s economy. But as human and livestock num-bers grew and use of agrochemicals became widespread, the bay experienced excessive nutrient loading, which led to adrastic decline in water quality and subsequently in the bay’s famous fishery. Studies revealed that the leading threats tothe health of the bay were excess nitrogen and phosphorus, primarily from agriculture; sewage treatment plants; urbanrunoff; and air pollution from vehicles, factories, and power plants.
In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in order to restore the bay’s ecosystem quality and productivity. In1987, the key stakeholders agreed to reduce the total nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the bay by 40 percent (basedon 1985 levels) by the year 2000. A tributary strategy agreement was adopted in 1992 and specific limits for nitrogen andphosphorus were set for each of the bay’s 10 major tributaries. States then developed strategies to achieve the assignednutrient limits.
Federal and state support is provided to farmers to develop and implement total resource management plans that usebest management practices (BMPs) to prevent nutrients, sediments, and pesticides from reaching the bay. The empha-sis is on stakeholder participation and incentives for voluntary adoption of BMPs, under appropriate regulatory frame-works.
Key lessons from the Program are:
SLM partnerships require long-term commitment and action at all levels.A participatory approach works best when stakeholders, especially farmers, are empowered with adequate technicaland financial support.Appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks are critical to the success of large, transboundary SLM programsClear economic benefits from BMPs are vital for sustaining farmer interest.Determination of baselines, goals, benchmarks, indicators and a rigorous independent monitoring and evaluationsystem is crucial for measuring and communicating program progress.Incentive systems, such as cost-sharing, tax credits and transfer payments, are critical in encouraging voluntaryadoption of BMPs.Partnership programs should be targeted, promote inexpensive changes in existing land use practices, and havetangible (visible) environmental benefits.
EXAMPLE 2. Ecosystem Managementof a Shared Watershed
A natural resource is often shared by
different political or administrative entities,
user groups or individual resource users.
The natural resource may cross national or
state/provincial boundaries (e.g. river
basin, forest area, grazing corridor), and
the cause of land degradation may be
geographically removed from the effect
(e.g. pollution from upper watershed land
use practices affects a downstream lake).
Therefore effective action would rely on
inter-governmental cooperation. Govern-
ment-to-government dialogue and the
coordination of planning and action allows
resources to be directed at the most critical
components and sites. For example, the
Chesapeake Bay Program in the United
States brings together five states and the
District of Columbia; the Federal Govern-
ment; and other stakeholders to improve
the health of the Bay and watershed (see
Box 2).
11
EXAMPLE 3. River Basin EconomicDevelopment
Alternatively, a partnership may be
established to foster sustainable economic
development of a shared resource. This is
Box 3Nile Basin Initiative: Basin-Wide International Cooperation
The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a regional partnership of nine countries established in 1998 to fight poverty through thelong-term development and management of Nile waters. The partnership was initiated by the Council of Ministers ofWater Affairs of the Nile Basin (Nile-COM), incorporating all countries that share the basin (Burundi, Democratic Republicof Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda).2 Half of these countries are among the 10poorest nations in the world. About 160 million people live in the 3.4 million square kilometer basin, with a 70 percentrural population.
Partners developed an agreed basin-wide framework “to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through theequitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile-based water resources.” The NBI has launched interrelatedstrategic actions: the Shared Vision Program (SVP) and the two Subsidiary Action Programs (SAPs) — Eastern Nile andNile Equatorial Lakes.
The SVP includes seven basin-wide technical assistance projects that form a coordinated regional program. Fourprojects are theme-based, addressing issues related to environmental management, power trade, efficient water use foragriculture, and water resources planning and management. The other three are facilitative, strengthening confidence-building and stakeholder involvement, applied training for water resources management, and socio-economic develop-ment, benefit-sharing, and coordination.
The two SAPs are being developed to seek mutual benefits and concrete investments: the Eastern Nile currently includesEgypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia; while the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region includes Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo,Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda (the downstream riparians), as well as Sudan and Egypt. These subsidiarygroups are considering joint investment opportunities built on the partnership enabled by the NBI.The NBI is adminis-tered by three member-funded administrative bodies: Nile-COM, the Nile Technical Advisory Committee, and the Secre-tariat.
The NBI programs are supported by donor partners including Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway,Sweden, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the African Development Bank, the Global Environment Facility,UNDP, and the World Bank.
The NBI member countries pay annual dues to cover the core costs of the administrative bodies. Riparian countries alsoprovide counterpart funds for all projects, contribute additional funds to the NBI Secretariat, and sponsor SVP projectmanagement units. Coordinated by the World Bank at the request of the NBI, donors contribute funds to supportprograms and projects through the Nile Basin Trust Fund, where funds are mingled and allocated according to NBIobjectives. Alternatively, donors can provide support to individual projects or to the NBI Secretariat.
the case in the Nile Basin where nine
countries work within a mechanism to
develop and share Nile waters for domestic
supply, power, industry, and agriculture.
12EXAMPLE 4. Coordinated Large-Scaleand Long-Term Investment
The creation of a partnership between
government, various funding agencies,
implementing and executing agencies,
and/or resource users provides an effective
mechanism for securing adequate funds
EXAMPLE 5. SLM “Brand” Creationand Community Mobilization
A partnership can create an identity or
“brand” for a single SLM issue or a broad
range of SLM issues that would otherwise
have gone unrecognized. Raising the
profile of an SLM issue or initiative can
Box 4PRC/GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems in China
The Partnership on Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems was initiated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) andthe Global Environment Facility (GEF), with the PRC requesting the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to take a lead role infacilitating the preparation of the partnership.
The partnership, begun in 2002, targets the six provinces and autonomous regions with the worst dryland degradation inthe western region of China (Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Sha’anxi and Xinjiang). More than 350 millionpeople reside in this region that encompasses 6.8 million square kilomters (71 percent of the PRC). The region contains97 percent of wind-eroded and desertified land in China, and 54 percent of water-eroded areas (ADB, 2002).
The 10-year partnership has the overall goal of reducing land degradation, alleviating poverty, and restoring drylandecosystems in the western region. It is governed by a Country Programming Framework (CPF) in effect from 2003 to2012 and consists of sequenced priority activities that will strengthen the enabling environment and build institutionalcapacity for integrated approaches to combat land degradation, and demonstrate viable integrated ecosystem manage-ment models for widespread replication.
The total program cost is projected to be US$1.5 billion, to be financed by the GEF (US $150 million in grant assistancefor eligible incremental costs), ADB (US $250 million), PRC (US $700 million) and other sources. The ADB takes the leadwith regard to GEF programming but other GEF Implementing (e.g., World Bank) and Executing Agencies (e.g., IFAD)participate actively in this partnership.
Participation in the CPF by multilateral and bilateral organizations and foundations,especially the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), the World Bank and bilateral donors, has been achieved through donor coordination activities.
and distributing these efficiently to
implement activities over a long period of
time. Without a coordinating body, it
would be difficult to orchestrate a large
program with multiple financiers over an
extended period (i.e., over 10 years) of
time.
make local people more aware of the
problem and the proposed solutions,
which might spark community support
and even participation. An issue with a
high profile usually finds it easier to obtain
funds. This can help not only to make the
business case for SLM, but can also sustain
long-term political commitment and
accountability with regard to land manage-
ment issues.
A partnership can establish administration
channels and procedures that ease
financial and technical support and reduce
13
Box 5Landcare, Australia
Australia’s National Landcare Program is a government-community-business partnership that aims to achieve sustainablenatural resource management on both private and public land. It is based on voluntary collective community action at thelocal level supported by federal government funding and assistance.
The program, established by the Australian Government in 1992, provides funding to local Landcare action groups,based on several successful state government community-based land management programs. It emerged at a timewhen the full consequences of past land management practices— including land salinization, declining river waterquality, tree dieback, and erosion—were starting to be felt in different regions and it was recognized that governmentaction alone could not reverse land degradation. The program facilitates financial partnerships between the National andState Governments and Landcare groups, with each sharing about one third of the cost of implementing activities on theground.
A Landcare group is formed by local community members based on a natural resource management issue that theyhave identified. The group can focus on on-the-ground action, research, education, or community awareness raising.The Landcare group sets its own goals and actions within established guidelines, but a broad range of land, water, andvegetation management issues can be accommodated. Examples of focus issues are dryland salinity, wetland restora-tion, feral animal control, sand dune stabilization, and bushland protection The issues can be tackled at a catchment orregional level. Issues commonly span numerous private and government landholdings and are most effectively dealtwith by collective action. The Landcare group applies for funding and/or technical assistance from the Federal Govern-ment through state bodies.
The program places primary responsibility for resource management with local stakeholders, who have the greatestinvestment in the resource and stand to gain the main benefits from changes in how it is managed. By asking groupmembers to look beyond their farm gates and identify the issues of most common concern, the program builds owner-ship among the partners. Group ownership of an issue has partly replaced the traditional view that the Government isresponsible for taking care of resource management issues that are larger than a single farm.
A key achievement of Landcare has been the establishment of a single identity for land management improvementacross Australia. The “brand” identity of the Landcare program has raised community awareness about natural resourcemanagement issues, created the administrative mechanism for the funding and management of local activities, createdpressure for the allocation of adequate government funding, and provided the resources and support to local actiongroups to enable them to implement works.
Landcare is administered by three national bodies: Australian Landcare Council (policy advice to Ministers), LandcareAustralia Limited (corporate sponsorship, marketing and publicity) and the National Landcare Facilitator (linkage be-tween Landcare groups and government).
Landcare mainly operates in rural Australia; about 40 percent of all farmers are members. But there are also groups incities and towns. Over 4,500 Landcare goups now exist, incorporating previous programs such as Coastcare, Bushcare,and Waterwatch groups. Other innovations include business sponsorship, research, and improved communication linksbetween groups.
the lead-in time of on-the-ground
activities. The Landcare Program in
Australia has created a special “brand” and
identity that addresses land degradation
Nationally (Box 5). The program has been
able to sustain this ‘branding’ through
specific training, communication, media
and other activities and events. For
example, every three years, a National
Landcare conference is held in order to
learn and share experiences; and every two
years, National Landcare Awards are
presented to the winners in various SLM
categories by the Australian Prime
Minister. This has enhanced ownership of
SLM issues at the local levels. As evidence
of the Landcare ‘brand’ recognition and
acceptance, surveys have revealed that
farmers who belong to Landcare groups
will incorporate land conservation prac-
tices on their own farms far more than
those who do not belong to such groups.
14
4ATTRIBUTES OF
EFFECTIVE
SUSTAINABLE
LAND
MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIPS
To be effective, SLM partnerships need to
capture the following key attributes:
Unifying focus: A clear and agreed
goal or shared vision is required as the
basis for a SLM partnership. Partners
must focus on mutual benefits and
opportunities rather than on competing
for a limited resource.
Long term program: SLM is rarely
achieved over a few years because a
natural resource usually takes multiple
seasons to be restored or improved.
The overall goal is long-term
sustainability, commonly requiring both
biophysical and socio-economic
improvements.
Strong self interest: Partnerships work
when each partner clearly sees the
benefit to itself from the arrangement.
The overall benefit must be greater than
the benefit any single partner could
achieve alone. Clear benefits engender
commitment and active participation.
New resources: A partnership can be
justified if it brings new and additional
resources that would otherwise not be
available to address the SLM agenda at
hand.
Local beneficiary ownership:
Initiating and setting the objectives and
agenda for a partnership should be
done by the users or managers of the
land resources rather than by external
agencies. The land users/managers have
the most invested in the land and are
the principal beneficiaries of improved
land management. Since they control
actions on the ground, they must be
motivated to change their practices and
ideally take collective action to maxi-
mize results.
Phased establishment and actions: A
robust administrative structure with a
clear program framework is needed
before program implementation begins.
The progressive phases of effective
partnership development are com-
monly: agreement on scope and
objectives; establishment of partnership
structure; funding coordination;
program framework formulation;
comprehensive issue investigation;
program development and implemen-
tation (project preparation and ap-
proval, pilot implementation, expanded
implementation); and evaluation.
Value adding contributions: Partner-
ships work when each member adds to
the partnership. A range of contribu-
tions are required including coordina-
tion, provision of funding, provision of
expertise, and on-site management.
Strong partnerships are formed when
stakeholders contribute different
strengths and play different roles to
achieve the shared focus. Equitable
contributions from partners are based
on the benefits that each stands to
derive.
Clear and limited roles and responsi-
bilities: Each partner needs a defined
role and tasks that intermesh with the
roles of other members, exploiting
strengths and interests, with account-
ability for accepted obligations.
Trust and mutual recognition of
resource rights: Trust and transparency
among partners must either exist before
the partnership is formed or develop in
its early stages. Trust is tied to mutual
recognition of stakeholders’ resource
rights.
Coordinated planning, action, and
funding: Coordinated funding avoids
overlaps and misses, and facilitates
more rapid start-up. A successful
partnership requires strategic planning
and program development based on
comprehensive land resource system
diagnosis. The program must prioritize
objectives and activities, and be
compatible with existing initiatives
where appropriate. Understanding the
15cause and effect of the issue and
identifying the necessary priorities to
deliver maximum benefits should occur
before major actions are initiated.
Coordinated data collection and
monitoring provides standardized
whole-of-system data that can be used
by all. For example, the objective of the
Danube/Black Sea Basins Strategic
Partnership (one of the first Strategic
Partnerships in the GEF) was developed
following a comprehensive whole-of-
system Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis that identified the key threats
and root causes affecting the
sustainability of the Danube/Black Sea
basins. Pollution from land-based
sources, principally phosphorus and
nitrogen nutrient pollution, was
identified as the major threat, therefore
the partnership focused on reducing the
flows of these nutrients into the Black
Sea.
Decentralized action: While central-
ized coordination and administration is
preferable, decentralized control of
implementation is most effective. The
resource custodian/user (e.g., country
members, states or community groups)
is usually the stakeholder who is most
motivated to achieve long term
improvement. Devolving responsibility
creates ownership. Indeed an effective
partnership should allow individual
members to achieve objectives that
would not be achievable separately. A
partnership should not “crowd out”
desired but non-partnership activities.
Compatibility with governance
systems: A partnership needs to
operate within existing governance
systems otherwise it will face adminis-
trative, funding, and/or implementation
obstacles that will prevent goals from
being achieved, principally by failing to
gain the support and commitment of
key stakeholders on the ground.
Active management: Regular dialogue,
evaluation, and progress meetings are
required to sustain and direct a
partnership. However, it is crucial to
ensure that the governance structure of
a partnership is designed to be lean and
light so as not to overwhelm partners
with administrative tasks.
Cost-effectiveness: It is crucial for an
SLM partnership to demonstrate cost-
effectiveness; otherwise there would be
no added value for partners, especially
countries and communities, to join such
an arrangement. Therefore, partnerships
must develop cost-effectiveness
(qualitative and or quantitative) metrics
that identify the cheapest way to
achieve their SLM objectives. Only by
doing this, can partnerships be justified
against traditional project/program
approaches.
Exit strategy: A clearly defined and
agreed-upon exit strategy is vital to
ensure the sustainability of outcomes
through a gradual withdrawal, and to
avoid self perpetuation of the partner-
ship once the goal has been achieved.
16
APP
END
IX —
E XA
MPL
ES O
F EX
ISTI
NG
SUST
AIN
ABL
E LA
ND
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
PART
NER
SHIP
S
Part
ners
hip
G
oals
Mai
n pa
rtne
rs a
nd k
ey ro
les
Inte
rag
ency
Lan
d D
egra
dat
ion
Ass
essm
ent
in
Dry
lan
ds
(LA
DA
) A
sses
s ca
use
s, s
tatu
s, a
nd
imp
acts
of l
and
deg
rad
atio
n in
d
ryla
nd
s in
ord
er t
o im
pro
ve d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
for
sust
ain
able
d
evel
op
men
t in
dry
lan
ds
at lo
cal,
nat
ion
al, s
ub
reg
ion
al, a
nd
g
lob
al le
vels
.
GEF
, UN
EP, t
he
Secr
etar
iat,
Glo
bal
Mec
han
ism
(GM
) of t
he
UN
CC
D
and
FA
O (e
xecu
tin
g a
gen
cy)
Ag
ency
/Go
vern
men
t
PRC
/GEF
Par
tner
ship
on
Lan
d
Deg
rad
atio
n in
Dry
lan
d E
cosy
stem
s,
Ch
ina
Red
uce
lan
d d
egra
dat
ion
, alle
viat
e p
ove
rty,
an
d re
sto
re d
ryla
nd
ec
osy
stem
s in
th
e w
este
rn r
egio
n o
f Ch
ina.
PR
C –
imp
lem
enta
tio
n a
nd
fun
din
g
GEF
– fu
nd
ing
AD
B an
d o
ther
GEF
Imp
lem
enti
ng
/Exe
cuti
ng
ag
enci
es (e
.g.,
Wo
rld
B
ank)
– fu
nd
ing
, pro
ject
pre
par
atio
n a
nd
imp
lem
enta
tio
n
GEF
Str
ateg
ic P
artn
ersh
ip fo
r N
utr
ien
t R
edu
ctio
n in
th
e D
anu
be/
Bla
ck S
ea B
asin
s
Ad
dre
ss t
he
roo
t ca
use
s o
f Bla
ck S
ea/D
anu
be
envi
ron
men
tal
deg
rad
atio
n.
17 b
asin
co
un
trie
s - i
mp
lem
enta
tio
n
GEF
- fu
nd
ing
Wo
rld
Ban
k - i
mp
lem
enta
tio
n
UN
DP
and
UN
EP -
imp
lem
enta
tio
n
Reg
ion
al B
asin
Sec
reta
riat
s
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n
Nile
Bas
in In
itia
tive
A
chie
ve s
ust
ain
able
so
cio
-eco
no
mic
dev
elo
pm
ent
thro
ug
h t
he
equ
itab
le u
se o
f, an
d b
enef
it fr
om
, th
e co
mm
on
Nile
- bas
ed
wat
er r
eso
urc
es.
9 p
arti
cip
atin
g N
ile B
asin
co
un
trie
s –
fun
din
g a
nd
imp
lem
enta
tio
n
Inte
rnat
ion
al d
on
or
par
tner
s - f
un
din
g
Wo
rld
Ban
k –
sup
po
rt a
nd
faci
litat
e N
BI d
evel
op
men
t, an
d d
on
or
coo
rdin
atio
n
17G
EF C
ou
ntr
y P
ilot
Part
ner
ship
s (C
PPs)
- C
ub
a, N
amib
ia, E
thio
pia
, B
urk
ina
Faso
, Vie
tnam
, Cen
tral
Asi
a (r
egio
nal
)
Imp
lem
ent
coo
rdin
ated
SLM
act
ion
s th
rou
gh
th
e d
evel
op
men
t an
d h
arm
on
ized
exe
cuti
on
of s
trat
egic
inte
rven
tio
ns
that
are
co
her
ent
wit
h o
ther
GEF
an
d d
on
or a
ctiv
itie
s in
th
e ta
rget
co
un
trie
s.
e.g
., Th
e C
ou
ntr
y Pr
og
ram
for
SLM
, Eth
iop
ia a
ims
to c
on
serv
e an
d r
esto
re la
nd
scap
es o
f glo
bal
an
d n
atio
nal
eco
log
ical
, ec
on
om
ic, a
nd
so
cial
imp
ort
ance
th
rou
gh
th
e ad
op
tio
n o
f SLM
p
olic
ies,
pra
ctic
es a
nd
tec
hn
olo
gie
s.
