24-26 july 2006 midrand, south africa

OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

24-26 July 2006

Midrand, South Africa

CONTEXT

Part one:

Background and rationale of the SIP

Part two:

Environmental, socioeconomic, policy and institutional challenges to scale up SLM in SSA

BREAKOUT

Second Regional Preparation Workshopfor the GEF Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management (SIP)

Session 2: Context and Driveness


Part one:

• Agree on the overall Program Brief structure, which now responds to stakeholder input over the past year

• Provide recommendations on missing elements, if any

Part two:

• Agree on the shared vision for SLM

• Provide feedback on which barriers and bottlenecks to SLM scale up are most important

Objectives of Session 2: context and driveness

CONTEXT

Part one:

Background and rationale of the SIP

Part two:

Environmental, socioeconomic, policy and institutional challenges to scale up SLM in SSA

BREAKOUT


Specific guidance is needed on the context – please keep in mind during presentations:

1. Does the annotated outline include all the key issues? Are there any obvious omissions?

2. Does the shared vision respond to the past two years of consultations, and align with the Program Brief outline?

3. Is the shared vision operational and pragmatic?

4. How should the barriers and bottlenecks be prioritized in the Program Brief?

Most relevant documents circulated:

SIP Program Brief annotated outline and introduction (Eng and Fr)


Objectives of Session 2: context and driveness


Part one: Background and rationale of the SIP

Part one: Background and rationale of the SIP

This background presentation on SIP addresses five key topics:

A. Overview of the SIP

B. Added value of the SIP

C. How the SIP serves the broader African development agenda

D. Status and next steps in the preparation process

E. Summary of how the SIP is planned to work



OVERVIEW of SIP: What is it?

The SIP is a special effort for

Sub-Saharan Africa




The SIP is an umbrella investment vehicle that…

…provides support to SSA countries in their efforts to scale up SLM on the ground in line with the TerrAfrica approach.

…allocates 50% of the GEF’s land degradation funding to SSA between 2007-2010, based on the approved concept note in June 2005.

…supports integrated approaches that link to additional GEF windows in biodiversity, international waters, and climate change (adaptation and mitigation).




Long-term program goal:

…to support sub-Saharan countries in improving natural resource-based livelihoods by preventing and reversing land degradation.

Program objectives:

…to support sub-Saharan beneficiaries in their efforts to design and manage programs of activities that advance SLM mainstreaming, improve governance for SLM, and catalyze investments

…to prevent and reduce the impact of land degradation on ecosystem services in SIP investment areas

Note: please refer to more detailed discussion on day two on this topic; please see section B1 of Program Brief (circulated in English and French)



OVERVIEW of SIP: What is the added value of SIP?

Secures a predictable funding umbrella for countries and donors to engage in SLM programming over the long term, maximize impact per dollar, mainstream SLM into policy, and sequence investments

Greater strategic coherence and cost-effectiveness by strategically fitting GEF into other funding mechanisms

Supports CPPs and other programmatic approaches in play

Greater importance placed on African leadership on SLM and peer review processes at all levels

Emphasis is on portfolio-level results, common success indicators, and aligned M&E reporting

Increased focus on enabling environment (policy, incentives, governance)

Allows donors and country stakeholders to operationally align around a common vision in line with the TerrAfrica approach

Reduced transaction costs to SSA stakeholders and donors alike, allowing increased SLM uptake



OVERVIEW of SIP: How does it fit into broader African dev’t agenda?

Catalyzes implementation of national and subregional UNCCD action programs.

Directly supports achievement of NEPAD CAADP productivity targets and scaled up SLM under CAADP Pillar 1 and elements of Pillars 3 and 4.

Directly supports achievement of Program Areas 1 and 6 of NEPAD’s Environment Action Plan (and the Subregional Environmental Action Plans).

Directly supports the donor alignment and harmonization agenda – important for both Africa and SLM.

Directly supports MDG 1 and 7.



OVERVIEW of SIP: What is the status and next steps?

• SIP Concept Note approved by GEF (June 2005)

• SIP PDF-B approved by GEF and preparatory funds disbursed (Oct 2005)

• SIP consultation process builds on two years of intensive TerrAfrica consultations (2004 +)

• 1st regional SIP prep workshop held in Dakar by NEPAD which endorsed the direction of the Program Brief being reviewed today (April 2006)

• SSA Technical Review Panel consultations (April – July 2006)

• 2nd and final regional SIP prep workshop (24-26 July 2006)

• Program Brief for the full program to be delivered to GEF (September 2006)

• Implementation on the ground immediately after GEF Council approval (January 2007)



SIP PORTFOLIO

SIP coordination at NEPAD/RECs Acts as Chair of SIP Regional Technical

Committee Reports on M&E at program level Reports to TerrAfrica Executive

Committee Knowledge exchange

SIP Regional Technical Committee guides the strategic direction of the SIP

T he CSIF will allow countries to translate their specific SLM objectives into operational priorities, and align donors and actors around common approach

Countries design funding projects, aided by their own unique Country SLM Investment Frameworks (CSIF)

NEPAD/RECs help advocate for SLM among countries, promoting country-level coalitions that can leverage SIP

GEF pipeline entry on a rolling basis

OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work?


Country project 1

Country project 2

Multi-country project 1

Etcetera….

Country project 3

Program Level M&E

Project Level M&E

SIP FINANCIAL UMBRELLA:

50% of OP15 (GEF 4)

Open to all SSA countries

SIP FINANCIAL UMBRELLA:

50% of OP15 (GEF 4)


The SIP programming framework for engaging in a CSIF or multi-country investment



THE COUNTRY SLM INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (CSIF)

The CSIF is a tool that will allow countries to translate their specific SLM objectives into operational priorities.

Each country’s CSIF will vary, but each will:

• Serve as a customizable tool for the country to align donors and national actors around its SLM vision and if desired, to pursue an SLM Country Program

• Be light in terms of administrative burden

• Build upon national economic planning, PRSPs, NAPs, sectoral strategies, and other sources of national and local priority-setting on land

• Involve a wide range of country stakeholders, vertically and horizontally

• Establish a prioritized program of investment based on a diagnostic of past and current knowledge and investment in the country (ie, stocktaking of what works and why and where the bottlenecks are)




HOW DOES THE SIP INTEGRATE WITH TERRAFRICA?

• The SIP is the business model for GEF investment supporting the TerrAfrica approach (ie, donor alignment, unlocking key bottlenecks in the enabling environment, partnership building at various scales, etc)

• The SIP will contribute to achieving TerrAfrica’s objectives of Activity Line 3 (Investments).

• Selective gaps would also be filled under Activity Line 1 (Coalition Building) and Activity Line 2 (Knowledge Management)

• In turn, the SIP will benefit from the TerrAfrica platform of partnership, advocacy, and knowledge sharing.



SIP Portfolio

AL1 – Coalition building

AL2 – Knowledge Management

AL3 - Investments

TerrAfrica SIP

TA objectives drive investments

Investments help achieve TA objectives


SIP financial umbrella:

50% of OP15 (GEF 4)



50% of OP15 (GEF 4)



SIP Portfolio

AL1 – Coalition building

AL2 – Knowledge Management

AL3 - Investments

The SIP programming framework includes engagement criteria, M&E parameters, and accelerated project cycle.

SIP Regional Technical Committee (see Implementation Arrangements draft of the Program Brief)

● Guides the strategic direction of the SIP

● Ensures project conformance with SIP rules of the game

● NEPAD liaises with the TerrAfrica Executive Committee

SIP coordination at NEPAD/RECs

● Documents and reports on M&E at program level

● Regional advocacy for SIP objectives

● Ensures project conformance with SIP rules of the game

Consultative Forum

Executive Committee (TEC)

Secretariat

TerrAfrica SIP

TA objectives drive investments

Investments help achieve TA objectives



50% of OP15 (GEF 4)



50% of OP15 (GEF 4)



THANK YOU


The Vision for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan

Africa (SSA)

“ Human-beings always consider fertile lands as living providers of abundant food, of spiritual,

cultural and environmental benefits.

Therefore, when the land is “dying” because of severe erosion, or is totally degraded because of

mismanagement, the Basotho farmer as well as the Sahelian and the Ethiopian farmer, feel very bad, and the entire society suffers as a consequence” .

1. Land and development in SSA

1. Land: where do we stand today?

• Land degradation: state, impact, pressure

• Response to LD in SSA

3. Need for change – SLM added value

• Knowledge management

• Institutional and governance

• Economic and financial

Part two: Environmental, socioeconomic, policy and institutional challenges to scale up SLM in SSA


1. LAND AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA


Land a sacred and living body for farmers all over the world….

Attributes of the biosphere immediately above or below the surface:

– soil, water, plant and animal populations, human structures...

AND

– the productive and synergistic interactions between these factors.

Why is land so important in Sub-Saharan Africa?


Development challengesof Sub-Saharan Africa

Extreme poverty• 46.4% population mostly in rural

areas below 1 $/day.

Food insecurity• 33% population under-nourished• 31% children underweight

Conflicts and degradation of NR• Congo, Mono, and Kagera basins

Natural disasters• Drought linked to poor soils in Niger• Floods in Mozambique


• Food, water, wood, fibre

• Regulation of local/global climate, floods, water quality

• Social cohesion, aesthetic value

• Nutrient and carbon cycling • Long-term build-up of natural capital

• Conflict prevention

• Sanitation, health • Prevention of natural

disasters

• Income generation • Food security

59% of SSA population directly lives off the land (FAOSTAT, 2004)

The land, and the ecosystems that compose it, provide goods & services.

Why is land so importantin Sub-Saharan Africa?


2. LAND : WHERE DO WE STAND TODAY IN SSA?


Land degradation - State


Land degradation in SSA State

Erosion• Water: 46% land area• Wind: 38% land area (drylands) (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990)

Declining soil fertilityNegative nutrient balance: • 8 million tons of NPK/year

Deforestation• 3.7 million ha/year (FAOSTAT, 2004)

• SSA: 50% of global deforestation for 16% of remaining forest areas (U. of E.Anglia, 06)

Salinization and water logging (irrigated areas)• Severe in Kenya (30%), Namibia (17%), Nigeria (34%), Sudan (27%), Tanzania

(27%), DR Congo (20%), Mauritania (50%) and Gambia (10%) (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990)


Socio-economic Impacts

Stagnant yields

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Rice, paddy Maize Millet Sorghum

Average crop yield in SS Africa (kg/ha)(FAOSTAT, 2004)

Economic losses• Productivity / agricultural worker: -16% (1989-2000) • Cereal availability/capita: -15%. (FAOSTAT, 2004)

• Agricultural GDP lost: est. US$ 9 billion/ year. (Dregne 1991, Dreschel 1999)

Abandonment and migration• 7.3% land area non-reclaimable (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990)

• 60 million people may migrate by 2020 from degraded areas of SSA (UNCCD quoted by Kofi Annan on WDCD 2004)

Land degradation in SSA Impact


Environmental Impacts

Water resources• Increased peak flows; reduced dry season flows• Siltation in rivers and lakes (shrinking of Lake Chad)

Climate change• Carbon stocks: -5 billion tonnes from deforestation in SSA

alone (1990-2005) (ODC, U. of East Anglia, 2006)

Loss of biodiversity• Animal species: 126 extinct in the wild; 2,018 threatened. • Plant species: 125 extinct; 1,771 threatened (APEI, 2003)

Land degradation in SSA Impact


Natural pressure

• Vulnerable soils • Climate variability and global climate change• Fragile ecosystems (drylands and mountains)

Human pressure

Unsustainable agricultural practicesUnsustainable agricultural practices

• 65% growth of cropped areas in 30 years (FAOSTAT, 2004)

• Nutrient mining: up to 70-80 kg NPK/ha/year (IFDC, 2006)• Erosion-enhancing practices • Poor drainage in irrigated areas• Soil compaction

Land degradation in SSA Pressure


Human pressure (continued)

Overgrazing of rangelandOvergrazing of rangeland

• 1.5 - 2.0% per year growth in animal numbers (FAOSTAT, 2004)

• Inadequate regulation of pastoral resources and transhumance

• Encroachment by settled farmers

Deforestation and forest degradationDeforestation and forest degradation

• Deforestation: 0.7% per year (FAOSTAT, 2004)

• Natural forests into pasture, croplands, plantations• Urbanization and refugee camp development

Land degradation in SSA Pressure


Land degradation in SSA Response: Field-level practices

• Better Land Husbandry: Pioneered in Malawi (early 1970s) and spread in Southern Africa.

• Conservation Agriculture: 90 million ha of lands worldwide, expanding in South Africa, Lesotho, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, piloted in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger and Mali.

• Integrated Plant and Nutrient Management (IPNM): Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

• Integrated crop-livestock farming systems: Most developed in the Sahel.


• Participatory R&D and extension:

Shift from top-down commodity-driven to bottom-up demand-driven approach. Results in Uganda and Tanzania; countries moving rapidly (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Zambia).

• Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for SLMTested and implemented in a large number of countries. Recent developments in Eastern Africa.

• Contracting extension services to NGOs and other third partiesFew examples in SSA, promising in Madagascar and Mali.

Land degradation in SSA Response: Support services and extension


• Participatory Catchments Approaches to Soil and Water Conservation and Community-based resource management (“gestion des terroirs” )

Burkina Faso, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Tanzania , Ghana and Zambia….

• Community Investment Funds

Trust fund financing. Funds replenished: includes income generating activities and improved livelihoods.

• Payment for Ecosystem Services

Payment to rural communities or individuals for preserving environmental functions for downstream or global stakeholders.

Successful examples in forestry (carbon sequestration), wildlife management (ecotourism) and water conservation: Uganda, Kenya, Ghana

Land degradation in SSA Involvement of local communities/ Incentive approaches


UN Convention to Combat Desertification• 30 out of 49 SSA countries have National Action Plans

NEPAD: CAADP and Environmental Action Plan• Adopted by large majority of SSA countries• Pillars 1, 3 and 4 of CAADP, Program areas 1 and 6 of EAP

Millennium Development Goals (MDG)• MDG 1 – Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger• MDG 7 – Ensure environmental sustainability

Soil Fertility Initiative• 20 SFI National Action Plans developed

Abuja Declaration on the African Green Revolution• Declare Fertilisers (organic and inorganic ) strategic commodities• Set up a Financial Mechanism to promote access and use of fertilisers

Land degradation in SSA Response: National, regional and global programs


DESPITE THE INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS . . .

Land degradation in SSA has not attracted policy makers and donors’ attention in a way commensurate with the dimension of the problem.

Past efforts have been essentially fragmented and ineffective.

There is a will, especially amongst African countries, to address the problem of land degradation.

However, because of lack of an appropriate policy environment, support for land degradation has continued to fall short of stakeholders’ expectations in a number of areas.


Land degradation in SSA Response: National, regional and global programs


3. THE NEED FOR CHANGE IN SSA – SLM VALUE-ADDED


SLM can be defined as the use of land resources, including soils, water, animals, plants and climate,

for the production of goods to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term

productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their ecosystem functions.

What is Sustainable Land Management (SLM)?


LESSONS LEARNT FROM PAST LAND MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES


PROBLEM

• Too many overlapping and scattered programs and missions with conflicting objectives

• Land degradation is too large a problem for a single institution to address alone

• Narrow approaches have had a limited and unsustained impact

• Poor knowledge management has constrained the implementation of SLM scale-up

LESSON LEARNT

• Better alignment and harmonization between stakeholders is required to reduce the drain on country resources

• By pooling resources, partnerships (horizontal and/or vertical) can reduce transaction costs and achieve economies of scale across SSA

• A comprehensive approach to SLM is required, which directly and jointly targets the identified barriers

• Better tools are needed to assess the economic and social benefits of SLM

• A vehicle is needed to share success stories, promote replication and benchmarking, and get the right knowledge to the right decision makers and land users.


HOW CAN WE SCALE UP SLM?

Past experiences point to a range of barriers,

or bottlenecks, which need to be dismantled if

SLM is to be effectively and efficiently scaled

up:



BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS to SLM SCALE UP

• KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

•INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVERNANCE BARRIERS

• POLICY BARRIERS

• FINANCIAL BARRIERS

• IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS


By directly addressing these bottlenecks, we can create the enabling environment for scaling up and mainstreaming SLM at the country level.

OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDSOUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

FROM:

• A traditional land management approach– Sectoral (crop, livestock,

forest, water)– Reactive to environmental

change and new technologies– Focusing on land degradation

symptoms

• Top-down and expert-driven approaches

Addressing Barriers and Bottlenecks

Knowledge Management

TO:

• A holistic ecosystem approachA holistic ecosystem approach– Considering ecosystem and

landscape functions– Proactive with respect to issues

such as climate change and bioenergy

– Focusing on land degradation causes and key bottlenecks

• People-centered approachPeople-centered approach– Community-based participative

approaches to land use planning and capacity-building

– Build on land users’ knowledge and ability to experiment


FROM:

• Knowledge gaps

• Weak knowledge management



TO:TO:

• Expand the knowledge baseExpand the knowledge base– New approaches, challenges and

opportunities (e.g. conservation agriculture, agro-tourism, bio-energy, land-use planning)

– Greater understanding of quantifiable costs and benefits of LD and SLM

– Greater understanding of ecosystem functions and contribution to livelihoods

– Greater understanding of root causes and bottlenecks

• Organization and connectivity of Organization and connectivity of knowledgeknowledge – Tailored information for partners,

channeled to decision-makers– Recognize the digital divide


FROM:

• Inadequate M&E of land degradation and its impact



TO:TO:

• Transparent, participatory M&E Transparent, participatory M&E systemssystems – Scale-sensitive (local to regional) – Action-oriented (diagnostic for

investment)– Tracking of SLM expenditure


FROM:

• Diverging views and approaches by concerned stakeholders

• Lack of cooperation between stakeholders

Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional and Governance

TO:

• Alignment along a shared vision – Multi-level and cross-sectoral

– Multi-stakeholder: private, public, civil society, development partners

• Efficient and effective coordination– Cross-sectoral, multi-level and multi-

stakeholder mechanisms at country level

– Donor alignment and coordination

– Negotiation as the basis for partnerships based on responsibilities and benefits


FROM:

• Ad hoc, supply-driven project approach to land mgt (not synergistic)

• SLM not identified as key issue in strategies, national priorities, PRSPs, sectoral policies and public expenditure


Institutional and Governance

TO:

• Programmatic approach to SLM at local, national, and regional levels (including transboundary watersheds and basin)

• SLM recognized as a priority• Harmonization and

mainstreaming of SLM


FROM:

• Lack of capacities and resources in local governments

• Insecurity of tenure due to conflicting statutory and customary rules or existence of “open-access” regimes


Institutional and Governance

TO:

• Foster and support the decentralization processes

• Improving governance for SLM

• Tenure systems and regulations are negotiated between population and decision-makers to facilitate SLM

• Access to land for vulnerable groups


FROM:

• Inadequate economic and pricing policies


Economic and financial

TO:

• Policy development, to support:– SLM incentives (e.g. compensation

for non-use, investment support, PES)

– Food chain organization allowing land users to capture value-added for SLM investment


FROM:

• Lack of financial resources at country level

• Lack of credit facilities at the sub-national and local levels



TO:TO:

• Mobilization of capital for Mobilization of capital for productive investmentsproductive investments– Increased public expenditure for SLM– Greater investment efficiency and

effectiveness– Development of innovative financing

mechanisms (e.g. PES, carbon fund, GEF, bioenergy grants

• Facilitation of access to capital Facilitation of access to capital and risk-hedging mechanismsand risk-hedging mechanisms– Micro-grants and micro-credit and flexible

financial mechanisms– Incentive risk-sharing mechanisms– Development of markets, commercial

and support services


FROM:

• Lack of coordination and harmonization of delivery mechanisms for external assistance



TO:TO:

• Cost-effective harmonization Cost-effective harmonization and alignment of delivery and alignment of delivery mechanisms (ie, through the mechanisms (ie, through the CSIF)CSIF)


THANK YOU


Guidance for this breakout session oncontext of the SIP

• Agree on key content of the overall vision for SLM to be reflected in the SIP Program Brief

• Make specific recommendations on the content of the presentations to finalize write-up of the Brief

• Use worksheet for breakout sessions (last page in materials distributed to you); breakout chairs will give these to workshop rapporteur, who will immediately consolidate

• Refer to background documents at your convenience

Breakout session: what is needed


Specific guidance needed to finalize write-up of Program Brief:

1. Does the annotated outline include all the key issues? Are there any obvious omissions?

2. Does the shared vision respond to the past two years of consultations, and align with the Program Brief outline?

3. Is the shared vision operational and pragmatic?

4. How should the barriers and bottlenecks be prioritized in the Program Brief?

Most relevant documents circulated:SIP Program Brief annotated outline and introduction (Eng and Fr); Please see the introduction, and especially sections A1 and A2 of the outline.




Chairs for this breakout

session

• Group 1: Francophone

Michel Tankoano

• Group 2: Anglophone

Martin Bwalya

• Group 3: Anglophone

Rhoda Tumusiime



Recommendations from STRP on the Program Brief outline:

1. Outline is reasonable, with some additions that should be reflected in full write-up, including:

– Regional/subregional programs and institutions already exist outside of RECs. These should be able to participate in the SIP implementation process. As such, RECs should provide guidance on how they work with these institutions.

– Decentralization / local govt should be included in stakeholder involvement.

2. Prepare a matrix to illustrate alignment of SIP objectives with CAADP, EAP and REC Implementation Action Plan objectives. This should be circulated as quickly as possible by NEPAD in consultation with the SIP project team and/or STRP. This presentation should also directly inform all other relevant sections and papers.

