| UNDP Home | About UNDP | Regions | MDGs | Focus Areas | Newsroom |
Main UNDP-GEF menu Search |
CONTRIBUTION TO CLARIFYING LINKAGES BETWEEN LAND DEGRADATION AND THE GEF FOCAL AREAS:SOME GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION Introduction Following the request by the GEF Council for greater emphasis on mitigating land degradation, the GEFSEC and the Implementing Agencies developed the Action Plan for Enhancing support to Land Degradation (GEF/C.14/4) in November 1999. With feedback obtained from the initial implementation of the Action Plan in 2000, and from the Study on Land Degradation Linkages, UNDP as one of the three Implementing Agencies (IA) of the GEF, recognizes that the full implementation of the Action Plan can be enhanced with the development of clear guidelines for designing, implementing and monitoring projects related to the cross cutting theme of land degradation. According to the Land Degradation Linkages Study, between 1991 and 2000 the GEF has invested about US$278 million in more than 100 projects with strong linkages to land degradation. UNDP has implemented more than half the full-sized GEF projects with strong land degradation components.[1] As of mid-2000 about 30% (209 projects out of 731) of total GEF investments (PDF-A, PDF-B, SGP, MSP, FP etc.) implemented by UNDP included land degradation components. Of the US$1,125 million committed to these 209 projects, about 55% came from GEF, and the remainder provided equally from government and other resources. Biodiversity is the most heavily represented focal area. Africa and Asia/Pacific are the most strongly represented regions [2]. This document is intended as UNDP’s contribution to the ongoing Corporate efforts to enhance implementation of the Action Plan, by contributing to the clarification of issues of eligibility and incremental costs in developing GEF eligible projects that have clear and direct relevance to land degradation. System Boundary The GEF council has requested that the GEFSEC and IAs prepare an options paper on the implications of land degradation becoming a new focal area for GEF incremental funding. Until such time as the GEF Assembly approves such a new window, all projects in the GEF portfolio must continue to address land degradation as a cross cutting theme, and as it relates to the four focal areas, namely biodiversity, climate change, international waters and ozone layer. Date of Publication: October 2001 BOX 1: DEFINITION OF LAND DEGRADATION FOR GEF PROJECTS Land Degradation is: the reduction of land resource potential through desertification and deforestation. Contributing factors include:
• Loss of vegetation cover, and alien invasive species that result in loss of cover. • Habitat conversion (urban or agricultural) • Aquifer degradation, leading to loss of soil cover As this definition indicates, land degradation can be found in all ecosystems: arid, semi-arid, humid, coastal, mountain, etc. Thus the geographical scope of land degradation related projects is not necessarily confined only to the arid systems. In addition to the general framework provided by this definition, it is necessary to provide an operational definition that will allow comparison and monitoring across geographic and thematic areas. The following operational classification will be used[3] : a. Strong LD component. Projects, often in agro-pastoral landscapes, with a pro-active land rehabilitation components (e.g., re-vegetation, afforestation) or pro-active components to ameliorate current land management (e.g., improved cropping or grazing practices, fire use, land use planning) b. Potential LD effects. Projects whose interventions will potentially prevent land degradation. These are projects with few pro-active interventions but whose activities will restrict future deforestation or other types of degradation through activities such as reducing land use intensity or improving land management in or outside protected areas. Many of these projects are biodiversity projects in and around protected areas, with plans to implement land zonation to reduce land use intensity. c.Indirect effects on LD. These projects are without a land management component but will have indirect effects on the land, for example through reducing fuelwood collection from natural areas. Many of these projects are climate change projects promoting alternative energy sources to replace collected wood or technologies to improve fuel efficiency. The scope of land degradation projects should be to promote integrated approaches to sustainable use of natural resources and to reduce land degradation, both within protected areas, and in the wider landscape. Land degradation depends on the eye of the beholder: each stakeholder group has its own definition of what land degradation is. Therefore, land degradation related projects must be inter-sectoral, and participatory. Objectives The objectives of GEF projects related to land degradation should be to mitigate (prevent and/or control and/or rehabilitate) land degradation in order to: • protect biodiversity of global significance • decrease GHG emissions and enhance carbon sequestration • improve management of transboundary waters Projects will be eligible for GEF funding under the window of Land Degradation as a cross-cutting theme, if they can simultaneously deliver national and global benefits in one or more of these focal areas. Linkages between Land Degradation and the fourth focal area, Ozone Layer, are not clear and will not be covered under these guidelines at this time. Principles and strategies GEF activities will aim at maximizing agreed global environmental benefits in the areas of biological diversity, climate change, international waters, and ozone layer depletion. Land degradation issues, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to the four focal areas will also be addressed by GEF activities, particularly