Part
ner
s d
iffer
for
each
CPP
, bu
t va
rio
usl
y in
clu
de:
Ind
ivid
ual
co
un
trie
s –
fun
din
g a
nd
imp
lem
enta
tio
n
GEF
– fu
nd
ing
Bila
tera
l do
no
rs;
GEF
Imp
lem
enti
ng
an
d E
xecu
tin
g A
gen
cies
(IFA
D, U
ND
P, A
DB,
U
NEP
, FA
O, W
orl
d B
ank)
; GM
;
Eth
iop
ian
Min
istr
y o
f Ag
ricu
ltu
re a
nd
Ru
ral D
evel
op
men
t
Fed
eral
En
viro
nm
ent
Pro
tect
ion
Au
tho
rity
The
Wo
rld
Ban
k
Loca
l co
mm
un
itie
s
Bila
tera
ls; G
M;
Co
nsu
ltat
ive
Gro
up
on
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral R
esea
rch
(CG
IAR
) A
chie
ve s
ust
ain
able
foo
d s
ecu
rity
an
d r
edu
ce p
ove
rty
in
dev
elo
pin
g c
ou
ntr
ies
thro
ug
h s
cien
tific
rese
arch
an
d re
sear
ch
rela
ted
act
ivit
ies
in t
he
field
s o
f ag
ricu
ltu
re, f
ore
stry
, fis
her
ies,
p
olic
y an
d e
nvi
ron
men
t.
15 In
tern
atio
nal
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral R
esea
rch
Cen
ters
46 c
ou
ntr
ies
(24
dev
elo
pin
g a
nd
22
ind
ust
rial
ized
)
4 p
riva
te fo
un
dat
ion
s
13 r
egio
nal
an
d in
tern
atio
nal
org
aniz
atio
ns
(FA
O, I
FAD
, UN
DP
and
th
e W
orl
d B
ank
are
cosp
on
sors
)
Go
vern
men
t/G
ove
rnm
ent
Mu
rray
-Dar
ling
Bas
in In
itia
tive
, A
ust
ralia
Pr
om
ote
an
d c
oo
rdin
ate
effe
ctiv
e p
lan
nin
g a
nd
man
agem
ent
for
the
equ
itab
le, e
ffic
ien
t, an
d s
ust
ain
able
use
of w
ater
in t
he
Mu
rray
-Dar
ling
Bas
in.
Fed
eral
Go
vern
men
t –
coo
rdin
atio
n a
nd
fun
din
g
4 st
ate
go
vern
men
ts a
nd
1 t
erri
tori
al g
ove
rnm
ent –
fun
din
g a
nd
im
ple
men
tati
on
Co
mm
un
ity
– ad
viso
ry r
ole
Go
vern
men
t/C
om
mu
nit
y
Ch
esap
eake
Bay
Pro
gra
m, U
SA
Pro
tect
an
d r
esto
re C
hes
apea
ke B
ay’s
eco
syst
em q
ual
ity
and
p
rod
uct
ivit
y to
pri
or l
evel
s b
y re
du
cin
g p
oin
t an
d n
on
-po
int
sou
rces
of p
ollu
tio
n (b
y 40
per
cen
t fr
om
198
5 le
vels
of t
ota
l n
itro
gen
an
d p
ho
sph
oru
s re
ach
ing
th
e B
ay b
y 20
00).
The
Stat
es o
f Vir
gin
ia, M
aryl
and
, Pen
nsy
lvan
ia, a
nd
th
e D
istr
ict
of
Co
lum
bia
Ch
esap
eake
Bay
Co
mm
issi
on
U.S
. En
viro
nm
enta
l Pro
tect
ion
Ag
ency
Loca
l go
vern
men
ts, i
nd
ust
ry, f
arm
ers,
en
viro
nm
enta
lists
, co
nse
rvat
ion
ass
oci
atio
ns,
ed
uca
tio
nal
/res
earc
h in
stit
uti
on
s, c
itiz
en
gro
up
s an
d in
tere
sted
ind
ivid
ual
s
18Pa
rtne
rshi
p
Goa
ls M
ain
part
ners
and
key
role
s
Lan
dca
re, A
ust
ralia
A
chie
ve t
he
sust
ain
able
man
agem
ent
and
use
of p
riva
te a
nd
p
ub
lic n
atu
ral r
eso
urc
es a
cro
ss A
ust
ralia
. A
ust
ralia
n F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent
- fu
nd
ing
an
d c
oo
rdin
atio
n
Stat
e G
ove
rnm
ents
– a
dm
inis
trat
ion
, tec
hn
ical
ass
ista
nce
, fu
nd
ing
Co
mm
un
ity
– fu
nd
ing
, im
ple
men
tati
on
Oth
er (e
.g.,
pu
bli
c-p
riva
te p
artn
ersh
ips,
etc
)
The
Wo
rld
Ban
k’s
Car
bo
n F
inan
ce
Bu
sin
ess
(incl
ud
ing
Pro
toty
pe
Car
bo
n F
un
d
(PC
F), B
ioC
arb
on
Fu
nd
, Co
mm
un
ity
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Car
bo
n F
un
d (C
DC
F),
OEC
D C
ou
ntr
y Fu
nd
s an
d T
ech
nic
al
Ass
ista
nce
Fac
iliti
es)
Cat
alyz
e a
glo
bal
car
bo
n m
arke
t th
at r
edu
ces
tran
sact
ion
co
sts,
su
pp
ort
s su
stai
nab
le d
evel
op
men
t an
d b
enef
its
the
po
ore
st
com
mu
nit
ies
in d
evel
op
ing
co
un
trie
s.
A p
ub
lic-p
riva
te p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ent
Wo
rld
Ban
k - m
anag
emen
t
Go
vern
men
ts (e
.g. C
anad
a, It
aly,
Net
her
lan
ds,
Au
stri
a)
Priv
ate
com
pan
ies
(e.g
. St
ato
il o
f No
rway
; Nip
po
n O
il, O
kin
awa
Elec
tric
, Id
emit
su K
osa
n a
nd
Dai
wa
Secu
riti
es S
MBC
of J
apan
; BA
SF
of G
erm
any;
EN
DES
A o
f Sp
ain
; Sw
iss
Re o
f Sw
itze
rlan
d)
Part
icip
ants
co
ntr
ibu
te m
on
ies
to t
he
Fun
ds
in e
xch
ang
e fo
r a p
ro
rata
sh
are
of t
he
emis
sio
n re
du
ctio
ns
and
acc
ess
to t
he
Fun
ds’
ac
qu
ired
kn
ow
led
ge
bas
e. C
ou
ntr
ies
and
co
mm
un
itie
s w
her
e p
roje
ct a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e im
ple
men
ted
ben
efit
fro
m t
hes
e in
itia
tive
s.
Inte
rnat
ion
al L
and
Co
alit
ion
Em
po
wer
th
e ru
ral p
oo
r b
y in
crea
sin
g t
hei
r ac
cess
to
p
rod
uct
ive
asse
ts, e
spec
ially
lan
d, w
ater
an
d c
om
mo
n p
rop
erty
re
sou
rces
, an
d b
y in
crea
sin
g t
hei
r dir
ect
par
tici
pat
ion
in
dec
isio
n m
akin
g p
roce
sses
at
loca
l, n
atio
nal
, reg
ion
al a
nd
in
tern
atio
nal
leve
ls.
A g
lob
al c
on
sort
ium
of i
nte
rgo
vern
men
tal,
civi
l so
ciet
y an
d
bila
tera
l org
aniz
atio
ns.
Inte
rnat
ion
al F
un
d fo
r Ag
ricu
ltu
ral D
evel
op
men
t (IF
AD
)
Reg
ion
al p
artn
ers
-
Nat
ion
al p
artn
ers
-
Lan
d A
llian
ces
for
Nat
ion
al
Dev
elo
pm
ent
(LA
ND
Par
tner
ship
s)
A g
lob
al in
itia
tive
mea
nt
to a
llevi
ate
rura
l po
vert
y b
y st
ren
gth
enin
g c
ou
ntr
y-le
vel c
olla
bo
rati
on
bet
wee
n s
tate
, civ
il so
ciet
y, b
ilate
ral a
nd
inte
rnat
ion
al s
take
ho
lder
s.
Inte
rnat
ion
al L
and
Co
alit
ion
- c
oo
rdin
atio
n
IFA
D, F
AO
, Th
e W
orl
d B
ank,
Th
e Eu
rop
ean
Co
mm
issi
on
, Th
e In
ter-
Am
eric
an D
evel
op
men
t Ba
nk
- fu
nd
ing
30-p
lus
cou
ntr
ies
- im
ple
men
tati
on
Farm
ers,
ind
igen
ou
s o
rgan
izat
ion
s, tr
ade
and
wo
men
19
REFERENCES
1. The UNCCD defines ‘desertification’ as
land degradation in arid, semi-arid and
dry sub-humid areas resulting from
various factors, including climatic
variations and human activities.
2. Eritrea participates as an observer to the
NBI and is expected to become a full
member at some point.
NOTES
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2002.
China: “PRC/GEF Partnership on Land
Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems:
Project 1 on Strengthening the Enabling
Environment and Building Institutional
Capacity.”
Carbon Finance at the World Bank, 2005.
http://carbonfinance.org/.
Cestti, R., Srivastava, J. and Jung, S., 2003.
Agriculture Non-Point Source Pollution.
Good Management Practices. Chesapeake
Bay Experience. The World Bank.
Washington, DC. USA.
CGIAR, 2005. www.cgiar.org. Consulta-
tive Group on International Agricultural
Research.
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2005.
www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.
Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and
Fisheries, 2005. www.daff.gov.au.
Canberra, Australia.
Esikuri, E. E. 2005. “Mitigating Drought —
Long-Term Planning to Reduce
Vulnerability.” Environment Strategy
Note number 13. Environment Depart-
ment. The World Bank. Washington,
D.C. USA.
FAOSTAT, 2002. FAO Statistical Data-
bases. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion, Rome.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2005.
www.mdbc.gov.au. Canberra, Australia.
Nile Basin Initiative, 2005.
www.nilebasin.org.
Population Division of the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs of the
United Nations Secretariat, 2005.
www.un.org/esa/population/
unpop.htm.
World Bank. 2005. “Sustainable Land
Management: Conceptual Framework
for Regional Strategies & Rural
Operations. Economic and Sector Work”
(Draft).
This paper was prepared by an inter-agency team drawn from the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the U.N.
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) under the leadership of Enos E. Esikuri. The team included: Enos E. Esikuri, Mathew
Corbett (consultant) and John B. Collier of the World Bank, Washington, DC; Simone Quatrini, Global Mechanism, Rome, Italy; Khalida
Bouzar, International Fund for Agricultural Development Rome; Anna Tengberg, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,
Kenya; Richard J. Thomas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Aleppo, Syria; Gregoire De Kalbermatten,
UNCCD Secretariat, Bonn, Germany; and Robert Everitt and Daniele Ponzi, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
The Facilitation Committee would like to thank the World Bank for facilitating and financing this publication. The authors wish to
thank Jim Cantrell (World Bank) for design and production management.
The Facilitation Committee provides support and advice to the Global Mechanism and allows for collaborative institutional
arrangements between the Global Mechanism and those institutions having relevant technical and financial expertise to the UNCCD.
The members of the Facilitation Committee are: African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global
Environment Facility (GEF), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
Secretariat of the UNCCD, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and
The World Bank (WB). The G-77 and China, OECD Group, and RIOD Network participate in an observer status.
Cover image by Erick C. M. Fernandes; all other images by Enos E. Esikuri.
THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA
Tel: 202-473-1000Fax: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd
PartnershipsF O R S U S T A I N A B L E L A N D M A N A G E M E N T
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya
A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD