Land Degradation RBEC Environment and Energy Practice Workshop GEF Training 6-9 October 2004

Land DegradationLand Degradation

RBEC Environment and Energy Practice Workshop

GEF Training

6-9 October 2004

Outline:Outline:

• GEF OP15 objective and incremental reasoning;

• Strategic Priorities;– Capacity Building– On-the-ground investment

• Some examples of SLM1 in the region

• Recent updates in SLM1

Sustainable Land ManagementSustainable Land Management

GEF Operational Programme on SLM designates LD as a new focal area;

• Objective is – to support UNCCD implementation by

addressing negative impacts of land degradation on ecosystem stability and people’s well being;


• It has to be presented that land degradation is a problem in a country and it is adversely affecting the structure and functional integrity of the key ecosystems, manifested in the following ways:

• Loss of the natural productivity of land;• Loss of native biological richness (or diversity) and resilience;• Increased emission of carbon dioxide and reduced carbon

sequestration;• Degradation of watershed function, including destabilization

of sediment storage and release.• Degradation of natural buffer functions for pollutants;


• Incremental Reasoning should present the two scenarios typical for GEF initiatives:– What would happen without GEF

• Baseline actions a country (or project proponent) would take to address the development-related dimension of land degradation, which typically does not cover aspects related to ecosystem functional integrity;

– What would happen with GEF• Actions a country (or project proponent) would take to address

the ecosystem-related aspects of the land degradation (such incremental actions should complement the above baseline actions)


• To address land degradation by introducing SLM practice in the productive areas of agriculture and forestry.– impacts of current agricultural practice;– overgrazing and pastureland degradation; and– deforestation and woodland degradation.

Strategic PrioritiesStrategic Priorities

SLMI. Capacity Building• Capacity building for sustainable land management using mostly

medium-sized projects,including:

– Mainstreaming of sustainable land management into national development priority frameworks such PRSPs, CDF, and national development plans for coordinated resource mobilization and implementation.

– Policy and regulatory reforms.

– Institutional strengthening

SLMII. Implementation of Innovative and Indigenous Sustainable Land Management Practices

• Implementation of innovative and/or indigenous on-the-ground investments, and

• associated capacity building, on sustainable land management.

Recent update on SLM1Recent update on SLM1Changes in NAP preparations support strategy:

Original Proposal Revision

GEF funding will be used directly for NAP preparation and completion

GEF funding will NOT be used directly for NAP preparation and completion; co-financing will have to cover these costs

NAP preparation/completion is considered to be an important part of the baseline and complementary to GEF incremental financing

Same – but this aspect is even more important now, and requires close coordination with UNCCD Secretariat and GM at the national level

The MSP template blended NAP preparation

with capacity building The MSP template now separates NAP preparation from capacity development, however, it is understood that all the capacity development and mainstreaming activities to be funded by GEF will indirectly contribute to enhancing the quality and serviceability of NAPs

Some Examples of SLM1Some Examples of SLM1

• System Level:– Overcoming conflicting policies and legal

contradictions by harmonization of national legislation and integration of SLM principles into the key sartorial and national policies.

– Addressing institutional fragmentation that is characterized for the execution of land management;

– Streamlining the currently very complex and unclear decision-making system for land use planning and management;


• System Level:– Installing participatory land use planning and

management to overcome existing disconnect between the national decision-making and local needs (land-users, local authorities);

– Design and application of incentive measures for SLM including legal (land tenure) and economic instruments (charges, taxes).etc...


• Institutional Level:– Installing UNCCD response systems within the

responsible Ministries;– Improving capacity for farmers’ services;– Strengthening land users and other relevant

associations and communal management structures;

– Improving the coordination among the relevant departments;


• Individual level:– Support to technical capacities of responsible

personnel;– Support to education institutions and educators;– Training programmes for farmers, policy

makers and administrators;– Lessons learned and dissemination;

SLM1 in the regionSLM1 in the region

Belarus, Bulgaria, Latvia, Albania and many more… • SLM1 in Belarus focuses on mainstreaming the

SLM into key economic sectors by modifying EIAs and SEA regulations and procedures;

• Support to formulation of the Land Code; • Formulation of law on Conservation of Land;• Aligning current environmental standards and

guidelines to ensure compliance with land conservation principles and integrated landscape planning.


• SLM1 in Bulgaria focuses on inter-ministerial coordination between the Ministries of Environment and Waters and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests;

• Improving services to farmers by bridging regional environmental inspectorates and extension services and training;

• Mainstreaming in local plans and regulationgs: Act of Good Agricultural Practice, Municipal Plans, River Basin Management Plan.


• SLM in Latvia focuses on district and municipal levels to address the land degradation.

• Tackling small-holders and land tenure/rent ownership by modeling rental agreements, combining conditionality and incentive measures for SLM;

• Improvement of municipal services for SLM;• Initiating and strengthening communal

management and financing practices;• Training and education.


• SLM in Albania focuses on capacity building at the three district levels;

• Participatory planning and collaborative financing (PPP) at the district level in the three agro-ecological zones

• Integration of SLM into the Area Based Development Programming;

Capacity BuildingCapacity Building

Outline:Outline:

• GEF’s Approach to CD and current status

• Indicator framework and technical criteria for modality III

• Examples of C/C capacity building in RBEC

GEF’s Strategic Approach to Enhance GEF’s Strategic Approach to Enhance Capacity BuildingCapacity Building

http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C22/C.22.8_Strategic_Approach_to_Capacity_Building_FINAL.pdf

Based on CDI recommendations there are four pathways for CD:

(1) Strengthening capacity building components of GEF projects

(2) Targeted capacity building projects within a focal area (3) Cross focal area capacity building projects

(crosscutting) (4) Capacity building through country programs for

LDCs, SIDS



Current Status of CD activitiesCurrent Status of CD activities

No news is good news?

• No new GEF discussion nor decisions

• Paper expected at November Council

• Resources available

CDAC focusing on Pathway 3 and 4 (3 in RBEC)

• NCSA is a conditionality for Cross-cutting capacity building projects (21 countries in this region)

• C/C capacity building concepts (2)

• Capacity for what?– Aim for policy-driven, high impact projects, with

mainstreaming as core objective.

UNDP-GEF Indicator Framework for UNDP-GEF Indicator Framework for CDCD

• 4 Categories of capacity– Conceptualize and formulate policies, legislation, strategies

and programmes

– Implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes

– Engage and build consensus among stakeholders

– Mobilize information and and use knowledge

– Monitor, evaluate, report, and learn from results

• Aggregate indicators to 3 levels (systemic, organizational and individual)

Modality III:Modality III: Criteria for crosscutting initiatives Criteria for crosscutting initiatives

I. Technical Eligibility – Must address three focal areas– Objective mainstream MEA – Description of mainstreaming process, methodology,

and procedures – Cannot fit in an existing OP/SP – Impact not confined to an ecosystem or geographical

area– Address key capacity constraints (barriers) identified

by NCSA or other capacity assessment processes – Strengthen / modify /complement existing multi-

sectoral processes that can promote policy harmonization and realize cost efficiencies

– Focus on environmental governance system


II. Incremental reasoning– Difficult to quantify, therefore emphasize reasoning

– Based on assessment of baseline capacities (NCSA)

– Describe project scenario: additional capacity required for implementing 3 MEA; GE has been neglected;

III. Cost sharing – Given the nature of cross-cutting capacity building and

the shared benefits costs should be shared too.


IV. Strategic partnerships– Projects should be designed as strategic partnerships

with relevant national structures and on-going processes (PRSP, Decentralization, EU accession)

V. M&E: impacts to be measured against baseline– Projects should have outcome and impact indicators

– Projects should include activities related to learning and feeding lessons into implementation

Examples of Crosscutting ProjectsExamples of Crosscutting Projects

• Bulgaria: Capacity for integrating Rio conventions into the national and regional development policies in Bulgaria

• Armenia: developing institutional and legal capacity to optimize information management and monitoring system for GE

Innovative ideas are welcomeInnovative ideas are welcome

AdaptationAdaptation

Outline:Outline:

• Adaptation – Strategic Priority;

• Some initial guidance;

• Adaptive capacity for lake Balaton

Adaptation - Strategic PriorityAdaptation - Strategic Priority

http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C21/C.21.Inf.10_Adaptation_to_CC.pdf

• Piloting an Operational Approach to Adaptation

• A key innovation of the UNDP-GEF strategy is that it will work from current climate variability and extremes as the starting point for assessing national needs for coping with future climate. In other words, the strategy will strengthen adaptive capacity to deal with current climate variability as a first step towards developing national response measures for future climate change.



Some Initial GuidanceSome Initial Guidance• Assess on-going GEF projects and identify indirect

benefits to adaptation and design additional intervention to bring direct benefits to strengthening adaptive capacities;

• Take intersecotral approach: agriculture/land use and planning/ biodiversity/forestry; water management/renewable energy

• Small MSPs with potential for great impact

• Research can only be a component of a pilot MSP;

• SNCs will identify adaptation needs and generate project ideas

Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Assessment and adaptive capacity Assessment and adaptive capacity

buildingbuilding • Objective is to facilitate the development and

implementation of effective adaptive strategies.– Improved understanding of and conducive policy for

integrated vulnerability and adaptation options for the Lake Balaton watershed;

– Strengthened organizational and individual capacity for interpreting emerging vulnerabilities and implementing adaptive measures in response;

Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Assessment and adaptive capacity Assessment and adaptive capacity

buildingbuilding

• Pilot initiatives to facilitate adaptation to the impacts of climate change designed and implemented

• Public and policymaker awareness of integrated vulnerability and adaptation approaches locally, nationally and internationally enhanced