Commission on Sustainable Development

Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting

5^th & 6^th Meetings (AM & PM)

LAND, DROUGHT ARE FOCUS OF DISCUSSIONS AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETING HOLDS

TWO PANELS IN PREPARATION FOR COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development today held two expert panel discussions on policy options to address barriers and constraints to land and drought, respectively.

Convened to lay the foundation for the Commission’s seventeenth session, which is scheduled from 4 to 15 May, the Meeting aimed to highlight obstacles, best practices and lessons learned across six thematic priorities:  agriculture, drought, desertification, land, rural development and Africa, as well as interlinkages and cross-cutting issues.

Harold Liversage, Land Tenure Adviser for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), kicked off the morning panel on drought by stressing that insecure land rights were a source of social inequality and major instability around the world, hindering people’s ability to invest in land and access credit.  Land had deep social and cultural significance, and land-tenure security was the foundation of poverty reduction, economic growth and sustained development.  In fact, countries with more rapid economic growth rates enjoyed more equitable land distribution.  But the merits of land security were too often undervalued.  The world already had the knowledge, management and technology to meet current land challenges, but it must use those tools wisely to balance social equity, economic development and environmental sustainability.

Land-tenure security regulations were needed to guide the land development process, he said, pointing to several successful programmes in Uganda and Mozambique, and to United Nations initiatives to replicate those successes in other parts of Africa.  Two thirds of people in developing countries lived in rural areas, many on family-owned or group land holdings.  The key was to strengthen land rights for poor and vulnerable groups, including women.  Land redistribution must also be accompanied by land-support services, and Governments must install accessible, affordable and transparent land-administration systems that would be subjected to regular review, monitoring and evaluation for effectiveness.

John Bruce, international land policy expert and head of Land and Development Solutions International, a United States-based consulting firm, said land use around the world could best be understood through the local systems that sustained common resources.  Communities had varying rules and institutions to govern the use of shared grazing areas, forests, farms or recreation facilities.  In common property cases, there was often a long-term interest in sustainability and good husbandry.  Common uses could become unsustainable, however, when they shrank and disappeared, or when customary regulations eroded.  To prevent that, Governments could refrain from undermining customary regulations for common property by providing legal recognition to the customary authority and ensuring that those rights were respected by the courts.

Taking up the issue of global land degradation, Luc Gnacadja, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said policy frameworks to combat land degradation must be comprehensive and tailored to each country’s specific needs and circumstances.  However, there were common guidelines that everyone must follow to improve the condition of affected ecosystems and the livelihoods of affected populations.  In fact, land degradation was predictable and, to some extent, reversible.  The inability to reverse land degradation really resulted from a failure to scale up good practices, diffuse available information and communications technology, mainstream successful community-level programmes and monitor land degradation worldwide.

To correct that, he said, the international community must mobilize resources through effective multi-stakeholder partnerships and best practices in dry land areas.  Governments must adopt sustainable land and water management through human-resource development, land and water productivity initiatives and new ways to reduce population pressure on, and consumption of, natural resources.  That began with investments to improve land ecosystem conditions, which resulted in better rainfall and water retention, helping to prevent flooding and soil erosion, and thus improving crop and food production.  Soil also had a remarkable capacity to act as a sink for greenhouse gases.  When sequestered properly in the soil, organic carbon enhanced soil fertility, crop productivity, nutrient bioavailability and water retention, helping to reduce deforestation and turn degraded land into healthy soil.

In the ensuing dialogue, successive speakers underscored the paramount importance of secure land-tenure systems in sustainable land management.  Several delegates said insecure tenure systems were costly and created simmering land-use conflicts, which could explode into widespread warfare.  Others said land-management systems should be closely married to production systems so as to match agricultural practices with landscape capacity.

Kicking off the afternoon panel, Constance L. Neely, Vice-President of Advocacy for Heifer International, said drought resulted from ineffective water cycles, whereby 50 to 80 per cent of rainfall was lost through run-off and evaporation.  Without arable lands and sufficient water, rural inhabitants moved to cities and towns, which was the “worst form of rural-urban linkages”.  Combating drought required effective management of water cycles and livelihoods and a recognition of the links between drought prevention and climate adaptation.

Noting that soil moisture could be increased by building crop residues and minimizing soil disturbance, she said that integrating livestock added another dimension.  In parts of Africa, farmers added animal manure to soil to improve its organic mix and enrich the land, a viable soil regeneration method requiring no fertilizer.  Grazing and other animal impacts could also make land more resilient in drought-prone and conflict-ridden areas of sub-Saharan Africa, as had been the case in the Philippines, where landscapes were regenerated through planned and controlled grazing.  That process was not only successful, but also cost-effective.

In a similar vein, Jeff Herrick, research scientist with the Jornada Experimental Range of the Agricultural Research Service in the United States Department of Agriculture, said the same tools that enabled scientists to predict and assess drought-related events could be used to restore drought-stricken land to good health.  The advent of modern technology for analysing the impact of drought on sandy soils, which were least resilient and most susceptible to degradation, had spurred a dramatic rise in livestock production.  Land-use plans, combined with early-warning systems, could in fact help minimize the impact of drought and alert agriculturalists as to when to put drought-response plans in place.

Many speakers in the ensuing discussion highlighted the continuing need for early-warning systems to better map and predict drought patterns as part of robust risk-reduction plans.  It was increasingly important to provide reliable forecasting through national institutions tied, in turn, to international systems.  A few delegates noted, however, that such plans must be translated into action at the local level through effective communal planning and capacity-building.  It would also be necessary to disseminate relevant and reliable information to those communities.  Several delegates from African countries cited dire predictions of future drought patterns on the continent in underlining the critical importance of implementing drought adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Commission Chairperson Gerda Verburg ( Netherlands) presided over both panel discussions.

At the outset on the morning session, the Commission concluded its panel discussion on rural development, hearing statements from the representatives of the Republic of Korea and Pakistan, and from a representative of the children and youth major group.

Participating in the morning panel discussion were representatives of the Sudan (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), Federated States of Micronesia (on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States), Oman (on behalf of the Arab Group), Tonga (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Developing States), Chile, South Africa, United States, Canada, Indonesia, Switzerland, Nigeria, Israel, Ecuador, Malawi, Guatemala, Norway, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mexico, Ghana, Cuba, Republic of Korea and Argentina.

Representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) also made statements.

Speaking on behalf of the major groups were representatives of indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, and business and industry.

Taking part in the afternoon panel discussion were representatives of the Sudan (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States), Barbados, Canada, Chile, Mexico, United States, Norway, South Africa, Australia, Switzerland, Oman (on behalf of the Arab Group), Iran, Malawi, Guatemala, Japan, Nigeria and Kazakhstan.

A representative of the World Meteorological Organization also delivered a statement.

Speaking on behalf of the major groups were representatives of non-governmental organizations, science and technology, business and industry, children and youth and women.

The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, 26 February, to consider policy options and possible actions concerning desertification.

Background

Convening this morning to continue its consideration of policy options to address barriers and constraints on the thematic issue of land, the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting for the seventeenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development had before it reports of the Secretary-General on land (document E/CN.17/2009/5) and on interlinkages and cross-cutting issues (document E/CN.17/2009/9).  In the afternoon, members were expected to take up the thematic issue of drought (document E/CN.17/2009/6).  For details on the session, see Press Releases ENV/DEV/1025 and ENV/DEV/1026 of 23 February.

Statements

At the outset, the meeting concluded its panel discussion on rural development, hearing from three speakers.  (For details on that topic, see Press Release ENV/DEV/1027 of 24 February.)

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his country’s “new village” movement engaged the rural population in eradicating poverty in their communities.  Lessons from that experience included the importance of cooperative effort between people and Government, and making rural people confident in their ability to improve their own situation.  Subsequent initiatives had improved education infrastructure, among other things.

Pakistan’s delegate, associating himself with the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, stressed that policy options and suggestions considered during the upcoming session should come from real-life examples.

The representative of the children and youth major group expressed hope for a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

Panel Discussion on Land

Gerda Verburg ( Netherlands), Commission Chairperson, chaired the morning panel, which featured panellists Harold Liversage, Land Tenure Adviser for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); Luc Gnacadja, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; and John Bruce, international land policy expert and head of Land and Development Solutions International, a consulting firm based in the United States.

Mr. LIVERSAGE began the discussion by explaining that his office helped IFAD’s partners integrate land-tenure activities and secure the land rights of rural people as part of its poverty-reduction programmes.  Land-tenure security was often a neglected part of poverty reduction and economic growth.  It determined whether people would invest in land management and whether they could access credit.  Insecure land rights were a source of social inequality and major instability.  Land was not just an economic asset; it also had deep social and cultural significance.  Countries with more rapid growth rates enjoyed more equitable land distribution.  Land-tenure security was the foundation of sustained development, but there was still a need for access to technology, inputs, credit and markets.

An estimated 68 per cent of people in developing countries lived in rural areas, he said, adding that women often made up 60 to 80 per cent of the agricultural producers.  Many rural people lived in informal settlements, and women typically had weaker land rights than men.  In many parts of world, the State legally owned most of the land, but other tenure systems involved group and family ownership.  Very little land in the world was not owned or used by one family or another.

Noting that the world’s population would grow from an estimated 6.7 billion today to 9.2 billion by 2050, he said it would be concentrated mostly in rural areas.  The cost of forest loss was 7 per cent of global gross domestic product, and there was a significant increase in demand for land by large-scale foreign and direct investment, mainly for agricultural production.  Biofuel production should grow to 35 million hectares by 2030, which would be 4 per cent of all arable land.  Much of that production was taking place on what was considered marginal land.

The developed world could not continue consuming global resources at the current rate, he warned, emphasizing that it must consume less.  The world had the knowledge, management and technology to meet current land challenges, and increased demand for land among foreign and direct investors could provide growth opportunities.  But land-tenure security was needed to ensure the adoption of new technologies.  It was necessary to balance social equity, economic development and environmental sustainability.

There was no one-size-fits-all solution, he cautioned, adding that good land policies must not just be formulated, but also implemented.  Modest investment in land could have a significant impact on poverty reduction and sustainable development.  There was also a need for guidelines on land-tenure security, two good examples of which could be found in Uganda and Mozambique.  Several United Nations agencies had been leading prime African land-planning policy guidance processes to spur economic growth in the continent.

He stressed the need to strengthen land rights for poor and vulnerable people and to secure women’s land rights through co-titling, strengthening spousal rights, developing women’s inheritance rights and providing women with preferential registration fees to develop land.  It was also essential to disseminate information on land tenure guidelines and rights.  Governments must support land redistribution to support land-starved producers by, among other things, identifying and reallocating large holdings, as had been down in Kenya and Rwanda.  The Philippines was another successful example of a Government land-redistribution programme.

But land redistribution must be accompanied by a range of land-support services, he said, underscoring the importance of developing accessible, affordable and transparent land-administration systems.  There was also a need to strengthen the roles of the private sector and civil society in that process and promote community-investor partnerships.  Ongoing policy review, monitoring and evaluation were also necessary, as were multi-stakeholder and multi-level reviews and dialogue between different perspectives.

Mr. BRUCE focused on common or shared-use resources, saying that understanding the local systems that sustained common resources was the key to understanding land use.  Drilling down into a community made clear the existence of different land-use niches with varying rules and institutions.  Examples of such niche uses might include grazing areas, forests, farms or recreation facilities.  Any community landscape might contain many different niches, which could be called “communal” if their use was shared.  Communal niches were typically more prevalent in land-poor areas.

Turning to the sustainability of communal resources, he said several tools could be used to understand a community’s approach to their use, noting that property rights played an important role in community incentives for sustainable use.  Economists applied two key analytical categories for communal use situations:  open access, and common property, whereby the first meant shared and unregulated resource use.  Essentially, it was a free-for-all because individuals had an incentive to maximize their use.

Common property applied to a shared-use resource for which tenure rules and institutions allowed community control, he said.  In such a case, incentives revolved around the security of tenure and had a long time horizon for users.  In common property cases, there was often a long-term interest in sustainability and good husbandry.  Common uses could become unsustainable, however, when they shrank and disappeared, or when customary regulations eroded.  To prevent that, Governments could refrain from undermining customary regulations for common property by providing legal recognition to the customary authority and ensuring those rights were respected by the courts.

