Status of
Desertification and Implementation
of the United Nations Plan of Action
to Combat Desertification
Report of the Executive Director
Contents:
PART I.
World Status of Desertification
PART II.
The United Nations Plan of Action
to Combat Desertification
PART
III. Policy Guidelines and Course
of Action for Combating Desertification
PART
IV - FINANCING THE PLAN OF ACTION
TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION
A.
DESERTIFICATION COSTS
(I)
COST OF THE DAMAGE
1. There is no methodology for an
accurate estimation of total economic
loss due to desertification as there
are far too many unaccountable losses
involved, particularly off-site and
social losses. Direct on-site losses
can be calculated more or less reliably
taking into account an estimated loss
in productive capacity (income foregone)
due to land degradation in different
land use systems. This could be roughly
calculated based on the experience
of several countries with varying
economic situations.
2. In 1977, UNCOD studies calculated
that the process of desertification
made a significant contribution to
land degradation throughout the drylands
of the world and that the losses in
productive capacity (income foregone)
because of this, amounted to nearly
US $ 26 billion per year. It was further
estimated in 1980 that the cost of
not stopping land degradation in drylands
over the next 20 years was in the
region of US $ 520 billion, excluding
the price of suffering of the millions
of affected people.
3. The following basic figures for
the average yearly income foregone
due to desertification were assumed
for the present assessment, at 1990
prices:
US $ 250 per hectare of irrigated
land at least moderately degraded;
US $ 38 per hectare of rainfed cropland
at least moderately degraded;
US $ 7 per hectare of rangeland
at least moderately degraded.
4. Based on the
above figures and taking into account
the total areas affected by degradation
in each of the land use categories
(43 million hectares of irrigated
land, 216 million hectares of rainfed
cropland and 3,333 million hectares
of rangeland), the following figures
for annual average income foregone
due to land degradation were arrived
at, in million US $:
|
Continent
|
Irrigated
land |
Rainfed
Cropland |
Rangeland
|
Total
|
|
Africa
|
475
|
1,855
|
6,966
|
9,296
|
|
Asia
|
7,953
|
4,647
|
8,313
|
20,913
|
|
Australia
|
63
|
544
|
2,529
|
3,136
|
|
Europe
|
474
|
450
|
564
|
1,488
|
|
N.
America |
1,465
|
441
|
2,878
|
4,784
|
|
S.
America |
355
|
252
|
2,084
|
2,691
|
|
Total
|
10,785
|
8,189
|
23,334
|
42,308
|
5. Naturally, global
direct annual loss (income foregone)
of US $ 42.3 billion is a very rough
average estimate as the actual figures
vary greatly from country to country
and from continent to continent. This
figure just shows an order of magnitude
of the loss involved. It also shows
that the cost of inaction over the
next 20 years will be of an order
of US $ 850 billion as compared with
the earlier, 1980, estimate of US
$ 520 billion.
6. The inter-continental comparison
however, gives an idea of differences
between various regions of the world.
The major loss occurs apparently in
Asia due to the largest area affected;
then follows Africa, while Europe
loses the least amount.
7. As for different land use systems,
the major loss occurs due to degradation
of global rangeland because of its
enormously large area which is affected.
Losses in irrigated land and rainfed
cropland are more or less the same.
However, large differences exist between
continents in this respect and, of
course, between individual countries.
8. If the 1980 figure is taken as
the lowest estimate and the 1991 figure
as the highest, both being rather
conservative, then the calculations
show that the world's inability to
combat desertification during fourteen
years from 1978 to 1991 has already
cost the world some US $ 300 to 600
billion in income foregone.
9. Presently, there is not even a
rough estimate available of the off-site
and other indirect economic losses
due to desertification. Some studies
suggest that it might be 2-3 or even
up to 10 times higher than the direct
on-site losses. This question should
be more extensively studied and, of
course site-specifically, as the differences
between various ecological and socio-
economic situations throughout the
world do not permit any generalization
in this respect.
...Top
(II)
COST OF PREVENTION, CORRECTION AND
REHABILITATION
10. Actions of combating desertification
are inseparable from actions of resource
development and management in drylands.
Schemes that aim at arresting degradation
of rangelands, rainfed and irrigated
croplands, at sand dune stabilization,
at establishing large-scale green
belts, at introducing soil and water
conservation systems in resource management,
or at reclaiming new areas for productive
use, are apt to be costly. In the
majority of developing countries fully
or partly dependant on their dryland
resource base and having accumulated
problems of poverty and underdevelopment,
costs will be higher. While the projects
designed for preventing further land
degradation and sustaining its productivity
might have reasonable costs and economic
feasibility, the rehabilitation projects
are generally non-competitive in terms
of market values, especially when
compared with prevalent rates of interest.
Rates of return for the capital investments
in these projects are rather low.
Investments in land rehabilitation
projects commonly do not pay well
financially, but their social and
humanitarian values as means of ensuring
food security and participation in
production are immense.
11. In 1980, it was estimated that
a 20 year world-wide programme to
reclaim desertified lands would require
about US $ 90 billion or US $ 4.5
billion a year; developing countries
in need of financial assistance would
require US $ 48 billion of this amount
or US $ 2.4 billion a year. There
was no attempt made at that time to
estimate the cost of preventive measures
to arrest further desertification
of lands that were not affected or
only slightly affected by the process.
12. It is assumed that drylands that
are not affected or only slightly
affected by desertification would
require measures directed to prevention
of land degradation and sustaining
their productivity. Moderately affected
land would require certain corrective
measures in addition, e.g. provision
of adequate drainage in irrigated
croplands. Drylands, which are severely
or very severely degraded, need serious
efforts for their rehabilitation and
return to productive use. In different
land use systems, the costs of preventive,
corrective and rehabilitation measures
will be quite different, not speaking
about the differences between the
costs in different ecological and
socio-economic situations in various
countries of the world.
13. The following global average indicative
figures for the costs of direct anti-desertification
measures* in different land use systems
and for various degrees of land degradation
were obtained on the basis of an analysis
of large numbers of relevant projects
in different parts of the world, in
US $ per 1 hectare:
|
Degree
of Land
Degradation |
Irrigated
Lands |
Rainfed
Croplands |
Rangelands
|
|
Slight
to none |
100-300
|
50-150
|
5-15
|
|
Moderate
|
500-1,500
|
100-300
|
10-30
|
|
Severe
|
2,000-4,000
|
500-1,500
|
40-60
|
|
Very
severe |
3,000-4,000
|
2,000-4,000
|
3-7
|
|
___________________
*
Description of thus costed relevant
measures for each land use system
and for each degree of land degradation
are given in Tables 9-11 in the
Annex. Measures do not include insurance
against recurrent drought. The range
of cost figures in each of the land
use systems is mostly determined
by the specificity of local natural
and socio-economic conditions at
the site of every particular project
and not by the fact that it is implemented
either in a developed or in a developing
country or in any specific continent;
there are certain extremely low
and extremely high costs in some
instances throughout the world but
they are excluded from these global
average ranges. |
14. Taking into account the above costs
and the relevant figures for the world
status of desertification (Tables 1-3
in the Annex), the calculations give the
following costs of direct anti- desertification
measures, which should be considered as
showing only an order of magnitude for
the world as a whole, in billion US $
(see details in Tables 9-11 in the Annex):
|
|
Preventive
measures |
Corrective
measures |
Rehabilitation
measures |
Total
|
|
Irrigated
lands |
10-31
|
17-50
|
21-41
|
48-122
|
|
Rainfed
croplands |
12-36
|
18-55
|
22-59
|
53-150
|
|
Rangelands
|
6-18
|
13-38
|
80-120
|
99-176
|
|
Total
drylands |
28-85
|
48-143
|
123-220
|
200-448
|
|
Per
one year for a
20-Year programme |
1.4-4.2
|
2.4-7.2
|
6.2-11.0
|
10-22.4
|
15. Compared with 1980s
estimation of US $ 90 billion, or US $
4.5 billion a year for a 20- Year programme,
the present estimate of US $ 171-363 billion,
or US 8.6-18.2 billion per year, for the
corrective and rehabilitation measures
in drylands affected by desertification
at least moderately is three to four times
higher due to the following reasons: (a)
more accurate land degradation assessment
in 1991, and (b) growth of world prices
and costs of land reclamation. No similar
comparison can be made for the cost of
preventive measures in drylands as it
was not calculated in the 1980 studies.
16. Taking the global indicative sums
and averages for a 20-Year programme,
the simple comparison would show the following
pattern, in billion US $:
Table
17. The above comparison
will give the following simple cost/benefit
ratios: 1/2.5 for irrigated croplands,
1/1.5 for rainfed croplands, 1/3.5 for
rangelands, and 1/2.5 for the whole anti-desertification
campaign in the drylands. It would be
misleading, however, to use these figures
as accurate guiding points for an economic
evaluation of the PACD, because the time
profiles of costs and benefits are different.
This is the result of the fact that anti-desertification
programmes have a long gestation period
and benefits do not appear until many
years after. Therefore, the above global
calculations provide only a general picture
of an order of magnitude, while the accurate
economic cost/benefit analyses should
be made site-specific on a county-by-country
basis in order to obtain meaningful operational
estimates.
18. The above global costs of direct preventive,
corrective and rehabilitation anti- desertification
measures should be divided between the
industrialized and other countries (18)
which need no financial assistance and
those developing countries (81) which
need external assistance to implement
their programmes to combat desertification.
The present assessment gives the following
pattern in billion US $, for a 20-Year
programme:
|
|
Preventive
measures |
Corrective
measures |
Rehabilitation
measures |
Total
cost |
|
Irrigated
lands, total |
10-31
|
17-50
|
21-41
|
48-122
|
|
In
industrialized countries
|
4-13
|
7-20
|
7-14
|
20-40
|
|
In
developing countries |
6-18
|
10-30
|
14-27
|
28-82
|
|
Rainfed
croplands, total |
12-36
|
18-55
|
22-59
|
53-150
|
|
In
industrialized countries
|
5-14
|
7-24
|
8-18
|
21-34
|
|
In
developing countries |
7-22
|
11-31
|
14-41
|
32-116
|
|
Rangelands,
total |
6-18
|
13-38
|
80-120
|
99-176
|
|
In
industrialized countries
|
3-9
|
6-14
|
33-48
|
39-82
|
|
In
developing countries |
3-9
|
7-24
|
47-72
|
60-94
|
|
World
drylands, total |
28-85
|
48-143
|
123-220
|
200-448
|
|
In
industrialized countries
|
12-36
|
20-58
|
48-80
|
80-156
|
|
In
developing countries |
16-49
|
28-85
|
75-140
|
120-292
|
19. The majority of developing
countries affected by desertification
are the poorest countries in the world,
including the least developed ones with
very weak economies, overburdened with
persistent poverty and growing foreign
debts. It may thus be assumed that, in
order to implement anti-desertification
preventive, corrective and rehabilitation
measures in 81 developing countries with
a total cost of US $ 120-292 billion within
20 years, some 50% of the cost could at
least be covered by the countries themselves
while 50% need to be provided through
the external assistance. Naturally, there
will be a great difference between individual
countries in this respect: some will require
only 10% in external assistance, while
others might demand almost 90%. The following
is a summary of the above calculations
on a yearly basis, in billion US $:
|
|
Preventive
measures |
Corrective
measures |
Rehabilitation
measures
|
Total
|
|
Total
global cost |
1.4-4.2
|
2.4-7.2
|
6.2-11.0
|
10.0-22.4
|
|
Cost
to 18 countries
not requiring
external assistance
|
0.6-1.8
|
1.0-3.0
|
2.4-3.0
|
4.0-7.8
|
|
Cost
to 81 countries
requiring
external assistance
|
0.8-2.4
|
1.4-4.2
|
3.8-8.04
|
6.0-14.6
|
20. All above figures
indicate the costs of only direct anti-desertification
measures, (preventive, corrective and
rehabilitation), while the support measures
which are recommended in Part III of this
report, were not costed because of great
differences between the countries concerned.
These costs are to be borne almost totally
by the countries themselves as they concern
the appropriate administrative, legislative,
economic and policy adjustment as well
as education, training and extension.
In any case, it is advisable to bear in
mind, that the total cost of combating
desertification, including the cost of
full implementation of the recommendations
of the PACD ensuring sustainable development
of drylands, might be several times higher
then the above figures of direct costs.
Incidentally, the ratios between direct
and indirect costs of an order from 1:4
to 1:10 are more or less common in the
implementation of the majority of the
World Bank, IFAD or FAO large-scale projects
concerned with land development and rehabilitation.
...Top
B. FINANCING
THE PACD
(I) SUMMARY
OF PAST EXPERIENCE
21. The UN General Assembly by its Resolution
32/172 of 19 December 1977 taking note
of the report of UN Conference on Desertification
29/8-9/9/1977 (UNCOD) requested regional
commissions to take intensified and sustained
action in support of national efforts
to combat desertification, to assist governments,
at their request, in the implementation
of the PACD; it further requested the
organs, organizations and other bodies
of the UN system to support international
action to combat desertification within
the context of the PACD. The General Assembly
also authorized the Executive Director
of UNEP to convene immediately a consultative
group, which would meet as and when required,
comprising of representatives of organs
and organizations of UN system, such other
organizations as might be required, donor
countries, multilateral financial agencies
as well as developing countries having
substantial interest in combating desertification,
to assist in mobilizing resources for
the activities undertaken within the framework
of implementing the Plan of Action. The
General Assembly also endorsed in principle
the creation of a special account within
the United Nations for implementing the
Plan of Action.
DESCON
22. In 1978 the Executive Director of
UNEP in response to the above convened
the Consultative Group for Desertification
Control [DESCON] to its first session,
and stated at the opening that "it
was not a creation of a new organization
but mechanism and forum ensuring that
resources are invested in the most effective
way; and the scope of work will develop
and expand as experience is gained from
the field and as new horizons of cooperative
actions and new sources of support are
explored". The first session established
procedures for mobilizing resources. Many
government representatives, however, expressed
their preference of dealing with national
projects through existing and established
bilateral negotiation mechanisms; and
that support to transnational projects
could be sought through mechanisms like
DESCON.
23. Though UNEP Governing Council and
UN General Assembly requested the Executive
Director of UNEP, to examine ways and
means to enhance efficiency of DESCON
and repeated appeals to DESCON to intensify
its efforts to mobilize funds/resources
for the implementation of the PACD, donors
maintained their preference to use bilateral
negotiation mechanisms and recipient countries
kept on presenting to DESCON projects
of inadequate national priority. This
was the issue dividing the Group members
and restraining the full realization of
the fund raising function of DESCON for
its all subsequent sessions, until the
Ad-hoc working group established by DESCON-6
and the DESCON Special Session in 1988
recommended discontinuation of the mechanism.
The Group at its 7th Regular Session in
December 1990 resolved to recommend to
the General Assembly (through the Governing
Council of UNEP) to amend the Group's
mandate and discontinue the direct resource
mobilization function altogether.
24. In the course of six regular sessions
of DESCON various forms to improve Group's
performance were tried and new dimensions
to its functions were added, i.e.:
(i) By its Resolution
38/165 of 28 February 1984, the General
Assembly decided to expand the mandate
of DESCON to also "include information
exchange on anti- desertification policies
and programmes of its participants,
in addition to its basic mandate";
(ii) And by its Resolution 39/168 of
17 December 1984 decided to expand the
Groups mandate to also include explicitly
responsibility for advising the Executive
Director of UNEP on:
(a) The progress
and effectiveness of activities implemented
under the Plan of Action, identifying
constraints and possible solutions
to problems, taking account of relevant
evaluations and case studies;
(b) Programme priorities of the United
Nations Environment Programme related
to problems of desertification;
(c) Measures required to improve implementation
of the Plan of Action on a regional
and world-wide basis.
25. By end of 1986 it
was obvious, as reported by the Executive
Director of UNEP to the 15th Governing
Council (ref. UNEP/GC.15/9/Add.4), that
DESCON's capacity to secure financial
resources for projects presented to it
had been inadequate to the needs of the
Plan of Action. Over the eight-year period
1978-85 (DESCON 1-5) a total of 74 projects
were submitted to the Group of which only
29 have been implemented either in part
or in their entirety. The total funding
amounted to US $ 47.3 million as compared
with estimates of a total cost of US $
540.6 million for all 74 projects.
26. In addition at DESCON-6 in 1987 another
13 projects worth US $ 29.0 million (and
requiring about US $ 24,0 million external
assistance) were presented. Many donors
and UN organizations expressed interest,
but no firm funding commitments were made.
At DESCON-7, 9 countries (Argentina, Mali,
Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, United Republic
of Tanzania and Yemen) presented to the
Group their National Plans of Action to
Combat Desertification; and SADCC presented
its sub-regional (Kalahari-Namib) action
plan. Six of these plans (excluding Argentina,
Nigeria and Syria) contained projects
requiring funding assistance worth over
US $ 720 million, but no interest to pledge
funding was expressed by donors through
DESCON mechanism; they however expressed
their preference (once gain) to consider
such projects (of NPACDs) through existing
and established bilateral negotiation
mechanisms.
Special Account
27. As of 31 December 1988 a total of
only 166,886 US Dollars has been paid
to the account. UN General Assembly by
its Resolution 44/172 of 19 December 1989
decided to close the account and requested
the Executive Director of UNEP to take
necessary steps to do so. With interest
added to the collections, the account,
as at 31 January 1991, stood at US $ 313,854,
the amount of which has been utilized
in 1991 for the preparation of the expert
studies requested by the General Assembly
at its resolution 44/172. As at 31 March
1991 the status of contributions showed
a balance of unpaid pledges as US $ 12,404.
UNSO Joint Venture of
UNEP and UNDP
28. During 1979-1990
UNDP and UNEP together have contributed
US $ 20.6 million (10.0 million for programme
and 10.6 million for institutional support)
to the Joint Venture with the United National
Sudano-Sahelian Office (UNSO) which was
created by UN GA Res. 33/88 of 15 December
1978 for the implementation of the PACD
in the Sudano-Sahelian Region. In addition
to this seed money, US $ 198.3 million
were made available to UNSO Trust Fund
between 1974 and end 1987. More than 75%
or approximately US $ 151 million of this
pertained to the projects related to the
implementation of the PACD in the region.
In 1988-1990 an additional US $ 92.8 million
were mobilized by UNSO through its Trust
Fund, thus totalling the UNSO Trust Fund
contributions up to the end of 1990 the
sum of US $ about 290 million.
Other Sources of financing
29. The national expenditures as well
as bilateral contributions for the PACD
implementation by donor countries and
international agencies both within and
outside of the United Nations system are
not known. Only scattered information
from a few donors and agencies is available
presenting no clear global picture.
30. Many international agencies and organizations
such as the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP, UNSO,
FAO, IFAD, UNESCO, WFP, WHO, WMO and others,
have contributed financially to the implementation
of the PACD. In the majority of the projects
financed by these bodies, however, it
would be very difficult to separate funding
for anti-desertification actions per se
and that for other activities implemented
in the countries affected by desertification.
31. Some information on the level of financing
of the PACD may be found in the reports
of relevant organizations, although it
would be incomplete and just showing the
examples:
• UNEP's expenditures
(excluding annual contribution of US
$ 0.5 million to the UNSO Joint Venture
of UNDP/UNEP) for 73 projects including
global assessment, co-ordinating and
catalyzing activities as well as the
assistance to developing countries,
amounted to US $ 28.1 million for the
period of 1978-1991 or some US $ 2.0
million per year;
• UNSO, within its UNDP/UNEP Joint
Venture and through its Trust fund,
has mobilized about US $ 312 million
during 1979-1990 or some US $ 28 million
per year, out of which the sum of US
$ 141.6 million were spent on financing
202 projects directly related to combating
desertification in 22 countries of the
Sudano- Sahelian region; projects of
assistance to the region increased from
US $ 15 million in 1986 to US $ 27 million
in 1989; new operational activities
approved by UNSO in 1990 totaled US
$ 40 million: rehabilitation of gum
arabic plantations in Kordofan and Darfur
provinces in the Sudan, sand-dune stabilization
in Mauritania, integrated resource management
projects in association with the local
population, the Ecological Monitoring
Centre in Senegal, the tree seed centres
throughout the region, etc.;
• FAO is currently supporting
184 projects related to combating desertification
in developing countries, mainly in Africa,
with financial assistance of US $ 85
million;
• UNDP in the Fourth Country Programme
(1987-1991) approved 125 projects directly
related to drought and desertification,
with a financial contribution of US
$ 129 million, 111 at national level
and 14 regional projects;
• the World Bank in 1990 approved
11 free-standing environmental loans
related to combating desertification,
mainly for African countries, as against
only 2 in 1989;
• the European Economic Community,
within a new Environment Title of the
IVth Lomé Convention (1991),
has committed a package of grant aid
and other forms of financial assistance
amounting to nearly US $ 14 billion
over the next 5 years to the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries,
which encourage governments to draw
up long-term plans for placing environmental
concerns including desertification in
the centre of national development strategies.
32. It is estimated
that in 1986 Africa received US $ 490
million in assistance related to problems
of desertification and drought, which
was approximately 3.5% of the total assistance
for that year. The level of total official
development assistance to Sub-Saharan
Africa was US $ 13.4 billion in 1988 (only
US $ 28.9 per capita). Net resources flows
to Sub-Saharan Africa in 1989, measured
in 1986 prices and exchange rates, declined
in real terms overall from US $ 19.4 billion
to US $ 18.3 billion.
33. Some idea on the achieved level of
financing of the PACD at global level
might be derived from the fact that all
national loan and saving systems, local
government budgets and formal credit institutions,
multilateral and bilateral lending agencies,
and regional development banks, over the
past thirty years contributed about US
$ 16 billion to agricultural programmes,
that is nearly US $ 0.5 billion a year.
Only a fraction of this went to the areas
affected by desertification and still
smaller fraction to anti-desertification
measures per se. It should also be noted
that financing of agricultural activities,
both related to anti-desertification actions
and in more humid areas, is but a small
proportion of total funding by major international
institutions, being however larger in
the international assistance programmes,
where it has fluctuated from 18 to 44%
over the last ten years. With bilateral
donors, contributions to agriculture have
fluctuated from 10 to 18% of their ODA
figures over the same period.
34. Other estimates indicate that some
US $ 0.6 billion per year provided aid
for activiites related to combating desertification
in the developing countries during early
80s. These figures may suggest a comparable
estimate of US $ 0.85 billion per year
at present available to activities related
to desertification.
35. The above data show very clearly that
the amount spent by the world community
during 1978-1991 on direct or supporting
actions to combat desertification was
far below the amount needed for the implementation
of the PACD and for achieving substantial
results. Likewise, the existing mechanisms
for mobilization of the resources and
financing the PACD appeared to be inadequate.
...Top
(II) MOBILIZATION
OF RESOURCES
36. Financial assistance to developing
countries struggling against desertification
should satisfy the following criteria
: it must be additional, that is over
and above regular budgets and conventional
extra budgetary resources, predictable,
sustainable, and with a degree of automaticity.
Net additional financing and technical
assistance to developing countries for
combating desertification should be provided
by the donor community and international
institutions on terms which will not further
exacerbate debt and trade problems of
recipient countries but rather enhance
their development process.
37. In order to mobilize the resources,
structural adjustment in public revenue
generation and reallocation of expenditures
at country level and the structural adjustment
in the allocation of expenditures, grants
and loans by donors, both bilateral and
multilateral, should be undertaken. Particularly,
the state of financing of the PACD and
drylands development in general should
be reconsidered and substantially increased.
38. Reallocation of resources and mobilization
of additional resources for financing
the PACD in developing countries will
be greatly facilitated if the process
is oriented by a shared view of priorities,
opportunities and constraints in the PACD
implementation within a flexible system
for accumulation, analysis and exchange
of information among the various actors
at local, national, regional and international
levels.
39. At national level, the role of local
financial institutions, which can probably
operate with a greater sensitivity to
local needs and conditions, should be
emphasized.
40. In provision of funds and credits,
small-scale and/or resource-poor farmers/pastoralists
and local communities at grassroots level
should be targeted in order to ensure
strong local economic bases for community
development and to answer farmers/pastoralists
needs in a direct way, rather than to
finance the national agricultural sector
which often targets exports' production
and the consequent degradation and exhaustion
of natural resources leading to desertification.
Rural micro-enterprise projects that focus
on long-term sustainability should constitute
the major recipient body for the financial
and technical assistance.
41. Sources of additional financing of
the PACD vary and may include inter alia
the following:
• national budgets;
• funding by national private
and co-operative, state and local financial
institutions;
• funding by major international
financing agencies like the World Bank,
IFAD, WFP, regional development banks;
• funding through multilateral
and bilateral aid programmes;
• loans from governments and world
capital markets on concessionary basis;
• reduction of external debts;
• debt-for-PACD swaps;
• funding and in-kind participation
by international, regional, national
and local NGOs;
• funding and assistance from
major international agencies, e.g. UNDP,
FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, WMO, ILO, WHO, etc.,
in respective fields of their interests;
• Global Environmental Facility
of the World Bank/UNDP/UNEP;
• savings from disarmament;
• special drawing rights-development
links;
• Earth Saving Bonds;
• Ecotourism;
• world-wide Environmental Lottery,
etc.;
• trust Funds and Foundations;
• additional funds mobilized by
the world community specifically for
the PACD implementation through inter
alia international taxation of trade
flows and revenue taxes, taxation of
reverse transfer of technology, tax
on surpluses in balance of trade, consumption
taxes, income from the use of international
commons, military taxes, proceeds from
IMF gold sales, carbon dioxide tax (emission
tax and sink destruction tax), GNP general
tax, etc.
42. Forms of financial
assistance to developing countries, which
cannot cope by themselves with the problem,
could vary as well and include such as:
• concessional
loans, mainly from financial institutions;
•"soft-term" loans with
long-term repayment schedules;
• grants;
• technical and financial assistance
on non-reimbursable concessional terms.
43. New international
or regional mechanism(s) that could be
created, or existing mechanism(s) developed,
to manage the process of mobilizing and
allocating the financial and technical
resources required to address global environment/developing
issues, including desertification, might
include the following:
• DESCON in
its revised and revitalized form;
• international financial corporation
that could provide finances on concessionary
basis to anti-desertification programmes;
• international anti-desertification
convention;
• global anti-desertification
trust fund;
• consortium arrangements.
44. Within the scope
of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development, probably, a United International
Environmental Fund (Consortium) might
be considered, with an appropriate share
of the PACD.
Annex...
...Top |
