24-26 July 2006 Midrand, South Africa

1. 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 Workshop for the GEF Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management (SIP) Session 2: Context and Driveness 24-26 July 2006 Midrand, South Africa

2. Objectives of 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 CONTEXT Part one: Background and rationale of the SIP Part two: Environmental, socioeconomic, policy and institutional challenges to scale up SLM in SSA BREAKOUT

3. Objectives of Session 2: context and driveness Specific guidance is needed on the context – please keep in mind during presentations: • Does the annotated outline include all the key issues? Are there any obvious omissions? • Does the shared vision respond to the past two years of consultations, and align with the Program Brief outline? • 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) OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

4. 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: • Overview of the SIP B. Added value of the SIP • How the SIP serves the broader African development agenda • Status and next steps in the preparation process • Summary of how the SIP is planned to work OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

5. OVERVIEW of SIP: What is it? The SIP is a special effort for Sub-Saharan Africa OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

6. OVERVIEW of SIP: What is it? 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). OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

7. OVERVIEW of SIP: What is it? 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) OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

8. 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 strategiccoherence 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 OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

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

10. 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) OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

11. OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work? NEPAD/RECs help advocate for SLM among countries, promoting country-level coalitions that can leverage SIP The SIP programming framework for engaging in a CSIF or multi-country investment SIP PORTFOLIO T he CSIF will allow countries to translate their specific SLM objectives into operational priorities, and align donors and actors around common approach Country project 1 Countries design funding projects, aided by their own unique Country SLM Investment Frameworks (CSIF) Country project 2 SIP FINANCIAL UMBRELLA: 50% of OP15 (GEF 4) Open to all SSA countries Country project 3 Multi-country project 1 Etcetera…. SIP Regional Technical Committee guides the strategic direction of the SIP GEF pipeline entry on a rolling basis • 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 Program Level M&E Project Level M&E OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

12. OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work? 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) OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

13. OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work? 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. OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

14. SIP Portfolio OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work? TerrAfrica SIP SIP financial umbrella: 50% of OP15 (GEF 4) Open to all SSA countries AL1 – Coalition building TA objectives drive investments AL2 – Knowledge Management Investments help achieve TA objectives AL3 - Investments

15. SIP Portfolio Consultative Forum Executive Committee (TEC) Secretariat OVERVIEW OF THE SIP: How will it work? TerrAfrica SIP • 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 AL1 – Coalition building SIP financial umbrella: 50% of OP15 (GEF 4) Open to all SSA countries TA objectives drive investments AL2 – Knowledge Management Investments help achieve TA objectives AL3 - Investments The SIP programming framework includes engagement criteria, M&E parameters, and accelerated project cycle.

16. THANK YOU

17. Part two: Environmental, socioeconomic, policy and institutional challenges to scale up SLM in SSA 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” . • Land and development in SSA • 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

18. LAND AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

19. Why is land so important in Sub-Saharan Africa? Landa 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.

20. Development challenges of 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

21. Why is land so important in Sub-Saharan Africa? • Food, water, wood, fibre • Regulation of local/global climate, floods, water quality • Social cohesion, aesthetic value • Nutrient and carbon cycling 59% of SSA population directly lives off the land (FAOSTAT, 2004) The land, and the ecosystems that compose it, provide goods & services. • Income generation • Food security • Sanitation, health • Prevention of natural disasters • Conflict prevention • Long-term build-up of natural capital

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

23. Land degradation - State

24. Land degradation in SSA State • Erosion • Water: 46% land area • Wind: 38% land area (drylands) (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990) • Declining soil fertility • Negative 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)

25. Land degradation in SSA Impact Socio-economic Impacts Stagnant yields 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)

26. 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)

27. Land degradation in SSA Pressure • Natural pressure • Vulnerable soils • Climate variability and global climate change • Fragile ecosystems (drylands and mountains) • Human pressure • Unsustainable 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

28. Land degradation in SSA Pressure • Human pressure (continued) • Overgrazing 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 degradation • Deforestation: 0.7% per year (FAOSTAT, 2004) • Natural forests into pasture, croplands, plantations • Urbanization and refugee camp development

29. Land degradation in SSAResponse: 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.

30. Land degradation in SSA Response: Support services and extension • 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 SLM Tested and implemented in a large number of countries. Recent developments in Eastern Africa. • Contracting extension services to NGOs and other third parties Few examples in SSA, promising in Madagascar and Mali.

31. Land degradation in SSAInvolvement of local communities/ Incentive approaches • 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

32. Land degradation in SSAResponse: National, regional and global programs 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

33. Land degradation in SSAResponse: 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. OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

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

35. What is Sustainable Land Management (SLM)? 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.

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

37. HOW CAN WE SCALE UP SLM? Past experiences point to a range of barriers, orbottlenecks, which need to be dismantled if SLM is to be effectively and efficiently scaled up: OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

38. 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 HANDS

39. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksKnowledge Management TO: • A 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 approach • Community-based participative approaches to land use planning and capacity-building • Build on land users’ knowledge and ability to experiment 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 OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

40. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksKnowledge Management TO: • Expand 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 knowledge • Tailored information for partners, channeled to decision-makers • Recognize the digital divide FROM: • Knowledge gaps • Weak knowledge management OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

41. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksKnowledge Management TO: • Transparent, participatory M&E systems • Scale-sensitive (local to regional) • Action-oriented (diagnostic for investment) • Tracking of SLM expenditure FROM: • Inadequate M&E of land degradation and its impact OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

42. 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: • Diverging views and approaches by concerned stakeholders • Lack of cooperation between stakeholders OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

43. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional 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: • 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 OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

44. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional 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: • Lack of capacities and resources in local governments • Insecurity of tenure due to conflicting statutory and customary rules or existence of “open-access” regimes OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

45. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksEconomic 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: • Inadequate economic and pricing policies OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

46. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksEconomic and financial TO: • Mobilization of capital for productive 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 and 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 financial resources at country level • Lack of credit facilities at the sub-national and local levels OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

47. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksEconomic and financial TO: • Cost-effective harmonization and alignment of delivery mechanisms (ie, through the CSIF) FROM: • Lack of coordination and harmonization of delivery mechanisms for external assistance OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

48. THANK YOU

49. Breakout session: what is needed Guidance for this breakout session on context 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 OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

50. Breakout session: what is needed Specific guidance needed to finalize write-up of Program Brief: • Does the annotated outline include all the key issues? Are there any obvious omissions? • Does the shared vision respond to the past two years of consultations, and align with the Program Brief outline? • 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. OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS