DSL-IP MEL Working Group Holds Technical Session on GEF-7 Core Indicators 3 and 4

On 12 February 2026, the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program (DSL-IP) Global Coordination Project (GCP) convened a dedicated technical session of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Working Group focused on GEF-7 Core Indicators 3 (Area of Land Restored) and 4 (Area of Landscapes Under Improved Practices). The session brought together M&E Officers and project teams from across the program’s child projects in Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, alongside GEF Coordination Unit technical staff. 

The session was facilitated by Marcelo Rezende, Natural Resource Officer, and Victoria Valenzi, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Specialist, from the GCP Project Management Unit. 

This inaugural session is the first in a series of three planned technical meetings under DSL-IP Component 3 (Program-wide Monitoring and Adaptive Management) aimed at strengthening harmonized reporting on Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) across the Impact Program. 

Responding to a clear need 

The initiative responds directly to recommendations from the DSL-IP mid-term review, which identified the need for greater consistency and rigour in GEB reporting across child projects. While country teams have been reporting on these indicators through their Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs), the review found that a more harmonized interpretation of the indicators – and clarity on what falls under each sub-indicator – would strengthen the program’s ability to demonstrate its collective impact. 

As the GCP’s M&E Plan outlines, a core function of Component 3 is to provide harmonized methodological guidance and standards for child project M&E systems, ensuring that the program can aggregate, review and report credibly on its contributions to land degradation neutrality and other global environmental goals. 

Building a shared framework 

The session offered a detailed walkthrough of the structure and definitions of Core Indicators 3 and 4, including their respective sub-indicators. Participants explored a key conceptual distinction that is central to accurate reporting: Core Indicator 3 captures restoration interventions (often activities with a defined beginning, middle and end that aim to bring degraded land back towards a previous ecological state), while Core Indicator 4 captures improved management practices (often longer-term, continuous changes in how landscapes are managed). 

For Core Indicator 3, the session examined four sub-indicators covering agricultural land, forest and forest land, natural grass and shrublands, and wetlands. For Core Indicator 4, the focus turned to sub-indicators addressing landscapes managed for biodiversity benefit, areas meeting third-party certification standards, landscapes under sustainable management in production systems, and high conservation value forest loss avoided. 

From theory to practice: country examples 

A distinguishing feature of the session was its participatory and applied approach. Drawing on real data from country PIRs, the facilitators guided participants through practical exercises to classify specific field interventions under the correct indicator and sub-indicator.  

Examples ranged from sustainable agricultural intensification in Zimbabwe’s croplands and assisted natural regeneration of degraded forests, to buffalo grass restoration on overgrazed rangelands in Namibia’s Oshikoto landscape, and firebreak cut line management in community conservancies in Kavango-East. 

These exercises sparked a rich discussion. Namibia’s team, for instance, raised a practical dilemma about how to classify fire-break management in an area that serves both biodiversity and production objectives simultaneously. The session clarified that the primary objective of the management intervention (and the nature of the activity (restoration versus ongoing management) should guide the classification, helping countries avoid double-reporting across indicators. 

Strengthening evidence and documentation 

A strong emphasis was placed on the importance of robust evidence and means of verification to support GEB reporting. The session highlighted several types of documentation that countries should be collecting, including GIS files and polygons delineating intervention areas, photographic evidence showing conditions before and after interventions, community evidence reports, descriptions of changes in land management practices, and integrated land use and management plans. 

The facilitators also underscored the value of baseline data, noting that household surveys already conducted in most southern African child project countries provide a foundation for measuring changes in the adoption of sustainable land management practices over time. 

A reporting template and continued support 

To support countries in applying the guidance from the session, the GCP has developed a structured reporting template for child projects to map their interventions against the relevant Core Indicators and sub-indicators. The template is available for download on the DSL Program and Land Monitoring System webpage. During the next MEL Working Group session, countries will have the opportunity to discuss their classifications and any remaining questions resolved. 

The MEL Working Group will continue to serve as the program’s primary platform for technical exchange on M&E, with bilateral follow-up available for teams requiring additional support. 

Looking ahead 

This session is part of a broader effort by the GCP, under Component 3, to maximize the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of GEF-7 investments in sustainable dryland landscapes. By ensuring that all child projects report consistently and credibly on their contributions to global environmental benefits, the DSL-IP is building a strong evidence base to demonstrate the value of its integrated, program-wide approach to combating land degradation across eleven countries in Africa and Central Asia. 

The next MEL Working Group session will focus on Core Indicator 6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigated), with a session on Core Indicator 11 (Number of Direct Beneficiaries) to follow.