This review of national reports to CRIC 3 of UNCCD concerning developed country
implementation of the Convention in Africa has been prepared upon request of the UNCCD
secretariat by Maurizio Sciortino and Orietta Casali, ENEA – Italy.
REVIEW OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES REPORTS TO CRIC 3
June, 2005
The contents of this document do not necessarily represent the views of the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
1
CONTENTS
REVIEW OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES REPORTS TO CRIC 3............................................... 1
1. COUNTRY REPORTS TO CRIC 3 ................................................................................................ 4
2. REVIEW OF THE TOPICS RELATED WHICH DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY CONTENTS OF THE REPORTS TO CRIC 3........................................... 5
2.1 MEASURES TAKEN OR PLANNED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NAPS, INCLUDING MEASURES TO
IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT TO CONSERVE NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PROMOTE THEIR
SUSTAINABLE USE, TO REHABILITATED DEGRADED LAND, TO ENHANCE KNOWLEDGE ON
DESERTIFICATION AND ITS CONTROL, AND TO MONITOR AND ASSESS DESERTIFICATION AND
DROUGHT ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Measures taken to support the preparation of action programmes at all levels including
information on financial resources provided, both bilaterally and multilaterally .......................... 5
2.1.2 Financial allocation from budget in support of implementation as well as financing
assistance and technical cooperation including their inflows. Process to identify the
requirements, areas of funding and setting priorities ..................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Liaison with the Global Mechanism (GM) on the channelling of bilateral financial and
technical assistance ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 REVIEW OF BENCHMARK AND INDICATORS UTILIZED TO MEASURE PROGRESS AND AN
ASSESSMENT THEREOF ....................................................................................................................... 11
3. REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THEMATIC AND SECTORAL AREAS. 12
4. REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO KEY THEMATIC TOPICS ...................... 13
4.1 LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS................................ 13
4.2 MEASURES FOR THE REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED LAND AND FOR EARLY WARNING SYSTEM
FOR MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF DROUGHT ..................................................................................... 14
4.3 DROUGHT AND DESERTIFICATION MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ............................................ 15
4.4 ACCESS BY AFFECTED COUNTRY PARTIES, PARTICULARLY AFFECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRY
PARTIES, TO APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND KNOW HOW ....................................... 16
5. COMMENTS ON SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF NATIONAL REPORTS ................................ 18
ANNEX I.
CONSULTATIVE PROCESSES AND PARTNERSHIPS AGREEMENTS ........ 19
TABLES
Table 1: Reports submitted by developed countries to CRIC 3................................................4
Table 2: Developed Country financial contribution to UNCCD-related activities in Africa ........7
Table 3: Matrix on the coverage of African Country Parties by UNCCD implementation
activities as reported by developed Country Parties .........................................................9
Table 4: Number of developed countries supporting UNCCD implementation in African
countries, according to developed countries reports to CRIC 3. .....................................10
Table 5: Review by country of the activities related to thematic and sectoral areas ..............12
2
LIST OF ACCRONYMS
CBD
CGIAR
CIDA
CILSS
CIMMYT
COP
CRIC
EU
ENEA
GEF
GM
ICARDA
ICIAD
ICRAF
ICRISAT
IFPRI
IGAD
IIED
IITA
ILRI
IPGRI
IUCN
IWMI
JRC
LEWS
NAP
NEPAD
NGO
NRM
OSS
PRSP
ROSELT
RUSLE
SADC
SRAP
TICAD
UNCCD
UNDP
UNESCO
UNFCCC
USDA
USA
WARDA
WESCANA
Convention on Biological Diversity
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Canadian International Development Agency
Comité permanent Inter états de lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre
Conference of the Parties
Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention
European Union
Ente per le Nuove Technologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente
Global Environmental Facility
Global Mechanism
International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
Iowa Crop Improve/Committee for Agriculture Development
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
International Food Policy Research Institute
Intergovernmental Authority on Development
International Institute for Environment and Development
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
International Livestock Research Institute
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
International Water Management Institute
Joint Research Centre
Livestock Early Warning System
National Action Programme
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non Governmental Organisation
Natural Resource Management
Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
Réseau d’Observatoires de Surveillance Ecologique à Long Terme
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
Southern African Development Community
Sub Regional Action Programme
Tokyo International Conference on African Development
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United States Department of Agriculture
United States of America
Africa Rice Centre
West/Central Asia and North Africa
3
1. COUNTRY REPORTS TO CRIC 3
This review takes into consideration reports to CRIC 3 made available on UNCCD web site.
20 out 29 developed country Parties have presented their report to CRIC 3.
Table 1: Reports submitted by developed countries to CRIC 3
COUNTRY
1) AUSTRALIA
2) AUSTRIA
3) BELGIUM
4) CANADA
5) CZECH REPUBLIC
6) DENMARK
7) EUROPEAN UNION
8) FINLAND
9) FRANCE
10) GERMANY
11) GREECE
12) ISRAEL
13) ITALY
14) IRELAND
15) JAPAN
16) LIECHTENSTEIN
17) LUXEMBOURG
18) MONACO
19) NETHERLANDS
20) NEW ZEALAND
21) NORWAY
22) POLAND
23) PORTUGAL
24) SPAIN
25) SWEDEN
26) SWITZERLAND
27) TURKEY
28) UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND
29) UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
REPORT
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
N.A.
A.
N.A.
A.
N.A.
N.A.
A.
A.
N. A.
A.
A.
N. A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
REPORTING
PERIOD
2002-2004
1997-2008
1994-2008
2000-2003
1997-2008
2003
2001-2002
2001-2002
1999-2008
2001-2002
2002-2004
2003
2002-2003
2002-2006
2001-2003
2002
2000-2004
2003-2004
2002-2003
2003
A.
Key: A.: Available, N.A.: Not Available
All developed countries presented their reports at least at one of the previous sessions of
CRIC but for the purpose of the present review only the updated reports to CRIC3 will be
taken in account. The present compilation of developed countries reports on UNCCD
implementation adopted, as initial basis, the methodology by Henk Lette, Nico Rozemeijer
and Willem van Cotthem (April 2005) for the elaboration of a synthesis report of EU countries
reports to CRIC3.
4
2. REVIEW OF THE TOPICS RELATED WHICH DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY CONTENTS OF THE REPORTS TO CRIC 3
In consideration of the fact that not all developed country Parties have submitted their reports
to CRIC 3 and that many of them are important donors, this review cannot give an exhaustive
overview of the ongoing efforts but represents a snapshot of the information made available
regarding UNCCD related activities in Africa. In addition, the available reports are not
homogenous in their schema. They do not refer to the same reporting years, and many
countries include data and information about non African countries. Different reporting
format have been used and this makes it difficult to compare and review the information
contained in the reports.
Efforts to improve the transparency and effectiveness of reporting should be made.
2.1 Measures taken or planned within the framework of NAPs, including measures to
improve the economic environment to conserve national resources and promote their
sustainable use, to rehabilitated degraded land, to enhance knowledge on desertification
and its control, and to monitor and assess desertification and drought
2.1.1 Measures taken to support the preparation of action programmes at all levels including
information on financial resources provided, both bilaterally and multilaterally
Developed countries gave a good degree of attention to the preparation of action programmes
in African Countries.
Germany reports on the creation of special instruments tailored to support Africa in the
preparation and implementation of National Action Programmes (NAPs) (e.g. a fund to
support UNCCD implementation in Africa of € 4.5 million since 1995, a UNCCD project for
worldwide promotion of UNCCD relevant activities, and a German UNCCD network to
facilitate UNCCD mainstreaming in German development cooperation).
Denmark supports NAPs through UNSO, and specifically in Tanzania, Burkina Faso and in
Eritrea.
Japan supported seven Parties to formulate their own national action programmes. Japan also
provided support for three Asia-Africa Forums on UNCCD to promote information sharing
and strengthening of relationships.
The Netherlands report assistance: to the NAPs especially related to its role of ‘Chef de file’
in Senegal and Burkina Faso; to activities in other countries, like Mali.
Canada reported about the five-year initiative “Combating Desertification to Reduce Poverty”
in Ghana involving three inter-related elements. in addition to its commitment as ‘Chef de
file’ on desertification, Canada supports capacity building in Ghana’s Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) through Ghana Environment Monitoring Programme (GEMP), and
implement various aspects of the country’s NAP. Food security and agriculture is being
provided through a coordination of multi-donor budgetary support to Ghana PRSP and
support is given to farmer driven research activities. The Community-driven Initiatives for
Food Security (CIFS) applies an integrated approach to food security in seven districts of
Ghana, involving, inter-alia, technical and information support according to communitydefined priorities. In addition, Canada co-sponsored a sub-regional evaluation conference in
5
Senegal in 2004, where specialists and policy makers reviewed the implementation of NAPs
and developed recommendations for their improvement.
Norwegian NGO Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) supported appropriate UNCCD
related projects contributing to the implementation of National Action Programmes. However,
Norway bilateral efforts to implement NAPs are not easily traceable since the support is
managed and distributed by the recipient countries themselves. However, Norway has, to a
limited degree, linked NAPs to the national PRSPs.
Swiss has given support to the preparation of NAP in Mali, Chad and Ethiopia through the
UNDP Drylands Development Centre. Even if Swiss clearly reports that it has never played a
role of ‘Chef de file’, it has contributed to implement NAP in Burkina Faso.
2.1.2 Financial allocation from budget in support of implementation as well as financing
assistance and technical cooperation including their inflows. Process to identify the
requirements, areas of funding and setting priorities
The general picture of the reported information is synthesized below, with a column
indicating the national value of financial contributions, and, if reported, a disaggregated
information related directly to UNCCD Secretariat and Global Mechanism is included. The
last column shows the total amount in USD.
6
Table 2: Developed Country financial contribution to UNCCD-related activities in
Africa
Country
Canada
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Reported
resources
mobilised for
UNCCD1
Total reported
resources mobilised
including projects
and programmes
Total reported
resources in
USD
C$ 1.500.000
C$ 355.000.000
286.427.178
€ 6.895.667
8.870.726
€ 488.477.589
628.340.471
€ 632.742.610
827.813.702
Reporting
period
Destination of funds
2002-2004
GM and UNCCD
Secretariat
1997- 2005
2001-2003
2001-2004
GM
USD 276.500
UNCCD Secretariat,
plus additional support
to developing countries
participants to UNCCD
initiatives
USD 469.900
UNCCD Secretariat
€ 1.259.399
European
Union
1994-2008
2000-2003
2000-2003
Finland
1997-2008
€ 59.018.000
75.929.484
France
2003
€ 62.131.707
79.938.007
Germany
2001-2002
€ 313.300.000
410.188.925
Greece
2001-2002
€ 1.048.326
1.348.522
Italy
2002-2004
UNCCD Secretariat
€ 3.300.000
€ 67.000.000
87.723.419
Japan
2001-2002
UNCCD Secretariat
USD 2.728.000
Yen 22.098.199
197.220.388
Monaco
2002-2003
€ 371.600
478.023
Netherlands
2003
€ 196.968.131
253.378.145
Norway
2002-2003
2002-2003
2003
N.A.
134.500.000 NOK
21.600.000
UNCCD and GM
UNDP (UNSO)
UNEP
NGO
11.000.000 NOK
6.500.000 NOK
3.000.000 NOK
115.000.000 NOK
Poland
2002 -2006
€ 480.000
617.337
Spain
2001-2003
€ 6.835.135
8.949.478
Sweden
2001-2003
USD 75.000.000
75.000.000
Swizerland
2000-2003
USD 68.230.000
68.230.000
USD 60.500
60.500
Turkey
United
Kingdom
United States
of America
1
UNCCD
USD 830.000
USD 67.400.000
2004
2002-2003
2003
Bilateral cooperation
Multilateral cooperation
USD 54.151.000
USD 99.600.000
UNCCD
USD 120.000
Funds to UNCCD secretariat and to Global Mechanism if explicitly reported
7
153.751.000
USD 48.140.000
48.140.000
Indicative annual average contribution
300
Million USD
250
200
150
100
50
C
Cz a n
ec ada
h
R
Eu D ep
e
ro
n .
pe ma
an rk
C
o
Fi m .
nl
an
Fr d
a
G nce
er
m
a
G ny
re
ec
e
Ita
M ly
Ne on
th a co
er
la
n
No d s
rw
a
Po y
la
nd
Sp
S ain
Sw wed
itz en
er
la
n
Tu d
rk
ey
US
Un
A
ite
Ja
d
p
Ki an
ng
do
m
0
Coutries
The total indicative annual contribution reported by developed countries may be estimated
USD 1.141.367.879
The elaboration of economic indicators based on the previous figures would be desirable.
Because of the difficulty of interpretation of the reported budgets in different reporting period
and the preliminary stage of the present review only an attempt is made to assess the average
yearly contribution of different developed countries. Before going further in the elaboration of
economic indicators it would be necessary to double check with individual countries the
reported figures.
8
Table 3: Matrix on the coverage of African Country Parties by UNCCD implementation
activities as reported by developed Country Parties
Ca
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Rep.
Chad
Republic
of
the
Congo
D.R.of the Congo
Comoros
Cote d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Ghinee Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jam.
Madagascar
Malati
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sao Tome and
Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
African countries not
individually specified
Cz
De
EU
X
Fi
X
Fr
X
X
Ge
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gr
It
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jpn Mo
X X
X
X X
X
X
Ne
No
X
X
X*
Po
Sp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sw
X
X
Swi Tu
X
X
X
UK
X
X
X
X
X
Usa
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Key: X* Developed county acting as “Chef de file” in the indicated developing countries
9
X
X
X
X
X
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
European Union
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Japan
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom/Northern Ireland
United States of America
Ca
Cz
De
EU
Fi
Fr
Ge
Gr
It
Jpn
Mo
Ne
No
Po
Sp
Sw
Swi
Tu
Uk
Usa
Table 4 reported the coverage made by developed countries in African countries. Developed
countries have been present in almost all African countries. Only two countries do not receive
any assistance. A large group of African countries have been assisted by more than three
developed countries. 12 African countries are not individually specified.
Table 4: Number of developed countries supporting UNCCD implementation in African
countries, according to developed countries reports to CRIC 3.
NO
financial 3 or less developed 3 to 8 developed from 8 to 15
Parties
Country
Parties Country
contributions
contributing
contributing
reported
Sao Tome and
Principe;
Seychelles,
(2 countries)
Liberia;
Central African
Republic; Comoros;
Djibouti; Gabon;
Guinea; Mauritius;
Sierra Leone;
Somalia,
(9 countries)
African
countries
not
individually
specified
Algeria,
Burkina
Angola, Benin,
Botswana, Burundi, Faso, Egypt, 12 developed
countries
Ethiopia,
Cameroon, Cape
Kenya, Mali,
Verde, Chad, Cote
Morocco,
d’Ivoire, D.R. of
Mozambique
Congo, Eritrea,
Namibia,
Gambia, Ghana,
Niger,
Guinee Bissau,
Senegal,
Lesotho, Libyan
Arab Jamarahiriya, South Africa,
Sudan,
Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritania, Tanzania,
Nigeria, Republic of Tunisia,
Uganda,
Congo, Rwanda,
Zambia
Swaziland, Togo,
Zimbabwe
(17countries)
(25 countries)
10
2.1.3 Liaison with the Global Mechanism (GM) on the channelling of bilateral financial and
technical assistance
Cooperation with the GM has been reported by Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Canada.
Germany considers the formation of strategic partnerships particularly important as well as its
co-operation with the GM with the goal of creating synergies in mobilising funds for
desertification control as envisaged in the context of GEFs Pilot Country Programmatic
Partnership. This Partnership opens new prospects for co-operation to foster UNCCD
implementation. Furthermore, Germany is of the view that efforts to combat land degradation
need to be linked more closely to development goals, notably poverty reduction. For example,
desertification control is an integral component of Germany’s Programme of Action 2015
(contribution to attaining the MDGs). There has been close co-operation between Germany
and the GM with as one result the building of new strategic partnerships. The GM could play
a role in implementing the European COP6 Initiative in Africa. Also Denmark and France are
reporting on support to the GM.
Norway intends to increase the share of permanent funding to the GM. In 2003 it financed
3,9 million NOK to GM. However, in the future Norway will support UNCCD through the
GEF.
A majority of reports do not report on the liaison with the GM and do not provide details on
related financial contributions.
2.2 Review of benchmark and indicators utilized to measure progress and an assessment
thereof
The status of application of benchmark and indicators (B&I) on the progress made in the
implementation of the convention by developed country is quite insufficient; most of the
reports highlight about efforts made through workshops and seminars to share a common
system of B&I.
Poland supported some initiatives in the Sahel focused on the use of Geo indicators and their
application in the Arid Region. The EU is supporting the AID-CCD project devoted to the
exchange of experience among the different Annex and countries on the issue of B&I. As far
as the application of B&I is concerned it would be necessary to propose a minimum set of
indicators to allow a better understanding of the progresses made.
Recent studies2 confirm that many countries have identified potential indicators to monitor the
extent of desertification and/or the progress of the implementation of the NAP for the
UNCCD but, very few initiatives have led to fully functional benchmarks and indicators being
developed. At international level, many developed countries initiatives have been carried out
but decision makers have to be part of the process otherwise the benefit of the B&I is very
poor.
2
P. Kintenberg (Desert Research Foundation of Namibia) : Case studies on benchmarks & Indicator
operational monitoring initiatives at various scales – 2005. He reports a successful example in
Namibia, where a monitoring system has been developed centred around the local farmers, who are the
decision makers on the ground. The importance of local knowledge and the involvement of local
communities must be further enhanced.
11
3. REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THEMATIC AND SECTORAL AREAS
A general overview of the thematic and sectoral areas (as stipulated in decision 4/COP.6)
covered by developed countries in Africa is summarized in table 5. Most countries support
initiatives dealing with:
a) sustainable land use management, including water, soil and vegetation in affected areas;
c) development of sustainable agricultural and ranching production systems;
e) launching of reforestation afforestation and intensification of soil conservation progammes.
Less attention id devoted to :
b) sustainable use and management of rangelands.
f) development of early warning systems for food security and drought forecasting;
g) desertification monitoring and assessment.
The development of new and renewable energy sources is the least reported field of action.
However, it has to be underlined the effort of EU with its Regional Solar Programme, a long
lasting programme for the development of solar energy in the Sahelian area. This area needs
more attention. One of the reasons of the scarce attention could be attributed to the fact that
renewable energy is not sufficiently addressed within NAPs and SRAPs by affected countries
and therefore donor countries fail to report this topic within the UNCCD reporting systems.
Renewable energy is, indeed, a field of concern of climate change mitigation and therefore
synergies between these areas should be reinforced. A double check of information reported
by the UNFCCC for this subject could help to give a different insight on this subject.
Table 5: Review by country of the activities related to thematic and sectoral areas
Thematic and Sectoral
areas
a) sustainable land use
management, including
water, soil and vegetation
in affected areas
b)sustainable use and
management of
rangelands
c)development of
sustainable agricultural
and ranching production
systems
d)development of new
and renewable energy
sources
e)launching of
reforestation afforestation
and intensification of soil
conservation
programmes
f)development of early
warning systems for food
security and drought
forecasting
g)desertification
monitoring and
assessment
Ca
CR
De
EU
Fi
Fr
Ge
Gr
It
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jap Mo
X
X
X
12
X
Ne
No
Po
Sp
Sw
Swi Tu
Uk
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Usa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4. REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO KEY THEMATIC TOPICS
The present review addressed only four of the seven key thematic topics contained in decision
1/COP5 as requested by the terms of reference of the present review according to their
relevance from the technical and scientific point of view.
4.1 Linkages and synergies with other environmental conventions
Among the developed countries, the European Commission, the Netherlands, France, United
Kingdom. Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, USA have reported about synergy with other
environmental conventions.
The European Commission sees great opportunity for synergies among climate change
mitigation and adaptation, activities to combat land degradation and desertification, and
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Action Plans and policy documents on
Biodiversity, Climate Change and desertification in the context of Development cooperation
have been adopted. The importance of environment to be mainstreamed into all EU
development co-operation efforts has been reiterated in the Council Conclusions of 31 May
2001. Input from various NGOs have been also considered by the Commission services,
through a small internal brainstorming session on the synergy issue.
Italy considers an integrated approach in agriculture, forest and biodiversity management
essential to a more efficient use of resources to prevent and mitigate the effects of land
degradation, loss of biodiversity and climate change. Italy supported the Workshop “Forests
and Forest Ecosystems: Promoting synergy in the implementation of the three Rio
Conventions”, jointly organized by the secretariats of the RIO conventions.
Projects with a synergetic approach have been carried out, such as in Tunisia and in Limpopo
catchments areas.
Italy and IUCN are launching a programme of activities to combat desertification in the
WESCANA region, as a first step of a long-term initiative for the development of synergies
between UNCCD and CBD. A research centre on desertification will be established in Iran,
acting as a network aiming at improving natural resources management and coordinate
international activities concerned with the three Rio Conventions in the WESCANA region.
Sweden reported, among others, its activities in support of the common objective among
UNCCD, CBD and RAMSAR convention.
Japan supported the National Forum on Combating Desertification and Promoting the
Synergistic Implementation of Inter-Linked Multilateral Environmental Conventions in June
2001.
France has reported about many projects and initiatives carried out in Africa having linkages
and synergies with other environmental conventions, from climatic models, climate change
mitigation in the agriculture field, capacity building, water resources, agro-biodiversity, agroforestry, to carbon sequestration.
Canada has carried out projects having a synergy with desertification and biodiversity, such as
the project carried out by International Development Research Centre IDRC: Enhancing
Biodiversity in the Agroforetstry Parklands in the Sahel, the support given by the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA) to support AGHRYMET and CILSS institutions
13
to reduce the impact of climate change, or the participation to the Partnership Africa’s Water
Development programme to facilitate Integrated Water Management (IWRM) at the national
and regional levels, or the support to CIDA to the Congo Initiative Basin (CBI) to improve a
unified approach to manage natural resources in the Congo Basin.
USA supported biodiversity conservation in Ghana by promoting community-based
ecotourism activities in environmentally sensitive rural destinations throughout the country.
The activity is a collaborative effort between the Nature Conservation Research Centre, the
Ghana Tourist Board, United States Peace Corps, Ghana, Netherlands Development
Organisation and the project communities. Implemented activities create opportunities for
rural communities to earn incomes and provide tourism jobs through the conservation of
ecosystems and avoidance of unsustainable extractive exploitation.
4.2 Measures for the rehabilitation of degraded land and for early warning system for
mitigating the effects of drought
Measures for the rehabilitation of degraded land is considered one of the most important
subject by developed countries. Initiatives are mainly concerned with natural resources
management, sustainable agriculture, agroforestry practices and soil conservation.
European Commission, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Denmark, Canada,
Norway, Japan, USA have reported about this issue.
For instance:
France reported its participation in the AGHRYMET programme of CILSS with the aim to
improve early warning systems in agro-pastoral production.
In the frame of the Italian initiative for the Sahel, Italy reported about the Integrated Rural
Development Project in Ader Doutchi Maggia in Niger – the so called Keita Project.
Norway reported about its contribution to the UNEP approach “An Ecosystem approach to
Restoring West African Drylands and improving Rural Livelihoods through Agroforestrybased Land Management Interventions”. Rehabilitation and maintenance of resilience and
productivity of ecosystems is one of the components of this action.
Monaco reported about the rehabilitation of degraded land in the “Palmeraie de Talnould”,
Morocco” and in the “plateau de Bourgoum”, Niger.
Japan reported about many programmes: forest conservation and re-afforestation to assist the
establishment of tree seedlings production systems through construction of tree nurseries and
training of the forest engineers; improving the standard of living and help local people’s
settlement by cooperating in the preparation of irrigation facilities by improving waterways
and securing water resources through development of ground water and effective use of
treated sewage to enable agricultural production and secure a stable water supply.
