ENB:04:11 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

5. Financial resources and mechanisms: While most delegations supported the need for adequate financial arrangements to assist in the combatting of drought and desertification, there was some difference of opinion on the need for new and additional resources, as well as funding mechanisms. Germany, Canada, the UK and Spain stated that existing sources should remain the main sources of funding for desertification and drought. Spain specifically warned against the proliferation of funding mechanisms. Algeria, Brazil, China, Kenya, Tanzania, Tunisia, Iran, Cameroon and Lesotho called for new and additional financial resources. Egypt, Japan, the US and Norway advocated more efficient use of available resources.

Nigeria stated that initial Convention funding should be done through the GEF and noted that Agenda 21 states that the GEF is available as a funding mechanism for conventions. Switzerland favored an expansion of financing for desertification control activities from the restructured GEF. Canada, however, stated that while the GEF has funded some projects, there are inherent restrictions in what the GEF can do in this area. Sweden said that it was unlikely that there would be any new window for projects against desertification within the GEF. In addition to existing funding, there is a need to find additional sources from IDA, the World Bank and the regional development banks.

Other comments related to financial resources included Botswana's request for the Secretariat to prepare estimates on the resources needed to meet the challenge as new and additional sources of funds will be required. Morocco stressed the need for long-term financing. IGADD and Peru said that funding institutions should be revised so that survival of the people is the priority. Portugal suggested monitoring how funds will be both utilized and assessed. [Return to start of article]