CACILMCACILM

Republic of UzbekistanG.KhasankhanovaUZGIP Institute, MAWR/ CACILM NSEC

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management

OutlineOutline Part 1. CACILM IntroductionWhat did we achieve in CACILM ILessons learnt and way forwardNational priorities and next steps

Part 2. Outline of GEF-6 Salinity Management Project ProposalProject JustificationGEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy Project Framework: FA Objective and OutcomesQuestions

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management

What did we achieve in CACILM I

7 Laws and 8 by-laws developed and adopted with direct contribution of CACILM national projects;

More than 20 000 people trained through CACILM network and knowledge products (on-site training, Atlas of Natural Resources, etc.);

30 best SLM technologies and approaches documented and placed in global knowledge database (WOCAT);

5 National Financial Strategies for resource mobilization for SLM interventions and measures developed for further capitalization;

Benefits and outcomes of the national projects.

Total funds for CACILM Program (2007-2011) - about $155 mln, allocated by the GEF and SPA partners (ADB, GIZ, UNDP, etc.)

What did we achieve in CACILM I

Improved communication, exchange of experience: broad participation and awareness of targets groups (science, responsible institutions, public society and local communities), network of national and regional SLM experts;

Increased interaction of global Rio Conventions; understanding at the national level that the land is the link for climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation(UNCBD NAP, CC Adaptation Strategy);

Launched CACILM program at national and regional levels: - new national projects under GEF-5 STAR programmed to CACILM-2; - ongoing IFAD/ICARDA Knowledge Management project. Launched CACILM program at global level: - GEF/FAO Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling up of SLM.

CACILM I: Lessons learnt and way forward

More political and financial commitments of the CACs More ownership and leadership of CACs in communication with donor and

development agencies Lighter monitoring system More capacitated UNCCD National Focal Points (should be a viable link with

the ministry) Should be based on existing and/or sustainable structure at national and

regional levels Intention of the Central Asian countries to continue cooperation on

DLDD and SLM, and readiness of the GEF Secretariat to support the CACILM program.

Updated CACILM NPFs that included new thematic areas (climate change adaptation, integrated water management, and climate risk management) and

Alignment of NAP with the UNCCD Strategy, which address national priorities.

CACILM: national priorities

KAZ

KYRG

TAJ

TKM

UZB

CACILM II: next steps

• Inform the national GEF focal points of the results of Ashgabat Conference

• Conduct national workshops with stakeholders, the coordinators of the Rio Conventions and decision-makers to discuss the prospects and value add of CACILM

• Identify an implementing agency for GEF • Capitalize experience of CACILM II Component on

Knowledge Management (IFAD/ICARDA)• In accordance with GEF proposal to prepare (the

program, the host country, etc.) and conduct a meeting for the Central Asian countries.

Outline of Salinity Management Project Proposalunder GEF-6

Project JustificationIn the sub-regional meeting ( Moscow, 2013) the Eurasian country-

partners decided the key priorities, including:• to concentrate efforts on soil salinization and salinity management

issues across sectors at wide scales;• to make an effort on mobilization and diversification of funding.

Prospective Country – partners: Central Asian countries and other members of EASP states, with consideration of countries having already reported salinity management as a priority for Technical Assistance from FAO UN (e.g. Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Ukraine).

Source: CACILM Multicountry Secretariat, 2009

CACILM Multicountry Soil Map(SLM-IS Component, CACILM-1, 2009)

GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy GEF Land Degradation Focal Area provides the framework for eligible countries to utilize GEF resources for implementation the UNCCD and its Strategy.

Goal: To contribute to arresting and reversing current global trends in land degradation, specifically desertification and deforestation.Impact: Sustained productivity of agro-ecosystems and forest landscapes in support of human livelihoods.

The GEF-6 investments will be guided by the following four objectives:

LD-1: Maintain or improve flows of agro-ecosystem services to sustain food production and livelihoods;

LD-2: Generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services, particularly in drylands;

LD-3: Reduce pressures on natural resources by managing competing land uses in broader landscapes; and

LD-4: Maximize transformational impact through mainstreaming of SLM for agro-ecosystem services.

GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy

GEF Land Degradation Focal Area embraces the landscape approach to promote integrated natural resource management.

Definitions• The landscape approach defined according to the World Bank, as taking both a

geographical and socio-economic approach to managing the land, water and forest resources that form the foundation – the natural capital – for meeting our goals of food security and inclusive green growth (http://go.worldbank.org/CS4DOTLTA0).

• Integrated natural resource management is conscious process of incorporating the multiple aspects of resource use into system of sustainable management to meet the goals of resources users, managers, and other stakeholders (e.g. production, food security, profitability, risk aversion and sustainable goals) (Sayer J.A. and Campbell.B, 2004. Cambridge University Press).

GEF-6 LAND DEGRADATION RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Focal Area Objectives

Expected FA Outcomes Expected FA Indicator

LD-3 3.1: Support mechanisms for SLM in wider landscapes established

3.1.Demonstration results strengthening cross-sector integration of SLM

LD-3 3.2: Integrated landscape management practices adopted by local communities based on gender sensitive needs .

3.2: Application of integrated natural resource management (INRM) practices in wider landscapes

LD-3 3.3: Increased investments in integrated landscape management

3.3: Increased resources flowing to INRM and other land uses from divers sources

LD-4 4.2: Innovative mechanisms for multi-stakeholder planning and investments in SLM at scale

4.2: Innovative mechanisms, institutions, legal and regulatory frameworks functioning to support SLM

FOCAL AREA OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES OF THE MULTICOUNTRY SALINITY MANAGEMENT PROJECT

MULTICOUNTRY PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: Scaling up of integrated landscape management in salt affected agricultural production systems to maintain natural resources and agro-ecosystem services in support of food security and livelihoods.

Project ComponentGrant Type

Expected Outcomes

1. Integrated natural resources management (INRM) and SLM practices adopted and scaled up in salt affected landscapes and production systems

TA 1.1. National and local assessment of DLDD and salinity mitigation measures ;1.2.Planning, mainstreaming and scaling up of SLM practices;1.3. Salinity management and SLM practices generating improved livelihoods and ecosystem services adopted by local communities.

2. Enhancing enabling environment and institutional capacity for INRM and SLM scaling up in wider landscapes

TA 2.1. Increased multi-stakeholder capacity and knowledge at all levels for promoting integrated landscapes management.2.2. Knowledge management and decision-support system and tools used for promoting reliable maintenances of salinity mitigation services and SLM scaling up process. 2.3. Enhanced regional collaboration, information sharing and investment for SLM scaling up, focusing on soil salinity management (link with EASP) .

3. Monitoring and evaluation 3.1. Project implementation based on adaptive results- based management .

Questions

• Which countries and partners identify salinity management as a key priority and are committed to collaborate under GEF PIF?

• Do these countries and partners support the integrated landscape management approach?

• Should the GEF PIF salinity management be considered as a component of CALCIM 2?