Land restoration. Source: World Bank Photo Collection

THE GREAT GREEN
WALL IMPLEMENTATIONSTATUS AND WAY
AHEAD TO 2030
ADVANCED VERSIONCONTENTS
04
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel
Initiative
1.2 Aim and scope of the report

06
BACKGROUND ON LAND DEGRADATION AND
RESTORATION
2.1 Land degradation globally and in the Sahel
2.2 International policy context for land restoration
2.3 Land restoration and international commitments
2.4 GGW Initiative: context and background

13
GREAT GREEN WALL IMPLEMENTATION AT
THE REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELS
3.1 Implementation status in the eleven casecountries
3.2 Regional activities and achievements related to
GGW objectives
3.3 Impact assessment
3.4 Overview of external and domestic funding
mobilized

29
CHALLENGES AND INVESTMENT-RELATEDFINANCING BARRIERS TO GGWIMPLEMENTATION
4.1 General challenges to the implementation of the
GGW
4.2 Barriers and risks to financing land restoration
under the GGW

35
A ROADMAP AND OUTLOOK FOR THE NEXT
DECADE: WHAT IS NEEDED TO REACH THE
2030 OBJECTIVE?
5.1 Fundamental scaling up for achieving the 2030
target5.2 Strengthening, accelerating and improving theimplementation of the GGW
5.3 A structured approach to mobilizing therequired funding

48
REFERENCES

50
ANNEX
6.1 Approach and methodology
6.2 Country data
6.3 Project list of land restoration activities in theeleven case countries

LIST OFABBREVIATIONSAAD : Action Against Desertification
AfDB : African Development Bank
ANR : Assisted Natural Regeneration
AU : African Union
AUC : African Union Commission
BRICKS : Building Resilience through Innovation, Communication andKnowledge Services
BRIDGES : Boosting Restoration, Income, Development, Generating
Ecosystem Services
CBD : Convention on Biological Diversity
CORSIA : Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
Aviation
CSR : Corporate Social Responsibility
EIB : European Investment Bank
FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FLEUVE : Front Local Environmental pour une Union Verte
CCSEDG: Climate Change, Socio-Economic Development andGovernance in the localities
GCF : Green Climate FundGEF : Global Environment Facility
GGW : Great Green Wall
GHG : Greenhouse Gashf
GHS : Global Harmonised Strategy
IGA : Income Generating Activities
IPCC : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRR : Internal Rate of Return
IUCN : International Union for Conservation of Nature
KfW : Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
LDN : Land Degradation Neutrality
MSA: Major Strategic Axes
Mha : Million hectares
MtC : Million tons of carbon
NDC : Nationally Determined Contribution
NPV : Net Present Value
PA-GGW: Pan-African Agency of the Great Green Wall
CILSS : Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the
Sahel
PES : Payment for Environmental Services
OSS : Sahara and Sahel Observatory
RBM : Results Based Management
RBF : Results Based Finance
RPPSD: Rural Poles of Production and Sustainable Development
SAWAP : Sahel and West Africa Program
SADC: Sahel and Southern Africa
SDGs : Sustainable Development Goals
SLMGE: Sustainable Land Management and Green Economy
SLM : Sustainable Land Management
SLWM : Sustainable Land and Water Management
SME : Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
SO: Strategic Objectives
TA : Technical Assistance
TIKA : Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency
UNCCD : United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WB : World Bank

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE GREAT GREEN WALL FOR THE SAHARA AND SAHEL INITIATIVEThe Great Green Wall is a Pan-African initiative to restore and sustainably manage land in the Sahel-Saharan region inorder to address both land degradation and poverty. It was first envisioned in 2005 – during the seventh session of
the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) heads of states conference held in Ouagadougou on the 1st and2nd of June 2005 – by the former President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and greatly advocated by President
Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal. In 2007 the Initiative gained momentum when the African Union Declaration 137 VIII was
adopted, approving the “Decision on the Implementation of the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative”(AU 2007) (from here on referred to as GGW).
The aim of the GGW was originally to create a long vegetation barrier between the 100 and 400 mm isohyets,
including ramps, and over a length of at least 7000 km along the Sahel, being roughly 15 km wide. In recent years thisvision has evolved into an integrated ecosystem management approach, striving for a mosaic of different land use andproduction systems, including sustainable dryland management and restoration, the regeneration of natural vegetation
as well as water retention and conservation measures. On 17 June 2010 the 11 Sahel states south of the Sahara
created the Pan-African Agency of the GGW to coordinate its implementation and support resources mobilisation. In
2012, there was a consensus through the harmonised regional strategy to consider the 100-400 mm rainfall/annum,
i.e. the dry corridor but not all the countries as the official GWW intervention zone[1]. The broadening of thegeographical area has been and is accompanied by varying views and expectations from the involved actors, the GGWcountries as well as the international donors, with regard to what the GGW Initiative has achieved, so far, and would
be able to achieve in the context of contributing to the implementation of the Rio Conventions[2] and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.
The Initiative involves a range of stakeholders, including national governments, international organizations, the private
sector and civil society who all work together under Pan-African coordination to halt land degradation. International
partners, such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Bank (WB), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the European
Union and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) among others, have mobilised substantial
investments to advance the implementation of the GGW Initiative.
As of 2020, the GGW Initiative is well into its second decade and is receiving growing international attention in thecontext of a new international focus on and commitments for land restoration. The GGW has evolved into an Africanled pioneer initiative, which receives strong support from the international community as a flagship programme tocombat land degradation, desertification, drought, climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty and food insecurity. In
light of this heightened interest, time is now ripe for a stocktaking effort to assess what exactly has been achievedsince the inception of the Initiative, where current member states stand in terms of implementation and which
difficulties they experience. Some countries have achieved great progress in land restoration and the lessons learned
here should be made available to others.

[1] African Union Commission/Panafrican Agency of the Great Green Wall (CUA/AP-GMV). (2012). Harmonised regional strategy for implementation of theGreat Green Wall initiative for the Sahara and the Sahel. Document developed with the technical and financial support of FAO, EU and the Global
Mechanism of UNCCD. FAO: Rome, Italy.
[2] In 1992, the Earth Summit in Rio established three Conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

04

Other countries have not been equally successful in the implementation of their GGW strategies and action plans.
Investigating the reasons behind this and identifying common barriers and difficulties that need to be overcome in
the process of reaching the 2030 vision of restoring 100 million hectares degraded land, are timely and needed. This
landmark report was a collective instigation from the African Union Commission (AUC), the Pan-African Agency of theGreat Green Wall (PA-GGW) and some major partners/contributors with the UNCCD taking the lead for its production,
it is meant to serve as a reference point for the further development of the GGW Initiative in the coming decade,supporting countries to create synergies and effective coordination of activities and policies.

1.2. AIM AND SCOPE OF THE REPORTThe objective of this report is to provide an overview of the status and implementation progress of the GGW,
accounting for land restoration progress made on the ground as well as for financial resources allocated to theInitiative. This stocktaking exercise captures the implementation status of the GGW in the eleven founding states:
Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The focus is onthese eleven countries mainly due to data availability, since as Pan-African Agency founding states, they started
implementing activities several years ago and have already undergone a first evaluation by PA-GGW. Therefore, thegeographical scope of this report focuses on the Sahel zone (see map on the right side), which extends throughnorthern Senegal, southern Mauritania, the central areas of Mali and Niger, northern Burkina Faso, northern Nigeria,
the central strip of Chad and Sudan, virtually all Eritrea and northern Ethiopia to delineate and trace the impacts
already achieved on the ground. Annual rainfall in the GGW intervention zones ranges from 100–400 mm, and thelandscape is made up of grasslands and savannahs that form one of the largest dryland areas in the world.
This report provides a regional picture as opposed toindividual national or project-level reports, synthesizing
information and data collected from individual countries,
NGOs, stakeholders and organizations that are contributing
to the GGW implementation. This report is based on theanalysis of results from existing public documentation(updatedwhen

possible),

individual

country

contributions/interviews and the latest available data
provided by countries, international partner organizations
and NGOs.

The Great Green Wall Initiative in eleven sahelian countries. Source: PA-GWW

Chapter 2 provides background information on land degradation and restoration in the Sahel region, linking the GGWinitiative to the main international conventions and initiatives on combating desertification, biodiversity loss andclimate change. It also summarizes the structure and implementation arrangements of the GGW Initiative. Chapter 3
gives an overview of the GGW achievements between 2011 and 2019 in terms of area restored, activities
implemented, and beneficiaries reached. Results are presented for the 11 case countries (3.1), and as far as
information was available, at a regional level beyond the core GGW intervention areas (3.2). The findings are analysed
for their environmental, social and economic impacts as well as the contribution to SDGs and the Rio Conventions.
Chapter 4 identifies key challenges and lessons learned from success stories in individual countries.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

05

Recommendations are drawn up in Chapter 5 for a roadmap – including a description of its main elements and atimeline for a phased implementation – toward reaching the 2030 vision of 100 million hectares (Mha) of land
restored, land restored, 250 million tons of carbon (MtC) sequestered and 10 million jobs created.
By 2030, the Great Green Wall aims to restore 100 million hectares of degraded land, sequester 250 million
tons of carbon in the soil and create 10 million green jobs in rural areas.

2. BACKGROUND ON LAND DEGRADATION AND
RESTORATION
2.1. LAND DEGRADATION GLOBALLY AND IN THE SAHELLand provides the principal basis for human livelihoods and well-being including the supply of food, freshwater and multiple
other ecosystem services, as well as biodiversity. Human use directly affects more than 70% (likely 69-76%) of the global,
icefree land surface (high confidence). Land also plays an important role in the climate system. One of the main driving
factors is unsustainable agriculture, with the loss of fertile topsoil due to tillage substantially exceeding the rate of new soil
formation processes, up to 100 times (IPCC 2019). Land degradation causes direct economic costs, for instance in the formof higher food prices, as well as socio-economic impacts in terms of food and water security and malnutrition. The global
economic loss of ecosystem services due to land degradation and desertification has been estimated at USD 6.3–10.6
trillion, which is equal to about 10 % of the global gross domestic product (ELD 2015a).

Land degradation means the “reduction orloss of the biological or economic
productivity and complexity of land” (UNCCD
2016). It results in reduced food production
and water storage, and the loss of fertile
soils, biodiversity, carbon stock and otherecosystem services such as water purificationand climate regulation.
Gender equality. UNDP

Africa is the continent most vulnerable to and most affected by land degradation and desertification, with around 45% of Africa’s land area impacted by desertification and 55 % of this area at high or very high risk of further
degradation (ELD 2015b). Whereas land degradation can occur in all climatic zones, dryland regions are particularly
vulnerable, as they face a combination of physical challenges, including water scarcity and irregular precipitation, andcritical demographic issues such as poverty, food insecurity and over-exploitation of natural resources due tounsustainable land use practices. Consequently, the Sahel is among world’s regions most severely affected by landdegradation and desertification, having experienced recurrent severe droughts and deterioration of soil quality andvegetation cover in the last decades. Food, water and energy insecurity are major development barriers, andcommunities are frequently exposed to environmental hazards, particularly drought. The number of people in the
Sahel whose livelihood depends on degraded lands has been estimated to be around 135 million. The major part of thispopulation is very poor, and since the economy is closely linked with the agricultural production systems, the need forrehabilitating degraded lands is vital.
In this context, the Great Green Wall Initiative was designed in 2007 by an alliance of Saharo-Sahelian states tostrengthen the ecological and socio-economic resilience of the Sahel and Sahara countries and enable them torecover from the environmental, climatic and development challenges.
https://www.prb.org/sahel-demographics/

06

This establishes the GGW Initiative as an integrated approach to development and land restoration at the same time.
Its unique features are the African ownership and the fact that the GGW was one of the early initiatives on land
restoration, long before the SDGs were formulated in 2015, as well as preceding international and regional land
restoration initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge in 2011 and the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative(AFR100) launched in 2015.
With its long history, the GGW is a pioneer of land restoration commitments and initiatives, offering an opportunity togenerate lessons learned and facilitate South-South collaboration and knowledge sharing.

2.2. International policy context for land restoration
Despite increasing rates of land degradation, it is possible to avoid, reduce and even reverse these processes throughrestoration and improved land management to strengthen communities’ resilience to climate change, reduce
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and ensure food security for generations to come (FAO 2019; IPCC 2019). Avoiding,
reducing and reversing land degradation can be achieved through a number of initiatives, including the achievement of
UN SDGs, the Rio Conventions and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021 - 2030).
Sustainable Development Goals
Land degradation, both in the Sahel and worldwide, directly undermines societal development aspirations such as
eliminating poverty and hunger, maintaining biodiversity and the ability of farmers and local communities to adapt to
the impacts of climate change. The restoration of degraded land contributes to all of
the UN SDGs, with particular relevance for Goal 15, which aims to “protect, restore andpromote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.”(Section 3.3). This makes the GGW Initiative a major force for rural development andimproving the resilience of local people and ecosystems.

By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affectedby desertification, drought, and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral
world (SDG target 15.3)
UN Rio Conventions and Land Degradation Neutrality
Land and its management also represent the inherent link between the Rio Conventions: the CBD, UNCCD and the
UNFCCC. While land management and restoration are the primary focus of the UNCCD, they are also essential to the
CBD, for instance through the Aichi Targets no. 5 (reduce habitat loss and degradation), no. 7 (sustainable farming
and forestry) and no. 14 (ecosystem restoration). Equally, land restoration is a key element for reducing GHG
emissions and strengthening climate change adaptation, directly addressing the objectives of the UNFCCC and the
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) implementation.
One of the key objectives of the UNCCD is to reach Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) by 2030, a target also includedin the SDG 15. LDN aims to balance land degradation with land restoration, to eventually maintain or even increase
ecosystem functions and services as well as food security from land resources.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

07

This means achieving a zero-land degradation balance in the long run - similar to the concept of emissions neutrality,
which aims at a zero-carbon balance. As of 2020, 123 countries have committed to the LDN target-setting process,including all GGW member states[4].

Multipurpose garden, Source: UNEP 2012

UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
LDN together with SDG 15 have greatly contributed to setting global land restoration efforts high on the agenda ofinternational environmental policies. In 2019, the UN General Assembly declared the UN Decade on Ecosystem
Restoration 2021-2030, which is expected to shine additional spotlight on land restoration and mobilise financial
resources for the implementation of numerous national, regional and global initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge andthe New York Declaration on Forests. The GGW is well positioned in this context to tap into new funding sources andattract the attention of investors and funding agencies. As one of the flagship programmes of the UN Decade on
Ecosystem Restoration, which is co-led by FAO and UNEP, it also presents a unique upscaling opportunity for
restoration finance and action. In comparison to other land restoration initiatives, the GGW has the advantage thatthe implementation is already underway, and that first evaluations of achievements are available in this report andthrough earlier assessments (e.g., PA-GGW 2018).

2.3. LAND RESTORATION AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
Land restoration is the process of regaining ecological

Ecosystem restoration is not only focused on recoveringfunctionality of degraded land, thus reinstalling ecosystem

the ecological functionalities of degraded ecosystems; itgoods and services.

also involves changes in land management.

