The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: A Case Study of its application in

Namibia

Justine Braby

1. Introduction

The global community has long recognized that desertification is a major

environmental, social, and economic problem. The first determined international

effort to combat desertification began at the end of the Sahelian drought and famine

(1974) in which millions of animals and hundreds of thousands of people died.1

However, only in 1992, when developing nations, led by African countries, insisted

that one of the priorities of the Rio Summit should be aimed at desertification, was

there enough influence to edify a convention. The United Nations Convention to

Combat Desertification, particularly in African countries (UNCCD), was adopted in

1994. The main objective of the convention was to combat desertification and

mitigate the effects of drought. This objective, among others, was to be carried out by

each affected country by a National Action Programme. A National Action

Programme (NAP), funded by various developed countries, through the World Bank

and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), is a system of projects which sets out to

target the causes of desertification, find ways in which to mitigate the effects of

drought and combat not only the symptoms of desertification but the actual cause of it

too. Although only a set of guidelines, a whole chapter in Agenda 21 is devoted to the

practicing of this objective.2 Namibia’s National Programme to Combat

Desertification (Napcod) was initiated in 1994, three years prior to its ratification of

the UNCCD. It was not formally recognised by the government of Namibia as a NAP

as it did not strictly follow the guidelines of the convention. The reason for this was

because Napcod had already progressed beyond the NAP objectives and was already

in the implementation phase by the time the convention (UNCCD) was finally ratified

in Namibia.3

1 Geoffrey Lean Down to Earth: A simplified Guide to the Convention to Combat Desertification, why it is necessary and what is important and different about it (Bonn: Secretariat for the Convention to Combat Desertification,1995) 102 Agenda 21: Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Chapter 12 Managing Fragile ecosystems: Combating desertification and drought) Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 19923 Shirley Bethune ‘Review of Legislation and Policies Pertinent to Combating Desertification- A Case Study from Namibia’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 176-182

1

Napcod was a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Environment and Tourism

(MET) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Development (MAWRD). These

ministries, along with the Desert Research Foundation of Namibia (DRFN) and

Namibia’s Policy Research Unit (Nepru), were responsible for the national

programme.4

The process of Napcod was divided into three phases, branching out over a period of

10 years. Phase I (1994) consisted of consultations and a workshop discussed later in

this article. Phase II (1995-1999) consisted of the setting up of structures based on

eight objectives and the planning of Phase III. Phase III (1999-2003) consisted of the

setting up of the structures planned in Phase II. This process led to a detailed

assessment by Napcod of the national development policies pertinent to land

degradation in 1996. This report- Dewdney Report on Policy Factors and

Desertification- Analysis and Proposals- provided an essential break through in

identifying the policy framework as one of the root causes of environmental

degradation in Namibia.5

To delve further into the national application of the UNCCD in Namibia, it is

necessary first to unravel the UNCCD.

2. The Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries experiencing serious

drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa

2.1. A Brief Background

Desertification is a problem of global proportions. Seventy per cent of the 5.2 billion

hectares of drylands used for agriculture around the world are already degraded.6 In

all, more than 110 countries have drylands that are potentially at risk.7 The United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that desertification costs the

world 42 billion dollars a year.8 The human cost is even higher: millions of people

4 ibid 5 R. Dewdney, Policy Factors and Desertification- Analysis and Proposals (Napcod, 1996).6 Lean (note 1) at 97 ibid8 ibid

2

have been driven off their land due to desertification.9 Desertification has played some

part in sparking off ten of the armed conflicts currently in progress in arid lands.10

Although desertification has been a problem for countless decades, the first

determined international effort to combat desertification began only at the end of the

great Sahelian drought and famine of 1968-1974.11 The UN produced the Plan of

Action to Combat Desertification, a series of guidelines and recommendations, in

1977.12 In practice, this Plan of Action fell far short of expectations.13 For a start

neither the governments of the affected states, nor the international aid donors gave it

sufficient priority.14 When governments and donors did take action, the effort was

often spoiled through lack of coordination.15 The problem continued to get worse.

Developing nations, led by African countries, insisted that proper attention should be

given to desertification during the preparations for the 1992 Earth Summit.16 After

much bargaining17, the world’s leaders agreed in Agenda 21 to call on the UN General

Assembly to set up an Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a legally

binding instrument by 1994.18 After 13 months of difficult negotiations the convention

was finally open for signature in October 1994 in Paris. By May 1995 a total of 105

countries had signed19 and today 191 countries are parties to the convention.

2.2 Objectives and Modalities of the Convention

The objective of the Convention is to:

combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought

and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels, supported by

international cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the framework of an integrated approach

which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable

development in affected areas.20

9 ibid10 ibid11 B Kjellen ‘The Saga of the Convention to Combat Desertification: The Rio/Johannesburg Process and the Global Responsibility for the Drylands’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 127 12 Lean (note 1)13 ibid14 ibid15 ibid16 ibid17 Kjellen (note 11)18 Lean (note 1)19 ibid20 UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (Paris, 17 June 1994) Article 2.1

3

The underlying motivation behind this objective is to improve the lives of the millions

of people who bear the brunt of land degradation and desertification.21 In order to

achieve this objective the Parties are guided by Principles set out in Article 3 of the

Convention22 which mainly envelope the spirit of international solidarity, partnership,

cooperation and coordination among states. The Convention has provisions for

General Obligations23, Obligations of affected country Parties24, and Obligations of

developed country Parties25. These obligations, in a general manner, encompass the

following:

Poverty eradication

Strengthening subregional, regional and international cooperation

Affected countries need to establish strategies and priorities, within the

framework of sustainable development plans and/or policies, to combat

desertification

Affected countries need to promote awareness and facilitate the participation

of local communities, with the support of non-governmental organisations, in

efforts to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought

Affected countries need to provide legislation and enact new laws and

establish long-term policies and action programmes

Developed countries need to actively support affected countries’ efforts by

providing financial resources and appropriate technology and know-how

In carrying out their specific obligations pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention,

affected countries need to prepare, make public, and implement national action

programmes. The purpose of these national action programmes is to identify the

factors that contribute to desertification and take practical measures necessary to

combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought.26 These action programmes

are essential for the implementation of the Convention and include, among others:27

21 C Basset & J Talafre ‘Implementing the UNCCD: Towards a recipe for success (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 13322 note 20 Article 323 Article 4 of the UNCCD (note 20)24 Article 5 of the UNCCD (note 20)25 Article 6 of the UNCCD (note 20)26 (note 20) Article 1027 all these points are taken from the Convention Article 10 (note 20)

4

Incorporating long-term strategies to combat desertification and mitigate the

effects of drought

Giving particular attention to the implementation of preventative measures for

lands not yet degraded

Enhance national climatological, meteorological and hydrological capabilities

and the means to provide for drought early warning

Promote policies and strengthen institutional which develop cooperation and

coordination between the donor community, governments at all levels, local

populations and community groups, and facilitate access by local populations

to appropriate information and technology

Provide participation at the local, national and regional levels

Provide progress reports on their implementation

Strengthening drought preparedness and management

Each country has to develop a national action programme. In addition,

cooperation amongst neighbouring and other countries needs to be developed

through subregional and regional action programmes.28 The Convention also

prioritises and makes provision for supporting the implementation of action

programmes29, information collection, analysis and exchange30, research and

development31, transfer, acquisition, adaptation and development of technology32,

and capacity building, education and public awareness33. Financial resources are

covered in Article 20 of the Convention.34 Annexes are provided specifically for

each continent reflecting the regional implementation of the particular continent or

region.35

2.3 Institutions and related Conventions

Financial resources are made available by a financial mechanism elaborated in

Article 21 of the Convention.36 The Committee on Science and Technology37 is a

subsidiary body to the Conference of the Parties and provides advice on scientific

28 (note 20) Article 1129 Article 13 of the UNCCD (note 20)30 Article 16 of the UNCCD (note 20)31 Article 17 of the UNCCD (note 20)32 Article 18 of the UNCCD (note 20)33 Article 19 of the UNCCD (note 20)34 note 2035 Annex 1 is for the regional implementation for Africa, there are 4 Annexes in total (note 23)36 note 2037 (note 20) Article 24

5

and technological matters relating to combating desertification. Article 25

provides for networking the institutions, agencies and bodies of the Convention.38

The UNCCD is directly related to the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD)

and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However,

these three conventions have unfortunately created competing ways of addressing

components of the same problem.39 From an ecosystem perspective, a separation

between combating desertification and conservation of biological diversity or

adaptation to climate change makes little sense.40 It may be more rewarding if a

national action programme included some of the obligations of the CBD and

FCCC.

2.4 Compliance and Enforcement

As mentioned earlier it remains a problem that Conventions such as the CBD,

UNFCCC and the UNCCD do not allow for a more stringent measure of

cooperation in fulfilling their objectives as unified projects. This would be a more

coordinated approach and would create an easier and more compliant environment

for state parties. On a more optimistic note, although the UNCCD does not

provide for “punishment” for disobeying states, it has developed such a specific

and easily organised system that it seems hard for affected states not to comply. In

addition I find it imperative to add that in the affected states desertification has

become such a problem that the countries have no choice but to abide to the

Convention and its modalities. As I shall elaborate on later in this article,

countries like Namibia are so adversely affected by desertification that the need

and desire to create a national action programme seems to override the fact that

they have to. As for the developed nations it appears more difficult to control.

With a few exceptions, developed nation parties often do note prioritise

desertification enough and due to this there is often a lack of funding for the

affected countries to carry out their national action plans.41

2.5 Local Implementation

38 note 2039 Bassett & Talafre (note 21)40 ibid41 as seen in the outstanding contributions which total the amount of 7,513,663.30 dollars, see the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION (Status of Contributions to the Core Budget by year as of 28 February 2006)

6

Although international cooperation is a priority of the Convention, most of the

obligations, especially the national action programmes, are to be carried out

nationally. To implement successfully the international principles of the UNCCD

requires national legislative systems with the capability of recognizing the

physical processes of desertification as well as the capability to manage the

processes effectively.42 Possibly one of the only desertification laws to be enacted

is in the People’s Republic of China in 2001.43 As I will delve into later in this

article, Namibia, while having almost flawless legislation relating to

desertification has not made the final leap to implement or enforce these laws.

Here it becomes apparent that the missing link in the process of desertification in

many countries, Namibia included, is political will.44 By looking at Namibia in

more detail I will now dissect the implementation and application of the UNCCD

from a national point of view. How has Namibia complied with her obligations to

the Convention and how far has she come in combating desertification and

mitigating the effects of drought?

3. Namibia’s Deserts

Namibia is the most arid country south of the Sahel and has a variable climate with

frequent low rainfalls. Namibia is not alien to ‘disaster droughts’.45 However, the

deserts of Namibia are a landmark of pride and scenic beauty. They contribute to

natural resources and economic value due to tourism. They harbour unique life forms

specifically adapted to this harsh environment. There is also economic potential of

sustainable use of medicinal plants.46 Before independence in 1990, Namibia’s land

was divided into commercial farmlands. All efforts to improve farming methods and

prevent soil erosion were concentrated here. The majority of the population lived on

communal farmlands where little attention was paid to conserving the soil and the

farming environment. Since independence the focus of government has moved to

communal farming land. Namibia’s population is relatively small; however the

majority of the population (75-80%) is dependant on the natural resource base subject

42 B Boer & I Hannam ‘Legal Aspects of Sustainable Soils: International & National’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 14943 The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Desert Prevention and Transformation (2001)44 Basset & Talafre (Note 21)45 S Bethune ‘Presentation of Namibia’s first national report on the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (2000) Unpublished report to the UNCCD, Bonn46 12th Napcod Steering Committee Meeting. Wednesday, 16th July 2003. Windhoek, Namibia.

7

to the low and variable rainfall. This number of dependants doubles every twenty

years, increasing both the pressure on the land and its resources, and increasing the

urgency of finding ways to cope.47 Namibia has been directly involved in combating

desertification since it prepared its Green Plan48 and participated in the UNCED49

conference in Rio in 1992. In 1994 it initiated Namibia’s Programme to Combat

Desertification (Napcod).

4. NAPCOD- Namibia’s Programme to Combat Desertification

Napcod’s main objective was to improve the ability of rural communities to manage

their land and resources more sustainably, and to lessen their vulnerability to land

degradation and drought.50 The Steering Committee of Napcod served as the National

Coordinating Body (NCB) of Namibia. Four ministries, the University of Namibia,

two farmer’s Unions, and four Non-governmental Organisations were involved. The

NCB began its task in 1994 when the Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA) of

the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) contracted the Desert Research

Foundation of Namibia (DRFN), an NGO, to implement Phase I.

4.1 The Napcod Process

The Napcod process was organised into three significant phases. Phase I included

broad consultation throughout the country and wide participation in a national

workshop. The initial objectives of Phase I were: raising awareness, making

preliminary assessments of desertification in all 13 regions of Namibia,

understanding the economics of desertification in terms of the cost of loss of

productivity, developing a shared understanding between rural resource users and

technical personal on what desertification is, and planning a programme which was

later implemented.51 Governmental and non-governmental participants from a broad

range of sectors attended a National Desertification Workshop at which the

programme was elaborated.

47 Bethune (note 3)48 Namibia’s Green Plan created in 1992 to draw government, NGO, private sector and communities together to work towards sustainable development. Key issues in the Green Plan were developed into a short, strategic document entitled ‘Namibia’s 12-Point Plan for Integrated and Sustainable Environmental Management’ see www.met.gov.na/dea/about_dea/dea_profile.htm 49 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development50 Bethune (note 3)51 S Bethune & J Pallet ‘Namibia’s second national Report on the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification’ Unpublished Report to the UNCCD, Bonn (2002)

8

Phase II (1995-mid 1999) followed eight objectives identified at the National

Desertification Workshop in 1994. Those in which broad participation was sought

were: to involve key players and stakeholders, to develop integrated planning methods

and strategies, to empower communities to implement sustainable resource

management, and to improve policy framework for sustainable resource

management.52The National Steering Committee improved collaboration of

professionals from different sectors.

Phase III was the final phase of the process and was supposed to run from 1999 to

2003 but only ended in mid 2004. Phase III was jointly implemented by MAWRD

and DEA (MET) and an NGO consortium of DRFN and Namibia Economic Policy

and Research Unit (Nepru).53 The main purpose of Phase III was to ensure that ‘the

renewable resources of Namibia are used sustainably by various user groups’54. Six

objectives had been identified for the four year programme, under which the

following components arose:

Establishment of a national- and local-level monitoring system to track

desertification

Strengthening the capacity of service organisations to implement national

resource management

Strengthening the capacity of selected community-based organisations to

implement natural resource management

Improvement of policies and framework conditions for sustainable resource

management, in other words, update the Dewdney Report55

Sharing Napcod experiences with sub-regional, SADC, regional and

international desertification partners

Many successes arose from Phase III of the Napcod process, among which, FIRM

(Forum for Integrated Management) and LLM (Local-Level Monitoring) have since

been promoted and established widely. These projects will be discussed in further

detail.

52 ibid 53 Bethune (Note 3)54 Bethune & Pallet (note 51) 55 Dewdney (Note 5)

9

4.2Funding

Agreements with developed country states were a result of bilateral negotiations with

Germany and Finland providing most of the funding as well as several smaller grants,

particularly for funding the participation of a broad spectrum of SADC and

community participants in the Desertification 2002 Conference Process. Despite this,

desertification does not feature prominently in discussions with international

developed partners.56 The German Government through the Gesellschaft fuer

Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) was the main supporter of Napcod through the

DEA (MET). The GTZ advisor sat on the National Coordinating Body (NCB) and

acted as a full partner of the NCB. A number of other projects and programmes were

funded by donors through the DEA (MET), other government ministries, and through

NGOs.

The funding of Napcod ended with the end of Phase III (July 2004). The current status

of a NAP is unclear. After Napcod ended there was a continuation of activities under

a Country Pilot Partnership on Sustainable Land Management with support from

UNDP/GEF.

4.3Partners and Information Flow

Napcod worked with SADC-ELMS through various workshops and the establishment

of the Multi-disciplinary Scientific and Technological Committee (MSTCC).

Unfortunately the progress of this Committee was compromised due to lack of

sufficient funding. Napcod was also directly involved with the Gobabeb Training and

Research Centre (GTRC) which was selected by SADC-ELMS as the centre for

research and Training, appropriate technology and networking on behalf of the

UNCCD of the region.57

4.4Indicators

Socio-ecological and biophysical indicators for environmental monitoring

(specifically desertification) were established in three sites with differing land tenure

and land use practices. All these sites experienced similar climate. Many projects

56 Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)57 Bethune (Note 45)

10

were tested using pilot areas and through this the successes were then practiced across

national, sub-regional and regional areas.58

4.5 Results and Products

Identification was made of the actual and potential key players related to land

degradation at a national level. Public awareness was high priority and was successful

due to widespread broadcasting. Newsletters, radio programmes, press releases and

other media outputs were used to inform and educate the general public regarding the

causes and effects of desertification. Integrated planning strategies at all levels were

addressed in Phase II. The studies and research done on the cause, effect and

eradication of desertification was successfully documented. The greatest enemy in

drylands is vulnerability.59 Drought occurs frequently and the gains of several good

years can be wiped out by a series of dry seasons. People are then unable to

accumulate assets and are consigned to poverty.60 One of the measures taken within

the framework of NAPs was to help communities become less vulnerable to droughts.

This was done by empowering the communities to take the initiative to better manage

their land and resources. This included activities ranging from marketing of livestock

and other products to crafts and other enterprises.61 As far as education and training in

the field of desertification and land management goes, appropriate training and

education was provided according to needs at all levels. Natural resource users

empowered to plan and implement sustainable management practices in an integrated

and decentralised manner was a major objective of Phase II. Identification and

implementation of incentives to change human activities and support sustainable

natural resource management were made. By the end of the Napcod process, there

were a large number of projects that had been successful most of which were directly

or indirectly related to the UNCCD. 62 Three Napcod products were instrumental in

Namibia’s Third National Report on the implementation of the UNCCD63, of which

two, FIRM and LLM, will be discussed in detail below.

58 ibid59 P Dobie ‘A future for the drylands?’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 14060 ibid61 J Pallet & S Bethune ‘Namibia’s third national report on the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification’ (2004) Unpublished report to the UNCCD, Bonn62 ibid63 ibid

11

i)Local Level Monitoring (LLM)

LLM is a tool for better decision-making based on monitoring of biophysical

indicators that farmers themselves have identified.64 It consists of five indicators;

livestock conditions, rangeland condition, rainfall, bush density and carrying capacity.

The monitoring consists of farmers themselves filling in prepared tables and graphs

using field guides. It involves the application of technical and scientific skills by

communities. The monitoring procedures are worked out in cooperation with relevant

service providers but the monitoring itself is undertaken by the farmers. An evaluation

was done by Napcod in three pilot areas on the impact of the LLM and the FIRM

approach in the first half of 2004. Unless the information gathered is used in decision-

making, LLM has no value. LLM has made farmers more conscious about marking

livestock and selling animals on a regular basis, using bank accounts rather than herds

of livestock as security.

ii) Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM)

The successful implementation of both combating desertification and managing

resources sustainably is largely dependent on communities in rural areas. Therefore an

integrated approach to resource management is essential. The Forum for Integrated

Resource Management is a system driven by local communities in which service

organisations (SOs), NGOs and donors integrate their activities amongst each other

and with the needs and capabilities of the communities. The FIRM approach has been

most successfully implemented by the Grootberg Farmers Association and the

#Khoadi//Hoas Conservancy in the northwest of Namibia. Meetings are called in

which the needs of the community are identified and the actions of the SOs and the

community personnel and the money from community enterprises together with that

of donors are coordinated.65 Napcod and other FIRM partners have assisted the

Farmer’s Association and the Conservancy with institutional strengthening,

operational planning, a goat breeding programme, establishment of water points and

vegetable gardens, tourism development initiatives, activities of the women’s group,

64 ibid65 Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)

12

game counts, a livestock survey and assessment of rangeland condition.66 Essentially

the FIRM approach tackles problems of sustainable resource management from the

viewpoint of the community, and finds ways to implement solutions that are practical

and that have the full involvement of the community members.67 Through FIRM the

community is able to request and receive support to develop their management plan,

and community members are trained to ultimately take over and develop and manage

the plans on their own.68 FIRM has had major achievements which guaranteed its

wider use. It has developed greater sense of ownership over development agendas by

communities. It has improved the capacity to identify development priorities and

solicit support. It has provided mechanisms to monitor and assess the process and the

impact of development.69 Both the FIRM approach and LLM have since been widely

adopted, an example being the Desert Margins Programme that encompasses nine

African countries in an arc ranging from Senegal down to Namibia.

4.6 Policy Framework

In 1995 Napcod established a policy-working group to focus on policy revision. This

was the first step in keeping Article 5 of the UNCCD.70 The Dewdney Report was

written and involved research into policy framework relevant to desertification in

Namibia. One of the outcomes of the policy review process was the contribution of

Napcod towards a drought strategy for Namibia. The Directorate of Environmental

Affairs of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism has elaborated Namibia’s Policy

to Combat Desertification (1994), Namibia’s Assessment Policy (1995), and the Draft

Environmental Management Act (1999). Many principles of the UNCCD are included

in these policies and acts.71 Many policies in Namibia, while formulated and approved

by parliament, are not implemented, strategies to support their implementation have

not been elaborated and they are not backed by legislation or regulations.72 A national

strategy to harmonize policies, plans and legislation important to combating

desertification should be developed.73 The report was instrumental in the forming of

66 ibid67 ibid68 Pallet & Bethune (Note 61)69 ibid70 ‘ to provide an enabling environment by strengthening, as appropriate, relevant existing legislation and, where they do not exist, enacting new laws and establishing long-term policies and action programmes’ UNCCD (Paris, 17 June 1994) Article 571 Bethune (Note 45)72 ibid73 Bethune (Note 3)

13

the Drought Policy and Strategy (1997) that is only starting to be implemented now

by the MAWRD. Despite exhaustive efforts of Napcod as well as direct influence on

the forming of many acts and policies, by the end of the Napcod process in 2004 some

bills and policies were still not enacted. There was also very little commitment on

ground to law enforcement. There is a Policy on Desertification coordinated by the

DEA but it has still not come into effect.

4.7 Challenges

Napcod had a few shortcomings which it recognised itself in its reports to the

UNCCD and tried to improve. The lack of a consistent monitoring system for self-

evaluation of the Napcod process was pointed out by the GTZ. Through out the ten

years there was a lack of recognition that many government activities did in fact

contribute towards combating desertification (without necessarily being aware of it).

There was a need to ensuring user rights over communal rangeland resources similar

to those available for wildlife, water and forestry resources. The slow process of

enacting policies and acts is a handicap that Namibia, as a country, needs to address.

4.7 Successes

The strong government/NGO collaboration was an important and successful

characteristic of Napcod. Broad and effective participation, especially at community

level, was a great success of the Napcod process. The Steering Committee comprised

people from diverse backgrounds, and benefited from the spread of ideas and

priorities that these people brought to meetings.74 The concepts and approaches

discussed in Napcod were spread widely into other organisations. Community

empowerment to manage rangeland and livestock resources sustainably, which

equates to being flexible and adaptive to variable rainfall has been very successful.75

LLM has been used extensively by community-level farmers. The FIRM is now

accepted as a useful way for communities to address land degradation issues on

communal land plan integrated and effective activities76 and has subsequently been

adapted in many other countries in Africa.

74 Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)75 ibid76 ibid

14

5. Conclusion

Although Napcod was not formally recognised as a NAP, it enjoyed much support

from government, NGOs, the private sector, the community, and the UNCCD.

Namibia was too far ahead and already in the implementation phase by the time she

ratified the UNCCD. Thus Napcod was a country-specific project that, despite a few

shortcomings, enjoyed great success. The major focus of Napcod was to ensure the

real participation by local populations and local authorities in decision-making

concerning natural resources. Capacity building was also particularly important for

Namibia as human resources available were limited and was a great priority for

Napcod. Namibia’s Programme to Combat Desertification had many good projects

and programmes that have been widely accepted since it ended Phase III in 2004.

Unfortunately, although Napcod was instrumental in the forming of many policies and

acts regarding combating desertification, especially the very good Drought Policy,

most of these, although accepted by parliament, are not implemented and enforced

and thus have no real value. Desertification is still often seen as merely an

‘environmental’ issue that does not deserve high priority.77 Its role in directly

influencing people’s lives is not fully understood or appreciated.

Lack of sufficient funding has always been a challenge and also the reason why the

plan for a Phase IV under the Napcod process was aborted. The Napcod approach has

since been integrated into a Country Pilot Partnership that is being formed using a

coordinated umbrella as Napcod did. This Partnership is being funded by the GEF and

the World Bank through the UNDP. It is never the less necessary to formalise the new

approach to the NAP so that the momentum built up during Napcod is not lost.

Pen ultimately, I find it imperative to add that the Napcod process has had great

success and enjoyed international recognition for its achievements, as confirmed by

the UNCCD General Secretary, His Excellency Hama A Diallo, in September 2004:

‘Namibia had made commendable efforts in the management of its natural resources

at community, as well as national level. This is what the UNCCD and its partners,

UNDP, UNEP, FAO, African Development Bank and World Bank wanted to see.

77 Pallet & Bethune (Note 61)

15

Namibia’s experiences are quite useful to all its neighbours.’ 78 It could be said that

Namibia and its NAP is a success story for the UNCCD.

And in parting words on the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification it

is important to realise, although there are many who argue that the Convention is

idealistic and needs to adjust its course79, it remains a powerful Convention, which if

taken seriously, could become a saviour of lives. It is also important to mention that

the Convention was landed by Africa and will always have a special significance for

Africa.80 And ultimately, that the Convention is an instrument of fundamentals: it has

very concrete objectives and deals with elements basic to human beings for thousands

of years: sun, water, sand, people, food.81 It is the responsibility of the entire

international community to combat unacceptable conditions for the more than one

billion people who live in the vast drylands of this planet.82

78 ibid79 Basset & Talafre (Note 21)80 Kjellen (Note 11)81 Kjellen (note 11)82 ibid

16