UNCCD impact indicator refinement: issues at stake.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The mandate: relevant COP decisions
1.
By decision 3/COP.8, the Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted the 10-year strategic plan and
framework to enhance the implementation of the Convention (2008–2018) (The Strategy).1
2.
By the same decision, the COP requested the Committee on Science and Technology (CST) to provide
advice to the COP at its ninth session on how best to measure progress on strategic objectives 1, 2, and 3 of
The Strategy:
-
Strategic objective 1: To improve the living conditions of affected populations;
-
Strategic objective 2: To improve the condition of affected ecosystems;
-
Strategic objective 3: To generate global benefits through effective implementation of
the Convention.
3.
At its ninth session, the COP decided to provisionally accept the proposed minimum, but not
exclusive, set of 11 impact indicators attached as an annex to decision 17/COP.9. The COP requested the
secretariat, under the guidance of the CST Bureau and using an iterative process, to develop proposals to
refine the set of impact indicators and associated methodologies, taking account of:
a) Application and review of the impact indicators by affected countries;
b) Scientific peer review of the relevance, accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the impact
indicators;
c) Possible synergy with relevant programmes, projects and institutions, including those
associated with the other Rio conventions;
d) Relevant contributions from UNCCD scientific conferences.
4.
The COP further requested the CST to review the status of this iterative process during its sessions
and to recommend a minimum set of impact indicators for consideration at the eleventh session of the COP.
5.
At its tenth session, the COP decided to establish an ad hoc advisory group of technical experts
(AGTE), not exceeding 15 members, to be tasked with continuing the iterative participatory contribution
from the scientific community, National Focal Points and Science and Technology Correspondents on impactindicator refinement and the monitoring and assessment of impacts.
6.
As per decision 19/COP.10, the AGTE is tasked with addressing the following four fundamental
issues:
a) Identify the best scientific approach to operationally delineate affected areas, including
an evaluation of how this delineation was undertaken during the pilot tracking exercise;
b) Develop a mechanism or framework that encourages country Parties to identify
nationally and locally relevant impact indicators and integrate these in their
contribution to the global impact assessment effort;
c) Further refine the set of the provisionally adopted impact indicators, based on national
limitations, the findings of the scientific review and on lessons learned through
applications by affected country Parties in the pilot tracking exercise and in the
reporting process in 2012, to identify the most meaningful, globally applicable and costeffective set of impact indicators;
d) Develop a scientifically based approach for integrating, analysing and interpreting
impact-indicator information, so that the overall set of impact indicators, when taken
together, has the potential to generate at national level relevant information that can be
harmonized and used to produce regional and global baseline assessments.
Previous work
7.
The task assigned to AGTE benefits from previous work carried out in the framework of the UNCCD
to identify and define suitable indicators for the monitoring and assessment of the implementation of the
Convention.
8.
The UNCCD began to formally address the challenge of indicator development and selection in 1998,
when, in accordance with decision 22/COP.1, the first Ad Hoc Panel on Benchmarks and Indicators was
convened in Beijing, China.
9.
Since the adoption of The Strategy, in 2007, several steps have been taken by the CST to fulfil the
mandate received by the COP. These steps have included, among others:
-
determining what benchmarks and indicators country Parties were already using to
monitor and assess desertification and its mitigation and identifying synergies
(especially commonly used basic indicators) across countries and regions. This effort
formed the basis for the preliminary list of impact indicators provisionally accepted at
COP 9;2,3
-
identifying relevant data sources;4
-
a participatory, formative, and iterative scientific peer review process for the
refinement of the provisionally accepted set of impact indicators. Contributions of
about 100 technical experts led to the production of (i) a refined conceptual framework,
(ii) a refined indicator set hierarchy, (iii) proposals of metrics/proxies to be considered
for testing or further development, and (iv) a set of core principles determined to be
necessary to refine the impact indicator set and enhance its potential effectiveness;5,6,7
and
-
a pilot impact indicator tracking exercise at national level.8,9,10
10.
Furthermore, the UNCCD 1st Scientific Conference, organized at the occasion of COP 9, tackled issues
and made recommendations regarding the biophysical and socio-economic monitoring and assessment of
desertification and land degradation.11,12
II.
ISSUES AT STAKE
11.
This document provides a quick stock take of progress made in refining the set of impact indicators,
especially in relation to the four issues at stake for the AGTE. Several important considerations have emerged
from the iterative scientific peer review process which the AGTE may wish to take into account as they
develop recommendations for consideration by the CST at its eleventh session. For an in-depth discussion of
these considerations the AGTE members are encouraged to refer to documents included in the Reference list.
Identify the best scientific approach to operationally delineate affected areas, including an
evaluation of how this delineation was undertaken during the pilot tracking exercise
12.
The mapping and monitoring of the spatial extent of land degradation and desertification is
necessary to understand the phenomenon and to elaborate sustainable national strategy and programmes to
2
combat it and to mitigate its impact. Article 16 of the Convention specifically calls for the country Parties “…to
integrate and coordinate the collection, analysis and exchange of relevant short term and long term data and
information to ensure systematic observation of land degradation in affected areas”. There are significant
differences in the extent and severity of DLDD issues in the various affected country Parties to the
Convention. While in certain country Parties, DLDD may be a localized problem affecting only certain areas,
for other country Parties DLDD is a widespread issue that can affect virtually the entire national territory.
Depending on the specific national circumstances, statistics at the national level may hide significant regional
disparities and, more importantly, differences in trends between those areas that are affected by DLDD and
those that are not. Therefore, a rigorous demarcation of the areas affected by DLDD within each country is
indispensible to enable a full understanding of the impacts of DLDD in any given country. Affected areas are
not, however, fixed in place and time; it is arguable that all areas are potentially ‘affected’ areas, especially
under conditions of climatic change (regardless of origin).
13.
According to article 1 of the Convention, affected areas are “arid, semi-arid and/or dry sub-humid
areas affected or threatened by desertification”. Unfortunately, such definition is generic and does not
provide country Parties with prescriptive criteria for the demarcation of affected areas at the national level.
As a result, the Convention still lacks an agreed set of criteria for the operational identification of DLDD
affected areas at the subnational level, and different countries may use very different criteria for their
delineation.
14.
Based on the findings of the scientific peer-review process, it was recommended that all the
proposed indicators should be measured in affected country Parties and that the operational use of the term
“in affected areas” should be refined through input from the scientific community and used to interpret the
impact indicator measurements. In this approach the related but different challenges of defining, measuring
and monitoring the indicators and of defining and delineating affected areas is distinct and therefore more
operationally viable.
15.
The next step recommended by reviewers was developing a harmonized approach to identifying
affected areas and creating a basic map to which the impact indicators can then be referred. At the global
level, the most affected and most vulnerable ecosystems and populations can be derived from a global
assessment such as Global Land Degradation Information System (GLADIS). National and subnational level
methodologies are being employed by the country Parties, but are not necessarily comparable.
16.
A synthesis of mapping experiences in identifying affected areas was prepared by the group of
experts who recommended the minimum set of impact indicators which was provisionally accepted at COP 9.
Annex 3 of their report2 presents some of the tools in use for defining affected areas. However, they
highlighted the importance of a more uniform identification of affected areas at least on a regional basis as
well as of country and regional level inputs in any follow up work on this issue.
17.
The issue was further discussed by scientists participating in the UNCCD 1st scientific conference.
Working on different dryland sub-types through a meaningful stratification was proposed to delimit and
characterize affected areas beyond the national level. Such stratification could be achieved by combining
existing land use information with additional biophysical and socio-economic data sets, allowing indicatorbased monitoring and assessment to be embedded in a framework of specific dryland degradation issues and
their impacts on key ecosystem services.13
18.
Some preliminary insights into the definitions and methodologies in use at national and subnational
levels for the identification of affected area were obtained through the pilot impact indicator tracking
exercises. The pilot exercise confirmed that definitions for affected areas vary across Parties, possibly
reflecting differences in national circumstances/priorities and in the interpretation of what is considered an
affected area.9 The results also suggested that in general, the Pilot countries lack data that are spatially
explicit to affected areas, i.e. if the data cover affected areas, they also include adjacent areas, which cannot be
easily differentiated. It was therefore recommended that the usefulness of rural areas, as a proxy for affected
areas, be further investigated.8
19.
As part of the second leg of the fourth reporting and review process, Parties are currently being
requested to specify the definition and the method used to identify affected areas in their country. The
3
reporting cycle officially started in March 2012. Parties and other reporting entities will have a period of six
months, until 21 September 2012, to compile and submit reports through the PRAIS portal. Three additional
months (October-December 2012) will be used to assess and eventually increase data quality, and fill
possible information gaps. Although the reports from country Parties will be available only in fall 2012, an
analysis of the definitions and methods used to identify affected areas would inform the debate and facilitate
the identification of a common definition and interpretation of affected areas.
Develop a mechanism or framework that encourages country Parties to identify nationally
and locally relevant impact indicators and integrate these in their contribution to the global
impact assessment effort
20.
Desertification is a global problem that is manifested locally. Mitigation efforts, even those associated
with global or national initiatives, ultimately involve local decisions and actions designed to improve
conditions. Moreover, the causes and consequences of desertification vary considerably between and within
countries. For global monitoring to be effective and useful within country Parties, the national and even
subnational relevance of the information provided from the indicator set is paramount.
21.
This suggests that efforts to monitor the impacts of the Convention across the country Parties in a
unified way must include both a minimum set of indicators and metrics and a mechanism for the global
system to account for local/subnational/national realities that may involve indicators not listed in the
minimum set. In this context, the global minimum set of indicators would be used to capture key trends and
draw public attention to key issues of common concern; it would be a tool for public communication targeting
high level decision makers. The nationally and locally relevant impact indicators, when combined with the
global set, could more comprehensively communicate impact and provide support to the decision making and
planning processes.
22.
This is also compatible with the on-going process of alignment and revision of Action Programmes
(APs). Outcome 2.2 of The Strategy requests affected country Parties to revise their NAPs into strategic
documents supported by biophysical and socio-economic baseline information, and to include them in
integrated investment frameworks. Biophysical and socio-economic data are needed to document impacts of
the implementation of the APs; the systematic identification, access to and use of relevant and credible
scientific and technical information and data are seen as a crucial factor for the improvement of the quality of
the processes of AP preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.14 As highlighted by some
Parties at the seventh session of the CRIC (CRIC 7), the development of an indicator system should go hand in
hand with the realignment of APs so that countries can use the same indicators for implementing The
Strategy/Convention as for reporting.15 This would improve the link between planning and implementation
and reporting/monitoring and evaluation. At CRIC 7, Parties went even further in refining the objectives set
by outcome 2.2 and recommended that “clear linkages between the revised action programmes and the
indicators for reporting should be established. NAPs should set targets, set out baseline information, identify
indicators and a timeframe, specify the range of activities envisaged to reach such targets, and identify
indicators to measure progress with achieving these targets.” The guidelines (contained in document
ICCD/COP(9)/2/Add.1) developed to assist affected country Parties in aligning their APs with the Strategy
should therefore be taken into consideration when developing the mechanism or framework for the
identification of nationally and locally relevant impact indicators.
23.
If the UNCCD indicator system has to include nationally and locally relevant impact indicators, then it
is essential that the conceptual framework applied to support the organization, use and communication of the
set of indicators also highlights the need for synergy between global, national and local information. The
conceptual framework proposed for consideration by the UNCCD employs a combination of driving force–
pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) and ecosystem services approaches to conceptualizing the
indicator set, and includes an Millennium Ecosystem Assessment-like visualization of the different spatial
temporal scales of concern (see Annex I).5
24.
The approach highlights the issues of scale, but it does not resolve them (for example, in many cases
local-scale indicator data cannot be aggregated to national levels without risking exaggerated results). The
4
approach also offers the opportunity to incorporate locally derived indicators into the global monitoring
effort, but it does not, as yet, define the mechanism that would make this operationally feasible.6
25.
On a regional and national basis, there has been past success in linking local participatory processes
to the combat of desertification in ways that ensure local relevance to national and regional assessments.16,17
In addition, several initiatives have created frameworks for linking local participatory assessments to
national and global efforts in support of the mission of the Convention18,19,20 involving multiple actors
appropriate to the different scales (local to international), working in a contributive way (bottom-up rather
than dictated top-down).21 These existing frameworks should be assessed in the development of this
mechanism.
26.
The use of a common framework by different Parties would improve the scope for regional and
global assessments. However, it is to be noted that, whatever framework is proposed, it should not be
prescriptive, but it should give a reasonable level of guidance for Parties in developing their own monitoring
and assessment frameworks.
27.
This is also in line with the principle of adaptability proposed in the process of scientific peer review
of the UNCCD impact indicators. According to this principle, it is recommended that both the conceptual
framework and the indicator set be regularly re-evaluated for appropriateness as monitoring and evaluation
efforts mature, for their usefulness in decision-making, and because needs may change and scientific tools
may improve.6
28.
Along this line, significant contributions to the potential evolution of the proposed framework were
made by experts participating in the global public consultation, which represented the fourth and final
iteration in the participatory scientific peer-review process.7
Further refine the set of the provisionally adopted impact indicators, based on national
limitations, the findings of the scientific review and on lessons learned through applications
by affected country Parties in the pilot tracking exercise and in the reporting process in
2012, to identify the most meaningful, globally applicable and cost-effective set of impact
indicators
29.
At its ninth session the COP decided to provisionally accept a recommended minimum, but not
exclusive, set of 11 impact indicators to measure progress on strategic objectives 1, 2 and 3 of The Strategy.
The indicators were organized in a matrix in annex I to decision 17/COP.9.22 In the same decision, a sub-set of
two impact indicators (that is: ‘Proportion of the population in affected areas living above the poverty line’;
‘Land cover status’) was identified as the minimum required for reporting by affected countries beginning in
2012. The remaining nine impact indicators, while recommended, were considered optional for inclusion in
reports by affected countries.
30.
In response to a request by the COP, the provisionally accepted set of impact indicators and
associated methodologies is being refined through an iterative, participatory and formative review process.
The refined set of impact indicators is presented in Annex II. One of the critical needs identified through the
scientific peer review was how the underlying logic (and in some cases, language) of the indicator set
hierarchy needed to be fine-tuned in order to maximize the potential for the indicator set to meet the
strategic objectives of the UNCCD.5 In particular, the structure of the indicator set hierarchy was refined to
make it possible to distinguish what to measure (general indicators) and how it should be measured
(metrics/proxies). Furthermore, a “readiness scheme” (green = ready for testing, yellow = requires fine
tuning, red = requires further development) was adopted to ensure a place for indicators that are currently
challenging to measure, but are viewed as essential to monitoring impact.6
31.
The indicators and associated metrics/proxies were then tested in the pilot exercise. The priority
was given to assess the viability of the two impact indicators which are mandatory for reporting in 2012. The
other indicators and their metrics/proxies were also assessed on the basis of existing data and capacities in
the piloting countries. It should be highlighted that piloting countries included, among others, China, South
Africa, Senegal, Spain/Portugal and Colombia, all of which have substantial capacities. In addition, some of
5
them (China, South Africa, Senegal) are LADA countries. In light of these considerations and given the small
sample size of the pilot study, its results should be seen as indicative rather than conclusive. However, they
provide useful information on effectiveness, relevance and feasibility of reporting on the indicators and
should be taken in due account for the further refinement of the set of indicators.8
32.
As part of the second leg of the fourth reporting and review process, affected country Parties are
currently being requested to report for the first time on impact indicators. Parties will report on the two
mandatory impact indicators and, on a voluntary basis, on the remaining nine impact indicators provisionally
accepted by the COP as well as on alternative indicators considered more suitable/relevant. Furthermore, the
reporting templates include sections for Parties to assess the impact indicators based on e-SMART criteria
and provide their suggestions and recommendations for the refinement of the set.23 A more detailed analysis
of reporting patterns and a review of the assessment made by the Parties would provide essential
information to identify the most effective, relevant and cost-effective minimum set of impact indicators to be
used at the global level.
Develop a scientifically based approach for integrating, analysing and interpreting impactindicator information, so that the overall set of impact indicators, when taken together, has
the potential to generate at national level relevant information that can be harmonized and
used to produce regional and global baseline assessments
33.
The Strategy states the development of a baseline based on the most robust data available on
biophysical and socio-economic trends as one of its expected outcomes (outcome 3.2). In order to establish
this baseline, relevant scientific and operational approaches need to be gradually harmonized.
34.
Moreover, as a recent outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
“Rio+20 Conference”, world leaders agreed "to strive to achieve a land-degradation neutral world in the
context of sustainable development". In order to assess progress towards this goal, they reaffirmed their
resolve “to take coordinated action nationally, regionally and internationally, to monitor, globally, land
degradation” and stressed the importance of “the further development and implementation of scientifically
based, sound and socially inclusive methods and indicators for monitoring and assessing the extent of
desertification, land degradation and drought”.24,25
35.
A baseline is a starting point for monitoring that provides a comprehensive characterization of a
phenomenon in a specific year so that later changes in its attributes can be measured.26,27 A baseline outlines
the criteria against which achievements are to be assessed. The baseline gives meaning to raw data or value
for an indicator, or set of indicators used to track the progress toward established objectives and targets.
36.
Ideally, national baseline surveys would be undertaken in all affected countries in the same year, but
this is not always possible. The year 2008 was the first year of The Strategy and thus could serve as the
baseline year for assessing progress. However, in cases where a country has information on years that do not
fall within the timeframe of The Strategy, the reporting templates that were tested during the pilot tracking
exercise have been designed to allow Parties to input information for other years within the period 20002011.
37.
Desertification is a multidimensional, multi-scale phenomenon with causes and consequences that
vary within space and scale. This implies the need for (i) not just individual indicators, but a set of
functionally interlinked indicators, organized within a conceptual framework that can be used to provide a
full description of the inter-related processes, and (ii) harmonization of indicator-based information to a
baseline across spatial and temporal scales
38.
The countries participating in the pilot testing concluded that the provisional set of UNCCD impact
indicators was effective in assessing progress of the Convention. However, discussion at workshops
highlighted that the indicators tend to be understood and used indicator by indicator rather than as a
functional set. It was suggested that the understanding of the indicators as set should be promoted, and that
the logical and functional linkages between indicators, and the advantages for national management of using
the indicators as a set should be elaborated and communicated effectively to the Parties.
6
39.
Regional and global baseline assessments will draw on indicator-based information reported at
national level. There is, therefore, a need to integrate, interpret and analyze multi-source information that
may have been gathered by different Parties through the use of different indicators, metrics and data
collection methods. While complete standardization (to agree and use only one single common methodology
for the same variable or indicator) may not be necessary to ensure that national data can be used for regional
and global baseline assessment, harmonization (to make comparable the same variable measured in different
ways) needs to be pursued to ensure consistency of information across scales and comparability among
countries. However, it is clear that the information from some national indicators will not be suitable for
simple quantitative aggregation. Global and regional reports on some aspects might therefore need to apply
multiple methodologies (for instance the reliance on statistically valid sub-samples and/or the conversion
from numerical to qualitative information). Furthermore, indicators of land degradation and desertification
are scale-dependent; that is, the resultant measurement depends on the area being considered and the
process of land degradation being assessed. This is a particular concern when aggregating field, local, and
district information in support of national monitoring where exaggerated results could arise when an
indicator is used at a small-scale (detailed assessment) for estimating degradation at a large-scale.5
40.
As part of the second leg of the fourth reporting and review process, affected country Parties will
report on the two mandatory impact indicators and the information contained in their reports will be
analysed based on a set of guidelines which was presented at the tenth session of the CST and which is
currently under review.28 There are no agreed upon guidelines for the analysis of information provided by
Parties in relation to the remaining impact indicators, as these are not currently mandatory for reporting. The
available guidelines will have to be followed by the secretariat when communicating the results of reporting
back to Parties. However, if the global minimum set of indicators is to be used as a tool for public
communication, alternative target groups and their information needs should be taken into consideration
when deciding how to analyse impact indicator information. Wherever possible, making the reporting
process useful not only for global assessment, but also at the national level is encouraged. The relevance and
suitability of these guidelines for the production of regional and global baseline assessment should be
assessed.
III.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41.
The task assigned to the AGTE benefits of previous work carried out in the framework of the UNCCD to
identify and define suitable indicators for the monitoring and assessment of the implementation of the
Convention. A review of the work done is essential to ensure consistency and avoid duplication of efforts.
Particular consideration should be given to the findings of the iterative scientific peer review process. This
process led, among others, to the formulation of a set core principles determined to be necessary to refine the
impact indicator set and enhance its potential effectiveness. The COP at its tenth session agreed that these core
principles (as contained in document ICCD/COP(10)/CST/2) “set the stage for the development of proposals to
refine the set of impact indicators and associated methodologies based on national capacities and circumstances”.
42.
Definitions for affected areas vary across Parties, possibly reflecting differences in national
circumstances/priorities. A review of methods and criteria in use at the global, national and sub-national levels for
the identification and delineation of affected areas could constitute the basis for the development of an operational
definition of affected areas. This work could benefit from the preliminary findings of the pilot exercise and, even
more, from the analysis of the definitions and methods reported by Parties through their national reports. While
keeping in mind political considerations and implications, it is important to note that the AGTE is specifically
mandated to “identify the best scientific approach to operationally delineate affected areas” [emphasis added].
43.
Efforts to monitor the impacts of the Convention across the country Parties in a unified way must
include both a minimum set of indicators and metrics and a mechanism for the global system to account for
local/subnational/national realities that may involve indicators not listed in the minimum set. The AGTE is
mandated to define the mechanism that would make this integration operationally feasible. The existing
frameworks for linking local participatory assessments to national and global efforts in support of the
mission of the Convention should be assessed in the development of this mechanism. Clear linkages should
7
also be established with the process for the realignment and revision of National Action Programmes in order
to improve the link between planning and implementation and reporting/monitoring and evaluation.
44.
The further refinement of the set of impact indicators to be used at the global level should aim at
identifying “the most meaningful, globally applicable and cost effective” indicators and it should take into
account national limitations. The preliminary findings of the pilot exercise, the analysis of reporting patterns and
the review of the e-SMART assessment made by Parties could provide essential information to the refinement
process.
45.
Information provided by individual indicators needs to be integrated and taken in combination
within a conceptual framework in order to portray the multidimensional aspects of desertification. The use of
indicators as a set aids inassessing the current status of desertification, to create a common understanding of
the causes and consequences of desertification amongst the stakeholders and to communicate of the progress
made in achieving established objectives and targets. By refining the provisionally accepted set of UNCCD
impact indicators, the AGTE could assess how the current set fits the current conceptual framework, identify
gaps and overlaps among the indicators and develop proposals for the use of the set of indicators in the
formulation, implementation and monitoring of the National Action Programmes.
46.
Baseline assessment at national, regional and global level is required to track the progress made toward the
UNCCD strategic objectives and a land degradation neutral world. The establishment of a baseline may have to rely
on indicator-based information collected at a range of scales on different times. This means there will be a need to
develop scientifically-sound procedures that allow the integration and cross-scaling of the indicator-based
information relevant at each scale. The AGTE is tasked to develop a scientifically-sound approach for aggregating
and analysing information provided by the Parties through national reporting in such a way that what is reported can
be comparable among countries and be used for baselines assessment that are useful about both national and broader
scales.
8
IV.
REFERENCES
1
UNCCD. 2007a. Decision 3/COP.8: The 10-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the implementation
of the Convention (2008–2018). (Includes “Annex: The Strategy”). Bonn: United Nations Convention
to Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Decision3COP8-TheStrategy.pdf
2 Berry. L., E. Abraham, and W. Essahli. 2009. The UNCCD Recommended Minimum Set of Impact Indicators.
Draft Report. Consultancy report (1) for the CST of the UNCCD. 99 pp. Available Online:
http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/Monitoring-Assessment/Documents/FinalReport_UNCCD-Min-Set-of-Impact-Indicators.pdf
3 Randriamiarana, D. 2010. Synthetic Report: Regional Consultations on Methodologies Related to the
Minimum Set of Impact Indicators to Measure Progress in the Implementation of Strategic Objectives
1, 2 and 3 of the UNCCD 10-Year Strategic Plan. Consultancy report (2) for the CST of the UNCCD. 24
pp. Available Online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Final-report_Regional-consultation-on-methodologies.pdf
4 Johnstad, M. 2009. Data and Information Available at UN Agencies and IGOs Related to Impact Indicators for
Strategic Objective 1, 2 and 3 of the UNCCD Strategy. Consultancy report (3) for the CST of the
UNCCD. 28 pp. Available Online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Final-Report_Study-on-data-availability-at-N_IGOs.pdf
5 Orr, BJ. 2011. Scientific review of the UNCCD provisionally accepted set of impact indicators to
measure the implementation of strategic objectives 1, 2 and 3. White Paper - Version 1,
4 February 2011. Consultancy report for the CST of the UNCCD. 145 pp. Available
online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/White%20paper_Scientific%20review%20set%20of%20indic
ators_Ver1.pdf
6 UNCCD, 2011a. “Report on the refinement of the set of impact indicators on strategic objectives 1, 2 and 3”.
ICCD/COP(10)/CST/2. Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop10/cst2eng.pdf
7 UNCCD, 2011b. “Report on the scientific peer review for the refinement of the set of impact indicators on
strategic objectives 1, 2 and 3”. ICCD/COP(10)/CST/INF.1. Bonn: United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop10/cstinf1eng.pdf
8 Schulte- Herbrüggen, B., Mapendembe, A., Booth, H., Jaques, M. & Smith, J. (2012) “The UNCCD Impact
Indicators Pilot Tracking Exercise: Results and Conclusions". UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Available
online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Pilot_ConclusionReport.pdf
9 Tierney, M., Mapendembe, A., Perez, L. & Stanwell-Smith, D. (2011) UNCCD Pilot Impact Indicator Tracking
Exercise Workshop Report. Mexico City, Mexico 11 – 13 July 2011. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Available online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Pilot_WS1_Report.pdf
10 Schulte-Herbrüggen, B., Simpson, L. & Stanwell-Smith, D. (2011) UNCCD Pilot Impact Indicator Tracking
Exercise Workshop Report. Changwon, Republic of Korea 06 – 07 October 2011. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge. Available online: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/MonitoringAssessment/Documents/Pilot_WS2_Report.pdf
11 UNCCD, 2009a. “Report of the UNCCD 1st Scientific Conference.” ICCD/COP(9)/CST/INF.2 Bonn: United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available Online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop9/cstinf2eng.pdf
12 UNCCD 2009b. “UNCCD 1st Scientific Conference: Synthesis and recommendations.”
ICCD/COP(9)/CST/INF.3 Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available
Online: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop9/cstinf3eng.pdf
9
13
Sommer S., Zucca C., Grainger A., Cherlet M., Zougmore R., Sokona Y., Hill J., (2011): Application of indicator
systems for monitoring and assessment of desertification from national to global scales, Land
Degradation and Development, 22(2), 184-197.
14 UNCCD 2009c. “Alignment of action programmes with The Strategy”. ICCD/COP(9)/2/Add.1. Bonn: United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop9/2add1eng.pdf
15 UNCCD 2008. “Report of the seventh session of the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the
Convention”. ICCD/CRIC(7)/5. Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available
online: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cric9/16eng.pdf
16 Abraham E, E Montaña and I Torres. 2006. Procedimiento y marco metodológico para la obtención de
indicadores de desertificación en forma participativa. In: Abraham E and G Beekman (Eds.)
Indicadores de la desertificación para América del Sur, Mendoza, BID-IICA: 37–64
17 Seely M and P Moser. 2004. Connecting community action and science to combat desertification: evaluation
of a process. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 99: 33–55.
18 Oba G, E Sjaastad and HG Roba. 2008. Framework for participatory assessments and implementation of
global environmental conventions at the community level. Land Degradation & Development 19: 65–
76.
19 Whitfield S, S Bautista, BJ Orr, HJ Geist and VR Vallejo. In Press. Prevention and restoration actions to
combat desertification (PRACTICE): An integrated assessment. EcoHealth
21 Soberon JM and JK Sarukhan. 2010. A new mechanism for science-policy transfer and biodiversity
governance? Environmental Conservation. 36(4): 265–267.
22 UNCCD 2009d. "Report of the Conference of the Parties on its ninth session, held in Buenos Aires from 21
September to 2 October 2009 - Addendum, Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at
its ninth session" ICCD/COP(9)/18/Add.1. Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop9/18add1eng.pdf
23 UNCCD 2012a. “Template and reporting guidelines for affected country Parties”. Bonn: United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Reporting-review-andassessment/Documents/ACP%20template_Final_ENGLISH.pdf
24 United Nation Conference on Sustainable Development 2012. “The future we want” A/CONF.216/L.1.
Available online: https://rio20.un.org/sites/rio20.un.org/files/a-conf.216l-1_english.pdf.pdf
25 UNCCD 2012b. “Zero Net Land Degradation – A sustainable development goal for Rio+20 to secure the
contribution of our planet’s land and soil to sustainable development, including food security and
poverty eradication”. UNCCD Secretariat policy brief. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Rio+20/UNCCD_PolicyBrief_ZeroNetLandDegrad
ation.pdf
26 Grainger A., 2009. Development of a Baseline Survey for Monitoring Biophysical and Socio-Economic
Trends in Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought. Report to the UN Convention to Combat
Desertification, Bonn. 125pp. Available Online:
http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Science/Monitoring-Assessment/Documents/Developing-abaseline-survey.pdf
27 UNCCD 1997. “Supplementary report on the work on benchmarks and indicators”
ICCD/COP(1)/CST/3/Add. Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available
online: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop1/cst3add1eng.pdf
28 UNCCD 2012c.” Guidelines for the preliminary analysis of information contained in reports from Parties
and other reporting entities” ICCD/COP(10)/CST/4-ICCD/CRIC(10)/14. Bonn: United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online:
http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop10/cst4eng.pdf
10
ANNEX I
Amended driving force–pressure–state–impact–response framework integrated
with ecosystem services provisions
Source: Adapted from: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Desertification synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press. <http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.355.aspx.pdf>;
GEF KM:Land. 2010. Project indicator profiles for the GEF Land Degradation Focal Area. Final report by
the GEF MSP: Ensuring impacts from SLM – Development of a Global Indicator System (KM:Land
Initiative). Hamilton Ontario: UNU-INWEH. 67 pp. <http://www.inweh.unu.edu/drylands/docs/KMLand/KM-Land_Indicator_Profiles_Final.pdf>;
FAO-LADA. 2009. Field manual for local level Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. LADA-L Part 1:
Methodological Approach, Planning and Analysis. Rome: FAO. 76 pp.
11
ANNEX II
Proposed refinements to the provisionally accepted set of impact indicators contained in annex I to decision 17/COP.9,
including metrics/proxies to be considered for testing and/or further assessment/development
Core indicators
(with proposed revisions)
General indicators
(revisions of 11 provisional
indicators)
Metrics/proxies
(operational approaches proposed for testing, where ready, and further
assessment/development where not)
Degree of
expert Readiness
agreement for testing*
Strategic objective 1: To improve the living conditions of affected populations
Core indicator S(1/2/3): Improvement
in the livelihoods of
people potentially
impacted by the process
of DLDD
III Proportion of the
population living
above the relative
poverty line
Rural poverty rate**
High
Green
I Water availability per Percentage of population with access to (safe) drinking water
capita
Water availability and use
Medium Yellow
Low***
Yellow
IV Food consumption
per capita
High
Yellow
Proportion of chronically undernourished children under the age
of 5 in rural areas**
Strategic objective 2: To improve the condition of ecosystems
Core indicator S-4:
Reduction in the total
area affected by DLDD
VI Degree of land
degradation
A less complex version of Level of land degradation + Trends in
seasonal precipitation
High
Yellow
VIII Drought index
Trends in WMO Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (a
meteorological drought index)
(New)
Green
V Capacity of soils to
sustain agro-pastoral
use
GLADIS “soil health status”
(New)
Green
II Change in land use
Land use (in support of deriving (a) VI Land degradation and (b) XI Low***
Land under SLM, and also in interpreting (c) IX Land cover status)
12
Yellow
Core indicators
(with proposed revisions)
Core indicator S-5:
Maintenance of or
increases in ecosystem
function, including net
primary productivity
General indicators
(revisions of 11 provisional
indicators)
IX Land cover status
VII Plant and animal
biodiversity****
Metrics/proxies
(operational approaches proposed for testing, where ready, and further
assessment/development where not)
Degree of
expert Readiness
agreement for testing*
Land cover**
High
Green
Land productivity
Medium Green
Crop and livestock diversity (agro-biodiversity)
High
Yellow
Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species
High
Yellow
Soil biodiversity
(New)
Red
Strategic objective 3: To generate global benefits through effective implementation of the UNCCD
Core indicator S-6:
Increases in carbon
stocks (soil and plant
biomass)
X Carbon stocks above Above ground organic carbon stocks
and below ground
Below ground organic carbon stocks
High
High
Yellow
Red
Core indicator S-7:
Areas of forest,
agricultural and
aquaculture ecosystems
under sustainable
management
XI Land under SLM
Land under SLM + general indicator VII Plant and animal
biodiversity (secondary role) + II Change in land use
High
Yellow
V Capacity of soils to
sustain agro-pastoral
use
GLADIS “soil health status”
(New)
Yellow
* Readiness scheme: Green = ready for testing, Yellow = requires fine tuning, Red = requires further development.
** Although named slightly differently, the operational definition of this indicator is very similar to that given by Berry, L., E. Abraham, and W. Essahli. 2009. The
UNCCD Recommended Minimum Set of Impact Indicators. Draft Report. Consultancy report (1) for the CST of the UNCCD. 99 pp.
<http://www.unccd.int/regional/rcm/docs/UNCCD%20Min%20Set%20of%20Impact%20Indicators%20Final%20Report%20June%204.pdf>
*** As a stand-alone metric/proxy, there was limited or divided support for this metric/proxy. However, if used in support of another indicator, the agreement was
much higher.
**** Also a secondary indicator under core indicator S-7.
13