Letter 6: Constructing the Biodiversity Project
Portfolio
To: Nani G. Oruga, The Bees Trees
From: Hakima Rahim, Wild Life and People Cc: Chris N. Eppers, Solar Musketeers
Re: The biodiversity operational strategy; pilot phase project and NGO views.
Dear Nani and Chris,
As you requested, here is some background on the biodiversity focal area and
its operational strategy that was adopted in the October 1995 GEF Council Meeting.
I hope you and Nani find it useful. As you are probably aware already, the biodiversity
focal area probably generated the most controversy amongst all of the focal
areas and seems to continue doing so. After all, the biodiversity focal area
currently consumes the largest single share of GEF funding.
In this letter, I describe some of the types of biodiversity projects, most
having been initiated in the Pilot Phase and before the development of the operational
strategy (OS). This is followed by a brief discussion of concerns regarding
this focal area, including the GEF's role as interim financing mechanism for
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Then I give a summary of the biodiversity
OS and associated concerns raised by NGOs. In conclusion, I mention and suggest
some of the ways for NGOs to be involved in this focal area.
During the Pilot Phase, biodiversity projects financed a very wide range of
activities, including pilot areas for support for protected areas, conservation
training and education species inventories, conservation and development, sustainable
forestry techniques, gene banks and arboreta. The Independent Evaluation stated
that the "investments made to date (Pilot Phase) have tended to be haphazard,
and many may make only marginal contributions to conserving biodiversity."
It is also too soon to assess whether post-Pilot Phase projects have vastly
improved. It is-also to soon to evaluate the effectiveness of project implementation
in the biodiversity focal area.
NGO Views of the Biodiversity Focal Area
Throughout the Pilot Phase and subsequently, NGOs have been concerned with
whether GEF biodiversity projects could be more innovative and catalytic. For
example, NGOs wanted biodiversity conservation to be integrated into the regular
activities of implementing agencies and governments: that is a 'mainstreaming'
of conservation and sustainable use in lending portfolios including economic
and natural resource development. Many NGOs feel that GEF biodiversity projects
involve putting a 'green' gloss on development that is basically environmentally
unsound, rather than putting environmental thinking at the heart of development.
Yet others argue that World Bank regular lending is counterproductive to GEF
grants in the same country. Current World Bank commercial forestry loans to
the Congo, Laos, and Poland for example appear to contradict the GEF biodiversity
project goals of conservation and sustainable use of forest ecosystems in these
same countries.
NGOs further expected innovative projects to include finding options for dealing
with the underlying policy and poverty induced causes of biodiversity loss,
and promoting participatory initiatives. NGOs argue that lasting solutions to
biodiversity conservation require addressing policy and poverty issues with
the meaningful involvement of all stakeholders. Important conflicts and policy
debates surrounding natural resources and tenure are not likely to be resolved
without the informed consent, participation and empowerment of civil society,
local communities and indigenous peoples. The Independent Evaluation of the
GEF Pilot Phase concurred with these NGO concerns.
The GEF as Interim Financing Mechanism of the CBD
The Parties to the Biodiversity Convention have been more reluctant to embrace
the GEF as the designated financial mechanism than have the Parties to the Climate
Convention. As one might expect, there is substantial political controversy
over who controls biodiversity financing and how the money should be spent.
Developing countries and some NGOs insist that donor governments and the GEF
Implementing Agencies have too much control over both the GEF and the global
economic system. The inflexibility and long time spans for projects in the complex
GEF project cycle through both Implementing Agency and GEF layers is also seen
as contentious. Yet one must understand that donors would not have earmarked
global funding for biodiversity or the CBD if it were not for the GEE Also,
the GEF' Operational Strategy for biodiversity reflects and should continue
to reflect the guidance provided by the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity.
The Operational Strategy for Biodiversity
The biodiversity focal area (Chapter 2 of the Revised Operational Strategy),
defines the scope and objectives for biodiversity funding. It also begins to
determine the priority issues and ecosystems that will qualify for support.
The overall strategic consideration is to secure global biodiversity benefits
both cost effectively and in accordance with CBD Conference of the Parties (COP)
guidance. The COP and thus the GEF have the mandate to ensure the "conservation
of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components, and the fair equitable sharing
of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources." The
GEF biodiversity portfolio itself is intended to secure these global biodiversity
benefits by encompassing representative ecosystems of global importance, integrating
conservation into national sustainable development, and following country-driven
priorities. Where possible, biodiversity will be integrated into the focal areas
of climate change and international waters as well as the cross-sectoral GEF
policies for land degradation.
The biodiversity OS is structured into a three-pronged policy framework like
the other focal areas and consists of:
1. Short-term Response Measures that respond to urgent biodiversity
needs or to a promising country-driven proposal if the following criteria are
met: cost effectiveness, demonstration value, degree of threat (i.e. urgency
vulnerability), opportunism (or emergence of conducive national policy environment).
2. Enabling activities that help establish the foundation
for Parties to the Biodiversity Convention to be able to design and implement
effective commitments to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Enabling
activities include national biodiversity inventories, preparing and developing
national strategies or action plans for biodiversity, identifying options and
priorities, and action oriented research to follow up on enabling activities.
Criteria for these are being developed.
3. Operational Programmes that are the backbone of the strategy
and define how the GEF will approach the long term protection and sustainable
use of biological diversity operational programmes will be based on an ecosystem
approach that will focus on the following four ecosystems:
Arid and semi-arid ecosystems, particularly in Africa, using integrated
approaches to the conservation, sustainable use, rehabilitation of dryland
and endemic arid ecosystems.
Coastal, marine, freshwater ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves,
lakes, rivers and estuaries with particular attention to the needs of tropical
islands, integrated coastal area development and regional cooperation.
Forest ecosystems including areas of importance to migratory species,
wild relatives of domesticated plants arid animals, and the integrated land
management in agricultural and forest landscapes.
Mountain ecosystems such as those in Mesoamerica, the Andes, Himalayas,
Indochinese peninsula and in East Africa incorporating sustainable land use
of mountain slopes, linking mountains to lowlands with corridors and cooperative
management of mountains and river basins.
Emphasis will be placed on in situ activities within and adjacent to protected
areas as well as sustainable use guided by close monitoring of harvesting
effects. Examples of possible types of biodiversity activities are in Box
6.1.
NGO Concerns on the Biodiversity Operational Strategy
While the ecosystem programmatic approach has been welcomed, it has received
a variety of criticisms. Some NGOs are not pleased that land degradation (deforestation
and desertification) and the underlying causes of biodiversity loss are not
tackled mote explicitly with reference to the Convention on Desertification.
Other NGOs question the choice of the four priority ecosystems. Some have also
emphasised the need to prioritise ecosystems at a global rather than just a
national level. Global prioritisation would promote the protection of biodiversity
hot spots and megadiversity centres with high endemism, species richness and
levels of threat or vulnerability. Yet others question the ability to define
globally representative ecosystems and are concerned that the current approach
may focus too much on global priorities rather than national ones.
Box 6. 1: Possible Types of GEF Biodiversity Activities
Assistance with national biodiversity strategies & action plans
linked to the CBD, including the formulation of biodiversity legislation
and policy measures for conservation and sustainable use.
Institutional strengthening and coordination of ministries that deal
with biodiversity.
Creation and changing of protected areas.
Strengthening of protected area management and related infrastructure.
Technical training on assessing, managing and monitoring biodiversity.
Public awareness and environmental education on biodiversity and protected
areas.
Enhancing technical and, social research capacity on biodiversity.
Support for targeted research on species, ecosystems and the use of
biodiversity.
Promotion of transboundary and transnational biodiversity efforts.
Establishment of environmental or conservation trust funds.
Ex-situ conservation programs.
Planning and zoning protected areas and buffer zones for mixed, sustainable
use.
Restoration and rehabilitation of critical degraded or polluted ecosystems.
Promotion of alternative livelihood options and conservation incentives.
Development of ecotourism, nature and adventure tourism.
Sustainable use models based on monitoring and market strategies.
Resource tenure and ownership issues including for indigenous and
local residents.
Capacity building for map consolidation and geographic information
systems (IS).
Participatory schemes, including integrated conservation and development
projects, joint management, and the devolution of decision making to
local governments, communities, and NGOs.
Furthermore, some NGOs have suggested not only using an ecosystem approach,
but complementing it with parallel programmatic approaches. These could include
landscape, habitat or thematic approaches. A landscape approach would allow
for an overall land and natural resource use strategy for a continuum of natural
to intensely managed ecosystems. A habitat approach would be based on a species
conservation strategy that would include all of the ecosystems necessary for
that species to survive. Thematic approaches could include developing programmes
on collaborative or participatory management; economic incentives and alternative
livelihoods for conservation; indigenous knowledge and peoples; wild and domesticated
biodiversity components; addressing underlying causes of biodiversity loss;
or whatever thematic priorities come out of the COP or a particular nation's
needs.
One of the more fundamental NGO concerns has been that it is still not yet
clear as to how the gap between country-driven projects, as mandated by the
CB and the achievement of global biodiversity benefits, as necessitated by the
GEF Instrument, will be narrowed by operational programmes and enabling activities.
In light of this some NGOs have suggested national operational programmes that
would define and promote country level initiatives for linking national priorities
to global ones.
What NGOs have and can do in the Biodiversity Focal Area
NGOs have tried to play a role at both the policy and project levels of the
biodiversity focal area with varying degrees of success (see letters 10 and
11 on attending GEF Council Meetings and getting involved in projects). The
GEF claims that over half of their biodiversity projects include NGO participation.
The quality and nature of this participation, however, has not really been evaluated.
In past GEF-NGO Consultations and GEF Council Meetings, NGOs have contributed
statements and policy documents that respond to an official GEF policy or highlight
particular projects. NGOs could in the future consider influencing the GEF biodiversity
focal area by influencing the Convention on Biodiversity's monitoring of and
guidance to the GEF.
At national and project levels, some NGOs are succeeding in influencing governments
and IAs in terms of project selection and NGO roles for project design and implementation.
Given the importance of stakeholder participation in biodiversity projects and
the GEF's draft policy on public involvement and participation as well as GEF
best practices for social assessment, NGOs could play a critical role in how
social issues are institutionalized. So far, NGOs have already played vital
roles as social experts. Some have also provided technical expertise in other
areas and a few others have even led the way in pushing for project management
changes (e.g. Mexico Protected Areas and Kenya Tana River Protection). In a
few cases, NGOs actually implement project components, typically as intermediary
facilitators of community-base conservation as in the case of GEF projects in
Ghana, Pakistan, and the Philippines.
In conclusion it is important for NGOs to continue to be involved in all aspects
of the biodiversity focal area - whether as policy critics, technical experts
initiators of participation in projects or as monitors and evaluators.
I hope this letter gives you a clear picture of what is happening in the biodiversity
focal area. Please let me know if you have any questions.
