This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Approaches
Inactive

Community participation in large-scale land restoration for Africa‘s Great Green Wall programme in Niger. [Niger]

approaches_2909 - Niger

Completeness: 97%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Sacande Moctar

moctar.sacande@fao.org

Forestry Policy and Resources Division (FOA)

Italy

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
FAO-Action Against Desertification
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been implementing a participatory approach to implement large-scale restoration of degraded land in the Sahel, by placing rural communities at the center. In the framework of the Great Green Wall initiative, well adapted useful native species of trees, shrubs, and fodder grasses are planted in agro-sylvo-pastoral land that responds to community needs and preferences and at the same time to the ecological suitability.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The approach is implemented under FAO's Action against Desertification (AAD) programme in the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel (GGWSSI); Africa's flagship initiative to combat the effects of climate change and desertification, and address food insecurity and poverty, bringing together more than 20 African countries with international organizations, research institutes, civil society and grassroots organizations. Through the GGWSSI, the vision is a mosaic of sustainable land use practices and productive landscapes across North Africa, the Sahel and the Horn.
Community participation in the Great Green Wall Restoration is a people-centered approach to rangeland management that puts communities at the heart of restoration efforts and focusses on their needs for useful plant species such as well-adapted native trees, shrubs and fodder grasses with a high resilience to drought and preferences for restoration in support of their livelihoods. Village communities decide on lands and on diverse species that they can use for food, to feed animals, for medical care and to produce economically valuable goods for local, national and even international markets, such as gum Arabic for example. Technically, AAD support the implementation of land restoration activities through provision of necessary equipment and strengthening the technical and functional capacities of individuals, communities, and organizations in restoration techniques and sustainable land management.
The main objectives of this approach are:
a) Poverty alleviation;
b) Ending hunger;
c) Improving resilience to climate change using a landscape approach.
The restoration approach is based on a five-step model:
• Communities: needs and requirements for restoration are determined through in-depth consultations with communities.
• Research: the quality seed is made available for the propagation of economically viable, locally adapted and bio-diverse material.
• Operational procedure: ensuring efficient operational restoration processes, including land preparation and management, assisted natural regeneration and planting.
• Monitoring: evaluating the field performance of species, as well as communal activities such as maintenance and management of restored areas.
• Capacity development: develop village technicians’ capacities in forest seed collecting and nursery techniques, planting, maintenance and management of restored areas, and development of plant products, marketing, and local business management.


2.3 Photos of the Approach

General remarks regarding photos:

The photos were taken under the FAO project GCP/INT/157/EC: Action Against Deserti­fication is an initiative of the African, Caribbean and Pacifi­c Group of States (ACP) to promote sustainable land management and restore drylands and degraded lands in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacifi­c, implemented by FAO and partners with funding from the European Union in the framework of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF).

2.4 Videos of the Approach

Comments, short description:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVcMSeXZnJI
Over the next decade, 50 million people may be displaced by desertification - the result of climate change and the depletion of natural resources. Action Against Desertification, an initiative of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States is implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations with the financial contribution of the European Union. It aims to restore the productivity of degraded forests and landscapes and enhance the resilience of people to climate change in 6 Great Green Wall countries in Africa as well as Haiti in the Caribbean and Fiji in the Pacific.

Date:

02/12/2015

Location:

Rome

Name of videographer:

© FAO

Comments, short description:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prl1eaSvQCQ&feature=youtu.be
Land restoration in the Sahel is making degraded areas productive again, providing economic opportunities in a region where migration has become a tradition. Under FAO’s “Action Against Desertification” programme, these efforts are being expanded to six African countries. Land degradation around the Sahara is not yet irreversible.

Date:

18/07/2016

Location:

Rome

Name of videographer:

© FAO

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Niger

Region/ State/ Province:

Tillabery, Dosso and Tahoua

Further specification of location:

In Niger, the GGW covers all the eight Regions of the countries. Currently FAO’s Action Against Desertification project works in three Regions including Tillabery, Dosso and Tahoua, though the approach is used and expanding to all of the remaining 5 Regions, which are also implementing the GGW restoration programme.

Comments:

The AAD land restoration approach has been successfully implemented with trans-boundary interventions in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. For this documentation, the focus is on Tera, Niger.

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2013

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Key elements and aim of this approach include:
• That the right species planted in the right place.
• Promote the use of quality native forest and fodder seeds for restoration.
• Ensuring that a wide range of useful plant species is used or made available for use.
• Managing natural regeneration of species and planted areas through village management committees.
• Updating a species database for gene-pool traceability, monitoring, reporting and for future uses of data and information.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

The approach is people centered and builds up on traditional management of land and traditional ecological knowledge and techniques such as half-moon for rain water harvesting that facilitates improved seedling and crop establishment.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

Individuals can use finances to buy seeds. At community land, finances maybe needed to lease land needed for production of plant varieties needed, for hiring labour to take care of seedlings.

institutional setting
  • enabling

Better organization at local level enhances community participation and commitment to realize the interventions at large scale/community level.

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

There are various levels of collaboration needed for example in establishing land, in seed selection based on desired needs and also on labour provision.
Fundamentally, collaboration is key to agreeing on desired objectives.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

Secure access rights to land and water resources is a motivation for investing in reforestration.

policies
  • enabling

national level policies can protect and ensure supply of seeds and seed varieties as well as access to natural resources such as land.
Additionally, policies such as those in support for Great Green Wall activities create an enabling environments on which these activities can be supported and take place.

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

Similar to legal framework above.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

Knowledge around SLM contributes to maintenance and management of restored areas thus ensuring sustainability of activities. The programme has integrated existing/traditional SLM activities such as zaï/half-moon in capturing, retaining and saving water thus keeping soils moisturized and giving plants a chance to grow in an otherwise very dry environment.

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

Market access and increasing economic capacities of communities can enable active involvement in restoration especially when plant products can earn income thus facilitating local business management.

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

Availability of labour facilitates activities such as forest seed collecting, nursery techniques, planting, maintenance and management of restored areas. Most of the work is done by women who prepare the soils and lead planting.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Total project beneficiaries are 116,000 people (with over half women)
Age groups varied from 15 to 70 years.
Participants were villages including farmers, herders, traditional healers and herbalists.
Each intervention village has a village management committee set up for the GGW implementation activities. They contribute land and labour and village technicians are trained in large scale degraded land restoration techniques so that they can be self-sufficient at the end of the funding.

1. Defining needs, preferences of species and objectives for land restoration in degraded lands.
2. Trained on collection of seeds and on how to produce seedlings in village nurseries.
3.The involved communities also participated in the regular monitoring and evaluation of plots.
4. Participating in workshops including to agree on work plans
5. Communities were also source of rich traditional ecological knowledge
6. Supporting project through in-kind contributions such as labour and land
7. Representation in the steering committee

  • community-based organizations

Each intervention village has a village management committee set up for the GGWSSI implementation activities

- Contibute land, labour and village technicians to be trained on large scale land restoration techniques geared at self-sufficiency at the end of project life.
-Managing intervention sites including products such as fodder
-Collaborating with national and local administration

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Support to identification of land needed for restoration, seeds and management objectives of restoration.

  • researchers

National seed centres.

1. Address the availability of good quality seeds for collection
2. Ensuring genetic diversity reflecting original provences of native species.

  • NGO

Local NGOs and CBOs.

Local NGO's were trained on land restoration activities.
NGOs were also instrumental in discussions on scaling up the approaches and policy support for mainstreaming sustainable land management .

  • private sector

Supplies of equipment and materials needed for restoration activities.

Mainly business related to procurement of goods and services.

  • local government

Local administration and national governments in the respective countries.

1. provide technical management and management if the operational team.
2. Mobilization of communities.
3. Part of the steering committee.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

1. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.
2. National Agency of the Great Green Wall.
3. National Forestry Seed Centre.
4. Local authorities (i.e. Mairies or Town halls) involved in Tillabery, Dosso and Tahoua regions.

  • international organization

Royal Botanical Garden, Kew.

Technical support; botanical knowledge and information resources, and identifying priority species for the Great Green Wall.

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation interactive Communities local knowledge, needs and aspirations were the back-borne of the project. Communities were extensively consulted on species identification and prioritization based on needs including speed of return of products for the local communities, personal knowledge and inspirations. This was through questionnaires and village workshops. I bigger commitment and buy-in from the community was also a prerequisite for activities to start as they had to commit to contribute land and labour in-kind. As a matter of fact, selection of villages for restoration was based on among other things motivation and commitment by communities to participate in restoration activities. and community based structures and organization.
planning interactive Extensive planning was done with communities before implementation e.g. to agree on planting time ( at onset of rains), use of traditional techniques and land scarification.
implementation interactive Implementation was done actively with communities who volunteered traditional knowledge and labour to the activities. This had built on the initiation; where species were selected and prioritized, planning of activities and later labour in preparation of land, setting up nurseries and trans-planting.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Monitoring and field data collection on survival and growth of seedlings were carried out by trained village technicians in collaboration with the communities and technical institutions.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Community process.

Author:

AAD Project

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
Explain:

This is a local initiative that uses traditional ecological knowledge and multi-purpose plant species (of known benefits to the local communities) for restoration.
Community participation, lifestyles and preferences and a careful analysis of ecological landscapes are carefully considered and then matched to suitable interventions. This similar approach has been applied by other projects in the GGWSSI region however although has not often been formally disseminated to wider audiences.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

100 small-scale farmers were trained in 2017, in Natural Assisted Regeneration techniques and 40 farmers were trained in forest and fodder seed collection and the production of seedlings in village nurseries and in the management of planted sites.

Form of training:
  • courses
Subjects covered:

Technical training was provided to villages in formal modules on how to collect quality seeds in defined seed zones. The training was provided by the national forest seed centres . The trainings were on seedling production and participatory forest management . Other areas covered included; added-value and the development of plant products (non-timber forest products), marketing and local business management to support income generation.

Comments:

Apart from the restoration technical areas covered above, additional areas of training included; improving adult literacy, family health and nutritional standards. This was done together with specialized rural sector developers.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
  • workshops
Describe/ comments:

To re-introduce plant for large-scale restoration, effective use of seeds of wild species demands sufficient biological and technical knowledge on a big number of species to allow for collection, storage and germination of seeds and establishment of seedlings. In this approach therefore, the technical know-how of RBG Kew and related partnership with forest seed centres that allowed for collection of quality seeds.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Institutions: National government; NGOs, CBOs,
Support to the national government who is the national agency for the GGW is the entry point. Through them ad based on national objectives, the project moves to a decentralized level. At the national level, capacities have been improved on monitoring and evaluation techniques; seed identification and selection and handling.
Local level: these are the implementing partners and do work on the ground. Their capacities have been improved on seed selection and restoration techniques and on data collection
Regional level: more collaboration, coordination and knowledge sharing on the GGW initiatives as well as peer to peer learning.

Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Give further details:

Equipment: mainly for land preparation for planting and non-timber forest processing.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Regular monitoring is carried out by village communities involved in the restoration exercise. The activities include assessing seedling survival and growth and planted surface areas.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Through a questionnaire, communities define their needs and preferences of species, the objectives of land restoration in their available agro-sylvo-pastoral degraded lands. Results of this consultation are fed back to them after analyses by the project team (researchers, plant expertise, seed centres) for the feasibility, suitability and availability of the requested species. This allows commonly to agree on interventions, priorities and implementation plans with roles and responsibility from the communities as well as from the technical teams.
1. Sociology: prior research was done on social diversity of village communities on areas such as gender, age, profession among others to decide on village selections but also ensure required balance.
2. Economics/marketing: This was multi-faceted on one hand looking at community economic needs and priorities and also on how to value addition to non-timber forest products. The plant-use data received from respondents were classified according to the Economic Botany Data Collection.
These helped in deciding and prioritizing species according to community needs.
3. Ecology: GGW initiative is typically for drylands with challenges such as moisture retention. Thus the ecology of the place was studied to identify suitable plant species that would thrive under these conditions of course in combination with traditional technologies that have been developed to overcome the moisture deficits.
The botany of selected species was further examined in laboratories to first of all check their suitability to dryland environments and thereafter to ensure good quality seeds are used including ensuring genetic diversity

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Action Against Desertification is implemented by FAO and partners with funding from the European Union in the framework of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). The GGWI under AAD in Niger is funded up to around 1.5m USD for the four years of the project.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Finances are needed for purchasing equipment, seeds were also provided, seed testing to establish the desired type/species.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • labour
To which extent Specify subsidies
partly financed Local communities shared some tasks such as during planting period the project provided lunch.
  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery partly financed Provided such as arable tools, carts for transportation.
tools partly financed Arable tools for planting.
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed Training was provided on a collection of native forest seeds that were then bought from them (communities thus earning an income for communities).
Organic manure Training to do and collect composts.
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
stone partly financed For storage facilities.
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • rewarded with other material support
Comments:

In partnership with WFP there was collaboration on food for assets and incentives from the project such as trainings on preparation of vegetable gardens..

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify:

Functional capacity building village communities for example in management of restoration sites and development of community forest products

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The project supports the communities to improve productivity of their land in direct consultation with them while benefiting from trainings with changes recorded in diversity of biomass in community plots and lands.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Substantial improvement is already recorded on state of land in the last 2 years.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Trainings were provided on various aspects such as seed selection and collection.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The project is not funding all aspects yet building sustainability through the direct capacity development and participation by communities.

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

1. Village technicians have been used by other projects in the area in SLM and also by the government while getting remuneration. 2. Communities are able to sell native restoration seeds to other projects in the region and to the government.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Through trainings and capacity development e.g. on large-scale land preparation for planting and seed selection.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

1. Governments; training of technicians including on specialized tools, training on monitoring and evaluation of SLM and restoration impacts. 2. CBOs and local administrations. regional organizations such as CILSS-Agryhmet were also trained on the above.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The village technicians and trained seed collectors are now organized in a regional union for restoration seed supply.

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

With the increasing of fodder production, pressures on other grazing areas have gone slightly down.

Disadvantaged groups not present at village level.

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Yes; gender equality is taken into consideration such as women representative in each village management community.

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

As income is coming in from restoration activities, it has been encouraging young people to consider SLM as in income generating opportunity.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Communities now see more value in restoring degraded land previously neglected and there is tenure agreements with local administration. Land tenure had been insecure for local communities but now rights of access and use have been delivered by local administrations to local communities guaranteeing that restoration areas belong to communities thus ensuring sustainability also as a community see ownership of the investments.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

1. Farming in restored areas allows for more crop production. 2. Fodder production is feeding livestock improving production of milk and meat.

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

1. Seeds and fodder are being sold by local communities to other projects, governments and communities.

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Not within scope.

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Out of scope.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The project aim is to increase resilience of natural capital and people living in drylands while being able to adapt to climate change.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

In seed sales, crop production, income earning from employment of technicians.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Increased land productivity from restored land.

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

Improved yields and harvest.

  • reduced land degradation

Restored land provide more opportunities to land users.

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

Restoration of agro-sylvo-pastoral systems promoted cohesion across different user groups and provided benefits.

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

Desire to be part of community based organization and through these, management of restored lands is also possible.

  • environmental consciousness

Improved biodiversity, wildlife and link to community cultures and lifestyles was a motivator.

  • customs and beliefs, morals

Linked to environmental above; need to protect and preserve wildlife and biodiversity.

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

Project provided technical capacity development such as water harvesting and rice species to plant in right places motivated communities to participate.

  • conflict mitigation

Increasing biomass in agro-sylvo-pastoral systems reduced conflicts between pastoralists and farmers.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

The capacity being developed should help farmers continue without external intervention e.g. training in collecting planting material, planting technique and in managing the plot enable continuity and the capacities developed stay within the community examples; the trained village technicians.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Builds on existing knowledge such as the use of zhai and pit planting.
Income generation e.g. from selling of seeds to governments and other land users.
Helping achieve communities specifics objectives such as increasing tree cover.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The consultation process and the mutual trust built over time, which make people buy-in the programme and feel the ownership of the activities on the ground.
The technical and scientific feedback answers to priorities and preoccupation of land users in terms of restoration objectives.
The involvement of people in monitoring and management of their planted sites as they contribute their lands and labour.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Inability to adequately influence donor plans. Frequent consultations.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Inability to address all the needs of the beneficiaries. Such as demand for water supply in dry seasons restoration while project focusses on rainfed restoration. Increased dialogue on interventions across sectors such as with donors for more systematic and integrated approach.
Lack of flexibility in implementation to consider some of the upcoming demands of communities.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

FAO. 2015. Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: building resilience and benefitting livelihoods. Forestry Paper No. 175. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Available from where? Costs?

UN-FAO

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Community participation at the heart of Africa’s Great Green Wall Restoration model. Authors: M. Sacande, N. Berahmouni and S. Hargreaves. In Unasylva. Volume 66 2015/3

Available from where? Costs?

UN-FAO

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Action Against Desertification (FAO)

URL:

http://www.fao.org/in-action/action-against-desertification/en/

Title/ description:

Building Africa’s Great Green Wall: Restoring degraded drylands for stronger and more resilient communities

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6476e.pdf

Title/ description:

Forest and Landscape Restoration Approach

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5212e.pdf

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules