CACILM
Central Asian Countries Initiative for
Land Management
Republic of Uzbekistan
G.Khasankhanova
UZGIP Institute,
MAWR/ CACILM NSEC
Outline
Part 1. CACILM
Introduction
What did we achieve in CACILM I
Lessons learnt and way forward
National priorities and next steps
Part 2. Outline of GEF-6 Salinity Management Project Proposal
Project Justification
GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy
Project Framework: FA Objective and Outcomes
Questions
Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management
Partnership program of 5 CACs and donor community …
GEF, GM of UNCCD, GIZ, ADB, UNDP, ICARDA, Switzerland,
FAO, UNEP, IFAD, SDC
…with objective to combat land degradation and improve
rural livelihood





First phase: 2006- 2011
National and regional structures
National Program Frameworks (NPFs)
12 national and 4 components
In 2009, all СAC updated their NPF and included
climate change, biodiversity and food security
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
Integration and promotion of “green economy”. Increasing productivity of
ecosystems and mainstreaming of PES. Establishment of national mechanism
for Drought monitoring, assessment and management.
KAZ
KYRG
SLM practices up scaling. Economic of LD. Monitoring of DLDD. Raising
awareness. Strengthening of institutions.
TAJ
Pasture and Forestry Management, Center for drought monitoring
and management, Economics of LD. Knowledge Management.
TKM
UZB
Economic of LD. Water Saving and Drought Management. Transfer
Knowledge and Experience.
Dissemination of SLM. Pasture and Rain-fed Management. Monitoring of
DLDD. Drought Management- Climate Resilience. Strengthening of
institutions.
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 decisionmakers 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 Proposal
under GEF-6
Project Justification
In the sub-regional meeting ( Moscow, 2013) the Eurasian countrypartners 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).
CACILM Multicountry Soil Map
(SLM-IS Component, CACILM-1, 2009)
Source: CACILM Multicountry Secretariat, 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 agroecosystem 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 AND OUTCOMES
OF THE MULTICOUNTRY SALINITY MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Focal Area
Objectives
LD-3
Expected FA Outcomes
Expected FA Indicator
3.1: Support mechanisms for SLM in
wider landscapes established
3.1.Demonstration results strengthening crosssector 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 multistakeholder planning and investments
in SLM at scale
4.2: Innovative mechanisms, institutions, legal
and regulatory frameworks functioning to
support SLM
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.
Grant
Type
Expected Outcomes
1. Integrated natural resources
management (INRM) and SLM
practices adopted and scaled up in
salt affected landscapes and
production systems
TA
2. Enhancing enabling environment
and institutional capacity for INRM
and SLM scaling up in wider
landscapes
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.
2.1. 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) .
3.1. Project implementation based on adaptive results- based
Project Component
3. Monitoring and evaluation
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?