You are invited to an interactive on-line debate and discussion: 2nd - 25th of June

The World Bank Africa Environment and Natural Resources Unit and the Water Resources and Watershed Management Thematic Group invite you to participate in an online debate on watershed management that will run throughout June.

Watersheds are ideal systems for natural resource management. A watershed is one of the few natural systems that we can accurately map, and where we know water flows connect upstream and downstream communities.

As the unit that regulates the flow of water across the landscape, watersheds will be the place where we see the acute effects of climate change. They will be a barometer of the combined effect of our natural resource use as we move to warmer, drier times. The large size of most watersheds also makes them able to deliver real environmental and economic outcomes if their management were improved.

As always there are challenges. Watersheds rarely align to our geo-political boundaries or with the size and shape of our land management units.
The World Bank Africa Environment and Natural Resources Unit and the Water Resources and Watershed Management Thematic Group invite you to participate in an online debate on watershed management that will run throughout June.

Watersheds are ideal systems for natural resource management. A watershed is one of the few natural systems that we can accurately map, and where we know water flows connect upstream and downstream communities.

As the unit that regulates the flow of water across the landscape, watersheds will be the place where we see the acute effects of climate change. They will be a barometer of the combined effect of our natural resource use as we move to warmer, drier times. The large size of most watersheds also makes them able to deliver real environmental and economic outcomes if their management were improved.

As always there are challenges. Watersheds rarely align to our geo-political boundaries or with the size and shape of our land management units.
Anything larger than a farm or forest block requires a collective will and control that does not fit with our dominant socio-economic paradigm of individual resource ownership. Africa’s mixed and complex status on land and water access and local control of natural resources makes this an even more important need.

So what is the key to effective watershed management? How should it best be implemented? What are the right incentives? What are the barriers and who controls them? Do we ever have enough information to know when management is working?
The discussion will offer ideas, opinion and suggest some answers to these questions. Set as a series of mini-debates, watershed management experts from governments, development agencies, science and business, all with a wealth of practical experience will debate four propositions on watershed management in Africa and a dedicated website will provide the opportunity for public comment and feedback. Moderation and daily summaries of the discussion will be provided throughout the discussion.

This is your opportunity to engage in a debate that has critical outcomes for Sub-Saharan Africa.

To participate in the discussion go to www.africawatershed.org

We look forward to your contributions.

Two-hundred delegates attended the 6th CAADP Partnership Platform meeting in Johannesburg on 23-24 April. They included representatives of the African Union Commission, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency, Regional Economic Communities, farmers organisations, civil society organisations, Pan-African organisations and representatives of eight development partner agencies.

In reviewing progress towards ensuring food security and reducing poverty on the African continent, recent trends across regions and individual countries showed that 10 countries had met the 6% agricultural growth rate in 2008. The decline in the average malnutrition rate was encouraging but was still high at 29%.

About 13 countries were making progress towards the hunger or poverty targets but only Ghana was on track to achieve both the targets by 2015. Estimates of the Global Hunger Index of The International Food Policy Research Institute showed that the majority of countries had managed to reduce hunger and poverty but Africa, as a whole, was not on track to achieve the primary Millennium Development Goal. This added to the sense of urgency for speedy and effective implementation of CAADP.

Ten countries had met the target of allocating 10% percent of their national budgets to agriculture and several others had made some progress, with at least nine countries showing budget allocations in the 5-10% range.  Although the share of agricultural expenditure had risen in the large majority of countries, there was cause for concern because case studies in Ghana and Uganda had indicated that implementation of their Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks may constrain the increase in budget allocation to agriculture.

Whereas growth that had taken place in most countries should have led to greater reduction in poverty levels, this had not happened. There were many factors which threatened production, livelihoods, markets, national security, health and the environment and all key stakeholders needed to overcome the silo mentalities of planning and programming in order to design comprehensive investments and programmes.

Countries needed to maximise synergies between expenditures in the social sectors and agriculture with the objective of raising the productivity of labour in the agricultural and rural sectors, where most of the poor and vulnerable reside. Investment plans needed to anticipate, respond and adapt to potential changes, crises and threats related to African agriculture and food security.

Speedy implementation of the CAADP agenda by Regional Economic Communities and their member states had taken place. In the period from July 2009 to date, the number of countries that had signed their national CAADP compacts was 18 (6 in COMESA and 12 in ECOWAS). A further 8 countries were expected to sign by June 30, 2010: Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

ECCAS countries were increasingly mobilising, including Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Brazzaville, and Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda, the first country to have signed a compact, had also been the first to complete its post-compact process, followed by adoption of its financing plan. As at April 2010, US$250 million had been secured for its plan out of a total funding gap of US$325 million.

With regard to the disbursement of funds by the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) to Pan-African institutions and Regional Economic Communities the total committed funding of the MDTF had reached US$32 million, with an additional US$ 20 million in commitments expected.

The delegates agreed that the roadmap for the remainder of 2010 should focus on countries which had already signed Compacts. Parties were urged to make sure that adequate roadmaps were in place in each country upon signing of the Compact, to be followed without delay by the formulation of agricultural investment plans.

It was vital for country leadership to get involved in the post-Compact process as well as farmer organisations, the private sector, and civil society bodies. The AU, NPCA and development partners were urged to redouble their efforts to ensure that they involve non-state domestic parties at the earliest phase of the CAADP process.

“Through CAADP, African governments have demonstrated more commitment than ever before towards a framework and plan that can be used to address some of the issues that have continued to haunt the continent - such as food insecurity and poverty,” said Dr. Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, Chief Executive Officer of  the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency.

Issued on behalf of:
The NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency

Contact:
Dr. Andrew Kanyegirire, Communications Manager
Tel: 011 256 3615