2 3 1   72846   Knowledge  from   t he   f ield   Knowledge  from  the  field   A  series  on  ground  analysis    of  the  execution  of  projects  funded  by  the  GEF     Lessons Learned from the GEF Learning Missions   China   PRC-­â€?  GEF  Partnership  to  Combat  Land  Degradation  in  Drylands     The  PRC-­â€?GEF  Partnership  to  Combat  Land   in  combating  land  degradation  and   Degradation  in  Drylands  Project,  is   desertification  in  the  drylands,  the   designed  to  assist  the  Government  of   partnership  was  linked  to  the  Sloping  Land   China  in  establishing  an  effective  system   Conversion  Program  (SLCP),  a  m ajor  rural   of  integrated  natural  resource   development  program  (‘Grains  for  Green’)   management  in  the  drylands.  The  overall   financed  by  the  Government.    The  PRC-­â€? goal  is  to  reduce  land  degradation  and   GEF  Partnership  Program  was  financed   restore  dryland  ecosystems  in  the   with  US$  32  million  of  GEF  funds  and   western  region.  The  Partnership  was   more  than  US$  375  million  in  co-­â€?financing.   initiated  in  2002  based  on  GEF  Integrated   The  Program  included  eight  sub-­â€?projects   Ecosystem  Management  (IEM)  Program   covering  nine  provinces  /  autonomous   (then  known  as  Operational  Program  12   regions.     Ulrich  Apel,  GEF,  with  herders  in   Guansu  Province.   or  “OP12â€?).  In  order  to  strengthen  efforts       GEF  Learning  Missions   As  part  of  the  GEF’s  Results  Based  Management  (RBM)  approach,  the  GEF  has  introduced  a  portfolio  monitoring  and  learning  review  process  to   address  specific  thematic  topics  within  the  respective  focal  areas.  Government  partners  will  be  the  main  users  of  findings  coming  from  the   learning  review  process.  Analysis  and  lessons  derived  from  the  learning  missions  will  be  used  to  improve  focal  area  strategies  and  policies,  and   inform  project  design  and  implementation  as  well  as  feed  into  GEF’s  knowledge  management  initiative.    In  coordination  with  GEF  Agencies  and   the  Scientific  and  Technical  Advisory  Panel  (STAP),  the  GEF  Secretariat  has  identified  learning  objectives  for  each  focal  area  strategy  with  the   ultimate  objective  of:   a. Facilitating  learning  that  is  broader  than  one  project;   b. Testing  focal  area  strategy  assumptions;  and   c. Validating  GEF  policy  assumptions     For  the  Land  Degradation  focal  area  in  particular,  the  learning  objectives  and  associated  missions  examine  how  effectively  the  Integrated   Ecosystem  Management  (IEM)  approach  is  being  applied  to  combat  land  degradation  in  drylands.  The  knowledge  generated  will  contribute  to   further  advance  the  LD  focal  area  strategy  and  portfolio  -­â€?  integrating  linkages  to  other  focal  areas  such  as  Biodiversity,  International  Waters,  and   Climate  Change.  It  will  also  increase  understanding  about  how  project  assumptions  and  risks  associated  with  IEM  are  addressed  during  project   implementation.     The  Integrated  Ecosystem  Management  (IEM)  Approach   The  IEM  Approach  is  based  on  the  ecosystem  approach  adopted  by  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity.  It  aims  at  integrating  land,  water  and   living  resources  management  to  promote  conservation  and  sustainable  use  in  an  equitable  way.  The  approach  (a)  applies  scientific  methodologies   focused  on  levels  of  biological  organization,  in  which  humans,  with  their  cultural  diversity,  are  an  integral  component  of  many  ecosystems;  (b)   requires  adaptive  management  to  deal  with  the  complex  and  dynamic  nature  of  ecosystems  and  the  absence  of  complete  knowledge  or   understanding  of  their  functioning;  and  (c)  does  not  preclude  other  management  and  conservation  approaches  but  could  rather  integrate  several   approaches  and  other  methodologies  to  deal  with  complex  situations.   The  Learning  Objectives   GEF  undertook  a  learning  mission  in  February  2012  to  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  to  observe  and  understand  the  IEM   approach   in   combating   land   degradation.   The   mission   was   focused   on   the   overall   PRC-­â€?GEF   partnership   approach   but   based  on   experiences  from  two   of  the   eight  subprojects  implemented  by  the   Asian  Development  Bank  and  the  World   Bank.   The   visit   included   consultations   with   provincial   leaders,   project   staff,   and   local   stakeholders   in   three   landscapes/watersheds  u nder  the  p rogram  and  one  reforestation  landscape  funded  by  the  Central  Government.       