Japanese NGOs carried out programmes: in Mali to promote afforestation through the
introduction of agroforestry to the village people of Sahel; in Burkina Faso for flood control
and afforestation along the Goria River; in Guinea for the prevention of desertification and
reforestation of the hills of Folonoug.
As a contribution to the Committee on Science and Technology, Japan hosted an ad Hoc
Panel on early warning Systems. The outcome of the Ad Hoc Panel was reported at COP5.
14
The USA reported about its contribution to a workshop, co-sponsored by CILSS aimed at
helping West African Countries to include more information about natural resources
management (NRM) in their country reports to CRIC. Assessments on NRM in Burkina Faso,
Mali, Guinea, Niger and Senegal, and summarized trends and impacts produced over the last
ten to twenty years were conducted. Revisits of NRM assessments conducted by CILSS
fifteen years ago, were proposed.
In Ethiopia USAID contributes to combating desertification by supporting efforts to improve
watershed management, to enhance food security and agricultural development and to
generate/adopt appropriate technologies in the areas of crop production and natural resources
management. Two micro-watersheds in the Amhara Region are serving as pilot sites for
interventions to develop tools for appropriate land use planning, sustainable management of
natural resources, improved agricultural production and environmental rehabilitation.
In Kenya, USAID ‘s conservation efforts focus on areas within and adjacent to strategic
national parks and reserves. The programme supports efforts that lessen, reverse, or halt the
unsustainable use of the natural resources based through an integrated approach addressing
the economic, policy, cultural and human resource capacity challenges of conservation.
USAID also funds the Forest and Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management
Support Programme (FORREMS), to reverse forest and rangeland degradation, expand the
use of forest-based enterprises, and empower constituencies to implement Kenya’s
Environmental Management and Coordination Act.
USA reported about other land rehabilitation initiatives, in Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, and so
on. In Somalia, USAID supports efforts to improve water use and develop an early warning
system in drought-affected areas. The early warning information led to a tailored UN
assistance programme for 120 households in the drought-affected Sool Plateau region, and the
development of a water rehabilitation programme by an international NGO. USA funded the
Global Livestock Early Warning Systems (LEWS) Project which has been developing a
monitoring system to assess emerging trends in forage supply and animal condition on
rangelands in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. LEWS has developed a new forage
forecasting technology that provide a comprehensive view of emerging forage conditions, as
well as 90-day forecasts every 10 days. Predicting spatial forage availability will make it
possible for pastoralists to assess impending livestock mortality by kind and class of animal
and decline in milk production. This methodology is a powerful new mechanism for decision
makers to identify emerging hot spots that may be difficult to perceive, and determine if they
are going to recover or worsen in a progressive 90-day analysis window.
4.3 Drought and desertification monitoring and assessment
The most important monitoring and assessment initiative in the African region is the
ROSELT/OSS3 programme. This programme involves 14 African countries and 4 developed
countries. France specifically reports about its support to the ROSELT programme
emphasizing its important role and contribution. Also Germany, Italy and Swiss contributed to
the realization of the programme. OSS is also monitoring and assessing the System of
Acquifers of Northern Sahara in a specific Programme specifically mentioned in the Swiss
report. European Commission also supports OSS monitoring programmes through projects
funded within its International Cooperation (INCO) programme.
The United Kingdom through its centrally funded research programme, Department for
International Development (DFID), has supported capacity building in land degradation
assessment.
3
Observatory of Sahara and Sahel
15
Spain reported a programme of monitoring the early warning in Ethiopia to improve the water
supply, animal health and drought early warning system.
Poland and Czech Republic also reported about their support to initiatives on monitoring and
assessment.
Japan reported about a project to combat desertification in Burkina Faso to develop a model
for the effective use of groundwater in arid and semi-arid areas.
4.4 Access by affected country parties, particularly affected developing country Parties,
to appropriate technology, knowledge and know how
Developed countries have been very active in this field. Many training programme addressed
UNCCD related activities concerning scientific research, capacity building, and improvement
of institutional capacity. Seminars, symposiums, exchange of researchers among Universities
and research centres with developing countries have been reported by developed countries.
EU, Finland, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Canada, Swiss, Denmark, Sweden, Japan,
the USA and others have reported about this subject.
Almost all developed countries contribute to the research work. Not only biophysical aspects
but also socio-economic aspects are subjects of research and development initiatives.
The European Commission through the Global Vegetation Unit (GVM) of its Joint Research
Centre (JRC) has developed a software package to allow the monitoring of active fires using
satellite data. The system has been settled and made operational in a number of African
countries.
The JRC European Soil Information Systems (EUSIS) involves North African Countries,
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt to underpin integrated joint effort for sustainable
management of soils.
Spain reported about many seminars to transmit know how, such as training courses on
desertification in Anglophone African Sub Saharan countries. Other training courses were
made in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Mauritania.
Monaco reported about its support to UNCCD and UNESCO to create an educational Kit to
combat desertification, disseminated in a network of African primary schools.
Many developed countries initiatives have been carried out responding to NEPAD (New
Partnership for Africa’s Development) initiative, launched at the G8 Summit in Kananashkis
Alberta (Canada). Canada reported about the creation of the Canada Fund for Africa which
comprises desertification-related initiatives concerning the support of agricultural research,
directed at the needs of small-scales farmers, through the Consultative Group on International
Agriculture Research (CGIAR). Projects include the Quality Protein Maize Development in
East Africa and Support to the Development of West Africa’s Agriculture Leaders
Competence Projects (PADCLA) in West Africa.
Canada supported the establishment of a new centre of excellence in bioscience, based in
Kenya to enable African scientists to help poor farmers through advanced research and to
support Africa-Canada-Leadership Programme to enable young Africans and Canadians to
cooperate and learn together.
In Ghana, Canada was very active also because of its ‘Chef de file’ role. But it is important to
mention the collaboration between Government of Ghana, NGOs and private sector in these
initiatives. Just to mention some: the Farmer-Responsive Mechanism in Extension &
Research (FARMER) project, the District Capacity Building Project (DISCAP) undertaken in
collaboration with Canadian private sector to provide a number of training and capacity
16
development activities, the project: Improving the Rural Urban Nutrient Cycle through
Periurban Agriculture.
Other important Canadian activities aimed at improving knowledge in Africa concern
initiatives in Mali, Niger, Senegal, etc.
In Angola, Czech University of Agriculture established a new centre for agricultural education
in the Bie Province.
Norway reported the support to Regional Seminars in Africa about agroforestry and land
protection. It also reported about its NGO-based drylands projects aiming, among others, at
improving local institutional and technical capability, such as the Gash Barka Project in
Eritrea, Food Security, Land and resources rights in South Sudan and the Sheba Demas
Development Programme in Eritrea.
Swiss reported about its initiative to improve know how and technical capacity of local
community. At this regards the efforts made by Swiss NGOs together with African NGOs is
also worth to mention. Swiss supported NGOs to establish a network to exchange information
on desertification related subjects (RIOD).
Japan reported about its activity in study and research on desertification in Burkina Faso. In
addition Japan hosted researchers from all over the world in the Arid Land Research Centre of
Tottori University
USA carried out many projects in many African countries aiming at improving agricultural
productivity. For instance, in Benin, USAID helped increase the productivity of small-scale
farmers and traders by promoting technologies to improve agricultural practices and increase
incomes.
In Malawi, USAID supported improved agricultural production, community-based natural
resources management, and the increased used of fuel-efficient stoves. It supported a local
firm that manufactures alcohol-based cooking stoves, known as “gelfuel” which could have an
important impact in reducing deforestation.
In addition, in Malawi, through the National Smallhoder Farmer Associations, a nationwide
umbrella organization of 34 separate farmers’ associations, USAID continued to link lowincome farmers to markets, contributing to increasing the volume of non-traditional cash
crops, including rice, groundnuts, paprika, cotton and chillies.
In Zambia, USAID supported the improvement of agricultural processes. Small scales farmers
adopted conservation farming technologies and diversified their agricultural production base
to take full advantage of improved weather condition and to maximize high value production,
crops, yields, and household food security.
USA supports a U.S. university programme called the Soil Management Collaborative
Research Support Programme that has teamed up with NASA, USDA, and West African
Institutions to enable farming communities to capture water and reduce runoff by adopting a
locally developed contour ridge-till farming system.
USA reported about the SANREM CRSP programme in Mali to develop social capital and
implementation of improved practices for managing natural resources and the conflicts
generated around their use.
17
5. COMMENTS ON SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF NATIONAL REPORTS
The reports of France and EU are structured in a straightforward way that allows a clear
understanding of the activities carried out. Most of the reports do not follow the guidelines
and present their activities in a way that is difficult to be framed within the requested terms of
reference of the present review.
As far as the scientific activity is concerned there is a need of more specific information to
understand the effectiveness of the reported initiatives in terms of growth of scientific and
technical capacity. Some indicators could be the number of technicians and scientists
graduated in developing countries and the increased number of scientific publications
addressing desertification.
Also the increased number of scholarships granted by developed country for African students
should be an indicator of the improvement of the scientific knowledge and know how.
Understanding the effectiveness of cooperation initiatives would require a much deeper
insight on national and local context. The information available in the reports is insufficient to
assess the progress made. It would be at least necessary to prepare an historical record of
some indicators, but this is seem even more difficult than reporting for a limited number of
years. Any scientific assessment must be based on reliable figures but in these reports the only
figures are about financial aspects and no other indicator is applied.
18
ANNEX I.
CONSULTATIVE PROCESSES AND PARTNERSHIPS AGREEMENTS
Most developed countries have reported about their participation in important international
sessions related directly or indirectly to desertification such as the COP 6, 1st and 2nd CRIC,
the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), regional UNCCD
meetings, the 11th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 11) as
well as specific African initiatives such as NEPAD. UNCCD-related activities are funded
through economic agreements with Africa such as the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (the
Agreement between the EU and the 78 ACP Countries), the Poverty and Environment
Partnership (PEP) as well as the Mediterranean Accords between the EU and the
Mediterranean Countries of Africa.
Many programmes mentioned by developed countries are carried out in the framework of
poverty reduction strategies, some are explicitly linked to the UNCCD’s National Action
Programme (NAP’s), others are supporting some intergovernmental organizations, such as the
World Meteorological Organisation World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Italy,
UNEP, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, the UNDP, many donors,), the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the UNDP Office
to Combat Desertification and Drought, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the African
Development Bank, Canada, the OSS, Italy, France, and Germany, the GEF, Germany,
Netherlands, Italy, Swiss and the CILSS, Canada, Germany, France, Swiss (just to mention
some countries), the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), Norway, the
World Bank, Norway. In addition to its engagement in various consultative processes and
partnership agreements with Asian countries and Thematic Programme Networks to combat
desertification in Asia, Japan reported about its support to the UNCCD in the implementation
of the Asia-Africa Forum meeting in 2001.
The UNDP Drylands Centre supported by Finland is worth to mention, just as Finland is
supporting the work of the International Programme for Arid land Crop (IPALAC) and
ICRISAT in Niamey, Niger. Also Canada supports initiative developed by ICRISAT with the
Desert Margins Programme. The Netherlands are supporting the International Institute for
Soil Fertility Management (FDC) that contributes to combating land degradation. Swiss
reported about its collaboration with the Club du Sahel, the IIED and the Comité National de
Concertation des Ruraux (CNCR) Sénegal.
Japan reported about its support to the “Asia-Africa Forum on Combating Desertification” for
realizing cooperation between Asia and Africa, the second and the third Tokyo International
Conference on African Development (TICAD II, TICAD III) to build the frame for
cooperation among governments of African countries, private sectors and civil society, donor
countries and organizations. During TICAD III, the Tenth Anniversary Declaration and the
Summary by the Chair were issued recognizing the importance of implementing support
measures to assure access to finance, land, technology and institutions.
Many partnerships are related to research networks, specific institutions and many countries
are involved with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
Canada, Turkey, The EU, the Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom, Sweden, France, USA
all have cooperation agreements with one or more of the CGIAR research institutes, like
ICIAD, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, IPGRI, IWMI or ILRI,
WARDA, NEMEDCA-Drought Net of ICARDA, that partially or to a large extent are
benefiting Africa. Sweden is specifically supporting organisations with a regional cooperation
19
perspective within the framework of the convention, particularly in eastern and southern
Africa. SADC-ELMS and RELMA (Regional Land Management unit in ICRAF) have been
two key programmes in the past. The partnerships that exist with the World Bank, more
specifically through the GEF, present opportunities to strengthen good practice in a broad way
by deploying more investment funding. This seems to apply above all to loans that are
providing “global benefits”. In parallel with the creation of GEF “degraded lands” field of
financing, Swiss has opened a “Sustainable land management” section and is launching
initiatives in Syria, Jordan and Mali..
In addition to the obligatory funding some Developed Member States have contributed to the
UNCCD with additional disbursements for the organisation of donor round tables, regional
conferences or meetings, CRICs and COPs, capacity building on synergies between the
conventions, etc. to contribution to the reporting processes. Examples of those countries are
Canada, Italy, Germany, Finland, France and the Netherlands, Norway.
The European initiative for accelerated UNCCD implementation for instance is very relevant
to mention. This was announced at COP.6 as the European “Fighting Poverty through
Sustainable Land Use” initiative (the “COP-6 initiative”). Several European countries are
supporting and are examining the options for implementation.
Many developed Country Parties apart from their bilateral and multilateral agreements also
are supporting programmes administered by the Non-Governmental Organisations either
based in the Member States or those based in the Affected Country parties. Large NGOs that
are mentioned in the reports are for instance the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature/IUCN (Italy, Denmark, Netherlands) or IIED (many countries), Drylands Coordination
Group (Norway) which acts as a forum for sharing practical experience between NGOs,
government institutions and research and policy making institutions. Norway reported about
NGOs projects to support activities in drylands areas on sub-Saharan Africa. These NGOs
collaborate with Norwegian authorities on how to best support the implementation of
UNCCD. However the bulk of Norwegian NGO support to the UNCCD is not directly related
to the NAPs, but they have the goals to combat land degradation, facilitating sustainable
management of natural resources and reducing poverty. Part of many Canadian NGOs
programmes include matters as sustainable land management in fragile systems, land
degradation and well-being economic growth. As far as the private sector, Canada reports
about TECSULT, operating in the Sahel countries in the research and technological
improvement in the field of agriculture and water conservation.
Swiss bilateral development cooperation has been directed primarily to partnerships with local
rural communities. These initiatives are developed within a participative process concerning
in particular local NGOs and communities with the aim to improve local management and
technological capability, local governance and development.
20