The TerrAfrica Vision for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

1. Land and development in SSA • Land: where do we stand today? • Land degradation: state, impact, pressure • Response to LD in SSA • Need for change – TerrAfrica SLM added value • Knowledge management • Institutional and governance • Economic and financial • TerrAfrica at country level • Committed Partnership • Diagnostic • Investment • M&E The TerrAfrica Vision for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

2. LAND AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

3. Why is land so important in Sub-Saharan Africa? Landa sacred and living body for farmers all over the world…. Attributes of the biosphere immediately above or below the surface: • soil, water, plant and animal populations, human structures... AND • the productive and synergistic interactions between these factors. ( ecosystems)

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

5. Development challenges of Sub-Saharan Africa • Extreme poverty • 46.4% population mostly in rural areas below 1 $/day. • Food insecurity • 33% population under-nourished • 31% children underweight • Conflicts and degradation of NR • Congo, Mono, Kagera ...basins • Natural disasters • Drought linked to poor soils in Niger • Floods in Mozambique

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

7. Land degradation State

8. Land degradation in SSA State • Soil erosion • Water: 46% land area • Wind: 38% land area (drylands) (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990) • Declining soil fertility • Negative nutrient balance: • 8 million tons of NPK/year • up to 70-80 kg NPK/ha/year (IFDC, 2006) • Deforestation • 3.7 million ha/year (0.7%/year) (FAOSTAT, 2004) • SSA: 50% of global deforestation for 16% of remaining forest areas (U. of E.Anglia, 06) • Salinization and water logging (irrigated areas) • Severe in Kenya (30%), Namibia (17%), Nigeria (34%), Sudan (27%), Tanzania (27%), DR Congo (20%), Mauritania (50%) and Gambia (10%) (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990)

9. Land degradation in SSA Impact Socio-economic Impacts Stagnant yields Average crop yield in SS Africa (kg/ha) (FAOSTAT, 2004) Economic losses • Productivity / agricultural worker: -16% (1989-2000) • Cereal availability/capita: -15%. (FAOSTAT, 2004) • Agricultural GDP lost: US$ 9 billion/ year. (Dregne 1991, Dreschel 1999) Abandonment and migration • 7.3% land area non-reclaimable (Oldeman/GLASOD, 1990) • 60 million people may migrate by 2020 from degraded areas of SSA (UNCCD quoted by Kofi Annan on WDCD 2004)

10. Land degradation in SSA Impact Environmental Impacts • Water resources • Increased peak flows; reduced dry season flows • Siltation in rivers and lakes (shrinking of Lake Chad) • Climate change • Carbon stocks: -5 billion tonnes from deforestation in SSA alone (1990-2005) (ODC, U. of East Anglia, 2006) • Loss of biodiversity • Animal species: 126 extinct in the wild; 2,018 threatened. • Plant species: 125 extinct; 1,771 threatened (APEI, 2003)

11. Land degradation in SSA Pressure • Natural pressure • Vulnerable soils • Climate variability and global climate change • Fragile ecosystems (drylands and mountains) • Human pressure • Population growth • Unsustainable agricultural practices • 65% growth of cropped areas in 30 years (FAOSTAT, 2004)with expansion in vulnerable lands • Nutrient mining, soil compaction and erosion • Burning crop residues, little fertilizers, reduction fallow period, improper crop rotation, no erosion control • Poor drainage in irrigated areas

12. Land degradation in SSA Pressure • Human pressure (continued) • Overgrazing of rangeland • 1.5 - 2.0% per year growth in animal numbers (FAOSTAT, 2004) • Inadequate regulation and control of pastoral resources and transhumance • Encroachment by settled farmers • Deforestation and forest degradation • Deforestation: 0.7% per year (FAOSTAT, 2004) converted into pasture, croplands, plantations, urbanization, refugee camps development • Poor forest management and aforestation practices • Over exploitation of fuelwood, fruits, undergrowth

13. Land degradation in SSA Response: Field-level practices • Crop, livestock, forest sustainable management: water harvesting, erosion control, livestock quality and rangeland control, aforestation, agro-forestry • Conservation Agriculture: • (i) reduced tillage; (ii) soil cover (residues or cover crops); (iii) crop rotation; (iv) minimal traffic. • 90 million ha of lands worldwide, expanding in South Africa, Lesotho, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, piloted in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger and Mali. • Integrated Plant and Nutrient Management (IPNM) • Rehabilitate soils of low fertility: rock phosphate, manure, crop residues, leguminous plants, agroforestry, etc. • Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia and Zimbabwe. • Integrated crop-livestock, agro-sylvo-pastoral farming systems: Most developed in the Sahel.

14. Land degradation in SSA Response: Support services and extension • Participatory R&D and extension: Shift from top-down commodity-driven to bottom-up demand-driven approach. Results in Uganda and Tanzania; countries moving rapidly (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Zambia). • Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for SLM • Test field is the learning venue, trained facilitator plan training with the farmers, demand driven. • Tested and implemented in a large number of countries. Recent developments in Eastern Africa. • Contracting extension services to NGOs and other third parties Few examples in SSA, promising in Madagascar and Mali.

15. Land degradation in SSA Response: :local communities/ Incentive approaches • Participatory Catchments Approaches to Soil and Water Conservation and Community-based resource management (“gestion des terroirs” ) land user driven territorial planning and management of resources,Burkina Faso, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Tanzania , Ghana and Zambia…. • Community Investment Funds Trust fund financing. Funds replenished: includes income generating activities and improved livelihoods. • Payment for Ecosystem Services-PES Payment to rural communities or individuals for preserving environmental functions for downstream or global stakeholders. Successful examples in forestry (carbon sequestration), wildlife management (ecotourism) and water conservation: Uganda, Kenya, Ghana,

16. Land degradation in SSA Response: National, regional and global programs UN Convention to Combat Desertification • 30 out of 49 SSA countries have National Action Plans NEPAD: CAADP and Environmental Action Plan • Adopted by large majority of SSA countries • Pillars 1, 3 and 4 of CAADP, Program areas 1 and 6 of EAP Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) • MDG 1 – Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger • MDG 7 – Ensure environmental sustainability Soil Fertility Initiative • 20 SFI National Action Plans developed Abuja Declaration on the African Green Revolution • Declare Fertilisers (organic and inorganic ) strategic commodities • Set up a Financial Mechanism to promote access and use of fertilisers

17. Land degradation in SSA still continues.. because efforts and responses: • are not addressing systematically major LD root causes and SLM bottlenecks • are not being well supported across the board by adequate policies , institutional reforms and donors’ attention in a way commensurate with the dimension of the problem. • have been essentially fragmented and at a much too limited scale OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

18. THE NEED FOR CHANGE IN SSA – TERRAFRICA VALUE-ADDED

19. What is Sustainable Land Management (SLM)? SLM can be defined as the use of land resources, including soils, water, animals, plants and climate, for the production of goods and services to meet changing and increasing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their ecosystem functions.

20. REMOVING BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKSto SLM SCALE UP • KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT BARRIERS • INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVERNANCE BARRIERS • ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL BARRIERS enabling environment for scaling up and mainstreaming SLM in an optimized manner . OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

21. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksKnowledge Management TO: (TA vision) • A holistic ecosystem approach • Integrated cross sectoral management practices (responses) • Ecosystem landscape approach • Focusing on land degradation root causes and key SLM bottlenecks • Proactive (climate change, bioenergy) • People-centered approach • Community-based participative approaches to land use planning and capacity-building • Build on land users’ knowledge and ability to experiment FROM: (bottlenecks) • A traditional land management approach • Sectoral (crop, livestock, forest, water) • Commodity driven • Focusing on land degradation symptoms • Reactive to environmental change and new technologies • Top-down and expert-driven approaches OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

22. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksKnowledge Management TO: • Expand the knowledge base • New approaches, opportunities (e.g. conservation agriculture, agro-tourism, bio-energy, multilevel/sector land use planning) • Cost-benefit analysis of LD and SLM • Ecosystems functions and livelihoods • Understand and monitor root causes and bottlenecks • Land use, land degradation, landscape maps, data bases • Organization and connectivity of knowledge • Tailored information to partners & channeled it to decision-makers • Recognize the digital divide and communication technologies FROM: • Knowledge gaps • Poor knowledge management OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

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

24. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional and Governance TO: • Alignment along a shared vision • Multi-level and cross-sectoral • Multi-stakeholder: private, public, civil society, development partners • Efficient and effective coordination • Cross-sectoral, multi-level and multi-stakeholder mechanisms at country level • Donor alignment and coordination • Negotiation as the basis for partnerships based on responsibilities and benefits FROM: • Diverging views and approaches by concerned stakeholders • Lack of cooperation between stakeholders OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

25. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional and Governance TO: • Programmatic approach to SLM at national, sub-national and regional levels(including transboundary watersheds and basins) • SLM recognized as a priority: • Harmonization and mainstreaming of SLM into existing programmatic instruments FROM: • Ad hoc or project approach to Land Management • SLM not identified as key issue in strategies, national priorities, PRSPs, sectoral policies and public expenditure OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

26. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional and Governance TO: • Foster and support the decentralization processes • Improving local governance for SLM • Strengthening capacities local services providers (inputs,market,finance,training) • Tenure systems and regulations are negotiated between population and decision-makers to facilitate SLM • Access to land for vulnerable groups FROM: • Lack of capacities and resources in local actors ( public,private,NGOs) • Insecurity of tenure due to conflicting statutory and customary rules or existence of “open-access” regimes OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

27. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksInstitutional and Governance TO: • Coordinated capacities to enforce laws and regulations • Strategic physical ( roads, communication) and social ( health education centres) infrastructures to help land users implementing SLM FROM: • inadequate regulation for combating land degradation • Inadequate rural infrastructures OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

28. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksEconomic and financial TO: • Policy development, to support: • Regulation of markets related to land products : higher agriculture prices, more fair trade barriers and price subsidies between countries • Food chain organization allowing land users to capture value-added for SLM investment • Specific SLM incentives on the environmental dimension (e.g. compensation for non-use, investment support, PES) FROM: • Inadequate economic and pricing policies OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

29. Addressing Barriers and BottlenecksEconomic and financial TO: • Mobilization of capital for productive investments • Re-establish the level of external assistance to the agricultural sector (was reduced by 35%) • Increase public expenditure for SLM • Development of innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. PES, carbon fund, GEF, bioenergy grants) • Facilitation of access to capital and risk-hedging mechanisms • Micro-grants and micro-credit • Incentive risk-sharing mechanisms • Development of markets, commercial and support services (inputs, advisory, research) FROM: • Lack of financial resources at country level • Lack of credit facilities at the sub-national and local levels ( where most funding should go..) OUR LAND – OUR WEALTH, OUR FUTURE, IN OUR HANDS

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

31. SLM PROGRAMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL: STEP BY STEP

32. Step 1 – Commitment and partnership • Political will to make SLM a top national priority • Commitment and alignment of development partners • Broad-based coalition-building • National Task Force with leadership of “SLM champions” • Sub-national fora and groups • Multi-level and cross-sectoral • Multi-stakeholder: private, public, civil society, developmentpartners • SLM sensitization and awareness-raising at all levels • Regional partners (NEPAD and RECs) support the process on a demand-driven basis

33. Step 2 – Stocktaking andanalysis ( check list to fill the gaps..) • Stocktaking on related SLM issues • Strategies, institutions, policies, public expenditures • Best practices, lessons learnt • Existing projects and programs • Ecosystems and landscapes: spatial characterization, spatial analysis of LD (state, root causes), potential for SLM, stakeholder needs • Analysis • Barriers and bottlenecks for SLM ( main drivers-relationships ) • Threats and opportunities for land development (e.g. climate change, bioenergy,agro-tourism,diversification) • Potential synergies and trade-offs between multiple objectives ( food security, eco, socio, envirt, energy, rural poverty ..) • Multimedia georeferenced info system ( + poster?)

34. Step 3 – Investmentdesign and programming • Country investment framework • Based on national priorities (PRSPs); SLM diagnostic (step 2); expectations of stakeholders. • Participatory identification and prioritization of investments including national land planning • Harmonized, coherent, cost-effective, long term • 4 strategic lines of investment at country level (CSIF) • Up-scaling through on-the-ground investment • Create an enabling environment • Strengthen commercial and support services • Knowledge management and M&E

35. Step 3 – Investment • Up-scaling through on-the-ground investment • Pilot demonstration with embedded scale up strategies • Capacity building land users, strengthening land users organizations • Incentives for SLM adoption ( micro-financing..) • Create an enabling environment • SLM into national and sectoral frameworks • SLM into institutional and legal reforms processes • Cross sectoral spatial land planning and EWS at various levels • review country investment programs and public expenditures • Strengthen commercial and support services • Strengthening input suppliers ( seeds, tools, seedlings) • Marketing support (info, infrastructures, certification, eco-label, fair trade) • Strengthening of providers of financial services • Knowledge management and M&E • Strengthening land users driven research , extension services • Support SLM knowledge bases and communication tools • Develop M&E and MIS for the CSIF

36. Step 4 – Implementation,monitoring and evaluation • Participatory implementation of investment projects • Participative local land planning • contractual agreements, including outputs, activities, budget, time frame, stakeholders benefits ( rights, funding, empowerment, access to services ) & responsibilities, funding, delivery mechanisms; • Rapid momentum interventions • Low costs, quick results, perverse measures removal.. • M&E transparent, georeferenced, and participatory to feed into CSIF update