The  consultations  were  guided  by  the  following  questions:   a) What  are  the  drivers  that  generate  catalytic  effect?     b) How  does  the  GEF’s  catalytic  role  influence  the  choice  of   activities  to  GEBs?     c) How  is  progress  toward  targeted  IEM  outcomes  being   tracked?     Mohamed  Bakarr,   d) What  tools  and  indicators  are  being  applied  for  monitoring   GEF,  led  the  learning   the  IEM  approach?   mission  to  China     2   1 2   Findings  and  Lessons   The  learning  mission  produced  six  key  findings  and  lessons  related  to   application  of  the  IEM  approach  to  combating  land  degradation.   Enhancing  the  catalytic  effect  of   drylands,  and  for  which  the  government  is  channeling   major  investments  as  part  of  the  country’s  development   GEF  through  identifying,  up-­â€?scaling,   strategy  in  the  affected  provinces  and  autonomous   regions.     and  replicating  best  practices   Developing  a  Framework  for  IEM  implementation     Drivers  that  Generate  a  Catalytic  Effect       The  Framework  for  IEM  Approach  implementation  allows   The  drivers  of  GEF  catalytic  effect  on  the  IEM  Approach  are   ownership  at  all  levels  b ut  is  hindered  by  coordination   manifested  at  regional,  national,  and  local  levels,  mainly  in   difficulties.  The  framework  for  implementing  IEM  extends   the  context  of  linking  policy  and  on-­â€?the-­â€?ground  actions.   from  the  Central  Project  Management  Office,  to  the   The  IEM  approach  has  b een  institutionalized  at  provincial   Provincial  Project  Management  Office,  to  Village   level  through  mainstreaming  in  strategies  and  action  plans.   Committees  of  p ilot  sites,  and  then  individual  farmers  and   In  Qinghai  and  Gansu  provinces,  targeted  investments  for   land  users,  taking  into  consideration  the  needs  of  all   IEM  activities  were  included  in  five-­â€?year  provincial   stakeholders.  As  a  result,  there  is  strong  ownership  of  the   development  plans.  This  mainstreaming  illustrates  how   overall  project  approach  manifested  at  all  levels.  However,   GEF  can  d rive  innovations  in  environment  and   the  emphasis  on  integration  of  environment,  agriculture,   development  beyond  the  financing  provided  for  generating   and  rural  development  through  the  IEM  approach  presents   GEBs.  Mainstreaming  is  possible  because  the  PRC   inherent  difficulties  for  coordination  within  the   government  has  essentially  embraced  IEM  as  the  approach   partnership.  This  was  exemplified  by  the  expressed  wish   to  combating  land  d egradation  and  desertification  in   for  improved  information  sharing  and  coordination.       3   3 4   Enhancing  Global  Environment   Monitoring  GEBs  presents  challenges     Benefits  through  improved   GEBs  are  being  generated  in  the  pilot  sites  but  are  not   understanding  of  social  impacts   adequately  monitored  and  measured.  Currently  land   Generating  GEBs  through  Synergy     degradation  is  assessed  through  training  and  capacity   development  for  application  of  tools  and  methods.    At   The  IEM  Approach  generates  GEBs  through  links  between   the  same  time,  IEM  activities  contribute  to  SLM  with   land  and  water  management,  poverty  alleviation,  climate   potential  GEBs  through  improvements  in  hydrological   change,  and  some  biodiversity  conservation.  The  IEM   flows,  vegetation  cover,  carbon  sequestration,  and   approach  fosters  a  focus  on  linking  land  management  options   biodiversity  conservation.  Successful  monitoring  of   with  national  rural  development  programs  such  as  the   environment  and  development  impacts  was  noted  in  the   Sloping  Land  Conversion  Program,  climate  change  mitigation,   World  Bank/GEF  Gansu-­â€?Xinjiang  Pastoral  project  in  the   and  adaptation  for  improved  livelihoods.  At  the   Xiangquan  Township  where  biodiversity  benefits  from   provincial/field  level,  sectoral  integration  is  evident  through   grazing  land  management  during  the  four-­â€?year  project   the  range  of  agriculture  and  development  innovations  being   implementation  period  (2004-­â€?2008).  However,  it  was   applied.    It  is  difficult,  however,  to  understand  how  cross-­â€? discovered  that  indicators  and  tools  for  monitoring  GEBs   sector  links  were  factored  into  the  design  of  pilot  sites,   are  only  just  being  developed  u nder  the  various  projects.   including  the  need  to  manage  tradeoffs  between  ecosystem   Since  most  projects  under  the  PRC-­â€?GEF  partnership  are   services  and  development  needs.    The  lack  of  cross-­â€?sector   either  just  starting  or  in  their  early  stages  of   links  presents  new  challenges  for  up-­â€?scaling  the  IEM   implementation,  there  are  opportunities  for  selecting   approach  beyond  the  pilot  sites,  especially  in  provinces  facing   appropriate  indicators  of  GEBs  and  establishing  baselines   increased  pressure  from  livestock  grazing  and  irrigation   for  monitoring.  The  indicators  and  monitoring  tools  could   demands.  The  potential  for  integration  or  mainstreaming   be  streamlined  and  standardized  across  all  projects  to   biodiversity  conservation  is  high  in  all  provinces  and  could  be   more  effectively  demonstrate  benefits  from  the  overall   important  for  enhancing  resilience  of  the  dryland  ecosystems.     partnership  approach.       4   5   Enhancing  the  Sustainability  of   Outcomes  from  IEM  Implementation   Delivering  tangible  results   Progress  with  the  IEM  Approach  is  being  tracked  through   tangible  results  for  reducing  and  reversing  land  degradation,   income  generation,  and  improving  livelihoods  in  pilot  sites.   Participatory  planning  enables  villages  to  streamline   livelihood  and  productivity  needs  into  land  management   options  across  landscapes  and  watersheds.  Consequently,  a   range  of  production  and  development  options  are  being   introduced  in  an  integrated  manner  to  h elp  improve  quality   and  sustainability  of  ecosystem  services.  The  IEM  Approach   is  enabling  villages  to  work  collectively  on  SLM  activities  and   resolve  resource  conflicts  across  watersheds.     For  example,  in  the  Hudan  catchment  pilot  site  in  Qinghai   province,  conflict  resolution  between  upstream  and   downstream  communities  has  improved  quality  and   quantity  of  hydrological  flow  for  irrigation.  In  this  regard,  the   payment  for  ecosystem  services  (PES)  mechanism  is  being   evaluated  as  a  possible  incentive,  and  cost-­â€?benefit  analyses   are  being  conducted  to  demonstrate  the  value-­â€?added  of   land  degradation  control  based  on  land  use  options  being   introduced.   Model  for  Up-­â€?Scaling  and  Replication     The  IEM  Approach  has  the  potential  for  replication  and  SLM   up-­â€?scaling  if  it  is  developed  into  a  stepwise  process  tailored   to  the  PRC-­â€?GEF  projects.  Innovations  such  as  use  of  methane   tanks  for  biogas  and  solar  cookers  introduced  in  the  pilot   areas  are  economical,  b ut  also  important  for  contributing   GEBs  in  the  form  of  reduced  pressure  on  vegetation,   improved  carbon  storage,  and  reduced  risk  of  pollution  or   degradation  of  water  resources.  Thus,  the  generic  IEM   model  should  be  developed  into  a  stepwise  process  and   clarify  h ow  the  approach  h as  been  adapted  to  elements  of   capacity  building,  policy  and  legislation,  science,  institutional   development,  and  investments  in  micro-­â€?level  projects.   Establishing  how  these  components  fit  together  in  the  IEM   framework  could  facilitate  up-­â€?scaling  beyond  the  pilot   demonstration  sites  and  increase  the  prospects  for   generating  significant  GEBs.       5   1 2   Conclusions   “Encourage  SLM  approach  on  a  larger  scales  and  across  multiple  focal   areasâ€?     There  is  considerable  potential  for  generating  GEBs  in   leverage   GEF   resources   across   multiple   focal   areas.   the   context   of   development   priorities   for   all   land   The   hope   is   that   observations   from   the   learning   degradation   affected   provinces   in   the   country.   It   is   mission   will   further   strengthen   the   existing   therefore   prudent   for   the   next   phase   to   emphasize   partnership   between   the   GEF   and   the   Government   investments   in   SLM   across   larger   scales   in   the   of  PRC  during  GEF-­â€?5  and  beyond.     affected   provinces.   Such   investments   could   also   Contacts   • Mohamed  Bakarr,    GEF  Cluster  Coordinator  for  the  Land  Degradation  Focal  Area,  mbakarr@thegef.org         • Ulrich  Apel,  GEF  Program  Manager  for  Land  and  Forests  and  Regional  Coordinator  for  Europe  and  Asia,  uapel@thegef.org     • Michael  Stocking,  GEF  Scientific  and  Technical  Advisory  Panel  (STAP),    m.stocking@uea.ac.uk     “Knowledge  from  the  fieldâ€?  Series,  Issue  1,  2012     ©2012  Global  Environment  Facility  –  All  rights  reserved  –  www.thegef.org Â