Mr. GNACADJA said approximately 78 per cent of the world’s land degradation appeared in humid zones bordering dry lands.  Desertification was actually land degradation occurring in semiarid and dry lands.  Land degradation was predictable and reversible to some extent, as had been demonstrated by success stories about reversing the damage in places like India.  Failure to reverse land degradation resulted from failure to scale up good practices, diffuse available information and communications technology, mainstream successful community-level programmes and monitor land degradation worldwide.  The problem was that the global population was overusing the planet’s natural resources.  A policy framework to combat land degradation must be comprehensive.  There was no cookie-cutter solution.  Land-management policies must be tailored to each country’s specific needs and circumstances.

However, there were some common guidelines that everyone must follow, he said.  To obtain maximum benefit in land management, there must be capacity to improve the conditions of affected ecosystems and improve the livelihoods of affected populations.  The international community must also mobilize resources through effective partnerships involving all stakeholders and make good use of lessons learned in dry land areas.  Governments must work on sustainable land and water management, which required investing in enabling policies and human-resource development, investing in land and water productivity and, at the same time, identifying alternative ways to reduce population pressure on natural resources.  Sustainable land management must also take water management into account.  That began with investment to improve land ecosystem conditions, which resulted in improved rains and better water retention by the soil, which in turn helped prevent flooding and soil erosion.  That virtuous land management cycle would result in improved crops and food production.

Land also had the untapped potential substantially to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, he said, noting also its unparalleled capacity to hold carbon and act as a sink for greenhouse gases.  As organic matter, carbon was sequestered in the soil; increasing the amount of organic carbon enhanced the soil’s fertility, crop productivity, nutrient bioavailability and soil water retention.  In a process known as “biochar”, carbon sequestration transformed carbon from the active carbon pool, as in crop residue or trees, into the inactive pool.  That process reduced deforestation because it led to reforestation and the recuperation of degraded land.  It was important to raise awareness of the beneficial role that land played in climate-change mitigation and adaptation, and the importance of “biochar” in enhancing the sequestration of carbon in soil.

In the ensuing dialogue, nearly all speakers underscored the paramount importance of secure tenure systems as a key element of sustainable land management.  Several delegates stressed that in addition to the economic costs of insecure tenure systems was the danger posed by simmering land-use conflicts, which, when stressed too much, could explode into widespread warfare.

Indonesia’s representative said replacing paper-based manual titling systems with digital ones could enhance the long-term stability of land-registration systems.  However, a representative of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) cautioned that individual titling alone could not deliver security of tenure for all, and encouraged Governments to investigate a menu of options for documenting land rights.  They could also draw lessons from de facto rights.

A number of speakers said land-management systems should be closely married to production systems in ways that matched agricultural practices with landscape capacity.  Examples of that included conservation tillage, agro-forestry, organic farming, ploughing-in crop residues and crop diversification.  Suggesting that local efforts would be insufficient to conserve fertile soils, Switzerland’s representative said it was time for a new international instrument and common objectives in protecting and monitoring sustainable soil use.  A number of delegates cited the success of payments for ecosystem services in promoting sustainable land use, suggesting that the seventeenth session should recognize the value of such incentives.

Several delegates from small island States said the increasing salinity of their soil due to climate change-induced sea-level rise had led to lower soil fertility and a higher incidence of landslides.  Tonga’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, underlined the importance of better land and water management through improved water irrigation and rainfall catchments with a view to preventing excessive ground water extraction.

Also participating in the discussion were representatives of the Sudan (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), Federated States of Micronesia (on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States), Oman (on behalf of the Arab Group), Tonga (on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States), Chile, South Africa, United States, Canada, Switzerland, Nigeria, Israel, Ecuador, Malawi, Guatemala, Norway, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mexico, Ghana, Cuba, Republic of Korea and Argentina.

A representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization also spoke.

Speaking on behalf of the major groups were representatives of indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, and business and industry.

Mr. LIVERSAGE, responding to those interventions, said land rights were not only about individual rights, but family and group rights as well.  As part of the process to strengthen the rights of poor people and women, there was a need for mechanisms like legal aid and for the training of magistrates and lawyers.  It was important to build local capacity, use top-down and bottom-up approaches, disseminate information and strengthen sustainable and mutually beneficial community partnerships, particularly taking into account the increased demand for land among large-scale and foreign direct investors.

Mr. BRUCE stressed the importance of the rights of female-headed households and equitable access to common property resources in many developing countries, noting that, while common property resources were not a long-term solution, they were beneficial.  Land grabbing in local communities was a problem, which was why it was so important to secure the property rights of local community land holders.  However, Governments were often complicit in the land grabbing, and there was a need to find the right balance between land development and property rights, with the focus on creating incentives rather than enforcement.  The situation in western Sudan was a good example of how the international community neglected land-use planning for too long, to the detriment of climate.

Mr. GNACADJA said the potential of land management was under-recognized.  Land was a win-win path leading to solutions to such global challenges as poverty reduction, water scarcity, food insecurity, hunger, deforestation and migration.  General Assembly resolution 63/128 recognized land as a cross-cutting issue requiring the involvement of all Government agencies in support of efforts to combat desertification and drought.  It was important to raise the profile of land issues.

Ms. VERBURG ( Netherlands), Commission Chairperson, wrapped up the panel discussion by summarizing the session.  Speakers had stressed the crucial role of land in poverty eradication and sustainable development, while calling for integrated approaches to improve land productivity and soil management.  The panel had emphasized the need for clear land tenure and registration assistance through sound legal, regulatory and institutional arrangements that ensured fairness and the participation of all stakeholders, including women and indigenous peoples.  Land planning must integrate social and environmental considerations, and strengthen the reliance and capacity of communities to adapt to climate change.  Capacity must be built, particularly in developing countries, through more South-South and North-South cooperation, to ensure effective use of local knowledge and best practices.

Panel Discussion on Drought

Ms. Verburg ( Netherlands), Commission Chairperson, presided over the afternoon discussion, which featured panellists Constance L. Neely, Vice-President of Advocacy for Heifer International; and Jeff Herrick, research scientist with the Jornada Experimental Range of the Agricultural Research Service in the United States Department of Agriculture.

Ms. NEELY noted that, while rains might fall in drought-stricken regions, it would dry up too quickly to make a difference.  Without arable lands and sufficient water, the inhabitants moved into cities and towns, which was the “worst form of rural-urban linkages”.  Clearly, drought was the result of an ineffective water cycle, whereby 50 to 80 per cent of rainfall was lost through run-off and evaporation.  In contrast, an effective water cycle was characterized by a good soil cover of plants and mulch, which rains could penetrate to reach and replenish the water table.  Where the cycle was ineffective, wells, troughs and boreholes would be insufficient over the long term unless the water cycle was transformed.

Soil moisture could be increased by building crop residues and minimizing soil disturbance, she said, noting that integrating livestock added another dimension.  Specifically, adding manure to soil improved its organic mix.  In parts of Africa, that was done through the introduction of kraal systems, whereby animals were penned at night and allowed to graze freely during the day, thus harnessing their waste to enrich the land.  The project’s success demonstrated that soil regeneration could be done without fertilizer.

Turning to sub-Saharan Africa and the mapping of drought hotspots against conflict hotspots, she asked whether grazing and other animal impacts could be used to make those lands more resilient.  It could be done, as demonstrated by an example from the Philippines, where landscapes were regenerated through planned and controlled grazing, by managing deep roots systems and planting diverse perennial species to achieve full soil cover.  It was not only successful, but also cost-effective.

She recommended that, to combat drought, it was necessary to manage effective water cycles and livelihoods; recognize the links between drought prevention and climate adaptation; consider a campaign for agro-ecological approaches that resulted in diverse soil covers; and lift up and recognize the roles and practices of women and men farmers, as well as those of pastoralists who currently managed resource bases and were constantly adapting to change.

Mr. HERRICK said that the three types of soil -- gravely, sandy and soils on hills -– varied in their potential to produce different amounts of forage and in terms of their resilience to degradation.  The most productive soils were also the most resilient.  The technology for analyzing the impact of drought on sandy soils, which were the least resilient and most susceptible to degradation, had not become available until recently and its advent had led to a dramatic rise in livestock production.  Sandy soils present in grasslands had the potential to recover from degradation.

He said it was important to remove livestock from drought-stricken areas as soon as possible in order to minimize pressure on sandy soils that were highly susceptible to erosion, especially during early drought-recovery periods.  It was also important to control shrubs and minimize pressure on sandy sites.  Drought early-warning systems, used together with planning tools, could determine when it was necessary to put drought-response plans in place.  Livestock early-warning systems were based on a combination of climate models and satellite observations.  The result was an ability to obtain foraged biomass estimates for 60 days.

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had enabled scientists to predict drought-related events for the next 60 years, he said.  The same tools used in drought assessment could be used for restoration treatment.  Land-use plans based on land potential could be used with early-warning systems to help minimize the impact of drought by focusing on less resilient areas before drought began.  It was important to integrate scientific and local knowledge.

Many speakers in the ensuing discussion highlighted the continuing need for early-warning systems to better map and predict drought patterns as part of robust risk-reduction plans.  It was increasingly important to provide reliable forecasting through national institutions tied, in turn, to international systems.  A few delegates noted, however, that such plans must be translated into action at the local level through effective communal planning and capacity-building.  It would also be necessary to disseminate relevant and reliable information to those communities.

Several delegates from African countries cited the dire nature of current predictions of future drought patterns on the continent, underlining the critical importance of implementing drought adaptation and mitigation strategies.  To that end, the representative of the Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, expressed support for efforts to incorporate such strategies into the Anti-Desertification Convention’s plan of action, but called for more to be done in providing cost-effective, proven and appropriate technology to developing countries.

A representative of the non-governmental organizations major group asked about the limitations of transferring existing monitoring systems to other areas.

Meanwhile, a representative of the World Meteorological Organization recalled that scientists participating in a recent workshop held in Beijing had recommended a unified and standardized drought index that could be applied in a practical manner to a wide range of agricultural purposes.  Also emphasized was the need to strengthen national capacities for collecting and processing data and information on drought and other natural disasters, and the use of crop insurance products.

Echoing the need for financially linked products, Mexico’s delegate pointed out that, among its other impacts, drought had become an important risk factor in agriculture-related investment decisions.

Also participating in the discussion were representatives of the Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States), Barbados, Canada, Chile, United States, Norway, South Africa, Australia, Switzerland, Oman (on behalf of the Arab Group), Iran, Malawi, Guatemala, Japan, Nigeria and Kazakhstan.

Speaking for major groups were representatives of science and technology, business and industry, children and youth, and women.

Ms. NEELY, responding to those interventions, called for a review of policy options across the different sectors, noting that large-scale efforts were having a large-scale impact on the ground.  It was important to make good use of indigenous knowledge and to enhance the capacity of early-warning systems.  It was essential not to lose track of events on the ground so as to avoid further loss of resources and soil.  Disaster responses should not be kept separate from ongoing steps to mitigate and control drought and other disaster responses.

Mr. HERRICK said he was pleased to hear about so many national plans to enhance natural disaster early-warning systems.  It was important to localize scientific knowledge and generalize local knowledge, a challenge that must be addressed because what worked in one place may or may not work in another.  There was also a need to involve local stakeholders in data analysis, and to increase data collection, standardization and sharing in a more formal way on the local, national, regional and international levels.  Data comparison was essential.

Ms. VERBURG ( Netherlands), Commission Chairperson, summarized the points made during the discussion, calling for collaborative efforts at all levels.  Many countries had adopted strategies to mitigate the effects of drought, but further actions -- such as technology transfer, research, the means to implement early-warning systems -- were needed to allow for the rapid mitigation of the effects of drought and enable drought-management plans.  There was also a need for collaborative efforts to promote drought-resistant crops, extend knowledge and education so communities could have sustainable livelihoods, green technology and agro-ecological methods.  Speakers had also stressed the importance of promoting integrated water-resource management solutions such as rainwater harvesting; financial and technical support for drought prevention and mitigation strategies; and capacity-building, particularly in rural areas.  They had also called for the promotion of drought-prevention partnerships for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record