Summary report, 24 May – 3 June 1993

1st Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the International Convention to Combat Desertification

Jump to Analysis

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the elaborationof an international convention to combat desertification in thosecountries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification,particularly in Africa (INCD), is a product of the United NationsConference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio deJaneiro in June 1992. While the idea of a convention to combatdesertification had been discussed throughout the UNCEDpreparatory process it was only in Rio where language wasadopted, requesting the United Nations General Assembly toestablish an intergovernmental negotiating committee for thepurpose of negotiating the convention.

The General Assembly, during its 47th Session in 1992, adopted aseries of decisions that dealt with follow-up to the Rio Summit,including resolution 47/188 calling for the establishment of theINCD with a view to finalizing a convention by June 1994. Thisresolution, among other things, decided that there would be oneorganizational session and five substantive sessions of the INCD;the UN Secretary-General would establish an expert group toadvise the ICPD Secretariat on technical matters related todesertification; and the INCD would establish a special voluntaryfund to ensure developing country participation in thenegotiation process.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INCD

During the organizational session, it wasalso decided that the INCD will establish two working groups.These working groups will meet for the first time during thesecond substantive session in September 1993 and each workinggroup will have a three person bureau. It was decided that Amb.Kjell‚n would present a proposal for the organization of work ofthe working groups during the first session. The followingmembers of the bureaus of the two working groups were elected atthe organizational session: Chair of Working Group I: AhmedDjoghlaf (Algeria)); the Vice-Chair of Working Group II: Morad-Ali Ardeshiri (Iran); and the Rapporteur of Working Group II:Frederick Mallya (Tanzania). The Chair of Working Group II(WEOG), the Vice-Chair of Working Group I (Latin America) and theRapporteur of Working Group I (Eastern Europe) were left vacantuntil elections could be held at the first substantive session.

THE FIRST SESSION OF THE INCD

The agenda for the first session of the INCD, held in Nairobifrom 24 May - 3 June, included the following items:organizational matters, including the adoption of the agenda andelection of officers; a week-long technical information segment;a discussion on the structure and possible elements of theConvention; a review of the situation as regards extrabudgetaryfunds; adoption of the provisional agenda for the second session;and adoption of the report of the first session. The first weekfocussed on the sharing of technical information and assessmentson various aspects of drought and desertification. Divided intoseven sections, the information sharing segment provided anopportunity for scientists, technical experts, delegates and NGOsto share relevant experiences and learn more about the scourge ofdesertification and its global dimensions. During the secondweek, the Plenary's major focus was on the structure and possibleelements of the Convention.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

The Chair of the INCD, Ambassador Bo Kjell‚n of Sweden, openedthe first session of the Committee at 3:00 pm on 24 May 1993. TheCommittee quickly adopted the agenda and organization of work(A/AC.241/5), which had been drafted at the organizationalmeeting in January.

During the course of the session all but one of the remainingofficers were elected. Dr. Serguei N. Morozov from the RussianFederation was elected as Rapporteur of the Committee.

With regard to the working groups, Kjell‚n proposed that thebureaus consist of a Chair and two Vice-Chairs and that one ofthe Vice-Chairs will serve as Rapporteur. Jacques Alliot, thedirector-general of the Caisse Fran‡aise de D‚veloppement inFrance, was nominated by the Western European and Others Group asthe Chair of Working Group II. Erwin Ortiz-Gandanillas, MinisterCounsellor of Bolivia to the United Nations, was nominated as oneof the Vice-Chairs of Working Group I. Kjell‚n announced that theEastern European Group would nominate a Vice-Chair/Rapporteur forthe final working group bureau post during the September session.

During the session, the INCD also accredited 173 NGOs, as listedin documents A/AC.241/9 and Add.1. Kjell‚n noted the large numberof NGOs that had applied for accreditation and was pleased withthe interest of the NGO community. The Committee also adopteddocument A/AC.241/L.5, which granted observer status to thefollowing five intergovernmental organizations: Sahara and SahelObservatory (OSS); Arab Maghreb Union (AMU); IntergovernmentalAuthority on Drought and Development (IGADD); Southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC); and the Permanent Inter-StateCommittee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS).

INFORMATION SHARING SEGMENT

INCD Chair Kjell‚n opened the information sharing segment andinformed the delegates that they were beginning both a newventure and a new adventure, as these negotiations will have tofind innovative solutions to the problems of desertification anddrought. He stated that they need to set clear negotiating goalsand results, as they owe this to the people who live in areassuffering from desertification. He hoped that the spirit of Rioand the perception of the drylands problem as a global concernwill carry the negotiations through. He wants to have aconsolidated text of the convention available by the end of theyear. He said that the convention and the protocol for Africashould serve as a firm basis and a platform for a continuingprocess, including other regional protocols. He expressed hopethat there will be rapid signatures, beginning at the 49thGeneral Assembly in 1994, and a prompt start to the Convention.

The information sharing segment was divided into seven sections:Desertification, drought and the global environment; Causes,general extent and physical consequences of land degradation inarid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas; Social and economicdimensions; Patterns of bilateral and multilateral assistance;Experience with international, regional, sub-regional andnational programmes to combat desertification and mitigatedrought in developing countries; Experiences of developedcountries; and Some possible elements of a new strategy topromote sustainable development in countries experiencing droughtand desertification. The INCD Secretariat will prepare a reporton the information sharing segment for the September session ofthe Committee.

DESERTIFICATION, DROUGHT AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

spoke about the inter-relationships between the globalclimate system, drought and desertification, including the impactof desertification on climate change and global warming. Thefirst part of his presentation addressed what is known aboutclimate in the drylands. The major characteristic of drylandclimates is their unusual variability. Precipitation varies fromseason to season and year to year and consistent cycles are nottypically found in dryland rainfall data. He then addressed thequestion of whether dryland droughts can be predicted. Drylandprecipitation levels are linked statistically to sea surfaceconditions, the impact of El Nio and southern oscillationevents, general atmospheric circulation patterns, solar patterns,volcanic eruptions, typhoons and hurricanes. At this pointscientists understand what is driving the climate patterns indrylands and can predict the rainfall in seasons, if not inmonths. Human activities have impacted the surface and atmospherein drylands primarily by reducing vegetation cover throughovergrazing and cultivation practices. He elaborated on thescientific debate on the relationship between a decrease in soiland vegetative cover and climate change. He commented thatdrylands are not major emitters of greenhouse gases or majorcarbon sinks. Climate change is bad news for drylands wheretemperatures may increase by 2-5 degrees.

Professor Robert Balling, Arizona State University, USA,

Professor A.M. Imevbore, Obaferni Awolowo University,

Nigeria, spoke about desertification as a threat tothe conservation and utilization of biodiversity. He emphasizedthe need to redefine desertification. He pointed out thatdesertification can be defined by vegetation cover, shortsavanna, woodlands, and by impact of human activity such aslogging, reduced availability of water and reduction in woodybiomass. He emphasized the importance of conserving biodiversityin the drylands and said that 64 out of 300 species of medicinalplants are located in the drylands and that the few existingplant species in the drylands serve multiple purposes. He alsohighlighted the importance of the tourism industry based onwildlife found in the drylands, such as Kenya. He concluded thatthere is need to conserve biodiversity and underlined the vastamount of research required to manage the drylands efficiently.These include availability of remote-sensing data for droughtpreparedness, strengthening of institutional structures for themanagement of wildlife, fauna and flora and the search forgreater perenniality.

UNESCO:

Habib Zebidi, Programme Specialist in Hydrology,Division of Water Sciences, discussed the effects ofdesertification on surface water and groundwater systems and onwater availability and quality. He began with definitions ofdesertification and noted the fact that there are 6,100 millionhectares of arid lands, home to one-fifth of the world'spopulation, with Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and Australia asthe regions most affected. He focussed on the characteristics ofthese areas. The first characteristic is that rainfall is limitedand irregular, with the greatest variability of rainfall found inarid and semi-arid land. High sediment transport is a feature ofsurface flow, due to run-off fluctuations. Another characteristicis that groundwater is often found in these regions. Theavailability of water depends on the type of catchment systemused. He noted the effects of desertification on groundwatersystems. He also discussed surface run-off from flood waters andrain and the collection of this water with dams. He concluded bynoting the potential for conflict over water resources in theevent of drought and the need for national policies to distributescare water resources. He also noted the possibilities of moreviolent flash floods due to the soil's lower retention capacityto absorb irregular rainfall.

UNEP:

Dr. Norberto Fernandez, GRID Facility, spokeabout modern techniques for assessing the global environment,including satellite imagery, remote sensing and geographicinformation systems. He mentioned that sound management of theenvironment requires good assessment of situations, which, inturn, requires timely and reliable data and information. Heexplained that the transfer of data and information from thesectorial sources to the decision-making level is an on-goingprocess. The Global Resource Information Database (GRID) hashelped to bridge the gap between scientific understanding ofearth processes and sound management of the environment. He thenexplained the uses of geographic information systems (GIS) thatcan integrate data from different sources and add a spatialdimension, bringing flexibility into data analysis. Although GIScannot give the real answer to the problem of desertification, itcan help build hypotheses. He explained how the World Atlas ofDesertification is an important contribution to the understandingof this issue and provides information in a clear, concise,geographically-referenced format. It shows interactions betweensocio-economic and environmental factors and helps governmentsand policy-makers to assess the scope of the problem, examinealternatives and decide on a course of action.

CAUSES, GENERAL EXTENT AND PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LAND DEGRADATION IN ARID, SEMI-ARID AND DRY SUB-HUMID AREAS

Wim G. Sombroek, Director of FAO's Land and WaterDevelopment Division, gave a historical background of the term"desertification," identifying bio-climatic aridity based onevaporation and evapo-transpiration, as well as length of growingperiods. He then identified arid, hyper-arid, semi-arid and humidareas, and cited the components of land degradation thatencompass the degradation of human settlements andinfrastructure. He spoke about a study carried out by FAO, theGlobal Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD), which was aimedat generating factual information on the severity of landdegradation. He described two types of degradation: degraded landthat can be rehabilitated through the reduction of resource use,and destruction that is barely recoverable and can only beredeemed through structural changes.

El Hadji M. Sene of the Forest Resource Division addressedrangeland degradation and cited its main causes. He emphasizedthat rehabilitation of such lands requires sound ecological andintegrated management of natural resources, supported by adaptedtechnology, economic planning, legal and financial measures, aswell as improved institutions. He also underlined the role of thepeople's participation in these programmes. He concluded thatcombatting desertification requires a holistic approach thatincludes agriculture, efficient use of land and its naturalresources, political will, regional and internationalconventions, appropriate legislation, and proper education.

FAO:

HABITAT:

Jochen Eigen, Coordinator of the SustainableCities Programme, and Graham Alabaster, Human SettlementsOfficer, spoke on land degradation resulting from urbanization,industrialization, mining and tourism. The focus of thispresentation was on the need to accommodate population growththrough sustainable urbanization and reduce environmentaldegradation. He pointed out that urbanization accommodatespopulation growth; environmental degradation can limit thebenefits of urbanization; land degradation is one environmentalconcern associated with urbanization; and strengthening urbanmanagement capacity helps combat desertification. Attempts tomanage population growth and migration have not been effectiveand HABITAT is now focussing on urban management. He also pointedout the cross-cutting nature of urban environmental issues; theneed for any urban management strategies to involve those whoseinterests are affected, including women; and the need to involveand strengthen the public, private and community sectors. Heexplained how HABITAT's Sustainable Cities programme can be putto use to combat desertification.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS

Nessim Ahmad, a resource economist at IFAD, outlined a number ofsocio-economic processes that lead to unsustainable agricultureand poverty in dryland areas. He listed contributinginternational processes including: declining commodity prices;barriers to international trade; declining official developmentassistance; and the lack of adequate transfer of technology. Atthe national level, policy frameworks often hinder sustainabledryland development. These policies include: structuraladjustment programmes; inappropriate sectoral agriculturalpricing policies; a bias toward export crops; and socialpolicies, such as the settlement of nomadic populations. A thirdset of processes are those related to institutional issues,including: the nature of land tenure regimes, the lack of ruralfinancial services and credit, technology systems, infrastructureand supply channels, markets, and educational, health and otherservices. Other processes that have a negative impact include:gender and ethnic biases, demographic processes (particularlypopulation growth and migration processes), and external shock.

Trends in coping strategies have shown: 1) risk minimizingagricultural strategies are narrowing; 2) strategies that reliedon social support and reciprocity for overcoming food deficitsare eroding due to recurrent droughts; and 3) the responsibilityhas moved from the local community to the national government andNGOs, through food relief programmes.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD):

WORLD BANK:

Hassan M. Hassan, Senior EnvironmentSpecialist, presented a paper on behalf of John English that wasbased on the Bank's experiences. Using examples drawn fromMachakos, Kenya, the Kano Close Settled Zone in Nigeria, andcotton production in West Africa, he demonstrated the adaptationof agricultural systems to accommodate population growth andeffective production-oriented programmes. He noted that theprimary problem in tackling land degradation is themarginalization of these areas in relation to others in thecountry. The remedy is to link development programmes in theseregions to the main centers of economic activity. This would alsoinvolve providing incentives to farmers, such as guaranteedlong-term benefits for their products, and diversifying economicactivities. However, he pointed out that land rights were not asignificant factor in the adoption of new programmes. He proposedpolicy elements including: the raising of the value of farmproducts; economically and technically viable land useprogrammes; diversified farming approaches; farming methodsderived from farmer-to-farmer visits; diversification of incomesources; and seasonal or permanent out-migratory practices. Heemphasized the need for information and research and the need todevelop cross-boundary solutions.

PATTERNS OF BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE

Dr. Marilyn Yakowitz examined a number of financialresource trends related to combatting desertification. Totalfinancial resource inflows to developing countries have increasedon average by over US$6 billion each year during the period1986-1991. This amounts to an average annual increase of about5%. During this period, total net resource inflows to developingcountries increased from US$73.2 to US$132.2 billion. Shementioned a number of economic factors that affect sustainabledevelopment including capital exports, external debt, aggregatedebt service payments, debt-for-nature swaps and capital flight.

On a regional basis, areas affected by desertification arereceiving substantial shares of total ODA flows, although notjust to combat desertification. At the sectoral level, precisedata for financial flows cannot always be obtained since thereare dozens of categories that might be associated with combattingdesertification. She added that the utility of data collectionand analysis of financial resources flows may be best directedto, or interwoven with planning, development and implementationas a management tool, rather than as an accounting exercisealone.

OECD:

NGOs:

Dr. Vanaja Ramprasad of the Third World Network, onbehalf of Asian NGOs, presented a paper aimed at demonstratingthe risk of desertification in highly productive land. Shepointed out that in 1987-88, Kerala, a state in India, with anaverage rainfall of 3200mm annually, was drought prone and theamount of rainfall fell drastically. She said that flooding anddrought had resulted from deforestation, damming of rivers,salinization and irrigation activities in the region. She furtherexplained that the Green Revolution is a key factor in thisprocess. India's choice of Structural Adjustment Programmes andfree trade are causing changes in land use patterns in theregion. The introduction of hybrid seeds, and export-ledmono-crops that provide little or no ground cover have replacedlarge varieties of indigenous crops suitable for the region. Shementioned that the intellectual property rights and patenting oflife forms would accelerate the loss of biodiversity.

Juan Palao Iturregui of the Consejo Andino de Manejo Ecolgicospoke on behalf of Latin American NGOs. He summarized howchanging economic and land management policies in Peru havediminished the productive potential of the land and the people.He cited how programmes aimed at increasing production of riceand sugar for export failed due to the high production costs andcompetition from other countries like Malaysia and Thailand.These programmes also led to desertification of the Peruviancoast. He explained how NGOs have joined efforts in the region tofind joint approaches and strategies to implement grassrootsprojects that are aimed at sustainable crop production.

Mamadou Lamine Thiam of FAVDO spoke on behalf of African NGOs.His presentation focused on a case study aimed at combattingdesertification in Senegal. He provided the historicalbackground, explaining how colonial and, after independence,national agriculture policies favored cash crops. This led toland degradation, reduction in grazing lands, reduction in waterholes, climate change, and drought. To combat desertification,NGOs have worked on a number of projects including reforestationand soil conservation. He spoke about a project of the AfricanNetwork for Integrated Development that distributed saplings tolocal people and thus encouraged people to find solutions to landdegradation in their communities.

EXPERIENCE WITH INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL, SUB-REGIONAL AND NATIONAL PROGRAMMES TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION AND MITIGATE DROUGHT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Bataung Leleka, the Director of the CoordinationUnit of the Southern Africa Development Community, spoke aboutthe state of the southern African region. He elaborated on therelationship between people, resources and the environment. Theregion, with one of the fastest growing urban populations in theworld, is suffering from increased pressure on rangelands due toneeds for fuelwood, arable and grazing lands. Deforestation, soilloss, increased use of marginal lands, accelerated landdegradation due to inappropriate agricultural practices andsilting of rivers are visible consequences of population growth.To redress the situation, SADC is developing programmes thatfacilitate sharing of relevant information, establishingrelationships with and strengthening local institutions. Heconcluded that desertification and land degradation has its rootsmainly in socio-economic conditions rather than physicalconditions.

A delegate from Botswana gave the example of a national programmeto combat desertification. The formulation of the nationalprogrammes is done at two levels: at the local level, localauthorities are encouraged to make an inventory of theirresources and this forms the basis of the national plan;thereafter, districts develop their own plans that are thentranslated into different national programmes. He explained thatin the rangeland monitoring inventory programmes, land tenure andland reform are tackled. He concluded that the major problemfaced by the region is the lack of technology. In the discussion,Israel explained the need to preserve these transitional areas asthey harbor biogenetic resources useful in the rehabilitation ofdamaged ecosystems.

SADC:

IGADD:

Maina Karaba, of the Inter-governmental Authorityon Drought and Development, spoke on the region that coversDjibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Eritrea and Somalia. Hesaid that what happens in the north also impacts on the region.He pointed out that the interventions so far had focused on theproducers and failed to account for the activities of theconsumers. He said that the resilience of the arid lands in theregion evident after the rains suggests that the area can beproductive with the proper input. The constraints to combattingdesertification in the region include the lack of long-termrecording periods to assist in drought predictions, a poordistribution of simple hydrological and climatic information, andthe shortage of satellite receiving stations. He concluded thatinstitutions such as the OSS and UNSO should be strengthened.

CILSS:

Fatou Ba pointed out that the first response of theSahel countries in tackling serious drought was to address theeconomic and social balance. CILSS has adopted a regionaldesertification control strategy that is based on the totalcommitment of the people. This strategy incorporates aredefinition of the role of national services, training andfollow-up, and increased coordination between CILSS membercountries. She explained that during the implementation of theprogramme some difficulties were experienced, including landtenure issues, decentralization and duplication of efforts. Thus,there needs to be integrated national policies and a review ofthe rules and regulations governing land resource management.CILSS has an environmental monitoring institute, an early warningsystem, and a population research institute that provide data andinformation useful in combatting desertification. She said thatthe success of the programme is due to: finding commonapproaches; being within reach of the peasant community; itscombination of economies of scale and experiences of differentcountries; and its replicability. She warned that the Conventionwould only be meaningful and effective if farmers found marketsfor their produce, terms of trade are improved, the drier aridand semi-arid areas are integrated into national economies,answers are found to land tenure problems and activities arebetter coordinated.

PATECORE:

Dr. Helmut W”hl, principal technical advisor forrural regional development at Germany's GTZ, discussed technicalcooperation between Burkina Faso, CILSS and Germany in thePatecore Project. He described the high plateau ecosystem and thecontext within which desertification occurs. He outlined theexperiences of two local NGO projects in improving local land useand noted both the problems faced and the solutions found. Forexample, there was a lack of coordination between the plan andthe resource users, so a planning method was developed thatadjusted to the farmers' abilities and knowledge of thesurroundings. Lessons learned as a result of problems faced byNGOs included: control of man-made desertification must have asocio-economic emphasis; projects need integration forsustainable resource management at the community level; thecapacity of resource users must be strengthened; there must be ashort-term economic benefit; a framework for solving land tenureproblems must be created; traditional knowledge must beincorporated in planning and implementation; country capacitybuilding has to be intensified by ensuring availability ofknowledge at all levels; and population-related aspects have tobe included in the planning process.

UMA:

Mustapha Tlili described the characteristics of theArab Maghreb and highlighted a number of UMA programmes currentlyunderway, including fixing dunes by planting trees, conductingcampaigns to prevent landslides, and improving rangelands throughseeding. The methodology used to implement these projectsincludes: incorporating the participation of the grassroots andthe army; consolidating legislation to protect the environment;and developing programs to protect threatened areas. He stressedthe need for regional cooperation and added that the Maghreb mustrealize its interdependence with Europe and the two regions mustwork together to combat desertification.

Kallala Abdessalem of the Tunisian Ministry of the Environmentand Land Management highlighted characteristics ofdesertification in Tunisia. He mentioned that projects must becost-effective or else they will not be acceptable to peasants.He said that desertification is an economic problem and there isa need to involve the people, including women, in combattingdesertification. He concluded by pointing out thatdesertification should be seen as something to bring the Northand South together.

BENIN: Amb. Ren‚ Val‚ry Mongbe covered four areas:the state of desertification in Benin, its manifestation andconsequences, commitments and experiences gained, and newelements of the strategy aimed at promoting sustainabledevelopment and attenuation of drought. He listed the physical,human and economic factors that contribute to the process ofdesertification. He stated that the agricultural productionsystem contributes to desertification and he listed some of theoutcomes of these processes as: deforestation; rural-urbanmigrations and exodus to more fertile lands; and a drop in animaland food production, among others. He also said that factoriesslowed down productivity due to lack of raw materials and thatmass inputs of consumer goods and food stuffs have meant a lot inexpenditure of the country's foreign currency leading toincreased balance of payments deficits and deterioratingstandards of living.

ALGERIA:

Tewfik Abada, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,gave a summary of the Algerian national report on combattingdrought and desertification. He stated that land degradation isdue to irregularity of rainfall, lack of soils, and the breadthof the temperature range. Other causes include: overgrazing,growing population pressures, loss of tree cover, andsalinization. He described the Green Dam programme that includesprotection of existing vegetation, reforestation, development ofpastoral and agricultural lands, dune fixation, and developmentof underground water. He stated that any plan of action shouldinvolve the following phases: take local resources into stock;evaluate ecosystems and periods of drought through observationstations; upgrade national, scientific and human resources; andincrease the research potential.

YEMEN:

Mahmoud Shidiwah, Director of the DesertificationControl Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, outlined thetypes and forms of desertification and strategies used at variouslevels. He then covered the objectives and national strategiesused to combat desertification. He stated that withdesertification comes poverty, hunger, migration, illiteracy, andthe inability of people to meet their basic needs. He said thatcombatting desertification was seventh on list of their country'spriorities in the development programme.

Asma Mubarak, Counselor of Foreign Affairs from Yemen, outlinedthe government's 20-year policy to combat desertification, whichstarted in 1991. She said that combating desertification meansincreasing plant and animal produce and ensuring long-term ruraldevelopment. She stressed the need to take into account allsocial, economic and technical issues in programme planning.

SAUDI ARABIA:

The delegate from Saudi Arabia summarizedefforts to combat desertification in his country, including:providing data on flora and fauna; enacting legislation onpastoral lands; protecting forest regions; planting seedlings;facilitating water distribution; implementing dune stabilizationprojects; replanting pastoral lands; and creating national parks.

IRAQ:

Dr. Fadhal Ali Al-Faraji, of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Irrigation, mentioned that his country issuffering from an increase in sandstorms, dune formation andsalinization and that the government does not have sufficientequipment and facilities to address desertification. He mentionedthat a considerable number of projects have been implemented tostabilize dunes and that 5 million salt-resistant shrubs havebeen planted.

INDIA:

Narain Singh, Inspector-General of Forests,outlined his country's efforts to combat desertification in threeregions: Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. He outlined India'sstrategy that involves the regular monitoring of state forests,vegetation cover, water bodies, agriculture and other forms ofland use. India has developed cheap technology for combattingdesertification. The successful initiative covers:desertification, drought and irrigation.

IRAN:

Mohammad Reza Djabbari stated that in spite ofclimatological changes, a number of human activities lead todesertification: population growth; the need for moreagricultural production; overuse of wood and plants as fuel; andirregular use of water resources. Government policies to combatdesertification include: using the media to increase publicawareness; accelerating economic development to reduce pressureson land; land restoration and rehabilitation; industrialdevelopment; and increasing public participation indecision-making. Iran has also adopted a national plan of actionto reclaim and restore degraded land.

CHINA:

Prof. Zhu Zhenda, Director of the National Projectof Fragile Ecosystems and Rehabilitation, stated that there aretwo types of land degradation in China: wind erosion and watererosion. Since the 1977 UN Conference on Desertification, Chinahas: conducted extensive research on desertification; convenedthree national conferences, established an institute to study thesubject, and implemented numerous programmes to combatdesertification in conjunction with local populations. As aresult, about 12% of the desertified land has not expanded and10% has been reclaimed.

MONGOLIA:

Dr. Tsohiogyn Adyasuren, Director GeneralEnvironment Science, Monitoring and International Cooperation inthe Ministry for Nature and Environment, stated that 75% ofMongolia's land is covered with the Gobi Desert. Overgrazing isone of the primary causes of desertification since shrubs areused for fodder by livestock during the dry season. Precipitationis less than 100mm per year and appears to be decreasing indesert areas. The government is working with UNEP to draw up anational action plan to combat desertification. However, headded, implementation will be difficult due to economic problems.

TURKMENISTAN:

Prof N. Kharin, Deputy Director of theDesert Institute, described the geography of the land-lockedregion of Central Asia. The new states in the region haveinherited an ecological disaster from the former Soviet Union.During the span of one generation, 80% of the Aral Sea basin hasbecome subject to desertification and the area of the sea itselfhas been reduced in half. Among the programmes underway inTurkmenistan are: supplying the population with water, electricalpower and gas to substitute for fuelwood; requiring each ofTurkmenistan's 4 million people to plant two saplings per year;and satellite monitoring and analysis of desertification trends.

CHILE: Samuel Franke Campaa, Corporacin NacionalForestal, described the geography, topography and climate ofChile, where 50% of the country is prone to desertification.Desertification is caused by over-grazing, mining, farming,logging, forest fires and severe water erosion. Recently Chilesigned an agreement with UNEP to formulate a nationalanti-desertification plan. It is important to find coordinationmechanisms embracing the public and private sectors, including:laws that are not over-stringent or over-indulgent; environmentaleducation; and coordination among various institutions.

BRAZIL:

Paulo Roberto Fran‡a, Division of Environment,Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the problem ofdesertification in the northeast 11% of Brazilian territory,where rainfall distribution patterns are irregular and the landhas a low capacity for retaining water. Drought in the region hasreduced food production, disrupted the rural life and economy,increased child mortality, malnutrition and chronic disease. Headded that Brazil is devising an integrated programme to combatthis problem but it is essential that drought and environmentaldegradation issues are incorporated into development policies.

Valdemar Rodrigues, Secretario Municipal de Medio Ambiente deTeresina, Piau, made a presentation on the degradation ofmarginal lands in a semi-arid region in northeastern Brazil. Hereferred to a study carried out in 1991 that drew up a plan ofaction to alleviate the effects of drought. The causes ofdegradation were identified as: short-run regional developmentmodels based on a international economic environment; the misuseof natural resources; concentrated land tenure; and highpopulation density.

MEXICO:

Dr. Manuel Anaya Garduo, Director ofInvestigation and representative of the Department of SocialDevelopment of Mexico, spoke first of Mexico's internationalinvolvement in desertification control and the specific problemsfaced in that country. He cited Mexico's efforts in developing aLatin American handbook on soil conservation, based on Maya andAztec technologies. He spoke of a drought-resistant Russian plantused successfully for cattle feed. He stressed themulti-disciplinary approach for research designs and communityinvolvement.

ISRAEL:

Prof. Uriel Safriel of the Institute for DesertResearch of Ben-Gurion University and the Hebrew University ofJerusalem presented Israel's experiences in preventingdesertification and the conversion of semi-desert lands toMediterranean landscape in areas that have 100-200 mm of rain. Heinvited all governments, including Israel's neighbors, to visittheir research facilities.

EXPERIENCES OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

AUSTRALIA: Dr. Geoff Miller, Associate Secretaryfor Agriculture, explained that the Convention required long-termsolutions to improve production and reduce dependence. Heexplained Australia's efforts and experiences in combattingdesertification, pointing out that the partnership between thegovernment and the people is important. He then explained indetail how Australia's Land Care programme and the merging of allnatural resource-based agencies have revolutionized themanagement of arid and semi-arid lands, but at high cost. Heconcluded that the programmes initiated must be based on thecommunity's aspirations and that expert advice must be availablebut should not control people.

SPAIN: Dr. Jos‚ L. Rubio, Chief, DesertificationResearch Unit (IATA-CSIC) in Valencia, gave a brief descriptionof desertification in Spain. Water erosion is a major cause ofdesertification and reforestation is the major means of control.He explained that 43.8% of Spanish territory is affected byerosion and irregular levels of precipitation are insufficientfor rapid recovery of vegetation, once it has been eroded. One ofthe major causes of environmental degradation in Spain is forestfires. Other causes include logging, over-grazing and agriculturein marginal areas. Reforestation has been extensively carried outto combat desertification and more than 2.5 million hectares havebeen reforested since 1940. Over the last few years there was asizable drop in reforestation, due to lack of cooperation byprivate landowners due to a lack of incentives, criticism by theenvironmental movement on the use of pine species, and theabsence of legal instruments that provide incentives. The newnational plan is attempting to remedy these problems.

SOME POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF A NEW STRATEGY TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN COUNTRIES EXPERIENCING DROUGHT AND DESERTIFICATION

Dr. Gary Howe, Project Controller, Africa Divisionof IFAD, spoke about the need to involve resource conservationinto the regular practices of poor farmers. Conservationactivities do not take place unless they offer tangible benefitsto farmers. While production must be based on the individual, thecommunal framework is important. The issue is not to encouragecommunal production, but to support the communal framework, asmost of the land subject to desertification is some form ofcommon property. The problem of desertification does notoriginate from the intrinsic weakness of common property regimes,but the fact that they have been weakened from the outside. Headded that there is a need to include all groups who useresources, including women, the poor and marginalized ethnicgroups. He concluded by listing several strategies forconservation: 1) anti-desertification activities must not be seenas isolated actions, but part of the agricultural effort as awhole; 2) activities must be principally engaged in helpingfarmers to identify their own problems and find solutions; 3)communities cannot manage lands if they do not have clear landrights; and 4) macro-economic policies must change.

IFAD:

UNEP:

Franklin G. Cardy, Director of theDesertification Control PAC at UNEP, spoke on new directions insystematic information collection and analysis fordesertification control. He began with his conclusions,including: listen to the clients to determine what information isneeded and for what purposes; given the various types ofinformation available, concentrate on what is required toincrease efficiency; develop indicators that recognize linksbetween human condition and the environment; develop standardizedassessment mixing ground and remote methods; as proposed in 1977,use indigenous knowledge in planning; collect and disseminatesuccesses and their replicability; pay attention to communitylevel information, analysis and feed-back; ensure that provisionis made for response to early warnings; strengthen researchinstitutes and information center networks; set time specificgoals; and get the information to beneficiaries in ways it can beused.

KENYA:

J.K. Njihia of the Drought Monitoring Centre,Kenya, made a presentation on monitoring activities on drought inNairobi and Harare carried out by centres that were establishedin 1989. He said the centres serve drought-stricken countries inthe region. The centres provide information needed onagricultural production, weather outlooks, meteorologicalconditions, drought severity, conditions and impact of theclimate, thus providing the necessary tools for early warning. Hesaid bulletins on the centres were available and that visitscould be arranged.

WRI:

Peter Veit spoke about the need for sociallyappropriate dryland management technologies. He commented thatmany effective technologies and techniques already exist and arebeing practiced by farmers in sub-Saharan Africa's drylands.Several matters regarding small-scale technologies and local-level natural resource management have implications for drylandmanagement in sub-Saharan Africa, including: local resourcemanagement (security in land and resources, socio-economicopportunities and incentives, and an enabling politicalenvironment); technologies with multiple objectives; technologiesas packages of knowledge, skills, resources and practices; andindigenous technologies and local knowledge. To be practical,technologies also must have valued returns, known effectiveness,cultural acceptance, and the capability to use local labor andmanagement resources. Government actions that might facilitatesmall-scale technology

interventions for improving dryland management include: improveexisting technologies; strengthen village institutions;strengthen informal information exchanges; and channel resourcesto the grassroots.

UNSO

: Tijan Jallow, a technical advisor with UNSO,discussed capacity building for sustainable natural resourcesmanagement. He said that capacity-building involves improvementin: human resource development; laws and regulations; andphysical assets and procedures that govern the operations of theinstitutions. He listed the hindrances to capacity-building as:failure in the delivery system in implementation and monitoring;weak management and coordination in the recipient countries andsupport from the donors; the lack of a "market" for technicalassessment, which is supply rather than demand driven; and a poor"enabling" environment. He said the most notable issue in sub-saharan Africa is the erosion of capacity. He said the Conventionshould first identify the constraints in development efforts inthe past, including: community involvement; rights to localresources; and sectoral, large scale, capital intensive andimported approaches. He also said success depended ondecentralization and empowerment, provision of secure rights toresources, flexibility in project implementation and communityinvolvement in institution building. Some questions that needanswers are: whether local communities can take over these newresponsibilities; to what extent the state could allowempowerment to grow; what external support was needed; the legaland administrative measures required; and how long the commoninterest at the community level stratification would continue. Heemphasized that capacity building should be recipient, not donor,driven.

IFAD:

Gary Howe spoke about alternative livelihoodsystems. He said that although IFAD could not offer analternative, the issue was important because it appears unlikelythat with the present technology and incentives, a stablerelationship between the environment and the demands placed on itby the people can be achieved. He explained that sincedesertification is anthropogenic and the alternative is toprovide people with alternative non-agricultural incomegenerating activities outside of the most vulnerable areas. Hementioned three environmentally friendly ways of livelihooddiversification identified by UNSO: non-extractive activitiesusing natural resources; agro-processing aimed at increasing theeconomic value at the local level; and small-scale industry usinglocal inputs. He stressed that success in local diversificationwill depend on: better linkages to national and regional marketscoupled by significant improvements in transport andcommunications and buoyancy in the markets. He stated thatprivileged incentives such as access to foreign currency at lowrates, subsidized credit, and positions in public procurementoffered to large businesses through macro-economic policies isharmful to micro-enterprises located in marginal areas. He saidthese distortions have to be eliminated for the micro-economicenterprises to succeed. He concluded that the solution lies ingiving the local people alternatives to agriculture.

ENDA:

Masse Lo spoke about alternative energy sources forarid areas. Diversities of economies and cultures have an impacton the level of ability to meet energy needs. Withoutunderstanding these linkages it is impossible to understand theenergy crisis in developing countries. Since populations in aridareas depend on biomass, primarily fuelwood, consequences includeenvironmental degradation, deforestation, and desertification. Heexplained the need to promote new solutions on energy policy thatcall for solar and/or wind energy and the rational use offuelwood. Any alternative energy techniques must be adapted tomeet local needs and demands. Photovoltaic sources are not onlyless costly but they correspond to the needs of people in ruralareas and arid zones. He also spoke about the sound managementand combustion of fuelwood in arid zones. He discussed some ofthe problems with new fuel efficient stoves, including thereluctance of some local populations to use the new stoves, andpoor distribution networks. He concluded that to combatdesertification there is a need to rethink all energy policies.

ELABORATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION

INCD Chair Bo Kjell‚n opened the second week of the session bywelcoming delegates to the new phase of the process: discussionon the structure and elements to be contained in the Convention.Kjell‚n noted that the task is to turn the "dreams" of Rio intohuman-centered reality. He made five major points: 1) thisprocess does not begin from "scratch" and should build on pastefforts, research and negotiations; 2) there is a link betweenthe global aspects of desertification and the particular problemsfacing Africa; 3) Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 contains a negotiatedset of elements that should be used in a constructive way; 4) thehorizontal linkages to other chapters of Agenda 21 should receiveattention; and 5) there is a need for local participation and tolisten to people in the villages. He said that this negotiationis the first chance after UNCED to reflect the centrality ofpopular participation.

During the course of the discussion, most delegationsexpressed their strong commitment to the negotiations andsupported the format as set out in the Secretariat'sdocument (A/AC.241/7, "Format and possible elements of theconvention"). Although the statements made were only initialcomments on the Convention, and governments are expected toforward more concrete proposals to the Secretariat by 1 July1993, consensus and disagreement on a number of fundamentalissues emerged.

I. Format of the Convention: The format of theConvention generated a lot of comments. Benin said that theConvention could follow the general format of other internationalagreements, including Lom‚ IV and the Climate Change andBiodiversity Conventions. Benin also said that the frameworkshould emphasize the universality of the problem while givingspecial consideration to the African situation. Switzerland saidthat this should be a short framework convention containinggeneral global principles. He added that the Convention should besupplemented with a series of regional instruments, since actionsmust be adjusted to regional needs and it is inappropriate torequire all countries to make the same commitments.

There was a difference of opinion on the question of regionalannexes or protocols. Some countries, such as Poland, Chile,Benin, Senegal and Finland, said that the Convention shouldcontain annexes on regional and national programmes that arenegotiated alongside the main Convention. Canada said that theINCD should seek to develop a framework convention withprovisions that apply to most countries. Norway and Canada saidthat region-specific provisions should be placed in annexes to benegotiated as part of the process. The US also said that work onthe framework convention and annexes should proceed at the samepace and in coordination with each other. Mexico said that thereis no time for a gradual region-by-region approach and thattopics, themes or sectors should be contained in annexes.Malaysia did not think the INCD should initiate parallelnegotiations on protocols, as these should be left to theConference of Parties.

II. Introductory Elements: Many delegates agreed that Chapter12 of Agenda 21 should serve as the point of departure for theConvention. Cuba mentioned the need to incorporate some of theother Agenda 21 chapters into the Convention, specifically thechapters on agriculture and freshwater resources.

There was a great deal of support for the need toincorporate the views of local people into the Convention. The ECstated that since desertification is mainly anthropogenic,solutions and prevention strategies must focus on the locallevel. Sweden and Brazil also stressed the need for concreteaction at the local level. UNSO stated that there was a need fora new direction in the implementation of operational programmes,away from addressing the physical aspects and toward alivelihood-centered approach.

Many countries, including Denmark and Belgium, mentioned that theConvention should use a bottom-up approach. Italy, Tanzania,Australia, Canada, and Finland emphasized the roles of localcommunities and NGOs. Bolivia and Australia specificallymentioned the role that NGOs can play in the negotiations.

Chad, Ghana and Jordan cited the importance of local communitiesand local knowledge. The Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Australia,Sweden and Madagascar all stressed the role of women incombatting drought and desertification. Australia and Boliviamentioned the role of indigenous technologies and practices.Lesotho, Kenya and Burkina Faso stressed the importance ofpopular participation at all levels and that the best way toempower people is through decentralization. The NGOs emphasizedthe need for community-led programmes, particularly targetingwomen, supported by multi-level programmes, and appropriatetechnology developed from indigenous knowledge systems andscience.

1. Preamble: While Benin proposed that the preambleshould cover the concerns of all regions, Chile said that theConvention should draw a framework that is universal but with apreamble that emphasizes Africa. Austria preferred a shortpreamble that reflects the global view on sustainable developmentand covers poverty issues. Jordan said that the preamble shouldcover immigration as a cause of desertification. Botswana saidthe preamble should emphasize land degradation and the propermanagement, utilization and conservation of resources andwildlife. Iran mentioned the importance of recognizing thesovereign rights of states to exploit their own resources.

2. Definitions: While most delegates agreed thatthe definition of desertification used in Chapter 12 of Agenda 21should be the point of departure, there was a multitude ofopinions about whether or not this definition should be expanded.Canada, Mali, Ghana and Tunisia all advocated starting with thedefinition in Agenda 21. Gambia stated that the definition ofdesertification in Agenda 21 is not sacrosanct and could berevisited. Benin and Sudan said that the definition in Agenda 21should be expanded to include the economic and social causes ofdesertification. France said the definition provided for inAgenda 21 should suffice, but that social and economic aspectsshould take precedence over climatic issues. The Netherlands saidthat the definition needs to include population growth andmigration and Poland stated that the definition should bereviewed to include land degradation. Malaysia and Brazil warnedthat the definitions used in the Convention should not includeforests, unless they are located in drylands. Finally, Egypt saidthat the INCD should not spend its time defining desertification,rather it should define how to combat desertification.

3. Objectives:

Switzerland, Germany and the UK said thatthe Convention should include verifiable objectives and theability to make firm, lasting commitments. Canada stressed thatrather than embark on major schemes to reclaim desert areas, theConvention should aim to stop the conversion of productive landinto desert. Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic agreedthat the Convention should take into account needs for bothprevention and mitigation. The UK also urged that the focus be onthe causes of desertification at the local level, rather than theeffects. Other objectives that were mentioned include: the needto strengthen regional cooperation (Kenya); increased South-Southcooperation (Austria and Cuba); and global objectives givingAfrica priority treatment (Spain);

III. National and Sub-Regional Action Programmes:

The ideaof national action programmes received support from manydelegates. Germany said that procedures for the elaboration ofnational and regional action programmes should be the centerpieceof the Convention. Japan, Algeria, Benin and Iran mentioned theneed to assist parties to submit nationalaction plans at the Conference of Parties.Botswana said that the preparation of National Action Plansshould be articulated in the Convention, and Poland advocated aflexible approach to both regional and national action plans.

Some countries made comments about the case studiesthat the Secretariat has commissioned to assist in thedevelopment of national and sub-regional action programmes. TheEC expressed doubts that the case studies will provide a usefulbasis for programme models. The UK said that the hastypreparation of the case studies seems to be inconsistent with theprinciples of bottom-up community-led initiatives. Cameroon andMorocco, however, supported the case studies and expressedconfidence that they will lead to the elaboration of strategies.

IV. Global Commitments:

Many delegates addressed the issueof global commitments. Algeria said there should be both globaland country-specific commitments, as well as increasedmultilateral cooperation through the UN or the informal communityof NGOs. While Sweden said that global commitments should be thesame for all participants, the UK wanted a distinction madebetween the commitments of affected and unaffected countries.Portugal said that global commitments must be carefully definedand Denmark, on behalf of the EC, said that parties should onlymake commitments that can be effectively implemented and easilymonitored. Gambia said that the commitments in the Conventionshould be in the form of information, financial and humanresource exchanges between countries. Mali listed four kinds ofglobal commitments that should be contained in the Convention:scientific, including strengthening national capacities andcreating international centres; technical; economic, includingreducing the debt burden and trade imbalances; and financial,including improving existing mechanisms.

1. Research, monitoring and data collection:

There wasconsensus on the need for improved monitoring and data collectionon drought and desertification. Italy, Austria, Finland, Polandand IGADD stated that an essential objective of the Conventionshould be to coordinate information and data collection andexchange and related programmes. Japan, Morocco, the WMO and UNSOcalled for support for the effective international monitoring andassessment of data. The WMO also called for better use ofhydrological and meteorological data on water resources as wellas the establishment of mechanisms for monitoring, assessment,information dissemination, research and technology development.Egypt, supported by Israel, called for a monitoring network basedon ecological zoning. Peru also called for ecological monitoring.The UK warned that data collection should not become an end untoitself. Argentina called for more funding for applied researchand studies of farming practices. Iraq proposed the introductionof regional advisory centres that would carry out studies relatedto desertification. Algeria, Uzbekistan and Cameroon called forthe establishment of an early warning system.

2. Technology transfer and cooperation:Delegates agreed on the importance of the transfer oftechnology in combatting desertification and drought. Israel,Chad and Cameroon specifically mentioned that technology must beadapted before it can be transferred. Norway suggested utilizingappropriate technologies from developing countries.

3. Capacity building, education and awareness:There was strong support for the need for action and commitmentsat the local level, including capacity building, education,training and public awareness. The WMO called for mobilization ofpublic opinion among women and youth, including training andeducation at all levels on the use of natural resources in thesemarginal areas. UNSO and Japan supported mobilizing theinitiatives and participation of local communities. Peru, Chileand Morocco stressed the importance of awareness and popularparticipation. Australia and the US mentioned the need forimproved capacity building at the local level and Burkina Fasoand Iran stated that training was essential. Algeria proposededucation programmes and a center for training to beheadquartered in Africa.

4. Relationship with other conventions:

A number ofgovernments and organizations, including Australia, Switzerland,Brazil, Botswana, Spain, Portugal and the WMO, mentioned theimportance of ensuring complementarity and coordination betweenthis convention and others, especially the Climate Change and theBiodiversity Conventions. Norway, Germany and the UK mentionedspecifically that the INCD should not duplicate work of otherconventions and UN bodies. Finland stated that the INCD shouldborrow from existing conventions, but only to a limited extent.

Malaysia added that caution should be taken when discussinglinkages with other conventions and Saudi Arabia said that theConvention should be independent.

5. Financial resources and mechanisms: While mostdelegations supported the need for adequate financialarrangements to assist in the combatting of drought anddesertification, there was some difference of opinion on the needfor new and additional resources, as well as funding mechanisms.Germany, Canada, the UK and Spain stated that existing sourcesshould remain the main sources of funding for desertification anddrought. Spain specifically warned against the proliferation offunding mechanisms. Algeria, Brazil, China, Kenya, Tanzania,Tunisia, Iran, Cameroon and Lesotho called for new and additionalfinancial resources. Egypt, Japan, the US and Norway advocatedmore efficient use of available resources.

Nigeria stated that initial Convention funding should be donethrough the GEF and noted that Agenda 21 states that the GEF isavailable as a funding mechanism for conventions. Switzerlandfavored an expansion of financing for desertification controlactivities from the restructured GEF. Canada, however, statedthat while the GEF has funded some projects, there are inherentrestrictions in what the GEF can do in this area. Sweden saidthat it was unlikely that there would be any new window forprojects against desertification within the GEF. In addition toexisting funding, there is a need to find additional sources fromIDA, the World Bank and the regional development banks.

Other comments:

A number of other issues were commented onduring the course of the debate. Uzbekistan mentioned theimportance of addressing transboundary use of water resources inthe Convention and IGADD stressed the importance of waterresources development. Argentina, Burkina Faso and the WMOmentioned that the promotion of alternative energies is importantin combatting desertification. WMO, UNSO and IGADD said that theconvention should provide mechanisms to strengthen capacities todeal with drought. Austria mentioned the issue of environmentalrefugees and Peru mentioned problems caused by out-migration.Italy and Austria mentioned the importance of the section ondispute settlement mechanisms.

Conclusions:

At the conclusion of its session, the INCDadopted "Outline of conclusions on agenda item 4" (A/AC.241/L.9).This proposal by the Chair notes document A/AC.241/7, whichcontained the Secretariat's proposals for the format and possibleelements of the Convention, and the comments that were madeduring the discussion. This should give general guidance to theChair and the Secretariat in preparing for the next session. Theproposal also urges governments to make written submissions onthe contents of the Convention, including detailed draftingproposals, by 1 July 1993 so that the Secretariat can distributea compilation by 15 August 1993.

REVIEW OF EXTRABUDGETARY FUNDS

Arba Diallo, the Executive Secretary of the INCD, introduced thetwo documents that address extrabudgetary funds, A/AC.241/8 andAdd.1. US$1.3 million has been pledged to the special voluntaryfund for participation of developing countries and US$450,000 hasbeen received. US$1.5 million has been pledged to the trust fundfor the negotiating process and US$600,000 has been received.Diallo mentioned that the participation of developing countriesat this session was made possible by Denmark, Norway and the US.UNEP and UNDP have taken decisions to support the Secretariattrust fund, and the Netherlands will contribute one millionguilders (US$560,000). He also mentioned a number of decisionstaken by governments and international organizations to supportpreparations in some countries. Germany is providing DM1 millionto support the case studies in the countries of theSudano-Sahelian region and Tunisia. Canada, Switzerland and theWMO are discussing the secondment of experts to the Secretariat.UNSO has committed up to US$200,000 for the case studies and FAOis providing the part-time services of an environmental lawyer.

Norway commented on the amount of funds it distributes throughODA (1% of GNP) and said she was disappointed on the level ofactual dispersement of funds pledged and does not want theSecretariat to spend all its time fundraising. Australia pledged$A50,000 to the trust fund. Switzerland said that they wereorganizing a seminar on negotiating techniques to be held inGeneva just prior to the September session. Canada and Swedenboth said that their funds had been transferred and should havebeen received. UNEP said its contribution is for US$300,000, notthe US$250,000 listed. Norway requested an updated version of thedocument to bring back to capitals. Mauritania thanked allcountries contributing, but expressed concern about lack ofcoordination between aid to specific countries and aid to theSecretariat. Both Diallo and Kjell‚n appealed to delegations tomake contributions and fulfill pledges already made to bothfunds.

MANDATE OF THE WORKING GROUPS

While delegates were sharing their countries' experiences withdrought and desertification and exchanging views on the formatand possible elements of the Convention, informal consultationswere taking place behind closed doors on a proposal submitted bythe Chair on the mandates of the working groups. Two issues werediscussed informally: the first was the actual responsibilitiesof the working groups and the second was the issue of priorityaction for Africa.

One item discussed was the responsibility of the working groupswith regard to financial resources. The G-77 proposed thatWorking Group I, under the Chair of Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria, beresponsible for the issue of financial resources "includingadditional financial resources as well as financial mechanisms."The developed countries were unable to accept the terminology"additional financial resources," however, they did not object to"financial arrangements" being taken up by Working Group I. Thus,the governments were able to agree to the following mandates forthe working groups: 1) Working Group I is responsible for thepreamble, principles, objectives and commitments, includingfinancial arrangements and capacity building; 2) Working Group IIis responsible for institutional, administrative, technologicaland scientific provisions; research, data collection and exchangeof information; procedural arrangements; and other legalprovisions.

The most divisive issue during the entire session was the timingof the negotiation of related regional instruments, whileensuring priority action for Africa. General Assembly resolution47/188 includes, within the official name of the NegotiatingCommittee, the expression "particularly in Africa", indicatingthat priority action should be taken for this region. Kjell‚noriginally proposed that an instrument on Africa, such as anannex, which would form an integral part of the Convention, benegotiated once the main structure of the Convention has beendefined. He also proposed that similar instruments for otherregions be negotiated subsequently.

This proposal, "Mandates for the Working Groups", circulated asdocument A/AC.241/L.6, was discussed at length by the regionalgroups and in informal consultations held by Kjell‚n. It met withresistance from a few countries in regions other than Africa thatbelieved that their own problems with desertification deservedattention. Delegates from these regions felt that similarinstruments for their regions should be negotiated simultaneouslywith the instrument for Africa. After hours of consultations,Kjell‚n proposed a compromise that read, "Similar instruments forother regions will be negotiated without delay, according tomodalities to be decided by the Committee at its second session."It was this text that formed the basis for the formal discussionin Plenary that took place on Thursday, 3 June.

The Asian Group, supported by the Latin American Group, proposedamending this text by adding the following phrase after the word"delay": "within the timeframe of the negotiating process."However, in the debate, India then proposed changing thisamendment to read "within the timeframe of the INCD." Kjell‚n,Japan, the African Group, Australia, Norway and others preferredthe original formulation, since the INCD does not have a mandatebeyond June 1994 but the negotiating process could continue afterthe convention was adopted in June. Austria mentioned theimpracticality of negotiating the convention and additionalregional instruments between now and June 1994. The RussianFederation proposed that discussion on this matter come to an endand the report reflect that the Committee was unable to reachconsensus and that this matter would be discussed at the secondsession. After a further exchange of views, Kjell‚n adjourned themeeting hours to allow informal discussion that might break thedeadlock.

When the meeting reconvened two hours later, Kjell‚n proposed thefollowing text: "...In order to enable the INCD to negotiatesimilar instruments for other regions promptly, the Secretariatshould prepare required background material for such negotiationsto be initiated without delay and according to modalities to beagreed at the third session. The General Assembly would beinvited at its 48th session to consider extending the negotiatingprocess to enable additional regional instruments to be adopted.The Convention and the regional instrument on Africa to beadopted by June 1994 and the other regional instruments whichshall have the same legal status as the regional instrument forAfrica shall enter into force according to modalities to bespecified in the Convention."

Brazil and Mexico, later supported by Peru and Pakistan,immediately announced that they could not accept this text.Numerous delegations, including Benin, Australia, Austria,France, Kenya, C“te d'Ivoire, Mauritania, the EC and others,stated that although they did not want to rewrite the mandategiven in Rio and by the General Assembly, they would be willingto accept this text in the spirit of compromise to allow theprocess to move forward. Despite widespread support for theChair's proposal, consensus was impossible. Kjell‚n proposedinstead that the four delegations in opposition to this proposalallow it to be adopted by consensus and then make whateverstatements are necessary. Once again, Brazil and Mexico refused.Kjell‚n then took a decision as Chair to note that consensuscould not be achieved but that the report would include both thislatest proposal as well as the text contained in documentL.10/rev.1. These two proposals would be annexed to the report asguidance to the Chair and the Secretariat in preparing for thenext session. A decision will then be taken on the mandates ofthe working groups at the outset of the September session inGeneva.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST SESSION

The first session of the INCD served to provide the context andset the tone for the series of negotiating sessions to follow.During this two-week meeting progress was made in the definitionof issues as well as in the sharing of ideas on the format andelements of the future Convention.

The first week of the session focussed on the definition ofissues. This phase of the multilateral negotiating process oftenserves to identify the scope and magnitude of the problem, itsprimary causes, and the type of international action required toaddress the issue. It also provides the negotiators with a sharedbody of knowledge. In previous multilateral environmentalnegotiations, the definition of issues has taken place within theframework of another conference, within a committee of a UNagency or organization, or within a special working group.However, this was the first time that a special informationsharing session was held as part of the work of anIntergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

Most of the participants stated that they thought that theinformation sharing segment was a success. By the end of theweek, it was clear from the presentations, the overheadprojections and the color slides, that desertification anddrought are problems faced all over the world, in both developedand developing countries. Other issues that emerged during thediscussion were the need for: local participation in combattingdrought and desertification; economic incentives; the fullintegration of women; technology exchange; attention to thetransboundary aspects of desertification; importance ofinformation collection and exchange and strengthening researchprogrammes.

The next phase of the negotiation process began during the secondweek of the session. This phase of the multilateral negotiationprocess is when the exchange of information and the negotiationover the detailed terms of an agreement takes place. During thisphase the participants usually explore various alternativepackages, and may reach some tentative, conditionalunderstandings. In some cases, these conditional understandingstake the form of a final draft treaty, with only a few articlesor passages still under negotiation. In other cases, much workmay still need to be done in the final bargaining or detailstage. In the case of the INCD negotiations, this phase willprobably continue through the January or March 1994 sessions.During the discussion on the structure and possible elements ofthe convention, delegates began to exchange ideas about theconvention, its objectives and its contents. It appeared asthough there were a number of areas in which consensus mayalready be reached, including the need for a bottom-up approachthat reinforces local participation and action, NGO activities,the full participation of women, and the significance ofindigenous technologies and practices. The idea of national andsub-regional action programmes also received overwhelmingsupport. Delegates also supported the need for commitments toimproved research and development, data collection and analysis,exchange of information, capacity building and transfer andadaptation of technology.

There appeared to be consensus on using Chapter 12 of Agenda 21,and its definition of desertification, as a point of departure.The definition reads: "Desertification is land degradation inarid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from variousfactors, including climatic variations and human activities."There was, however, a difference of opinion on whether thisdefinition should be enhanced to include a variety of socio-economic problems that can be considered causes ofdesertification. Most countries agreed that socio-economicproblems, including debt, trade, poverty, population, andcommodity pricing, are related to desertification. However, manydeveloped countries stated that issues being addressed in otherfora, such as trade and debt, should not be discussed here. Mostdelegates said that the Convention should include verifiableobjectives and concrete commitments. However, there was adifference of opinion as to whether these commitments should beglobal or country-specific.

Most delegates believed that there should be linkages to, but noduplication of, other conventions. Delegates stressed the need toensure complementarity and coordination between conventions. Somedelegates, such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, expressed cautionand urged that this Convention should not address issues coveredin existing conventions. There was also some concern aboutlinking this convention with others that have not been ratifiedor accepted by all countries.

The issue of financial resources and mechanisms also generated adifference of opinion. While some delegates expressed the needfor new and additional financial resources and mechanisms forcombatting desertification, others said that existing funds, ifbetter managed and coordinated, should prove sufficient.Countries expressed skepticism about the use of the GEF as thefunding mechanisms, although some supported the idea of aseparate "window" for desertification within the GEF as oneelement of an overall financing package. Some delegates said thatin addition to existing funding, there is a need to findadditional sources from IDA, the World Bank and regionaldevelopment banks. There was also concern expressed about theproliferation of funding mechanisms.

Finally, perhaps the most divisive issue revolved around thetiming of the negotiation of regional instruments and how toreflect priority action for Africa. The original mandate given byUNCED and General Assembly resolution 47/188 stated that theConvention should give priority action to Africa. Afterconsulting with governments over the past few months, Kjell‚nproposed that the priority treatment for Africa take the form ofan annex or a protocol that would be an integral part of theConvention. He emphasized that this was to be a global conventionand that most of the elements within it would apply to allregions of the world that are experiencing serious drought and/ordesertification. He also proposed that the instrument for Africashould be negotiated once the main structure of the Conventionwas defined and that this would be the first of a series ofregional instruments to be negotiated.

During the INCD meeting, however, it soon became apparent thatnot all countries approved of this methodology. Certain LatinAmerican and Asian governments supported the need for prioritytreatment for Africa, but believed that similar instruments forother regions should be negotiated simultaneously. This did notmeet with the approval of many developed countries who expressedconcern about the logistics and costs of negotiating a conventionand five regional annexes within one year, as the negotiatingmandate for the INCD expires in June 1994. The Africans alsoexpressed concern that the Latin American proposal went beyondthe INCD's mandate. The debate that followed was a difficult oneand, despite countless attempts at drafting compromise text,consensus proved to be elusive. The final attempt, whichrequested the General Assembly to consider extending thenegotiating process to enable additional regional instruments tobe adopted, was still not acceptable to Brazil and Mexico. As aresult, the first session of the INCD ended on a discordant note,exactly one year after the Earth Summit in Rio. Whatever wasembodied in the "Spirit of Rio" -- compromise, consensus and thedesire to avoid failure -- was lost in Nairobi.

Whether the divisiveness experienced at this session willcontinue in Geneva remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it is clearthat extensive consultations between regional groups within theG-77 as well as between the Chair and several delegations mustoccur during the intersessional period. Some form of a compromisemust be reached on the negotiation of regional annexes during thefirst few days of the second session of the INCD to enable theCommittee to move beyond procedural issues and create theinnovative solutions needed to effectively combat desertificationmitigate drought.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

The INCD Secretariat will be busy during the Genevasummer as new members arrive from several governments and UNagencies, necessary installations are made on their new offices(like telephones and office furniture), and long-awaited fundstrickle in from pledges made during the January and May sessions.The Secretariat will be producing two or three documents for thesecond session. The first will be a compilation text based on thegovernment submissions received by the 1 July deadline. Thisdocument will follow the outline of the Convention generallyagreed to in Nairobi and may possibly be divided into twosections, following the mandates for the two working groups. Thisdocument should provide focus for the discussions in September.The second document in preparation will be the report of theinformation sharing segment in Nairobi. There is a possibilitythat the Secretariat will also develop the backgrounddocumentation necessary for the INCD to initiate negotiations onthe regional instruments. This request was part of the Chair'scompromise text that, although not adopted, was attached to thereport of the first session to provide guidance to theSecretariat. In addition, the Secretariat will host, duringAugust, the meeting of the International Panel of Experts onDesertification (IPED) and the Inter-Agency Working Group.

KJELLN: Look for INCD Chair Bo Kjell‚n to be busysmoothing over the diplomat ripples left from the regionalinstruments debate. It is likely that Kjell‚n will have conductedinformal consultations with the governments involved and prepareda text for the Geneva session that provides for the negotiationof other regional instruments.

CASE STUDIES:

Look for the Secretariat to begin plans thatwill faciliate the start of case studies for several countrieslocated in regions other than Africa. These case studies aredesigned to provide the baseline information that can be usedlater in the negotiating process during the formulation of theregional instruments. Following criticism by several EC delegatesof the case studies underway in Africa, look for more carefulmethodology incorporating local participation and traditionaluses and practices in combatting desertification.

THE BAMAKO NGO MEETING:

With assistance from severalgovernments and the INCD Secretariat, an NGO meeting will be held15 through 21 August in Bamako, Mali. The objectives of thismeeting include: elaborating the role of NGOs in the INCDprocess; formulating concrete proposals for possibleincorporation into the Convention; and demonstrating the linkagesbetween desertification and development through examples thathighlight the main actors and the coping strategies of localcommunities. KENGO will coordinate the organization for theevent. Participation is by invitation only and will probably belimited to 100 NGOs, the INCD Bureau, at least six members of theAfrican Group Bureau and several international aid agencies. TheNGO funding proposal makes provision to support the participationof 60 NGOs from all of the regions effected by desertification,including 40 from Africa. Unlike the Paris NGO meeting, heldduring the UNCED process, it is likely that the Bamako gatheringwill directly address the documents under discussion and provideconcrete textual alternatives to the Secretariat's documentationfor the September INCD session.

Return to start of article

Participants

National governments: Algeria; Australia; Benin; Brazil; Chile; China; India; Iran; Iraq; Israel; Kenya; Mexico; Mongolia; Saudi Arabia; Spain; Turkmenistan; UK; US; Yemen
Negotiating blocs: African Group; African Union; Asian Group; Group of 77 and China; Western Europe and Others Group
Non-state coalitions: NGOs