To be effective and sustainable, land restoration should beapproached at the landscape scale, which is referred to as
landscape restoration.
A restored landscape may include a mosaic of naturally
regenerated areas, agroforestry, on-farm trees, protectedwildlife reserves, plantings of trees and shrubs, and soil

Land restoration efforts can be classified as active or
passive. Active restoration includes tree planting,agroforestry, and soil conservation practices such as
sand-dune stabilization or terracing. Passive restoration

management measures.

involves setting aside land by enclosing an area for a

Key to long-term success is to involve local communities andperiod of time to allow the soil and vegetation to recoverother stakeholders in the identification and implementation

naturally.

of appropriate restoration activities (IUCN 2017).

[4] https://www.unccd.int/actions/ldn-target-setting-programme08While passive restoration approaches are less costly than active restoration measures, and the cost of preventing
land degradation is much lower than the cost of rehabilitating degraded lands (WRI 2017), implementing them ischallenging when the land is critical to local livelihoods and the utilization pressure is high.
However, the need for land restoration is increasingly recognized by the international community. Many countries aretaking steps to protect, sustainably manage natural ecosystems and restore their degraded lands, by committing to
the LDN targets or through participating in national, regional, and global land restoration initiatives. As one of thefirst and most symbolic of these initiatives, the GGW has become a flagship programme due to its unique African
ownership that reflects the strong political will to improve living conditions and maintain ecosystem services in the
Sahel. In 2016, the AUC has expanded the GGW to southern Africa drylands. The GGW now covers the three dryland
regions of the continent: North Africa (northern Sahara), the Sahel and Southern Africa (SADC countries). FAO is
expected to assess the GGW complete biophysical baselines by the end of 2020. The total restoration potential could
be over 600 Mha. Several other international and regional land restoration initiatives have been established in recent
years (see Table 1 for details):·
International initiatives include the Bonn Challenge as the most prominent initiative at present, aiming to restore
150 Mha degraded land by 2020 and 350 Mha by 2030; and the New York Declaration on Forests, which extended
the Bonn pledge in 2014.
Regional initiatives in Africa include the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative AFR 100, which shows ahigh overlap with GGW objectives and member states (currently 30 countries committed pledges of 126 million ha
under AFR100); the Kigali Declaration, a Pan-African commitment to support the Bonn Challenge; the African
Resilient Landscapes Initiative (ARLI); and the Agadir Commitment in the Mediterranean.
Other regional initiatives include the Latin American Initiative 20x20 as well as ECCA30, a regional restoration
initiative in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
The Pan-African Action Agenda on Ecosystem Restoration for increased resilience.
Table 1- Global and regional restoration initiatives and their commitments.

Initiative & Link

Description
A global effort to restore 150 Mhaof deforested and degraded landby 2020 launched by IUCN and
Government of Germany in 2011

Voluntary international declaration
to halt global deforestation,
endorsed at the UN Climate
Summit in 2014

One of the first land restoration
initiatives in general, the only one
under purely African leadership

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

Objective

Status

150 Mha degraded land restored
globally by 2020; 57 governments
and private sector entities haven/apledged to restore 170 Mha as of2019

10 goals, including restoration of

200 endorsements as

350 Mha degraded landscapes &of 2019

forest land by 2030

100 Mha by 2030; 250 Mt; 10m

17.8 Mha restored as

jobs

of 201809

Regional, country-led land restoration
effort in Africa to accelerate
progress towards SDGs and the Paris

100 Mha restored by 2030 in
28 African countries;

Agreement; 30 African countries, 12n/a

So far, 30 countries

financial partners (including BMZ,WB,

committed to restore 126

WRI, IUCN, FAO, etc.), 28 technicalMhapartners
Launched 2015 by NEPAD, WRI and
WB, ARLI focuses on integrated

Supports AFR 100 (restore

landscape management for adaption&

100 Mha by 2030)

n/a

mitigation. It is implemented throughthe African Landscapes Action Plan

A Pan-African commitment toaccelerate FLR in support of theBonn Challenge,

n/a

n/a

Hosted by Government of Rwanda,
supported by the East African
Community and IUCN

Regional land restoration initiative in

20 Mha restored in Latin

Latin America and the Caribbean

America by 2020

Regional restoration initiative inEurope, the Caucasus and Central
Asia; actors include IUCN, UNECE,

n/a

30 Mha of degraded anddeforested land restored by

FAO, WRI and WB

n/a

2030

Supports FLR, LDN and biodiversity
conservation efforts of theMediterranean countries Algeria,
France, Iran, Lebanon, Morocco,

8 Mha

n/a

Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey.
Supported by FAO and theCollaborative Partnership on
Mediterranean Forests

2.4. THE GGW INITIATIVE: CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
African and international partners
Endorsed in 2007 by the African Union (AU), the GGW is one of the earliest international land restoration initiatives thatbrings together African countries and international partners, under the leadership of the AU and coordinated by PAGGW. A broad set of African and international partners are involved in the initiative through project development andimplementation, or through the funding of several ongoing and future projects in GGW countries. The majorinternational partners are listed in Table 2. Other civil society partners such as Tree Aid and SOS Sahel and the role
they play in the GGW Initiative are described in section 3.2.
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

10

Table 2 - List of major GGW implementation partners

The African Union oversees theThepolitical aspects of the GGWimplementation partner, supported

Initiative from Addis Ababa where

the AUC and member countries in

the GGW regional coordination

the development and planning

hub is. The PA-GGW was createdphase of the initiative. Its latest

under AUC by the 11 Sahel States

involvement in the GGW is through

to

FAO

is

a

long-standing

supportits

operational

the Action Against Desertification

coordination

andresources

project.

mobilisation

for

its

implementation.

The

project,

incollaboration with the AU, the EU,
the OACPS, other donors and in
partnership with Turkey, support
the expansion of the GGW to 10
countries. with actions on the
ground and through South-South
cooperation.

The World Bank (WB) and the GEF

The IUCN is executing a project

designed the Sahel and West

titled “Closing the gaps in the

Africa Program in support of theGreat Green Wall,” which is funded

GGW (SAWAP), which has a total

by GEF and implemented by UNEP

budget of 1.1 billion US dollars.

in the 11 countries.

Since 2007, the GEF has granted

The UNCCD through its Global

500 million USD to the countries

Mechanismthat are part of the GGW trough a

implementation partner of thediversity of SLM projects[5].

GGW.

An

is
example

a

key

of

recentinitiatives is the FLEUVE project, a
regional

flagship

initiative

including 5 GGW countries: Burkina
Faso,

Chad,

Mali,

Niger

and

Senegal.
The EU has financed the FLEUVE

Kew is supporting the coordination

project in the amount of 7 million

and providing technical assistanceEuros as well as other activities

to GGW partners in Mali, Burkina

and projects within the scope of

Faso and Niger.

the GGW Initiative. The EU also
equally funded the FAO’s Action
Against Desertification in 2014 tosupport the GGW implementationon the ground.
[5] The GEF has also created for the first time a programmatic approach that brought the GGW countries together and has since then helped to bring theindividual country investment and other donors into a common framework for the implementation of various activities related to SLM in the GGW countries

11Table 2 - List of major GGW implementation partners
The OSS is one of the three

The CILSS invests in research for

executing entities of the Building

food security and in the fightResilience

Innovation,

againstKnowledge

desertification.

throughCommunication

and

the

effectsofThrough

ActionDesertification

project,

Services project (BRICKS) under

Againstthe SAWAP.

CILSS supported biophysical datacollections for the GGW.

The APEFE has been working

Birdlife International is taking partsince 2014 to build the capacity ofinnationalenhancement of continental andstructures

for

the

implementation of the GGW in

theconservationandtransboundary GGW wetlands.

Burkina Faso.

The UNDP supports the GGW

The UNEP has been working withcountries in strengthening their

the AUC the PA-GGW and member

institutional,

countries to define their national

technical

andlogistical capacities.

strategies and action plans (20102013),aregional

harmonizedstrategy (2012), and to support
implementation activities on the
ground (2014-2020).

As a key implementation partner, the UNCCD launched a public awareness campaign on the GGW, called "Growing
a World Wonder” that engaged millions of people, to boost global awareness of the Initiative and attract longterm public and private investment. The UNCCD has also created the GGW Initiative website to present member
countries, international partners, results achieved and the challenges that the GGW seeks to overcome in the
Sahel.
Organizational and institutional structure of the GGW
The activities under the GGW are structured around five Major Strategic Axes (MSA):
1. Sustainable Land Management and Green Economy (SLMGE)
2. Climate Change, Socio-Economic Development and Governance in the localities (CCSEDG)
3. Support Research and Development (R&D)
4. Communication, Marketing and Advocacy (CMA)
5. Information System, Observatory, Early Warning and Response (ISOEWR)
These MSA are broken down into 26 Strategic Objectives (SO), including combating land desertification and theimpacts of climate change, strengthening natural capital and exploiting value chains to boost momentum, andfinally creating Rural Poles of Production and Sustainable Development (RPPSD) to ensure resilience, poverty
eradication and fight food insecurity.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

12

The operational approach in the implementation of the GGW Initiative is executed by the GGW operational andsteering institutions at the regional, national and local levels. The PA-GGW (regional level) is relayed to eachmember state by a national GGW structure, and at the local level through a core community entity, the Integrated
Sustainable Development Community Unit (ISDCU), administrated by the Local Sustainable Development Committees(LSDC).
The PA-GGW created in 2010 is responsible for the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the GGW
and for the mobilization of necessary resources in relation with the AU and the Member States. The 9 Regional
Structural Programmes (RSP) coordinated by the PA-GGW are structured around the 5 major strategic axes of the
GGWI. They should be implemented in all GGW countries and tailored to each country specific needs, with a common
thread including the restoration of degraded land, economic development, increasing adaptation and resilience toclimate change and the fight against food insecurity and migration. At the national level, Member States have created
National GGW Agencies or focal points to supervise and coordinate the implementation of national GGW priority
actions.
In 2012, the GGW Initiative adopted a Global Harmonized Strategy (GHS) (AU & PA-GGW 2012), which consolidated
national strategies and action plans of the GGW member states (supported by FAO, EU and GM-UNCCD) and arrived
at a coordinated strategy for implementation, structured into five-year planning steps. Drawing on the GHS, member
countries have elaborated national action plans to develop clear steps for achieving the GGW national objectives.
The first cycle 2011-2015 aimed at the establishment of the institutional and organizational framework of the GGWstructures, conceptualization, awareness and appropriation of the concept, as well as the establishment of pilot
activities at the level of each country and the development of the national GGW strategies and action plans.
The second cycle 2014-2020 focused more on operational activities and aimed at accelerating concrete actions. The
2020 is a good point in time to look back and assess what has been achieved so far.
The third cycle 2021-2025 is expected to consolidate the implemented activities and measures and scale them up.
The fourth and final cycle 2026-2030 will focus on further upscaling the activities to ensure a substantial
contribution of the GGW to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and to international commitmentsof the member states under the Rio Conventions.

3. GREAT GREEN WALL IMPLEMENTATION AT THE
REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELSThis chapter presents the findings of the stocktaking exercise and impact assessment at several scales and focuseson activities in the GGW intervention zones of the 11 case countries, both at the individual national scale and inaggregated form in Section 3.1. A major part of these results is based on data reported by the 11 countries to the PAGGW up to 2019[6] and the PA-GGW’s regional aggregates of these reports. If available, the numbers reported to the
PA-GGW were updated using recent data shared by individual countries and NGOs involved in the GGWimplementation.
Section 3.2 presents the findings of an impact assessment from the country activities, providing estimates forenvironmental, socio-economic, and other impacts of land restoration under the GGW so far.
Section 3.3 presents additional information on GGW-related activities and actors in the wider region, reported bytechnical and financial partner organizations and NGOs either directly or through public project databases, such as
from the GEF, the WB and FAO.

[6] Data up to 2017 published in an evaluation report; see PA-GGW 2018, data for 2017-2019 from country
presentations provided at the 5th Regional Steering Committee Meeting in November 2019 in Dakar, Senegal.

133.1 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE ELEVEN CASE COUNTRIESAs explained in Chapter 1, the official GGW Initiative intervention zone corresponds to the entire geographical fringeof the Circum-Sahara between the isohyet 100 and 400 mm of average rainfall (PA-GGW 2018). Combining theintervention zones reported by the 11 Sub-Saharan GGW member states covered in this report (Table 3), the total
area of the GGW initiative extends to 154 Mha, with the largest intervention zones located in Niger, Mali, Ethiopia andEritrea.
Table 3 - GGW intervention area per country

Withinthisintervention

area,

the

land

rehabilitation activities reported by GGWcountries between 2007 and 2019 add up to 4
Mha. This is complemented by another 17.8
Mha of land under restoration within GGWcountries, but outside the strict intervention
zones. The achievements so far thus depend
strongly on the delineation of the intervention
zone, or what actually counts as land
restoration under the Great Green Wall. This
clearly shows the need for a consistentaccounting approach with regard to what is
actually part of and can be accounted toward
Data collected during the steering committee meeting in Dakar in 2019 - Data from the PA-

commonly agreed, accepted and pursued

GGW evaluation report - Assuming entire country area

objectives of the GGW[7] (Chapter 5).

Several achievements have been recorded in most of the GGW member states, with some countries being more
successful than others. Several countries have started the implementation of the GGW activities as early as 2008,
while others have started as late as 2014, when the GGW declaration was ratified. Disparities between therestoration achievements of different countries also arise from country-specific conditions, which sometimes slow
down the implementation process of planned activities (Chapter 4). The total land areas that have been rehabilitatedwithin the GGW intervention zones as per country reports are summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Total restored area per
country up to 2019 (1000 ha)[7]Addressing the diverging views on progress of the GGW initiative, we tried to reflect divergent information throughout this Chapter, if and as data isavailable. Most data is available for a narrow scope (=within the official GGW intervention areas) due to the annual reporting by GGW national
structures; however information from donors and NGO activities mostly relates to a wider scope and is used to complement the narrow definition.

14

3.1.1 Activities under the GGW
GGW member states have engaged in a variety of different Sustainable Land Management (SLM)activities, including
components on water and soil conservation measures, as well as activities in the forestry and agriculture sectors. In
this context, land restoration and conservation activities to increase climate change resilience and ensure sustainable
food production have been realized, including agro-silviculture techniques, shelterbelts, and reforestation. Other
measures included the establishment of fruit orchards as well as multipurpose gardens and community nurseries forplant production as well as the exploitation of non-timber products. Moreover, with drought and water scarcity being
one of the main physical constraints in the Sahel region, most countries address this by engaging in water
conservation measures, such as watershed management, drilling of bore holes and water harvesting techniques. The
main activities reported under the GGW are presented in Table 4, with further details provided in Box 1.
Table 4- Different SLM activities reported by the eleven GGW countries

The most commonly reported SLM activities are forest and watershed management (0.9 Mha), and terracing and soil
measures (0.89 Mha), followed by conservation/assisted natural regeneration (ANR) (0.73 Mha) and finally,reforestation (0.68 Mha). Land restoration in general was reported for 0.58 Mha. Windbreaks and shelter belts arecommon activities but only contribute small shares in terms of land area. Figure 2 illustrates the contribution of eachindividual activity in Mha.
Figure 2 - Contribution ofeach activity (mha)

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

15

Table 5 - Key achievements reported by the eleven case countries up to 2019

Box 1: Sustainable Land management (SLM) measures
SLM encompasses soil and water conservation measures, natural resources management and integrated landscapemanagement, with the main goal to contribute to sustainable and rural development. Descriptions of SLM activities
implemented under the GGW Initiative include:
Land restoration is acknowledged as a way of reversing degradation processes and increasing the contributionsof ecosystems and landscapes to livelihoods, land productivity, environmental services and the resilience ofhuman and natural systems. The term “restoration” covers a wide range of conservation, sustainable
management and active restoration practices that increase the quality and diversity of land resources, enhancing
ecological integrity and human well-being.
Reforestation refers to the re-establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land
classified as forests.
Sustainable forest management in drylands aims to ensure that the goods and services derived from the forests
meet today’s needs while securing long-term development.
Agroforestry is a combination of both traditional and modern land-use systems, where trees are managed
together with crops and/or animal production in agricultural settings. It is a dynamic natural-resource
management system that helps diversify and sustain production to increase social, economic and environmental
benefits for land users at all levels. Agroforestry practices can also include multipurpose gardens and Farmer
Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). The latter technique is based on the systematic regeneration of living
and sprouting stumps of indigenous vegetation which used to be slashed and burned in traditional field
preparation. Farmers in southern Niger in Maradi have restored more than five million hectares of land using thistechnique.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

16

GGW - Senegal

Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANG). The goal of ANR is to accelerate natural successional processes by“removing or reducing barriers to natural forest regeneration such as soil degradation, competition with weedy
species, and recurring disturbances (e.g., fire, grazing and wood harvesting)”.
Terrace cultivation is a method used when growing crops on hills and mountains, by planting crops on graduatedterraces built into the slope to minimise soil erosion and water loss.
Sand dune fixation is a technique designed to prevent the movement of sand long enough to enable either
planted or natural vegetation to establish itself.
Windbreaks are based on the linear planting of trees and shrubs to enhance crop production, control winderosion, protect people and livestock, and improve soil and water conservation. Firebreaks are essential towildfire management; they consist of gaps in vegetation that act as barrier to slow down or stop the progress ofwildfires or bushfires.
The Zaï technique involves digging pits (20-30 cm long and deep and 90 cm apart) in the soil during the preseason to catch water and concentrate compost by adding manure to increase soil fertility. It is traditionally usedin the western Sahel to restore degraded drylands and increase soil fertility. To date, more than three Mha of
Burkinabe barren land have been rehabilitated. In Burkina Faso, Zaï allowed farmers to increase their income,slowdown rural exodus and strengthen the country’s food self-sufficiency. Eight Sahel countries are now
successfully replicating this technique.
Seedling and plant production: The production of seedlings and plants in well-managed nurseries to produce
better crop yields and profits.

GGW - Senegal
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

17

3.2 REGIONAL ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS RELATED TO GGW OBJECTIVES
Although not always strictly located within the GGW intervention zones, a number of transboundary programmes
exist to support the implementation of the GGW Initiative at the regional level. These include major GEF/World Bank
operations as well as FAO programmes and a project by the UNCCD. Moreover, Turkey is an active bilateral donor
through the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) programme with FAO. In addition,international NGOs such as Tree Aid and SOS Sahel contribute to GGW objectives with activities on the ground. The
following briefly summarizes major regional projects, activities and results that contribute to GGW objectives.
FAO’S ACTION AGAINST DESERTIFICATION PROGRAM (AAD)[8] ; 2014 – 2019
Box 2: Activities of the Action Against

Established in 2014, the AAD program has addressed

Desertification Program

sustainable land management and dryland restoration in

Capacity building of rural communities, government

different locations of Africa, the Caribbean (Haiti) andand NGO partners to create an enabling environment,

the Pacific (Fiji). In Africa, the program supports thelarge-scale restoration and SLM of degraded agro-

implementation of GGW on the ground and havesilvo pastoral lands, landscapes and forests

operations currently in Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Ethiopia,

Dissemination of good practices on SLM

Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan andCreation of income-generating activities (IGA) and

Senegal,employment opportunities in rural areas, through thegovernments and civil society in the rehabilitation andsustainable production, processing and marketing of

the sustainable management of forests and rangelands.

agricultural products and forest goods and services

The initial budget amounted to EUR 41 million for a five-

Farmer field schools and knowledge exchanges about

year period and was complemented by bilateral funds,

the causes and the best ways to combat and prevent

such as Turkey’s government commitment to expand its

desertification

restoration operations.

where

it

supports

local

communities,

BRIDGES - Boosting Restoration, Income, Development, Generating Ecosystem Services [9] (FAO &Turkey), 2017-2020
The BRIDGES project is a product of the FAO-Turkish Forestry Partnership programme, with Turkey providing the
major part of funding and FAO serving as implementation partner. The idea is to stimulate South-South cooperation
between Turkey and the GGW and across dryland regions worldwide. With a budget of USD 3.6 million, its main
objective is to support Eritrea, Mauritania and Sudan in combatting land degradation and desertification through thesustainable management of their natural resources and restoration of degraded forests and landscapes. The main
components are:Restoration of 5,000 hectares of dryland forests and landscapes
Reinforcing value chains of non‐wood forest products
Building GGW information and monitoring systems
Compiling, managing, sharing knowledge and good practices, promoting communications and visibility
Results achieved to date are summarised in Table 6 below.

[8] http://www.fao.org/in-action/action-against-desertification/overview/en/[9] http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/b6967505-ebf8-4649-a683-47bf0ce5b8c8/

18

Table 6- Achievements of the Action Against Desertification Program in Africa

The Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP) [10] in support of the GGW, 2013–2019
Between 2012 and 2020 the World Bank has led the Sahel and West Africa Program in Support of the Great Green
Wall(also known as SAWAP).The Program included $70 million of GEF resources on top of $1.25 billion IDA resources.
The Program has brought 1.5 million hectares of land under sustainable land management and reached over 17 million
beneficiaries across 9 member countries of the Pan-African Agency of the Great Green Wall ( Burkina Faso; Chad;
Ethiopia; Mali; Mauritania; Niger; Nigeria; Senegal; Sudan). The SAWAP contributed to the implementation of the GGWthrough the improvement of landscape resilience and livelihoods, and thus to poverty reduction, food security andwater resource security.
Within SAWAP, a regional project named BRICKS for Building Resilient, Information, Communication, and Knowledge
Services project (USD 4.6 million) was included, focusing on coordination, monitoring and knowledge issues. The
BRICKS was executed by existing regional institutions (the Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in
the Sahel (CILSS), the Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS), and the regional office of IUCN in Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso). The SAWAP was approved in 2012 “to expand sustainable land and water management (SLWM) in targeted
landscapes and in climate-vulnerable areas in West African and Sahelian countries.” Six national projects and the
BRICKS are now closed, and six national projects will be closing by 2022.
Altogether, the SAWAP projects are estimated to have a carbon sequestration potential of approximately 90
MtCO2eq[11], an intervention area under SLWM practices of approximately 1.5 Mha with 17 million direct beneficiaries
as well as more than 74 680 farmers who received trainings in SLM practices and improved agricultural technologies.
Land conservation measures represent more than 70% of the SLWM activities, followed by land restoration andreforestation. Table 7 provides an overview of the main environmental achievements within the nine participating
GGW countries. Beyond the SAWAP program, the World Bank Group has indicated to us that they invested about $15
billion to increase resilience and expand economic opportunities in GGW countries.This includes i) $3.5 billion
investment in adaptation to climate change, land restoration, and land and water management and use; ii) $4.5 billion
in sustainable infrastructure, renewable energy and increased energy access; iii) $1.7 billion in climate-smart
agriculture and food and nutrition security; iv) $4.6 billion instrengthening resilience and enhancing economic
opportunities and integration and v) $0.8 billionof IFC investment projects to expand private sector activity, including
small and medium enterprises and women-owned firms. TheAgroecology Initiative described above goes beyond land
restoration and tree planting that the GGW originally focused on, because since it is also focused on infrastructure,energy, jobs, agriculture etc.

[10] http://english.sawap.net/index.php/about-sawap-and-bricks/[11] Based on estimates for 4 GGW countries, including Ethiopia, Mali, Niger and Sudan for a total area 1.9 million hectares using the Ex-ACT(ex-Ante Carbon Balance Tool)

19

Table 7 - Overview of the environmental impacts achieved through SAWAPFLEUVE Project — The Local Environmental Coalition for a Green Union[12], 2014–2018
With a budget of nearly USD 8 million, Front Local Environnemental pour une Union Verte (FLEUVE) supported theimplementation of the GGW through the integration of sustainable resource management in local development plans andtheir implementation through partnerships. Developed by the UNCCD’s Global Mechanism and funded by the European
Union, the project was implemented in partnership with FAO and aimed to improve the livelihoods of dryland populations
and to strengthen their resilience to land degradation, drought and climate variability. Activities involved investments in
micro-projects implemented in 23 communities in five countries (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Senegal). Regionallevel capacity building activities on SLM and innovative financing complemented the projects on the ground.
Large-scale Assessment of Land Degradation to guide future investment in SLM in the GGW countries(GEF Trust Fund, NASA/USAID) 2019-2024
To improve the science-based evidence about SLM in the GGW region, the recently approved GEF project aims to assess
available tools and methodologies for scientific measurement of the ecological impacts of land degradation and SLM
practices in support of future investment decisions in the GGW region. The project brings together several scientificpartners from Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger and Senegal along with regional and international institutions such as OSS,
the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), University of Lund/Sweden, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA). The total budget is USD 5.6 million,
with USD 1.6 m from the GEF and USD 5 million in co-funding from NASA and USAID, with UNEP as the implementation
partner. Activities include a comprehensive analysis of land degradation processes, SLM practices and programmes,
monitoring and knowledge management systems.
The Integrated Approach Pilot on Food Security (GEF, IFAD) 2017- 2022
This five-year program aims to foster sustainability and resilience to improve food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,
focusing on four geographies in the region deeply affected by environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services
that result in decreased crop production and livestock productivity. The Food Security Integrated Approach Pilots (IAP)
builds on existing efforts at the national and regional levels to address various policy, institutional and knowledge
barriers. With a total budget of USD 96.1 million[12], the programme covers twelve African countries, including five GGWcountries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal), to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of
production systems, particularly in drylands.
Closing the Gaps in Great Green Wall: Linking Sectors and Stakeholders for Increased Synergy and
Scaling-up (2016- 2019)
A GEF project developed by UNEP and executed by IUCN to improve the involvement of civil society organizations andvulnerable groups in the GGW Initiative and the national GGW agencies. Specifically, the project aims to ensure a greater
implementation sustainable land management policy in all GGW countries through enhanced investment, inter-sectoral
coordination and engagement of marginalised groups.

[12] https://www.unccd.int/actions/great-green-wall-initiative[13] The GEF grant for the Food Security IAP amounts to approximately 11 million USD

20

Table 8- GGW country participation in large transboundary programmes

In addition, civil society activities relevant to GGW are described using the example of the NGOs Tree Aid and SOS
Sahel International:
Tree Aid

Tree Aid is an international NGO involved in the implementation of 17 land restoration andreforestation projects in Sahelian countries, including four GGW states:

Burkina Faso,

Ethiopia, Mali and Niger. So far, Tree Aid interventions account for more than 1.2 million
planted trees and more than 29 580 hectares of restored land and forests. More than 1.6
million vulnerable rural people including women and children have directly benefited fromTree Aid activities through improved legal access and management of forests, resilience toclimate change and revenues from IGA. Moreover, approximately 126 000 farmers have been
trained in SLM techniques, including ANR and NRM, and successful practices in NTFP harvesting. The main
environmental achievements are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 - Environmental impacts of Tree Aid projects in four GGW countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali and Niger)

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

21

SOS SahelSOS Sahel is an international NGO that aims to improve the social, economic, andenvironmental conditions of populations in the heart of Africa. Activities are in line with theobjectives of the GGW, contributing to reforestation, the promotion of sustainableagricultural practices, improving access to water and supporting countries in the fightagainst desertification. In this context, the NGO has been involved in six projects in four
GGW countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Senegal.

Altogether, SOS Sahel interventions contributed to the

Improving the agro-silvo-pastoral productivity

production of more than 2.9 million seedlings/plants,

and degraded land recovery project (BEOG –the reforestation often 845 ha and the restoration of

PUUTO)

10 143 ha of land. Additionally, more than 100 000

In addition to the projects listed Table 8, SOS Sahel ispeople have directly benefited from SOS Sahel

implementing, together with the GGW Green Earthactivities through the development of agro-silvo-

association and the Directorate of irrigation, a project inpastoral production systems and the increase of

Burkina Faso within the GGW intervention zone.

productivity using SLM practices. The environmental

Expected results include 30 000 ha of land restored, 2and socio-economic impacts of the NGO projects are

300 ha of multipurpose gardens and 350 000 direct

summarized in Table 10 below.

beneficiaries.

Table 10 - Environmental impacts of SOS Sahel projects in GGW countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Senegal)

Aggregated impacts of wider GGW-related activities
Based on the available data, together the described initiatives provide a considerable contribution toward theobjectives of the GGW and its implementation, with 10.2 million direct rural beneficiaries, including farmers and land
users trained in SLWM practices. The joint effort of these initiatives to fight land degradation, restore and conserve
forests resulted in the production of more than 293 million plants, reforestation of 132 227 ha and conservation of atleast 1.13 million hectares of land and forests. The environmental impacts of all the projects included in the scope of
impacts assessment are listed in Table 11.
Table 11- Aggregated environmental impacts of the regional projects and actors

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

22

3.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
At UNFCCC COP 21, the GGW pledged to restore 100 Mha of currently degraded land by 2030. Whereas for now, the
PA-GGW aims to restore 25 Mha by 2030. The preliminary results above show that accounting for measures strictly
within the GGW intervention zones, only 4 Mha (4%) of this target has been reached by now. In contrast, when
considering all lands restored in the wider GGW region the total area restored reaches nearly 17.8 Mha, which
considers the 1.8 Mha identified in the four regional initiatives described above (Section 3.2), plus another 12 Mha
reported by Ethiopia. The progress toward the UN commitment within the GGW intervention zone and the wider
scope are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4 (based on 4 Mha land restored as reported to the PA-GWW).

By 2030, the ambition of the GGW Initiative is to restore 100 Mha of degraded land, sequester 250 MtC and create
10 million green jobs. The GGW activities brought a range of environmental and socio-economic co-benefits, including
carbon sequestration and GHG emissions savings and revenue from income generating activities and job creation. The
main findings of the impact assessment are presented below, differentiated by achievements within the GGWintervention areas (3.1) and activities in the wider region (3.2).

3.3.1 Environmental impacts: climate change mitigation
The assessment of the carbon sequestration potential covers the carbon stored in woody biomass and soils, based on
the restoration impacts reported by countries up to 2019 for three activities: tree planting/reforestation, assisted
natural regeneration in enclosures and agroforestry systems. Estimates assume that these reported measures are
successful and continue over time to at least the year 2030 (such as survival of all planted trees and continued
enclosure of ANR areas).
As biomass and carbon data for the Sahel zone is rather scarce, carbon sequestration rates were taken from a global
review of Forest Landscape Restoration activities (Bernal et al. 2018). Estimates for soil carbon sequestration werebased on figures by the IPCC (2019) and the FAO (2004)[14]. Due to inherent large uncertainties in soil carbon
estimates in general, and the fact that the global average biomass values adopted are likely to overestimate actual
growth performance in the drought restricted Sahel zone[15], the estimates presented below provide indications ofpotential carbon sequestration up to 2030.
[14] IPCC (2019) describes soil carbon sequestration rates following changes in agricultural practices to be around 0,22 tC/ha and year, whereas FAO(2004) states an average rate of 0,13 tC/ha and year. Whereas soil is a major reservoir of carbon with much higher stocks than those values, thesequestration potential refers only to the amount of additional carbon that can stored due to land restoration activities, e.g., direct soil interventionsor the establishment of vegetation cover.
[15] The global average values from Bernal et al. are used so as to the study provides a consistent framework with annual rates for all land use systems
assessed here (reforestation: 23 tCO2/ha, ANR: 14 tCO2/ha, agroforestry: 13 tCO2/ha). However, Luedeling et al. (2014) describe much lower carbon
removal rates for woodlots (15 tCO2/ha) and agroforestry (2 tCO2/ha) in Africa.