in those countries in Africa experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, consistent with the GEF Instrument. GEF activities will be designed so as to[4]: • Be consistent with national and, where appropriate, regional initiatives; • Strive to ensure sustainability of global environmental benefits; • Reduce the risk caused by uncertainty; • Be sensitive to local and global concerns; • Complement traditional development funding; • Facilitate effective responses by other entities to address global environmental issues; • Be environmentally, socially, and financially sustainable; • Avoid transfer of negative environmental impacts between focal areas. Land Degradation related projects should follow all the principles and guidelines contained in the Operational Strategy, and the Operational Programmes of the three focal areas. In addition, land degradation related projects should follow lessons learnt and good practices for mitigation of land degradation, specifically by:
• being sensitive to gender issues, • developing incentives for sustaining actions on the ground, • promoting appropriate technologies and demonstrating potential for upscaling of such technologies, • addressing root causes of environmental problems through integrated approaches, • enhancing the enabling environment for integrated natural resource management, at the local, national and regional levels, • being economically, institutionally and politically sustainable and replicable, • and adopting a relatively longer time frame reflecting the need for enhancing feedback loops for dynamic monitoring and evaluation to ensure results and direct impacts on the ground. Threats and Root Causes Land degradation related projects currently in the GEF portfolio address various threats that simultaneously also affect biodiversity loss, carbon emissions, and/or mismanagement of transboundary resources. These are listed here as indicative guidelines that should be tailored to each specific situation. Those threats related to soils reflect long term degradation and can include: • Soil erosion due to wind or water factors • Sand dune mobilization and movement • Sedimentation and siltation of riparian areas or coastal zones • Soil compaction, whether through surface crusting or deeper structural damage • Declining soil fertility and loss of soil organic matter or carbon • Salinization due to improperly managed irrigation practices • Chemical and organic pollution of soils related to agriculture, industry, urban activities, and GHG emissions (such as landfills, methane generation) • Lowering or loss of aquifer potential resulting from overuse or lack of recharge. Land degradation projects also address issues related to vegetation degradation, when they have medium to long term impacts. These can include: •Deforestation due to excessive logging, fuelwood extraction, or habitat conversion •Loss of other vegetation, such as grasslands and savannas, due to overgrazing, over harvesting, and habitat conversion •Uncontrolled and excessive fires that can damage ecosystems •Over-harvesting of vegetation products in general, such as for medicinal use, gathering of food, etc. to such an extent that it leads to ecosystem instability •Invasive species when they lead to ecosystem damage and instability •Overgrazing around settlements or in extensive rangelands; •Over cultivation leading to reduced fallows and regenerative ability of the ecosystem •Habitat conversion in general, such as for cropland, improved pastures, settlement, etc •Agricultural expansion into pastureland, thus forcing over-grazing in remaining pastures •Land use conflicts and curtailment of access rights, leading to destructive land uses and war •Land use conflicts and curtailment of access rights, leading to destructive land uses and war The root causes of these threats are related to economic distortions and disincentives, loss of social capital, malfunctioning governance, lack of institutional and technical capacity, and weak or inappropriate laws and policies, all of which can be addressed by GEF projects. The Operational Programme (OP) 12 explicitly recognizes the need for addressing these upstream issues. Other root causes are related to population increase, AIDS, malnutrition, lack of basic education, and other developmental issues. GEF expects all projects to address this second set of root causes through partnerships and co-financing from other sources. Expected Outcomes A successful outcome is one where through land degradation mitigation, globally important biological diversity is conserved and used in a sustainable manner, and/or contribute to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and/or contribute primarily as a catalyst to the implementation of a more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach in managing international waters and their drainage basins. Simultaneously with these outcomes, projects are expected to have outcomes related to the control, prevention and rehabilitation of land degradation in order to be classified as ?cross-cutting?. Projects must ensure that there are no incidental harmful impacts in any of the focal areas. For example, planting exotic species to garner rapid carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation, must not displace and reduce biodiversity of global significance. Assumptions and Risks to Achieve the Outcomes Overall assumptions and risks in the implementation of GEF projects are listed in all GEF Operational Programs. As in all projects, it is assumed that the baseline activities on which the land degradation related project would build (or the funding for activities for which the project would complement), will have been committed by collaborating institutions in a timely manner. A particularly important assumption is that the country?s proposed approach to taking advantage of new opportunities in mitigating land degradation is fully achievable, economically viable, and socially acceptable within the overall policy, trade, and regulatory framework of the country. It is also assumed that the essential cooperation and partnership will be forthcoming from other institutions working in this area such as, IFAD, UNEP, World Bank, FAO, Bilateral Agencies, and international agricultural research centers of the CGIAR. Liens avec les trois domaines d’intervention considérés The STAP Workshop in Bologna 2000[5] identified various thematic areas in which land degradation is linked to the three focal areas. Furthermore, a review of projects already under implementation by the Land Degradation Linkages Study have helped to define specific areas in which actions and outputs can enhance the objectives of one or more of the three focal areas, while at the same time mitigating land degradation. Land Degradation and Biodiversity are linked at three strategic levels: • Ecosystem: LD is linked to biodiversity at the ecosystem level where it decreases the productivity of the habitat, decreases resilience and integrity of the watershed and aquifer, increases soil erosion and sedimentation of aquatic ecosystems, increases the severity of floods and droughts, and enhances desertification • Species: LD and biodiversity are linked at the species level because a reduction in habitat productivity and availability places severe stress on plant and animal populations and frequently results in local and/or permanent extinction. • Genetic: Land degradation can affect sub-species of plants or races of animals differentially, particularly when there are genetic differences in resilience and vulnerability to land degradation-related stress In some cases the relationships that link land degradation and biodiversity loss may be simple and straightforward, such as habitat loss leading to species extinction, while in other cases they may be complex and less obvious. For example, land degradation can lead to occurrence of alien invasive species, that are able to compete better than endemic species, and therefore lead to local extinctions of endemic species. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to separate land
degradation due to short-term human actions, from long term ecological
or climatic processes. For example, we know that perturbations such
as fire and grazing have been part of many native savanna ecosystems
for thousands of years, and species diversity and composition have adapted
to them. If management decisions disregard these long-term processes,
then decline in biodiversity and local extinctions may result. BOX 2: EXAMPLE OF BIODIVERSITY & LAND DEGRADATION PROJECT Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise Development on Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. OP 2 Pohnpei?s forests are globally significant both in terms
of ecosystemic and species diversity. Threats emanating from land degradation
include habitat conversion, agricultural expansion, settlement, road
construction, pollution of coastal waters, and over-cultivation. Other
threats are introduction of alien invasive species, and over-harvesting
of fauna. Land degradation and Climate Change are linked at various levels • Carbon sequestration : Widespread deforestation and desertification reduces local, regional, and global carbon sequestration and potentials for carbon sinks. Deforestation of organic soils leads directly to increased carbon emissions. • Energy efficiency : Introducing fuel efficient technologies and renewable energies to local communities reduces both LD by eliminating dependencies on local forests, and climate change by improving carbon sinks • Control of emissions and waste management has indirect benefits for reducing land degradation in industrial environments • Vulnerability and adaptation : global warming can contribute to land degradation particularly in ecosystems that are more vulnerable and less adaptable. Global climate change, particularly enhanced greenhouse effect, will result in changes in land use systems as well as directly affect vegetation. For example, there will be species migration to higher latitudes and altitudes as a result of warming. This is already visible for example in some tropical mountains. Sea-level rise will adversely affect aquatic ecosystems, and saline incursion can cause salinization of surface soils. BOX 3: EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE & LAND DEGRADATION PROJECT Biomass Energy for Rural India (SUTRA) Op 6 The majority of India?s rural villages are connected to power grids, but 400 million people are without electricity. Biomass energy has become a viable alternative to service the needs of the domestic, farm, and commercial sectors. The Project attempts to develop biomass energy technology so the cost will be low enough to attract commercial interest Biomass energy emits much lower levels of GHG than traditional energy sources, mitigating climate change. Land Degradation has many implications for International waters portfolio Water Quality: :
• Pollution from organic (e.g. agricultural) and inorganic wastes (e.g. industries) can be transported across national boundaries, affect fisheries and other freshwater biodiversity, and accumulate in estuaries.. Water Quantity : • Large water demanding schemes upstream (e.g. irrigation, dams) can affect water flow downstream and lead to desiccation and land degradation • Land Degradation upstream can affect water flow downstream, often leading to flooding, and changes in watershed characteristics (e.g. river trajectories) downstream, and impact coastal zones. Shared basins: Land Degradation due to inappropriate land uses and excessive exploitation of the vegetation can result in siltation of shared basins, pollution build-up, lowering of water levels, and major impacts on fisheries, tourism and other uses of the shared basins.
BOX 4: EXAMPLE OF INTERNATIONAL WATERS & LAND DEGRADATION PROJECT Strategic Action Plan for Integrated Management of the Okavango River Basin, Angola, Botswana, Namibia. OP 9 The Okavango River Basin is a major water course in southern
Africa that nourishes three countries, and has no outlet to the oceans.
It is a geologically sensitive basin because it is constantly affected
by tectonics in the adjoining Rift Valley. Therefore, its watershed
characteristics are liable to change from natural causes. It contains
the Okavango Delta, which is one of the world?s more significant wetlands
(with RAMSAR recognition) with globally significant biodiversity. However,
it is subject to pressures on its water and land resources due to uncoordinated
national development plans which can lead to breakdown of ecosystem
integrity and land degradation. Multiple Focal Areas: Integrated Ecosystem Management (OP 12) and Biodiversity of Importance to Agriculture (OP 13). OP 12 and OP 13 have only recently been approved, however, they have the potential for becoming a strong tool for addressing land degradation in the GEF portfolio. OP 12 is not aimed at addressing natural resource management issues in a single GEF focal area (existing OPs already can do that), but in bringing synergy between three of GEF?s focal areas, and land degradation to optimize multiple benefits. Combating LD through rehabilitation of vegetation, for example, can simultaneously result in increasing biodiversity, increasing carbon sequestered, and reducing erosion in shared waters. Because the multitude of LD threats result from ecological and socioeconomic conditions, it is imperative that LD is managed from a holistic ecosystem approach so that all the root causes can be identified and addressed; OP #12 provides such a window. This window also offers: • A longer project time frame. Projects of 7-10 years can be accepted, but will be phased with appropriate benchmarks that trigger each phase. • Attacks root causes of biodiversity loss, climate change, and mismanagement of international waters • Allows integrated activities that address local level issues as well as national enabling environments • Facilitates transitions from conventional to integrated ecosystem management approaches by providing agreed incremental cost financing for technical assistance, investments, financial services, capacity building, and targeted research. OP 13 also provides an important window for addressing land degradation issues, and another important framework for the implementation of the LD Action Plan because of the urgent need to prevent the loss of biological diversity of importance to agriculture in areas prone to land degradation. GEF-eligible activities Land degradation related projects are intended to provide global benefits in one or more focal area, as well as national and local benefits of sustainable development. For these benefits to be sustainable, projects can incorporate the following elements: • integrating conservation and sustainable use objectives in land use and natural resources use management; • promoting viable techniques for prevention, control and rehabilitation of land degradation; • supporting capacity building efforts that promote the preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to the mitigation of land degradation; • incorporating components of targeted research important for the mitigating land degradation as a cross cutting theme, in programmatic intervention when instrumental for the achievement of GEF program objectives and consistent with national priorities; • including sustainable use awareness components, when relevant, in program objectives and that are consistent with national priorities; • establishing cost recovery mechanisms and financial incentives for sustainable use, scalability and replication; • Creating or enhancing an enabling environment; • Capacity building, • Enhancing environmental governance, • Introducing new and innovative incentives or removing disincentives GEF projects should follow the design elements and requirements established by the GEFSEC and the three Implementing Agencies (see www.gefweb.org or www.undp.org/gef ). These include Incremental Cost Analysis, Public Involvement Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation, Sustainability and Replicability, which are explained further below as they related to land degradation projects. Incremental Cost Analysis As stated in the GEF Instrument: ?The agreed incremental costs if activities concerning land degradation, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to the four focal areas shall be eligible for funding.? Land degradation related projects are expected to generate substantial domestic benefits, and therefore are required to obtain co-funding from non-GEF sources. For example, habitat restoration (such as rangeland rehabilitation), will increase agricultural productivity as well as conserve globally significant biodiversity. It is normal therefore for GEF projects with land degradation components to have a higher proportion of co-financing to cover the higher national benefits. However, it is difficult to separate global benefits from domestic benefits, and therefore incremental cost determination is context specific, and is negotiated and agreed on a project-by-project basis. Incremental cost analysis is underpinned by the following framework (Box 5 provides examples of incremental activities): Alternative: GEF projects are made up of an integrated, coherent set of activities that complement each other and achieve both national and global benefits. The project is called the ?Alternative? to distinguish it from the Baseline alone, or business as usual situation. Baseline: Those activities which take place regardless of the GEF and contribute to national benefits, but are in line with or address the project?s objectives, are called ?baseline activities? or baseline scenario. In terms of implementation, they are not part of the project, but because they reduce the cost of securing global environmental benefits, they are conceptually considered by GEF as a sign of the country?s commitments to global environmental issues. Increment: The GEF funds activities that secure global benefits. The GEF Instrument states that ?the agreed incremental costs of activities concerning land degradation, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to the four Focal Areas, shall be eligible for funding.? Co-financing: Activities that are not covered under the baseline, or by the GEF increment, must be funded through co-financing. Co-financing may consist of existing sustainable baseline funding that is specifically identified/negotiated as contributing to the project?s objectives. Co-financing can also be newly leveraged resources. Several guiding principles can inform the process of determining eligibility of funding at the level of activities: a. GEF funding for land degradation related activities is intended to cover costs of activities that produce benefits that are either non-monetary, and/or are public goods; GEF funding is not intended for activities that generate tangible, short term domestic benefits, especially when they are justified independent of the global benefits expected to be generated in one or more of the three focal areas. b. GEF funding will remove barriers in order to create an enabling environment for sustained benefits from land degradation related activities. These barriers can be: lack of regulations, legislation, policies and enforcement; absence of decentralized institutions; unclear property and use rights; inadequate technical knowledge; lack of access to markets. GEF can fund the removal of barriers linked to the lack of capital for large scale land degradation control, but only by demonstrating mechanisms that can facilitate access to capital. c. GEF funding can demonstrate innovative mechanisms, technologies,
and systems for prevention, control and rehabilitation of land degradation
as it relates to the objectives of the three focal areas. GEF funding
can remove scale barriers by finding innovative ways to upscale existing
knowledge of appropriate technologies. BOX 5: GEF has funded in the past the incremental costs associated with the following land degradation related activities: ?nergie de biomasse pour l?Inde rurale (SUTRA) PO N? 6
• Soil and water conservation activities, when they directly address protection of biodiversity, and erosion control in shared waters. These include soil stabilization, and soil organic management. • Prevention and clean-up of chemical and organic pollution and waste treatment as they related to reducing GHG emissions, control of pollution in shared waters and watersheds, and prevention of such pollution when they directly affect biodiversity hot spots • Rehabilitation of any type of vegetation deemed to be a biodiversity
hot spot either through stimulating spontaneous regeneration or assisting
with endemic species, control of alien invasives, plantations for
carbon sequestration, or revegetation to control erosion in shared
watersheds. • Fire management/control when they affect biodiversity hot spots, and to protect carbon sinks • Fuelwood plantation and promotion of energy saving and substituting devices to reduce deforestation of hot spots, protect shared watersheds and protect carbon sinks. • Management of aquifers when their loss directly threatens biodiversity hot spots, and shared watersheds • Promotion of alternative, appropriate forms of sustainable agriculture (e.g. agroforestry, organic agriculture, revival of regulated transhumance) and alternative income generation (e.g. sustainable harvesting, small industries) to reduce the impact of non-sustainable land uses on biodiversity hot spots and shared watersheds.. • Other supporting measures at local, regional and national levels to ensure long term financial and political sustainability of project activities, such as policy reform, capacity building, land use planning, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. Public Involvement All GEF projects must ensure that they have sufficient funding and technical support to carry out consultations with, and participation, as appropriate of, the beneficiaries and affected groups of people[6]. In particular with land degradation related projects, public involvement, stakeholder consultation, and participatory design elements are crucial in ensuring mitigation of land degradation, and sustainability beyond project life. The participation of disadvantaged groups, such as indigenous communities and women, will be given attention. Strategic partnerships will be developed, wherever possible, with relevant stakeholders in government, civil society (including the academic institutions), and the private sector. Sustainability and Replication The outcome of new approaches to meet basic human needs while conserving the resource base would be sustained conservation and/or enhancement of global environmental benefits without continued external support. GEF projects in the cross-cutting theme of land degradation are expected to generate substantial benefits at the national level, in terms of poverty alleviation, sustainable development, and land potential rehabilitation. Although there are a few instances where some economically non viable practices might need continued support from the global community, (e.g. setting aside land or delayed grazing or ploughing), the best strategy which assures sustainability is to ensure that local communities are at the forefront of planning and implementing projects, and that systems and technologies are locally adaptable, scalable and replicable. Replication potential will also be significantly enhanced as the industry grows and market access and other barriers are overcome. Successful outcomes would be replicated elsewhere on the basis of experience gained. Monitoring and Evaluation of Land Degradation related projects As GEF enters its third operational phase, there is increasing emphasis on ensuring that projects show direct impact and results on the ground. Consequently, projects must ensure that adequate structures, capacity and budget is allocated for effective monitoring and evaluation of project results. Monitoring and Evaluation guidelines provided in the Operational Programmes of the three Focal Areas should be adhered to. In addition, all projects and programmes that are listed as being cross-cutting in land degradation, should ensure that the logical framework design incorporates impact-sensitive and verifiable indicators that focus on the linkages between land degradation and the focal areas, and contribution of the project or programme to the LD Action Plan. Each project should also develop a clear M&E work plan at the time of Project Endorsement, that indicates how the issue of land degradation as it relates to the focal areas will be monitored during the lifetime of the project. Yearly recording of impacts should be reflected in the PIRs (Project Implementation Reviews) as well as UNDP-standard M&E documents. Furthermore, innovative ways should be found to ensure post-project M&E, as the effects of land degradation mitigation activities are often felt in the long term. The Inter-Agency Task Force on Land Degradation will be developing a list of generic indictors to be used as guidelines for developing the LFAs and M&E Plans for land degradation related projects. Indicators developed for biodiversity, climate change and international waters projects will continue to be applied to these projects. These can be obtained through the Implementing Agencies. Project Design Checklist The following is a general checklist applicable to all GEF projects, adapted to land degradation related ones. • Establish global significance as it relates to the three Focal Areas (Biodiversity, Climate Change, International Waters) • Clarify linkages with land degradation • Identify threats and root causes • Establish the system boundary (geographic, thematic and temporal scope of the project) • Describe and quantify the baseline within the system boundary (ongoing activities that would continue with or without the project) • Describe and quantify the sustainable baseline within the system boundary (planned contributions to sustainable development) • Identify gaps left by the baseline • Describe the GEF Alternative, building on lessons learnt • Develop the Logical Framework of the project (objectives, outputs, activities, verifiable indicators, assumptions and risks) with stakeholder participation and ownership • Identify the GEF increment vs. co-financing (including national support) • Develop the Incremental Cost Analysis • Develop the Stakeholder/Public Involvement Plan • Identify the total project budget (GEF and co-financing) and evaluate cost-effectiveness • Develop the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan • Identify Implementation Arrangements and overall Workplan. This document is part of an ongoing effort by UNDP to contribute to enhancing activities that address land degradation. UNDP-GEF invites feedback in order to improve this document as a user-friendly tool. Comments are invited and should be addressed to Maryam Niamir-Fuller, UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator maryam.niamir-fuller@undp.org [1] Berry, L. and Olson, J. (2001) GEF Land Degradation Linkages Study. Working Paper 6. FEM, Washington [2] Byrd, D. (2000) UNDP-GEF’s Land Degradation Project Database: an Initial Analysis. PNUD, NY. [4] Excerpt from the GEF Operational Strategy. [5] ASTAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation Interlinkages, 14-16 June 1999, Bologna, Italy. [6] Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects, avril 1996
|
||||
^ Back to top
 |
|
