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.
(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 $:
|
|
Annual income
forgone due to
desertification
|
Annual cost
of preventive
measures
|
Annual cost
of corrective
measures
|
Annual cost
of rehabilitation
measures
|
Total annual
cost of all
measures
|
|
Irrigated lands
|
10.8
|
0.5-1.6
|
0.9-2.5
|
1.0-2.0
|
2.4-6.1
|
|
Rainfed cropland
|
8.2
|
0.6-1.8
|
0.9-2.8
|
1.1-3.0
|
2.7-7.5
|
|
Rangelands
|
23.3
|
0.3-0.9
|
0.7-1.9
|
2.0-6.0
|
5.0-8.8
|
|
Total drylands
|
42.3
|
1.4-4.2
|
2.4-7.2
|
6.2-11.0
|
10.0-22.4
|
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.
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
LomŽ 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.
(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.
[ Return To Desertification |
Return To Table Of Contents |
Return To Top ]
