THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA

Tel: 202-473-1000Fax: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd

PartnershipsF O R S U S T A I N A B L E L A N D M A N A G E M E N T

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya

A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD

34111

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

This paper was prepared by an inter-agency team drawn from the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the U.N.

Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) under the leadership of Enos E. Esikuri. The team included: Enos E. Esikuri, Mathew

Corbett (consultant) and John B. Collier of the World Bank, Washington, DC; Simone Quatrini, Global Mechanism, Rome, Italy; Khalida

Bouzar, International Fund for Agricultural Development Rome; Anna Tengberg, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,

Kenya; Richard J. Thomas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Aleppo, Syria; Gregoire De Kalbermatten,

UNCCD Secretariat, Bonn, Germany; and Robert Everitt and Daniele Ponzi, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.

The Facilitation Committee would like to thank the World Bank for facilitating and financing this publication. The authors wish to

thank Jim Cantrell (World Bank) for design and production management.

The Facilitation Committee provides support and advice to the Global Mechanism and allows for collaborative institutional

arrangements between the Global Mechanism and those institutions having relevant technical and financial expertise to the UNCCD.

The members of the Facilitation Committee are: African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global

Environment Facility (GEF), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

Secretariat of the UNCCD, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and

The World Bank (WB). The G-77 and China, OECD Group, and RIOD Network participate in an observer status.

Cover image by Erick C. M. Fernandes; all other images by Enos E. Esikuri.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya.

A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD.

PartnershipsFOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT

© 2005 The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development / THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA

Telephone: 202-473-1000Facsimale: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd

All rights reservedFirst printing September 2005

The World Bank has used its best efforts to ensure that the information contained withinthis report is accurate, however, it cannot guarantee its accuracy. The representations,interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments that they represent.

Rights and PermissionsThe material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or allof this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination ofits work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a requestwith complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive,Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet:www.copyright.com.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should beaddressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW,Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.

3

1. Introduction 4

2. Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 5

3. Sustainable Land Management Partnership Opportunities and Examples 8

4. Attributes of Effective Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 14

Appendix — Examples of Existing Sustainable Land Management Partnerships 16

Notes 19

References 19

CONTENTS

4

1INTRODUCTION

Seventy-five percent of the global poor are

rural and mainly agrarian. Agriculture is

the driver of economic growth in many

developing countries, where it often

represents at least 25 percent of gross

domestic product (GDP). Most countries

whose economies depend on agriculture

are also the most severely affected by land

degradation and other critical global

environmental concerns. Many of these

countries are in Africa. At its July 2005

summit at Gleneagles, the G-8 noted that

in order to promote growth, investment is

needed in sustainable agriculture in many

of the developing countries, especially in

Africa. Much of the shift towards sustain-

able agriculture can be achieved largely

through promotion of Sustainable Land

Management technologies and practices.

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) can

be defined as a knowledge-based procedure

that helps integrate land, water, biodiversity,

and environmental management (including

input and output externalities), to meet rising

food and fiber demands while sustaining

ecosystem services and livelihoods (World

Bank, 2005).

In less than 25 years, income and popula-

tion growth may double global food

demand. Agricultural growth is the

cornerstone of long-term food security.

Since 38 percent of the world’s land is

already devoted to agriculture (crops and

permanent pasture) (FAO, 2002), the

influence of agricultural land management

practices on ecosystem health is substan-

tial. Agricultural growth and the practices

used to achieve it will largely determine

natural resource management (NRM)

regimes in both agricultural and non-

agricultural landscapes.

Historically, conversion of land to agricul-

tural use has usually led to degraded

biodiversity and eventually loss of soil

fertility. But the search for food security

does not have to involve unsustainable

land management practices. Improvements

in agriculture productivity can be achieved

with SLM practices. Given the multi-

dimensionality of land use and land

degradation issues, SLM offers a platform

for integrating various agendas and

stakeholders in a way that provides

multiple benefits in both the short- and

long-term. And because many natural

resources, such as river basins, are shared,

it makes sense to forge partnerships at

different levels — community, watershed,

national, sub-regional, global — that help

address shared resource issues.

The international community is increas-

ingly aware that isolated and uncoordi-

nated activities and actors will not

adequately address environmental and

conservation issues into the future. For

example, as increased awareness of climate

change and desertification has shown, the

earth’s critical environments must be

protected by all, not just a few specialists.

5

2SUSTAINABLE

LAND

MANAGEMENT

PARTNERSHIPS

Recognizing joint responsibility for natural

resources allows all concerned to make

rational choices on the farm, in the village,

in the river basin, or on the continent.

While recognizing that partnerships can be

challenging and costly, this paper makes

the case that there are indeed justifiable

cases where multi-stakeholder partner-

ships are not only needed but are essential

to ensuring collective stewardship of land

resources. This paper lays out the key

principles for effective SLM partnerships,

and presents a number of promising SLM

partnerships established around the world

at the local, national, regional/international

and global levels, dealing with private and

public land. These examples help provide

an understanding of the entry points,

strengths and weaknesses of SLM

partnerships. Finally, the paper highlights

the attributes of a partnership required to

achieve success.

The objective of the United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification

(UNCCD) is to combat desertification1

and mitigate the effects of drought in

countries experiencing serious drought

and/or desertification, particularly in

Africa. The UNCCD recognizes the

importance of international cooperation

and partnerships in achieving this objec-

tive. Specifically, Articles 2 and 3 of the

Convention note that for land degradation

mitigation actions to be effective at all

levels, they must be supported by appro-

priate international cooperation and

partnership arrangements.

A partnership provides an opportunistic

mechanism for stakeholders to come

together to achieve a shared goal by using

their comparative advantages. It enables

organizations to achieve results that are

greater than the sum of their individual

efforts. It seeks to optimize the effective-

ness of investments by establishing and

coordinating a common program and

assigning specific objectives to different

partners. Thus a partnership can overcome

the ad hoc nature of unrelated projects in

separate administrative areas. At its best, it

can actually direct activities at the causes

of a land management problem, rather

than merely at the symptoms.

In the context of SLM, partnerships can

create an effective entry point to

mainstreaming land management issues

into country development frameworks by

creating a critical mass that can engage

policy dialogue with a wide range of

interested partners at various levels.

(a) Goals and Structure

SLM partnerships can take a number of

forms and can involve a broad mix of

stakeholders. They usually have a unifying

focus, either the management of a specific

resource or the achievement of theme-

based objectives, or a combination of both.

A resource-based partnership may have

the goal of improving river water quality,

whereas a theme-based goal may be

poverty reduction through the adoption of

a range of SLM practices.

6SLM partnerships usually have objectives

at different levels, from local through to

national, international/regional, and global.

They usually run for an extended period,

which is necessary to improve degraded

soil, water, and vegetation resources, and

to effect sustainable change. They are

usually tied to a geographic area, com-

monly a natural system (e.g. river basin,

forest area), but may be based on an

administrative area (e.g. province, country),

a theme or an activity. Global partnerships

tend to be based on a theme (e.g.,

desertification, biodiversity) or an activity

(e.g. information sharing, policy sharing,

resource mobilization) rather than a

geographic area.

Partners can include any combination of

international agencies, governments

(national, state, and local), departments,

research and learning institutions, busi-

ness/industry, non-governmental organi-

zations (NGOs), communities, and/or

individual resource users. These partners

may be integrated vertically and/or

horizontally. The partnership structure

commonly includes a dedicated manage-

ment/administrative body responsible for

the overall management, program coordi-

nation, and activity facilitation. This body

is usually governed by a committee

comprised of representatives of the key

partners.

Partners usually make financial contribu-

tions to cover the core functions of

management, technical expertise, imple-

mentation, research, labor, and funding.

The costs of running partnerships must be

proportional to the overall program to

ensure the funds are primarily being

directed towards tangible on-the-ground

activities rather than administration and

process meetings.

(b) Strengths and Benefits

Above all else, SLM partnerships provide

the enabling conditions for desired land-

management activities. Providing these

conditions are usually beyond the financial

means, technical capability, and/or

geographic influence of a single entity.

These enabling conditions need to be

underpinned by an effective coordination

mechanism that a partnership arrange-

ment can provide.

A partnership can raise the profile of an

issue, so that it gets on a government’s

agenda. It can make an issue widely

known and supported at international,

political, departmental, community, and

land-user levels. This public recognition is

particularly important for rural issues

where the cause of the problem is often

remote or dispersed, and the issue is not

well understood by the urban population,

7which retains much of the political power.

Everywhere, urban dwellers become

disconnected from their sources of food,

fiber, and wood and the environmental

impacts that can result from their produc-

tion. This disconnection is increasing as the

world’s urban population increases. In

2005, the world’s population residing in

urban areas is projected to reach 50

percent, rising from only 14 percent in

1900 (United Nations Secretariat, 2005).

A partnership motivates its members to

meet their agreed obligations through

regular coordination. Without the partner-

ship, individual efforts can often lose

momentum and direction. Partnerships

provide the long-term continuity necessary

to achieve results. Because they are less

susceptible to changes of government and

subsequent funding priorities, they can

endure well beyond a single political term.

Partnerships can effectively address

economic, social, and environmental

dimensions of land management issues by

exploring mutually beneficial linkages and

actions between stakeholders and con-

cerned sectors. In these cases, SLM is less

focused on “land” and more on develop-

ment.

Partnerships open channels for regular

strategic dialogue and exert leverage at a

country or even regional level. They can

break down traditional rivalries to bring

combined effort and expertise to bear on a

set of issues. Stakeholders become focused

on shared results, rather than on their

differences. International partnerships can

improve relations and help avoid resource-

use conflicts.

A partnership can develop a unified

management framework and action

program, avoiding piecemeal, possibly

duplicative, actions. Alignment of partner-

ship objectives can help in policy align-

ment among participating governments.

Partnerships allow a plan to be imple-

mented across an entire landscape,

regardless of its division into political

units. Partnerships can be more cost

effective than uncoordinated actions

because they can target key components of

a system and monitor across the entire

system (more value per dollar spent),

leverage resources, and make more

efficient use of funds by avoiding duplica-

tion and treating the cause, not the

symptoms. Specialist agencies can

contribute their expertise and financial

resources in a coordinated manner on

significant issues that are either beyond

the scope or means of one agency or more

efficiently solved through the cooperation

of multiple participants.

Partnerships facilitate, coordinate, and

streamline funding, and can generate new

funding sources by creating a “brand” (e.g.,

sponsorship by those wanting to associate

with the initiative). Well-executed

partnerships reduce the lead time for

activities (i.e. from activity identification to

effectiveness), especially for repeat

projects/activities. In addition, partnerships

have the potential to enhance and broaden

the funding base for SLM initiatives by

opening channels with non-traditional

players in the public and private sectors.

Partnerships can strengthen monitoring

and evaluation processes by coordinating

and standardizing data collection, and by

facilitating the sharing of expertise,

program experience and results, research,

and resource data.

8

3SUSTAINABLE

LAND

MANAGEMENT

PARTNERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES

AND EXAMPLES

Some of the most prominent SLM

partnerships are transboundary river basin

initiatives, where upper watershed land

use practices have caused stress on vital

downstream water resources. Partnership

initiatives are also highly suited to the

effective management of regional and

global environmental issues such as

transboundary nomadic grazing, drought

management, slash-and-burn agriculture,

bushfires (and their effects on biodiversity

and release of carbon) and dust storms, as

well as other large scale land management

issues that require substantial and

prolonged investment.

Another prime opportunity for SLM

partnerships is in mitigating drought and

flood disasters. Many countries are

vulnerable to frequent droughts, and

devastating floods, that often have severe

socio-economic impacts at local, national

and regional levels. Droughts and floods

can present a significant challenge to both

rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, includ-

ing livestock and inland fisheries. They can

pose a significant barrier to investments in

agriculture, livestock, fisheries, hydro-

power and other key sectors.

In sub-Saharan Africa, consequences of

drought are often transboundary as people

and livestock displaced by drought in one

region move to seek relief in other

jurisdictions. Therefore, partnership

arrangements that coordinate investments

in appropriate drought mitigation mea-

sures are needed to reduce impacts,

improve productivity, and enhance

economic performance (Esikuri 2005).

With global climate change projected to

lead to more frequent and extreme

droughts, mechanisms to help countries

reduce their vulnerability to drought will

be needed on a regional scale.

This section presents five success stories in

which cooperation and combined manage-

Inappropriate Situationsand Weaknesses

Not all SLM situations are amenable to

partnerships. A partnership is inappropri-

ate where the potential gains to partici-

pants are outweighed by the “costs” of

establishing and maintaining the partner-

ship. For this reason, a short-term

partnership is unlikely to be worthwhile,

let alone suitable to overcoming significant

land management issues.

A partnership is not applicable where there

is insufficient shared interest and no

common goal. A partnership cannot and

should not be all encompassing, targeting

a broad diversity of unrelated individual

interests.

To succeed, a partnership should be

composed of voluntary members and fully

self-supporting, with contributions that all

partners consider equitable. A partnership

cannot successfully be held together by a

single highly motivated partner. A

partnership is not and should not be used

as an opportunity to offload individual

obligations to address specific SLM issues.

The structure of a partnership should be

such that it discourages free-ridership by

any individual member.

9ment achieved far greater results than

could be achieved through actions by

individual agencies. The following ex-

amples highlight certain conditions that

make these SLM partnerships effective.

They include cases in which:

Countries in Central Asia coordinated

to steer donor funding to priority areas

for dryland management.

Several states and the U.S. Government

united to deal with pollution in the

country’s largest estuary.

Nine countries bordering or traversed

by the Nile River formed a partnership

for the economic development of the

river basin.

A partnership between China, GEF

Implementing and Executing Agencies,

other donors secured long-term

Box 1Central Asian Initiative for Land Management —A Multi-Country Coordinated Action to Implement the UNCCD

Since its inception in October 2001, the Strategic Partnership Agreement for Implementation of the UNCCD in the CentralAsian Countries (SPA) has evolved into a fully functional, multi-agency partnership. A critical mass of partners has beenbrought together by the Global Mechanism (GM), with current membership including: GM, Asian Development Bank(ADB), Canadian International Development Agency, UNCCD Project of GTZ, SDC, IFAD, ICARDA and UNDP.

The CACILM partnership will be implemented over a ten year period (2005 – 2014) to support the development andimplementation of national programming frameworks (NPF) for more comprehensive and integrated approaches tosustainable land management directed towards the overall goal of combating land degradation and improving rurallivelihoods. CACILM is being implemented by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) under the direction of the CACILMTask Force, which is comprised of the SPA members and UNCCD Focal Points from the five Central Asian Countries. TheCACILM design phase is being co-financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), $700,000, the Global Mechanismof the UNCCD, $50,000, and ADB, $500,000.

The design phase of CACILM is expected to produce four outputs: (i) NPFs for each country, including a prioritizedprogram of projects and technical assistance, and related concept papers; (ii) the CACILM Multi-country PartnershipFramework and supporting GEF documentation prepared in accordance with GEF guidelines on the programmaticapproach; (iii) established mechanisms for consultation and coordination within and amongst countries that enhance theparticipation of stakeholders; provide efficient and effective mechanisms for the implementation, monitoring, and evalua-tion of CACILM; and enhance harmonization of funding agencies; and (iv) increased awareness and commitments bynational and funding agencies stakeholders.

CACILM aims to leverage $700 million over 10 years from the respective countries, GEF, and multilateral and bilateralsources. Current earmarked financing includes $450 million from ADB over 10 years and $20 million from GEF’s thirdreplenishment.

EXAMPLE 1. Multi-CountryCoordinated Action to AddressDesertification and Land Degradationin Central Asia

Land degradation is a serious economic,

social, and environmental problem in the

transition economies of the Central Asian

Countries (CACs) of Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and

funding and is distributing resources for

dryland management over the life of a

10-year program.

Development of the Landcare Programs

in Australia created a “brand” that raised

local awareness and built ownership

around a number of coordinated local

land management programs.

Uzbekistan. The Central Asian Initiative for

Land Management (CACILM), is a multi-

country and donor partnership to support

the development and implementation of

national programmatic frameworks for

comprehensive and integrated approaches

to sustainable land management in the

region (see Box 1).

Land degradation is common in all

countries and the causes—while multiple,

complex and variable— have some

similarities. The CACILM provides a multi-

country transfer mechanism to facilitate

exchange of SLM knowledge, technology,

experience and expertise.

10

Box 2The Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, encompasses parts of five states (Delaware, Maryland,New York, Virginia, West Virginia) and the entire District of Columbia. The bay ecosystem covers 64,000 square miles,encompassing 150 major rivers and streams and is home to 15.1 million people (Cestti et al, 2003).

For more than 300 years, the bay and its tributaries sustained the region’s economy. But as human and livestock num-bers grew and use of agrochemicals became widespread, the bay experienced excessive nutrient loading, which led to adrastic decline in water quality and subsequently in the bay’s famous fishery. Studies revealed that the leading threats tothe health of the bay were excess nitrogen and phosphorus, primarily from agriculture; sewage treatment plants; urbanrunoff; and air pollution from vehicles, factories, and power plants.

In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in order to restore the bay’s ecosystem quality and productivity. In1987, the key stakeholders agreed to reduce the total nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the bay by 40 percent (basedon 1985 levels) by the year 2000. A tributary strategy agreement was adopted in 1992 and specific limits for nitrogen andphosphorus were set for each of the bay’s 10 major tributaries. States then developed strategies to achieve the assignednutrient limits.

Federal and state support is provided to farmers to develop and implement total resource management plans that usebest management practices (BMPs) to prevent nutrients, sediments, and pesticides from reaching the bay. The empha-sis is on stakeholder participation and incentives for voluntary adoption of BMPs, under appropriate regulatory frame-works.

Key lessons from the Program are:

SLM partnerships require long-term commitment and action at all levels.A participatory approach works best when stakeholders, especially farmers, are empowered with adequate technicaland financial support.Appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks are critical to the success of large, transboundary SLM programsClear economic benefits from BMPs are vital for sustaining farmer interest.Determination of baselines, goals, benchmarks, indicators and a rigorous independent monitoring and evaluationsystem is crucial for measuring and communicating program progress.Incentive systems, such as cost-sharing, tax credits and transfer payments, are critical in encouraging voluntaryadoption of BMPs.Partnership programs should be targeted, promote inexpensive changes in existing land use practices, and havetangible (visible) environmental benefits.

EXAMPLE 2. Ecosystem Managementof a Shared Watershed

A natural resource is often shared by

different political or administrative entities,

user groups or individual resource users.

The natural resource may cross national or

state/provincial boundaries (e.g. river

basin, forest area, grazing corridor), and

the cause of land degradation may be

geographically removed from the effect

(e.g. pollution from upper watershed land

use practices affects a downstream lake).

Therefore effective action would rely on

inter-governmental cooperation. Govern-

ment-to-government dialogue and the

coordination of planning and action allows

resources to be directed at the most critical

components and sites. For example, the

Chesapeake Bay Program in the United

States brings together five states and the

District of Columbia; the Federal Govern-

ment; and other stakeholders to improve

the health of the Bay and watershed (see

Box 2).

11

EXAMPLE 3. River Basin EconomicDevelopment

Alternatively, a partnership may be

established to foster sustainable economic

development of a shared resource. This is

Box 3Nile Basin Initiative: Basin-Wide International Cooperation

The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a regional partnership of nine countries established in 1998 to fight poverty through thelong-term development and management of Nile waters. The partnership was initiated by the Council of Ministers ofWater Affairs of the Nile Basin (Nile-COM), incorporating all countries that share the basin (Burundi, Democratic Republicof Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda).2 Half of these countries are among the 10poorest nations in the world. About 160 million people live in the 3.4 million square kilometer basin, with a 70 percentrural population.

Partners developed an agreed basin-wide framework “to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through theequitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile-based water resources.” The NBI has launched interrelatedstrategic actions: the Shared Vision Program (SVP) and the two Subsidiary Action Programs (SAPs) — Eastern Nile andNile Equatorial Lakes.

The SVP includes seven basin-wide technical assistance projects that form a coordinated regional program. Fourprojects are theme-based, addressing issues related to environmental management, power trade, efficient water use foragriculture, and water resources planning and management. The other three are facilitative, strengthening confidence-building and stakeholder involvement, applied training for water resources management, and socio-economic develop-ment, benefit-sharing, and coordination.

The two SAPs are being developed to seek mutual benefits and concrete investments: the Eastern Nile currently includesEgypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia; while the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region includes Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo,Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda (the downstream riparians), as well as Sudan and Egypt. These subsidiarygroups are considering joint investment opportunities built on the partnership enabled by the NBI.The NBI is adminis-tered by three member-funded administrative bodies: Nile-COM, the Nile Technical Advisory Committee, and the Secre-tariat.

The NBI programs are supported by donor partners including Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway,Sweden, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the African Development Bank, the Global Environment Facility,UNDP, and the World Bank.

The NBI member countries pay annual dues to cover the core costs of the administrative bodies. Riparian countries alsoprovide counterpart funds for all projects, contribute additional funds to the NBI Secretariat, and sponsor SVP projectmanagement units. Coordinated by the World Bank at the request of the NBI, donors contribute funds to supportprograms and projects through the Nile Basin Trust Fund, where funds are mingled and allocated according to NBIobjectives. Alternatively, donors can provide support to individual projects or to the NBI Secretariat.

the case in the Nile Basin where nine

countries work within a mechanism to

develop and share Nile waters for domestic

supply, power, industry, and agriculture.

12EXAMPLE 4. Coordinated Large-Scaleand Long-Term Investment

The creation of a partnership between

government, various funding agencies,

implementing and executing agencies,

and/or resource users provides an effective

mechanism for securing adequate funds

EXAMPLE 5. SLM “Brand” Creationand Community Mobilization

A partnership can create an identity or

“brand” for a single SLM issue or a broad

range of SLM issues that would otherwise

have gone unrecognized. Raising the

profile of an SLM issue or initiative can

Box 4PRC/GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems in China

The Partnership on Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems was initiated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) andthe Global Environment Facility (GEF), with the PRC requesting the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to take a lead role infacilitating the preparation of the partnership.

The partnership, begun in 2002, targets the six provinces and autonomous regions with the worst dryland degradation inthe western region of China (Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Sha’anxi and Xinjiang). More than 350 millionpeople reside in this region that encompasses 6.8 million square kilomters (71 percent of the PRC). The region contains97 percent of wind-eroded and desertified land in China, and 54 percent of water-eroded areas (ADB, 2002).

The 10-year partnership has the overall goal of reducing land degradation, alleviating poverty, and restoring drylandecosystems in the western region. It is governed by a Country Programming Framework (CPF) in effect from 2003 to2012 and consists of sequenced priority activities that will strengthen the enabling environment and build institutionalcapacity for integrated approaches to combat land degradation, and demonstrate viable integrated ecosystem manage-ment models for widespread replication.

The total program cost is projected to be US$1.5 billion, to be financed by the GEF (US $150 million in grant assistancefor eligible incremental costs), ADB (US $250 million), PRC (US $700 million) and other sources. The ADB takes the leadwith regard to GEF programming but other GEF Implementing (e.g., World Bank) and Executing Agencies (e.g., IFAD)participate actively in this partnership.

Participation in the CPF by multilateral and bilateral organizations and foundations,especially the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), the World Bank and bilateral donors, has been achieved through donor coordination activities.

and distributing these efficiently to

implement activities over a long period of

time. Without a coordinating body, it

would be difficult to orchestrate a large

program with multiple financiers over an

extended period (i.e., over 10 years) of

time.

make local people more aware of the

problem and the proposed solutions,

which might spark community support

and even participation. An issue with a

high profile usually finds it easier to obtain

funds. This can help not only to make the

business case for SLM, but can also sustain

long-term political commitment and

accountability with regard to land manage-

ment issues.

A partnership can establish administration

channels and procedures that ease

financial and technical support and reduce

13

Box 5Landcare, Australia

Australia’s National Landcare Program is a government-community-business partnership that aims to achieve sustainablenatural resource management on both private and public land. It is based on voluntary collective community action at thelocal level supported by federal government funding and assistance.

The program, established by the Australian Government in 1992, provides funding to local Landcare action groups,based on several successful state government community-based land management programs. It emerged at a timewhen the full consequences of past land management practices— including land salinization, declining river waterquality, tree dieback, and erosion—were starting to be felt in different regions and it was recognized that governmentaction alone could not reverse land degradation. The program facilitates financial partnerships between the National andState Governments and Landcare groups, with each sharing about one third of the cost of implementing activities on theground.

A Landcare group is formed by local community members based on a natural resource management issue that theyhave identified. The group can focus on on-the-ground action, research, education, or community awareness raising.The Landcare group sets its own goals and actions within established guidelines, but a broad range of land, water, andvegetation management issues can be accommodated. Examples of focus issues are dryland salinity, wetland restora-tion, feral animal control, sand dune stabilization, and bushland protection The issues can be tackled at a catchment orregional level. Issues commonly span numerous private and government landholdings and are most effectively dealtwith by collective action. The Landcare group applies for funding and/or technical assistance from the Federal Govern-ment through state bodies.

The program places primary responsibility for resource management with local stakeholders, who have the greatestinvestment in the resource and stand to gain the main benefits from changes in how it is managed. By asking groupmembers to look beyond their farm gates and identify the issues of most common concern, the program builds owner-ship among the partners. Group ownership of an issue has partly replaced the traditional view that the Government isresponsible for taking care of resource management issues that are larger than a single farm.

A key achievement of Landcare has been the establishment of a single identity for land management improvementacross Australia. The “brand” identity of the Landcare program has raised community awareness about natural resourcemanagement issues, created the administrative mechanism for the funding and management of local activities, createdpressure for the allocation of adequate government funding, and provided the resources and support to local actiongroups to enable them to implement works.

Landcare is administered by three national bodies: Australian Landcare Council (policy advice to Ministers), LandcareAustralia Limited (corporate sponsorship, marketing and publicity) and the National Landcare Facilitator (linkage be-tween Landcare groups and government).

Landcare mainly operates in rural Australia; about 40 percent of all farmers are members. But there are also groups incities and towns. Over 4,500 Landcare goups now exist, incorporating previous programs such as Coastcare, Bushcare,and Waterwatch groups. Other innovations include business sponsorship, research, and improved communication linksbetween groups.

the lead-in time of on-the-ground

activities. The Landcare Program in

Australia has created a special “brand” and

identity that addresses land degradation

Nationally (Box 5). The program has been

able to sustain this ‘branding’ through

specific training, communication, media

and other activities and events. For

example, every three years, a National

Landcare conference is held in order to

learn and share experiences; and every two

years, National Landcare Awards are

presented to the winners in various SLM

categories by the Australian Prime

Minister. This has enhanced ownership of

SLM issues at the local levels. As evidence

of the Landcare ‘brand’ recognition and

acceptance, surveys have revealed that

farmers who belong to Landcare groups

will incorporate land conservation prac-

tices on their own farms far more than

those who do not belong to such groups.

14

4ATTRIBUTES OF

EFFECTIVE

SUSTAINABLE

LAND

MANAGEMENT

PARTNERSHIPS

To be effective, SLM partnerships need to

capture the following key attributes:

Unifying focus: A clear and agreed

goal or shared vision is required as the

basis for a SLM partnership. Partners

must focus on mutual benefits and

opportunities rather than on competing

for a limited resource.

Long term program: SLM is rarely

achieved over a few years because a

natural resource usually takes multiple

seasons to be restored or improved.

The overall goal is long-term

sustainability, commonly requiring both

biophysical and socio-economic

improvements.

Strong self interest: Partnerships work

when each partner clearly sees the

benefit to itself from the arrangement.

The overall benefit must be greater than

the benefit any single partner could

achieve alone. Clear benefits engender

commitment and active participation.

New resources: A partnership can be

justified if it brings new and additional

resources that would otherwise not be

available to address the SLM agenda at

hand.

Local beneficiary ownership:

Initiating and setting the objectives and

agenda for a partnership should be

done by the users or managers of the

land resources rather than by external

agencies. The land users/managers have

the most invested in the land and are

the principal beneficiaries of improved

land management. Since they control

actions on the ground, they must be

motivated to change their practices and

ideally take collective action to maxi-

mize results.

Phased establishment and actions: A

robust administrative structure with a

clear program framework is needed

before program implementation begins.

The progressive phases of effective

partnership development are com-

monly: agreement on scope and

objectives; establishment of partnership

structure; funding coordination;

program framework formulation;

comprehensive issue investigation;

program development and implemen-

tation (project preparation and ap-

proval, pilot implementation, expanded

implementation); and evaluation.

Value adding contributions: Partner-

ships work when each member adds to

the partnership. A range of contribu-

tions are required including coordina-

tion, provision of funding, provision of

expertise, and on-site management.

Strong partnerships are formed when

stakeholders contribute different

strengths and play different roles to

achieve the shared focus. Equitable

contributions from partners are based

on the benefits that each stands to

derive.

Clear and limited roles and responsi-

bilities: Each partner needs a defined

role and tasks that intermesh with the

roles of other members, exploiting

strengths and interests, with account-

ability for accepted obligations.

Trust and mutual recognition of

resource rights: Trust and transparency

among partners must either exist before

the partnership is formed or develop in

its early stages. Trust is tied to mutual

recognition of stakeholders’ resource

rights.

Coordinated planning, action, and

funding: Coordinated funding avoids

overlaps and misses, and facilitates

more rapid start-up. A successful

partnership requires strategic planning

and program development based on

comprehensive land resource system

diagnosis. The program must prioritize

objectives and activities, and be

compatible with existing initiatives

where appropriate. Understanding the

15cause and effect of the issue and

identifying the necessary priorities to

deliver maximum benefits should occur

before major actions are initiated.

Coordinated data collection and

monitoring provides standardized

whole-of-system data that can be used

by all. For example, the objective of the

Danube/Black Sea Basins Strategic

Partnership (one of the first Strategic

Partnerships in the GEF) was developed

following a comprehensive whole-of-

system Transboundary Diagnostic

Analysis that identified the key threats

and root causes affecting the

sustainability of the Danube/Black Sea

basins. Pollution from land-based

sources, principally phosphorus and

nitrogen nutrient pollution, was

identified as the major threat, therefore

the partnership focused on reducing the

flows of these nutrients into the Black

Sea.

Decentralized action: While central-

ized coordination and administration is

preferable, decentralized control of

implementation is most effective. The

resource custodian/user (e.g., country

members, states or community groups)

is usually the stakeholder who is most

motivated to achieve long term

improvement. Devolving responsibility

creates ownership. Indeed an effective

partnership should allow individual

members to achieve objectives that

would not be achievable separately. A

partnership should not “crowd out”

desired but non-partnership activities.

Compatibility with governance

systems: A partnership needs to

operate within existing governance

systems otherwise it will face adminis-

trative, funding, and/or implementation

obstacles that will prevent goals from

being achieved, principally by failing to

gain the support and commitment of

key stakeholders on the ground.

Active management: Regular dialogue,

evaluation, and progress meetings are

required to sustain and direct a

partnership. However, it is crucial to

ensure that the governance structure of

a partnership is designed to be lean and

light so as not to overwhelm partners

with administrative tasks.

Cost-effectiveness: It is crucial for an

SLM partnership to demonstrate cost-

effectiveness; otherwise there would be

no added value for partners, especially

countries and communities, to join such

an arrangement. Therefore, partnerships

must develop cost-effectiveness

(qualitative and or quantitative) metrics

that identify the cheapest way to

achieve their SLM objectives. Only by

doing this, can partnerships be justified

against traditional project/program

approaches.

Exit strategy: A clearly defined and

agreed-upon exit strategy is vital to

ensure the sustainability of outcomes

through a gradual withdrawal, and to

avoid self perpetuation of the partner-

ship once the goal has been achieved.

16

APP

END

IX —

E XA

MPL

ES O

F EX

ISTI

NG

SUST

AIN

ABL

E LA

ND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

PART

NER

SHIP

S

Part

ners

hip

G

oals

Mai

n pa

rtne

rs a

nd k

ey ro

les

Inte

rag

ency

Lan

d D

egra

dat

ion

Ass

essm

ent

in

Dry

lan

ds

(LA

DA

) A

sses

s ca

use

s, s

tatu

s, a

nd

imp

acts

of l

and

deg

rad

atio

n in

d

ryla

nd

s in

ord

er t

o im

pro

ve d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

for

sust

ain

able

d

evel

op

men

t in

dry

lan

ds

at lo

cal,

nat

ion

al, s

ub

reg

ion

al, a

nd

g

lob

al le

vels

.

GEF

, UN

EP, t

he

Secr

etar

iat,

Glo

bal

Mec

han

ism

(GM

) of t

he

UN

CC

D

and

FA

O (e

xecu

tin

g a

gen

cy)

Ag

ency

/Go

vern

men

t

PRC

/GEF

Par

tner

ship

on

Lan

d

Deg

rad

atio

n in

Dry

lan

d E

cosy

stem

s,

Ch

ina

Red

uce

lan

d d

egra

dat

ion

, alle

viat

e p

ove

rty,

an

d re

sto

re d

ryla

nd

ec

osy

stem

s in

th

e w

este

rn r

egio

n o

f Ch

ina.

PR

C –

imp

lem

enta

tio

n a

nd

fun

din

g

GEF

– fu

nd

ing

AD

B an

d o

ther

GEF

Imp

lem

enti

ng

/Exe

cuti

ng

ag

enci

es (e

.g.,

Wo

rld

B

ank)

– fu

nd

ing

, pro

ject

pre

par

atio

n a

nd

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

GEF

Str

ateg

ic P

artn

ersh

ip fo

r N

utr

ien

t R

edu

ctio

n in

th

e D

anu

be/

Bla

ck S

ea B

asin

s

Ad

dre

ss t

he

roo

t ca

use

s o

f Bla

ck S

ea/D

anu

be

envi

ron

men

tal

deg

rad

atio

n.

17 b

asin

co

un

trie

s - i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n

GEF

- fu

nd

ing

Wo

rld

Ban

k - i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n

UN

DP

and

UN

EP -

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Reg

ion

al B

asin

Sec

reta

riat

s

Euro

pea

n U

nio

n

Nile

Bas

in In

itia

tive

A

chie

ve s

ust

ain

able

so

cio

-eco

no

mic

dev

elo

pm

ent

thro

ug

h t

he

equ

itab

le u

se o

f, an

d b

enef

it fr

om

, th

e co

mm

on

Nile

- bas

ed

wat

er r

eso

urc

es.

9 p

arti

cip

atin

g N

ile B

asin

co

un

trie

s –

fun

din

g a

nd

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Inte

rnat

ion

al d

on

or

par

tner

s - f

un

din

g

Wo

rld

Ban

k –

sup

po

rt a

nd

faci

litat

e N

BI d

evel

op

men

t, an

d d

on

or

coo

rdin

atio

n

17G

EF C

ou

ntr

y P

ilot

Part

ner

ship

s (C

PPs)

- C

ub

a, N

amib

ia, E

thio

pia

, B

urk

ina

Faso

, Vie

tnam

, Cen

tral

Asi

a (r

egio

nal

)

Imp

lem

ent

coo

rdin

ated

SLM

act

ion

s th

rou

gh

th

e d

evel

op

men

t an

d h

arm

on

ized

exe

cuti

on

of s

trat

egic

inte

rven

tio

ns

that

are

co

her

ent

wit

h o

ther

GEF

an

d d

on

or a

ctiv

itie

s in

th

e ta

rget

co

un

trie

s.

e.g

., Th

e C

ou

ntr

y Pr

og

ram

for

SLM

, Eth

iop

ia a

ims

to c

on

serv

e an

d r

esto

re la

nd

scap

es o

f glo

bal

an

d n

atio

nal

eco

log

ical

, ec

on

om

ic, a

nd

so

cial

imp

ort

ance

th

rou

gh

th

e ad

op

tio

n o

f SLM

p

olic

ies,

pra

ctic

es a

nd

tec

hn

olo

gie

s.

Part

ner

s d

iffer

for

each

CPP

, bu

t va

rio

usl

y in

clu

de:

Ind

ivid

ual

co

un

trie

s –

fun

din

g a

nd

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

GEF

– fu

nd

ing

Bila

tera

l do

no

rs;

GEF

Imp

lem

enti

ng

an

d E

xecu

tin

g A

gen

cies

(IFA

D, U

ND

P, A

DB,

U

NEP

, FA

O, W

orl

d B

ank)

; GM

;

Eth

iop

ian

Min

istr

y o

f Ag

ricu

ltu

re a

nd

Ru

ral D

evel

op

men

t

Fed

eral

En

viro

nm

ent

Pro

tect

ion

Au

tho

rity

The

Wo

rld

Ban

k

Loca

l co

mm

un

itie

s

Bila

tera

ls; G

M;

Co

nsu

ltat

ive

Gro

up

on

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral R

esea

rch

(CG

IAR

) A

chie

ve s

ust

ain

able

foo

d s

ecu

rity

an

d r

edu

ce p

ove

rty

in

dev

elo

pin

g c

ou

ntr

ies

thro

ug

h s

cien

tific

rese

arch

an

d re

sear

ch

rela

ted

act

ivit

ies

in t

he

field

s o

f ag

ricu

ltu

re, f

ore

stry

, fis

her

ies,

p

olic

y an

d e

nvi

ron

men

t.

15 In

tern

atio

nal

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral R

esea

rch

Cen

ters

46 c

ou

ntr

ies

(24

dev

elo

pin

g a

nd

22

ind

ust

rial

ized

)

4 p

riva

te fo

un

dat

ion

s

13 r

egio

nal

an

d in

tern

atio

nal

org

aniz

atio

ns

(FA

O, I

FAD

, UN

DP

and

th

e W

orl

d B

ank

are

cosp

on

sors

)

Go

vern

men

t/G

ove

rnm

ent

Mu

rray

-Dar

ling

Bas

in In

itia

tive

, A

ust

ralia

Pr

om

ote

an

d c

oo

rdin

ate

effe

ctiv

e p

lan

nin

g a

nd

man

agem

ent

for

the

equ

itab

le, e

ffic

ien

t, an

d s

ust

ain

able

use

of w

ater

in t

he

Mu

rray

-Dar

ling

Bas

in.

Fed

eral

Go

vern

men

t –

coo

rdin

atio

n a

nd

fun

din

g

4 st

ate

go

vern

men

ts a

nd

1 t

erri

tori

al g

ove

rnm

ent –

fun

din

g a

nd

im

ple

men

tati

on

Co

mm

un

ity

– ad

viso

ry r

ole

Go

vern

men

t/C

om

mu

nit

y

Ch

esap

eake

Bay

Pro

gra

m, U

SA

Pro

tect

an

d r

esto

re C

hes

apea

ke B

ay’s

eco

syst

em q

ual

ity

and

p

rod

uct

ivit

y to

pri

or l

evel

s b

y re

du

cin

g p

oin

t an

d n

on

-po

int

sou

rces

of p

ollu

tio

n (b

y 40

per

cen

t fr

om

198

5 le

vels

of t

ota

l n

itro

gen

an

d p

ho

sph

oru

s re

ach

ing

th

e B

ay b

y 20

00).

The

Stat

es o

f Vir

gin

ia, M

aryl

and

, Pen

nsy

lvan

ia, a

nd

th

e D

istr

ict

of

Co

lum

bia

Ch

esap

eake

Bay

Co

mm

issi

on

U.S

. En

viro

nm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Ag

ency

Loca

l go

vern

men

ts, i

nd

ust

ry, f

arm

ers,

en

viro

nm

enta

lists

, co

nse

rvat

ion

ass

oci

atio

ns,

ed

uca

tio

nal

/res

earc

h in

stit

uti

on

s, c

itiz

en

gro

up

s an

d in

tere

sted

ind

ivid

ual

s

18Pa

rtne

rshi

p

Goa

ls M

ain

part

ners

and

key

role

s

Lan

dca

re, A

ust

ralia

A

chie

ve t

he

sust

ain

able

man

agem

ent

and

use

of p

riva

te a

nd

p

ub

lic n

atu

ral r

eso

urc

es a

cro

ss A

ust

ralia

. A

ust

ralia

n F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent

- fu

nd

ing

an

d c

oo

rdin

atio

n

Stat

e G

ove

rnm

ents

– a

dm

inis

trat

ion

, tec

hn

ical

ass

ista

nce

, fu

nd

ing

Co

mm

un

ity

– fu

nd

ing

, im

ple

men

tati

on

Oth

er (e

.g.,

pu

bli

c-p

riva

te p

artn

ersh

ips,

etc

)

The

Wo

rld

Ban

k’s

Car

bo

n F

inan

ce

Bu

sin

ess

(incl

ud

ing

Pro

toty

pe

Car

bo

n F

un

d

(PC

F), B

ioC

arb

on

Fu

nd

, Co

mm

un

ity

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Car

bo

n F

un

d (C

DC

F),

OEC

D C

ou

ntr

y Fu

nd

s an

d T

ech

nic

al

Ass

ista

nce

Fac

iliti

es)

Cat

alyz

e a

glo

bal

car

bo

n m

arke

t th

at r

edu

ces

tran

sact

ion

co

sts,

su

pp

ort

s su

stai

nab

le d

evel

op

men

t an

d b

enef

its

the

po

ore

st

com

mu

nit

ies

in d

evel

op

ing

co

un

trie

s.

A p

ub

lic-p

riva

te p

artn

ersh

ip a

rran

gem

ent

Wo

rld

Ban

k - m

anag

emen

t

Go

vern

men

ts (e

.g. C

anad

a, It

aly,

Net

her

lan

ds,

Au

stri

a)

Priv

ate

com

pan

ies

(e.g

. St

ato

il o

f No

rway

; Nip

po

n O

il, O

kin

awa

Elec

tric

, Id

emit

su K

osa

n a

nd

Dai

wa

Secu

riti

es S

MBC

of J

apan

; BA

SF

of G

erm

any;

EN

DES

A o

f Sp

ain

; Sw

iss

Re o

f Sw

itze

rlan

d)

Part

icip

ants

co

ntr

ibu

te m

on

ies

to t

he

Fun

ds

in e

xch

ang

e fo

r a p

ro

rata

sh

are

of t

he

emis

sio

n re

du

ctio

ns

and

acc

ess

to t

he

Fun

ds’

ac

qu

ired

kn

ow

led

ge

bas

e. C

ou

ntr

ies

and

co

mm

un

itie

s w

her

e p

roje

ct a

ctiv

itie

s ar

e im

ple

men

ted

ben

efit

fro

m t

hes

e in

itia

tive

s.

Inte

rnat

ion

al L

and

Co

alit

ion

Em

po

wer

th

e ru

ral p

oo

r b

y in

crea

sin

g t

hei

r ac

cess

to

p

rod

uct

ive

asse

ts, e

spec

ially

lan

d, w

ater

an

d c

om

mo

n p

rop

erty

re

sou

rces

, an

d b

y in

crea

sin

g t

hei

r dir

ect

par

tici

pat

ion

in

dec

isio

n m

akin

g p

roce

sses

at

loca

l, n

atio

nal

, reg

ion

al a

nd

in

tern

atio

nal

leve

ls.

A g

lob

al c

on

sort

ium

of i

nte

rgo

vern

men

tal,

civi

l so

ciet

y an

d

bila

tera

l org

aniz

atio

ns.

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

un

d fo

r Ag

ricu

ltu

ral D

evel

op

men

t (IF

AD

)

Reg

ion

al p

artn

ers

-

Nat

ion

al p

artn

ers

-

Lan

d A

llian

ces

for

Nat

ion

al

Dev

elo

pm

ent

(LA

ND

Par

tner

ship

s)

A g

lob

al in

itia

tive

mea

nt

to a

llevi

ate

rura

l po

vert

y b

y st

ren

gth

enin

g c

ou

ntr

y-le

vel c

olla

bo

rati

on

bet

wee

n s

tate

, civ

il so

ciet

y, b

ilate

ral a

nd

inte

rnat

ion

al s

take

ho

lder

s.

Inte

rnat

ion

al L

and

Co

alit

ion

- c

oo

rdin

atio

n

IFA

D, F

AO

, Th

e W

orl

d B

ank,

Th

e Eu

rop

ean

Co

mm

issi

on

, Th

e In

ter-

Am

eric

an D

evel

op

men

t Ba

nk

- fu

nd

ing

30-p

lus

cou

ntr

ies

- im

ple

men

tati

on

Farm

ers,

ind

igen

ou

s o

rgan

izat

ion

s, tr

ade

and

wo

men

19

REFERENCES

1. The UNCCD defines ‘desertification’ as

land degradation in arid, semi-arid and

dry sub-humid areas resulting from

various factors, including climatic

variations and human activities.

2. Eritrea participates as an observer to the

NBI and is expected to become a full

member at some point.

NOTES

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2002.

China: “PRC/GEF Partnership on Land

Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems:

Project 1 on Strengthening the Enabling

Environment and Building Institutional

Capacity.”

Carbon Finance at the World Bank, 2005.

http://carbonfinance.org/.

Cestti, R., Srivastava, J. and Jung, S., 2003.

Agriculture Non-Point Source Pollution.

Good Management Practices. Chesapeake

Bay Experience. The World Bank.

Washington, DC. USA.

CGIAR, 2005. www.cgiar.org. Consulta-

tive Group on International Agricultural

Research.

Chesapeake Bay Program, 2005.

www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and

Fisheries, 2005. www.daff.gov.au.

Canberra, Australia.

Esikuri, E. E. 2005. “Mitigating Drought —

Long-Term Planning to Reduce

Vulnerability.” Environment Strategy

Note number 13. Environment Depart-

ment. The World Bank. Washington,

D.C. USA.

FAOSTAT, 2002. FAO Statistical Data-

bases. Food and Agriculture Organiza-

tion, Rome.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2005.

www.mdbc.gov.au. Canberra, Australia.

Nile Basin Initiative, 2005.

www.nilebasin.org.

Population Division of the Department of

Economic and Social Affairs of the

United Nations Secretariat, 2005.

www.un.org/esa/population/

unpop.htm.

World Bank. 2005. “Sustainable Land

Management: Conceptual Framework

for Regional Strategies & Rural

Operations. Economic and Sector Work”

(Draft).

This paper was prepared by an inter-agency team drawn from the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the U.N.

Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) under the leadership of Enos E. Esikuri. The team included: Enos E. Esikuri, Mathew

Corbett (consultant) and John B. Collier of the World Bank, Washington, DC; Simone Quatrini, Global Mechanism, Rome, Italy; Khalida

Bouzar, International Fund for Agricultural Development Rome; Anna Tengberg, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,

Kenya; Richard J. Thomas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Aleppo, Syria; Gregoire De Kalbermatten,

UNCCD Secretariat, Bonn, Germany; and Robert Everitt and Daniele Ponzi, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.

The Facilitation Committee would like to thank the World Bank for facilitating and financing this publication. The authors wish to

thank Jim Cantrell (World Bank) for design and production management.

The Facilitation Committee provides support and advice to the Global Mechanism and allows for collaborative institutional

arrangements between the Global Mechanism and those institutions having relevant technical and financial expertise to the UNCCD.

The members of the Facilitation Committee are: African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global

Environment Facility (GEF), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

Secretariat of the UNCCD, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and

The World Bank (WB). The G-77 and China, OECD Group, and RIOD Network participate in an observer status.

Cover image by Erick C. M. Fernandes; all other images by Enos E. Esikuri.

THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA

Tel: 202-473-1000Fax: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/essd

PartnershipsF O R S U S T A I N A B L E L A N D M A N A G E M E N T

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7): October 17 – 28, 2005, Nairobi, Kenya

A Joint Publication of the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD