1. 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) 10
2
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 1992
3
Shirley Bethune ‘Review of Legislation and Policies Pertinent to Combating Desertification- A Case
Study from Namibia’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 176-182
1

2. 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 9
7
ibid
8
ibid
2

3. 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
ibid
10
ibid
11
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
ibid
14
ibid
15
ibid
16
ibid
17
Kjellen (note 11)
18
Lean (note 1)
19
ibid
20
UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries experiencing Serious Drought and/or
Desertification, particularly in Africa (Paris, 17 June 1994) Article 2.1
3

4. 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 133
22
note 20 Article 3
23
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 10
27
all these points are taken from the Convention Article 10 (note 20)
4

5. • 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
28
(note 20) Article 11
29
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 20
35
Annex 1 is for the regional implementation for Africa, there are 4 Annexes in total (note 23)
36
note 20
37
(note 20) Article 24
5

6. subsidiary body to the Conference of the Parties and provides advice on scientific
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
38
note 20
39
Bassett & Talafre (note 21)
40
ibid
41
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

7. 2.5 Local Implementation
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
42
B Boer & I Hannam ‘Legal Aspects of Sustainable Soils: International & National’ (2003) 12(2)
RECIEL 149
43
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, Bonn
46
12th
Napcod Steering Committee Meeting. Wednesday, 16th
July 2003. Windhoek, Namibia.
7

8. majority of the population (75-80%) is dependant on the natural resource base subject
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
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 Development
50
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

9. range of sectors attended a National Desertification Workshop at which the
programme was elaborated.
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.52
The 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
52
ibid
53
Bethune (Note 3)
54
Bethune & Pallet (note 51)
55
Dewdney (Note 5)
9

10. been promoted and established widely. These projects will be discussed in further
detail.
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
56
Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)
57
Bethune (Note 45)
10

11. and land use practices. All these sites experienced similar climate. Many projects
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
ibid
59
P Dobie ‘A future for the drylands?’ (2003) 12(2) RECIEL 140
60
ibid
61
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, Bonn
62
ibid
63
ibid
11

12. 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
64
ibid
65
Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)
12

13. vegetable gardens, tourism development initiatives, activities of the women’s group,
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
66
ibid
67
ibid
68
Pallet & Bethune (Note 61)
69
ibid
70
‘ 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 5
71
Bethune (Note 45)
72
ibid
13

14. desertification should be developed.73
The report was instrumental in the forming of
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
73
Bethune (Note 3)
74
Bethune & Pallet (Note 51)
75
ibid
14

15. communal land plan integrated and effective activities76
and has subsequently been
adapted in many other countries in Africa.
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:
76
ibid
77
Pallet & Bethune (Note 61)
15

16. ‘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.
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
ibid
79
Basset & Talafre (Note 21)
80
Kjellen (Note 11)
81
Kjellen (note 11)
82
ibid
16