23

Differentiating between the main activities to establish tree cover (tree planting – reforestation, establishment ofagroforestry systems and ANR through fencing/enclosures), if all GGW countries keep their current land restoration
pace, the total restored areas can sequester up to 256 MtCO2eq in the woody biomass and up to 57 MtCO2 throughthe soil by 2030 (Figure 5). It should be noted that the average carbon removal potential of agroforestry is almost
equal to ANR; the estimates appear low due to the small area of agroforestry measures implemented within the GGW(only 613 ha reported so far).

Figure 5 - Indication of carbon sequestration potential of biomass and soil of the existing GGW land rehabilitation measures, involving trees

Considering the additional restoration activities in the wider region (3.2), another 188 MtCO2 could be sequestered in
the biomass and 5 MtCO2 in the soil by 2030. This is based on 132.227 ha reforestation and 1.1 Mha
conservation/ANR measures identified, see Table 11.
When comparing these numbers with the overall targets of the GGW (250 million tons of carbon in the soil), it may be
noted that indication results above are in tons CO2 equivalents (tCO2), whereas the official GGW targets areformulated in tons of carbon (tC), which is often the case in forest carbon. The 256 MtCO2 as biomass sequestration
to 2030 corresponds to 70 MtC, and the soil sequestration (57MtCO2) would be 15.5 MtC (using the official IPCC
conversion factor).

3.3.2 Socio-economic impacts: Income-generating activities and job creation
The activities implemented in the agroforestry and SLM sector have led to the creation of multiple job opportunities
for rural people and helped reduce poverty through IGA such as the production and valorisation of different fruit andnon-timber forest products, including honey, Arabic gum, baobab leaves as well as fodder and seedlings sales.
Revenues from IGA since 2007 amounted to approximately USD 90 million across all 11 countries, with some countries
being more successful in creating IGA opportunities than others. Table 12 below provides an overview of IGA
revenues reported per country. A stable inflow of revenues from natural products and services is important in termsof exit strategies that contribute to the sustainability of restoration projects over time.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

24

Table 12 - Revenues from income-generating activities since 2007, in USD

Based on each country’s specific need, trainings were
provided to local communities and/or government
actors. The beneficiaries that have received training(Figure 6) included farmers, land users, local
municipalities, and government as well as vulnerable
groups such as youth and women. Depending on the
project scope or initiative, trainings were conducted
on a diverse range of topics, including land
restoration, water harvesting, seed collection, plant
production and nursery management, but also in fire
control

techniquesandprevention.

Moreover,trainings and capacity-building on anti-desertification
measures were conducted by China in some of the
GGW countries.

In addition, countries have reported that more than 335 000 jobs were created, mainly in the implementation ofland restoration activities and the production and sales of non-timber forest products. Employment options as
ranger or nature guards were also named regularly. In total, almost 500 000 beneficiaries have been affected by
GGW activities to date[17]. The number of jobs created through the GGW (both permanent and temporary) so far,as well as the number of direct beneficiaries and those that received trainings are summarized in Figure 6 below.
Another 10.2 million beneficiaries were reached by the wider regional activities (3.2 above), although no detailed
information was available on IGA revenues or the amount of jobs created.

Figure 6 - Socio-economic impacts of GGW land restoration activities[16] No information on revenues from IGA was available for Djibouti, Nigeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan. Although revenues generated through GGWactivities in Djibouti are estimated at 300$ per beneficiary, no estimate can be presented for Djibouti since the exact number of beneficiaries and thenumber of working days was not provided.
[17] Based on data up to 2017 published in an evaluation report; see PA-GGW 2018; adding up the number of people trained, jobs created, and generalbeneficiaries reported by countries.

25

3.3.3 Contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goals
Land restoration in general plays a central role in achieving several global environmental objectives, among them the
UN SDGs. The GGW Initiative benefits all 17 SDGs, with direct contributions to six, and indirect links to the other 11
goals. The 17 SDGs to which the GGW initiative contributes are highlighted in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Contribution of the GGW activities to 17 SDGs

While there is an obvious link to SDG 15 Life on Land on the protection, restoration and sustainable, use of
ecosystems, the GGW activities also contribute to SDG 1, SDG 2 and SDG 8 on poverty alleviation, improving foodsecurity and decent economic growth through the creation of IGAs based on the sustainable production (SDG 12) of
non-timber and agro-pastoral products. The GGW Initiative also has a strong climate action component (SDG 13), withthe different SLM activities not only increasing countries’ resilience and adaptability to extreme climate events, butalso contributing to climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. Table 13 below illustrates the direct link
between the land restoration activities under the GGW initiative and the SDGs, citing countries’ achievements and key
results.
Table 13- Direct contribution of GGW activities to six UN Sustainable Development Goals, adding up the results from GGWcountry interventions in the narrow sense (3.3) and activities in the wider region (3.2)

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

26

3.4 OVERVIEW OF EXTERNAL AND DOMESTIC FUNDING MOBILIZEDThe funding reported by GGW member states to the PA-GGW and to national level activities or projects for the years
2011-2019 is depicted in the charts below. Figure 8 shows the domestic resources allocated from government
budgets to the implementation of the GGW, including statutory contributions to the PA-GGW[18]. Figure 9 shows theexternal/international funds that were mobilized for GGW-related projects. While the reported individual member
state contributions amount to around USD 53.4 million[19], countries reported receiving a total of USD 149 million inexternal funding.
The latter graph indicates a notable discrepancy between the amount of international support reported by several
donors of the GGW Initiative and the amount reported by countries themselves. Most likely, this goes back to thegeographical definition of the GGW intervention zone, with the amounts reported by the GGW agencies to the PAGGW referring only to funds that are specifically allocated to GGW implementation in the intervention zone. While thismight reflect the actual amounts mobilized by the GGW institutions themselves, it appears to be a considerable
underestimate of the total amounts allocated by the international community to GGW implementation, which might
not necessarily happen in the strict intervention areas.

[18] These numbers only relate to allocations from the national state budget, as there is no data on local/national private sector contributions[19] According to the Pan African Agency, statutory payments by member states amounted to USD 5.4 million, and voluntary contributions to
USD 1.4 million, which means the PA-GGW has received a total of 6.8 million USD, which means that the remaining 50 million USD reported asnational contributions should have gone to national implementation activities.

27

Figure 8 – Domestic / National (state) finance allocated to the GGW per country (in million USD)

Figure 9: External / International finance allocated to the GGW per country (in million USD)

Considering only those transboundary international projects that explicitly state “support for the GGW” in theirobjectives or titles (described in section 3.2 above) results in total external funding of USD 870 million. The SAWAP
provided the major share of this amount, having allocated a total budget of USD 786 million to implementation on the
ground in selected GGW countries[20]. Without this project, large-scale programmes amount to a total funding
volume of USD 85.2 million for the GGW, including USD 13.3 million for a newly approved GEF project.

[20] Out of the total budget of USD 1.2 billion, USD 786 million was allocated to the 9 involved GGW countries, whereas the rest went to 3 othercountries as well as to the BRICKS sub-project.

28

Table 14 - Funding for multi-country projects reported by international donors

Again, the divergence in results with regard to funding flows to the GGW reveals the underlying lack of a common andshared accounting framework and related allocation of activities to the GGW Initiative. Donor funding flows reportedby the PA-GGW differ significantly from what is considered as relevant and contributing to the GGW implementation
by donors and the respective regional or cross-border programmes and projects.
This becomes particularly clear in a summary list of all land restoration activities in the 11 GGW countries, which has
been compiled as part of this assessment and is provided as annex to this report. This list considers both activities in
the official GGW intervention zones and all activities with land restoration objectives in 11 countries, regardless ofwhether they directly refer to the GGW Initiative, thus broadening the scope of activities considered. Consequently,
this list of currently 11 regional projects and 54 national activities (the latter including 12 individual SAWAP projects
and five AAD projects) amounts to much higher total funding of USD 1.9 billion for land restoration in the Sahel. How
much of this funding can actually be considered relevant for the implementation of the GGW Initiative is a matter ofperspective and definition and should be subject to a joint agreement between donors and recipient countries.

4. CHALLENGES AND INVESTMENT-RELATED FINANCINGBARRIERS TO GGW IMPLEMENTATIONThe GGW Initiative provides a showcase of SLM and drylands development in Sub Saharan Africa, representing aunique opportunity to reach both development and environmental goals at the same time. When working toward thevision of restoring 100 Mha degraded land, it is essential to assume an adaptive approach to incorporate lessons
learned - addressing challenges identified by some and replicating success stories experienced by others.
A key point is that drylands do not respond to human interventions the way other zones do, and development efforts
must be adjusted to the local conditions and the characteristics of dryland ecosystems. One example of successful
adjustment to new realities is the redirection of the original vision for the GGW. The GGW was initially conceived as agreen barrier to stop the Sahara Desert from advancing. The scientific evidence of the last two decades has shownthat the southern border of the Sahara has retreated steadily, and parts of the Sahel have become greener (Leroux
et al. 2017). In response, the GGW Initiative adjusted its vision to become a mosaic of resilient land use systems withthe capacity to adapt to uncertainty and climatic extremes.
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

29

This shift in the vision of activities promoted and implemented under the GGW – from “simply” planting trees tobroader, diversified land use and restoration systems – has been accompanied by influx of various projects andinitiatives by donors to support this changing perspective of the GGW. It also led to divergent perspectives on thescope and scale of the GGW being reflected in varying targets, activities, and accounting for related funding flows.
This chapter summarizes the challenges and barriers reported by GGW countries in the implementation of restoration
activities, puts them into context and categories (governance, monitoring and reporting, funding and technicalaspects) to improve the understanding of the underlying issues, and outlines some of the key barriers and risks thatinvestors are facing when funding land restoration in the Sahel.

4.1 GENERAL CHALLENGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GGWCountries reported a range of challenges they encountered when implementing the GGW Strategy and Action Plans,
both in direct relation to the Initiative as well as related to sustainable soil management and the restoration of
degraded land in general. These challenges are mainly:
GovernanceMonitoring and reporting
Funding
Technical (in relation to restoration projects)
These barriers and hurdles are described further in more detail, while Table 14 provides a simplified overview of thechallenges per country as identified during the GGW implementation for the period 2011-2017.
4.1.1 Governance issues causing institutional challenges
An overarching issue appearing in most GGW countries is weak governance in the field of environmental management.
This causes different institutional problems referred to, directly or indirectly, by all the countries in the region as amain barrier to success in the implementation of the GGW (Table 14). Overall, the following challenges areencountered and shared by many countries, occurring at different levels of severity, often one leading to another,and therefore interlinked to a large extent[21]:Lack of high level political support for the environmental policy agenda from the governments of the GGWmember states, leading to a lack of needed underlying legislation, political mandates to establish and properly
resource the required institutional structures and processes that the GGW would benefit from or is largely
dependent on when it comes to government support.
·Weak organizational structures and processes for the implementation of environmental projects or larger
environmental development initiatives or programmes, such as the GGW, which is linked to and is caused by a lackof related financial and human resources allocated to the respective government institutions. A flagship initiative
such as the GGW suffers from the lack of the structures and processes for environmental matters and policy,
resulting in national GGW agencies not having been established. Without necessary institutional structures andprocesses, the required capacities at the scale needed neither appear within the government institutions, nor
their creation is promoted in the private, the non-governmental and research sectors.

[21] The current political instability in a number of GGW countries is a serious threat with regard to travel, communication and overall implementationof GGW projects in the region. Since the focus is on issues caused by the lack of governance the problem of overall political instability should not be
neglected, but cannot be directly addressed here.

30

Lack of coordination and engagement with other relevant sectors. The implementation of GGW activities should
not only be done by the GGW agencies, but also by organizations and agencies from other relevant sectors. The
GGW agencies should coordinate the implementation efforts of the different local, national, andregional/international partners contributing the GGW activities.
Difficulty for GGW national agencies to endorse a “landscape approach” – an inter-sectoral approach that goesbeyond jurisdictional borders and usual sectors (agriculture, environment, forests, energy, land-use planning anddecentralization). Very often these national agencies are under the ministry of environment and do not have theinstitutional power to promote landscape approaches. In addition, some of these agencies are relatively new inthe institutional landscape and do not always have the required capacities.
Lack of mainstreaming environmental management practices into the respective sector strategies, policies andaction plans and programmes to reach the local levels. An initiative like the GGW cannot receive the required
support from the government without a proper integration of environmental policy and action into the strategies,
policies and action plans and programmes in key sectors relevant to the GGW, including agriculture, land use,
rural development and energy. Full mainstreaming is needed for the impact to reach the local level through local
policies, planning and actions.
Lack of coordination, exchange and flow of information and knowledge at the regional and national levels andbetween the respective GGW structures: there are no proper and managed knowledge/information sharing andcoordination mechanisms at the national and regional levels, which results in insufficient coordination andcollaboration between GGW countries as well as between project developers at the national level and crossborder. This is especially important for lessons learned and success stories, as the only way forward to a rapid
and efficient expansion of the GGW initiative is through developing pilot projects that can replicated in many
locations after they have been successfully implemented.

4.1.2 Measurement reporting and verification (MRV) challenges
A fundamental barrier to efficiently pursuing restoration plans is the lack of a system to identify, monitor and report
the activities on the ground. The shortcomings and problems identified during the implementation of the GGWbetween 2011 and 2017 (Table 8) highlight the need for a better overall follow-up and monitoring of the GGW:·Monitoring and evaluation expertise is absent in general, which hampers the abilities of establishing proper MRV
systems at the project and the national levels as well as at the level of the GGW Initiative as a whole - being
connected and adhering to the same internationally established standards. Such expertise is necessary to
regularly document positive and negative developments and allow the project management structures toimplement countermeasures needed to correct negative developments. This affects the accurate documentationand sharing of lessons learned (see above on information and knowledge sharing mechanisms) to avoid negative
developments as well as capitalize on positive results achieved by the projects under the GGW at the national andregional or cross-border levels,
Environmental finance and related project monitoring and reporting standards have become quite demanding
over the last couple of decades, often overwhelming the countries and the respective government institutions
and project developers/managers in the GGW region.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

31

·This includes a rigorous demand for results-based management/finance (RBM/RBF) approaches and further
standards and protocols to document environmental and socio-economic impacts. Insufficient reporting to thebilateral and multilateral donors and financiers leads to a lack of credibility and reduced funding, with financeflows steered elsewhere, making a better MRV capacity a necessary condition to compete successfully forfunding. In some cases, the reporting only relies on statistical data produced by relevant ministries to present
realistic annual reports that show the efforts of the government in the implementation of the GGW Initiative.
Reporting on the use of funding and related evaluation and learning mechanisms should demonstrate how the useof financial resources allocated to GGW projects is optimized, so that emerging GGW projects can benefit from
related experiences.
The lack of finance available for developing the related MRV capacities or the insufficient allocation of past or
current funding for these capacities hinders the establishment of the required monitoring and evaluation as wellas MRV systems at the local, national and GGW/regional levels. The lack of proper project and GGW program
management structures at all levels (local, national and regional/GGW) in many cases lead to insufficiencies in
implementation as well as raising and allocating financial means for implementation and monitoring activities.
Furthermore, there are reports of difficulties in mobilizing or receiving funds allocated to a National GGW Agency
for carrying out monitoring and supervision of local GGW projects and activities in the field.

4.1.3 Funding challenges
When discussing funding challenges, it is important to keep in mind that according to the Harmonised Strategy (AU &PA-GGW 2012), domestic financial resources from the Member States and the local private sector are meant to leadin the implementation of the GGW[22]. External resources from development agencies, international institutions andthe financing mechanisms of the Rio Conventions, instead, should complement this funding. The Resource
Mobilization Strategy (PA-GGW n.d.) estimates the total financial requirements of implementing the GGWprogrammes 2016-2020 at the national level to about USD 2.3 billion. Cost estimates are divided into operating andequipment budgets of national agencies and the GGW system and the program budgets for implementation in thefield.
The specific funding challenges mentioned by the countries (see also Table 14) show:
An overall insufficient, unpredictable, and insecure funding situation as reported by many GGW countries. This
perception or view will stem from the different views on how much funding has been mobilized or allocatedexternally by the international donor community and the changed or broadened scope of the GGW Initiative overthe last decade. Furthermore, the difficulties of most GGW countries in establishing the required governance andproject structures (see also above) for attracting and accessing, managing and reporting on finance flows (seealso below on climate finance), basically their inability to absorb large(r) amounts of funding come into play here
as well. First, what can be observed here is a reflection of the additionality debates seen in the development andclimate finance domains with very divergent views between donor and recipient countries on which resources canbe allocated to an initiative and which ones not, or only partly or to a certain extent, here in the case of the GGW.
Second, the wider scope and scale of activities considered as contributions or part of the GGW will come into playhere with the GGW countries struggling with (fully) identifying all opportunities and preparing the related funding
proposal.
[22] Whereas the mobilization of sufficient and sustainable domestic resources from the GGW governments for the implementation for the GGW is alreadychallenging, mobilizing private sector finance for land use and land restoration activities in the Sahel region under the GGW Initiative at scale is a very
challenging undertaking. There are various issues related to developing bankable projects in such an extreme environment and when ‘only’ looking at theland use sector, not considering (rural) energy projects, for example. These bankability problems include scale issues, land rights/ownership questions,community involvement, low(er) profitability expectations, amongst other. Private sector finance, the challenges and what may be the way forwards in thecontext of the further implementation of the GGW are important aspects but cannot be further investigated and elaborated on as part of this stocktaking
report.

32

Third, and this point is related to the preceding one, making the case for accessing and, in the end, absorbing
environmental finance requires the existence of respective structures, processes and capabilities at the level ofthe national governments as well as at the local levels and the level of the project developers/managers. The lasttwo points are also reflected in the discrepancy between expectations on mobilizing domestic resources andcomplementarity of international funding and what has actually been mobilized to date, even when only
comparing what is reported by the GGW countries themselves.
The mastery of environmental finance – going beyond ‘traditional’, grant-based and short-term development
interventions - is challenging for the GGW countries. The above mentioned increased or increasing scope andscale, including (the consideration of) project types beyond land restoration projects and furthering the need forunderstanding and using environmental finance, create hurdles for many of the GGW countries. There are therequirements for putting together respective funding proposals to international donors, applying respective rules
and standards reflected in such applications (e.g. see above on RBM/RBF etc.), demanding co-finance or even
blending of different financial instruments and mechanisms (e.g. grants, debt & innovative finance) as well as therequirements of project cycles with regard to project development and implementation linked to payments madebased on results or delivery of (environmental) services, including third party validation/verification, such as in
the case of carbon finance. Related to the issues of co-finance and blending is the use and integration ofdomestic public and international and national private finance, which is another barrier for many of the GGWactors at the national and local levels, being rather ‘traditional donor aid clientele’. The GGW Evaluation report(PA-GGW 2018) clearly indicates that one of the major constraints lies in the mobilization, sustainability andmode of use of both domestic and foreign funding.

4.1.4 Technical challenges and survival rates of tree planting projects
Since several restoration projects involve a tree planting component, it is particularly important to closely follow thesurvival rates in the five to 10 years following the planting. A plantation with a low survival rate is likely to disappear
completely, with the project efforts and funding wasted. Complementary to monitoring survival rates, maintaining theplantation in the initial stages is important to ensure a sufficient vegetation cover that can become sustainable in thelong term. It is important to set up a follow-up or monitoring system for GGW projects that lasts at least five to 10
years and includes an exit and sustainability strategy, taking into account project lifetimes and related crediting
periods for the delivery of environmental services such as carbon sequestration for up to several decades and toensure the real viability of the projects beyond the implementation period.
To ensure that local populations and governments have the full ownership of projects over a long period of time,
appropriate technologies and mechanisms that support the survival of these projects need to be in place, and cansometimes require decades to become self-sufficient.

4.2 BARRIERS AND RISKS TO FINANCING LAND RESTORATION UNDER THE GGWClosely linked to the challenges in securing external funding for the implementation of the GGW objectives is the factthat land restoration activities in general, and in drylands such as the Sahel in particular, pose specific risks toinvestors:

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

33

·Scale issues: on the one hand, the GGW is an ambitious undertaking within an extremely vast geography that
requires coordination between 11 countries, involves multiple levels of governance and covers millions ofhectares. Without addressing and constantly improving the governance and institutional issues as well as the
MRV challenges, an increase in new finance sources (including innovative and private sources) and financial
instruments and mechanisms at scale beyond the traditional, grant-based finance will be seriously hampered. On
the other hand, the projects that require financing are mostly small, challenging to implement in practice, andalso too small to attract institutional investors. These projects, if looked at individually, may require considerably
less capital than common minimum investment sizes of at least USD 50–100 million (WRI 2017) required byinvestors.
·Inherent investment risks of land use projects: many of the projects are not profitable, at least from a strictly
financial point of view. Outside of concerns of social impact investors and public finance, nature and social
benefits usually have no market value, not counting the markets for environmental services, such as for GHG
mitigation and carbon sequestration that evolved over the last two decades. There are also differences among
the public finance sources: some pay more attention to bankability than others. Evaluated strictly in terms offinancial gains, most restoration projects generate returns that are too low to attract private investors (WRI2017), apart from larger, commercial forestry operations. Furthermore, the continuity, long-term sustainability
and replication of these projects can be challenging, in particular in the context of the GGW and the Sahel, whichmakes them a higher risk compared to other investments because land restoration activities are implemented in
an adverse environment, constantly evolving mostly due to climate change. The challenge is that project
implementation/land restoration needs outpace land degradation (see also below on country risks).
GHG mitigation/offsetting projects in the land use sector and related risks: there is several risks related todeveloping and implementing carbon sequestration projects, compliance, or voluntary projects. Reaching a criticalsize of carbon stored and related credits requires of a certain number of participants from community-based
smallholder structures, unless large publicly or privately owned areas are available for planting. Unless fastgrowing, often exotic species on large(r) areas of land are planted, a long time-lag between investment andbreak-even can be expected, which limits the number of the potential investors. The motivation of farmers andsense of ownership in communities depends on revenues, which may be contrary to the objectives of a carbon
project: there is the risk that farmers may cut and sell the trees they planted as part of the project.
Furthermore, growth and increments may be smaller than expected due to climate variability, or the plantations
might fail due to drought. Another issue that often creates additional complexities or even prevents thedevelopment of projects is the unclear land tenure and land rights, because the ownership of the resulting carbon
credits may be disputed. At the national level this is related to governance and policy issues, such as a) control
over land and b) the use of emissions reductions for the NDC and related national commitments vs offsetting
projects for the voluntary markets. There is also the risk of false expectations and promises about potential
income from carbon sequestration revenues when products and services for the development of viable projects
are not considered from the onset.
·Community ownership and involvement require more sophisticated engagement strategies to be understood,
accepted, supported, and carried by local communities who will benefit from the projects. Training andempowering communities to implement and maintain land restoration activities is therefore as essential as
creating a sense of community ownership of a project.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

34

·Country risks: In addition, all serious investors consider political and country risks, including social, political, andeconomic conditions and events that pose a threat to the performance of investments and the profitability.
Investors may shy away from opportunities overseas, such as the GGW Initiative and the Sahel, when they
consider the risks that can result from the actions of the host government or other political events taking place
in a country. Currently, the majority of the GGW countries show high to severe country risks (EEX Africa 2020).

Table 14: Summary table of key challenges encountered & reported by GGW countries

5. A ROADMAP AND OUTLOOK FOR THE NEXT DECADE:WHAT IS NEEDED TO REACH THE 2030 OBJECTIVE?
This chapter provides a roadmap for the remaining decade to 2030 and key recommendations on the way forward.
The first part introduces fundamental needs and considerations with regard to the implementation and financing of
the GGW for achieving the 2030 target. This is followed by a second part on strengthening, accelerating, andimproving the implementation of the GGW, which presents a roadmap on governance, MRV, access to finance, project
development and management support. Finally, a dedicated fund and a facilitation mechanism are introduced,
operationalizing two of the elements of the roadmap (access to finance and project development and management
support) to achieve the GGW acceleration.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

35

5.1 FUNDAMENTAL SCALING UP AND SCALING OUT THE NEEDS AND CONSIDERATIONSFOR ACHIEVING THE 2030 TARGET
5.1.1 Scaling up rehabilitation and restoration activities over the coming decade with a view ofreaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Restoration of 100 million hectares ofdegraded land by 2030.
As of early 2020 - considering all activities that may be contributing to the GGW Initiative, applying the wider scopeand definition of the GGW, and accounting for the regional and cross-border projects and programmes (see also
Chapters 1 and 3) - a total of 17.8 Mha land is under restoration or has been rehabilitated in the GGW member states.
To reach a total area of 100 Mha by 2030, it would be necessary to substantially increase the current pace of land
restoration from 1.9 Mha/year on average to 8.2 Mha annually (Figure 10).

5.1.2 How much would it cost? Estimated financing needs for the implementation of the required
and remaining rehabilitation and restoration activities until 2030
Based on data from WRI (2017), land restoration in Africa incurs an average cost of USD 440/ha across all activities
and countries, although such costs are likely to be higher within countries of the Sahel region. Land restoration costs
for existing projects in the region such as the SAWAP reach an average cost of 530/ha. Applying these basic
estimates to the remaining land area in need for restoration to reach the 2030 vision would mean that land
rehabilitation measures alone would cost between USD 3.6 and 4.3 billion per year, or a total that varies between USD
36 and 43 billion up to 2030[23]. Creating conditions through capacity building and training of farmers to allow themto carry out and maintain land restoration measures, as well as the adjustment of land use policies and governancestructures must be added to this basic cost. For comparison, the total amount of combined external and domestic
funding allocated to the GGW in the first decade (2011-2017) equals USD 206 million, as reported by the GGWmember states, and to USD 1.8 billion between 2010-2019 based on pipeline information published by international
donors[24]. Comparing these figures with the above estimations on the required overall and annual finance for land
restoration under the GGW without taking into account potential revisions in the GGW’s strategic orientation, overall
vision and related ambitions, clearly demonstrates that a quantum leap in mobilizing the required investments isneeded. Next to a raise in the national contributions and increased donor funding, in particular from the private
sector is required to complement the funding mobilized so far.
[23]Based on land restoration costs for Africa (WRI 2017) and land restoration costs for the SAWAP project, assuming the shares of the different activities
in reaching the 2030 vision to be constant (compare Figure 4 above)[24] The USD 206 million refers to “future projects” envisioned in the GGW country reports, without additional information on implementation status or
securing of funds. The USD 1.8 billion refers to projects identified in donor databases as proposed/submitted but without a funding decision so far.

36

Comparing these figures with the above estimations on the required overall and annual finance for land restoration
under the GGW without taking into account potential revisions in the GGW’s strategic orientation, overall vision andrelated ambitions, clearly demonstrates that a quantum leap in mobilizing the required investments is needed. Next
to a raise in the national contributions and increased donor funding, the access to new sources and instruments, suchas innovative or environmental/carbon finance, debt and equity finance, in particular from the private sector isrequired to complement the funding mobilized so far.
First, more detailed analysis is needed to make more realistic estimates of the actual costs for the further
implementation of the GGW over the next decade – as a whole region, in the individual countries and at the local
level. In particular, looking more at the local, project development level will help to further determine theprerequisites when it comes to the actual activities, those involved in the development and implementation activities,
and expected costs (taking establishment, maintenance, transaction and opportunity costs into account). There aredifferences between community-driven projects and commercial, profitable operations at scale. Some of these costs
may be significantly reduced through in-kind contributions or shared among many actors through bundling several
activities under one umbrella or working with community-based projects and related organizations and civil society
groups. The establishment, transaction and opportunity costs may be assessed differently, with opportunity costs notplaying a significant role in many of the current GGW projects, while compensations, fees or payments forenvironmental services should not be neglected. Then there are rather commercial, more profitable individual
operations that involve respective expert organizations and private operators and incur such costs.
Second, one needs to distinguish between the kinds of contributions expected from different sources andinstruments, which have, partly or in some cases not at all, not been taken into account or received yet. So far, thisassessment only looks at reported public finance from international and domestic sources, mostly grant-based from“traditional” sources for land use projects, without looking at other instruments and sources or using existing funding
streams to leverage and blend other sources and instruments of finance. For example, the debt finance, that initiallystarts with international finance institutions, will usually link to commercially promising operations with a private
sector angle. This will lead to further (co)finance options, including equity as well as innovative finance, such asenvironmental or carbon. The latter offers a promising private sector investment potential with an interest inpurchasing carbon offsets from projects that deliver high sustainable development co-benefits – for example, in the
air transportation sector through the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) tomeet the CO2 reduction targets and the general Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ambitions requested byshareholders (see also above on the issues around carbon sequestration projects).
Third, land use and restoration projects are very different investments compared to other investment projects, suchas in the energy sector. Returns on investment take much longer to materialize and related investment risks are high,making such projects less attractive to investors. These type of projects in the Sahel that involve community andsmallholder engagement are likely to be rejected when compared to commercial, private sector operations andmeasured with conventional profitability indices (Internal Rate of Return, Net Present Value). However, othereconomic analysis and valuations take into consideration at all the associated costs and benefits beyond short-term
gains, with a long-term perspective toward gains in productivity, employment, health, environment, avoided costs of
migration, civil conflict and war (WRI 2017).

[24] The USD 206 million refers to “future projects” envisioned in the GGW country reports, without additional information on implementation status or
securing of funds. The USD 1.8 billion refers to projects identified in donor databases as proposed/submitted but without a funding decision so far.

37

Well-designed projects, with supportive institutional governance structures and processes in place, would provide therequired framework conditions, a conducive investment environment and (economic) incentive mechanisms,
establishing a foundation for further investments from international public as well as domestic and international
private investors. This will require addressing the above-mentioned barriers to governance, MRV and finance as wellas paying attention to the specifics of carbon sequestration and other GHG mitigation projects and providing
technical support on the ground. These requirements can be targeted through the proposed package of a dedicatedfund and a related facility, using the GGW Initiative as the umbrella and focus area.
5.1.3 Revisiting the scope and the scale of the GGW: a (re)new(ed) shared vision and joint
understanding of the GGW Initiative
Since its inception in 2007, the GGW has undergone changes and developed beyond the initial scope, including
different perceptions of the various actors and direct stakeholders of what the GGW entails or covers. Looking at theinitiative from the outside, the observer is left with some uncertainties with regards to the actual scale and scope of
the GGW. This should not come as a surprise, bearing in mind the developments in international environmental policies
and increasing pressure for transformational change, together with the interlinkages between environmental mattersand other pressing development problems in Africa and the Sahel, among them economic development, migration andpolitical instabilities. Flagship projects such as the GGW are predestined to show how environment and development
matters can be addressed and solved, which may lead to overloading them with expectations and losing sight of what
an initiative set out to achieve. The divergent perceptions on how much funding has been mobilized and for which
activities, as well as the broadened geographical scope reflect these developments in the context of the GGW over
the years.
Achieving the 2030 target and mobilizing the required funding over the coming decade requires a (re)new(ed) visionand joint understanding of what the GGW is, what the initiative can do and support, and what means exist forachieving the GGW goals at the regional, national and local levels. This process should also consider to which extent
other sustainable development activities carried out in the GGW intervention areas are relevant to this (re)new(ed)GGW vision, such as rural energy projects – for example, improved cookstoves, biogas or solar PV. The PA-GGW, in
collaboration with the GGW donors. national and local stakeholders should launch this process to create this sharedvision. Giving a new momentum to the GGW efforts should build on the current, continued GGW implementation andrequires sound structures and processes to strengthen, accelerate and improve the implementation of the GGW[25].
5.2 STRENGTHENING, ACCELERATING AND IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GGW:CORE ELEMENTS OF THE ROAD MAP
Getting organized at several levels is key to upscaling activities and enhancing implementation of the GGW. The
required main improvements are in governance and institutional structures, proper MRV systems, absorption offinancial flows and project or programme development and management on the ground.
5.2.1 Improve GGW governance and institutional aspects
High level political support at the national levels is required to strengthen and revamp the GGW at national andimplementation levels, so that necessary mandates and resources are available to establish and maintain functioning
structures and processes for the GGW implementation. The GGW may not be able to establish every governancestructure and process for all environmental matters on its own, but it may set up the initial core elements, using
decrees and similar means instead of lengthy and complex legislative processes, unless they are already underway.
[25] Restoration in Action Against Desertification, A Manual for Large-Scale Restoration to Support Rural Communities’ Resilience in Africa’s Great
Green Wall (FAO 2020) & Migration as a Choice and Opportunity for Rural Development (FAO, 2019)38

The above-mentioned push for a renewed vision at the PA-GGW level should include the demonstration of related
financial flows and development benefits as well as targeted interventions at the national levels. The PA-GGW may be
instrumental in providing the forum for the national and international leaders and decision makers to create themomentum for further action and commitments for this renewed the renewed vision.
If the high-level political support and willingness are secured and the respective mandates are issued, the required
resources need to be made available or strengthened to enable relevant government institutions to fulfill their roleand provide the necessary support and create the framework for improved and accelerated GGW implementation at
the country and local levels. Together with the creation or strengthening of the National GGW Agencies, theministries and agencies in charge of environment, agriculture and land use, rural development and energy, as well as
finance, need to be involved. The GGW will not solve the governance issues of all environmental affairs on its own,
but it can create examples of successful engagement, helping the GGW move forwards and pave the way for others
to follow. The respective departments or divisions in the ministries and/or national agencies need to be mandated
under clearly defined terms of references and staffed with skilled focal personnel under national budget to fulfill
their roles in GGW implementation. The functions of the ministries, subordinate agencies and the national GGWagencies need to be coordinated. More detailed gaps and needs assessments are required to prepare targeted
actions.
The teams or focal personnel in the ministries and agencies need to work on mainstreaming GGW actions and financeinto the relevant sector strategies, policies and action plans and programmes. They should review and improve thelevel of mainstreaming, aligning it with related environmental matters, such as climate change, biodiversity and SLM.
In particular, the integration of the existing and future GGW programmes and projects into the respective actionplans and programmes, including tracking of relevant international and national financial flows, will usually show
trickle-down effects in planning and implementation at the local level and on the ground.
At least two levels of coordination and knowledge management are needed at the regional/GGW and at the national
levels, based on clearly established terms of reference and respective roles. At the national levels a GGW Coordinatoror Coordination Unit needs to be assigned – either within the National GGW Agency where it already exists or on oneof the teams at the respective ministry, allocating relevant mandates and resources. Using a clear process, criteria
and further guidance, the coordinator should be able to address GGW matters of actions and finance, brought to theirattention on the national and local, as well as the regional/GGW and international levels.
Facilitating communication and understanding of GGW issues in the context of national and local action, should
leverage existing coordination mechanisms and partnerships to enhance the outreach and integration of GGWmatters. This includes engaging the private sector, NGOs and other relevant organizations to take action together
with facilitating greater national coordination for GGW implementation. Cohesive partnership messages and tools on
GGW matters and impacts are also needed to explore the opportunities for collaboration among government
agencies, the private sector and NGOs to strengthen GGW implementation at the national levels.
Regional and international coordination should involve working with the PA-GWW that could act as a GGW Regional
Coordinator, prioritizing and addressing GGW actions and finance at the regional and international level to ensure
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

39

coordination on cross-border matters and working with donors when addressing the GGW as a whole beyond thescope of an individual country.
Improving GGW project and programme development and implementation should include increased exchange between
countries and project developers/managers to share knowledge, experiences and good practices and benefit fromeach other’s experience. The same applies to exchange among government entities in the establishment andmaintenance of the required framework conditions, related structures, and processes.
The development and establishment of a facilitation mechanism or platform can provide assistance at the regional
level, fostering cross-border information and knowledge exchange, while providing hands-on and targeted assistanceat the national level. This includes replicating successful cases and adopting best practices that have achieved results
elsewhere (for example, farmer managed natural regeneration,) (see the map below)[26]. Rooting the knowledge
management and information sharing measures in the PA-GGW at the regional and the national levels requires acertain level of institutionalization. These knowledge managers should engage with the coordinators at the initialstage, with necessary financial and human resources be allocated for this purpose without over-complicating theadministrative structure or compromising the efficiency.
Resources should include a dedicated online GGW facilitation platform as part of the existing GGW web presence,
GGW/regional and national online and targeted in-person technical assistance, capacity development and related goodpractice and lessons learned events, on-the-job trainings, related materials and media activities. The facilitation
platform can be used by the newly created facility and its team to conduct more targeted interventions, build the
GGW network and create the project portfolio at the PA-GGW and the country level. The PA-GGW and the national
level GGW offices would also conduct regular, annual GGW information and knowledge-sharing activities, prepare anannual State of the GGW publication, foster dialogue between state and local community leaders, scientists, resource
managers and policymakers and develop integrated international partnerships to further the GGW implementation.
5.2.2 Continue advocacy and global awareness raising
Continued global awareness raising needs to accompany the technical and financial elements of accelerating GGWimplementation over the coming decade to help the international community better understand the GGW issues andtheir consequences, generating the will to act and contribute to the GGW success.
An example of successful outreach is the film “The Great Green Wall,” directed by Jared P Scott, and produced inassociation with the UNCCD with the Malian singer Inna Modja as the central actor. The film takes the viewers on amusical journey through countries of the GGW, explaining the issues, their impact on local populations and theenvironment, as well as the GGW achievements to date.
Successful communication products can have a great impact on the political will to address the highlighted issues,
mobilizing the international community to provide finance and prompting national institutions and individual
contributors to act for GGW. Increasing the outreach of the GGW through media can create a momentum for global
solidarity to make GGW a reality.

[26] This requires a range of basic assessments and strategies, such as the identification of common success factors and challenges, the carefulassessment of baseline situations, as done for some of the GGW countries in the AAD project (Sacande et al. 2018), as well as the identification ofsuitable locations in need of restoration. The latter could be guided or inspired by a recent map of the restoration potential in Sub-Saharan Africa,
including the GGW countries.

40

5.2.3 Accelerate and scale up project generation[27]The generation of new, bankable projects that can contribute to advancing the GGW at the required speed is anothercrucial element that necessitates dedicated, professional, and targeted support via a facilitation mechanism (seeChapter 5). Several projects of varying size, technology and success have been implemented along the GGW.
However, a rather limited number of projects are ready for investments. This indicates the need to increase thenumber of projects on the ground, exploring ways to initiate new programmes or projects and supporting thedevelopment of larger and longer-term programmes next to individual, larger projects. Specifically, the following
activities are already part of the GGW scope but need to be better funded and scaled up:
Analysis of the potential for environmental development projects in the GGW region to deliver saleable services
to the environmental markets
Analysis of the potential to improve the inception of projects in the GGW region by looking at past/ongoingproject preparation facilities and relevant programmes and mechanisms (GCF, GEF, FAO, etc.)
Review of relevant types of projects or programmes, which have been successful in the arid areas in Africa andelsewhere; in particular, review international and regional land restoration initiatives as well as initiatives that
support other successful SDG relevant projects (for example, land use, forestry or agriculture projects) andevaluate how these may be replicated in the GGW countries
Creating a catalogue of relevant project types and descriptions of key elements to initiate and implement
projects successfully
Inclusion of other relevant project types, such as rural energy projects (cookstoves, biogas, solar PV) that
directly complement land restoration activities by contributing to the achievement of SDGs as part of the GGWimplementation.
Box 3: Private sector finance example: ADUNA project

Private sector engagement in GGW: demand-based and business-driven approach to focus on the market potential ofunder-utilized natural products in the region, including Moringa, Fonio and Baobab. To illustrate the potential of suchtypes of enterprise, the ADUNDA founders state that “more than 25% of the world’s botanical species originate fromAfrica yet less than 1% find their way onto the shelves of health and beauty retailers” and more specifically about
the potential of their product “Baobab could be worth as much as USD 1 billion to rural Africa every year, providing
sustainable incomes for 10 million households.”
Through the establishment of local cooperatives, these products can be developed to a suitably high standard for theinternational market, with underwritten agreements by committed international buyers such as ADUNA to ensure
long-term sustainability.
The map below provides an overview of the land restoration potential in Sub-Saharan Africa without consideringother SDG-relevant projects.

[27] This includes also replicating successful cases and adopting best practices that have achieved results elsewhere (e.g. farmer managed naturalregeneration). This requires a range of basic assessments and strategies, such as the identification of common success factors and challenges, thecareful assessment of baseline situations, as done for some of the GGW countries in the AAD project (Sacande et al. 2018), as well as the identificationof suitable locations in need of restoration. The latter could be guided or inspired by a recent map of the restoration potential in Sub-Saharan Africa,
including the GGW countries.

41

5.2.4 Strengthen MRV and establish an integrated MRV system
The above-mentioned national coordination and knowledge management/information sharing units will support theidentification of available monitoring and evaluation (M&E) expertise that can be brought to the GGW projects on the
ground. This may include assistance with identifying such expertise for individual projects and working with existingrosters (see above on tapping into relevant existing networks and partnerships), while looking for synergies andefficiencies in organizing specific M&E aspects. In particular, the collection and aggregation of data for reporting andevaluation purposes at the national levels, making use of relevant government organizations and structures at thenational and local levels and/or looking for (private sector) expert organizations that can be charged with such tasks.
In case a country has severe capability gaps, cross-border support should include regional/GGW coordination andknowledge management/information sharing. MRV of GGW actions and financial flows is the area where thefacilitation mechanism can provide assistance, supporting the establishment of a shared and integrated GGW-widesystem.
The integration of cutting-edge international monitoring and reporting standards will be important for each country
and the region. It is necessary to design and establish a monitoring system for GGW projects and the entire GGW to
improve the success rate and tracking of land restoration and other GGW activities, including rural energy projects.
This MRV system should cover technical, environmental, and socio-economic as well as the financial aspects of theseprojects or programmes and should be as comprehensive as possible while also ensuring usability. A pragmatic
approach would mean building upon existing monitoring guidelines and standardized approaches, for example fromsources such as the FAO [28].
[28] Relevant resources for land restoration include a recent FAO guidebook on how to determine relevant indicators to be monitored (FAO 2019a: ‘Ther o a d t o r e s t o r a t i o n : A g u i d e t o i d e n t i f y i n g p r i o r i t i e s a n d i n d i c a t o r s f o r m o n i t o r i n g f o r e s t a n d l a n d s c a p e r e s t o r a t i o n ’, a s w e l l a s t h e ‘ M o n i t o r i n g a n dReporting Tool for Forest and Landscape Restoration’ developed as part of the AAD project (FAO 2019b).

42

Through the AAD, the FAO is supporting the GGW programme (AUC/PA-GGW/NA-GGW) to establish monitoring andbest practices tools with trainings and continuous field data collections. A monitoring and reporting system must be
easily usable on the ground while including all relevant indicators. The implementation of this system can be enhancedwith remote monitoring and satellite imaging, for instance in form of the Open Foris Collect Earth tool [29] that uses
high-resolution satellite images available from Google Earth and Bing maps to assess tree-cover density and land use.
The use of RBM/RBF approaches that have become the international standard for the development and managementof environmental finance projects and programmes at the local, national and GGW levels needs to be ensured.
Tracking and MRV of financial flows at all levels will need to become an integral part of setting up the integrated
MRV system at the local and regional level. This system would fulfill a double purpose: 1) regular monitoring andreporting at the local, national, and regional levels at the required intervals; 2) learning and good-practice materials,
tailored to the needs of the GGW. The first can be used for internal and external reporting purposes, including to theinvestors and promoters, while the latter will support learning and improvements, accelerating the implementation of
the GGW.
Addressing financial aspects of the required MRV capacities will be partly possible through the expected anddedicated support for the development of such expertise. Furthermore, the proposed GGW fund and facilitation
mechanism may be able to fill the remaining financial gaps not covered by domestic resources.

5.2.5 Create a structured approach to mobilizing financeA structured approach to mobilize the required funding for meeting the 2030 GGW target should both reinforce
member states’ allocations and attract external funds. Several aspects linked to the financing of the GGW to enhance
the mobilization and improve the planning and absorption of financial resources are important and need to be tackled:
Strengthening follow-up and monitoring of projects and the costs associated with their implementation as partof a dedicated MRV system
Optimizing financial resources allocated in a transparent manner, building the capacity of government actors tomanage the project finances and access the international funding, as well as mobilize additional national
resources from the public and private sector
Building the capacity of national actors to access existing funding at the international level from public andprivate sources
Assess existing funding options such as the African Risk Facility under the Africa Union, as well as continental,
sub-regional and national banks (AfDB, BOAD, BEEAC, the Agriculture Bank, etc.). Involving these financing
institutions to implement Payment for Environmental Services (PES) mechanisms has a lot of potential, possibly
in association with micro financing networks
Alternatively, establish an organized and structured option for greater mobilization of financial resources andimproved planning to successfully implement the GGW through a GGW financing facility or a GGW trust fund. This
recommendation is further elaborated in the next section to present strategy and actions that can accelerate theimplementation of the GGW and mobilize the required investments, making the establishment of a fund andfacilitation mechanism essential[29] http://www.openforis.org/tools/collect-earth.html

43

5.3 A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO MOBILIZING THE REQUIRED FUNDING
The main challenge in the implementation of the GGW at the required scale and pace is accessing funding, especiallyfor financing projects on the ground, but also for the institutional framework required to support the GGW as well
the initiatives that improve the effectiveness of finance use and allocation. This is also the case for financing an
exchange platform mechanism between countries and project developers.
Before mapping the ways forward, it is important to understand the funding sources available and the most efficient
way to access them. Securing adequate financing for the implementation of the GGW can be difficult and should bedone using a carefully designed approach.
An ambitious initiative such as the GGW can galvanise the interest of a great number of financial sources as it falls
within the mandate of several agencies, with land restoration high on the international agenda (see Chapter 2) andinstrumental to the development of the African continent. With its relevance to multiple environmental anddevelopment objectives (see Chapter 3.2 on the GGW’s contribution to the SDGs), the initiative can tap into additional
climate finance and innovative financing mechanisms – for example, valorisation of environmental services such ascarbon sequestration and further PES[30]. Through such mechanisms, financial incentives can be offered to farmers
or communities in exchange for ecological services. The importance of adaptation and related funding to create more
resilient production and supply chains plays a role in the land use sector as well. In addition to conventional public
sector and multilateral funding for such activities, there are many examples of private investors engaged, includinginternational corporations (for CSR or marketing purposes) or social investors.
5.3.1 Characterisation of available funding sources
Available funding sources can be divided into:
Public and private sources which expect substantial environmental and social returns rather than financial gains,
Sources which expect financial returns in addition to environmental and social returns.
These include many sub-sources with varying characteristics that may be tapped into depending on the timing, size,
level of risk and overall conditions of projects or programmes. The following actors and groups can be assigned tothe categories defined above:
Public sources which do not expect financial returns include local funding sources (national and regional),
international multilateral sources, such as the World Bank, the GEF, African Development Bank and the Green
Climate Fund, and bilateral funding that originates from specific country governments, for example Germany,
France and Japan. Such sources are commonly coupled with Technical Assistance (TA).
·A number of private and non-governmental sources that do not expect financial returns:
Philanthropic organisations (e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)
NGOs
Donation via impact investing
Donation via crowdfunding
Sources that expect financial return: a large number of such sources are available, mostly private:
Large international public financial institutions (World Bank, AfDB, EIB and KfW)The GEF blended or non-grant instrument[31][30] The concept of payment for environmental services (PES) goes obviously beyond carbon sequestration and GHG mitigation, covering biodiversity
protection or protection and management of water resources, for example. However, apart from the more prominent and already in the GGW concept
integrated carbon sequestration component this report cannot further elaborate on such other environmental services.
[31] Under GEF7, USD 136 million have been agreed during the replenishment to increase the role of the private sector. In GEF6, a particular effort wasdone to find ways to generate global environment benefits beyond the usual climate change mitigation focal area. Several initiatives, as the Moringa Fundor “&Green”, have been supported to generate new business models in agriculture and food production.

44

Local financial institutions (banks and other financial services providers)
Small businesses facilitators (business angels, private equity/venture capital)
Large multinational companies (who have vested interest in local production)
Carbon asset buyers
Impact investments
Crowdfunding
Climate bonds and green bonds, in case of large projects or a number of aggregated projects the issuance ofbonds could be contemplated, andInsurance and mitigation of long-term risk schemes
Depending on the programmes or projects, the sources can be combined, for instance blending grants and private
debt with public financial guarantees. This can be also achieved through investments in projects via taking direct
equities in return for access to local agricultural production. However, the most appropriate blend of finance sources
should be designed for each programme or project. An appropriate combination of financial sources may help achieve
long-lasting and replicable impact of a programme. A different source of finance might be available to financedifferent stages of a project and may be replicated for similar projects that have access to comparable sources offinance.
5.3.2 Accessing, managing and delivering funding for the GGW implementation
Individual conditions of a programme or project will dictate the type of funding sources and related financial
instruments and mechanisms to be approached. A pilot project, even when offering potential financial benefits, may
have to be financed by a grant, while a similar project that builds on a pilot, may opt for a partial subsidised loan oreven benefit from small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) venture capital mechanisms. Likewise, philanthropic, orsocial impact investors may only grant funds to activities with proven concepts to avoid the risk of failure. When aproject type is still untested it may best approach conventional bilateral and multilateral grant sources despite theadministrative efforts and deadlines. However, properly structured initial projects with the right expertise on board,
may qualify for other instruments, such as soft loans.
Size of a project is also important. Often one large project is easier to finance than several small ones from theadministrative point of view of the funding provider, as it allows to achieve substantial environmental and social
impacts all at once. Therefore, aggregation of smaller projects is an important tool to attract larger investments.
Two complementary vehicles may be considered to assist in the provision of finance for projects on the ground:the establishment of a “Great Green Wall Trust Fund” andthe creation of a related investment facility
A trust fund will gather firm commitments on a certain level of funding for a predefined investment purpose, while afacility can match available funding sources with projects on the ground. Although the two vehicles are different innature, they both depended on the same conditions for success:Access to sources of funding
Ability to populate a pipeline of bankable projects in the GGW countries, andA reliable management of funds gathered and invested, mostly in terms of efficiency, transparency, andgovernance

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

45

A fund is capitalized for defined investment purposes and goals by public sources and, possibly, private sources.
These would originate from the nature of the GGW and organizations currently driving the Initiative, assessed fromthe development and environmental finance point of view (sources may include individual countries as well asinternational organizations such as the Global Mechanism of UNCCD, GCF or the FAO).
A fund provides grants and offer other instruments or mechanisms (soft loans or innovative finance via the purchaseof carbon).
Finally, a fund will have the power to disburse funds more promptly and efficiently but will only have access to limited
finance. A facility instead has access to very substantial funding but needs to comply with requirements andprocesses of existing sources of funding. Therefore, the fund may be able to disburse finances promptly to initiate
projects while the facility will finance the full implementation.

Box 4: The Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) FundThe Global Mechanism spearheaded the creation of the LDN Fund, which was co-financed by various partners,
including GEF. It is an impact investment fund, blending resources from the public, private and philanthropic sectors
to support the achievement of LDN through sustainable land management and land restoration projects implemented
by the private sector. The LDN Fund provides long-term financing (debt/equity) for sustainable land use projects thatwill reduce or reverse land degradation. It operates according to robust environmental and social standards. The Funduses a layered structure, leveraging public money to increase private sector investment in sustainable development.
Technical assistance may be provided by an associated donor- funded technical assistance facility.
The LDN fund has gathered over USD 170 million. As an innovative financing mechanism, it aims to leverage publicmoney to raise private capital for sustainable land management projects. The LDN Fund backed by large institutionalde-risking partners, including the European Investment Bank and the French Development Agency (as anchor
investors).

Source: https://www.unccd.int/actions/impact-investment-fund-land-degradation-neutrality)

A facility assists with the development and implementation of projects or programmes by providing relevant support
in the form of direct technical assistance (support for studies and documents) to develop and implement projects.
This ensures a reliable pipeline to feed into a fund’s portfolio. The facility also assists with targeted capacity building
related to the development and implementation of projects and programmes under the GGW Initiative, which isdifferent to general capacity building efforts of donors. Such financial vehicle requires a small team to manage thefacility and its activities.
Nonetheless, the two vehicles are complementary in many ways, bringing additional investors, increasing the pipelineof projects, and potentially lowering the administration costs by sharing some functionalities. They address thenecessity to create a central funding support organization at the core of a fund or a facility, which can:Help projects and programmatic projects understand what sources of funding are appropriate
Assist projects/programmes in the application for funding
Operate on a pre-funding basis, contacting and meeting potential funding sources to provide information about
the GGWThe Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

46

Handle and organize fundraising via crowdfunding and other granular sources
Convince funding sources of the feasibility/viability of a programme or project
Explore the most appropriate funding structure for a programme or project, including the sources of funding.
This may include a combination of various sources of finance and financial instruments
Keep abreast of funding priorities of the various funding sources, both already engaged by the GGW and theperspective donors explore new funding sources and verify the proper utilisation of funds on the groundIn addition to funding on-the-ground land restoration measures, finance will also be needed to support an enabling
institutional framework and governance structure. The regional cooperation and transboundary projects are also
important to facilitate the exchange of experiences and information between the various projects along the GGW,
such as the recent initiative by SOS Sahel. This cooperative approach could also involve developing a platform toaggregate farming products, so that they become accessible to remote buyers.
5.3.3 Creating a central mechanism/platform for the GGW
The presented analysis supports the idea of creating an IT-based central platform with several tasks to improveaccess to additional funding and to develop a larger number of projects. It would act as a mediator between GGWproject developers and funding sources, and also provide technical support in the development of projects at thecountry level, including project facilitation, appraisal and structuring. This IT-based mechanism would need a team todevelop and manage the platform that will support the work of the fund and the facility.
The platform would have two main streams:
Continued fundraising, research on investors and assistance in identifying and matching various sources, financemechanisms and Instruments to co-finance individual projects developed as part of the GGW Initiative; andKnowledge management and sharing as part of capacity building for GGW actors and stakeholders
In its first role, the platform would be a central source of information on funding projects for GGW project
developers. It would assist project developers in:Understanding what sources of funding are available
Exploring the most appropriate sources of funding for funding a programme or projectConvincing funding sources of the qualities and potential success of a programme or project
Understanding the application process for funding
Organising fund arising for the GGW via crowdfunding and other granular sources
The platform would maintain links to the funding sources by engaging with potential and existing donors to keepthem informed on the GGW progress and initiatives, laying the groundwork and staying abreast of funding priorities
of various funding sources, while also exploring new sources of finance. The engagement with the funding sourcesand donors would help promote the GGW programmes and projects that will apply for funding, while coordinating thefunding of projects and programmes when multiple sources of funding are involved. Finally, the platform could also
assist in verification of proper disbursement and utilization of funds on the ground.
In its second role, the platform would support the GGW countries in identifying suitable activities to raise externalfunding and support the development of the documentation required as part of the application process.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

47

This financing mechanism could be established in the form of an investment facility with the mission to identify
potential sources of funding, assist in applying for funding and in its efficient use and distribution. It should be
independent while working closely with GGW organizations such the PA-GGW.

REFERENCES
African Union 2007. Declaration 137 VIII- Decision on
the Implementation of the Great Green Wall for the
Sahara and the Sahel Initiative.
African Union Commission and PA-GGW 2012.
Harmonised Regional Strategy (HRS) for implementationof the “Great Green Wall Initiative of the Sahara and theSahel”. Document produced with support of theEuropean Union, FAO, and the Global Mechanism.
Bernal B, Murray LT, Pearson TRH 2018. Global carbon
dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration
activities. Carbon Balance and Management 13:22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8
EEX Africa 2020.
ELD Initiative & UNEP 2015a. Report for policy anddecision makers: Reaping economic and environmental
benefits from sustainable land management. Bonn,
Germany: Economics of Land Degradation Initiative.
ELD Initiative & UNEP 2015b.
The Economics of Land Degradation in Africa. Benefitsof Action Outweigh the Costs. Authors: Gelaye M. T.,
Mungatana E., Singh A., Apindi E., Barr J., Zommers Z.,
Lund G. Bonn, Germany: Economics of Land Degradation
Initiative.
FAO 2004. Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. World
Soil Resources Report 102.
FAO 2019. Building Africa’s Great Green Wall. Restoring
Degraded Drylands for Stronger and More Resilient
Communities. Authors: Nora Berrahmouni, Lars
Laestadius, Antonio Martucci, Danilo Mollicone, Chiara
Patriarca and Moctar Sacande.
FAO 2019a. ‘The road to restoration: A guide to
identifying priorities and indicators for monitoring
forest and landscape restoration’.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca6927en
AO 2019 b. FAO Monitoring and Reporting Tool for
Forest and Landscape Restoration. Presentation by
Nora Berramouni
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

IPCC 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climatechange, desertification, land degradation, sustainable
land management, food security, and greenhouse gas
fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea,
E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner,
D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. vanDiemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M.
Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E.
Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
IUCN 2017. Africa & the Bonn Challenge: A
demonstration of leadership. Forest Brief No 13.
IUCN 2019. Gichuki, L., Brouwer, R., Davies, J., Vidal,
A., Kuzee, M., Magero, C., Walter, S., Lara, P.,
Oragbade,C. and Gilbey, B. (2019). Reviving land andrestoring landscapes: Policy convergence between
forest landscape restoration and land degradation
neutrality. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. viii + 34pp.
Leroux L, Bégué A, Seen DL, Jolivot A, Kayitakire F
2017. Driving forces of recent vegetation changes in
the Sahel: lessons learned from regional and local level
analyses. Remote Sensing of Environment, Elsevier,
2017, 191, pp.38-54. 10.1016/j.rse.2017.01.014 . cirad01952858
Luedeling E, Sileshi G, Beedy T, Dietz J. 2011. Carbon
sequestration potential of agroforestry in Africa. In:
Kumar BM, Nair PK: Carbon Sequestration Potential ofAgroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges.
Dordrecht: Springer. p 61-84.
PA-GGW nd. Initiative de la Grande Mureille Verte:
Strategie de Mobilisation des Ressources. DOCUMENTCADRE DE STRATEGIE DE MOBILISATION DESRESSOURCES
PA-GWW 2018. The Great Green Wall Status Report
2011-2017. Les echos de la grande muraille verte No.1.
Sacande, M., Parfondry, M. & Martucci, A., eds. 2018.
Biophysical and socio-economic baselines: the starting
point for Action Against Desertification. Rome, FAO.
72 pp.
48

Stavi I. and Lal R, 2015. Achieving zero net land degradation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Arid
Environments 112:44-51.
UNCCD 2016. Land degradation neutrality target setting: A technical guide. Bonn Germany: UNCCDUNEP 2012. Sahel Atlas of Changing Landscapes: Tracing trends and variations in vegetation cover and soil
condition. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi
WRI 2017. Roots of Prosperity: The Economics and Finance of Restoring Land. ISBN 978-1-56973-925-9.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

49

6. ANNEX
6.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The approach to this assignment was built around four distinct phases or activities, as specified in Figure 11 andbriefly described below.

The first phase of the assessment consisted in orientation and the establishment of a sound backgroundunderstanding of the GGWSI. Work was implemented remotely, through a desk-based assessment of existingevaluation reports, project descriptions and programme documents as well as underlying policy documents. The
desk-based research helped to obtain a first understanding of the implementation status of the Great Green
Wall in general and in individual countries, of progress and barriers experienced by the members, as well as of
the amounts of funding pledged, disbursed and still required for further implementation of the initiative.
Individual projects for each country were captured and collected in a database, to be complemented insubsequent activities.
Country-specific information was collected in a second step for the eleven case countries. The data collection
process was supported by the PA-GGW, funded by the Global Mechanism. In order to make data collection as
efficient as possible, ClimateKos participated in a preparatory kick-off meeting alongside the 5th regional
Steering Committee Meeting in Dakar, Senegal in November 2019. The aim was to define the scope andunderlying definitions of the data to be included together with the GGW country representatives. In addition, themeeting was used to inform country representatives about the planned assessment, and the type of data to becollected. Discussions were held with local, national and international implementation partners of on-the-groundland restoration activities. After the meeting, targeted questionnaires were sent out to the country agencies andthe PA-GGW for the collection of data.
The third step was the compilation and analysis of existing data at national and regional level. The information
contributed by the GGW focal points and agencies as well as the PA-GGW was distilled to provide acomprehensive overview picture of the current status of the GGW Initiative, in terms of project implementation
status and impacts achieved, both at regional and national levels. An impact assessment was conducted inrelation to the three Rio Conventions (UNCCD, UNFCCC & CBD) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs). The criteria to measure impact drew on quantitative indicators for mitigation (carbon sequestration) andto some degree adaptation (increased resilience), as well as socio-economic aspects such as income generationand job creation.
The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

50

The results from Tasks 1, 2 and 3 above were then synthesized in a detailed landmark report which targets global
decision makers and the general public. The report provides an up-to-date overview picture of the Great Green
Wall Initiative, as well as a discussion section that reflects on the findings of the stocktaking exercise andprovides recommendations for further implementation of the Initiative until 2030, outlining a roadmap andsuggestions of how the identified barriers could be overcome.

6.2 COUNTRY DATA
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso is facing major environmental challenges, the degradation of land and water resources,
biodiversity loss and the effects of climate change, which are aggravated by poor management of natural
resources and increasing demographic pressure. Through the GGW Initiative, Burkina Faso aims to increase its
resilience to climate change and land restoration. Then emphasis is on activities that will minimize erosion andmaintain soil fertility while increasing the sustainable use of non-timber products, as well as promoterevenue-generating activities for women to ensure food security for households

GGW intervention area:
The priority intervention zone of the GGW in
Burkina Faso encompasses four regions: Central
Plateau, North Central, Sahel and East. These
regions have been chosen because of their highlevel of land degradation and connectivity withneighbouring countries who are also part of the
GGW. These four regions include 15 provinces
and 101 municipalities for an area of 92,709
km2.
Key results:

Institutional & policy aspects:·16.6 million of plants and seedlings produced

Signature/ratification of the GGW Initiative:

20 383 hectares of reforested lands

2010/2010250 hectares of dune fixing

National GGW institution: National Agency

29 602 hectares of restored lands

created in 2012.

12 500 ha under ANR

Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:

Approximately 2800 km of windbreaks

2018-2022

26 869 people trained
45 383 jobs created
6.5 million USD from IGA

Finance allocated to GGW activities (in51,633 improved households

USD):

19,913 kg of seeds produced (30 woody and 13

Domestic finance: 1 424 000

herbaceous species)

External finance: 31 539 611

585 ha under protection

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

51

Case study: Forest Landscape Restoration and Sustainable Land Management in the Sahel Region

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

52

Chad
Chad has been facing the harmful effects of climate change for nearly 50 years, which lead to accelerated
degradation of land and biodiversity. This causes a decline in agricultural and fodder production, increasing
food insecurity, famine, malnutrition as well as human and animal migration. To reverse this trend, several
initiatives have been undertaken at a country level. The GGW Initiative is part of a complementary array ofinterventions to achieve the objectives of natural resource development, environmental protection, andstronger basic social infrastructure to reduce poverty.

GGW intervention area:

The layout of the Great Green Wall in Chad islocated in the national territory portion between
the isohyet 100 mm and 400 mm. The length of
this route is about 2000 km, consisting of two
braces on an average width of 15 km. The areaof intervention of the GMV covers eightadministrative regions, plus an additional one
that was added later

Institutional & policy aspects:

Key results:

Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:

1.1 million of plants and seedlings produced

2010/2010994 hectares of reforested lands

National GGW institution: The National Agency

12 755 hectares of dune fixingof the Great Green Wall created in 2012.

1819 hectares of ANR

Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:

61 km of windbreaks

Five-year national strategy document (2013-

900 m2 equipped with irrigation systems

2017)

810 people trained
307 jobs createdFinance allocated to GGW activities (in8067 USD through IGA

USD):

Domestic finance: 4 785 101External finance: 770 969

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

53

Case study: Sahel alliance / Improving food security and healthcare access – RESTE

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

54

Djibouti
Due to difficult climatic conditions, oasis-type agriculture and extensive livestock farming are the only
activities possible in Djibouti. The objective of the GGW Initiative in Djibouti is to ensure a secure, profitable,
and sustainable agro-forestry-pastoral development, with GGW activities focusing on extending livestock
farming to increase food security and avoid rural exodus.
GGW intervention area:
The GGW intervention zone covers 3 regions:Dikhil, Ali-Sabieh and Arta, and is split between 5geographical units. The GGW corridor in Djibouti
is approx. 209 km long and 15 km wide,
occupying a total area of 342,826 ha. The
population of this area is estimated at 120 000
inhabitants, 65% of which is rural (44% nomadic
and 21% sedentary) and 35% is urban.

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2011
National GGW institution: Implementation
Agency established 2011
Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:

Key results:
90 hectares of reforested lands
32 hectares of ANR·6 hectares of restored land
·24 people trained

2016-2020
Alignment of the GGW with National policies:

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inThe National Component of the GGW obtained

USD):

status of a sub-directorate within theDomestic finance: 4 785 101

Department of Environment and Sustainable

External finance: 770 969

Development

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

55

Eritrea
The major part of Eritrea’s territory is semi-desert and arid areas, so that nearly the whole country qualifies as
GGW intervention zone. Policies and activities aim to promote soil and water conservation in catchment areas,
farmland and along the rivers and streams. Community mobilization practices are key in the implementation of
the GGW.

GGW intervention area:
The entire country is within the GGW intervention
area

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010
National GGW institution: National Focal Point –Ministry of Land Water and Environment
Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:
There is no specific GGW action plan, otherKey results:
128.8 million tree seedlings planted

than the 2011-2015 plan. However, the Ministry

52,930 hectares of degraded area terraced andof Land Water and Environment has a latest

afforested

strategic plan for the 2020 to 2025 period

394,380 hectares enclosed/assisted naturalregeneration

Alignment of the GGW with National policies:

65,231 degraded farmlands terraced·Eritrean Macro policy: 1994
National Environmental Management Plan:

Finance allocated to GGW activities (in

1995

USD):

Interim Poverty Reduction strategy Paper:

Domestic finance: n/a2004

External finance: n/aLand Degradation Neutrality: 2017

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

56

Ethiopia
Forests and vegetated areas in Ethiopia have been subjected to intense deforestation and degradation, withan estimated annual deforestation rate of approximately 91,000 ha per year. The Ethiopian government has
pledged to restore 15 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030. Activities under the GGWInitiative aim to conserve and restore land while creating income-generating activities to reverse migration
flows to the restored areas. Thus, the GGW is fully aligned with national development and land restoration
priorities

GGW intervention area:
The Ethiopian GGW extends from Sudan in thenorth-west to Djibouti crossing the lowlands ofthe north-east of the country and covers 58
woredas (equivalent administrative units of
districts) in three national regional states. The
GGW activities were implemented in 58 woredas
as part of the government's regular natural
resource management program.

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2014
National GGW institution: A national focal point islocated at the Land Rehabilitation Branch of the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change.

Key results:
5.5 billion plants and seedlings produced
151 448 hectares of reforested lands
792 711 hectares of terraces
240 hectares of multipurpose gardens
91 km of windbreaks

Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:

236 551 hectares of RNA

2016-2020

96 774 hectares of restored lands
893 706 hectares watershed management

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inUSD):
Domestic finance: 482 975

and forest
62 759 people trained and 218 405 jobs
createdExternal finance: 1 666 667

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

57

Case study: Sahel alliance / Improving food security and healthcare access – RESTE

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

58

Mali
Mali pursues an innovative and inclusive approach of synergizing actions to combat desertification, restore landand conserve biodiversity. In the context of the GGW Initiative, Mali focuses on the development of agricultural,
forestry and pastoral production systems, the improvement of basic socio-economic infrastructures and thecreation of wealth through the development of income-generating activities that contribute to stable foodsecurity and the revival of sustainable economic growth.

GGW intervention area:
In Mali, the intervention zone of the Great
Green Wall covers all the localities between theisohyets 100 mm in the North and 500 mm intheSouth.

The

administrativezone

regions

includes(Kayes,seven

Koulikoro,

Segou, Mopti, Gao, Timbuktu, Menaka), 14
circles, 204 rural communities and 2,622
villages..
Key results:

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:

135 472 of plants and seedlings produced
6 297 hectares of reforested lands
120 hectares of restored lands

2010/201141 hectares of ANR

National GGW institution: National GGW Agency

18 hectares of dune fixing

since September 2019, placed at the Ministry

891 people were trainedcreatedof the Environment, for Sanitation andSustainable Development.

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inLatest GGW National Strategy and Action

USD):

Plan: 2011-2015

Domestic finance: 3 305 085
External finance: 23 476 931

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

59

Case study: Natural Resources Management in a Changing Climate in Mali

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

60

Mauritania
So far, the implementation of the GGW in Mauritania focused on the realization of a baseline situation of theintervention zone in 2014. In the near future, the National GGW Agency wants to establish a GGW National
Alliance, implement the Continental Wetlands Program in the GGW corridor, accelerate the implementation of
the GGW Initiative in the municipalities of Trarza and Brakna, and focus on the development of regional plans
and cross-border projects.

GGW intervention area:
The GGW intervention zone covers six wilayas:
Trarza, Brakna, Tagant, Assaba, Hodh El Gharbi
and Hodh Charghi. The GGW corridor crosses 15
Moughataas, 45 municipalities, populated by
481,260

inhabitants,

inadditiontothedepartment Chami, Chinguitti and the green
belt of Nouakchott.

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2013
National GGW institution: National GGW Agency
since 2013; in 2017 establishment of 4
functional regional offices: in Trarza, Brakna,
Chami and Chinguitti.

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inUSD):

Domestic finance: 9 151 746
External finance: 1 486 667

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

Key results:
2 272 million trees planted
2 860 hectares of dune fixing
550 hectares fenced (protected)
350 hectares under direct seeding
Over 2 000 000 plants/seedlings
produced

61

Niger
The initiatives included in the Niger GGW implementation plan fall within various environmental and socioeconomic domains and include activities such as the adoption of good practices in sustainable land and water
management and improved farming techniques. The GGW Initiative should contribute to greening Niger andensuring sustainable food security for people and livestock as well as increasing carbon sequestration.

GGW intervention area:
The intervention zone of the Great Green Wall in
Niger is between the isohyets 100 mm in the
North and 500 mm in the South and spreads
over three climate zones from North to South:
the Saharan zone, the Sahel-Saharan zone andthe Sahelian zone. It covers the regions of Diffa,
Zinder, Maradi, Tahoua, Agadez, Dosso, Tillaberi
and Niamey and 228 municipalities.

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2011
National GGW institution: National Agency of theGreat Green Wall since 2012
Latest GGW National strategy and Action Plan:
2011-2015
Finance allocated to GGW activities (inKey results:
146 million plants and seedlings produced
364 615 hectares of reforested lands
363 928 hectares of restored lands
310 hectares of ANR
80 040 hectares of dune fixing
1 200 people trained
21 487 jobs created

USD):
Domestic finance: 7 796 610
External finance: 70 271 630

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

62

Case study: The Climate Smart Agriculture Support Project.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

63

Nigeria
In Nigeria, the economies and livelihoods of communities living in dry region depend largely on soil, water, andvegetation cover. As these are increasingly threatened by desertification and recurrent droughts, the socioeconomic development of the country's dry region is jeopardized. The GGW will prevent or reverse thedegradation of ecosystems while improving the living conditions of affected communities by enhancing theprovision of ecosystem services. One of the key components of the Nigerian GGW program is theestablishment of a 1,359 km contiguous shelterbelt from Kebbi State in northwest to Borno State in thenortheast, serving as a windbreak.

GGW intervention area:
The Nigerian GGW program is implemented in theeleven states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno,
Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto,
Yobe from Zamfara. These states, covering 43%of the Nigerian territory account for more than
40 million inhabitants and are most at risk fromrecurringdroughts,

landdegradation

anddesertification.

Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/in progress

Key results:
7.6 million plants and seedlings produced
2 801 hectares of reforested lands

National GGW institution: The National Council

373 hectares of multipurpose gardens

on the Great Green Wall (NCGGW) and an

709 km windbreaks

administrative structure of the GGW

1 205 people trained
1 396 jobs created

Latest GGW National Strategy and Action Plan:
2016-2020

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inUSD):
Domestic finance: 482 975
External finance: 1 666 667

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

64

SudanSudan faces many environmental and political challenges, including desertification and land degradation, waterpollution, deforestation, soil erosion and biodiversity loss, as well as governance and security issues. Priority
projects include sustainable management of natural resources with components on forestry, agriculture,
livestock, and rangeland restoration, in addition to improved water harvesting.

GGW intervention area:
The configuration of the GGW in Sudan is
located above latitude 14 degrees north,covering an area of 22,800 km2. A 1520 km
stretch from west to east, and 15 km wide, as
adopted by the African Union.
Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2011
National GGW institution: the National Agencyof the Great Green Wall created in October2010 and renewed in 2014 (decree)

Key results:
1.9 million plants and seedlings produced
85 000 hectares of restored lands
2 500 hectares of ANR

Finance allocated to GGW activities

1 716 beneficiaries(in USD):
Domestic finance: 0External finance: 19 730 000

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

65

Case study: Sudan Sustainable Natural Resource Management Project (SSNRMP)

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

66

Senegal
The operational activities of the GGW have been carried out since 2008 and are mainly focused on therestoration and development of agroforestry initiatives. In Senegal, activities under the GGW intervention zone
aims to create enabling conditions to restore the foundations of food and energy security and maintainbiodiversity while creating green job..

GGW intervention area:
The length of the route is 545 km for an area of
817 500 ha. The area of intervention isdominated by pastoral activity with extensive
breeding and agricultural activity. Theintervention zone covers three administrative
regions (Tambacounda, Matam and Louga), fivedepartments and 16 municipalities. The
population affected by this project is 322,221
inhabitants.
Institutional & policy aspects:
Signature/ratification of the GGW initiative:
2010/2014

Key results:
National GGW institution: existence of aMore than 18 million seedlings/plants produced

National GGW Agency since September 2019

72452 ha reforested area

placed under the supervision of the Minister of

13 2050 km of windbreaks

the Environment for Sanitation and Sustainable

33 500 ha under ANR

Development.

119 202 ha restored area
2120 people trained

National strategy of the GGW and its Action
Plan: the National Strategy and the Five-Year
Action Plan of the GGW-Mali was elaborated
and validated through in November 2012

Finance allocated to GGW activities (inUSD):
Domestic finance: 18 300 000
External finance: n/a

6.3 PROJECT LIST OF LAND RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN THE ELEVEN CASE COUNTRIES
An excel sheet containing a list of activities identified so far is available upon request.

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030

67

The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030 Climatekos gGmbH © UNCCD
2020. All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-92-95118-26-3 (English e-version)
Produced in English and French
Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Climatekos gGmbH (www.climatekos.com) with the financial support by theGovernment of Ireland. The report constitutes an advanced version of a landmark report on the “State of
the Great Green Wall”. Current issues linked to the COVID19 pandemic have prevented a proper datacollection and meant that this report does not include most recent data. It does, nonetheless, represent
an important collection of information and is able to provide the reader with an adequate picture of thisvery large scale and ambitious initiative of the Great Green Wall. A final complete version of this reportwill be made available in the second half of 2020.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specificcompanies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply thatthese have been endorsed or recommended by the UNCCD in preference to others of a similar nature thatare not mentioned.
The views expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be
regarded as stating an official position of the Global Mechanism to the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD).